3.7 Marine Mammals

Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.7 Marine Mammals..........................................................................................................3.7-1

3.7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................3.7-4

3.7.2 Affected Environment.........................................................................................3.7-5

3.7.2.1 General Background...........................................................................3.7-5

3.7.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species............................................3.7-34

3.7.2.3 Species Not Listed under the Endangered Species Act....................3.7-59

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................3.7-118

3.7.3.1 Acoustic Stressors...........................................................................3.7-119

3.7.3.2 Explosive Stressors .........................................................................3.7-389

3.7.3.3 Energy Stressors.............................................................................3.7-522

3.7.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors......................................3.7-527

3.7.3.5 Entanglement Stressors..................................................................3.7-547

3.7.3.6 Ingestion Stressors .........................................................................3.7-557

3.7.3.7 Secondary Stressors .......................................................................3.7-568

3.7.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Marine Mammals.....................................3.7-575

3.7.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1................3.7-575

3.7.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2................3.7-576

3.7.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative......................................................................................3.7-577

3.7.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations........................................................3.7-577

3.7.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act Determinations...........................................3.7-577

List of Figures

Figure 3.7-1: Composite Audiograms for Hearing Groups Likely Found in the Study Area..................3.7-23

Figure 3.7-2: Hawaiian Monk Seal Critical Habitat ...............................................................................3.7-53

Figure 3.7-3: Two Hypothetical Threshold Shifts................................................................................3.7-124

Figure 3.7-4: Critical ratios (in dB) measured in different odontocetes species (from Finneran & 

Branstetter, 2013)..........................................................................................................3.7-130

Figure 3.7-5: Navy Auditory Weighting Functions for all Species Groups..........................................3.7-167

Figure 3.7-6: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources...........3.7-168

Figure 3.7-7: Behavioral Response Function for Odontocetes. ..........................................................3.7-170

Figure 3.7-8: Behavioral Response Function for Pinnipeds. ...............................................................3.7-170
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-9: Behavioral Response Function for Mysticetes. .............................................................3.7-171

Figure 3.7-10: Behavioral Response Function for Beaked Whales. ....................................................3.7-171

Figure 3.7-11: Relative Likelihood of a Response Being Significant Based on the Duration and 

Severity of Behavioral Reactions...................................................................................3.7-173

Figure 3.7-12: Blue Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-194

Figure 3.7-13: Blue Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-196

Figure 3.7-14: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-198

Figure 3.7-15: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-200

Figure 3.7-16: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-202

Figure 3.7-17: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-204

Figure 3.7-18: Gray Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-207

Figure 3.7-19: Gray Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-209

Figure 3.7-20: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Alternative 1............................................................3.7-212

Figure 3.7-21: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-214

Figure 3.7-22: Minke Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During 

Training and Testing Alternative 1.................................................................................3.7-216

Figure 3.7-23: Minke Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During 

Training and Testing Under Alternative 2......................................................................3.7-218

Figure 3.7-24: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-220

Figure 3.7-25: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During 

Training and Testing Alternative 2.................................................................................3.7-222

Figure 3.7-26: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-227

Figure 3.7-27: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-229

Figure 3.7-28: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-232

Figure 3.7-29: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-233
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

iii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-30: Kogia Whales Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-234

Figure 3.7-31: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-236

Figure 3.7-32: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-237

Figure 3.7-33: Kogia Whales Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-238

Figure 3.7-34: Baird’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-242

Figure 3.7-35: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-243

Figure 3.7-36: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-244

Figure 3.7-37: Longman’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-245

Figure 3.7-38: Mesoplodon Spp. (Beaked Whale Guild) Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..................3.7-246

Figure 3.7-39: Baird’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-248

Figure 3.7-40: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-249

Figure 3.7-41: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-250

Figure 3.7-42: Longman’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-251

Figure 3.7-43: Mesoplodon Spp. (Beaked Whale Guild) Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..................3.7-252

Figure 3.7-44: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-255

Figure 3.7-45: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-257

Figure 3.7-46: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-260

Figure 3.7-47: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-262

Figure 3.7-48: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-264

Figure 3.7-49: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-266
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

iv

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-50: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During 

Training and Testing Under Alternative 1......................................................................3.7-268

Figure 3.7-51: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During 

Training and Testing Under Alternative 2......................................................................3.7-270

Figure 3.7-52: Long-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. ...........................3.7-272

Figure 3.7-53: Long-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2. ...........................3.7-274

Figure 3.7-54: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-277

Figure 3.7-55: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-279

Figure 3.7-56: Northern Right Whale Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. ...........................3.7-281

Figure 3.7-57: Northern Right Whale Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2. ...........................3.7-283

Figure 3.7-58: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. ...........................3.7-286

Figure 3.7-59: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2. ...........................3.7-288

Figure 3.7-60: Pacific White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. ...........................3.7-290

Figure 3.7-61: Pacific White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2. ...........................3.7-292

Figure 3.7-62: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-295

Figure 3.7-63: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-297

Figure 3.7-64: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-299

Figure 3.7-65: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-301

Figure 3.7-66: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-304

Figure 3.7-67: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-306

Figure 3.7-68: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. ...........................3.7-308

Figure 3.7-69: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2. ...........................3.7-310
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

v

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-70: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-313

Figure 3.7-71: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-315

Figure 3.7-72: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-318

Figure 3.7-73: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-320

Figure 3.7-74: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-323

Figure 3.7-75: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-325

Figure 3.7-76: Dall’s Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-328

Figure 3.7-77: Dall’s Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-330

Figure 3.7-78: Guadalupe Fur Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-334

Figure 3.7-79: Guadalupe Fur Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-336

Figure 3.7-80: Hawaiian Monk Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-339

Figure 3.7-81: Hawaiian Monk Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-341

Figure 3.7-82: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During 

Training and Testing Under Alternative 1......................................................................3.7-343

Figure 3.7-83: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During 

Training and Testing Under Alternative 2......................................................................3.7-345

Figure 3.7-84: Northern Elephant Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.................................................3.7-347

Figure 3.7-85: Northern Elephant Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.................................................3.7-349

Figure 3.7-86: California Sea Lion Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-351

Figure 3.7-87: California Sea Lion Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-353

Figure 3.7-88: Northern Fur Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-355

Figure 3.7-89: Northern Fur Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2..........................................................3.7-357
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

vi

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-90: Temporary Threshold Shift and Permanent Threshold Shift Exposure Functions for Air 

Guns...............................................................................................................................3.7-360

Figure 3.7-91: Estimated Annual Impacts from Air Gun Use..............................................................3.7-364

Figure 3.7-92: Estimated Annual Impacts (Assuming Two Events per Year) from Pile Driving and 

Extraction Associated with the Construction and Removal of the Elevated 

Causeway System. .........................................................................................................3.7-370

Figure 3.7-93: Navy Phase 3 Weighting Functions for all Species Groups..........................................3.7-398

Figure 3.7-94: Navy Phase III Behavioral, TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Explosives................3.7-399

Figure 3.7-95: Blue Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-424

Figure 3.7-96: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-426

Figure 3.7-97: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions During 

Training and Testing Under Alternative 1......................................................................3.7-429

Figure 3.7-98: Gray Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-433

Figure 3.7-99: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-437

Figure 3.7-100: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-440

Figure 3.7-101: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions During 

Training and Testing Under Alternative 1......................................................................3.7-443

Figure 3.7-102: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-447

Figure 3.7-103: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-451

Figure 3.7-104: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-452

Figure 3.7-105: Kogia Whales Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-453

Figure 3.7-106: Longman’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-456

Figure 3.7-107: Mesoplodon Spp. (Beaked Whale Guild) Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1......................3.7-457

Figure 3.7-108: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-460

Figure 3.7-109: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-463

Figure 3.7-110: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-466
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

vii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-111: Long-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1....................................3.7-469

Figure 3.7-112: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-472

Figure 3.7-113: Northern Right Whale Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1....................................3.7-474

Figure 3.7-114: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-477

Figure 3.7-115: Pacific White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-480

Figure 3.7-116: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-483

Figure 3.7-117: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-486

Figure 3.7-118: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-489

Figure 3.7-119: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1......................3.7-492

Figure 3.7-120: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-495

Figure 3.7-121: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-499

Figure 3.7-122: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-502

Figure 3.7-123: Dall’s Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-506

Figure 3.7-124: Hawaiian Monk Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-510

Figure 3.7-125: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1..........................................................3.7-513

Figure 3.7-126: Northern Elephant Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-516

Figure 3.7-127: California Sea Lion Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-519

Figure 3.7-128: Northern Fur Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. .......................................3.7-521

List of Tables

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammals Occurrence within the HSTT Study Area ...............................................3.7-9

Table 3.7-2: Species within Marine Mammal Hearing Groups Likely Found in the Study Area ...........3.7-22
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

viii

Table of Contents

Table 3.7-3: Cutoff Distances for Moderate Source Level, Single Platform Training and Testing Events 

and for All Other Events with Multiple Platforms or Sonar with Source Levels at or 

Exceeding 215 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m.................................................................................3.7-172

Table 3.7-4: Range to Permanent Threshold Shift for Five Representative Sonar Systems...............3.7-178

Table 3.7-5: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin LF5 over a Representative Range of 

Environments within the Study Area.............................................................................3.7-178

Table 3.7-6: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin MF1 over a Representative Range of 

Environments within the Study Area.............................................................................3.7-179

Table 3.7-7: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin MF4 over a Representative Range of 

Environments within the Study Area.............................................................................3.7-179

Table 3.7-8: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin MF5 over a Representative Range of 

Environments within the Study Area.............................................................................3.7-180

Table 3.7-9: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin HF4 over a Representative Range of 

Environments within the Study Area.............................................................................3.7-180

Table 3.7-10: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin LF5 over a 

Representative Range of Environments within the Study Area ....................................3.7-181

Table 3.7-11: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin MF1 over a 

Representative Range of Environments within the Study Area ....................................3.7-182

Table 3.7-12: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin MF4 over a 

Representative Range of Environments within the Study Area ....................................3.7-183

Table 3.7-13: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin MF5 over a 

Representative Range of Environments within the Study Area ....................................3.7-184

Table 3.7-14: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin HF4 over a 

Representative Range of Environments within the Study Area ....................................3.7-185

Table 3.7-15: Estimated Impacts on Individual Blue Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year from 

Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. 3.7-195

Table 3.7-16: Estimated Impacts on Individual Blue Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year from 

Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2. 3.7-197

Table 3.7-17: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bryde’s Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 

1. ....................................................................................................................................3.7-199

Table 3.7-18: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bryde’s Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 

2. ....................................................................................................................................3.7-201

Table 3.7-19: Estimated Impacts on Individual Fin Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year from 

Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. 3.7-203

Table 3.7-20: Estimated Impacts on Individual Fin Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year from 

Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2. 3.7-205

Table 3.7-21: Estimated Impacts on Individual Humpback Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 

1. ....................................................................................................................................3.7-213
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ix

Table of Contents

Table 3.7-22: Estimated Impacts on Individual Humpback Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 

2. ....................................................................................................................................3.7-215

Table 3.7-23: Estimated Impacts on Individual Minke Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year from 

Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. 3.7-217

Table 3.7-24: Estimated Impacts on Individual Minke Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year from 

Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2. 3.7-219

Table 3.7-25: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sei Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year from 

Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Alternative 1............3.7-221

Table 3.7-26: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sei Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year from 

Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2. 3.7-223

Table 3.7-27: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-228

Table 3.7-28: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2. .................................................................................................................3.7-230

Table 3.7-29: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bottlenose Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-256

Table 3.7-30: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bottlenose Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2. .................................................................................................................3.7-258

Table 3.7-31: Estimated Impacts on Individual False Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-261

Table 3.7-32: Estimated Impacts on Individual False Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2. .................................................................................................................3.7-263

Table 3.7-33: Estimated Impacts on Individual Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year from 

Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1. 3.7-269

Table 3.7-34: Estimated Impacts on Individual Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year from 

Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2. 3.7-271

Table 3.7-35: Estimated Impacts on Individual Melon-Headed Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-278

Table 3.7-36: Estimated Impacts on Individual Melon-Headed Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2. .................................................................................................................3.7-280

Table 3.7-37; Estimated Impacts on Individual Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-287
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

x

Table of Contents

Table 3.7-38: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2. .................................................................................................................3.7-289

Table 3.7-39: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pygmy Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-296

Table 3.7-40: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pygmy Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2. .................................................................................................................3.7-298

Table 3.7-41: Estimated Impacts on Individual Risso’s Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-300

Table 3.7-42: Estimated Impacts on Individual Risso’s Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2. .................................................................................................................3.7-302

Table 3.7-43: Estimated Impacts on Individual Short-Finned Pilot Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-314

Table 3.7-44: Estimated Impacts on Individual Short-Finned Pilot Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2. .................................................................................................................3.7-316

Table 3.7-45: Estimated Impacts on Individual Spinner Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-319

Table 3.7-46: Estimated Impacts on Individual Spinner Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2. .................................................................................................................3.7-321

Table 3.7-47: Estimated Impacts on Individual Striped Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-324

Table 3.7-48: Estimated Impacts on Individual Striped Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2. .................................................................................................................3.7-326

Table 3.7-49: Thresholds for Onset of TTS and PTS for Underwater Air Gun Sounds........................3.7-359

Table 3.7-50: Range to Effects from Air Guns for 1 Pulse...................................................................3.7-362

Table 3.7-51: Range to Effects from Air Guns for 10 Pulses...............................................................3.7-362

Table 3.7-52: Pile Driving Level B Thresholds Used in this Analysis to Predict Behavioral 

Responses from Marine Mammals................................................................................3.7-367

Table 3.7-53: Average Ranges to Effects from Impact Pile Driving ....................................................3.7-368

Table 3.7-54: Average Ranges to Effect from Vibratory Pile Extraction.............................................3.7-369

Table 3.7-55: Criteria to Quantitatively Assess Non-Auditory Injury Due to Underwater Explosions3.7-396

Table 3.7-56: Criteria for Estimating Ranges to Potential Effect for Mitigation Purposes.................3.7-397
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

xi

Table of Contents

Table 3.7-57: Navy Phase III Weighted Sound Exposure Thresholds for Underwater Explosive 

Sounds............................................................................................................................3.7-400

Table 3.7-58: Ranges1 to 50 % Non-Auditory Injury for All Marine Mammal Hearing Groups ..........3.7-403

Table 3.7-59: Ranges1 to 50 % Mortality Risk for All Marine Mammal Hearing Groups as a Function of 

Animal Mass...................................................................................................................3.7-404

Table 3.7-60: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for High-Frequency 

Cetaceans.......................................................................................................................3.7-405

Table 3.7-61: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for High-Frequency 

Cetaceans.......................................................................................................................3.7-406

Table 3.7-62: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for Low-Frequency 

Cetaceans.......................................................................................................................3.7-408

Table 3.7-63: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Low-Frequency 

Cetaceans.......................................................................................................................3.7-410

Table 3.7-64: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for MidFrequency Cetaceans.....................................................................................................3.7-411

Table 3.7-65: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Mid-Frequency 

Cetaceans.......................................................................................................................3.7-413

Table 3.7-66: SEL Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Otariids.........................................3.7-414

Table 3.7-67: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Otariids........................3.7-416

Table 3.7-68: SEL-Based Ranges to PTS, TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for Phocids...........................3.7-417

Table 3.7-69: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS ad Onset TTS for Phocids..........................3.7-419

Table 3.7-70: Estimated Impacts on Individual Blue Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of 

Explosions Under Alternative 1. ....................................................................................3.7-425

Table 3.7-71: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bryde’s Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-427

Table 3.7-72: Estimated Impacts on Individual Fin Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year from 

Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-430

Table 3.7-73: Estimated Impacts on Individual Humpback Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-438

Table 3.7-74: Estimated Impacts on Individual Minke Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year from 

Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-441

Table 3.7-75: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sei Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year from 

Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-444
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

xii

Table of Contents

Table 3.7-76: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-448

Table 3.7-77: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bottlenose Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions 

Under Alternative 1. ......................................................................................................3.7-461

Table 3.7-78: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of 

Explosions Under Alternative 1. ....................................................................................3.7-478

Table 3.7-79: Estimated Impacts on Individual Risso’s Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-487

Table 3.7-80: Estimated Impacts on Individual Short-Finned Pilot Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions 

Under Alternative 1. ......................................................................................................3.7-496

Table 3.7-81: Estimated Impacts on Individual Spinner Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-500

Table 3.7-82: Estimated Impacts on Individual Striped Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area per Year 

from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1. .................................................................................................................3.7-503
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-1

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7 MARINE MAMMALS

SYNOPSIS

The United States Department of the Navy considered all potential stressors that marine mammals could 

be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions have been reached for the Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative 1):

• Acoustics: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose marine mammals to 

multiple acoustic stressors. Exposures to sound-producing activities presents risks to marine 

mammals that could range from temporary or permanent hearing threshold shift, auditory 

masking, physiological stress, or behavioral responses. Because individual animals would 

typically only experience a small number of behavioral responses or temporary hearing threshold 

shifts per year due to exposure to acoustic stressors that are unlikely to incur substantive costs 

to that individual, population level effects are unlikely.

• Explosives: Explosions in the water or near the water's surface present a risk to marine mammals 

located in close proximity to the explosion, because the resulting shock waves can cause injury or 

result in the death of an animal. If a marine mammal is farther from an explosion, the impulsive, 

broadband sounds introduced into the marine environment may cause temporary or permanent 

hearing threshold shift, auditory masking, physiological stress, or behavioral responses. Because 

most estimated impacts from explosions are behavioral responses or temporary threshold shifts

and because the numbers of marine mammals potentially impacted by explosives are small as 

compared to each species respective abundance, population level effects are unlikely.

• Energy: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose marine mammals to 

multiple energy stressors. The likelihood and magnitude of energy impacts depends on the 

proximity of marine mammals to energy stressors. Based on the relatively weak strength of the 

electromagnetic field created by some Navy activities, a marine mammal would have to be in 

close proximity for there to be any effect and impacts on marine mammal migrating behaviors 

and navigational patterns are not anticipated. Statistical probability analyses demonstrate with a 

high level of certainty that a marine mammal would not be struck by a high-energy laser. Energy 

stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities are temporary and localized in 

nature, and may result in short-term and minor impacts on individual marine mammals, but

would not result in long-term impacts on marine mammal populations.

Continued on the next page...
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-2

3.7 Marine Mammals

Continued from the previous page...

• Physical Disturbance and Strike: Marine mammals would be potentially exposed to multiple 

physical disturbance and strike stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities. The 

potential for impacts relies heavily on the probability that marine mammals would be in close 

proximity to a physical disturbance and strike stressor (e.g., a vessel or a non-explosive 

munition). Historical data on Navy ship strike records demonstrate a low occurrence of 

interactions with marine mammals over the last ten years. Since the Navy does not anticipate a 

change in the level of vessel use compared to the last decade, the potential for striking a marine 

mammal remains low. Physical disturbance due to vessel movement and in water devices of 

individual marine mammals may also occur, but any stress response of avoidance behavior 

would not be severe enough to have long-term fitness consequences for individual marine 

mammals. The use of in-water devices during Navy activities involves multiple types of vehicles 

or towed devices traveling on the water surface, through the water column, or along the 

seafloor, all of which have the potential to physically disturb or strike marine mammals. No 

recorded or reported instances of marine mammal strikes have resulted from in-water devices; 

therefore, impacts on individuals or long-term consequences to marine mammal populations are 

not anticipated. Potential physical disturbance and strike impacts from military expended 

materials and seafloor devices are determined through statistical probability analyses. Results 

for each of these physical disturbance and strike stressors suggests a very low potential for 

marine mammals to be struck by any of these items. Long-term consequences to marine 

mammal populations from physical disturbance and strike stressors associated with Navy 

training and testing activities are not anticipated. 

• Entanglement: Marine mammals could be exposed to multiple entanglement sources associated 

with Navy training and testing activities. The potential for impacts is dependent on the 

probability that a marine mammal would encounter a potential entanglement stressor as well as 

the physical properties of the expended materials and the likelihood that a marine mammal 

could become entangled in the item. Physical characteristics of wires and cables, 

decelerators/parachutes, and other materials suggest that it is not likely a marine mammal 

would become entangled in these items. While it may be possible for a marine mammal to 

become entangled in wires or cables, the sparse distribution of these items throughout the Study 

Area indicates a very low potential for encounter. Short-term impacts on individual marine 

mammals and long-term impacts on marine mammal populations from entanglement stressors 

associated with Navy training and testing activities are not anticipated.

Continued on the next page...
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-3

3.7 Marine Mammals

Continued from the previous page...

• Ingestion: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose marine mammals to 

ingestion impacts from multiple sources. The potential for impacts relies heavily on feeding 

behaviors of marine mammals that occur in the Study Area, the physical properties of the 

expended items, the feasibility that a marine mammal could ingest the items, and the likelihood 

that a marine mammal would encounter an item. Marine mammals that forage along the water 

surface or within the water column are less likely to encounter ingestion stressors as they sink 

through the water column to the seafloor. Most expended materials that would remain floating 

or suspended within the water column are typically too small to pose a risk of intestinal blockage 

to any marine mammal that encounters it. Bottom-feeding marine mammals, including 

odontocete species, humpback whales, and pinnipeds, would be more likely to encounter 

ingestion stressors that have already sunk to the floor. In the unlikely event that a marine 

mammal encounters and ingests expended material, the individual might be negatively affected 

if the material becomes lodged in the digestive tract. The likelihood that a marine mammal 

would ingest a military expended item associated with Navy training and testing activities is

considered low. Long-term consequences to marine mammal populations from ingestion 

stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities are not anticipated. 

• Secondary: Marine mammals would be exposed to multiple secondary stressors associated with 

Navy training and testing activities in the Study Area. In-water explosions have the potential to 

injure or kill prey species that marine mammals feed on; however, impacts would not 

substantially impact prey availability for marine mammals. Explosion byproducts are not 

considered as indirect stressors to marine mammals while mixed in marine sediments or water. 

Marine mammals may encounter unexploded ordnance underwater or within sediments, but 

ingestion is very unlikely. Explosion byproducts and unexploded munitions would have no lasting 

or meaningful effect on water quality and would therefore not constitute a secondary indirect 

stressor for marine mammals. Metals are introduced into the water and sediments from targets, 

munitions, and other expended materials. Evidence from a number of studies indicate metal 

contamination is localized and ephemeral and that bioaccumulation resulting from munitions 

was not observed in the studies specifically designed to look for bioaccumulation. Therefore it is 

unlikely that impacts on marine mammal prey availability would occur. Several Navy training and 

testing activities (e.g., Bombing Exercise Air-to-Surface) introduce explosive byproducts into the 

marine environment that are potentially harmful in concentration; however rapid dilution would 

occur and toxic concentrations are unlikely to be encountered. Furthermore, there is no 

evidence of acute toxicity or chronic accumulation in tissues of chemicals introduced by Navy 

activities that would alter water quality to an extent that would result in overall habitat 

degradation for marine mammals. Transmission of marine mammal diseases and parasites are 

not considered likely from the Navy’s trained marine mammals because strict protocols are in 

place to prevent such impacts on wild populations. Secondary stressors from Navy training and 

testing activities in the Study Area are not expected to have short-term impacts on individual 

marine mammals or long-term impacts on marine mammal populations.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-4

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.1 INTRODUCTION

In this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas EIS (OEIS), potential impacts on marine 

mammals are evaluated based on their distribution and ecology relative to the stressor or activity being 

considered. Activities are evaluated for their potential impact on marine mammals in general, on stocks 

and populations as appropriate, and on species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Study Area (Study Area). 

The following subsections provide introductions to marine mammal species that occur in the Study 

Area, including federally listed threatened or endangered species. General information relevant to all 

marine mammal species is provided in Section 3.7.2.1 (General Background) followed by subsections 

that discuss the status, habitats, population trends, predator-prey interactions, and species specific 

threats of individual species. The complete analysis and summary of potential impacts of the proposed 

training and testing activities on marine mammals is found in Section 3.7.3 (Environmental 

Consequences) and Section 3.7.4 (Summary of Impacts).

Throughout this section, references are made to three regions of the Pacific Ocean. These regions, 

delineated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) Science Centers are defined for management purposes as: (1) the Eastern North Pacific, an area 

in the Pacific Ocean that is east of 140 degrees (°) west (W) longitude and north of the equator; (2) the 

Central North Pacific, north of the equator and between the International Date Line (180° W longitude) 

and 140° W longitude; and (3) the Eastern Tropical Pacific, an area roughly extending from the United 

States (U.S.)-Mexico Border west to Hawaii and south to Peru. 

Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT 

A 2015 HSTT-related lawsuit prohibited or restricted Navy activities within specific areas in the HSTT 

Study Area. Under the terms of a settlement agreement executed by the parties in September 2015, the 

Navy agreed to prohibit or restrict the use of certain surface ship hull mounted active sonar and inwater explosives within defined areas until the expiration of the current HSTT Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) Final Rule on 24 December 2018 or the earlier issuance of superseding 

environmental compliance documents. The settlement measures have applied to the Navy’s ongoing 

activities during Phase II since September 2015 and form part of the baseline environmental conditions 

that exist within the HSTT Study Area in the impact analysis. See Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation 

Assessment for Areas under Consideration within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 

Study Area) for specific details on the settlement agreement prohibitions and restrictions and figures 

depicting these areas.

Additionally and since 2009, the Navy has been implementing seasonal (from December 15–April 15) 

geographic mitigation for certain activities within the Hawaii Range Complex in areas identified as 

having the highest humpback whale density. These seasonal mitigations areas were developed in 

coordination with NMFS through previous consultations as a means to further reduce the potential for 

impacts on the humpback whale during calving season and are designated as the Humpback Whale 

Cautionary Area and Humpback Whale Special Reporting Areas. The Navy is proposing to continue to 

implement the current mitigation as detailed in Appendix K (Geographic Mitigation Assessment for 

Areas under Consideration within the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area), with 

the exception of changes as noted in that appendix. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-5

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.7.2.1 General Background

Marine mammals are a diverse group of approximately 130 species. Most live predominantly in the 

marine habitat, although some species, such as seals, spend time in terrestrial habitats, and other

species such as manatees and certain dolphins spend time in freshwater habitats (Jefferson et al., 2015; 

Rice, 1998). The exact number of formally recognized marine mammal species changes periodically with 

new scientific understanding or findings (Rice, 1998). For a list of current species classifications, see the 

formal list Marine Mammal Species and Subspecies maintained online by the Society for Marine 

Mammalogy (Committee on Taxonomy, 2016). In this document, Navy follows the naming conventions 

presented by NMFS in the applicable annual Stock Assessment Reports for the Pacific and Alaska 

covering the marine mammals present in the HSTT Study Area (Carretta et al., 2017c; Muto et al., 2017). 

All marine mammals in the United States are protected under the MMPA, and some species receive 

additional protection under the ESA. The MMPA defines a marine mammal “stock” as “a group of 

marine mammals of the same species or smaller taxon in a common spatial arrangement that interbreed 

when mature” (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] section 1362; for further details, see Oleson et al. (2013).

As provided by NMFS guidance, ”for purposes of management under the MMPA a stock is recognized as 

being a management unit that identifies a demographically independent biological population”. 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016c). However, in practice, recognized management stocks may 

fall short of this ideal because of a lack of information or for other reasons and, in some cases, may even 

include multiple species in a management unit, such as with Mesoplodon beaked whales1 and the two 

Kogia species occurring in the Southern California portion of the Study Area (Carretta et al., 2017c). 

The ESA provides for listing species, subspecies, or distinct population segments of species, all of which 

are referred to as “species” under the ESA. The Interagency Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 

Vertebrate Population Segments Under the ESA defines a distinct population segment as, “any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate 

fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature” (61 Federal Register 4722, 7 February 1996). If a 

population meets the criteria to be identified as a distinct population segment, it is eligible for listing 

under the ESA as a separate species (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016). MMPA stocks do not 

necessarily coincide with distinct population segments under the ESA (Federal Register 81[174]: 62660-

62320, September 8, 2016). In the HSTT Study Area there are, for example, three humpback whale 

distinct population segments (Bettridge et al., 2015a) contained within two NMFS designated stocks as 

described in the Stock Assessment Report for Alaska (Muto & Angliss, 2016) and for the U.S. Pacific 

(Carretta et al., 2017c). 

There are 39 marine mammal species known to exist in the Study Area, including 7 mysticetes (baleen 

whales), 25 odontocetes (dolphins and toothed whales), 6 pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), and the 

southern sea otter. Among these species there are multiple stocks managed by NMFS or the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone. These species and stocks are 

presented in Table 3.7-1 along with an abundance estimate, an associated coefficient of variation value, 

 1 In Southern California, the Mesoplodon species M. carlhubbsi, M. ginkgodens, M. perrini, M. peruvianus, M. 

stejnegeri and M. densirostris have been grouped by NMFS into a single management unit (Mesoplodon spp.) in 

the Pacific Stock Assessment Reports (Carretta et al., 2015)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-6

3.7 Marine Mammals

and minimum abundance. For each species and stock relevant information on their status, distribution, 

population trends, and ecology is presented in Section 3.7.2 (Affected Environment) incorporating the 

best available science in addition to the analyses provided in most recent U.S. Pacific and Alaska Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments (Carretta et al., 2017c; Muto et al., 2017), which cover those stocks present 

in the HSTT Study Area. As noted above, in some cases species are grouped into a single stock due to 

limited species-specific information, while in other cases a single species includes multiple stocks 

recognized for management purposes (e.g., spinner dolphins in Hawaii). 

For summaries of the general biology and ecology of marine mammals beyond the scope of this EIS, see

Berta et al. (2006); Hoelzel (2002); Jefferson et al. (2015); Reynolds and Rommel (1999); Rice (1998); 

Twiss and Reeves (1999). Additional species profiles and information on the biology, life history, species 

distribution and conservation of marine mammals can also be found through the following 

organizations:

• NMFS Office of Protected Resources (includes species distribution maps) 

• Ocean Biogeographic Information System Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate 

Populations (known as OBIS-SEAMAP) species profiles

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping 

Working Group

• International Whaling Commission 

• International Union for Conservation of Nature, Cetacean Specialist Group 

• The Marine Mammal Commission

• Society for Marine Mammalogy

Four main types of marine mammals are generally recognized: cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and 

porpoises), pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, and walruses [walruses do not occur in the Study Area]), sirenians 

(manatees and dugongs [none of which occur in the Study Area]), and several species of marine 

carnivores (marine otters and polar bears [polar bears do not occur in the Study Area]) (Jefferson et al., 

2015; Rice, 1998). To maintain consistency with past Navy analysis and retain familiar terminology, we 

have used Odontocetes for toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises, Mysticetes for baleen whales, and 

Cetaceans to be inclusive of both. Odontocetes range in size from slightly longer than 3.3 feet (ft.) to 

more than 60 ft. and have teeth, which they use to capture and consume individual prey. Odontocetes 

are divided into several families. Mysticetes are universally large whales (more than 15 ft. as adults) that 

use baleen, a fibrous structure made of keratin (a type of protein like that found in human fingernails) 

instead of teeth, to feed. Mysticetes typically engulf, suck, or skim the water into their mouth and then 

push the water out as large quantities of prey, including small schooling fish, shrimp, and zooplankton 

(e.g., copepods and krill) are filtered by the baleen (Heithaus & Dill, 2008). Detailed reviews of the 

different groups of cetaceans can be found in Jefferson et al. (2015) and Perrin et al. (2009a). The 

different feeding strategies of mysticetes and odontocetes affect their distribution and occurrence 

patterns (Goldbogen et al., 2015). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-7

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pinnipeds in the Study Area are also divided into two groups: phocids (true seals) and otariids (fur seals 

and sea lions). Phocids lack ear flaps, their fore flippers are short and have hair, and their hind flippers 

are oriented towards the back of their bodies and cannot be rotated forward. Otariids have external ear 

flaps, long hairless or partially haired fore flippers, and hind flippers that can be rotated beneath their 

bodies. Pinnipeds spend a large portion of their time in the Study Area on land at haulout sites used for 

resting and moulting, and at rookeries used for breeding and nursing young. All pinnipeds return to the 

water to forage. The only pinniped species that regularly occurs in Hawaii is the Hawaiian monk seal. 

Four species of pinnipeds (California sea lion, Guadalupe fur seal, northern elephant seal, and Pacific 

harbor seal) occur in the Southern California Range Complex portion of the Study Area as regular 

inhabitants.

The southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) at San Nicolas Island is the only species of sea otter 

present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Sea otters rarely come ashore and 

spend most of their life nearshore where they regularly swim, feed, and rest.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-8

3.7 Marine Mammals

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-9

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammals Occurrence within the HSTT Study Area

Common Name Scientific Name1 Stock2 ESA/MMPA Status3 Stock Abundance4

(CV)/Minimum Population

Occurrence in Study Area

Coastal

(<200 m Depth)

Open Ocean

(>200 m Depth)

Bays and 

Harbors5

Order Cetacea

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus

Eastern North Pacific Endangered/Depleted 1,647

(0.07)/1,551 SOCAL SOCAL -

Central North Pacific Endangered/Depleted 81

(1.14)/38 HRC HRC -

Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera brydei/edeni

Eastern Tropical Pacific - unk

SOCAL SOCAL -

Hawaiian - 798

(0.28)/633 HRC HRC -

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus

California, Oregon, and Washington Endangered/Depleted 9,029

(0.12)/8,127 SOCAL SOCAL -

Hawaiian Endangered/Depleted 58

(1.12)/27 HRC HRC -

Gray whale Eschrichtius robustus

Eastern North Pacific - 20,990

(0.05)/20,125 SOCAL SOCAL -

Western North Pacific Endangered/Depleted 140

(0.04)/135 SOCAL SOCAL -

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae

California, Oregon, Washington Endangered/Depleted 1,918

(0.03)/1,876

SOCAL SOCAL -

Central North Pacific -/Depleted 10,103

(0.30)/7,890 HRC HRC -

1 Taxonomy follows Committee on Taxonomy (2016); (Perrin, 2009; Perrin et al., 2009a)

2 Stock designations for the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zones are from the Pacific (Carretta et al., 2017c) and Alaska (Muto et al., 2017) Stock Assessment Reports prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service

3 Populations or stocks defined by the MMPA as “strategic” for one of the following reasons: (1) the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (2) based on the best available scientific information, numbers are declining and 

species are likely to be listed as threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; (3) species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; (4) species are designated as depleted under the MMPA.

4 Stock Abundance, Coefficient of variation (CV), and minimum population (min) are numbers provided by the Stock Assessment Reports (Carretta et al., 2017c; Muto et al., 2017). The stock abundance is an estimate of the number of animals within the stock. The CV is 

a statistical metric used as an indicator of the uncertainty in the abundance estimate. The minimum population estimate is either a direct count (e.g., pinnipeds on land) or the lower 20th percentile of a statistical abundance estimate. 

5 Occurrence in Bays and Harbors includes Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) and San Diego Bay (California) as depicted in Figure 1.1 for the HSTT. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-10

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammals Occurrence within the HSTT Study Area (continued)

Common Name Scientific Name1 Stock2 ESA/MMPA Status3 Stock Abundance4

(CV)/Minimum Population

Occurrence in Study Area

Coastal

(<200 m Depth)

Open Ocean

(>200 m Depth)

Bays and 

Harbors5

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals) (continued)

Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata

California, Oregon, and Washington - 636

(0.72)/369 SOCAL SOCAL -

Hawaiian - unk HRC HRC -

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis

Eastern North Pacific Endangered/Depleted 519

(0.4)/374 SOCAL SOCAL -

Hawaii Endangered/Depleted 178

(0.90)/93 HRC HRC -

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus

California, Oregon, and Washington Endangered/Depleted 2,106

(0.58)/1,332 SOCAL SOCAL -

Hawaiian Endangered/Depleted 3,354

(0.34)/2,539 HRC HRC -

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)

Dwarf sperm whale Kogia sima

California, Oregon, and Washington - unk SOCAL SOCAL -

Hawaiian - unk HRC HRC -

Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps

California, Oregon, and Washington - 4,111

(1.12)/1,924

SOCAL SOCAL -

Hawaiian - unk HRC HRC -

1 Taxonomy follows Committee on Taxonomy (2016); (Perrin, 2009; Perrin et al., 2009a)

2 Stock designations for the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zones are from the Pacific (Carretta et al., 2017c) and Alaska (Muto et al., 2017) Stock Assessment Reports prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service

3 Populations or stocks defined by the MMPA as “strategic” for one of the following reasons: (1) the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (2) based on the best available scientific information, numbers are declining and 

species are likely to be listed as threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; (3) species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; (4) species are designated as depleted under the MMPA.

4 Stock Abundance, Coefficient of variation (CV), and minimum population (min) are numbers provided by the Stock Assessment Reports (Carretta et al., 2017c; Muto et al., 2017). The stock abundance is an estimate of the number of animals within the stock. The CV is 

a statistical metric used as an indicator of the uncertainty in the abundance estimate. The minimum population estimate is either a direct count (e.g., pinnipeds on land) or the lower 20th percentile of a statistical abundance estimate. 

5 Occurrence in Bays and Harbors includes Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) and San Diego Bay (California) as depicted in Figure 1.1 for the HSTT.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-11

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammals Occurrence within the HSTT Study Area (continued)

Common Name Scientific Name1 Stock2 ESA/MMPA Status3 Stock Abundance4

(CV)/Minimum Population

Occurrence in Study Area

Coastal

(<200 m Depth)

Open Ocean

(>200 m Depth)

Bays and 

Harbors5

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Baird’s beaked 

whale Berardius bairdii California, Oregon, and Washington - 847

(0.81)/466 - SOCAL -

Blainville’s beaked 

whale Mesoplodon densirostris Hawaiian - 2,338

(1.13)/1,088 - HRC -

Cuvier’s beaked 

whale Ziphius cavirostris

California, Oregon, and Washington - 6,590

(0.55)/4,481 - SOCAL -

Hawaiian - 1,941

na/1,142 - HRC -

Longman’s beaked 

whale Indopacetus pacificus Hawaiian - 4,571

(0.65)/2,773 - HRC -

Mesoplodont 

beaked whales6 Mesoplodon spp. California, Oregon, and Washington - 694

(0.65)/389 - SOCAL -

1 Taxonomy follows Committee on Taxonomy (2016); (Perrin, 2009; Perrin et al., 2009a)

2 Stock designations for the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zones are from the Pacific (Carretta et al., 2017c) and Alaska (Muto et al., 2017) Stock Assessment Reports prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service

3 Populations or stocks defined by the MMPA as “strategic” for one of the following reasons: (1) the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (2) based on the best available scientific information, numbers are declining and 

species are likely to be listed as threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; (3) species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; (4) species are designated as depleted under the MMPA.

4 Stock Abundance, Coefficient of variation (CV), and minimum population (min) are numbers provided by the Stock Assessment Reports (Carretta et al., 2017c; Muto et al., 2017). The stock abundance is an estimate of the number of animals within the stock. The CV is 

a statistical metric used as an indicator of the uncertainty in the abundance estimate. The minimum population estimate is either a direct count (e.g., pinnipeds on land) or the lower 20th percentile of a statistical abundance estimate. 

5 Occurrence in Bays and Harbors includes Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) and San Diego Bay (California) as depicted in Figure 1.1 for the HSTT.

6 The six Mesoplodont beaked whale species in Southern California are (M. densirostris, M. carlhubbsi, M. ginkgodens, M. perrini, M. peruvianus, M. stejnegeri)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-12

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammals Occurrence within the HSTT Study Area (continued)

Common Name Scientific Name1 Stock2 ESA/MMPA Status3 Stock Abundance4

(CV)/Minimum Population

Occurrence in Study Area

Coastal

(<200 m Depth)

Open Ocean

(>200 m Depth)

Bays and 

Harbors5

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus

California Coastal - 453

(0.06)/346 SOCAL SOCAL San Diego Bay

California, Oregon, and Washington Offshore - 1,924

(0.54)/1,255 SOCAL SOCAL -

Hawaiian Pelagic - 5,950

(0.59)/3,755 HRC HRC -

Kauai and Niihau - 184

(0.11)/168 HRC HRC -

Oahu - 743

(0.54)/485 HRC HRC --

4-Island Region - 191

(0.24)/156 HRC HRC -

Hawaii Island - 128

(0.13)/115 HRC HRC -

False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens

Main Hawaiian Islands Insular Endangered/Depleted 151

(0.20)/92 HRC HRC -

Hawaii Pelagic - 1,540

(0.66)/928 HRC HRC -

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands - 617

(1.11) 290 HRC HRC -

Fraser’s dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei Hawaiian - 16,992

(0.66)/10,241 HRC HRC -

1 Taxonomy follows Committee on Taxonomy (2016); (Perrin, 2009; Perrin et al., 2009a)

2 Stock designations for the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zones are from the Pacific (Carretta et al., 2017c) and Alaska (Muto et al., 2017) Stock Assessment Reports prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service

3 Populations or stocks defined by the MMPA as “strategic” for one of the following reasons: (1) the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (2) based on the best available scientific information, numbers are declining and 

species are likely to be listed as threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; (3) species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; (4) species are designated as depleted under the MMPA.

4 Stock Abundance, Coefficient of variation (CV), and minimum population (min) are numbers provided by the Stock Assessment Reports (Carretta et al., 2017c; Muto et al., 2017). The stock abundance is an estimate of the number of animals within the stock. The CV is 

a statistical metric used as an indicator of the uncertainty in the abundance estimate. The minimum population estimate is either a direct count (e.g., pinnipeds on land) or the lower 20th percentile of a statistical abundance estimate. 

5 Occurrence in Bays and Harbors includes Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) and San Diego Bay (California) as depicted in Figure 1.1 for the HSTT.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-13

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammals Occurrence within the HSTT Study Area (continued)

Common Name Scientific Name1 Stock2 ESA/MMPA Status3 Stock Abundance4

(CV)/Minimum Population

Occurrence in Study Area

Coastal

(<200 m Depth)

Open Ocean

(>200 m Depth)

Bays and 

Harbors5

Family Delphinidae (dolphins) (continued)

Killer whale Orcinus orca

Eastern North Pacific Offshore - 240

(0.49)/162 SOCAL SOCAL -

Eastern North Pacific Transient/West Coast 

Transient7 - 243

unk/243 SOCAL SOCAL -

Hawaiian - 101

(1.00)/50 HRC HRC -

Long-beaked 

common dolphin Delphinus capensis California - 101,305(0.49)/68,432 SOCAL SOCAL -

Melon-headed 

whale Peponocephala electra

Hawaiian Islands - 5,794

(0.20)/4,904 HRC HRC -

Kohala Resident 447

(0.12)/404 HRC HRC -

Northern right 

whale dolphin Lissodelphis borealis California, Oregon, & Washington - 26,556(0.44)/18,608 SOCAL SOCAL -

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens California, Oregon, & Washington - 26,814(0.28)/21,195 SOCAL SOCAL -

1 Taxonomy follows Committee on Taxonomy (2016); (Perrin, 2009; Perrin et al., 2009a)

2 Stock designations for the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zones are from the Pacific (Carretta et al., 2017c) and Alaska (Muto et al., 2017) Stock Assessment Reports prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service

3 Populations or stocks defined by the MMPA as “strategic” for one of the following reasons: (1) the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (2) based on the best available scientific information, numbers are declining and 

species are likely to be listed as threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; (3) species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; (4) species are designated as depleted under the MMPA.

4 Stock Abundance, Coefficient of variation (CV), and minimum population (min) are numbers provided by the Stock Assessment Reports (Carretta et al., 2017c; Muto et al., 2017). The stock abundance is an estimate of the number of animals within the stock. The CV is 

a statistical metric used as an indicator of the uncertainty in the abundance estimate. The minimum population estimate is either a direct count (e.g., pinnipeds on land) or the lower 20th percentile of a statistical abundance estimate. 

5 Occurrence in Bays and Harbors includes Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) and San Diego Bay (California) as depicted in Figure 1.1 for the HSTT.

7 This stock is mentioned briefly in the Pacific Stock Assessment Report (Carretta et al., 2017c) and referred to as the “Eastern North Pacific Transient” stock, however, the Alaska Stock Assessment Report contains assessments of all transient killer whale stocks in the 

Pacific and the Alaska Stock Assessment Report refers to this same stock as the “West Coast Transient” stock (Muto et al., 2017). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-14

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammals Occurrence within the HSTT Study Area (continued)

Common Name Scientific Name1 Stock2 ESA/MMPA Status3 Stock Abundance4

(CV)/Minimum Population

Occurrence in Study Area

Coastal

(<200 m Depth)

Open Ocean

(>200 m Depth)

Bays and 

Harbors5

Family Delphinidae (dolphins) (continued)

Pantropical spotted 

dolphin Stenella attenuata

Oahu - unk HRC HRC -

4-Island - unk HRC HRC -

Hawaii Island - unk HRC HRC -

Hawaii Pelagic - 15,917

(0.40)/11,508 HRC HRC -

Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata

Tropical - na SOCAL SOCAL -

Hawaiian - 3,433

(0.52)/2,274 HRC HRC -

Risso’s dolphins Grampus griseus

California, Oregon, & Washington - 6,336

(0.32)/4,817 SOCAL SOCAL -

Hawaiian - 7,256

(0.41)/5,207 HRC HRC -

Rough-toothed 

dolphin Steno bredanensis

na8 - unk SOCAL SOCAL -

Hawaiian - 6,288

(0.39)/4,581 HRC HRC -

Short-beaked 

common dolphin Delphinus delphis California, Oregon, and Washington - 969,861(0.17)/839,325 SOCAL SOCAL -

1 Taxonomy follows Committee on Taxonomy (2016); (Perrin, 2009; Perrin et al., 2009a)

2 Stock designations for the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zones are from the Pacific (Carretta et al., 2017c) and Alaska (Muto et al., 2017) Stock Assessment Reports prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service

3 Populations or stocks defined by the MMPA as “strategic” for one of the following reasons: (1) the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (2) based on the best available scientific information, numbers are declining and 

species are likely to be listed as threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; (3) species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; (4) species are designated as depleted under the MMPA.

4 Stock Abundance, Coefficient of variation (CV), and minimum population (min) are numbers provided by the Stock Assessment Reports (Carretta et al., 2017c; Muto et al., 2017). The stock abundance is an estimate of the number of animals within the stock. The CV is 

a statistical metric used as an indicator of the uncertainty in the abundance estimate. The minimum population estimate is either a direct count (e.g., pinnipeds on land) or the lower 20th percentile of a statistical abundance estimate. 

5 Occurrence in Bays and Harbors includes Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) and San Diego Bay (California) as depicted in Figure 1.1 for the HSTT.

8 Rough-toothed dolphin has a range known to include the waters off Southern California but there is no recognized stock for the U.S west coast.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-15

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammals Occurrence within the HSTT Study Area (continued)

Common Name Scientific Name1 Stock2 ESA/MMPA Status3 Stock Abundance4

(CV)/Minimum Population

Occurrence in Study Area

Coastal

(<200 m Depth)

Open Ocean

(>200 m Depth)

Bays and 

Harbors5

Family Delphinidae (dolphins) (continued)

Short-finned pilot 

whale Globicephala macrorhynchus

California, Oregon, & Washington - 836

(0.79)/466 SOCAL SOCAL -

Hawaiian - 12,422

(0.43)/8,782 HRC HRC -

Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris

Hawaii Pelagic - unk HRC HRC -

Hawaii Island - 631

(0.04)/585 HRC HRC -

Oahu and 4-Island 355

(0.09)/329 HRC HRC -

Kauai and Niihau - 601

(0)/509 HRC HRC -

Kure and Midway - unk HRC HRC -

Pearl and Hermes - unk HRC HRC -

Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba

California, Oregon, and Washington - 29,211

(0.20)/24,782 SOCAL SOCAL -

Hawaiian - 20,650

(0.36)/15,391 HRC HRC -

1 Taxonomy follows Committee on Taxonomy (2016); (Perrin, 2009; Perrin et al., 2009a)

2 Stock designations for the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zones are from the Pacific (Carretta et al., 2017c) and Alaska (Muto et al., 2017) Stock Assessment Reports prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service

3 Populations or stocks defined by the MMPA as “strategic” for one of the following reasons: (1) the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (2) based on the best available scientific information, numbers are declining and 

species are likely to be listed as threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; (3) species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; (4) species are designated as depleted under the MMPA.

4 Stock Abundance, Coefficient of variation (CV), and minimum population (min) are numbers provided by the Stock Assessment Reports (Carretta et al., 2017c; Muto et al., 2017). The stock abundance is an estimate of the number of animals within the stock. The CV is 

a statistical metric used as an indicator of the uncertainty in the abundance estimate. The minimum population estimate is either a direct count (e.g., pinnipeds on land) or the lower 20th percentile of a statistical abundance estimate. 

5 Occurrence in Bays and Harbors includes Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) and San Diego Bay (California) as depicted in Figure 1.1 for the HSTT. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-16

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammals Occurrence within the HSTT Study Area (continued)

Common Name Scientific Name1 Stock2 ESA/MMPA Status3 Stock Abundance4

(CV)/Minimum Population

Occurrence in Study Area

Coastal

(<200 m Depth)

Open Ocean

(>200 m Depth)

Bays and 

Harbors5

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Dall’s porpoise Phocoenoides dalli California, Oregon, and Washington - 25,750

(0.45)/17,954 SOCAL SOCAL -

Order Carnivora

Suborder Caniformiader

Family Mustelidae

Southern sea otter Enhydra lutris nereis California Stock Threatened/Depleted 2,826

na/2,723 SOCAL - -

Suborder Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Harbor seal Phoca vitulina California - 30,968

na/27,348 SOCAL SOCAL San Diego Bay

Hawaiian monk seal Neomonachus schauinslandi Hawaiian Endangered/Depleted 1,272

na/1,205 HRC HRC Pearl Harbor

Northern elephant 

seal Mirounga angustirostris California - 179,000

na/81,368 SOCAL SOCAL -

Family Otariidae (eared seal)

California sea lion Zalophus californianus U.S. Stock - 296,750

na/153,337 SOCAL SOCAL San Diego Bay

Northern fur seal Callorhinus ursinus California - 14,050

na/7,524 SOCAL SOCAL -

Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus townsendi Mexico to California Threatened/Depleted 20,000

na/15,830

SOCAL SOCAL

Notes: unk = unknown; na = not available; SOCAL = Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area; HRC = Hawaii Range Complex; CV = coefficient of variation; ESA = Endangered Species Act; MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act.

1 Taxonomy follows Committee on Taxonomy (2016); (Perrin, 2009; Perrin et al., 2009a)

2 Stock designations for the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zones are from the Pacific (Carretta et al., 2017c) and Alaska (Muto et al., 2017) Stock Assessment Reports prepared by National Marine Fisheries Service

3 Populations or stocks defined by the MMPA as “strategic” for one of the following reasons: (1) the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (2) based on the best available scientific information, numbers are declining and 

species are likely to be listed as threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; (3) species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; (4) species are designated as depleted under the MMPA.

4 Stock Abundance, Coefficient of variation (CV), and minimum population (min) are numbers provided by the Stock Assessment Reports (Carretta et al., 2017c; Muto et al., 2017). The stock abundance is an estimate of the number of animals within the stock. The CV is 

a statistical metric used as an indicator of the uncertainty in the abundance estimate. The minimum population estimate is either a direct count (e.g., pinnipeds on land) or the lower 20th percentile of a statistical abundance estimate. 

5 Occurrence in Bays and Harbors includes Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) and San Diego Bay (California) as depicted in Figure 1.1 for the HSTT.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-17

3.7 Marine Mammals

Species Unlikely to be Present in Study Area

Several species that may be present in the northern Pacific Ocean east of the International Date Line 

have an extremely low probability of presence in the Study Area. This includes species that have a 

remote likelihood of occurring regularly in the Study Area, but may enter the Study Area during 

anomalous ocean-temperature shifts. These species are considered extralimital, meaning there may be 

a small number of sighting or stranding records within the Study Area, but that the Study Area is outside 

species current and expected range of normal occurrence. Those species carried forward for analysis are 

those likely to be found in the Study Area based on the most recent data available, and do not include 

species that may have once inhabited or transited the area but have not been sighted in recent years 

(e.g., species which were extirpated from factors such as 19th and 20th century commercial 

exploitation). Species unlikely to be present in the Study Area include the North Pacific right whale 

(Eubalaena japonica), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Deraniyagala’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon 

hotaula), and Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) and have been excluded from subsequent analysis for 

the reasons described below. 

North Pacific Right Whale (Eubalaena japonica)

The likelihood of a North Pacific right whale being present in the Study Area is extremely low as in 

recent years this species has only been observed or acoustically detected in the Bering Sea (Brownell et 

al., 2001; Shelden et al., 2005; Wade et al., 2010; Wade et al., 2011; Zerbini et al., 2010; Zerbini et al., 

2015), the Gulf of Alaska (Matsuoka et al., 2014; Širović et al., 2015a; Wade et al., 2011), and waters off 

British Columbia and the border with Washington state (Širović et al., 2015a; U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2015c). The most recent estimated population for the eastern North Pacific right whale is 

between 28 and 31 individuals. Although this estimate may be reflective of a Bering Sea subpopulation, 

the total eastern North Pacific population is unlikely to be much larger (Wade et al., 2010). A right whale 

was last observed in the Maui Basin (Hawaiian waters) in April 1996 (Salden & Mickelsen, 1999). Rare 

sightings of individual animals are typical of documented sightings, such as those of a single right whale 

on three occasions between 25 March and 11 April 1979 in Hawaiian waters (Herman et al., 1980; 

Rowntree et al., 1980). These individual North Pacific right whales sighted near the Hawaiian Islands are 

considered “vagrants” as this region is not within the typical current geographic range of this species 

(Reilly et al., 2008). There have been only four sightings, each of a single right whale, in Southern 

California waters within approximately the last 30 years (in 1988, 1990, 1992, and 2017) (Brownell et al., 

2001; Carretta et al., 1994; CBS 8 News, 2017). Sightings off California are rare, and there is no evidence 

that the western coast of the United States was ever highly frequented by this species (Brownell et al., 

2001; Scammon, 1874). Historically, even during the period of U.S. west coast whaling through the 

1800s, right whales were considered uncommon to rare off California (Reeves & Smith, 2010; Scammon, 

1874). For the reasons presented above, North Pacific right whales are not expected to be present 

during any proposed training or testing activities and as a result are considered extralimital for purposes 

of the analysis. 

Deraniyagala’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon hotaula)

As a relatively newly resurrected species (Dalebout et al., 2014), Deraniyagala’s beaked whale is known 

from seven specimens discovered since the 1960s across the equatorial Pacific Ocean and equatorial 

Indian Ocean. In 1965, biologists had reclassified Mesoplodon hotaula as being the same as ginkgotoothed beaked whale (Mesoplodon ginkgodens), but recent review of genetic and morphological 

information supports the recognition of this previously synonymized species (Dalebout et al., 2014). The 

nearest known location for M. hotaula is Palmyra Island and Kingman Reef (in the Northern Line 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-18

3.7 Marine Mammals

Islands), which are approximately 1,000 nautical miles (NM) south of Hawaii (Baumann-Pickering et al., 

2016). Passive acoustic monitoring at seamounts a few hundred miles to the south of Oahu determined 

that the expectation of encountering sounds from Deraniyagala’s beaked whales was not supported 

(Baumann-Pickering et al., 2016; Klinck et al., 2015; McDonald et al., 2009). The species has not been 

included in the Pacific Stock Assessment Report (Carretta et al., 2015).

Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

Harbor porpoises are not present in Hawaii. The likelihood of a harbor porpoise being present in the 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area is extremely low as this species rarely occurs south 

of Point Conception (Barlow, 1988; Carretta et al., 2015; Dohl et al., 1983), which is approximately 100 

NM north of the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Harbor porpoises were not 

detected during any of the 18 aerial surveys conducted in the Southern California range complex from 

2008 through 2013 (Jefferson et al., 2014; Smultea et al., 2014). In the eastern north Pacific, harbor 

porpoises occur in nearshore coastal waters (generally within a mile or two of shore) from Point 

Conception to Alaska (Carretta et al., 2015; Gaskin, 1992). Based on genetic differences and 

discontinuities identified from aerial surveys, four separate stocks are recognized off California: (1) a 

northern California/southern Oregon stock, (2) a San Francisco-Russian River stock, (3) a Monterey Bay 

stock, and (4) a Morro Bay stock (Carretta et al., 2015). The southern boundary for the Morro Bay stock 

is Point Conception (Carretta et al., 2015), which is far to the north of the HSTT Study Area. 

Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus)

Steller sea lions range along the north Pacific from northern Japan to California (Perrin et al., 2009b), 

with centers of abundance and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands, respectively. 

Steller sea lions are rarely sighted in Southern California waters—there have not been any documented 

interactions with any California fisheries in over two decades, and they are not expected to be present 

in the Study Area. In 2011, a vagrant Steller sea lion was observed hauled out at the Point Loma Space 

and Naval Warfare Systems Command facility in San Diego Bay and a vagrant individual was observed in 

the water at the entrance channel during the monitoring of a pile driving project in 2015 (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2015b). Aerial surveys for pinnipeds in the Channel Islands from 2011 to 2015

encountered a single Steller sea lion at San Nicolas Island in 2013 (Lowry et al., 2017). It is most likely 

that these extralimital Steller sea lions in the HSTT Study Area would be from the Eastern Distinct 

Population Segment, which is not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. 

3.7.2.1.1 Group Size

Many species of marine mammals, particularly odontocetes, are highly social animals that spend much 

of their lives living in groups called “pods.” The size and structures of these groups are dynamic and 

based on the species, can range from several to several thousand individuals. Similarly, aggregations of 

mysticete whales may form during particular breeding or foraging seasons, although they do not persist 

through time as a social unit. Marine mammals that live or travel in groups are more likely to be 

detected by observers, and group size characteristics are incorporated into the many density and 

abundance calculations. Group size characteristics are also incorporated into acoustic effects modeling 

to represent a more realistic patchy distribution for the given density. The behavior of aggregating into 

groups is also important for the purposes of mitigation and monitoring since animals that occur in larger 

groups have an increased probability of being detected. A comprehensive and systematic review of 

relevant literature and data was conducted for available published and unpublished literature including 

journals, books, technical reports, cruise reports, and raw data from cruises, theses, and dissertations. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-19

3.7 Marine Mammals

The results of this review were compiled into a Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017f)

and include tables of group size information by species along with relevant citations. 

3.7.2.1.2 Habitat Use

Marine mammals occur in every marine environment in the Study Area, from bays, harbors, and coastal 

waters to open ocean environments in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Their distribution is influenced 

by many factors, primarily patterns of major ocean currents, bottom relief, and water temperature, 

which, in turn, affect prey distribution and productivity. The continuous movement of water from the 

ocean bottom to the surface creates a nutrient-rich, highly productive environment for marine mammal 

prey in upwelling zones (Jefferson et al., 2015). While most baleen whales are migratory, some species 

such as fin whales have been documented with an undetermined component of their population 

present within Southern California year-round. Many of the toothed whales do not migrate in the 

strictest sense but some do undergo seasonal shifts in distribution both within and outside of the HSTT 

Study Area, especially in Southern California. In Hawaii, many of the small odontocetes range 

throughout the waters associated with the island chain while some have a stable population and are 

considered “resident” to an area (Baird et al., 2015a). In the Pacific, pinnipeds occur in coastal habitats, 

in waters over the continental shelves, and may migrate through the mid-ocean as far north as Alaska 

and the middle of the north Pacific near the International Date Line. Sea otters are the most coastal 

group of marine mammals and require land or shallow coastal waters as habitat for reproducing, resting, 

and feeding. 

In 2011, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration convened a working group to map cetacean 

density and distribution within U.S. waters. The specific objective of the Cetacean Density and 

Distribution Mapping Working Group was to create comprehensive and easily accessible regional 

cetacean density and distribution maps that are time and species specific. Separately, to augment this 

more quantitative density and distribution mapping and provide additional context for marine mammal 

impact analyses, the Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Working Group also identified (through 

literature search, using data from surveys, habitat modeling, compilation of the best available science, 

and expert elicitation) areas of importance for cetaceans, such as reproductive areas, feeding areas, 

migratory corridors, and areas in which small or resident populations are located. Areas identified 

through this process have been termed biologically important areas (Ferguson et al., 2015a; Van Parijs, 

2015).

These biologically important areas were not meant to define exclusionary zones or serve as sanctuaries 

or marine protected areas, and have no direct or immediate regulatory consequences (see Ferguson et 

al. (2015a) regarding the envisioned purpose for the biologically important area designations). The 

identification of biologically important areas is intended to be a “living” reference based on the best 

available science at the time, which will be maintained and updated as new information becomes 

available. As new empirical data are gathered, these referenced areas can be calibrated to determine 

how closely they correspond to reality of the species’ habitat uses and updated as necessary, including 

the potential addition of newly defined areas. Additionally, biologically important areas identified in the 

HSTT study area (Baird et al., 2015b; Calambokidis et al., 2015a) do not represent the totality of 

important habitat throughout the marine mammals’ full range. The stated intention is to serve as a 

resource management tool. The currently identified boundaries should be considered dynamic and 

subject to change based on new information, as well as “existing density estimates, range-wide 

distribution data, information on population trends and life history parameters, known threats to the 

population, and other relevant information” (Van Parijs, 2015). Products of the initial assessment 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-20

3.7 Marine Mammals

process, including Hawaii and U.S. west coast biologically important areas, were compiled and published 

in March 2015 (Aquatic Mammals, 2015a, 2015b; Baird et al., 2015b; Calambokidis et al., 2015b; 

Ferguson et al., 2015a).

In the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area, 21 biologically important areas for 12 cetacean species

have been identified (Baird et al., 2015b). These include 20 small and resident population areas for 

species including dwarf sperm whales, Blainville’s beaked whales, Cuvier’s beaked whales, pygmy killer 

whales, short-finned pilot whales, melon-headed whales, false killer whales, pantropical spotted 

dolphins, spinner dolphins, rough-toothed dolphins, and common bottlenose dolphins (see Appendix K

for figures depicting these areas). In addition, six non-contiguous areas located adjacent to the eight

main Hawaiian Islands have been designated as a humpback whale reproductive area (Baird et al., 

2015b).

Twenty eight biologically important areas were identified for four species off the U.S. west coast

(Calambokidis et al., 2015a), with five of those areas located within or overlapping the Southern 

California portion of the Study Area (see Appendix K for figures depicting these areas). These identified 

areas include four feeding areas for blue whales and a migration area for gray whales (Calambokidis et 

al., 2015a). These areas are not intended to reflect a complete list of areas where species engage in 

important behavioral activities, are not equivalent to habitat or range, and likely represent only a 

fraction of a species’ overall range (Ferguson et al., 2015a).

Outside the processes established by the Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Working Group, 

additional areas to consider for mitigation were also suggested by members of the public during the 

scoping process and as part of negotiated legal settlements and agreements. These other areas for 

consideration are described and analyzed in detail along with the identified biologically important areas 

in Appendix K. These other areas are locations that the Navy is considering as part of the analysis of 

potential mitigations. The findings in Appendix K will subsequently be integrated into

Chapter 5 (Mitigation). 

3.7.2.1.3 Dive Behavior

All marine mammals, with the exception of polar bears, spend part of their lives underwater while 

traveling or feeding. Some species of marine mammals have developed specialized adaptations to allow 

them to make deep dives lasting over an hour, primarily for the purpose of foraging on deep-water prey 

such as squid. Other species spend the majority of their lives close to the surface, and make relatively 

shallow dives. The diving behavior of a particular species or individual has implications for the ability to 

visually detect them for mitigation and monitoring. In addition, their relative distribution through the 

water column based on diving behavior is an important consideration when conducting acoustic effects 

modeling. Information and data on diving behavior for each species of marine mammal were compiled 

and summarized in a technical report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017f) that provides the detailed 

summary of time at depth. The dive data and group size information compiled in this technical report 

was developed for the Navy acoustic effects modeling. 

3.7.2.1.4 Hearing and Vocalization

The typical terrestrial mammalian ear (which is ancestral to that of marine mammals) consists of an 

outer ear that collects and transfers sound to the tympanic membrane and then to the middle ear (Fay 

& Popper, 1994; Rosowski, 1994). The middle ear contains ossicles that amplify and transfer acoustic 

energy to the sensory cells (called hair cells) in the cochlea, which transforms acoustic energy into 

electrical neural impulses that are transferred by the auditory nerve to high levels in the brain (Møller, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-21

3.7 Marine Mammals

2013). All marine mammals display some degree of modification to the terrestrial ear; however, there 

are differences in the hearing mechanisms of marine mammals with an amphibious ear versus those 

with a fully aquatic ear (Wartzok & Ketten, 1999). Marine mammals with an amphibious ear include the 

marine carnivores: pinnipeds, sea otters, and polar bears (Ghoul & Reichmuth, 2014b; Owen & Bowles, 

2011; Reichmuth et al., 2013). Outer ear adaptations in this group include external pinnae (ears) that are 

reduced or absent, and in the pinnipeds, cavernous tissue, muscle, and cartilaginous valves seal off 

water from entering the auditory canal when submerged (Wartzok & Ketten, 1999). Marine mammals 

with the fully aquatic ear (cetaceans and sirenians) use bone and fat channels in the head to conduct 

sound to the ear; while the auditory canal still exists in pinnipeds, it is narrow and sealed with wax and 

debris, and external pinnae are absent (Houser & Mulsow, 2016; Ketten, 1998). 

The most accurate means of determining the hearing capabilities of marine mammal species are direct 

measures that assess the sensitivity of the auditory system (Nachtigall et al., 2000; Supin et al., 2001). 

Studies using these methods produce audiograms—plots describing hearing threshold (the quietest 

sound a listener can hear) as a function of frequency. Marine mammal audiograms, like those of 

terrestrial mammals, typically have a “U-shape,” with a frequency region of best hearing sensitivity and 

a progressive decrease in sensitivity outside of the range of best hearing (Fay, 1988; Mooney et al., 

2012; Nedwell et al., 2004; Reichmuth et al., 2013). The “gold standard” for producing audiograms is the 

use of behavioral (psychophysical) methods, where marine mammals are trained to respond to acoustic 

stimuli (Nachtigall et al., 2000). For species that are untrained for behavioral psychophysical procedures, 

those that are difficult to house under human care, or in stranding rehabilitation and temporary capture 

contexts, auditory evoked potential methods are increasingly used to measure hearing sensitivity (e.g., 

Castellote et al., 2014; Finneran et al., 2009; Montie et al., 2011; Mulsow et al., 2011; Nachtigall et al., 

2007; Nachtigall et al., 2008; Supin et al., 2001).

These auditory evoked potential methods, which measure electrical potentials generated by the 

auditory system in response to sound and do not require the extensive training of psychophysical 

methods, can provide an efficient estimate of behaviorally measured sensitivity (Finneran & Houser, 

2006; Schlundt et al., 2007; Yuen et al., 2005). The thresholds provided by auditory evoked potential 

methods are, however, typically elevated above behaviorally measured thresholds, and auditory evoked 

potential methods are not appropriate for estimating hearing sensitivity at frequencies much lower than 

the region of best hearing sensitivity (Finneran, 2015; Finneran et al., 2016). For marine mammal species 

for which access is limited and therefore psychophysical or auditory evoked potential testing is 

impractical (e.g., mysticete whales and rare species), some aspects of hearing can be estimated from 

anatomical structures, frequency content of vocalizations, and extrapolations from related species. 

Direct measurements of hearing sensitivity exist for approximately 25 of the nearly 130 species of 

marine mammals. Table 3.7-2 summarizes hearing capabilities for marine mammal species in the study 

area. For this analysis, marine mammals are arranged into the following functional hearing groups based 

on their generalized hearing sensitivities: high-frequency cetaceans (group HF: porpoises, Kogia spp.), 

mid-frequency cetaceans (group MF: delphinids, beaked whales, sperm whales), low-frequency 

cetaceans (group LF: mysticetes), otariids and other non-phocid marine carnivores in water and air 

(groups OW and OA: sea lions, walruses, otters, polar bears), and phocids in water and air (group PW 

and PA: true seals). Note that the designations of high-, mid-, and low-frequency cetaceans are based on 

relative differences of sensitivity between groups, as opposed to conventions used to describe active 

sonar systems. For Phase III analyses a single representative composite audiogram (Figure 3.7-1) was 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-22

3.7 Marine Mammals

created for each functional hearing group using audiograms from published literature. For discussion of 

all marine mammal functional hearing groups and their derivation see technical report Criteria and 

Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a).

Table 3.7-2: Species within Marine Mammal Hearing Groups Likely Found in the Study Area

Hearing Group Species within the Study Area

High-frequency cetaceans

Dall’s porpoise 

Dwarf sperm whale 

Pygmy sperm whale 

Mid-frequency cetaceans

Baird’s beaked whale

Blainville’s beaked whale

Common bottlenose dolphin 

Cuvier’s beaked whale 

False killer whale 

Fraser’s dolphin 

Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale 

Hubbs’ beaked whale 

Killer whale 

Long-beaked common dolphin 

Longman’s beaked whale 

Melon-headed whale 

Northern right whale dolphin

Pacific white-sided dolphin 

Pantropical spotted dolphin 

Perrin’s beaked whale 

Pygmy beaked whale 

Pygmy killer whale 

Risso’s dolphin 

Rough-toothed dolphin 

Short-beaked common dolphin 

Short-finned pilot whale 

Sperm whale 

Spinner dolphin

Striped dolphin

Stejneger’s beaked whale 

Low-frequency cetaceans

Blue whale 

Bryde’s whale 

Fin whale 

Gray whale 

Humpback whale 

Minke whale 

Sei whale 

Otariids and other 

non-phocid marine 

carnivores 

California sea lion

Guadalupe fur seal 

Northern fur seal

Southern sea otter

Phocids

Harbor seal

Hawaiian monk seal 

Northern elephant seal 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-23

3.7 Marine Mammals

Source: Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017)

Notes: For hearing in water (top) and in air (bottom, phocids and otariids only). LF = low frequency, 

MF = mid-frequency, HF = high frequency, OW = otariids and other non-phocid marine carnivores in water, 

PW = phocids in water, OA = otariids and other non-phocid marine carnivores in air, PA = phocids in air.

Figure 3.7-1: Composite Audiograms for Hearing Groups Likely Found in the Study Area

The mid-frequency cetacean composite audiogram is consistent with recently published behavioral 

audiograms of killer whales (Branstetter et al., 2017). The otariid and phocid composite audiograms are 

consistent with recently published behavioral audiograms of pinnipeds; these behavioral audiograms 

also show that pinniped hearing sensitivity at frequencies and thresholds far above the range of best 

hearing may drop off at a slower rate than previously predicted (Cunningham & Reichmuth, 2015).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-24

3.7 Marine Mammals

Similar to the diversity of hearing capabilities among species, the wide variety of acoustic signals used in 

marine mammal communication (including biosonar or echolocation) is reflective of the diverse 

ecological characteristics of cetacean, sirenian, and carnivore species (see Avens & Lohmann, 2003; 

Richardson et al., 1995b). This makes a succinct summary difficult (see Richardson et al., 1995b; Wartzok 

& Ketten, 1999 for thorough reviews); however, a division can be drawn between lower-frequency 

communication signals that are used by marine mammals in general, and the specific, high-frequency 

biosonar signals that are used by odontocetes to sense their environment.

Non-biosonar communication signals span a wide frequency range, primarily having energy up into the 

tens of kilohertz range. Of particular note are the very low-frequency calls of mysticete whales that 

range from tens of hertz to several kilohertz, and have source levels of 150 to 200 decibels referenced to 

1 micropascal (dB re 1 μPa) (Cummings & Thompson, 1971; Edds-Walton, 1997; Širović et al., 2007; 

Stimpert et al., 2007; Wartzok & Ketten, 1999). These calls most likely serve social functions such as 

mate attraction, but may serve an orientation function as well (Green, 1994; Green et al., 1994; 

Richardson et al., 1995b). Humpback whales are a notable exception within the mysticetes, with some 

calls exceeding 10 kilohertz (kHz) (Zoidis et al., 2008).

Odontocete cetaceans, sirenians, and marine carnivores use underwater communicative signals that, 

while not as low in frequency as those of many mysticetes, likely serve similar functions. These include 

tonal whistles in some odontocetes, the calls of manatees and dugongs, and the wide variety of barks, 

grunts, clicks, sweeps, and pulses of pinnipeds. Of additional note are the aerial vocalizations that are 

produced by pinnipeds, otters, and polar bears. Again, the acoustic characteristics of these signals are 

quite diverse among species, but can be generally classified as having dominant energy at frequencies 

below 20 kHz (Richardson et al., 1995b; Wartzok & Ketten, 1999). 

Odontocete cetaceans generate short-duration (500–200 μs), specialized clicks used in biosonar with 

peak frequencies between 10 and 200 kHz to detect, localize, and characterize underwater objects such 

as prey (Au, 1993; Wartzok & Ketten, 1999). These clicks are often more intense than other 

communicative signals, with reported source levels as high as 229 dB re 1 μPa peak-to-peak (Au et al., 

1974). The echolocation clicks of high-frequency cetaceans (e.g., porpoises) are narrower in bandwidth 

(i.e., the difference between the upper and lower frequencies in a sound) and higher in frequency than 

those of mid-frequency cetaceans (Madsen et al., 2005; Villadsgaard et al., 2007)).

In general, frequency ranges of vocalization lie within the audible frequency range for an animal (i.e., 

animals vocalize within their audible frequency range); however, auditory frequency range and 

vocalization frequencies do not perfectly align. The frequency range of vocalization in a species can 

therefore be used to infer some characteristics of their auditory system; however, caution must be 

taken when considering vocalization frequencies alone in predicting the hearing capabilities of species 

for which no data exist (i.e., mysticetes). It is important to note that aspects of vocalization and hearing 

sensitivity are subject to evolutionary pressures that are not solely related to detecting communication 

signals. For example, hearing plays an important role in detecting threats (e.g., Deecke et al., 2002), and 

high-frequency hearing is advantageous to animals with small heads in that it facilitates sound 

localization based on differences in sound levels at each ear (Heffner & Heffner, 1982). This may be 

partially responsible for the difference in best hearing thresholds and dominant vocalization frequencies 

in some species of marine mammals (e.g., Steller sea lions, Mulsow & Reichmuth, 2010).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-25

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.1.5 General Threats

Marine mammal populations can be influenced by various natural factors as well as human activities. 

There can be direct effects, such as from disease or activities such as hunting and whale watching, or 

indirect effects such as through reduced prey availability or lowered reproductive success of individuals. 

Research presented in Twiss and Reeves (1999) and National Marine Fisheries Service (2011c, 2011d, 

2011e, 2011g) provide a general discussion of marine mammal conservation and the threats they face. 

As detailed in National Marine Fisheries Service (2011f), investigations of stranded marine mammals are 

undertaken to monitor threats to marine mammals and out of concerns for animal welfare and ocean 

stewardship. Marine mammals have also been recognized as sentinels of ecosystem health and may 

therefore provide valuable links to human health (Simeone et al., 2015). Investigations into the cause of 

death for stranded animals can also provide indications of the general threats to marine mammals in a 

given location (Bradford & Lyman, 2015; Carretta et al., 2016b; Heckler et al., 2015). The causes for 

strandings include infectious disease, parasite infestation, climate change reducing prey availability

leading to starvation, pollution exposure, trauma (e.g., injuries from ship strikes or fishery 

entanglements), sound (human-generated or natural), harmful algal blooms and associated biotoxins,

tectonic events such as underwater earthquakes, and ingestion or interaction with marine debris (for 

more information see NMFS Marine Mammal Stranding Response Fact Sheet; (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2016e). For a general discussion of strandings and their causes as well as strandings in 

association with U.S. Navy activity, see the technical report titled Strandings Associated with U.S. Navy 

Activity (U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program & SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, 2017).

3.7.2.1.5.1 Water Quality

Chemical pollution and impacts on ocean water quality is of great concern, although, its effects on 

marine mammals are just starting to be understood (Bachman et al., 2014; Bachman et al., 2015; 

Desforges et al., 2016; Foltz et al., 2014; Godard-Codding et al., 2011; Hansen et al., 2016; Jepson & Law, 

2016; Law, 2014; Peterson et al., 2014; Peterson et al., 2015; Ylitalo et al., 2005; Ylitalo et al., 2009). Oil 

and other chemical spills are a specific type of ocean contamination that can have damaging effects on 

some marine mammal species directly through exposure to oil or chemicals and indirectly due to 

pollutants’ impacts on prey and habitat quality (Engelhardt, 1983; Marine Mammal Commission, 2010; 

Matkin et al., 2008). 

On a broader scale ocean contamination resulting from chemical pollutants inadvertently introduced 

into the environment by industrial, urban, and agricultural use is also a concern for marine mammal 

conservation and has been the subject of numerous studies (Desforges et al., 2016; Fair et al., 2010; 

Krahn et al., 2007; Krahn et al., 2009; Moon et al., 2010; Ocean Alliance, 2010). For example, the 

chemical components of pesticides used on land flow as runoff into the marine environment and can 

accumulate in the bodies of marine mammals and be transferred to their young through mother’s milk 

(Fair et al., 2010). The presence of these chemicals in marine mammals has been assumed to put those 

animals at greater risk for adverse health effects and potential impact on their reproductive success 

given toxicology studies and results from laboratory animals (Fair et al., 2010; Godard-Codding et al., 

2011; Krahn et al., 2007; Krahn et al., 2009; Peterson et al., 2014; Peterson et al., 2015). Desforges et al 

(2016) have suggested that exposure to chemical pollutants may act in an additive or synergistic manner 

with other stressors resulting in significant population level consequences. Although the general trend 

has been a decrease in chemical pollutants in the environment following their regulation, chemical 

pollutants remain important given their potential to impact marine mammals and marine life in general

(Bonito et al., 2016; Jepson & Law, 2016; Law, 2014). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-26

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.1.5.2 Commercial Industries

Human impacts on marine mammals have received much attention in recent decades, and include 

fisheries interactions, including bycatch (accidental or incidental catch), gear entanglement, and indirect 

effects from takes of prey species; noise pollution; marine debris (ingestion and entanglement); hunting 

(both commercial and native practices); vessel strikes; entrainment into power plant water intakes; 

increased ocean acidification, and general habitat deterioration or destruction.

Bycatch

Fishery bycatch is likely the most impactful threat to marine mammal individuals and populations and 

may account for the deaths of more marine mammals than any other cause (Geijer & Read, 2013; 

Hamer et al., 2010; Northridge, 2008; Read, 2008). In 1994, the MMPA was amended to formally 

address bycatch. The amendment requires the development of a take reduction plan when bycatch 

exceeds a level considered unsustainable and will lead to marine mammal population decline. In 

addition, NMFS develops and implements take reduction plans that help recover and prevent the 

depletion of strategic stocks of marine mammals that interact with certain fisheries. 

At least in part as a result of the amendment, estimates of bycatch in the Pacific declined by a total of 96 

percent from 1994 to 2006 (Geijer & Read, 2013). Cetacean bycatch declined by 85 percent from 342 in 

1994 to 53 in 2006, and pinniped bycatch declined from 1,332 to 53 over the same time period. In the 

Hawaii portion of the Study Area, bycatch has contributed substantially to the decline of the Hawaiian 

population of false killer whales (Oleson et al., 2010). Between 2008 and 2012, 27 known instances of 

false killer whale injury or mortality from bycatch were observed during Hawaii longline fishery activities 

as well as similar cases for 11 other species (Bradford & Forney, 2014; Bradford & Lyman, 2015; 

Bradford & Forney, 2016). In the Southern California portion of the Study Area, there were 36 marine 

mammal bycatch entanglements from civilian fishing activities off San Diego, CA from 2010 through 

2014 (Carretta et al., 2016b).

Other Fishery Interactions

Fishery interactions other than bycatch include entanglement from abandoned or partial nets, fishing 

line, hooks, and the ropes and lines connected to fishing gear (Bradford & Lyman, 2015; Bradford & 

Forney, 2016; Carretta et al., 2013b; Carretta et al., 2014b; Carretta et al., 2016b; Heckler et al., 2015; 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration, 2017; Saez et al., 2013). The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program (2014a) reports that abandoned, lost, or otherwise 

discarded fishing gear constitutes the vast majority of mysticete entanglements.

In Hawaii in 2013, 14 Hawaiian monk seals were observed hooked and one was observed with an 

embedded fishing spear (Carretta et al., 2015). Along the U.S. west coast, hook and line entanglements 

and gunshot wounds are two of the primary causes of pinniped injuries found in strandings (Carretta et 

al., 2013b). Within the Southern California portion of the Study Area, there were 50 marine mammal 

hook and line interactions (48 pinnipeds, 2 dolphins) reported off San Diego, CA from 2010 through 2014 

(Carretta et al., 2016b). For the area off the coasts of northern California, Oregon, and Washington 

between 1982 and 2010, Saez et al. (2013) reported there were 272 large whales entangled in fishing 

gear (whales in this area of the U.S. west coast are generally from the same stock as in the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area). In 2016, there were 71 cases of entangled whales reported 

off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration, 

2017). These coasts include the range area for the stocks of whales present in the Southern California

portion of the HSTT Study Area. For the identified sources of entanglement, none included Navy 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-27

3.7 Marine Mammals

expended materials. Identified species entangled off the U.S. west coast in 2015 and 2016 included 

humpback, gray, blue, fin and killer whales with a total of 133 entanglements in the 2-year period 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration, 2017). 

In waters off Southern California, Washington, and Alaska, passive acoustic monitoring efforts since 

2009 have documented the routine use of non-military explosives at-sea (Baumann-Pickering et al., 

2013; Debich et al., 2014; Kerosky et al., 2013; Rice et al., 2015; Trickey et al., 2015). Based on the 

spectral properties of the recorded sounds and their correspondence with known fishing seasons or 

activity, the source of these explosions has been linked to the use of explosive marine mammal 

deterrents, which as a group are commonly known as ‘seal bombs’ (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2013). 

Seal bombs are intended to be used by commercial fishers to deter marine mammals, particularly

pinnipeds, from preying upon their catch and to prevent marine mammals from interacting and 

potentially becoming entangled with fishing gear (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

2015b).

The use of seal bombs has not been documented in Hawaiian waters and there is no evidence to suggest 

they would be used in the future. In Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, several fisheries 

including purse seine and set gillnet fisheries use seal bombs as deterrents (Baumann-Pickering et al., 

2013). Based on the number of explosions recorded over the past several years in the Southern 

California, Washington, and Alaska, the use of seal bombs is much more prevalent than might be 

expected. For example, in the 7 months from May to November 2013, over 24,000 explosions identified 

as seal bombs were recorded at a passive acoustic monitoring site (Site “M”) off Long Beach, CA

approximately 10 kilometers (km) north of the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area 

(Debich et al., 2015a). Since this passive acoustic monitoring device only recorded a sample of the total 

time, it is reasonable to assume there were more than 24,000 seal bomb explosions in the 7-month 

period. By comparison, in the 12-month period from August 2012 to August 2013, there were fewer 

than 400 underwater explosions resulting from Navy training and testing in the entire Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2013). The prevalent and continued 

use of seal bombs seems to indicate that, while a potential threat, their use has had no significant effect 

on populations of marine mammals given that it is likely at least some individuals, if not larger groups of 

marine mammals, have been repeatedly exposed to this explosive stressor. 

Noise

In some locations, especially where urban or industrial activities or commercial shipping is intense, 

anthropogenic noise can be a potential habitat level stressor (Dunlop, 2016; Dyndo et al., 2015; Erbe et 

al., 2014; Frisk, 2012; Gedamke et al., 2016; Hermannsen et al., 2014; Li et al., 2015; McKenna et al., 

2012; Melcón et al., 2012; Miksis-Olds & Nichols, 2015; Nowacek et al., 2015; Pine et al., 2016; Williams 

et al., 2014c). Noise is of particular concern to marine mammals because many species use sound as a 

primary sense for navigating, finding prey, avoiding predators, and communicating with other 

individuals. Noise may cause marine mammals to leave a habitat, impair their ability to communicate, or 

cause physiological stress (Courbis & Timmel, 2009; Erbe, 2002; Erbe et al., 2015; Hildebrand, 2009; 

Rolland et al., 2012; Tyack et al., 2011; Tyne et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2014b). Noise can cause 

behavioral disturbances, mask other sounds including their own vocalizations, may result in injury and in 

some cases, may result in behaviors that ultimately lead to death (Erbe et al., 2014; Erbe et al., 2015; 

National Research Council, 2003, 2005; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2009; Tyack, 2009; Würsig 

& Richardson, 2008). Anthropogenic noise is generated from a variety of sources including commercial 

shipping, oil and gas exploration and production activities, commercial and recreational fishing 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-28

3.7 Marine Mammals

(including fishing finding sonar, fathometers, and acoustic deterrent and harassment devices), foreign 

navies, recreational boating and whale watching activities, offshore power generation, and research 

(including sound from air guns, sonar, and telemetry).

Vessel noise in particular is a major contributor to noise in the ocean and intensively used inland waters. 

Commercial shipping’s contribution to ambient noise in the ocean increased by as much as 12 decibels 

(dB) between approximately the 1960s and 2005 (Hildebrand, 2009; McDonald et al., 2008). Frisk (2012)

confirmed the trend, and reported that between 1950 and 2007 ocean noise in the 25 to 50 hertz (Hz)

frequency range has increased 3.3 dB per decade, resulting in a cumulative increase of approximately 19

dB over a baseline of 52 dB. The increase in noise is associated with an increase in commercial shipping, 

which correlates with global economic growth (Frisk, 2012). Subsequently, Miksis-Olds and Nichols 

(2015) have demonstrated that the trends for low frequency ocean sound levels no longer show a 

uniform increase across the globe. Redfern et al. (2017) found that shipping channels leading to and 

from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach between the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

and the coast may have degraded the habitat for blue, fin, and humpback whales due to the loss of 

communication space where important habitat for these species overlaps with elevated noise from 

commercial vessel traffic. The San Pedro Channel is at the northeastern corner of the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area and is where the Traffic Separation Scheme’s southern 

entrance and exit is located for these same ports (Los Angeles and Long Beach). It can be assumed that 

the similar concentration of commercial vessel traffic moving through the San Pedro Channel into and 

out of the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area also impact marine mammal

communication space in a similar manner as suggested for the shipping channels to the north

investigated by (Redfern et al., 2017).

In many areas of the world, oil and gas seismic exploration in the ocean is undertaken using a group of 

air guns towed behind large research vessels. The air guns convert high pressure air into very strong 

shock wave impulses that are designed to return information off the various buried layers of sediment 

under the seafloor. Seismic exploration surveys last many days and cover vast overlapping swaths of the 

ocean area being explored. Most of the impulse energy produced by these air guns is heard as low 

frequency sound, which can travel long distances and has the potential to impact marine mammals. 

Acoustic monitoring in Hawaii recorded seismic air gun pulses south of the Hawaiian Islands spanning 

the 2 weeks of monitoring between December 23, 2014 and January 10, 2015 (Klinck et al., 2016). NMFS 

routinely issues permits for the taking of marine mammals associated with these commercial activities.

Hunting

Commercial hunting, as in whaling and sealing operations, provided the original impetus for marine 

mammal management efforts and has driven much of the early research on cetaceans and pinnipeds 

(Twiss & Reeves, 1999). With the enactment of the MMPA and the 1946 International Convention for 

the Regulation of Whaling, hunting-related mortality has decreased over the last 40 years. Unregulated 

harvests are still considered as direct threats, however since passage of the MMPA, there have been 

relatively few serious calls for culls of marine mammals in the United States compared to other 

countries, including Canada (Roman et al., 2013). Review of uncovered Union of Soviet Socialist 

Republics catch records in the North Pacific Ocean indicate extensive illegal whaling activity between 

1948 and 1979, with a harvest totaling 195,783 whales. Of these, only 169,638 were reported by the 

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the International Whaling Commission (Ilyashenko et al., 2013; 

Ilyashenko et al., 2014; Ilyashenko & Chapham, 2014; Ilyashenko et al., 2015). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-29

3.7 Marine Mammals

For U.S. waters, there is a provision in the MMPA that allows for subsistence harvest of marine 

mammals, primarily by Alaska Natives. Subsistence hunting by Russia and Alaska Natives also occurs in 

the North Pacific, Chukchi Sea, and Bering Sea affecting marine mammal stocks that may be present in 

the HSTT Study Area. For example, in Russian waters in 2013, there were a total of 127 gray whales 

“struck” during subsistence whaling by the inhabitants of the Chukchi Peninsula between the Bering and 

Chukchi Sea (Ilyashenko & Zharikov, 2014). These gray whales harvested in Russian waters may be 

individuals from either the endangered Western North Pacific stock or the non-ESA listed Eastern North 

Pacific stock that may migrate through the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. 

Vessel Strike

Ship strikes are also a growing issue for most marine mammals, although mortality may be a more 

significant concern for species that occupy areas with high levels of vessel traffic, because the likelihood 

of encounter would be greater (Van der Hoop et al., 2013; Van der Hoop et al., 2015). 

The U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard have, since 1995, reported all known or suspected vessel collisions 

with whales to NMFS. The assumed under-reporting of whale collisions by vessels other than U.S. Navy 

or U.S. Coast Guard makes any comparison of data involving vessel strikes between Navy vessels and 

other vessels heavily biased. This under-reporting is recognized by NMFS and for example, in the 

Technical Memorandum providing the analysis of the impacts from vessel collisions with whales in 

Hawaii (Bradford & Lyman, 2015), NMFS takes into account unreported vessel strikes by civilian vessels. 

Lammers et al. (2013) provided data showing that, from 1975 to 2011, 93 percent of witnessed 

(reported) collisions between humpback whales and vessels in Hawaii involved vessels other than U.S. 

Navy and U.S. Coast Guard vessels (characterized as “Mil/Gov”). In the 5-year period of data provided by 

NMFS from 2007-2012 in Hawaii, there were 37 reported vessel collisions between humpback whales 

and vessels other than those characterized as “Military” and two attributed to the Navy (Bradford & 

Lyman, 2015). Within the Southern California portion of the Study Area, there were seven marine 

mammal vessel or boat strikes reported off San Diego, CA from 2010 through 2014 (Carretta et al., 

2016b). The strikes were on two California sea lions, one fin whale, two gray whales, and two humpback 

whales and none of these strikes were from Navy vessels or boats. (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2015c).

Powerplant Entrainment

Coastal powerplants use seawater as a coolant during power plant operation. Intakes into these plants 

can sometimes trap (i.e., entrain) marine mammals that swim too close to the intake pipe. There have 

been no entrainments of marine mammals reported for Hawaii. Within the Southern California portion 

of the Study Area, there were 97 marine mammal power plant entrainments (all pinnipeds) reported 

from San Diego, CA between 2010 and 2014 (Carretta et al., 2016b).

3.7.2.1.5.3 Disease and Parasites

Just as in humans, disease affects marine mammal health and especially older animals. For example, the 

necropsy of a false killer whale found stranded on Hawaii Island in November 2015 concluded that the 

animal died as the result of a blood clot, which can be caused by infections, chronic heart disease, or 

cancer (Pascual, 2015). The first case of morbillivirus (a virus related to measles in humans) in the 

central Pacific was documented for a stranded juvenile male Longman’s beaked whale discovered in 

2010 on the Island of Maui in Hawaii (West et al., 2012; West et al., 2015) and subsequently in 2011 

brucella (a bacterial pathogen) and morbillivirus were discovered in a sperm whale that stranded on 

Oahu (West et al., 2015). In 2015, the Hawaiian Monk Seal Research Program began a vaccination 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-30

3.7 Marine Mammals

program to protect Hawaiian monk seals from morbillivirus (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2015c). Occasionally disease epidemics can also injure or kill a large percentage of a 

marine mammal population (Keck et al., 2010; Paniz-Mondolfi & Sander-Hoffmann, 2009; Simeone et 

al., 2015). Recent review of odontocetes stranded along the California coast from 2000–2015 found 

evidence for morbilliviral infection in 9 of the 212 animals examined, therefore indicating this disease 

may be a contributor to mortality in cetaceans stranding along the California coast (Serrano et al., 2017).

Examination of southern sea otter tissue samples have detected polyomavirus, parvovirus, and 

adenovirus infections in 80 percent of tested animals suggesting endemic infection is present in the 

population (Siqueira et al., 2017).

Mass die-offs of some marine mammal species have been linked to toxic algal blooms, which occurs as 

larger organisms consume multiple prey containing those toxins and thereby accumulating fatal doses. 

An example is domoic acid poisoning of California sea lions and northern fur seals from the diatom 

Pseudo-nitzschia spp. (Doucette et al., 2006; Fire et al., 2008; Lefebrve et al., 2010; Lefebvre et al., 2016; 

Torres de la Riva et al., 2009). A comprehensive study that sampled over 900 marine mammals across 13 

species, including several mysticetes, odontocetes, pinnipeds, and mustelids in Alaska, found detectable 

concentrations of domoic acid in all 13 species and saxitoxin, a toxin absorbed from ingesting 

dinoflagellates, in 10 of the 13 species (Lefebvre et al., 2016). Algal toxins may have contributed to the 

stranding and mortality of 30 whales found around the islands in the western Gulf of Alaska and the 

southern shoreline of the Alaska Peninsula starting in May 2015 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2016a; Rosen, 2015; Savage et al., 2017; Summers, 2017). These findings from studies in 

Alaska are relevant to the HSTT Study Area given that whales from stocks in both the Hawaii and the 

Southern California portions of the HSTT Study Area migrate to Alaska to feed. 

Additionally, all marine mammals have parasites that, under normal circumstances, probably do little 

overall harm, but under certain conditions, can cause serious health problems or even death (Bull et al., 

2006; Fauquier et al., 2009; Jepson et al., 2005). The Hawaiian Monk Seal Research Program reported 

that in Hawaii since 2001, there have been at least 8 deaths of Hawaiian monk seals attributed to 

parasitic toxoplasmosis from feral cats in the main Hawaiian Islands (Hawaiian Monk Seal Research 

Program, 2015). Toxoplasmosis has also been found in a spinner dolphin in Hawaii (Rogers, 2016). In 

California this same parasite also impacts seals, sea lions, and sea otters. The most commonly reported 

parasitic infections were in sea otters from the protozoans Sarcocystis neurona and Toxoplasma gondii, 

or in some cases from both (Simeone et al., 2015). Other parasites known to cause disease in pinnipeds 

and sea otters include hookworms (Uncinaria sp.), lungworm (Otostrongylus circumlitis), and thornyheaded worms (Profilicollis sp.) (Simeone et al., 2015).

3.7.2.1.5.4 Invasive Species

There are no known current threats to marine mammals from invasive species in the Study Area.

3.7.2.1.5.5 Climate Change

The global climate is warming and is having impacts on some populations of marine mammals (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2015d, 2015f; Salvadeo et al., 2010; Shirasago-Germán et al., 2015; Simmonds 

& Eliott, 2009). Climate change can affect marine mammal species directly through shifting distribution 

to match physiological tolerance under changing environmental conditions (Doney et al., 2012); which 

may or may not result in net habitat loss (some can experience habitat gains). Climate change can also 

affect marine mammals indirectly via impacts on prey, changing prey distributions and locations, and 

changes in water temperature (Giorli & Au, 2017). In more northern latitudes, the loss of sea ice and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-31

3.7 Marine Mammals

changing ice habitat are impacting marine mammals that are dependent on ice for resting, foraging and 

reproduction (Jay et al., 2012; Laidre et al., 2015). Changes in prey can impact marine mammal foraging 

success, which in turn affects reproduction success, and survival. Starting in January 2013, an elevated 

number of strandings of California sea lion pups were observed in five Southern California counties, 

including San Diego County. Additional California counties experiencing elevated California sea lion 

strandings include Santa Barbara County, Ventura County, Los Angeles County, and Orange County. 

These strandings, continuing into 2016, were declared an Unusual Mortality Event by NMFS (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2015f; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016b, 2016c). This 

is the sixth Unusual Mortality Event involving California sea lions that has occurred in California since 

1991. For this 2013–2015 event, NMFS biologists indicated that warmer ocean temperatures have 

shifted the location of prey species that are no longer adjacent to the rookeries, which thereby impacted 

the female sea lions’ ability to find food for their pups (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2016c). As a result, this confluence of natural events causes the pups to leave the 

rookeries on their own, and many are subsequently found stranded dead or emaciated due to 

starvation. In 2015, an Unusual Mortality Event was declared for Guadalupe fur seals along the entire 

California coast because of an eight-fold increase over the average historical number of strandings

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016b). This event continued into 2017 although the 

number of animals involved declined in 2017; in April 2017 an additional seven Guadalupe fur seals 

stranded associated with this Unusual Mortality Event. The assumed cause for the increase in strandings 

is the change in the prey base due to warming conditions (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015f; 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016b). 

Likely also due to changing prey distributions, data tagging efforts in July 2016 focusing on blue and fin 

whales had to be shifted north to Central California waters when the majority of blue, fin, and 

humpback whales encountered in Southern California waters were found to be too thin or otherwise in 

poor body condition to allow for them to be tagged (Oregon State University, 2017). In Central California 

waters, the researchers identified good numbers of blue, fin, and humpback whales in better condition 

and indicative of a good feeding area that was likely to be sustained that season (Oregon State 

University, 2017). 

Harmful algal blooms may become more prevalent in warmer ocean temperatures with increased 

salinity levels such that blooms will begin earlier, last longer, and cover a larger geographical range 

(Edwards, 2013; Moore, 2008). Warming ocean waters have been linked to the spread of harmful algal 

blooms into the North Pacific where waters had previously been too cold for most of these algae to 

thrive. Most of the mysticetes found in the HSTT Study Area spend part of the year in the North Pacific. 

The spread of the algae and associated blooms has led to disease in marine mammals in locations where 

algae caused diseases had not been previously known (Lefebvre et al., 2016).

Climate change may indirectly influence marine mammals through changes in human behavior, such as 

increased shipping and oil and gas extraction, which benefit from sea ice loss (Alter et al., 2010b). 

Ultimately impacts from global climate change may result in an intensification of current and on-going 

threats to marine mammals (Edwards, 2013).

Marine mammals are influenced by climate-related phenomena, such as storms and other extreme 

weather patterns such as the 2015–2016 El Niño in the ocean off the U.S. west coast. Generally, not 

much is known about how large storms and other weather patterns affect marine mammals, other than 

that mass strandings (when two or more marine mammals become beached or stuck in shallow water) 

sometimes coincide with hurricanes, typhoons, and other tropical storms (Bradshaw et al., 2006; Marsh, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-32

3.7 Marine Mammals

1989; Rosel & Watts, 2008), or other oceanographic conditions. There have also been correlations in 

time and space between strandings and the occurrence of earthquakes. However, there has been no 

scientific investigation demonstrating evidence for or against a relationship between earthquakes and 

the occurrence of marine mammal strandings. Indirect impacts may include altered water chemistry in 

estuaries (low dissolved oxygen or increased nutrient loading) causing massive fish kills (Burkholder et 

al., 2004) which changes prey distribution and availability for cetaceans (Stevens et al., 2006). Human 

responses to extreme weather events may indirectly affect behavior and reproductive rates of marine 

mammals. For example, Miller et al. (2010) reported an increase in reproductive rates in bottlenose 

dolphins after Hurricane Katrina in the Mississippi Sound, presumably resulting from an increase in fish 

abundance due to a reduction in fisheries landings, a decrease in recreational and commercial boat 

activities (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007d), and an increase in the number of reproductively 

active females available during the breeding seasons following the storm. Smith et al. (2013)

supplemented the findings from this study and documented a marked increase in foraging activity in 

newly identified foraging areas that were observed during the 2-year study period after the storm. 

Habitat deterioration and loss is a major factor for almost all coastal and inshore species of marine 

mammals and it may include such factors as depleting a habitat’s prey base and the complete loss of 

habitat (Ayres et al., 2012; Kemp, 1996; Pine et al., 2016; Rolland et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2009; Veirs et 

al., 2015a; Williams et al., 2014a). Many researchers predict that if oceanic temperatures continue to 

rise with an associated effect on marine habitat and prey availability, then either changes in foraging or 

life history strategies, including poleward shifts in many marine mammal species distributions, should be 

anticipated (Alter et al., 2010a; Fleming et al., 2015; Ramp et al., 2015; Salvadeo et al., 2015; Sydeman & 

Allen, 1999). Poloczanska et al. (2016) analyzed climate change impact data that integrates multiple

climate influenced changes in ocean conditions (i.e., temperature, acidification, dissolved oxygen, and 

rainfall) to assess anticipated changes to a number of key ocean fauna across representative areas. In 

relation to the HSTT Study area, Poloczanska et al. (2016) included the California Current Ecosystem in 

their assessment. Their results predict a northward expansion in the distribution of zooplankton, fish, 

and squid, all of which are prey for many marine mammal species.

Marine mammals as a whole are subject to the various influences and factors delineated in this section. 

If specific threats to individual species in the Study Area are known, those threats are described below in 

individual species accounts.

3.7.2.1.5.6 Marine Debris

Marine debris is a global threat to marine mammals (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Marine Debris Program, 2014b). A literature review by Baulch and Perry (2014), found that 56 percent of 

cetacean species are documented as having ingested marine debris. Interactions between marine 

mammals and marine debris, including derelict fishing gear and plastics, are significant sources of injury 

and mortality (Baulch & Perry, 2014). Comparing the Baulch and Perry review with that conducted by 

(Laist, 1997), the percentage of marine mammal species with documented records of entanglement in 

or ingestion of marine debris has increased from 43 to 66 percent over the past 18 years (Bergmann et 

al., 2015). Ingestion of marine debris by marine mammals is a less well-documented cause of mortality 

than entanglement, but it is a growing concern (Bergmann et al., 2015); Jacobsen et al., 2010). Baulch 

and Perry (2014) found that ingestion of debris has been documented in 48 cetacean species, with rates 

of ingestion as high as 31 percent in some populations. Attributing cause of death to marine debris 

ingestion is difficult (Laist, 1997), but ingestion of plastic bags and Styrofoam has been identified as the 

cause of injury or death of minke whales (De Pierrepont et al., 2005) and deep-diving odontocetes, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-33

3.7 Marine Mammals

including beaked whales (Baulch & Perry, 2014), pygmy sperm whales (Sadove & Morreale, 1989; 

Stamper et al., 2006; Tarpley & Marwitz, 1993), and sperm whales (Jacobsen et al., 2010; Sadove & 

Morreale, 1989).

From April 2013 to April 2016 in the waters around Lanai and channels between Lanai, Maui, and 

Kahoolawe, surveys were conducted to quantify the presence of marine mammals and floating marine 

debris (Currie et al., 2017). The surveys encountered, collected, and categorized 1,027 pieces of marine 

debris. Items categorized as “plastic” were the predominant type of debris encountered, accounted for 

86 percent of total debris and consisted mainly of plastic bottles, tubs, baskets, foamed polystyrene 

disposable plates, cups, and fragments, plastic bags, and other soft plastic films. A smaller portion of the 

plastic debris (13 percent; 11 percent of the total debris) were fishing-related and included items such as 

buoys, netting, rope, and fishing lines, while milled lumber and rubber accounted for 10 percent of 

debris, with the remaining 4 percent attributed to metal, glass, and clothing/fabric. 

For cetaceans in Hawaii during the 5-year period between 2007-2012, there were 48 humpback whales, 

a sperm whale, a bottlenose dolphin, 3 spinner dolphins, and a pantropical spotted dolphin entangled in 

marine debris (Bradford & Lyman, 2015). One humpback whale was known to be injured, and it is 

believed that interaction with debris led to the mortality of a second humpback whale and a spinner 

dolphin (Bradford & Lyman, 2015). Over the 30-year period between 1982 and 2012, approximately 11 

Hawaiian monk seals annually have been observed entangled in fishing gear or other marine debris, with 

nine documented deaths (Carretta et al., 2015). Marine mammals migrating from Hawaii and Southern 

California to Alaska also encounter threats outside the HSTT Study Area. In Alaska from 2011 through 

2015, records of approximately 3,700 human-marine mammal interactions were reviewed by NMFS and 

determined to have resulted in 440 entanglement/entrapment-related marine mammal serious injury or 

mortality to various species (Helker et al., 2017). 

On the U.S. west coast for the marine mammal stocks that are present in the Southern California portion 

of the HSTT Study Area, marine debris resulted in mortalities to 90 pinnipeds (the majority California sea 

lions), two gray whales, and one each of the following species: humpback whale, minke whale, 

bottlenose dolphin, long-beaked common dolphin, and harbor porpoise (Carretta et al., 2016b). From 

2010 through 2014, within the Southern California portion of the Study Area, there were six marine 

mammal entanglements (one blue whale, four pinnipeds, two dolphins) from marine debris reported off 

San Diego, CA (Carretta et al., 2016b). In a seafloor survey off Southern California including the HSTT 

Study Area, urban refuse (beverage cans, bottles, household items, and construction materials) 

constituted approximately 88 percent of the identified debris observed (Watters et al., 2010). 

An estimated 75 percent or more of marine debris consists of plastic (Derraik, 2002; Hardesty & Wilcox, 

2017). High concentrations of floating plastic have been reported in the central areas of the North 

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (Cozar et al., 2014). Plastic pollution found in the oceans is primarily 

dominated by particles smaller than 1 centimeter (cm), commonly referred to as microplastics (HidalgoRuz et al., 2012). Other researchers have defined microplastics as particles with a diameter ranging from 

a few micrometers up to 5 millimeters (mm) and are not readily visible to the naked eye (Andrady, 

2015). Microplastic fragments and fibers found throughout the oceans result from the breakdown of 

larger items, such as clothing, packaging, and rope and have accumulated in the pelagic zone and 

sedimentary habitats (Thompson et al., 2004). Results from the investigation by Browne et al. (2011)

have also suggested that microplastic fibers are discharged in sewage effluent resulting from the 

washing of synthetic fiber clothes. DeForges et al. (2014) sampled the Northeast Pacific Ocean in areas 

in and near the coastal waters of British Columbia, Canada, and found microplastics (those 62–5000 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-34

3.7 Marine Mammals

micrometers in size) were abundant in all samples with elevated concentrations near urban centers; a 

finding that should be applicable to all urban centers such as those in the HSTT Study Area. Besseling et 

al. (2015a) documented the first occurrence of microplastics in the intestines of a humpback whale and 

while the primary cause of the stranding was not determined, the researchers found multiple types of 

microplastics ranging in sizes from 1 mm to 17 cm. There is still a large knowledge gap about possible 

negative effects of microplastics but it remains a concern (Besseling et al., 2015a). Specifically, the 

propensity of plastics to absorb and concentrate dissolved pollutant chemicals, such as persistent 

organic pollutants, is a concern because microfauna may be able to digest plastic nanoparticles, 

facilitating the delivery of dissolved pollutant chemicals across trophic levels and making them 

bioavailable to larger marine organisms, such as marine mammals (Andrady, 2015).

Marine mammals as a whole are subject to the various influences and factors delineated in this section. 

If specific threats to individual species in the Study Area are known, those threats are described below in 

individual species accounts. 

3.7.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species

As shown in Table 3.7-1, the 10 marine mammal species and applicable stocks listed under the ESA and 

occurring within the Study Area are the humpback whale (Mexico Distinct Population Segment and the 

Central America Distinct Population Segment), blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, gray whale (Western 

North Pacific stock), sperm whale, false killer whale (Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock), Guadalupe fur 

seal, Hawaiian monk seal, and southern sea otter. The following subsections provide detailed species 

descriptions, including status, habitat ranges, population trends, predator/prey interactions, and species 

specific threats. 

3.7.2.2.1 Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Mexico Distinct Population Segment and 

Central America Distinct Population Segment

Humpback whales that are seasonally present in the HSTT Study Area are from three Distinct Population 

Segments given they represent populations that are both discrete from other conspecific populations 

and significant to the species of humpback whales to which they belong (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2016h). These Distinct Population Segments that are based on animals identified in breeding 

areas in Hawaii, Mexico, and Central America (Bettridge et al., 2015b; Carretta et al., 2017c; Muto et al., 

2017; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016b; Wade et al., 2016). Discussion of the Hawaii Distinct 

Population Segment that is seasonally present in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area and which is 

not listed under the ESA, is presented in Section 3.7.2.3.1 (Humpback Whale [Megaptera 

novaeangliae]), Hawaii Distinct Population Segment). Presentation of information for the Mexico 

Distinct Population Segment and the Central America Distinct Population Segment, which are both 

seasonally present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, are provided in the 

following subsections.

3.7.2.2.1.1 Status and Management

Humpback whales of the Mexico Distinct Population Segment are listed as threatened and those from 

the Central America Distinct Population Segment are listed as endangered under the ESA (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2016h). Together these two Distinct Population Segments are considered the 

California, Oregon, and Washington stock of humpback whales and are listed as depleted under the 

MMPA (Carretta et al., 2017c; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016h). The California, Oregon, 

Washington stock of humpback whales are present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area as they migrate northward from their winter breeding grounds in Mexico and Central America and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-35

3.7 Marine Mammals

then again when migrating southward in their return from feeding areas along the U.S west coast, 

British Colombia, and Alaska. 

3.7.2.2.1.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The habitat requirements of wintering humpbacks appear to be controlled by the conditions necessary 

for calving, such as warm water (75 to 80° Fahrenheit [24° to 28° Celsius]) and relatively shallow, lowrelief ocean bottom in protected areas, nearshore or created by islands or reefs (Clapham, 2000; Craig & 

Herman, 2000; Smultea, 1994). In breeding grounds, females with calves occur in significantly shallower 

waters than other groups of whales, and breeding adults use deeper more offshore waters (Ersts & 

Rosenbaum, 2003; Smultea, 1994). Breeding and calving areas for the Mexico Distinct Population 

Segment in Mexican waters and for the Central America Distinct Population Segment off Central 

America are both located far to the south of the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area.

Off the U.S. west coast, humpback whales are more abundant in shelf and slope waters (<2,000 meters 

[m] deep), and are often associated with areas of high productivity (Becker et al., 2010; Becker et al., 

2012a; Becker et al., 2016; Forney et al., 2012; Redfern et al., 2013). While most humpback whale 

sightings are in nearshore and continental shelf waters, humpback whales frequently travel through 

deep oceanic waters during migration (Calambokidis et al., 2001; Clapham & Mattila, 1990; Clapham, 

2000; Mate et al., 1997). Humpback whales migrating from breeding grounds in Central America to 

feeding grounds at higher latitudes may cross the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area 

including the Transit Corridor located farther offshore.

Humpback migrations are complex and cover long distances (Barlow et al., 2011; Calambokidis et al., 

2009b; Mate et al., 1997). The California, Oregon, and Washington stock of humpback whales may use 

the waters within the Southern California portion of the Study Area as a summer feeding ground. While 

most humpback whales migrate, data from surveys conducted between 2004 and 2013 show that 

humpback whales occur year-round off southern California (Campbell et al., 2015). Peak occurrence 

during migration occurs in the Southern California portion of the Study Area from December through 

June (Calambokidis et al., 2015a). During late summer, more humpback whales are sighted north of the 

Channel Islands, and limited occurrence is expected south of the northern Channel Islands (San Miguel, 

Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz)(Carretta et al., 2010). Based on aerial survey data collected between 2008 and 

2012 in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, Smultea and Jefferson (2014)

determined that humpback whales ranked eighth in relative occurrence and concluded that this species 

has clearly increased their representation in the Navy’s Southern California range complex over the last 

several decades. 

The wintering areas for the Mexico Distinct Population Segment are the waters and islands off Mexico 

and for the Central America Distinct Population Segment, the wintering areas are waters from southern 

Mexico and south along the coast of Central America (Calambokidis et al., 2008). There have been no 

identified biologically important areas for humpback whales in the Southern California portion of the 

HSTT Study Area (Calambokidis et al., 2015a). 

3.7.2.2.1.3 Population Trends

Although recent estimates show variable trends in the number of humpback whales along the U.S. west 

coast, the overall trend in the estimates is consistent with growth rate of 6 to 7 percent for the 

California, Oregon, Washington stock and appear consistent with the highest-yet abundances of 

humpback whales in the most recent 2014 survey of that stock (Barlow, 2016; Carretta et al., 2017c; 

Smultea & Jefferson, 2014). For the distinct population segments in Mexico and Central America, photo-
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-36

3.7 Marine Mammals

identification data collected between 2004 to 2006 are the main basis for the most recent estimates of 

humpback whale numbers in those breeding locations in the Pacific (Bettridge et al., 2015b; National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2016h; Wade et al., 2016). There are no population trend data for the Mexico 

Distinct Population Segment or the Central America Distinct Population Segment since there have been 

no subsequent data collected for comparison (Bettridge et al., 2015b; National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2016h; Wade et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.2.1.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Within the Southern California feeding grounds, humpback whales feed on a wide variety of

invertebrates and small schooling fishes. The most common invertebrate prey are krill (tiny 

crustaceans); the most common fish prey are herring, mackerel, sand lance, sardines, anchovies, and 

capelin (Clapham & Mead, 1999). Feeding occurs both at the surface and in deeper waters, wherever 

prey is abundant. Humpback whales are the only species of baleen whale that show strong evidence of 

cooperation when they feed in large groups (D'Vincent et al., 1985).

This species is known to be attacked by both killer whales and false killer whales as evidenced by tooth 

rake scars on their bodies and fins (Jefferson et al., 2015). Humpback whales observed on the feeding 

grounds off Washington and California had the highest rate of rake marks of any of the feeding grounds 

observed (Steiger et al., 2008).

3.7.2.2.1.5 Species-Specific Threats

Entanglement in pot/trap fisheries was the most common source of injury to humpback whales along 

the U.S. Pacific coast (Carretta et al., 2016b; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration, 2017; 

Saez et al., 2012). Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated 

that the overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to humpback 

whales from this fishery was 0.25 based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 

(Carretta et al., 2017a). There were 54 separate entanglement cases reported for humpback whales 

along the U.S west coast in 2016 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration, 2017). Humpback 

whales from Mexico and Central America have been identified feeding in Alaska (Bettridge et al., 2015b; 

Calambokidis et al., 2008). Humpback whales have also been reported seriously injured and killed from 

entanglement in fishing gear while in their Alaskan feeding grounds (Helker et al., 2017); some 

proportion of these entanglements could be to be whales from the Mexico Distinct Population Segment 

and from the Central America Distinct Population Segment. An overall minimum estimate of mortality 

and serious injury due to fisheries in Alaska is 14 humpback whales annually (Muto et al., 2017).

Available data from NMFS indicate that along the U.S. Pacific coast between 2010 and 2014, there were 

eight ship strikes involving humpback whales; none were Navy vessels (Carretta et al., 2016b). The mean 

vessel collision mortality and serious injury rate in Alaska is 4.3 humpback whales annually (Muto et al., 

2017). 

Humpback whales are also potentially affected by loss of habitat, loss of prey (for a variety of reasons 

including climate variability), underwater noise, jet skis and similar fast waterborne tourist-related 

traffic, and pollutants (Muto et al., 2017).

3.7.2.2.2 Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus)

3.7.2.2.2.1 Status and Management

The world’s population of blue whales can be separated into three subspecies, based on geographic 

location and some morphological differences. In the HSTT Study Area, the subspecies Balaenoptera 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-37

3.7 Marine Mammals

musculus is present. The blue whale is listed as endangered under the ESA and as depleted under the 

MMPA throughout its range, but there is no designated critical habitat for this species. 

3.7.2.2.2.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The blue whale inhabits all oceans and typically occur near the coast, over the continental shelf, though 

they are also found in oceanic waters having been sighted, acoustically recorded, and satellite tagged in 

the eastern tropical Pacific (Ferguson, 2005; Stafford et al., 2004).

Blue whales from the Central North Pacific stock are found in the Hawaii portion of the Study Area, but 

the sighting frequency is low and the peak abundance is seasonal occurring in the winter (Bradford et 

al., 2013). Whales feeding along the Aleutian Islands and in the Gulf of Alaska likely migrate to Hawaii in 

winter (Stafford et al., 2001). In the winter of 2014–2015 (December to January), passive acoustic 

detections of blue whales were recorded intermittently over the 3-week period of the survey (Klinck et 

al., 2015).

The Eastern North Pacific Stock of blue whales includes animals found in the eastern north Pacific from 

the northern Gulf of Alaska to the eastern tropical Pacific (Carretta et al., 2017c). Based on habitat 

models derived from line-transect survey data collected between 1991 and 2009 off the U.S. west coast, 

relatively high densities of blue whales are predicted off southern California during the summer and fall 

(Barlow et al., 2009; Becker et al., 2010; Becker et al., 2016; Forney et al., 2012). Data from year-round 

surveys conducted off southern California from 2004 to 2013 show that the majority of blue whales 

were sighted in summer (62 sightings) and fall (9 sightings), with only single sightings in winter and 

spring (Campbell et al., 2015). In the Southern California Bight in summer and fall, the highest densities 

of blue whales occurred along the 200-m isobath in waters with high surface chlorophyll concentrations 

(Redfern et al., 2013). This species has also frequently been heard on passive acoustic recording devices 

in the Southern California portion of the Study Area (Širović et al., 2015b). Based on approximately 3 

million detections in the waters of the Southern California Bight between 2006 and 2012, Širović et al. 

(2015b) found that blue whale vocalizations were more common at coastal sites and near the northern 

Channel Islands and generally heard between June and January with a peak in September. There was 

large variation among blue whales tagged in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area with 

the distance to shore ranging from less than 1 km and up to 884.8 km and blue whale movement along 

the Pacific coastline extending south to just 7.4 degrees north latitude (just north of the equator and 

north to 50 degrees north latitude just off British Colombia, Canada (Mate et al., 2015a). Tagging data 

from blue whales in Southern California waters indicate the area of highest use for blue whales was 

between Point Dume and Mugu Canyon (north of the HSTT Study Area), out to approximately 30 km 

from shore (Mate et al., 2015a). 

Most blue whale sightings are in nearshore and continental shelf waters; however, blue whales 

frequently travel through deep oceanic waters during migration (Sirovic et al., 2004). Most baleen 

whales spend their summers feeding in productive waters near the higher latitudes and winters in the 

warmer waters at lower latitudes (Sirovic et al., 2004). Blue whales in the eastern north Pacific are 

known to migrate between higher latitude feeding grounds of the Gulf of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands 

to lower latitudes including Southern California, Baja California, Mexico and the Costa Rica Dome 

(Calambokidis & Barlow, 2004; Calambokidis et al., 2009a; Calambokidis et al., 2009b; Mate et al., 

2015a; Mate et al., 2016). The west coast is known to be a blue whale feeding area for the Eastern North 

Pacific stock during summer and fall (Bailey et al., 2009; Calambokidis et al., 2009a; Calambokidis et al., 

2015a; Mate et al., 2015c). Photographs of blue whales off California that have been matched to 

individuals photographed off the Queen Charlotte Islands in northern British Columbia and the northern 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-38

3.7 Marine Mammals

Gulf of Alaska (Calambokidis et al., 2009a) and satellite tag data has also demonstrated this link between 

these areas (Mate et al., 2015c). These animals have shown site fidelity, returning to their mother’s 

feeding grounds on their first migration (Calambokidis & Barlow, 2004).

There have been nine feeding areas identified for blue whales off the U.S. west coast (Calambokidis et 

al., 2015a). Of these nine, only four have overlap with the HSTT Study Area. Two of these feeding areas 

(the Santa Monica Bay to Long Beach feeding area and the San Nicolas Island feeding area) are at the 

extreme northern edge and slightly overlap with the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area.

The remaining two feeding areas (the Tanner-Cortes Bank and the San Diego feeding areas are entirely 

within the HSTT Study Area (see Calambokidis et al. (2015a)). The feeding behavior for which these areas 

are designated occurs from June to October (Aquatic Mammals, 2015b; Calambokidis et al., 2015a). The 

blue whale feeding areas identified in waters extending from Point Conception to the Mexico border 

represent only a fraction of the total area within those waters where habitat models predict high 

densities of blue whales (Calambokidis et al., 2015a). Additionally while those habitat models represent 

the areas tending to have the highest blue whale density when averaged over many years, the individual 

areas may not reflect the actual density present in any one given season or shorter time period

considered. For example, tagging efforts in July 2016 focusing on blue and fin whales had to be shifted 

north to Central California waters when the majority of blue, fin, and humpback whales encountered 

were found to be too thin or otherwise in poor body condition in Southern California waters (Oregon 

State University, 2017). In Central California waters, the researchers identified good numbers of blue, 

fin, and humpback whales in better condition and indicative of a good feeding area that was likely to be 

sustained (Oregon State University, 2017). Appendix K provides a detailed analysis of the potential 

effects of Navy training and testing on the identified blue whale feeding area. 

3.7.2.2.2.3 Population Trends

Widespread whaling over the last century is believed to have decreased the global blue whale 

population to approximately 1 percent of its pre-whaling population size (Branch, 2007; Monnahan, 

2013; Monnahan et al., 2014; Rocha et al., 2014; Sirovic et al., 2004). Off the Pacific Coast, there was a 

documented increase in the blue whale population size between 1979–80 and 1991 (Barlow, 1994) and 

between 1991 and 1996 (Barlow, 1997). Based on subsequent line-transect surveys conducted off the 

Pacific Coast between 2001 and 2005, the abundance estimates of blue whales appeared to decline in 

those waters over the survey period (Barlow & Forney, 2007). However, this apparent decline was likely 

due to variability in the distribution patterns of blue whales off the coast of North America rather than a 

true population decline (Barlow, 2010; Calambokidis et al., 2009a). Calambokidis et al. (2009a)

suggested that when feeding conditions off California are not optimal, blue whales may move to other 

regions to feed, including waters further north. A comparison of survey data from the 1990s to 2008 

indicates that there has been a northward shift in blue whale distribution within waters off California, 

Oregon, and Washington (Barlow, 2010; Širović et al., 2015b). Consistent with the earlier suggested 

variability in the distribution patterns, Carretta et al. (2013a) report that blue whales from the U.S. west 

coast have been increasingly found feeding to the north and south of the U.S. west coast during summer 

and fall. Subsequent mark-recapture estimates reported on by Calambokidis et al. (2009a), “indicated a 

significant upward trend in abundance of blue whales” at a rate of increase just under 3 percent per 

year for the U.S. west coast blue whale population in the Pacific (see also Calambokidis and Barlow 

(2013)). 

The most current information suggests that the population in the HSTT Study Area may have recovered 

and has been at a stable level following the cessation of commercial whaling in 1971 despite the impacts 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-39

3.7 Marine Mammals

of ship strikes, interactions with fishing gear, and increased levels of ambient sound in the Pacific Ocean 

(Campbell et al., 2015; Carretta et al., 2015; Monnahan, 2013; Monnahan et al., 2014; Širović et al., 

2015b). Based on a comparison of sighting records from the 1950s to 2012 in the Southern California

portion of the HSTT Study Area, Smultea and Jefferson (2014) determined that blue whales ranked sixth 

in occurrence which, “... represents a clear relative increase from historical records”.

3.7.2.2.2.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Blue whales feed almost exclusively on various types of zooplankton, especially krill (Jefferson et al., 

2015). In Southern California, tagged blue whales have been recorded feeding from the surface to 

depths approaching 300 m (Goldbogen et al., 2013). 

Blue whales have been documented to be preyed on by killer whales and 25 percent of photo-identified 

whales in the Gulf of California carry rake scars from killer whale attacks (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Pitman 

et al., 2007; Sears & Perrin, 2008).

3.7.2.2.2.5 Species-Specific Threats

Blue whales are susceptible to entanglement in fishing gear and ship strikes. Available data from NMFS 

indicate that, in waters off California between 1991 and 2010, there were 14 ship strikes involving blue 

whales (Berman-Kowalewski et al., 2010; Calambokidis et al., 2009a; Calambokidis, 2012; Laggner, 2009; 

Monnahan et al., 2015; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2011g). Between 2007 and 2011 in waters of 

the U.S. west coast, 10 blue whales died from vessel strikes (Carretta et al., 2013b; Carretta et al., 

2016b). There have been no Navy vessel strikes to blue whales in the last decade (2005–2015) (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2015c). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine 

mammals.

3.7.2.2.3 Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus)

3.7.2.2.3.1 Status and Management

The fin whale is listed as depleted under the MMPA and endangered under the ESA, but there is no 

designated critical habitat for this species. Fin whale population structure in the Pacific Ocean is not well 

known. During the 20th century more fin whale were taken by industrialized whaling than any other 

species (Rocha et al., 2014). In the North Pacific, NMFS recognizes three fin whale stocks: (1) a Northeast 

Pacific stock in Alaska; (2) a California, Oregon, and Washington stock; and (3) a Hawaii stock (Allen & 

Angliss, 2014; Carretta et al., 2014a). Although some fin whales migrate seasonally (Falcone et al., 2011; 

Mate et al., 2015a; Mate et al., 2016), NMFS does not recognize fin whales from the Northeast Pacific 

stock as being present in either Hawaii or Southern California. 

3.7.2.2.3.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The fin whale is found in all the world’s oceans and is the second largest species of whale (Jefferson et 

al., 2015). Fin whales prefer temperate and polar waters and are scarcely seen in warm, tropical waters 

(Reeves et al., 2002a). 

Fin whales are found in Hawaiian waters, but this species is considered to be rare in this portion of the 

Study Area (Carretta et al., 2010; Shallenberger, 1981). There are known sightings from Kauai, Oahu, 

Hawaii and a single stranding record from Maui, Hawaii (Mobley et al., 1996; Shallenberger, 1981; U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2011a). A single sighting was made during aerial surveys from 1993 to 1998, 

five sightings were made in offshore waters during a 2002 survey of waters within the Hawaiian 

Exclusive Economic Zone, and there were 2 fin whales sighted during a 2010 survey of the same area 

(Barlow, 2006; Bradford et al., 2017; Carretta et al., 2010; Mobley et al., 1996; Mobley et al., 2009). A 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-40

3.7 Marine Mammals

single juvenile fin whale was reported off Kauai during Navy sponsored marine mammal research in 

2010 (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011b). Based on sighting data and acoustic recordings, fin whales 

are likely to occur in Hawaiian waters mainly in fall and winter (Barlow et al., 2004; Barlow, 2006; Barlow 

et al., 2008; Klinck et al., 2015).

This species has been documented from 60° North (N) to 23° N and they have frequently been recorded 

in waters within the Southern California portion of the Study Area (Barlow & Forney, 2007; Campbell et 

al., 2015; Jefferson et al., 2014; Mate et al., 2016, 2017; Mizroch et al., 2009; Sirovic et al., 2004; Širović 

et al., 2015b; Širović et al., 2016; Smultea & Jefferson, 2014). As demonstrated by satellite tags and 

discovery tags2

, fin whales make long-range movements along the entire U.S. west coast (Falcone et al., 

2011; Mate et al., 2015c; Mizroch et al., 2009). However, photo-identification studies of fin whales off 

the U.S. west coast suggest that not all fin whales undergo long range seasonal migrations, but instead 

make short-range seasonal movements in spring and fall (Falcone et al., 2011; Falcone & Schorr, 2011). 

Six tags were deployed on fin whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area in August 

2014 (Mate et al., 2015a). The movements of these whales were highly variable ranging from less than 

1 km to approximately 232 km from the California coast, a core area generally north of the Southern 

California portion of HSTT Study Area, and moving as far north as the Oregon border with California and 

as far south as Central Baja Mexico (Mate et al., 2015a). Off the U.S. west coast, fin whales typically 

congregate in areas of high productivity. Fin whales are not known to have a specific habitat and is 

highly adaptable, following prey, typically off the continental shelf (Azzellino et al., 2008; Panigada et al., 

2008). 

Based on predictive habitat-based density models derived from line-transect survey data collected 

between 1991 and 2009 off the U.S. west coast, relatively high densities of fin whales are predicted off 

southern California during the summer and fall (Barlow et al., 2009; Becker et al., 2010; Becker et al., 

2012a; Becker et al., 2016; Forney et al., 2012). Aggregations of fin whales are present year-round in 

southern and central California (Campbell et al., 2015; Douglas et al., 2014b; Forney et al., 1995; Forney 

& Barlow, 1998; Jefferson et al., 2014), although their distribution shows seasonal shifts. Sightings from 

year-round surveys off southern California from 2004 to 2013 show fin whales farther offshore in 

summer and fall and closer to shore in winter and spring (Campbell et al., 2014; Douglas et al., 2014b).

As was done for other species, a scientific review process (Ferguson et al., 2015b) was undertaken to 

identify biologically important areas for fin whales occurring along the U.S. west coast. Survey data 

indicates that fin whale distributions shift both seasonally as well as annually (Calambokidis et al., 

2015a; Douglas et al., 2014b; Jefferson et al., 2014). Using available quantitative density and distribution 

mapping, the best available science, and expert elicitation, definitive areas of importance for fin whales 

could not be determined (Calambokidis et al., 2015a).

3.7.2.2.3.3 Population Trends

For Hawaii, no data are available on current population trends for fin whales (Carretta et al., 2015). 

For California, Moore and Barlow (2011) predict continued increases in fin whale numbers over the next 

decade, and suggest that fin whale densities are reaching “current ecosystem limits.” Based on a 

comparison of sighting records from the 1950s to 2012, Smultea and Jefferson (2014) also showed an 

 2 As a means of data collection starting in the 1930s, discovery tags having a serial number and return address

were shot into the blubber of the whale by scientists and if that whale was later harvested by the whaling industry

and the tag “discovered” during flensing, it could be sent back to the researchers providing data on the movement 

of individual whales.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-41

3.7 Marine Mammals

increase in the relative abundance of fin whales inhabiting the Southern California portion of the HSTT 

Study Area. Širović et al. (2015b) used passive acoustic monitoring of fin whale calls to estimate the 

spatial and seasonal distribution of fin whales in the Southern California Bight. An increase in the 

number of calls detected between 2006 and 2012 also suggests that the population of fin whales off the 

U.S. west coast may be increasing. Based on 18 aerial surveys conducted between 2008 and 2013, fin 

whales were one of the most common large whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area (Jefferson et al., 2014). These findings and the trend for an increase in population and appear 

consistent with the highest-yet abundances of fin whales in the most recent 2014 survey (Barlow, 2016).

3.7.2.2.3.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

This species preys on small invertebrates such as copepods as well as squid and schooling fishes, such as 

capelin, herring, and mackerel (Goldbogen et al., 2006; Jefferson et al., 2008a). The fin whale is not 

known to have a significant number of predators. However, in regions where killer whales are abundant, 

some fin whales exhibit attack scars on their flippers, flukes, and flanks suggesting predation by killer 

whales (Aguilar, 2009).

3.7.2.2.3.5 Species-Specific Threats

Fin whales are susceptible to both ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear. Available data from 

NMFS indicate that, in waters off California between 1991 and 2010, there were 11 reported ship strikes 

involving fin whales (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2011g) and from 2010 to 2014 along the U.S 

west coast there were 9 reported ship strikes to fin whales (Carretta et al., 2016b). In the HSTT Study 

Area for the 10-year period from 2007-2016, there were only two Navy ship strikes and both of these 

involved fin whales in Southern California in 2009. Based on reports from 2007 to 2014 for waters off 

the U.S. west Coast, a total of 4 fin whales were seriously injured by entanglement in fishing gear a

(Carretta et al., 2013b; Carretta et al., 2016b). Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer 

data, NMFS has estimated that the overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious 

injury to fin whales from this fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 

and 2015 (Carretta et al., 2017a). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine 

mammals.

3.7.2.2.4 Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis)

3.7.2.2.4.1 Status and Management

The sei whale is listed as endangered under the ESA and as depleted under the MMPA, but there is no 

designated critical habitat for this species. A recovery plan for the sei whale was completed in 2011 and 

provides a research strategy for obtaining data required to estimate population abundance and trends, 

and to identify factors that may be limiting the recovery of this species (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2011b). Sei whales in Hawaii are assigned to the Hawaii stock and along the U.S. west coast, the 

Eastern North Pacific stock is recognized within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone including the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area (Carretta et al., 2017c). 

3.7.2.2.4.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Sei whales have a worldwide distribution and are found primarily in cold temperate to subpolar 

latitudes. During the winter, sei whales are found in warm tropical waters like Hawaii. Sei whales are 

also encountered during the summer off California and the North America coast from approximately the 

latitude of the Mexican border to as far north as Vancouver Island Canada (Horwood, 2009; Masaki, 

1976, 1977; Smultea et al., 2010). Although sei whales have been observed south of 20° N in the winter 

(Fulling et al., 2011; Horwood, 2009; Horwood, 1987), they are considered absent or at very low 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-42

3.7 Marine Mammals

densities in most equatorial areas. Whaling data provide some evidence of differential migration 

patterns by reproductive class, with females arriving at and departing from feeding areas earlier than 

males (Horwood, 1987; Perry et al., 1999). 

Sei whales have only been detected in the Hawaiian Islands on a few occasions. Sei whales were not 

sighted during aerial surveys conducted within 25 NM of the main Hawaiian Islands from 1993 to 1998 

(Mobley et al., 2000). The first verified sei whale sighting made nearshore of the main Hawaiian Islands 

occurred in 2007 (Smultea et al., 2007; Smultea et al., 2010) and included the first subadults seen in the 

main Hawaiian islands. The presence of these subadults was cited as evidence suggesting that the area 

north of the main Hawaiian Islands may be part of a reproductive area for north Pacific sei whales 

(Smultea et al., 2010). A line-transect survey conducted in February 2009 by the Cetacean Research 

Program surrounding the Hawaiian Islands resulted in the sighting of three Bryde’s/sei whales. An 

additional sighting occurred in 2010 off Perret Seamount (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011b). On 

March 18, 2011 off Maui, the Hawaiian Islands Entanglement Response Network found a subadult sei 

whale entangled in rope and fishing gear (Bradford & Lyman, 2015; National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2011d). An attempt to disentangle the whale was unsuccessful although a telemetry buoy attached to 

the entangled gear was reported to be tracking the whale over 21 days as it moved north and over 250 

NM from the Hawaiian Islands. In December 2014, a passive acoustic recording device onboard an 

unmanned glider located to the south of Oahu detected very short, low-frequency downsweep 

vocalizations identified as potential sei whale calls and occurring occasionally during a period of 

approximately 2 weeks (Klinck et al., 2015).

Sei whales are distributed in offshore waters in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area 

(Carretta et al., 2017c). A total of 10 sei whale sightings were made during systematic ship surveys 

conducted off the U.S. west coast in summer and fall between 1991 and 2008 (Barlow, 2010), with an 

additional 14 groups sighted during a 2014 survey (Barlow, 2016). Sei whales were not seen in the 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area (or the larger Southern California Bight) during 15 

aerial surveys conducted from 2008 through 2012 (Smultea et al., 2014) or during any systematic ship 

surveys conducted by NMFS (Barlow, 2010, 2016). 

Sei whales are likely present in the Transit Corridor portion of the Study Area, and are seen at least as 

far south as 20° N into the North Pacific Gyre (Horwood, 2009; Horwood, 1987).

3.7.2.2.4.3 Population Trends

No data are available on current population trends for either stock of sei whales in the HSTT Study Area

(Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.2.4.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Feeding occurs primarily around dawn, which appears to be correlated with vertical migrations of prey 

species (Horwood, 2009). Unlike other rorquals, the sei whale skims to obtain its food, though, like other 

rorqual species, it does some lunging and gulping (Horwood, 2009). In the north Pacific, sei whales feed 

on a diversity of prey, including copepods, krill, fish [specifically sardines and anchovies], and 

cephalopods [squids, cuttlefish, octopuses] (Horwood, 2009; Nemoto & Kawamura, 1977). The 

dominant food for sei whales off California during June through August is the northern anchovy, while in 

September and October they eat mainly krill (Horwood, 2009; Rice, 1977). Sei whales, like other large 

baleen whales, are likely subject to occasional attacks by killer whales.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-43

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.2.4.5 Species-Specific Threats

In Hawaii in 2011, a subadult sei whale entangled in rope and fishing gear (Bradford & Lyman, 2015).

Based on the statistics for other large whales, it is likely that ship strikes also pose a threat to sei whales 

along the west coast (Carretta et al., 2017c). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general 

threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.2.5 Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus; Western North Pacific stock)

3.7.2.2.5.1 Status and Management

There are two north Pacific populations of gray whales: the Western subpopulation and the Eastern 

subpopulation (Weller et al., 2013). Both populations (stocks) could be present in the Southern 

California portion of the Study Area during their northward and southward migration (Mate et al., 

2015b; Sumich & Show, 2011). The Western subpopulation, which was previously also known as the 

western north Pacific or the Korean-Okhotsk population, has been designated the Western North Pacific 

stock (Carretta et al., 2017c; Cooke et al., 2015; Weller et al., 2002). This stock is critically endangered,

shows no apparent signs of recovery, and should be very rare in the Southern California portion of the 

HSTT Study Area given they are so few in number. The Eastern North Pacific stock (also known as the 

eastern north Pacific or the California-Chukchi population) has recovered from whaling exploitation and 

was delisted under the ESA in 1994 (Swartz et al., 2006). Discussion of the Eastern North Pacific stock of 

gray whales is presented in Section 3.7.2.3 (Species Not Listed under the Endangered Species Act). 

3.7.2.2.5.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Gray whales are not present in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area.

Gray whales of the Western North Pacific stock primarily occur in shallow waters over the U.S. west 

coast, Russian, and Asian continental shelfs and are considered to be one of the most coastal of the 

great whales (Jefferson et al., 2015; Jones & Swartz, 2009). Feeding grounds are generally less than 225 

ft. deep (Jones & Swartz, 2009). 

Some gray whales make the longest annual migration of any mammal, 15,000–20,000 km roundtrip 

(Jones & Swartz, 2009; Mate et al., 2013; Mate et al., 2015b; Weller et al., 2012b; Weller et al., 2013). 

The migration routes of the Western North Pacific stock of gray whales had previously been poorly 

known and sighting data suggested that the western gray whale population had a limited range extent 

between the Okhotsk Sea off the coast of Sakhalin Island and the South China Sea (Weller et al., 2002). 

However, subsequent long-term studies of radio-tracked whales, improved photographic identification, 

and genetic studies have since indicated that the coastal waters of eastern Russia, the Korean Peninsula, 

and Japan are part of Western North Pacific stock’s western Pacific migration route while other 

“Sakhalin” whales have been detected along the North American coast from British Columbia, Canada 

and as far south as and Baja California, Mexico (Mate et al., 2015b; Muir et al., 2016; Weller et al., 2002; 

Weller et al., 2012a; Weller et al., 2012b; Weller et al., 2013). NMFS has previously determined that 18 

western gray whales have been identified in waters far enough south to have passed through the HSTT 

Study Area (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014a).

Gray whales migrate between October–July (Calambokidis et al., 2015a) and are only present in the 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area while migrating through those waters. A year-long 

(2013-2014) survey effort in the nearshore waters off San Diego within the HSTT Study Area 

encountered gray whales in January, February, and in the April–June timeframe (Graham & Saunders, 

2015). For purposes of the analysis in this EIS/OEIS, it is assumed that very small percentage of migrating 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-44

3.7 Marine Mammals

gray whales could be individuals from the endangered Western North Pacific stock. The timing of the 

October–July gray whale migrations that pass through the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area can be loosely categorized into three phases (Calambokidis et al., 2015a; Jones & Swartz, 2009; 

Mate et al., 2013; Mate & Urban-Ramirez, 2003; Mate et al., 2015b; Rugh et al., 2008; Rugh et al., 2005). 

Calambokidis et al. (2015a) note these migration phases are not distinct, the timing for a phase may vary 

based on environmental variables, and that a migration phase typically begins with a rapid increase in 

migrating whales, followed by moderate numbers over a period of weeks, and then slowly tapering off. 

A southward migration from summer feeding areas off Sakhalin Island, in the Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea, 

Gulf of Alaska, and the Pacific Northwest begins in the fall (Calambokidis et al., 2015a; Mate et al., 2013; 

Mate et al., 2015b). This Southbound Phase includes all age classes as they migrate primarily to the 

nearshore waters and lagoons of Baja California, Mexico as a destination. During this southward 

migration from October through March, the whales generally are within 10 km of the coast 

(Calambokidis et al., 2015a) although there are documented exceptions where migrating gray whales 

have bypassed the coast by crossing sections of the open ocean (Mate & Urban-Ramirez, 2003; Mate et 

al., 2015b). In the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, migrating gray whales may 

deviate farther from the mainland as some are routinely seen near the Channel Islands and to the west 

of San Clemente Island (Sumich & Show, 2011). 

Consistent with the determinations made for the identification of the Biologically Important Area 

migration corridor phases, Navy assumed the northward migration to the northern feeding grounds (off 

Sakhalin Island for the Western North Pacific Stock) occurs in two phases just as has been determined 

for the Eastern North Pacific stock (Calambokidis et al., 2015a). As described for the U.S. west coast, the 

Northbound Phase A consists mainly of adults and juveniles that lead the beginning of the north-bound 

migration from late January through July, peaking in April through July. Northbound Phase A whales 

generally stay within 8 km of the coast (Calambokidis et al., 2015a). Newly pregnant females go first to 

maximize feeding time, followed by adult females and males, then juveniles (Jones & Swartz, 2009). The 

Northbound Phase B consists primarily of cow-calf pairs which begin their northward migration later 

(February to July) remaining on the reproductive grounds longer to allow calves to strengthen and 

rapidly increase in size before the northward migration (Jones & Swartz, 2009; Mate et al., 2010). 

Northbound Phase B gray whales with calves migrate closer to the coast than adults and juveniles,

staying generally within 5 km of the coast (Calambokidis et al., 2015a). Because some gray whales may 

take migration paths farther offshore, an additional potential presence migration corridor has been 

identified along the coast of North America out to 47 km from the coastline (Calambokidis et al., 2015a). 

The gray whale migration corridor, the potential presence migration buffer, and the months they are 

cumulatively in use (October through July) were identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015a) as areas that 

should be considered given the potential for human activities to impact this important seasonal 

migration behavior. While the identified migration areas have a southern boundary ending at the border 

with Mexico, Navy recognizes that gray migration routes extend beyond the currently identified areas 

and continue on outside of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (see Aquatic Mammals (2015b); Ferguson 

et al. (2015a); Van Parijs et al. (2015) regarding the limits to the areas identified). More details in this 

regard are presented in Appendix K. 

Unlike the remainder of the U.S. west coast where phases of migration occur within specific distances 

from the shore, in waters south of Point Conception in the Southern California Bight, the entire 

migration corridor is used during each migration phase (Calambokidis et al., 2015a). The following 

bullets provide the applicable season for the gray whale migration corridor and potential presence area 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-45

3.7 Marine Mammals

(as detailed in Calambokidis et al. (2015a)) within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area:

• Southbound – October–March

• Northbound Phase A – January–July; peaking April-July

• Northbound Phase B – March–July 

• Potential presence – October–July

Based on the identified migratory seasons, gray whales should only be absent from the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area in the August–September timeframe (Calambokidis et al., 

2015a). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s website containing data records for 

marine mammals from the Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Working Group (see Ferguson et 

al. (2015a)) shows the recorded presence of gray whales in the Southern California Bight in every month 

of the year except June, October and November. As a result of the Cetacean Density and Distribution 

Mapping Working Group records and area specific surveys, Navy assumes that gray whales could be 

migrating through the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area between the months of 

December through September; 10 months of the year.

Gray whales are generally slow-moving animals (Jefferson et al., 2015). Migrating gray whales 

sometimes exhibit a unique “snorkeling” behavior, whereby they surface cautiously, exposing only the 

area around the blowhole, exhale quietly without a visible blow, and sink silently beneath the surface 

(Jones & Swartz, 2009). Mate and Urban-Ramirez (2003) reported an average gray whale speed of 

approximately 5.2 km per hour (km/hr.) based on a tagged migrating animal. Subsequent satellite tag 

data from seven additional gray whales provided by Mate et al. (2015b) showed migration swim speeds 

ranged from 0.6 km/hr. to 6.6 km/hr., which remains within the average previously suggested. At this 

average swim speed, and based on the three main migration routes presented in (Sumich & Show, 

2011), it should take approximately 24–36 hours for a gray whale to cross through the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area (a distance of approximately 130–250 km). It is assumed they 

will do this transit across the HSTT Study Area twice a year during their annual southbound and 

northbound migration legs. A more detailed analysis of the gray whale migration area within the 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area is presented in Appendix K. 

3.7.2.2.5.3 Population Trends

The Western North Pacific subpopulation of gray whale was once considered extinct but now small 

numbers are known to exist (Carretta et al., 2017c; Cooke et al., 2015; International Union for 

Conservation of Nature, 2012; International Whaling Commission, 2014; Mate et al., 2015b; Weller et 

al., 2013). There are no current population trend data available at this time (Carretta et al., 2017c), 

however, previous data on population growth indicated a positive growth of roughly 2.5 to 3.2 percent 

per year (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014a). As noted previously, 18 western gray whales have 

been identified in waters far enough south to have passed through the HSTT Study Area (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2014a). 

3.7.2.2.5.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Gray whales are primarily bottom feeders. Their prey includes a wide range of invertebrates living on or 

near the seafloor; these occur during the summer in dense colonies on the continental shelf seafloor of 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-46

3.7 Marine Mammals

arctic regions (Swartz et al., 2006). The whales filter amphipods and other crustaceans with their baleen 

plates. The whales carry most of the sediment with them when they surface to breathe, creating mud 

plumes in their wake (Jefferson et al., 2015; Jones & Swartz, 2009). Gray whales occasionally engulf 

fishes, herring eggs, cephalopods, and crab larvae (Jefferson et al., 2015; Jones & Swartz, 2009; Newell & 

Cowles, 2006). Although generally fasting during the migration and calving season, opportunistic feeding 

(on whatever food is available) may occur in or near the calving lagoons or in the shallow coastal waters 

along the migration path (Jones & Swartz, 2009). During the feeding season, an adult gray whale is 

known to consume approximately 1,200 kilograms (kg) of food daily (Jones & Swartz, 2009).

The gray whale is preyed on by killer whales. Many individuals exhibit attack scars indicating not all 

attacks are fatal, however fatalities are known. Killer whales target calves during the spring migration 

into colder northern waters (Jones & Swartz, 2009) and includes killer whale predation of gray whales as 

has been documented in California waters off Monterey (PHYSORG, 2017).

3.7.2.2.5.5 Species-Specific Threats

Gray whales have historically been harvested by subsistence hunters in Alaska and Russia. The 

International Whaling Commission sets catch limits on the annual subsistence harvest for these areas. 

For example, the Chukotka indigenous hunters (located on the Chukchi Peninsula) took a total of 127 

gray whales in 2013 (Ilyashenko & Zharikov, 2014). In 2010, a gray whale discovered dead onshore in 

Humboldt, California had two embedded harpoons in its flesh; one of these harpoons had 10 meters of 

rope attached (Carretta et al., 2016b).

Gray whales are also susceptible to entanglement in fishing gear and ship strikes. Based on photographic 

data of western gray whales on their feeding ground off Sakhalin Island (Russia), approximately 19 

percent of whales in the sample had detectable anthropogenic scarring resulting from fishing gear 

entanglement (Bradford et al., 2009). Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, 

NMFS has estimated that the overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious 

injury to gray whales from this fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 

and 2015 (Carretta et al., 2017a). Based on reports from 2000 to 2010, a total of 22 gray whales were 

entangled in fishing gear off California, 16 of which were reported within the Southern California Bight 

(Carretta et al., 2013a; Saez et al., 2012). From 2010–2014 off the U.S. west coast, there were 47 

observed fishing related entanglements of gray whales (Carretta et al., 2016b). Unpublished data 

obtained from NMFS indicated 72 gray whale stranded in California between 2010-2015; 6 of those 

occurred in San Diego County (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016g). This data provided does not 

attribute cause to these strandings which could have arisen from any number of natural causes 

(predation, starvation, etc.) or from anthropogenic causes (such as marine debris entanglement). Of 

note, approximately 32 percent of the strandings between 2010–2015 occurred in 2015 during a period 

of eastern Pacific elevated sea surface temperatures prior to onset of an extreme El Niño. None of the 

six San Diego County strandings nor any of the other California gray whale strandings corresponded with 

any Navy activities in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. 

Available data from NMFS indicate that, in waters off California between 1991 and 2010, there were 30 

reported ship strikes involving gray whales (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2011g); from 2010–2014, 

there were 7 reported gray whale ship strikes (Carretta et al., 2016b). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats)

discusses general threats to marine mammals.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-47

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.2.6 Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus)

3.7.2.2.6.1 Status and Management 

The sperm whale has been listed as endangered since 1970 under the precursor to the ESA (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2009a), and is depleted under the MMPA, but there is no designated critical 

habitat for this species in the North Pacific. Sperm whales are divided into three stocks in the Pacific; 

two (Hawaii and California/Oregon/Washington) occur within the Study Area. Based on genetic 

analyses, Mesnick et al. (2011) found that sperm whales in the California Current are demographically 

independent from animals in Hawaii and the eastern tropical Pacific.

3.7.2.2.6.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The sperm whale’s range occurs throughout the entire Study Area. Primarily, this species is typically 

found in the temperate and tropical waters of the Pacific (Rice, 1989). The secondary range includes the 

areas of higher latitudes in the northern part of the Study Area (Jefferson et al., 2015; Whitehead & 

Weilgart, 2000; Whitehead et al., 2008; Whitehead, 2009). This species appears to have a preference for 

deep waters (Baird et al., 2013c; Jefferson et al., 2015). Typically, sperm whale concentrations correlate 

with areas of high productivity. These areas are generally near drop offs and areas with strong currents 

and steep topography (Gannier & Praca, 2007; Jefferson et al., 2015).

Sperm whales occur in Hawaii waters and are one of the more abundant large whales found in that 

region (Baird et al., 2003b; Barlow, 2006; Bradford et al., 2017; Mobley et al., 2000). A total of 21 sperm 

whale sightings were made during a summer/fall 2002 shipboard survey of waters within the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone of the Hawaiian Islands, although only four of these sightings were around the 

Main Hawaiian Islands (Barlow, 2006). During a follow-up survey conducted in 2010, there were 41 

sperm whale sightings, mainly concentrated in the northwestern portion of the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone of the Hawaiian Islands (Bradford et al., 2017). Based on predictive habitat-based density models 

derived from line-transect survey data collected between 1997 and 2012 within the central North 

Pacific, relatively high densities of sperm whales are predicted within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

of the Hawaiian Islands during the summer and fall, particularly in the northwest (Forney et al., 2015). In 

2015, acoustic detections of sperm whales occurred over the abyssal plain to the south of Oahu and did 

not seem to be related to bathymetric features such as seamounts (Klinck et al., 2015).

Sperm whales are found year round in California waters, but their abundance is temporally variable, 

most likely due to the availability of prey species (Barlow, 1995; Barlow & Forney, 2007; Forney & 

Barlow, 1993; Smultea & Jefferson, 2014). Based on habitat models derived from line-transect survey 

data collected between 1991 and 2008 off the U.S. west coast, sperm whales show an apparent 

preference for deep waters (Barlow et al., 2009; Becker et al., 2010; Becker et al., 2012a; Forney et al., 

2012). During quarterly ship surveys conducted off southern California between 2004 and 2008, there 

were a total of 20 sperm whale sightings, the majority (12) occurring in summer in waters greater than 

2,000 m deep (Douglas et al., 2014b). Only one sperm whale group was observed during 18 aerial 

surveys conducted in the Southern California Bight from 2008 through 2012 (Smultea et al., 2014). Their 

distribution is typically associated with waters over the continental shelf break, over the continental 

slope, and into deeper waters (Carretta et al., 2017c; Rice, 1989; Whitehead, 2003; Whitehead et al., 

2008).

Sperm whales are somewhat migratory. General shifts occur during summer months for feeding and 

breeding, while in some tropical areas, sperm whales appear to be largely resident (Rice, 1989; 

Whitehead, 2003; Whitehead et al., 2008; Whitehead, 2009). Pods of females with calves remain on 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-48

3.7 Marine Mammals

breeding grounds throughout the year, between 40° N and 45° N (Rice, 1989; Whitehead, 2003), while 

males migrate between low-latitude breeding areas and higher-latitude feeding grounds (Pierce et al., 

2007). In the northern hemisphere, “bachelor” groups (males typically 15 to 21 years old and bulls 

[males] not taking part in reproduction) generally leave warm waters at the beginning of summer and 

migrate to feeding grounds that may extend as far north as the perimeter of the arctic zone. In fall and 

winter, most return south, although some may remain in the colder northern waters during most of the 

year (Pierce et al., 2007).

3.7.2.2.6.3 Population Trends

Moore and Barlow (2014) used a Bayesian hierarchical approach to examine sperm whale population 

abundance and trends based on line-transect surveys conducted off the U.S. west coast from 1991 to 

2008. Although an estimate of trends was not conclusive, they found that the abundance of adult male 

sperm whales has increased (Moore & Barlow, 2014).

3.7.2.2.6.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Sperm whales are known to occur in groups for both predator defense and foraging purposes. Sperm 

whales feed on squid, other cephalopods, and bottom-dwelling fish and invertebrates (Davis et al., 2007; 

Marcoux et al., 2007; Rice, 1989). The sperm whale is the only large whale that uses sound echolocation 

to find prey. 

False killer whales, pilot whales, and killer whales have been documented harassing and on occasion 

attacking sperm whales (Baird, 2009b).

3.7.2.2.6.5 Species-Specific Threats

Sperm whales are susceptible to entanglement in fishing gear and ship strikes. Bradford and Lyman 

(2015) recorded one observed interaction between a sperm whale and longline fishing in Hawaiian 

waters. Based on reports from 2010 to 2014, a total of five sperm whales were entangled in fishing gear 

off the U.S. Pacific west coast (Carretta et al., 2016b). Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery 

observer data, NMFS has estimated that the overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality 

or serious injury to sperm whales from that fishery was 0.7 based on observed bycatch for the period 

between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 2017a). Available data from NMFS indicate that in waters off 

the U.S. Pacific west coast between 2010 and 2014, there was one reported ship strike involving a sperm 

whale in 2012 and (Carretta et al., 2016b). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats 

to marine mammals.

3.7.2.2.7 False Killer Whale (Pseudorca crassidens; Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock)

3.7.2.2.7.1 Status and Management 

Not much is known about most false killer whale populations globally. NMFS currently recognizes three 

stocks of false killer whale in Hawaiian waters: the Hawaii pelagic stock, the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands stock, and the Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock (Bradford et al., 2012; Bradford et al., 2015; 

Carretta et al., 2015; Forney et al., 2010; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012; 

Oleson et al., 2010). The Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock (considered resident to the main Hawaiian 

Islands consisting of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe, Maui, and Hawaii) is listed as endangered 

as a Distinct Population Segment under the ESA (Carretta et al., 2017c). The other two stocks of false 

killer whales in Hawaii, which are not listed under the Endangered Species Act, are discussed within 

subsequent Section 3.7.2.3 (Species Not Listed under the Endangered Species Act). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-49

3.7 Marine Mammals

Because of this species’ historic decline in numbers, NMFS proposed listing the Main Hawaiian Islands 

insular false killer whales as endangered on 17 November 2010 and published the Final Rule listing the 

Distinct Population Segment as endangered on 28 November 2012, effective as of 28 December 2012 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012b). As required by the MMPA, a Take Reduction Team was 

formed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to conduct a status review with the 

goals of reducing mortality and serious injury to this population (Oleson et al., 2010). The final rule 

implementing the resulting Take Reduction Plan was published 29 November 2012 (National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, 2012). The Take Reduction Plan specified longline fishing gear 

requirements, longline closure areas, training and certification for fishing vessel owners and captains in 

marine mammal handling and release, captains’ supervision of marine mammal handling and release, 

and posting of placards on longline fishing vessels. Critical habitat has not yet been designated for this 

species, and a recovery plan is still under development (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2017a).

3.7.2.2.7.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The false killer whale is regularly found within Hawaiian waters and has been reported in groups of up to 

100 over a wide range of depths and distance from shore (Baird et al., 2003b; Baird et al., 2013a; 

Bradford et al., 2012; Bradford et al., 2015; Bradford et al., 2017; Oleson et al., 2013; Shallenberger, 

1981).

The ranges and stock boundary descriptions for false killer whales in the Hawaiian Islands are complex 

and overlapping (Bradford et al., 2015; Bradford et al., 2017). For example, all three stocks are known to 

overlap in the vicinity of Kauai and Niihau, which is where the Navy’s underwater instrumented range

offshore of Pacific Missile Range Facility has been operating since the 1980s. All significant information 

regarding the range of the three stocks (as of September 2015) was presented in Bradford et al. (2015). 

Carretta et al. (2015), provided a summary of the data used to delineate the stock boundaries, 

summarized the research supporting that data, and provided a synthesis in the Pacific Stock Assessment 

Report that is summarized as follows for the Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock of false killer whales. 

Individuals from this stock have been satellite tracked as far as 115 km from the main Hawaiian Islands 

(Baird et al., 2015e). The Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock boundary is a 72-km radius extending 

around the main Hawaiian Islands, with the offshore extent of the radii connected on the leeward sides 

of Hawaii Island and Niihau to encompass the offshore movements of Main Hawaiian Islands insular 

stock animals within that region. The waters outside of 11 km from shore from Oahu to Hawaii Island 

and out to the Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock boundary are an overlap zone between the Main 

Hawaiian Islands insular stock and Hawaii pelagic stock. In the waters around Kauai and Niihau there is 

also overlap between animals from the Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock and the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands stock. 

A year-round Small and Resident Population area for the main Hawaiian Islands insular stock of false 

killer whales has been identified (Baird et al., 2015a). Satellite tag locations from 22 individuals from the 

stock were mapped to grid cells. Those grid cells having a density greater than one standard deviation of 

the mean were considered “high-use areas” and a boundary drawn around them then constituted the 

identified Small and Resident Population area for the stock. A more detailed analysis of the area has 

been presented in Appendix K. 

False killer whales are not expected to be present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area for the reasonably foreseeable future and the species is not included by NMFS as a managed 

species in California waters (Carretta et al., 2017c). A nearshore marine mammal survey off San Diego in 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-50

3.7 Marine Mammals

March 2014 detected a false killer whale pod (Graham & Saunders, 2015). This species normally prefers 

warmer tropical waters found outside of Southern California and the presence of this species to the 

north of its usual habitat was likely due to the warmer than normal water temperatures associated with 

a known El Niño event.

3.7.2.2.7.3 Population Trends

Reeves et al. (2009) suggested that the Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock declined between 1989 and 

2009. There are no data available for the current population trend for Main Hawaiian Islands Insular 

stock (Carretta et al., 2015). 

3.7.2.2.7.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

False killer whales feed primarily on deep-sea cephalopods and fish (Odell & McClune, 1999). They may 

prefer large fish species, such as mahi mahi and tunas. Consistent with that generalization, four Main 

Hawaiian Island Insular false killer whales found stranded in Hawaii from 2010 through 2016 had

stomach contents that included prey items from various squid, yellowfin tuna, mahi mahi, jack, marlin, 

and bonefish (West, 2016). 

False killer whales have been observed to attack other cetaceans, including dolphins and large whales, 

such as humpback and sperm whales (Baird, 2009a). They are known to behave aggressively toward 

small cetaceans in tuna purse seine nets. Unlike other whales or dolphins, false killer whales frequently 

pass prey back and forth among individuals before they start to eat the fish, in what appears to be a way 

of affirming social bonds (Baird et al., 2010b). This species is believed to be preyed on by large sharks 

and killer whales (Baird, 2009a). 

3.7.2.2.7.5 Species-Specific Threats

Like many marine mammals, false killer whales accumulate high levels of toxins in their blubber over the 

course of their long lives, but the consequence of that bioaccumulation remains unknown. Because false 

killer whales feed on large prey at the top of the food chain (e.g., squid, tunas) they may be impacted by 

competition with fisheries (Cascadia Research Collective, 2010). In Hawaiian waters, false killer whales 

are particularly susceptible to fishery interactions and entanglements (Baird et al., 2015e; Bradford & 

Forney, 2016). A historic decline in the Main Hawaiian Islands insular population has been the result of 

various non-Navy factors that include the small population size of this stock and incidental take by 

commercial fisheries (Bradford & Forney, 2016; Oleson et al., 2010; Reeves et al., 2009). From 2010 to 

2014 there were 28 false killer whales observed interacting with the deep-set and shallow–set fisheries 

in the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone (Bradford & Forney, 2017). Based on the number of false killer 

whale incidentally taken by commercial fisheries during 2014, a rough approximation of the 2014 total 

mortality and serious injury was 27 false killer whales (Carretta et al., 2017c). There were four strandings 

of Main Hawaiian Island Insular false killer whales in the Hawaiian Islands in the 5-year period between 

the start of 2010 and the end of 2016 (West, 2016). Two of these stranded animals had fishing gear 

(fishhooks, leaders, line) found within the stomach contents examined during necropsy (West, 2016). 

Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.2.8 Guadalupe Fur Seal (Arctocephalus townsendi)

3.7.2.2.8.1 Status and Management

The Guadalupe fur seal is listed as threatened under the ESA and depleted under the MMPA. Critical 

habitat for the Guadalupe fur seal has not been designated given that the only areas that meet the 

definition for critical habitat are outside of U.S. jurisdiction (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-51

3.7 Marine Mammals

Administration, 1985). Guadalupe fur seals were hunted nearly to extinction during the 1800s. The last 

NMFS status review of the Guadalupe fur seals was conducted in 1984 but with the recent population 

growth and increase in distribution NMFS has initiated a new status review (Fahy, 2015). All individuals 

alive today are recent descendants from one breeding colony at Isla Guadalupe and Isla San Benito off 

Mexico and are considered a single stock (Carretta et al., 2017c; Pablo-Rodriguez et al., 2015).

3.7.2.2.8.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The Guadalupe fur seal is typically found on shores with abundant large rocks, often at the base of large 

cliffs. They are also known to inhabit caves, which provide protection and cooler temperatures, 

especially during the warm breeding season (Belcher & Lee, 2002). Adult males, juveniles, and 

nonbreeding females may live at sea during some seasons or for part of a season (Reeves et al., 1992). 

Several observations suggest that this species travels alone or in small groups of fewer than five (Belcher 

& Lee, 2002; Seagars, 1984).

Before intensive hunting decreased their numbers, Guadalupe fur seals ranged from Monterey Bay, 

California, to the Revillagigedo Islands, Mexico (Aurioles-Gamboa et al., 2010). Guadalupe fur seals are 

most common at Guadalupe Island, Mexico, their primary breeding ground (Melin & DeLong, 1999). A 

second rookery was found in 1997 at the San Benito Islands off Baja California (Aurioles-Gamboa et al., 

2010; Esperon Rodriguez & Gallo Reynoso, 2012; Maravilla-Chavez & Lowry, 1999) and they have been 

found in La Paz Bay in the Southern Gulf of California (Elorriaga-Verplancken et al., 2016). Adult and 

juvenile males have been observed at San Miguel Island, California, since the mid-1960s, and in the late 

1990s, a pup was born on the island (Melin & DeLong, 1999). Sightings have also occurred at Santa 

Barbara, San Nicolas, and San Clemente Islands (Stewart, 1981). Documentation of apparently healthy 

Guadalupe fur seals in offshore waters of Washington and British Columbia, the increased number of 

strandings in the Pacific Northwest, the increase in ocean temperature of the Northeastern Pacific, and 

their increasing population suggest that Guadalupe fur seals may be reinhabiting the extent of their 

previous range (Etnier, 2002; Lamborne et al., 2013).

Guadalupe fur seals are not found in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area.

Guadalupe fur seals can be found in both deeper waters of the open ocean and coastal waters within 

the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area (Hanni et al., 1997; Jefferson et al., 2015). The 

southern edge of the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area is within a few nautical miles of 

Guadalupe Island. Given the lack of at-sea sightings by NMFS, the majority of Guadalupe fur seals are 

anticipated to be more coastal and near-shore in distribution in the Study Area. 

The movements of Guadalupe fur seals at sea are generally unknown although there are limited data 

from females and rehabilitated animals (Gallo-Reynoso et al., 2008; Norris et al., 2015). These data 

indicate that Guadalupe fur seals may migrate at least 600 km from their rookery sites, based on 

observations of individuals in the Southern California Bight (Seagars, 1984; Stewart, 1981; Stewart et al., 

1993) and the use of time depth data loggers (Gallo-Reynoso et al., 2008; Norris et al., 2015). Females 

with pups are generally restricted to rookery areas because they must return to nurse their pups, 

however, data from rehabilitated Guadalupe fur seals released with satellite tags show that while most 

individuals remained within or near the continental shelf, two adult females were tracked moving more 

than 300 km off shore (Norris et al., 2015). Males typically undertake some form of seasonal movement 

either after the breeding season or during the winter, when prey availability is reduced (Arnould, 2009). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-52

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.2.8.3 Population Trends

The most recent stock assessment report (Carretta et al., 2017c) reflects the population of Guadalupe 

fur seals from a survey in 1994, which indicated the population had been increasing exponentially at an 

average annual growth rate of 13.7 percent; there are no more recent data in this regard. 

3.7.2.2.8.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Guadalupe fur seals feed on a variety of cephalopods, fish, and crustaceans (Aurioles-Gamboa & 

Camacho-Rios, 2007). In the San Benito Islands, and possibly at Guadalupe Island, and the offshore 

waters of California, Guadalupe fur seals primarily feed on cephalopods (Aurioles-Gamboa & CamachoRios, 2007). Guadalupe fur seals predominantly forage at night to take advantage of prey migrating 

vertically through the water column (Arnould, 2009; Gallo-Reynoso et al., 2008; Ronald & Gots, 2003). 

Females have been observed feeding in the California Current south of Guadalupe Island and making an 

average round trip of 2,375 km (Arnould, 2009; Gallo-Reynoso et al., 2008; Ronald & Gots, 2003).

Guadalupe fur seals are known to be preyed on by sharks and killer whales (Belcher & Lee, 2002; 

Jefferson et al., 2015).

3.7.2.2.8.5 Species-Specific Threats

Carretta et al. (2013b) reported six deaths and nine serious injuries to Guadalupe fur seals along the U.S. 

west coast from 2007 to 2011 due to human-related causes (primarily marine debris entanglement). In 

2015 an Unusual Mortality Event was declared for Guadalupe fur seal (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2015f; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017b). The 80 strandings in 2015 were 

approximately eight times higher than the historical average, occurred along the entire coast of 

California, consisted of mostly weaned pups and juveniles in the one to two year age-range, and 

included animals in distress but alive as well as dead individuals. Findings from the majority of these 

stranded Guadalupe fur seals were that they were malnourished and had secondary bacterial and 

parasitic infections (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015f). It is likely that a shift in the prey may have 

resulting in these young animals being unable to obtain adequate food due to anomalously persistent 

warm ocean conditions (Bond et al., 2015). This Unusual Mortality Event continues as of May 2017; 

there were seven Guadalupe fur seal strandings in April 2017 for a total of approximately 20 as of that 

date (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017b). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats)

discusses general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.2.9 Hawaiian Monk Seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi)

3.7.2.2.9.1 Status and Management 

The Hawaiian monk seal was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1976 (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 1976) and is listed as depleted under the MMPA. The species is considered a high priority for 

recovery, based on the high magnitude of threats, the high recovery potential, and the potential for 

economic conflicts while implementing recovery actions (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007c, 

2011c, 2016j). Hawaiian monk seals are managed as a single stock. There are six main reproductive 

subpopulations at: French Frigate Shoals, Laysan Island, Lisianski Island, Pearl and Hermes Reef, Midway 

Island, and Kure Atoll in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. There are small numbers of monk seals also 

occurring at across the main Hawaiian Islands. In 2013 there were an estimated minimum of 179

individuals in the main Hawaiian Islands and the total population based on those counted in the 

Northwest Hawaiian Islands is estimated to be 909 individuals (Carretta et al., 2017c). The approximate 

area encompassed by the northwestern Hawaiian Islands was designated as the Papahanaumokuakea 

National Marine Monument in 2006, in part to protect the habitat of the Hawaiian monk seal.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-53

3.7 Marine Mammals

A recovery plan for the Hawaiian monk seal was completed in 1983 and is currently undergoing revision

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007c, 2011c, 2016j). Due to the proximity of the Hawaiian monk 

seal to human development, commerce, recreation, and culture, the 2007 revised Recovery Plan 

included a recommendation to develop a management specifically addressing issues in the main 

Hawaiian Islands (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007c). In response to that recommendation, a 

“Main Hawaiian Islands Monk Seal Management Plan” was developed (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2016j). 

Critical habitat for Hawaiian monk seals, as shown on Figure 3.7-2, was completed 21 August 2015 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015a). The essential features of the critical habitat 

were identified as: (1) areas with characteristics preferred by monk seals for pupping and nursing; (2) 

shallow, sheltered aquatic areas adjacent to coastal locations preferred by monk seals for pupping and 

nursing; (3) marine areas from 0 to 500 m in depth preferred by juvenile and adult monk seals for 

foraging; (4) areas with low levels of anthropogenic disturbance; (5) marine areas with adequate prey 

quantity and quality; and (6) significant areas used by monk seals for hauling out, resting, or molting 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015a). 

Figure 3.7-2: Hawaiian Monk Seal Critical Habitat

Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA precludes military land from a Critical Habitat designation, where that land is 

covered by an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan if the Secretary of Commerce has found 

that plan will benefit the listed species (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015a). 

Within the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, the Pacific Missile Range 

Facility and Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam overlap with areas that were under consideration for monk 

seal critical habitat (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015a). Those considerations for 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-54

3.7 Marine Mammals

the Pacific Missile Range Facility include Kaula Island and coastal and marine areas out to 10 m in depth 

around the island of Niihau, which are leased for naval training and testing activities, and considerations 

for Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam include beach or nearshore areas of Oahu that include Nimitz Beach, 

White Plains Beach, the Naval Defensive Sea Area, the Barbers Point Underwater Range, and the Ewa 

Training Minefield. These lands and areas are managed by the military and have INRMPs that were 

reviewed in accordance with Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA. As detailed in National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (2015a), these military areas were not designated as critical habitat 

because they either lack the features that are essential to monk seal conservation, or they were

precluded from designation under Section 4(a)(3) of the ESA as ineligible under a finding by the 

Secretary of Commerce. 

The Pacific Island Regional Office of NMFS has the lead responsibility for the recovery of Hawaiian monk 

seals under the ESA and the MMPA. Since the early 1980s, NMFS has routinely applied flipper tags to 

weaned pups in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Antonelis et al., 2006). NMFS performed capture 

and release programs through the Head Start Program between 1981 and 1991, “to enhance the 

survival of young females and thereby increase their subsequent recruitment into the adult female 

population.” From 1984 to 1995, under NMFS’s Rehabilitation Project, undersized, weaned female pups 

from French Frigate Shoals and, in some cases, undersized juvenile females, were brought into captivity 

for 8 to 10 months on Oahu to increase their weight. They were then released into the wild at either 

Kure Atoll or Midway Islands, where they had a higher probability of survival (Antonelis et al., 2006). 

Because some males were injuring female seals, in July and August of 1994, 21 adult male Hawaiian 

monk seals that were known aggressors or that behaved like aggressors were relocated from Laysan 

Island to the main Hawaiian Islands (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009b). NMFS relocated three 

female monk seals (a juvenile in 1981, a pup in 1991, and an adult in 2009) from the main Hawaiian 

Islands to the northwestern Hawaiian Islands (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009b).

The State of Hawaii also has important responsibilities for monk seal conservation and recovery. It owns 

Kure Atoll and has jurisdiction over waters between the reserve boundary and 3 NM around all 

emergent lands in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands (except Midway) (Marine Mammal Commission, 

2003). In March 2007, the State of Hawaii put new regulations into place to restrict the use of lay nets 

on Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Kauai, and Niihau and prohibited lay net use in state waters around the entire 

island of Maui and certain areas on Oahu (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010c). In 2008, in hopes of 

raising awareness about the plight of the species, Hawaii’s Lieutenant Governor signed into law 

legislation that established the Hawaiian monk seal as the official state mammal.

When seals are reported on beaches in the main islands, NMFS works with state and local agencies to 

cordon off sections of beach around the seals. NMFS also relies on volunteer groups to observe seals 

and educate the public about their endangered status and protection measures. On Oahu, the Hawaiian 

Monk Seal Response Team Oahu is a team of over 50 volunteers who routinely assist National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Pacific Island Regional Office and the Pacific Island Fisheries 

Science Center in monk seal response issues. Monk seal response programs also exist on Kauai, Maui 

and the Big Island, with some reporting from Molokai and Lanai (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2010c).

3.7.2.2.9.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Hawaiian monk seals are generally only present in the main Hawaiian Islands and Northwest Hawaiian 

Islands, but sightings have been reported at Johnston Atoll, Wake Island, and Palmyra Atoll (south of the 

Hawaiian Island chain; (Carretta et al., 2010; Gilmartin & Forcada, 2009; Jefferson et al., 2015; National 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-55

3.7 Marine Mammals

Marine Fisheries Service, 2009b, 2010b)). The six main breeding sites are in the northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands: Kure Atoll, Midway Islands, Pearl and Hermes Reef, Lisianski Island, Laysan Island, and French 

Frigate Shoals. Smaller breeding sites are on Necker Island and Nihoa Island, and monk seals have been 

observed at Gardner Pinnacles and Maro Reef. There is a small breeding population of monk seals found 

throughout the main Hawaiian Islands and births have been documented on most of the major islands, 

especially Kauai and Niihau (Gilmartin & Forcada, 2009; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007c, 

2010b). Based on one study, on average, 10 to 15 percent of the monk seals migrate among the 

northwestern Hawaiian Islands and the main Hawaiian Islands (Carretta et al., 2010). Another source 

suggests that approximately 35 percent of the main Hawaiian Island seals travel between islands 

throughout the year (Littnan, 2011). Greater than expected movement between sites within the main 

Hawaiian Islands and the northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Johanos et al., 2014), has allowed for genetic 

conductivity between Hawaiian monk seal subpopulations (Schultz et al., 2011).

When hauled out, Hawaiian monk seals seem to prefer beaches of sand, coral rubble, and rocky terraces 

(Baker et al., 2006; Jefferson et al., 2015). Consistent with ten previous detections of monk seals at 

Kaula Island, in 2012 there were three individual monk seals were observed hauled out on the rock 

ledge on the NW side of the island (Richie et al., 2012). Aerial surveys of Kaula Island from April 2013 

through March 2016 continued to document monk seals routinely hauled out on the rocky ledges at the 

edge of the island, numbering between five and 11 monk seals seen on each of the six surveys 

(Normandeau Associates & APEM, 2013a, 2013b, 2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2016). 

In the Main Hawaiian Islands, monk seals are generally solitary and have no established rookeries unlike 

pinnipeds in Southern California. Hawaiian monk seals do, however, routinely haul out for molting and 

pupping in locations including at the Navy’s Pacific Missile Range Facility, Pearl Harbor, and other 

military lands. When foraging, monk seals spend most of their time in nearshore, shallow marine 

habitats, but can rapidly cover large areas in search of food and may travel hundreds of miles in a few 

days (D'Amico, 2013; Littnan, 2011; Stewart et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 2012). 

From 1996-2002 and in an effort to better understand the range of foraging monk seals, Stewart et al. 

(2006) used satellite-linked radio transmitters to document the movements of 147 Hawaiian monk seals 

from all six northwestern Hawaiian Islands breeding colonies. Foraging patterns were complex and 

varied among colonies by season, age and sex, but in general monk seals were found to forage 

extensively within the atoll barrier reefs and on the leeward slopes of reefs and islands at all colony 

sites. They also ranged away from these sites along the Hawaiian Islands submarine ridge to most

nearby seamounts and submerged reefs and banks (Stewart et al., 2006).

Between February 2010 and July 2011, 12 data tags on monk seals in the main Hawaiian Islands were

successfully deployed, retrieved, and analyzed (D'Amico, 2013; Littnan, 2011; Stewart et al., 2006; 

Wilson et al., 2012). The average foraging trip was approximately 30 km in distance, almost 19 hours in 

duration, and most seals remained within the 600 m depth contour. Although most trips were less than 

50 km two seals made at least one long pelagic foraging trip during the deployment period (Littnan, 

2011). An adult male tagged on Oahu traveled over 3,000 km on a trip which lasted 36 days and a subadult female tagged on Kauai traveled 300 km, a one trip that lasted almost 4 days. Approximately 54 

percent of the seals made regular trips between two or more of the islands, while the remainder 

showed fidelity to one island (Littnan, 2011). 

Hawaiian monk seals are not present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-56

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.2.9.3 Population Trends

Population dynamics at the different locations in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands and the main 

Hawaiian Islands have varied considerably (Antonelis et al., 2006). Monk seal abundance trends appear 

affected by the quality of local environmental conditions (Schmelzer, 2000), and limited prey availability 

may be restricting the recovery of the northwestern Hawaiian Islands monk seals (Baker, 2008; Iverson 

et al., 2011; Lowry et al., 2011). The overall population trend from 2004 through 2013 was a steady 

decline, with the total number of Hawaiian monk seals decreasing by 3.4 percent per year (Carretta et 

al., 2017c). While the decline has been driven by the population segment in the northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands, the number of documented sightings and annual births in the main Hawaiian Islands has 

increased since the mid-1990s (Baker, 2004; Baker et al., 2016). In the main Hawaiian Islands, the 

estimated population growth rate is 6.5 percent per year (Baker et al., 2011; Carretta et al., 2017c). If 

those trends continue, abundances in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands and main Hawaiian Islands will 

equalize by the year 2020 (Littnan, 2011). Range-wide abundance data from 2013 through 2015 and the 

lack of evidence for further decline in the abundance may indicate the range-wide declining trend in 

monk seal abundance has ended (Baker et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.2.9.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Hawaiian monk seals feed opportunistically on at least 40 species of bottom or near-bottom fish, 

cephalopods, and spiny lobster (Goodman-Lowe, 1998; Parrish et al., 2000; Parrish et al., 2008). Some of 

the more common varieties of fish include wrasses, squirrelfish, triggerfish, parrotfish, and many 

varieties of eels. The inner reef waters next to the islands are critical to weaned pups learning to feed; 

pups move laterally along the shoreline, but do not appear to travel far from shore during the first few 

months after weaning (Gilmartin & Forcada, 2009). Juveniles feed on small, hidden, bottom-dwelling 

prey (Parrish et al., 2000). Foraging habitat near the breeding atolls and seamounts is commonly 

restricted to waters of less than 100 m in depth (Parrish et al., 2000). Feeding has been observed in reef 

caves, as well as on fish hiding among coral formations (Parrish et al., 2000; Parrish et al., 2008). Both 

northwestern Hawaiian Islands and the main Hawaiian Islands monk seals have similar diets although 

the diet of main Hawaiian Islands seals is less diverse and less dependent on squid (Cahoon et al., 2013)

The availability of prey may be higher in the main Hawaiian Islands due to the low monk seal population 

and seals have less competition with other top predators, like large sharks, jacks, and other fish, which 

may enhance their foraging success (Baker & Johanos, 2004; Parrish et al., 2008; Stewart et al., 2006).

Most dives were less than 200 meters throughout the Hawaiian Islands but 90 percent of dives at Pearl 

and Hermes Atoll were less than 40 m deep (Stewart et al., 2006).

Monk seals and are known to be preyed on by both killer whales and sharks. Shark predation is one of 

the major sources of mortality for this species especially in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

Galapagos sharks are a large source of juvenile mortality in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, with 

most predation occurring in the French Frigate Shoals (Antonelis et al., 2006; Gilmartin & Forcada, 

2009).

3.7.2.2.9.5 Species-Specific Threats

Monk seals are particularly susceptible to fishery interactions and entanglements(National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2007c, 2010d, 2011a, 2011c, 2016j). Records collected in the main Hawaiian Islands 

show at least 140 seal hooking and entanglement incidents from 1976 to 2014 (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2016j). In Hawaii in 2013 alone, there were 14 Hawaiian monk seals observed with 

embedded fishing hooks and one was observed with an embedded fishing spear (Carretta et al., 2015). 

These monk seal incidents were all classified as non-serious injuries since NMFS defines a “serious 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-57

3.7 Marine Mammals

injury” as an injury “that presents a greater than 50 percent chance of death to a marine mammal” 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012a) and all of these monk seals survived following intervention to 

remove those items. In the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, derelict fishing gear has been identified as a 

top threat to the monk seal (Donohue & Foley, 2007), while in the main Hawaiian Islands, high risks are 

associated with health hazards from exposure to pollutants and infectious disease agents associated 

with terrestrial animals. The Hawaiian Monk Seal Research Program reported that in Hawaii since 2001, 

there have been at least 8 deaths of Hawaiian monk seals attributed to parasitic toxoplasmosis from 

feral cats in the main Hawaiian Islands (Hawaiian Monk Seal Research Program, 2015; Rogers, 2016). In 

2015, the Hawaiian Monk Seal Research Program began a vaccination program to protect Hawaiian 

monk seals from morbillivirus because of the threat it poses given that monk seals do not otherwise 

carry antibodies to the virus (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015c).

Since monk seals rely on coastal habitats for survival, monk seals may be affected by future sea level rise 

and loss of habitat as predicted by global climate models. Another species-specific threat includes 

aggressive male monk seals that have been documented to injure and sometimes kill females and pups 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010c, 2010d). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general 

threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.2.10 Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris neris)

3.7.2.2.10.1 Status and Management

Unlike all other marine mammals in the Study Area which are under the jurisdiction of NMFS, the 

southern sea otter is a species under the federal jurisdiction of the United States Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. The southern sea otter is listed as threatened under the ESA. In 

California, the southern sea otter’s coastal range extends as far south as Santa Barbara County, 

elsewhere also referred to as part of central California (Tinker et al., 2006; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2012c). The southern sea otter range along the mainland coast therefore ends well north of the 

northern boundary of the Southern California Range Complex (approximately 78 NM north of the line 

from Dana Point to San Nicolas Island) portion of the Study Area.

In addition to the southern sea otter inhabiting the central California coastline, there was a translocated 

“non-essential experimental population” of sea otters established by USFWS on San Nicolas Island. San 

Nicolas Island is managed by the Navy and is within the overlapping boundaries of the Study Area and 

the Point Mugu Sea Range. The goal of the southern sea otter translocation program was to establish a 

population at San Nicolas Island sufficient to repopulate other areas of the range should a catastrophic 

oil spill affect the mainland (California coast) population. Between August 1987 and March 1990, the 

USFWS released 140 sea otters at San Nicolas Island (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). Because the 

translocation program did not succeed in its goals, the program was terminated by the USFWS in 2012 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012b). The San Nicolas island population is now considered part of the 

overall threatened population.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 included provisions directing the Secretary 

of the Navy to establish Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas at San Nicolas Island and San 

Clemente Island and to provide for certain exemptions under the ESA and MMPA for southern sea 

otters. Specifically, the ESA and MMPA do not apply to the incidental taking of any southern sea otter at 

San Nicolas Island or San Clemente Island during Navy training and testing activities. However, the 2016 

National Defense Authorization Act does require that the Navy conduct monitoring and research within 

the Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas to determine the effects of military readiness activities 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-58

3.7 Marine Mammals

on the growth or decline of the southern sea otter population and on the nearshore ecosystem. 

Monitoring and research shall be designed in consultation with USFWS and the results of that work will 

be reported to Congress and the public within 24 months of the 2016 National Defense Authorization 

Act and every three years thereafter. These reports will be reviewed by Navy and USFWS to ensure the 

plan continues to adequately monitor interactions between military readiness activities and the sea 

otter population.

3.7.2.2.10.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Sea otters are not found in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area. Sea otters in the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area rarely come ashore and spend most of their life in the 

nearshore waters around San Nicolas where they regularly swim, feed, reproduce, and rest. Sea otter

may occasionally be present in deeper waters when moving between areas or in attempts to establish 

new habitat (Burn & Doroff, 2005). 

The majority of the southern sea otter population in Southern California ranges from approximately 78 

miles (mi.) north of the Study Area at Santa Barbara to as far north as Half Moon Bay, California (Tinker 

et al., 2006; Tinker & Hatfield, 2016; U.S. Geological Survey, 2014), which as noted above, is outside the 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. The southern sea otters at San Nicolas Island are 

there as a result of a translocation program conducted by the USFWS under the governance of Public 

Law 99-625. Adult and sub-adult males throughout the range tend to move to the southern range 

periphery (Santa Barbara County) during the late winter and early spring (Riedman & Estes, 1990; Tinker 

et al., 2006); however, sea otters from the central California coastal population are considered 

extralimital (i.e., not expected in a given area) in the Southern California Range Complex. Sea otters have 

been only rarely sighted within the coastal area of the Southern California Range Complex in the 10-year

period from 2006 to 2016; four individuals sighted were alive and three were discovered onshore dead 

(Hatfield, 2017). The first occurred in June 2006 with the discovery of a dead, severely emaciated 

immature male sea otter at North Island. Indications from necropsy suggested a probability that he had 

weaned, headed south along the coast (presumably from the Santa Barbara area), and was unable to 

find enough food to survive (Danil, 2006). 

3.7.2.2.10.3 Population Trends

There are approximately 92 southern sea otters (plus 12 pups) currently at San Nicolas Island (Tinker & 

Hatfield, 2016). The most recent 3-year (2013–2016) running average total count of the San Nicolas 

Island population continues a strong positive growth trend of approximately 13 percent per year. The 

sea otters at San Nicolas have historically had a growth rate that was higher than the remainder of the 

southern sea otter population (Tinker et al., 2006; U.S. Geological Survey, 2014), including this most 

recent period when the remainder of the southern sea otter population had an average growth rate of 

approximately three percent per year (Tinker & Hatfield, 2016).

3.7.2.2.10.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Sea otters forage on or near the bottom in shallow waters, often in kelp beds and bring their prey to the 

surface to feed (Bodkin et al., 2004). The critical foraging range for the southern sea otter is 2–35 m in 

depth (Tinker et al., 2006). They may occasionally hunt visually, but are most likely tactile feeders, as 

evidenced by a tendency to forage at night (Shimek, 1977; Wilkin, 2003; Yeates et al., 2007). Major prey 

items are benthic invertebrates, such as abalones, sea urchins, and rock crabs. Sea otters also eat other 

types of shellfish, cephalopods, and sluggish near-bottom fishes. The diet varies with the physical and 

biological characteristics of the habitats in which they live (Estes et al., 2009; Riedman & Estes, 1990). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-59

3.7 Marine Mammals

During El Niño events off the California coast, sea otters may also take advantage of unusually abundant 

prey. Squid and red crabs are examples of prey items that are only available from time to time (Estes et 

al., 2009).

Sea otters exhibit individual differences not only in prey choice but also in choice and method of tool 

use, in areas where they forage, and in water depth (Estes et al., 2009; Riedman & Estes, 1990). Some 

tools, such as rocks or other hard objects, are hidden in skin flaps under the front limbs (Jefferson et al., 

2015). In rocky-bottom habitats, sea otters generally forage for large-bodied prey offering the greatest 

caloric reward. In soft-bottom habitats, prey is smaller and more difficult to find; sea otters feed on a 

variety of burrowing invertebrates. Based on the observation of a sea otter engaged in feeding 

behaviors, Tinker et al. (2007) found that the individual spent overall approximately 51 percent of the 

day diving for prey, with the remainder of the day spent resting on the water surface or engaged in 

other activities including grooming and surface swimming. 

San Nicolas Island otters are subject to different habitat conditions and stressors than those inhabiting 

the central California coastline (Tinker et al., 2007). Navy management and restricted access to the area 

has had a beneficial effect. As has been reported, the abundance of sea otter prey at San Nicolas 

exceeds that at the central California coastline by as much as three orders of magnitude (Tinker et al., 

2007). As a result of greater prey availability for sea otter in the translocated colony at San Nicolas 

Island, the average food intake rate was more than double, only half as much time was spent foraging, 

and they were in better body condition in comparison to southern sea otter present along the central 

California coastline (Tinker et al., 2007).

3.7.2.2.10.5 Species-Specific Threats

The toxoplasmosis parasite (often attributed to feral cat feces in urban area storm run-off) impacts sea 

otters along the U.S. west coast (Simeone et al., 2015; Siqueira et al., 2017). On land, in some cases sea 

otters have been preyed upon by coyotes (Weller, 2008).

Sea otters have been known to be preyed on by eagles and generally feed at night to avoid potential 

predators (Riedman & Estes, 1990). They are also considered likely prey for killer whales (Hatfield et al., 

1988) and a known prey of sharks (Tinker et al., 2016). Since 2003 there has been an increase in the 

number of sea otters found with white shark bites, which now account for greater than 50 percent of 

recovered sea otter carcasses in California (Tinker et al., 2016). 

USFWS has previously noted that Department of Defense actions have not posed a threat to the San 

Nicolas Island colony of southern sea otter and the average growth rate for the colony has been higher 

than that for sea otter inhabiting the central California coastline. Current and past Navy activities had 

not previously triggered any regulatory requirements pursuant to the MMPA or ESA for sea otter 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2014b; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2002; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2012a, 2012c). The Navy and USFWS will coordinate as needed under any 

applicable statutory requirements for sea otters at San Nicolas Island.

3.7.2.3 Species Not Listed under the Endangered Species Act

As shown in Table 3.7-1, most marine mammals are not listed under the ESA, however, all are afforded 

protection under the MMPA. Species not listed under the ESA are discussed in the following subsections.

3.7.2.3.1 Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Hawaii Distinct Population Segment

Humpback whales that are seasonally present in the HSTT Study Area are from three Distinct Population 

Segments given they represent populations that are both discrete from other conspecific populations 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-60

3.7 Marine Mammals

and significant to the species of humpback whales to which they belong (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2016h). These Distinct Population Segments are based on animals identified in breeding areas in 

Hawaii, Mexico, and Central America (Bettridge et al., 2015b; Carretta et al., 2017c; Muto et al., 2017; 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016h; Wade et al., 2016). Presentation of information for the Hawaii 

Distinct Population Segment, which is seasonally present in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area, is 

provided in the following subsections. Discussion of the Mexico Distinct Population Segment and the 

Central America Distinct Population Segment that are seasonally present in the Southern California 

portion of the HSTT Study Area and which are listed under the ESA, are presented in Section 3.7.2.2.1 

(Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Mexico Distinct Population Segment and the Central 

America Distinct Population Segment).

3.7.2.3.1.1 Status and Management 

In the North Pacific Ocean and under the MMPA, the stock structure of humpback whales is defined by 

NMFS based on the species’ fidelity to feeding grounds (Bettridge et al., 2015b; Muto et al., 2017; 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016h). For humpback whales present in Hawaii in the winter and 

spring, NMFS has designated those animals as being part of the Central North Pacific stock given they 

migrate in the summer and early fall to feed in northern British Columbia and Alaska, the Gulf of Alaska, 

the Bering Sea, and Aleutian Islands (Muto et al., 2017). As implied by the name, the Central North 

Pacific stock includes animals that winter in many locations other than Hawaii including, for example, 

humpback whales from Japan and Mexico (Calambokidis et al., 2008; Wade et al., 2016). Pursuant to the 

ESA, NMFS has designated the population of humpback whales that breed in Hawaii in the winter as the 

Hawaii Distinct Population Segment (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016h). The humpback whale 

Hawaii Distinct Population Segment was delisted under the ESA given that the population in Hawaii is 

believed to have fully recovered and have an abundance greater than the pre-whaling estimated 

population (Barlow et al., 2011; Bettridge et al., 2015b; Muto et al., 2017; National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2016h; Wade et al., 2016).

The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary is located within the Hawaii Range 

Complex portion of the HSTT Study Area (The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary is also discussed in Chapter 6, Other Regulatory Considerations).

3.7.2.3.1.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Humpback whales are distributed worldwide in all major oceans and most seas (Bettridge et al., 2015b; 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016h). They typically are found during the summer in high-latitude 

feeding grounds including Alaska and British Colombia and during the winter migrate to area such as 

Hawaii, Mexico, Central America, and Okinawa where breeding and calving occurs. As a result, 

humpback migrations are complex and cover long distances (Bettridge et al., 2015b; Calambokidis et al., 

2008; Calambokidis et al., 2009b; Mate et al., 1997). Satellite tagging of humpback whales in off Kauai 

found that one adult traveled 155 NM to Oahu, Hawaii in 4 days, while a different individual traveled to 

Penguin Bank and the Kalohi Channel between Molokai and Lanai, totaling 530 NM in 10 days (Mate et 

al., 1997). Three additional whales returning north to summer feeding grounds traveled independent 

courses to the north and northeast en route to the Gulf of Alaska, with the fastest averaging 93 NM per 

day. At this rate, the animal would take an estimated 39 days to travel the entire 2,600 NM migration 

route to the upper Gulf of Alaska from Hawaii (Mate et al., 1997). 

Humpback whales that breed in Hawaii generally migrate to northern British Columbia and southeast 

Alaska to feed (Bettridge et al., 2015b; Calambokidis et al., 2008). Animals breeding in Hawaii have also 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-61

3.7 Marine Mammals

been “matched” (i.e., identified as the same individual using photo-identification methods) to 

humpbacks feeding in the Gulf of Alaska, the Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea (Calambokidis et al., 2008). 

In all these feeding areas, humpback whales from Hawaii must cross paths with humpback whales 

migrating from Mexico and Central America. In addition, based on the identification of individual 

whales, there is evidence that some humpback whales (most likely males) move between winter 

breeding areas in Hawaii and Mexico (Forestell & Urban R., 2007) and Hawaii and Japan (Salden et al., 

1999).

In the Hawaii portion of their range, peak densities are from February through March, although the 

breeding season typically spans December through April (Baird et al., 2015b; Mobley et al., 1999; 

Mobley et al., 2001b; Norris et al., 1999). Acoustic recordings near the northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

indicate that humpback whales were present in that portion of the HSTT Study Area from early 

December through early June (Lammers et al., 2011). It is not yet known if this represents a previously 

undocumented breeding stock or if the whales occurring at the northwestern Hawaiian Islands are part 

of the same population that winters near the Main Hawaiian Islands (Bettridge et al., 2015b). Acoustic 

recordings over multiple years (including 2016) using the Pacific Missile Range Facility hydrophones have 

demonstrated a seasonal presence of humpback whales off Kauai from November to May (Martin et al., 

2016; Martin et al., 2017). 

For the Hawaii Distinct Population Segment of humpback whales present in Hawaii during the breeding 

season, the majority of humpback whales have been detected within the 200 m isobath constituting 

shallow water (Mobley et al., 2001b; Mobley, 2005; Mobley & Pacini, 2013; Mobley et al., 2015). This 

presence may include very nearshore and inland water areas (Richie et al., 2016). 

The greatest densities of humpback whales (including calves) have been in the four-island region 

consisting of Maui, Molokai, Kahoolawe, and Lanai, as well as Penguin Bank (Mobley et al., 2001b) and 

around Kauai (Mobley, 2005). A March 2007 pilot survey across the Northwest Hawaiian Islands 

documented the existence of extensive wintering habitat used by humpback whales in the Northwest 

Hawaiian Islands (Johnston et al., 2007). 

In December to January 2014, a passive acoustic recording device onboard an unmanned glider moving 

in the deep ocean approximately 100 to 300 km south of Oahu, recorded humpback whale songs during 

all recording periods (Klinck et al., 2015). Genetic evidence collected from vocalizing animals indicates 

that only male humpback whales sing (Smith et al., 2008). Some vocalizing humpbacks were detected 

with a signal strength sufficient for the researchers to believe they were relatively close (within 20 km) 

to the glider and that the detections most likely did not reflect sound propagating from humpbacks 

potentially hundreds of kilometers to the north in the nearshore waters next to the islands. Humpback 

whales migrating from breeding grounds in Hawaii to feeding grounds at higher latitudes may cross 

eastern portions of the HSTT Study Area Transit Corridor.

Six locations have been identified in the main Hawaiian Islands as a single reproductive area for 

humpback whales (Baird et al., 2015a). Detailed discussion of this area has been presented in Appendix K.

3.7.2.3.1.3 Population Trends

The population of humpback whales in the Hawaiian Islands has continued to increase and is now 

greater than some pre-whaling abundance estimates (Barlow et al., 2011; Wade et al., 2016). Data 

indicate the north Pacific population has been increasing at a rate of between 5.5 percent and 6.0 

percent per year, approximately doubling every 10 years (Bettridge et al., 2015b; Muto et al., 2017; 

Wade et al., 2016).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-62

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.1.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

It is believed that minimal feeding occurs in wintering grounds, such as the Hawaiian Islands (Balcomb, 

1987; Salden, 1989). Feeding areas for the Hawaii Distinct Population Segment humpback whales 

include northern British Columbia, southeast Alaska, the Gulf of Alaska, the Aleutian Islands, and Bering 

Sea (Bettridge et al., 2015b; Calambokidis et al., 2008; Muto et al., 2017). When in those northern 

waters, humpback whales feed on a wide variety of invertebrates and small schooling fishes. The most 

common invertebrate prey are krill (tiny crustaceans); the most common fish prey are herring, mackerel, 

sand lance, sardines, anchovies, and capelin (Clapham & Mead, 1999). Feeding occurs both at the 

surface and in deeper waters, wherever prey is abundant. Humpback whales are the only species of 

baleen whale that show strong evidence of cooperation when they feed in large groups (D'Vincent et al., 

1985).

This species is known to be attacked by both killer whales and false killer whales as evidenced by tooth 

rake scars on their bodies and fins (Jefferson et al., 2015).

3.7.2.3.1.5 Species-Specific Threats

Entanglement in fishing gear poses a threat to individual humpback whales throughout the Pacific 

(Bradford & Forney, 2014; Bradford & Lyman, 2015; Carretta et al., 2016b; Heckler et al., 2015; Helker et 

al., 2017; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014b; Saez et al., 

2013). In Hawaii during the 5-year period between 2007–2012, there were 48 humpback whales found 

entangled in fishing gear including longline, monofilament (hook and line), and local crab pot (trap) gear 

(Bradford & Forney, 2014; Bradford & Lyman, 2015). From 2010 to 2014 humpback whales were 

observed interacting with the deep-set and shallow-set fisheries in the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic 

Zone, resulting in serious injury (Bradford & Forney, 2017). Humpback whales from Hawaii have been 

reported seriously injured and killed from entanglement in fishing gear while in their Alaskan feeding 

grounds (Heckler et al., 2015; Muto et al., 2017; Neilson et al., 2009). Based on the stock assessment for 

the Central North Pacific, an overall minimum estimate of mortality and serious injury due to fisheries is 

14 humpback whales annually (Muto et al., 2017).

From 2007–2012 in Hawaii, there were 39 vessel collisions between Humpback whales and vessels 

(Bradford & Lyman, 2015), none of which involved a Navy vessel3

. In Hawaii from 1976–2011, there was 

a 20-fold increase in the annual incidence of reported collisions between civilian vessels and humpback 

whales (Lammers et al., 2013). 

There has not been a Navy collision with a humpback whale in the last decade. For added awareness, 

the Navy sends out an annual message to the units training and testing in the Hawaii area providing 

notification when the arrival of the first humpback whales of the year have been sighted. Navy standard 

practice is for vessels to avoid approaching marine mammals head on and to maneuver to maintain a 

mitigation zone of 500 yd. around observed whales and 200 yd. around all other marine mammals 

 3 Bradford and Lyman (2015) report that a humpback whale was struck by a “military vessel” on 2/27/2008. On 

that date in Hawaii, there was a government owned contractor operated 40’ work boat that struck something as it 

was returning to Pearl Harbor. Although they reported seeing a “fin,” there was no whale seen, no blow, no blood 

in the water, and no indication whatsoever that they hit a whale. This was reported by the Navy as a potential 

whale strike out of an abundance of caution in case at some later date an injured marine mammal was observed 

with injuries consistent with a blunt force injury. Absent having seen any indication of a whale being present, it 

should also be noted that large hammerhead sharks are common in Pearl Harbor and the possibility that a shark 

was struck cannot be dismissed. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-63

3.7 Marine Mammals

(except bow-riding dolphins), providing it is safe to do so. When humpback whales from Hawaii are in 

Alaska, the mean vessel collision mortality and serious injury rate is for the populations present are 4.3 

humpback whales annually (Muto et al., 2017).

Humpback whales are potentially affected by loss of habitat, loss of prey (for a variety of reasons 

including climate variability), underwater noise, jet skis and similar fast waterborne tourist-related 

traffic, and pollutants (Muto et al., 2017). The Central North Pacific stock of humpback whales is the 

focus of whale-watching activities in both its feeding grounds (Alaska) and breeding grounds (Hawaii). 

Regulations addressing minimum approach distances and vessel operating procedures are in place to 

help protect the whales from these kinds of chronic disturbance (Muto et al., 2017). Section 3.7.2.1.5 

(General Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.2 Bryde’s Whale (Balaenoptera brydei/edeni)

3.7.2.3.2.1 Status and Management 

This species is not listed under the ESA. The International Whaling Commission recognizes three 

management stocks of Bryde’s whales in the north Pacific: western north Pacific, eastern north Pacific, 

and east China Sea (Donovan, 1991), although the biological basis for defining separate stocks of Bryde’s 

whales in the central north Pacific is not clear (Carretta et al., 2017c). Current genetic research confirms 

that gene flow among Bryde’s whale populations is low and suggests that management actions treat 

each as a distinct entity to ensure proper conservation of biological diversity (Kanda et al., 2007). 

Bryde’s whales in Hawaii have been designated by NMFS as the Hawaiian stock and those in the 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area are assigned to the Eastern Tropical Pacific stock 

(Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.2.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Bryde’s whales were previously only occasionally sighted in Hawaiian waters (Carretta et al., 2010; 

Smultea et al., 2008). The first verified Bryde’s whale sighting made nearshore of the main Hawaiian 

Islands occurred in 2007 (Smultea et al., 2008; Smultea et al., 2010). A line-transect survey conducted in 

February 2009 by the Cetacean Research Program surrounding the Hawaiian Islands resulted in the 

sighting of three Bryde’s/sei whales (Olsen et al., 2009). A summer/fall 2002 shipboard survey of waters 

within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone of the Hawaiian Islands resulted in 13 Bryde’s whale sightings 

throughout the Study Area (Barlow, 2006). A total of 32 Bryde’s whale sightings were made on a followup survey in 2010 (Bradford et al., 2017). Sightings had been more frequent in the northwest Hawaiian 

Islands than in the main Hawaiian Islands (Barlow, 2006; Smultea et al., 2008; Smultea et al., 2010). 

Based on predictive habitat-based density models derived from line-transect survey data collected 

between 1997 and 2012 within the central North Pacific, relatively high densities of Bryde’s whales are 

predicted within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone of the Hawaiian Islands during the summer and fall, 

particularly in the northwest (Forney et al., 2015). Acoustic monitoring data collected using the Navy’s 

instrumented training range hydrophones off the north coast of Kauai from August through October of 

2014, allowed researchers to derive 17 Bryde’s whale tracks as the vocalizing animals moved within the 

waters of the Navy range (Helble et al., 2016). Based on the Kauai acoustic data from 2014 with Bryde’s 

whales detected as early as September, the species may be present year-round in Hawaii (Martin et al., 

2017). Because Bryde’s whales have been largely observed in deep offshore waters (Barlow, 2006; 

Bradford et al., 2017; Murase et al., 2015), detection of Bryde’s whales closer to shore and further east 

in the last decade may be indicative of an overall shift in distribution for Bryde’s whales in the North 

Pacific (Helble et al., 2016). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-64

3.7 Marine Mammals

Bryde’s whales were previously only occasionally sighted in the waters off Southern California (Carretta 

et al., 2010; Smultea, 2012; Smultea et al., 2011), but sightings and acoustic monitoring indicates an 

increase in the area so that the presence of the species is no longer considered anomalous (Carretta et 

al., 2017c; Debich et al., 2015a; Kerosky et al., 2012; Smultea et al., 2010; Smultea et al., 2012b; Smultea 

& Jefferson, 2014). During aerial surveys conducted year-round between 2008 and 2013 off the 

Southern California coast, Bryde’s whales were sighted on two occasions (Jefferson et al., 2014). These 

were the first sightings in this area since 1991 when a Bryde’s whale was sighted within 300 NM of the 

California coast (Barlow, 1995). The peak in recorded Bryde’s whale vocalizations has varied but 

generally occurs between late July and November in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area (Debich et al., 2015a; Debich et al., 2015b; Kerosky et al., 2012). 

Bryde’s whales occur primarily in offshore oceanic waters of the north Pacific (Barlow, 2006; Bradford et 

al., 2017). They are distributed throughout the North Pacific Gyre and North Pacific Transition Zone, in 

the Hawaiian portion of the Study Area. Data suggest that winter and summer grounds partially overlap 

in the central north Pacific (Murase et al., 2015; Ohizumi, 2002; Ohizumi et al., 2002). Bryde’s whales are 

distributed in the central north Pacific in summer; the southernmost summer distribution of Bryde’s 

whales inhabiting the central north Pacific is about 20° N (Kishiro, 1996). Some whales remain in higher 

latitudes (around 25° N) in both winter and summer, but are not likely to move poleward of 40° N 

(Jefferson et al., 2015; Kishiro, 1996). Bryde’s whales in some areas of the world are sometimes seen 

very close to shore and even inside enclosed bays (Baker & Madon, 2007; Best, 1996).

Long migrations are not typical of Bryde’s whales, although limited shifts in distribution toward and 

away from the equator, in winter and summer, have been observed (Best, 1996; Cummings, 1985). 

3.7.2.3.2.3 Population Trends

Little is known of population status and trends for most Bryde’s whale populations. However, a recent 

study suggests that the seasonal presence (summer to early winter) of Bryde’s whale in the Southern 

California Bight has been increasing over the last decade (Kerosky et al., 2012). 

3.7.2.3.2.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Bryde’s whales primarily feed on schooling fish and are lunge feeders. Prey includes anchovy, sardine, 

mackerel, herring, krill, and other invertebrates, such as pelagic red crab (Baker & Madon, 2007; 

Nemoto & Kawamura, 1977). Bryde’s whales have been observed using “bubble nets” to herd prey (Kato 

& Perrin, 2009). Bubble nets are used in a feeding strategy where the whales dive and release bubbles of 

air that float up in a column and trap prey inside where they lunge through the column to feed. Bryde’s 

whale is known to be prey for killer whales, as evidenced by an aerial observation of 15 killer whales 

attacking a Bryde’s whale in the Gulf of California (Weller, 2008).

3.7.2.3.2.5 Species-Specific Threats

Between 2010 and 2014, one Bryde’s whale from the California/Oregon/Washington stock (that is the 

stock present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area) was seriously injured as a result 

of a commercial vessel strike off Washington (Carretta et al., 2016b). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats)

discusses general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.3 Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)

Three subspecies of the minke whale are now recognized, however, only Balaenoptera acutorostrata 

scammoni is present in the north Pacific and the Study Area (Jefferson et al., 2015).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-65

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.3.1 Status and Management 

The minke whale is not listed under the ESA. Minke whales in Hawaii are designated the Hawaiian stock 

and those in the Southern California portion of HSTT are part of the California, Oregon, and Washington 

(Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.3.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The minke whale’s range is known to include open ocean and coastal water and extends to subarctic 

and arctic waters (Kuker et al., 2005). Minke whales previously were considered a rare species in 

Hawaiian waters due to limited sightings during visual and aerial surveys and acoustic monitoring and 

appear to only be present around the Hawaiian Islands in the October to April timeframe (Barlow, 2006; 

Carretta et al., 2017c; Klinck et al., 2015; Lammers et al., 2015). The first documented sighting of a 

minke whale close to the main Hawaiian islands was made off the southwest coast of Kauai in 2005 

(Norris et al., 2005; Rankin et al., 2007) and there have been only two other confirmed sightings within 

200 NM of the Hawaiian Island (Bradford et al., 2013; Bradford et al., 2017). Research involving passive 

acoustic detection suggests minke whales are somewhat common in Hawaii in the winter (Klinck et al., 

2015; Rankin & Barlow, 2005; Rankin et al., 2007; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011a). Acoustic 

recordings over multiple years (including 2016) using the Pacific Missile Range Facility hydrophones have 

demonstrated a seasonal presence of minke whales off Kauai from November to May (Martin et al., 

2017).

During a 2002 survey around the Hawaiian Islands, minke whales were identified as the source of the 

mysterious “boing” sound of the north Pacific Ocean, specifically offshore of Kauai and closer in, near 

the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands region (Barlow et al., 2004; Rankin & Barlow, 2005). This 

information subsequently allowed for acoustic detections of minke whales, although they remain rarely 

observed during visual surveys (Barlow, 2006; Bradford et al., 2013; Bradford et al., 2017; Lammers et 

al., 2015; Rankin et al., 2007). Research using a survey vessel’s towed acoustic array and the Navy’s 

hydrophones off Kauai in 2009-2010 (35 days total) provided bearings to 1,975 minke whale “boing” 

vocalizations located within the instrumented range offshore of the Pacific Missile Range Facility (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2011b); this is an area where training and testing has routinely occurred for 

decades. Subsequent research using the range hydrophones to count and localize vocalizations provided 

an estimated average density of 3.2 whales/3,780 square kilometers (Martin et al., 2015a). This was a 

minimum density since it was assumed that only mature male minkes were vocalizing and being 

localized, and individuals capable of calling may have been silent.

Minke whales occur year-round off California (Forney et al., 1995; Forney & Barlow, 1998), mainly in 

nearshore areas (Barlow & Forney, 2007; Hamilton et al., 2009; Smultea & Jefferson, 2014). During 

systematic ship surveys conducted in summer and fall off the U.S. west coast between 1991 and 2014, 

there were 28 minke whale sightings (Barlow, 2016). During year-round aerial surveys conducted in the 

Southern California Range Complex from 2008 through 2013, minke whales were sighted 19 times 

(Jefferson et al., 2014). 

The migration paths of the minke whale include travel between breeding to feeding grounds and have 

been shown to follow patterns of prey availability (Jefferson et al., 2015). Minke whales generally 

participate in annual migrations between low-latitude breeding grounds in the winter and high-latitude 

feeding grounds in the summer (Kuker et al., 2005). This may explain their seasonal acoustic presence in 

Hawaii. There is insufficient information to determine if the year-round low numbers of minke whales 

detected in Southern California suggests there may be resident animals although acoustic monitoring 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-66

3.7 Marine Mammals

data indicating only occasional minke boing presence in spring and late fall (Debich et al., 2015a; 

Hildebrand et al., 2012) would be consistent with a general seasonal migration pattern.

3.7.2.3.3.3 Population Trends

There are no data on trends for minke whales in the California, Oregon, and Washington stock (Carretta 

et al., 2017c). 

3.7.2.3.3.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

This species preys on small invertebrates and schooling fish, such as sand eel, pollock, herring, and cod. 

Similar to other rorquals, minke whales are lunge feeders, often plunging through patches of shoaling 

fish or krill (Hoelzel et al., 1989; Jefferson et al., 2008b). In the north Pacific, major foods include small 

invertebrates, krill, capelin, herring, pollock, haddock, and other small shoaling fish (Jefferson et al., 

2008b; Kuker et al., 2005; Lindstrom & Haug, 2001). Minke whales are prey for killer whales (Ford & Ellis, 

1999; Ford et al., 2005; Weller, 2008). 

3.7.2.3.3.5 Species-Specific Threats

Serious injury or mortality from interactions with fishing gear poses a threat to minke whales 

throughout the Study Area. Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has 

estimated that the overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to minke 

whales from this fishery was 0.5 based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 

(Carretta et al., 2017a). Between 2010 to 2014 there were three mortalities to minke whales reported

(Carretta et al., 2013b; Carretta et al., 2016b). Additionally, ship strikes also potentially pose a threat to 

minke whales along the west coast. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to 

marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.4 Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus; Eastern North Pacific Stock)

3.7.2.3.4.1 Status and Management

There are two north Pacific populations of gray whales: the Western subpopulation and the Eastern 

subpopulation. Both populations (stocks) could be present in the Southern California portion of the 

Study Area during their northward and southward migration (Calambokidis et al., 2015a; Carretta et al., 

2017c; Cooke et al., 2015; Sumich & Show, 2011). The Western subpopulation is listed as endangered 

under the ESA and discussion of this stock and Distinct Population Segment is presented in Section 

3.7.2.2 (Gray Whale [Eschrichtius robustus; Western North Pacific Stock]). 

The Eastern North Pacific stock (also known as the eastern north Pacific or the California-Chukchi 

population) appears to have recovered from exploitation and was removed from listing under the ESA in 

1994 (Swartz et al., 2006). 

A few hundred gray whales that feed along the Pacific coast between southeastern Alaska and northern 

California throughout the summer and fall are known as the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (Calambokidis 

et al., 2002; Carretta et al., 2017c; Mate, 2013; Weller et al., 2013). The group has been identified as far 

north as Kodiak Island, Alaska (Gosho et al., 2011), and has generated uncertainty regarding the stock 

structure of the Eastern North Pacific population (Carretta et al., 2017c; Weller et al., 2012b; Weller et 

al., 2013). Photo-identification, telemetry, and genetic studies suggest that the Pacific Coast Feeding 

Group is demographically distinct from the Eastern North Pacific population (Calambokidis et al., 2010; 

Frasier et al., 2011; Mate et al., 2010). In 2012–2013, the Navy funded a satellite tracking study of Pacific 

Coast Feeding Group gray whales (Mate, 2013). Tags were attached to 11 gray whales near Crescent 

City, California in fall 2012. Good track histories were received from 9 of the 11 tags, which confirmed an 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-67

3.7 Marine Mammals

exclusive near shore (< 19 km) distribution and movement along the Northern California, Oregon, and 

Washington coasts (Mate, 2013). Although the duration of the tags were limited, none of the Pacific 

Coast Feeding Group whales moved south beyond northern California and so individuals from this group 

are not expected to be present in the HSTT Study Area. The Pacific Coast Feeding Group is not currently 

treated as a distinct stock in NMFS Stock Assessment Reports, but this may change in the future if new 

information supports such a designation (Carretta et al., 2015). 

3.7.2.3.4.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Gray whales are not present in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area.

Gray whales of the Eastern North Pacific stock primarily occur in shallow waters over the continental 

shelf of North America and Mexico and are considered to be one of the most coastal of the great whales 

(Jefferson et al., 2015; Jones & Swartz, 2009). Feeding grounds are generally less than 225 ft. deep 

(Jones & Swartz, 2009) and the main feeding areas are located in the Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea, Gulf of 

Alaska, the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. The main breeding grounds consist of subtropical 

lagoons in Baja California, Mexico (Alter et al., 2009; Jones & Swartz, 2009; Urban-Ramirez et al., 2003).

Some gray whales make the longest annual migration of any mammal, 15,000–20,000 km roundtrip 

(Jefferson et al., 2015; Jones & Swartz, 2009; Mate et al., 2010; Mate et al., 2013; Mate & UrbanRamirez, 2003; Mate et al., 2015b; Muir et al., 2015; Weller et al., 2002; Weller et al., 2012b; Weller et 

al., 2013). Gray whales migrate along the Pacific coast twice a year between October–July (Calambokidis 

et al., 2015a) and are only present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area while 

migrating through those waters. Although they generally remain mostly over the shelf during migration, 

some gray whales may be found in more offshore waters to the west of San Clemente Island and the 

Channel Islands further to the North (Calambokidis et al., 2015a; Smultea & Jefferson, 2014; Sumich & 

Show, 2011). A year-long (2013–2014) survey effort in the nearshore waters off San Diego within the 

HSTT Study Area encountered gray whales in January, February, and in the April–June timeframe 

(Graham & Saunders, 2015). In December and April each year, gray whales are the third most 

encountered large cetacean in Southern California (Smultea & Jefferson, 2014). 

The timing of the October–July gray whale migrations that pass through the Southern California portion 

of the HSTT Study Area can be loosely categorized into three phases (Calambokidis et al., 2015a; Rugh et 

al., 2008). Calambokidis et al. (2015a) note these migration phases are not distinct, the timing for a 

phase may vary based on environmental variables, and that a migration phase typically begins with a 

rapid increase in migrating whales, followed by moderate numbers over a period of weeks, and then 

slowly tapering off. A southward migration from summer feeding areas in the Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea, 

Gulf of Alaska, and the Pacific Northwest begins in the fall (Calambokidis et al., 2015a; Mate, 2013; Mate 

et al., 2015b). This Southbound Phase includes all age classes as they migrate primarily to the nearshore 

waters and lagoons of Baja, Mexico as a destination. During this southward migration from October 

through March, the whales generally are within 10 km of the coast (Calambokidis et al., 2015a) although 

there are documented exceptions where migrating gray whales have bypassed the coast by crossing 

sections of the open ocean (Mate, 2013; Mate & Urban-Ramirez, 2003; Mate et al., 2015b; Rice & 

Wolman, 1971). 

In the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, migrating gray whales may deviate farther 

from the mainland as some are routinely seen near the Channel Islands and to the west of San Clemente 

Island (Aquatic Mammals, 2015b; Ferguson et al., 2015a; Sumich, 1984; Van Parijs et al., 2015). The 

northward migration for the Eastern North Pacific stock to the feeding grounds in Arctic waters, Alaska, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-68

3.7 Marine Mammals

the Pacific Northwest, and Northern California occurs in two phases (Calambokidis et al., 2015a). 

Northbound Phase A consists mainly of adults and juveniles that lead the beginning of the north-bound 

migration from late January through July, peaking in April through July. Newly pregnant females go first 

to maximize feeding time, followed by adult females and males, then juveniles (Jones & Swartz, 2009). 

The Northbound Phase B consists primarily of cow-calf pairs which begin their northward migration later 

(March to July) remaining on the reproductive grounds longer to allow calves to strengthen and rapidly 

increase in size before the northward migration (Jones & Swartz, 2009; Urban-Ramirez et al., 2003). 

The gray whale migration corridor and the potential presence buffer and the months they are 

cumulatively in use (October through July) were identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015a) as areas that 

should be considered for mitigation given the potential to impact this important seasonal migration 

behavior. It is important to note there are additional gray migration routes beyond the currently 

identified areas and outside of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone that may be equally as important (such 

the migration corridor segments in Canadian and Mexican waters; see Aquatic Mammals (2015b); 

Ferguson et al. (2015a); Van Parijs et al. (2015) regarding the limits to the areas identified). 

Unlike the remainder of the U.S. west coast areas where phases of migration occur within specific 

distances from the shore, in waters south of Point Conception the entire migration corridor is used 

during each migration phase (Calambokidis et al., 2015a). The following bullets summarize the 

applicable seasons for the gray whale migration (as detailed in Calambokidis et al. (2015a)) along the 

U.S. west coast including the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area:

• Southbound – October–March

• Northbound Phase A – January–July; peaking April–July

• Northbound Phase B – March–July 

• Potential presence – October–July

Based on the identified migratory seasons presented by Calambokidis et al. (2015a), gray whales should 

only be absent from the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area in the August–September 

timeframe. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s website containing data records for 

marine mammals from the Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Working Group (see Ferguson et 

al. (2015a)) shows the recorded presence of gray whales in the Southern California Bight in every month 

of the year except June, October and November. As a result of the Cetacean Density and Distribution 

Mapping Working Group records and area specific surveys, Navy assumes that gray whales could be 

migrating through the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area between the months of 

December through September; 10 months of the year.

Mate and Urban-Ramirez (2003) reported an average gray whale speed of approximately 5.2 km/hr.) 

based on a tagged migrating animal. Subsequent satellite tag data from seven additional gray whales 

provided by Mate et al. (2015b) showed migration swim speeds ranged from 0.6 km/hr. to 6.6 km/hr.; 

which remains within the average previously suggested. At this average swim speed, and based on the 

three main migration routes presented in Sumich and Show (2011), it should take approximately 24–36 

hours for a gray whale to cross through the Southern California portion of the Study Area 

(approximately 130–250 km). It is assumed they will do this twice a year during their annual southbound 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-69

3.7 Marine Mammals

and northbound migration legs. A more detailed analysis of the gray whale migration area has been 

presented in Appendix K. 

Most of the Eastern North Pacific stock summers in the shallow waters of the northern Bering Sea, 

Chukchi Sea, and western Beaufort Sea (Mate et al., 2010; Weller et al., 2013), except for approximately 

200 individuals collectively known as the “Pacific Coast Feeding Group” (Calambokidis et al., 2002; Mate, 

2013; Weller et al., 2013). Eastern North Pacific Gray Whales return to locations off Mexico in the fall to 

winter in sheltered warmer waters(Mate et al., 2010; Weller et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.3.4.3 Population Trends

The eastern population had been generally increasing, despite the 1999 and 2000 unusual mortality

events in which an unusually large number of gray whales stranded along the coast, from Mexico to 

Alaska (Gulland et al., 2005), when many scientists thought the population had reached “carrying 

capacity” (Carretta et al., 2017c). Durban et al. (2016) have demonstrated that in recent years the 

population has been stable.

3.7.2.3.4.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Gray whales are primarily bottom feeders. Their prey includes a wide range of invertebrates living on or 

near the seafloor; these occur during the summer in dense colonies on the continental shelf seafloor of 

arctic regions (Swartz et al., 2006). The whales filter amphipods and other crustaceans with their baleen 

plates. The whales carry most of the sediment with them when they surface to breathe, creating mud 

plumes in their wake (Jefferson et al., 2015; Jones & Swartz, 2009). Gray whales occasionally engulf 

fishes, herring eggs, cephalopods, and crab larvae (Jefferson et al., 2015; Jones & Swartz, 2009; Newell & 

Cowles, 2006). Although generally fasting during the migration and calving season, opportunistic feeding 

(on whatever food is available) may occur in or near the calving lagoons or in the shallow coastal waters 

along the migration path (Jones & Swartz, 2009). 

3.7.2.3.4.5 Species-Specific Threats

Gray whales have historically been harvested by subsistence hunters in Alaska and Russia. The 

International Whaling Commission sets catch limits on the annual subsistence harvest for these areas. 

For example, the Chukotka indigenous hunters (located on the Chukchi Peninsula) took a total of 127 

gray whales in 2013 (Ilyashenko & Zharikov, 2014). In 2010, a gray whale discovered dead onshore in 

Humboldt, California had two embedded harpoons in its flesh; one of these harpoons had 10 meters of 

rope attached (Carretta et al., 2014b). 

Gray whales are also susceptible to entanglement in fishing gear and ship strikes. Based on California 

swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated that the overall probability of a 

bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to gray whales from this fishery was one based on 

observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 2017a). Based on reports from 

2000 to 2010, a total of 22 gray whales were entangled in fishing gear off California, 16 of which were 

reported within the Southern California Bight (Carretta et al., 2013b; Saez et al., 2013). From 2010–2014 

off the U.S. west coast, there were 47 observed fishing related entanglements of gray whales (Carretta 

et al., 2016b). Unpublished data obtained from NMFS indicated 72 gray whale stranded in California 

between 2010-2015; six of those occurred in San Diego County (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2016a, 2016g, 2016i). This data provided does not attribute cause to these strandings which could have 

arisen from any number of natural causes (predation, starvation, etc.) or from anthropogenic causes 

(such as marine debris entanglement). Of note, approximately 32 percent of the strandings between 

2010–2015 occurred in 2015 during a period of eastern Pacific elevated sea surface temperatures prior 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-70

3.7 Marine Mammals

to onset of an extreme El Niño. None of the six San Diego County strandings nor any of the other 

California gray whale strandings corresponded with any Navy activities in the Southern California

portion of the HSTT Study Area. 

Available data from NMFS indicate that, in waters off California between 1991 and 2010, there were 30 

reported ship strikes involving gray whales (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2011g); from 2010-2014, 

there were 7 reported gray whale ship strikes (Carretta et al., 2016b). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) 

discusses general threats to marine mammals. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general 

threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.5 Dwarf Sperm Whale (Kogia sima)

There are two species of Kogia: the pygmy sperm whale (discussed in Section 3.7.2.3.6, Pygmy Sperm 

Whale [Kogia breviceps]) and the dwarf sperm whale, which had previously been considered to be the 

same species. Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales are difficult to distinguish from one another at sea, and 

many misidentifications have been made. Sightings of either species are often categorized as the genus 

Kogia (Jefferson et al., 2015).

3.7.2.3.5.1 Status and Management

The dwarf sperm whale is not listed under the ESA. Dwarf sperm whales within the Pacific U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone are divided into two separate stocks: (1) the Hawaiian stock, and (2) the California, 

Oregon, and Washington stock (Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.5.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Dwarf sperm whales tend to occur over the outer continental shelf, and they may be relatively coastal in 

some areas with deep waters nearshore (MacLeod et al., 2004). Although the dwarf sperm whale 

appears to prefer more tropical waters than the pygmy sperm whale, the exact habitat preferences of 

the species are not well understood. Records of this species from both the western Pacific (Taiwan) and 

eastern Pacific (California) suggest that its range includes the waters off Southern California and Hawaii 

(Carretta et al., 2017c; Jefferson et al., 2008b; Wang et al., 2001; Wang & Yang, 2006).

During the 2002 NMFS survey of the Hawaiian Islands there were five dwarf sperm whale sightings and 

one sighting in the 2010 survey of the area (Barlow, 2006; Bradford et al., 2013; Bradford et al., 2017). 

During small boat surveys between 2002 and 2012 in the main Hawaiian Islands, this species was the 

fifth most frequently encountered species of odontocete in waters shallower than 1,000 m with a strong 

peak in the sighting rate where depths are between 500 and 1,000 m (Baird et al., 2013d; Oleson et al., 

2013). Dwarf sperm whales have been seen near Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Lanai, and Hawaii. Photoidentification of individuals off Hawaii Island since 2003 has provided evidence of long-term site fidelity, 

with a third of identified individuals being seen in more than one year, and therefore suggesting the 

existence of an island-resident population (Baird et al., 2015c; Oleson et al., 2013).

Along the U.S. Pacific coast, no reported sightings of this species have been confirmed as dwarf sperm 

whales and it is likely that most Kogia species off California are pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) 

(Carretta et al., 2015; Nagorsen & Stewart, 1983). There were no Kogia detected during 15 aerial surveys 

conducted in the Southern California Range Complex from 2008 through 2012 (Smultea et al., 2014). 

This may be somewhat due to their pelagic distribution, cryptic behavior (i.e., “hidden” because they are 

not very active at the surface and do not have a conspicuous blow), and physical similarity to the pygmy 

sperm whale (Jefferson et al., 2008b; McAlpine, 2009). However, the presence of dwarf sperm whales 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-71

3.7 Marine Mammals

off the coast of California has been demonstrated by at least five dwarf sperm whale strandings in 

California between 1967 and 2000 (Carretta et al., 2010).

Although deep oceanic waters may be the primary habitat for this species, very few oceanic sightings 

offshore have occurred within the Study Area. The lack of sightings may be due to the difficulty of 

detecting and identifying these animals at sea (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Maldini et al., 2005).

A year-round Small and Resident Population area has been identified for dwarf sperm whales off the 

west coast of the Island of Hawaii (Baird et al., 2015c). The delineated area forms a rough triangle 

around 55 sightings of dwarf sperm whales sighted in the area between 2002–2012 (Baird et al., 2015c). 

A more detailed analysis of the area has been presented in Appendix K. 

3.7.2.3.5.3 Population Trends

In the Hawaiian Islands, there are no current data available for deriving a population abundance or trend 

(Carretta et al., 2015). Dwarf sperm whales are one of the more commonly stranded species in the 

Hawaiian Islands (Maldini et al., 2005), and the frequency of strandings indicates that the species is 

likely more common than sightings suggest (Jefferson et al., 2015). Strandings in Hawaii are relatively 

rare and there were four strandings of individual dwarf sperm whales in the Hawaiian Islands 5-year 

period between 2010 and 2015 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015e). 

There is no information available to estimate the population size of dwarf sperm whales off the U.S. 

west coast. There are no known sighting records of this species despite many vessel surveys along the 

west coast, and sightings of unidentified Kogia species are likely to be pygmy sperm whales (Carretta et 

al., 2015). 

3.7.2.3.5.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Dwarf sperm whales feed on cephalopods and, less often, on deep sea fishes and shrimps (Caldwell & 

Caldwell, 1989; Sekiguchi et al., 1992). Dwarf sperm whales generally forage near the seafloor (McAlpine 

2009). Killer whales are predators of dwarf sperm whales (Dunphy-Daly et al., 2008).

3.7.2.3.5.5 Species-Specific Threats

Bradford and Forney (2014) noted one observed interaction that in 2008 between a pygmy or dwarf 

sperm whale was observed hooked during and longline fishing activities in Hawaiian waters (note that 

this was not considered an “injury”; (Bradford & Lyman, 2015). There were no mortalities observed in 

the California drift gillnet fishery for the most recent period monitored (2004–2008; (Carretta et al., 

2017c). In the period from 2010–2014 there were no records of human related injury or mortality to this 

species on the U.S. west coast (Carretta et al., 2016b). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses 

general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.6 Pygmy Sperm Whale (Kogia breviceps)

There are two species of Kogia: the pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) and the dwarf sperm whale 

(Kogia sima; discussed in Section 3.7.2.3.5, Dwarf Sperm Whale [Kogia sima]). Dwarf and pygmy sperm 

whales are difficult to detect and distinguish from one another at sea, and many misidentifications have 

been made. Sightings of either species are often categorized as the genus Kogia (Jefferson et al., 2015).

3.7.2.3.6.1 Status and Management 

The pygmy sperm whale is not listed under the ESA. Pygmy sperm whales are divided into two discrete 

stocks: (1) the Hawaiian stock and (2) the California, Oregon, and Washington stock (Carretta et al., 

2017c).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-72

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.6.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The pygmy sperm whale frequents more temperate habitats than dwarf sperm whales, which is more of 

a tropical species.

Sightings of pygmy sperm whales are rarely reported in Hawaii (Baird et al., 2013c; Oleson et al., 2013). 

During boat surveys between 2000 and 2012 in the main Hawaiian Islands, this species was observed, 

but less commonly than the dwarf sperm whale (Baird et al., 2003b; Baird, 2005; Baird et al., 2013c; 

Barlow et al., 2004; Oleson et al., 2013). Pygmy sperm whales are one of the more commonly stranded 

species in the Hawaiian Islands, and this frequency of strandings indicates that the species is likely more 

common than sightings suggest (Maldini et al., 2005).

Pygmy sperm whales have only rarely been sighted along the U.S. west coast during surveys and the 

limited sightings cannot be used to produce a reliable population estimate (Carretta et al., 2017c). 

Several studies have suggested that this species generally occurs beyond the continental shelf edge 

(Bloodworth & Odell, 2008; MacLeod et al., 2004) and all confirmed pygmy sperm whale sightings off 

the U.S. west coast have been well offshore (Barlow, 2016; Hamilton et al., 2009). For California, a total 

of six pygmy sperm whale sightings have been made in offshore waters along the U.S. west coast during 

systematic surveys conducted between 1991 and 2014 (Barlow, 2016; Hamilton et al., 2009). There were 

no Kogia detected during 15 aerial surveys conducted in the Southern California Range Complex from 

2008 through 2012 (Smultea & Jefferson, 2014).

Movement patterns for this species are poorly understood. No specific information regarding routes, 

seasons, or resighting rates in specific areas is available for the HSTT Study Area.

3.7.2.3.6.3 Population Trends

There are no data available for an analysis of population trend for pygmy sperm whales in the Pacific 

(Carretta et al., 2017c). 

3.7.2.3.6.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Pygmy sperm whales feed on cephalopods and, less often, on deep-sea fishes and shrimps (Beatson, 

2007; Caldwell & Caldwell, 1989). A recent study in Hawaiian waters showed cephalopods were the 

primary prey of pygmy sperm whales, making up 78.7 percent of prey abundance and 93.4 percent 

contribution by mass (West et al., 2009). Stomach samples revealed an extreme diversity of cephalopod 

prey, with 38 species from 17 different families (West et al., 2009). Pygmy sperm whales have not been 

documented to be prey to any other species though they are likely subject to occasional killer whale 

predation like other whale species.

3.7.2.3.6.5 Species-Specific Threats

Pygmy sperm whales are susceptible to fisheries interactions. Interactions between longline fishing 

activities in Hawaiian waters between a pygmy or dwarf sperm whale resulting in injury were observed 

in 2008 and in 2014 (Bradford & Forney, 2014, 2017). In 1992 and 1993 there were two pygmy sperm 

whale mortalities observed in the California drift gillnet fishery but none were observed in the most 

recent period monitored (2004–2008) (Carretta et al., 2017c). In the period from 2010-2014 there were 

no records of human related injury or mortality to this species on the U.S. west coast (Carretta et al., 

2016b). Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated that the 

overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to pygmy sperm whales 

from this fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et 

al., 2017a). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-73

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.7 Killer Whale (Orcinus orca)

A single species of killer whale is currently recognized, but strong and increasing evidence indicates the 

possibility of several different species of killer whales worldwide, many of which are called “ecotypes” 

(Ford, 2008). The different geographic forms of killer whale are distinguished by distinct social and 

foraging behaviors and other ecological traits. In the north Pacific, these recognizable geographic forms 

are variously known as ‘‘residents,’’ ‘‘transients,” and “offshore” ecotypes (Hoelzel et al., 2007). In the 

HSTT Study Area, both the transient and offshore ecotypes are known to occur. 

3.7.2.3.7.1 Status and Management 

The killer whale is not ESA-listed in the HSTT Study Area. Five killer whale stocks are recognized within 

the Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, with only the Hawaiian stock occurring in Hawaii and two 

stocks in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area consisting of the Eastern North Pacific 

Transient/West Coast Transient stock4 and the Eastern North Pacific Offshore stock (Carretta et al., 

2017c).

3.7.2.3.7.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Killer whales are found in all marine habitats from the coastal zone (including most bays and inshore 

channels) to deep oceanic basins and from equatorial regions to the polar pack ice zones of both 

hemispheres. Although killer whales are also found in tropical waters and the open ocean, they are most 

numerous in coastal waters and at higher latitudes (Dahlheim & Heyning, 1999). Forney and Wade 

(2006) found that killer whale densities increased by 1-2 orders of magnitude from the tropics to the 

poles.

Although killer whales apparently prefer cooler waters, they have been observed in Hawaiian waters 

(Baird et al., 2013c; Barlow, 2006; Mobley et al., 2001a; Shallenberger, 1981). There are also 

documented strandings for this species from the Hawaiian Islands (Maldini et al., 2005). Sightings are 

extremely infrequent in Hawaiian waters, and typically occur during winter, suggesting those sighted in 

Hawaii are seasonal migrants to Hawaii (Baird et al., 2003a; Baird et al., 2013c; Mobley et al., 2001a). 

During two separate systematic ship surveys of the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone in summer/fall, 

there were two killer whale sightings in 2002 and a single sighting in 2010 (Barlow, 2006; Bradford et al., 

2017). Baird (2006) documented 21 killer whale sightings within the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone, 

primarily around the main Hawaiian Islands during relatively nearshore small boat surveys. In the period 

from 2000 to 2012, there were two sightings with each pod consisting of four killer whales (Baird et al., 

2013d). A single adult female was also sighted off Kauai in July 2011 (Cascadia Research Collective, 

2012). A pod of killer whales was observed off the southwest coast of the island of Hawaii in May 2014 

(Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2014).

All three ecotypes of killer whale are known to occur along the west coast of North America, from the 

entire Alaskan coast, in British Columbia and Washington inland waterways, and along the outer coasts 

of Washington, Oregon, and California but the endangered Resident ecotype’s range does not extend 

south of Monterey California (Calambokidis & Barlow, 2004; Carretta et al., 2017c; Dahlheim et al., 

2008; Ford & Ellis, 1999; Forney et al., 1995). In the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, 

only the transient and offshore ecotypes may be present (Carretta et al., 2017c). During seven 

 4 This stock is mentioned briefly in the Pacific Stock Assessment Report (Carretta et al., 2017c) and referred to as 

the “Eastern North Pacific Transient” stock, but the Alaska Stock Assessment Report contain assessments of the 

killer whale transient stocks where this same stock is referred to as the “West Coast Transient” stock (Muto et al., 

2017).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-74

3.7 Marine Mammals

systematic ship surveys of waters off the U.S. west coast between 1991 and 2014, there were 37 killer 

whale sightings, only five of which were off southern California (Henderson et al., 2016). Based on two 

sightings from 15 aerial surveys conducted in the Southern California Range Complex from 2008 through 

2012, killer whales were ranked 12th in occurrence as compared to other cetaceans (Jefferson et al., 

2014; Smultea et al., 2014).

3.7.2.3.7.3 Population Trends

No data are available on current population trends for the Hawaii stock of killer whales or in the 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, for either the Eastern North Pacific offshore or 

Eastern North Pacific Transient/West Coast Transient stock of killer whales (Carretta et al., 2017c; Muto 

et al., 2017). 

3.7.2.3.7.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Killer whales feed on a variety of prey, including bony fishes, elasmobranchs (a class of fish composed of 

sharks, skates, and rays), cephalopods, seabirds, sea turtles, and other marine mammals (Fertl et al., 

1996; Ford et al., 2013; Ford et al., 2014; Jefferson et al., 2008b). Some populations are known to 

specialize in specific types of prey (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Krahn et al., 2004; Wade et al., 2009). The 

killer whale has no known natural predators; it is considered to be the top predator of the oceans (Ford, 

2008).

3.7.2.3.7.5 Species-Specific Threats

For the killer whale stocks that are present in the HSTT Study Area, no species specific threats have been 

identified other than fishery bycatch. Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, 

NMFS has estimated that the overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious 

injury to killer whales from this fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 

and 2015 (Carretta et al., 2017a). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine 

mammals.

3.7.2.3.8 False Killer Whale (Pseudorca crassidens; the Hawaii pelagic stock and the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands stock)

3.7.2.3.8.1 Status and Management 

False killer whales are present in Hawaiian waters. NMFS currently recognizes three stocks of false killer 

whale in Hawaiian waters: the Hawaii pelagic stock, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands stock, and the 

Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock (Bradford et al., 2015; Carretta et al., 2015; Forney et al., 2010; 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012; Oleson et al., 2010). 

The Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock (considered resident to the main Hawaiian Islands consisting of 

Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe, Maui, and Hawaii) is listed as endangered under the ESA as a 

distinct population segment (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012), and was 

discussed in Section 3.7.2.2 (False Killer Whale [Pseudorca crassidens; Main Hawaiian Islands insular 

stock]). The following subsections discuss known data relating to the Hawaii Pelagic stock and the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands stock of false killer whales, which are not listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. 

The species is not expected to be present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area 

during the period of time covered by the proposed action. False killer whales are not included by NMFS 

as a managed species in California waters (Carretta et al., 2017c).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-75

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.8.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

This species is known to occur in deep oceanic waters off Hawaii, and elsewhere in the Pacific false killer 

whales have been detected in acoustic surveys and are commonly observed in the eastern tropical 

Pacific generally south of the Study Area (Carretta et al., 2015; Miyashita et al., 1996; Oswald et al., 

2003; Wade & Gerrodette, 1993; Wang et al., 2001). False killer whale are also regularly found within 

Hawaiian waters and have been reported in groups of up to 100 over a wide range of depths and 

distance from shore (Baird et al., 2003b; Baird et al., 2013a; Bradford et al., 2014; Bradford et al., 2015; 

Oleson et al., 2013; Shallenberger, 1981).

The ranges and stock boundary descriptions are for false killer whales in the Hawaiian Islands are 

complex and overlapping. For example, all three stocks are known to overlap in the vicinity of Kauai and 

Niihau, which is where the Navy’s underwater instrumented range has been operating since the 1980s. 

All significant information regarding the range of the three stocks (as of September 2015) was presented 

in Bradford et al. (2015). Carretta et al. (2015) provided a summary of the data used to delineate the 

stock boundaries, summarized the research supporting that data, and provided a synthesis in the Pacific 

Stock Assessment Report that is repeated in the next few paragraphs for the Hawaii Pelagic stock and 

the Northwest Hawaiian Islands stock.

Hawaii Pelagic stock animals have been tracked to within 11 km of the main Hawaiian Islands and 

throughout the Northwest Hawaiian Islands so the pelagic stock’s inner boundary is placed at 11 km 

from shore (Bradford et al., 2015). The pelagic stock has no outer boundary and there is no inner 

boundary within the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

False killer whales in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands stock have been seen as far as 93 km from the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and near-shore around Kauai and Oahu (Baird et al., 2012; Bradford et 

al., 2015). The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands stock boundary is defined by a 93-km radius around 

Kauai, Niihau, and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The entirety of the Northwestern Hawaiian 

Islands stock range, with the exception of the area within 11 km around Kauai and Niihau is an overlap 

zone between Northwestern Hawaiian Islands stock and the Hawaii Pelagic stock false killer whales. The 

93-km boundary radius around Kauai and Niihau for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands stock partially 

overlaps the 72-km radius around those same islands for the Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock. In 

2015, a biologically important area for the Main Hawaiian Islands stock as a small and resident 

population was identified (Baird et al., 2015b), but that designation does not apply to animals in either 

the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands stock or the Hawaii Pelagic stock of false killer whales. 

As noted previously, false killer whales are not expected to be present in the Southern California portion 

of HSTT. Older records document only a handful of sightings from areas such as Monterey Bay, Santa 

Catalina, and the Channel Islands (Baird, 2009a; Jefferson et al., 2008b; Miller & Scheffer, 1986). 

Sightings from vessel surveys also have occurred off in warmer waters off Baja California, Mexico 

(Chivers et al., 2007). False killer whales were not detected during the 15 aerial surveys conducted in the 

Southern California Range Complex from 2008 through 2012 (Smultea & Jefferson, 2014). A nearshore 

marine mammal survey off San Diego Bay in March 2014 detected a false killer whale pod that was 

assumed to be the same pod that had been seen 6 days before off Dana Point (Graham & Saunders, 

2015). Two years later in April-March 2016, a whale watch vessel out of Dana Point again sighted a pod 

of false killer whales in the same area (Ritchie, 2016). This species normally prefers warmer tropical 

waters found outside of southern California and the presence of this species to the north of its usual 

habitat was likely due to the warmer than normal water temperatures associated with a known El Niño

event. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-76

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.8.3 Population Trends

No data are available for the derivation of population trends for either the Hawaii Pelagic stock or the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands stock of false killer whales in Hawaii (Carretta et al., 2016b). 

3.7.2.3.8.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

False killer whales feed primarily on deep-sea cephalopods and fish (Odell & McClune, 1999). They may 

also prefer large fish species, such as mahi mahi and tunas. Twenty-five false killer whales that stranded 

off the coast of the Strait of Magellan were examined and found to feed primarily on cephalopods and 

fish (Koen-Alonso et al., 1999). This is consistent with findings from four false killer whales found 

stranded in Hawaii from 2010 through 2016 whose stomach contents included prey items from various 

squid, yellowfin tuna, mahi mahi, jack, marlin, and bonefish (West, 2016). 

False killer whales have been observed to attack other cetaceans, including dolphins, and large whales, 

such as humpback and sperm whales (Baird, 2009b). They are known to behave aggressively toward 

small cetaceans in tuna purse seine nets. Unlike other whales or dolphins, false killer whales frequently 

pass prey back and forth among individuals before they start to eat the fish, in what appears to be a way 

of affirming social bonds (Baird et al., 2010b). This species is believed to be preyed on by large sharks 

and killer whales (Baird, 2009b). 

3.7.2.3.8.5 Species-Specific Threats

Like many marine mammals, false killer whales accumulate high levels of toxins in their blubber over the 

course of their long lives, but the consequence of that bioaccumulation remains unknown. Because false 

killer whales they feed on large prey at the top of the food chain (e.g., squid, tunas) they may be 

impacted by competition with fisheries (Cascadia Research Collective, 2010). In Hawaiian waters, false 

killer whales are particularly susceptible to fishery interactions and entanglements (Baird et al., 2015e; 

West, 2016). A historic decline in the number of false killer whales in Hawaii is believed to have been the 

result of various non-Navy factors that include incidental take by commercial fisheries (Bradford & 

Forney, 2014; Oleson et al., 2010; Reeves et al., 2009). Bradford and Forney (2014) noted that from 2008 

to 2012 27 false killer whales were observed interacting with the deep-set and shallow–set fisheries in 

the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone. Estimates are that approximately eight false killer whales from 

the Main Hawaiian Islands insular and Hawaii Pelagic stocks are killed or seriously injured by commercial 

longline fisheries each year (McCracken & Forney, 2010). This number is based on a 5-year average and 

is most likely an underestimate since it does not include any animals that were unidentified and might 

have been false killer whales. There were four strandings of Main Hawaiian Island Insular false killer 

whales in the Hawaiian Islands in the 5-year period between the start of 2010 and the end of 2016

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). Two of these stranded animals had fishing gear (fishhooks, 

leaders, line) found within the stomach contents examined during necropsy (West, 2016). Section 

3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.9 Pygmy Killer Whale (Feresa attenuata)

3.7.2.3.9.1 Status and Management

The pygmy killer whale is not listed under the ESA. For the MMPA stock assessment reports, there is a 

single Pacific management stock including only animals found within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

of the Hawaiian Islands (Bradford et al., 2013; Carretta et al., 2010; Oleson et al., 2013).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-77

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.9.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The pygmy killer whale is generally an open ocean deepwater species (Davis et al., 2000; McSweeney et 

al., 2009; Oleson et al., 2013; Würsig et al., 2000). Movement patterns for this species are poorly 

understood.

During a NMFS 2014 systematic ship survey off the U.S. west coast, when there were unusually warm 

water conditions, a group of 27 pygmy killer whales was sighted in offshore waters of southern 

California (Barlow, 2016). Given that there is a remote likelihood for this species to occur regularly off 

the U.S. west coast, the 2015 Pacific Stock Assessment report does not include pygmy killer whales as a 

managed stock in California waters (Carretta et al., 2017c).

This species’ range in the open ocean generally extends to the southern regions of the North Pacific 

Gyre and the southern portions of the North Pacific Transition Zone. Many sightings have occurred from 

cetacean surveys of the eastern tropical Pacific (Au & Perryman, 1985; Barlow & Gisiner, 2006; Wade & 

Gerrodette, 1993). This species is also known to be present in the western Pacific (Wang & Yang, 2006). 

Its range is generally considered to be south of 40° N and continuous across the Pacific (Donahue & 

Perryman, 2008; Jefferson et al., 2008b). Groups of pygmy killer whales were sighted five times during 

NMFS 2010 survey of the Hawaiian Islands (Bradford et al., 2017). 

A year-round Small and Resident Population area has been identified for pygmy killer whales off the 

Island of Hawaii (Baird et al., 2015a). The delineated area extends along the coast of Hawaii Island from 

northwest of Kawaihae to South Point and along the southeast coast of the island, as determined by 

locations from two satellite-tagged individuals, photo-identification data, extensive vessel-based survey 

data, and expert judgment (Baird et al., 2015a). A more detailed analysis of the area has been presented 

in Appendix K. 

3.7.2.3.9.3 Population Trends

No data are available regarding the trends for populations of pygmy killer whales in the Pacific (Carretta 

et al., 2015).

3.7.2.3.9.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Pygmy killer whales feed predominantly on fish and squid. They have been known to attack other 

dolphin species, apparently as prey, although this is not common (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Perryman & 

Foster, 1980; Ross & Leatherwood, 1994). The pygmy killer whale has no documented predators (Weller, 

2008), although it may be subject to predation by killer whales.

3.7.2.3.9.5 Species-Specific Threats

Fisheries interactions are likely as evidenced by a pygmy killer whale that stranded on Oahu with signs of 

a hooking injury (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007a), the report of mouthline injuries noted in 

some individuals (Baird unpublished data cited in Carretta et al. (2017c), and one observed mortality

during longline fishing in Hawaiian waters in 2013 (Bradford & Forney, 2017). The 2015 Pacific Stock 

Assessment Report (Carretta et al., 2017c) suggests that two mass-strandings of pygmy killer whales 

(that occurred in 2004 and 2005) were, “... possibly associated with offshore naval training exercises” 

based on the citation to Wang and Yang (2006). That citation (Wang & Yang, 2006) only speculatively 

suggested that, “... naval sonar and live ammunition exercises are two of many plausible causes that 

need to be investigated” given there was a lack of necessary information (such as if sonar was even in 

use) regarding relatively contemporaneous and distant events involving the U.S. Navy, Peoples Republic 

of China Navy, Taiwan Navy, and the Japanese Navy and oil and gas seismic exploration occurring in the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-78

3.7 Marine Mammals

eastern Pacific. Compounding the identification of a cause for these particular stranding events, is that 

in the period between 1995 and 2005 there were a total of six pygmy killer whale Mass Stranding Events 

and three milling events involving the same species in Taiwan (Brownell et al., 2009b; Yang et al., 2008). 

The suggestion that sonar, underwater detonations, or seismic oil and gas exploration may have caused

the particular 2004 and 2005 strandings has remained speculative with researchers pointing to the need 

for further investigation (Brownell et al., 2009b; Wang & Yang, 2006; Yang et al., 2008). The technical 

report from the U.S. Department of the Navy (U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program & SPAWAR Systems 

Center Pacific, 2017) provides a general discussion of strandings potentially related to the use of sonar 

and other anthropogenic sound. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine 

mammals.

3.7.2.3.10 Short-finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus)

3.7.2.3.10.1 Status and Management

Short-finned pilot whales are not listed under the ESA. For MMPA stock assessment reports, shortfinned pilot whales within the Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone are divided into two discrete stocks: 

(1) the Hawaiian stock, and (2) the California, Oregon and Washington stock (Carretta et al., 2017c). 

3.7.2.3.10.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The short-finned pilot whale is widely distributed throughout most tropical and warm temperate waters 

of the world and occurs in waters over the continental shelf break, in slope waters, and in areas of high 

topographic relief (Baird et al., 2013d; Olson, 2009). While pilot whales are typically distributed along 

the continental shelf break, movements over the continental shelf are commonly observed in the 

northeastern United States (Payne & Heinemann, 1993) and close to shore at oceanic islands like 

Hawaii, where the shelf is narrow and deeper waters are found nearby (Baird, 2013; Gannier, 2000; 

Mignucci-Giannoni, 1998). Short-finned pilot whales are not considered a migratory species, although 

seasonal shifts in abundance have been noted in some portions of the species’ range. A number of 

studies in different regions suggest that the distribution and seasonal inshore/offshore movements of 

pilot whales coincide closely with the abundance of squid, their preferred prey (Bernard & Reilly, 1999; 

Hui, 1985; Payne & Heinemann, 1993). 

Short-finned pilot whales in the Hawaiian Islands were the most commonly encountered species of 

odontocete during near-shore surveys in depths over 2,000 meters and were the second most common 

odontocete encountered during NMFS 2002 (25 sightings) and 2010 (36 sightings) systematic ship 

surveys of the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone (Baird et al., 2013d; Barlow, 2006; Bradford et al., 

2013; Oleson et al., 2013). Small boat surveys from 2003 through 2007 photo-identified 250 individuals 

seen in more than one year, suggesting site fidelity (Abecassis et al., 2015; Mahaffy et al., 2015; Oleson 

et al., 2013). Habitat-based models developed from systematic ship survey data collected in the central 

North Pacific show some of the highest short-finned pilot whale densities around the Hawaiian Islands 

(Becker et al., 2012b; Forney et al., 2015). Twenty-three strandings of this species have been recorded at 

the main Hawaiian Islands, including five mass strandings and four strandings since 2007 (Carretta et al., 

2015; Maldini et al., 2005).

A year-round Small and Resident Population area has been identified for short-finned pilot whales off 

the Island of Hawaii (Baird et al., 2015a). The delineated area extends along the coast of Hawaii Island as 

determined by a polygon drawn around the locations from 35 satellite-tagged deployments defining a 

high-use area (Baird et al., 2015a; Mahaffy et al., 2015). A more detailed analysis of the area has been 

presented in Appendix K. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-79

3.7 Marine Mammals

Short-finned pilot whale distribution off Southern California changed dramatically after El Niño in 1982–

1983, when squid did not spawn as usual in the area, and pilot whales virtually disappeared from the 

area for 9 years (Shane, 1995). There were nine short-finned pilot whale sightings during seven 

systematic ship surveys conducted by NMFS off California, Oregon, and Washington between 1991 and 

2014, with three of these off southern California (Barlow & Forney, 2007; Barlow, 2016). There were two 

additional short-finned pilot whale sightings during 16 ship surveys conducted by the state of California

in the Southern California Bight between 2004 and 2008 (Douglas et al., 2014b). Short-finned pilot 

whales were not sighted during 18 aerial surveys conducted in the Southern California Bight between 

2008 and 2013 (Jefferson et al., 2014). A group of approximately 50 individuals was encountered off San 

Diego in May 2015 and included an individual photo identified previously off Ensenada, Mexico (KendallBar et al., 2016).

3.7.2.3.10.3 Population Trends

For Hawaiian waters, the variability in the documented abundance between the 2002 and 2010 surveys 

precludes an assessment of the population trend for short-finned pilot whales in Hawaii (Carretta et al., 

2017c). 

Pilot whales appeared to have returned to California waters as evidenced by an increase in sighting 

records, as well as incidental fishery bycatches (Barlow & Forney, 2007; Barlow, 2016; Douglas et al., 

2014a; Kendall-Bar et al., 2016). Because these changes likely reflect a change in distribution based on a 

changing environment rather than a change in the population, there can be no assessment of the 

current population trend for short-finned pilot whales in California (Carretta et al., 2017c). 

3.7.2.3.10.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Pilot whales feed primarily on squid but also take fish (Bernard & Reilly, 1999). They are generally well 

adapted to feeding on squid (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Werth, 2006a, 2006b). Analysis of satellite tagging 

data from pilot whales in Hawaii correlated with certain environmental parameters suggested that the 

deep mesopelagic boundary community serve as prey for these whales (Abecassis et al., 2015). 

Pilot whales are not generally known to prey on other marine mammals, but records from the eastern 

tropical Pacific suggest that the short-finned pilot whale does occasionally chase and attack, and may 

eat, dolphins during fishery operations (Olson, 2009; Perryman & Foster, 1980). They have also been 

observed harassing sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico (Weller et al., 1996).

This species is not known to have any predators (Weller, 2008), although it may be subject to predation 

by killer whales.

3.7.2.3.10.5 Species-Specific Threats

From 2008 to 2012, three short-finned pilot whales were observed interacting with the longline fishery 

in the Hawaiian Islands (Bradford & Forney, 2014) and one mortality to the species observed from that 

fishery in 2013 (Bradford & Forney, 2017). Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer 

data, NMFS has estimated that the overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious 

injury to short-finned pilot whales from this fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the period 

between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 2017a). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general 

threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.11 Melon-headed Whale (Peponocephala electra)

This small tropical dolphin species, the melon-headed whale, is similar in appearance to the pygmy killer

whale.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-80

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.11.1 Status and Management 

The melon-headed whale is not listed under the ESA. For the MMPA stock assessment reports, there are 

two Pacific management stocks within the Hawaiian Islands Exclusive Economic Zone based on photoidentification, social network analysis, movement data, and genetics (Oleson et al., 2013). These stock 

are 1) the Kohala Resident stock, which includes melon-headed whales off the Kohala and west coast of 

Hawaii Island in less than 2,500 m of water, and 2) the Hawaiian Islands stock, which includes melonheaded whales inhabiting waters throughout the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone of the Hawaiian Islands 

(Aschettino et al., 2012; Baird et al., 2015b; Carretta et al., 2017c; Oleson et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.3.11.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Melon-headed whales are found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters but movement patterns 

for this species are poorly understood. They have occasionally been reported at higher latitudes, but 

these movements are considered to be beyond their normal range, because the records indicate these 

movements occurred during incursions of warm water currents (Jefferson et al., 2015; Perryman et al., 

1994; Perryman, 2008). In the north Pacific, occurrence of this species is well known in deep waters off 

many areas, including the Hawaii portion of the Study Area (Aschettino et al., 2012; Au & Perryman, 

1985; Ferguson, 2005; Perrin, 1976; Wang et al., 2001).

The melon-headed whale is regularly found within Hawaiian waters (Baird et al., 2003a; Baird et al., 

2003b; Baird et al., 2010a; Baird et al., 2015d; Mobley et al., 2000; Shallenberger, 1981). Large groups 

are seen regularly, especially off the Waianae coast of Oahu, the north Kohala coast of Hawaii, and the 

leeward coast of Lanai (Baird, 2006; Oleson et al., 2013; Shallenberger, 1981). Two ship-based, visual 

line-transect surveys were conducted during the summer-fall of 2002 and 2010 in the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone of the Hawaiian Islands and also encountered single groups of 89 melon-headed whales 

(Baird, 2006) and 153 melon-headed whales (Bradford et al., 2013), respectively. Brownell et al. (2009a)

found that melon-headed whales near oceanic islands rest near shore during the day, and feed in 

deeper waters at night. Melon-headed whales are known to enter shallow water areas on occasion 

although these are generally characterized as animals being “out of habitat” and/or “mass strandings”; a 

few hundred did so at Hanalei Bay, Kauai and Sasanhaya Bay, Rota (Mariana Islands) on July 4, 2004 

(Jefferson et al., 2006), and similar numbers did so in the Philippines entering Manila Bay in Feb 2009 

and the bay at Odiongan, Romblon in March of 2009 (Aragones et al., 2010). In surveys around the main 

Hawaiian Islands, melon-headed whales showed no clear pattern in depth use (Baird et al., 2013d). 

A year-round Small and Resident Population area has been identified for melon-headed whales off the 

Island of Hawaii (Baird et al., 2015a). The delineated area forms a roughly triangular polygon centered 

off Kawaihae (Hawaii Island) as determined by a polygon drawn around the locations from four satellitetagged individuals, photo-identification data, extensive vessel-based survey data, and expert judgment 

(Baird et al., 2015a). The data used to delineate the area is discussed in greater detail in Appendix K. 

During ship-based bird surveys in the eastern tropical Pacific, this species was observed from the U.S.-

Mexico border south to Peru, typically associated with pelagic sea birds while foraging (Pitman & 

Ballance, 1992). The species is not expected to be present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT 

Study Area. 

3.7.2.3.11.3 Population Trends

Because there are only two estimates of abundance available from survey data, no population trend 

analysis has been possible for melon-headed whales in Hawaii (Carretta et al., 2015).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-81

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.11.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Melon-headed whales prey on squid, pelagic fishes, and occasionally crustaceans. Most of the fish and 

squid families eaten by this species consist of mid-water forms found in waters up to 1,500 m deep, 

suggesting that feeding takes place deep in the water column (Jefferson & Barros, 1997). Melon-headed 

whales are believed to be preyed on by killer whales and have been observed fleeing from killer whales 

in Hawaiian waters (Baird et al., 2006b).

3.7.2.3.11.5 Species-Specific Threats

Species-specific threats to melon-headed whales in Hawaii may include interactions with fishing 

activities. Bradford and Forney (2016) note that from 2009 through 2013 there were 11 observed Hawaii 

longline fishery interactions with cetaceans which were not identified to a species and therefore may 

have involved melon-headed whales. The 2015 Pacific Stock Assessment Report (Carretta et al., 2017c)

suggests that underwater sound may also be source of mortality to this species; please see the U.S. 

Navy’s Technical Report (U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program & SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, 2017)

for a general discussion of strandings potentially related to the use of sonar and other anthropogenic 

sound. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.12 Long-beaked Common Dolphin (Delphinus capensis)

Common dolphins are represented by two species for management purposes in NMFS Pacific Stock 

Assessment Report (Carretta et al., 2017c), the long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus capensis) and 

the short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis). There is scientific disagreement regarding the 

common dolphin taxonomy (Committee on Taxonomy, 2016), but the Navy is following NMFS

naming convention. 

3.7.2.3.12.1 Status and Management 

This species is not listed under the ESA. For the MMPA stock assessment reports, there is a single Pacific 

management stock for those animals found within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone off the U.S. west 

coast, which is called the California, Oregon, and Washington stock (Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.12.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Long-beaked common dolphins are not present in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area.

The long-beaked common dolphin appears to be restricted to waters relatively close to shore (Jefferson 

& Van Waerebeek, 2002; Perrin, 2008a), apparently preferring shallower and warmer water than the 

short-beaked common dolphin (Becker et al., 2016; Perrin, 2008a). Off California and Baja California, 

Mexico, long-beaked common dolphins are commonly found within 50 NM of the coast (Carretta et al., 

2011; Gerrodette & Eguchi, 2011). This species is found off Southern California year round, but it may be 

more abundant there during the warm-water months (May to October) (Barlow & Forney, 2007; Bearzi, 

2005b; Douglas et al., 2014b; Henderson et al., 2014a; Heyning & Perrin, 1994). Stranding data and 

sighting records suggest that this species’ abundance fluctuates seasonally and from year to year off 

California (Carretta et al., 2011; Douglas et al., 2014b; Henderson et al., 2014a). Southern California 

waters represent the northern limit to this species’ range and the seasonal and inter-annual changes in 

abundance off California are assumed to reflect the shifts in the movements of animals between U.S. 

and Mexican waters (Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.12.3 Population Trends

There appears to be an increasing trend in the abundance of long-beaked common dolphin in southern 

California waters over the last 30 years (Carretta et al., 2017c; Jefferson et al., 2014).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-82

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.12.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

The genus Delphinus is known to feed primarily on organisms in the ocean zones, usually composed of 

marine organisms that migrate from depth to surface and back again at different times of day (Evans, 

1994). Predation by killer whales on this species has been observed (Leatherwood et al., 1973).

3.7.2.3.12.5 Species-Specific Threats

Long-beaked common dolphins are particularly susceptible to fisheries interactions. From 2007 to 2011, 

there were 42 known long-beaked common dolphin deaths attributed to human related causes 

(primarily gillnet fishery entanglement) (Carretta et al., 2013b). From 2010 to 2014, there were 41 

reported fishery related mortalities to long-beaked common dolphins (Carretta et al., 2016b). Based on 

California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated that the overall probability 

of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to long-beaked common dolphins from this 

fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 

2017a). Additionally, along California’s coast mortality has been documented due to domoic acid 

toxicity, which is a neurotoxin associated with algal blooms (Carretta et al., 2015).

The 2015 Pacific Stock Assessment Report notes that four long-beaked common dolphins died in 2011 as 

the result of blast trauma associated with underwater detonations conducted by the U.S. Navy at the 

Silver Strand Training Complex within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area (Carretta 

et al., 2017c; Danil & St Leger, 2013). This was the first incident of this kind in decades of conducting 

training at that location. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine 

mammals.

3.7.2.3.13 Short-beaked Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis)

Common dolphins are represented by two species for management purposes in NMFS Pacific Stock 

Assessment Report (Carretta et al., 2017c), the short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) and 

long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus capensis). There is scientific disagreement regarding the 

common dolphin taxonomy (Committee on Taxonomy, 2016), but the Navy is following NMFS

naming convention. 

3.7.2.3.13.1 Status and Management 

This species is not listed under the ESA. For the MMPA stock assessment reports, there is a single Pacific 

management stock for those animals found within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone off the U.S. west 

coast, which is called the California, Oregon, and Washington stock (Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.13.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Short-beaked common dolphins are not present in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area.

Historically along the U.S. west coast, short-beaked common dolphins were sighted primarily south of 

Point Conception (Dohl et al., 1983), but now they are commonly encountered as far north as 42°N 

(Hamilton et al., 2009), and occasionally as far north as 48°N (Forney, 2007). Seasonal distribution shifts 

are pronounced, with a significant southerly shift south of Point Arguello in the winter (Becker et al., 

2014; Campbell et al., 2014; Forney & Barlow, 1998; Henderson et al., 2014a). Short-beaked common 

dolphins are a warm temperate to tropical species, and based on habitat models developed using linetransect survey data collected off the U.S. west coast, densities are greatest when waters are warmest 

(Barlow et al., 2009; Becker et al., 2010; Becker et al., 2014; Becker et al., 2016; Forney & Barlow, 1998; 

Forney et al., 2012). The abundance of short-beaked common dolphins off the U.S. west coast varies, 

with seasonal and year-to-year changes in oceanographic conditions; movements may be north-south or 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-83

3.7 Marine Mammals

inshore-offshore (Barlow et al., 2009; Becker et al., 2014; Becker et al., 2016; Forney & Barlow, 1998; 

Forney et al., 2012; Henderson et al., 2014a). Short-beaked common dolphin abundance off California 

has increased dramatically since the late 1970s, along with a smaller decrease in abundance in the 

eastern tropical Pacific, suggesting a large-scale northward shift in the distribution of this species in the 

eastern North Pacific (Carretta et al., 2017c; Forney et al., 1995; Forney & Barlow, 1998). The trend for 

an increase in the population off California appears to be continuing given the current data from the 

most recent 2014 NMFS survey (Barlow, 2016).

Short-beaked common dolphins are found in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area 

throughout the year, distributed between the coast and at least 345 mi. from shore (Barlow & Forney, 

2007; Barlow, 2016; Forney & Barlow, 1998). Based on multiple line-transect studies conducted by 

NMFS, the short-beaked common dolphin is the most abundant cetacean species with a widespread 

distribution off southern California (Barlow & Forney, 2007; Barlow, 2016; Campbell et al., 2014; 

Carretta et al., 2011; Douglas et al., 2014b; Forney et al., 1995). From 2004 to 2008 during ship surveys 

conducted quarterly by the state of California off southern California, short-beaked common dolphins 

were encountered year-round, with highest encounters during the summer (Douglas et al., 2014b). 

From 2008 to 2013 during 18 aerial surveys conducted in the Southern California Bight, short-beaked 

common dolphins were the most-frequently observed species (Jefferson et al., 2014). 

3.7.2.3.13.3 Population Trends

Based on an analysis of sighting data collected during quarterly surveys off southern California from 

2004 to 2013, short-beaked common dolphins showed annual variations in density, but there was no 

significant trend evident during the period of this study (Campbell et al., 2014) or as a result of any other 

data (Carretta et al., 2017c). However, Barlow (2016) noted a nearly monotonic increase in the 

abundance of short-beaked common dolphins from 1991 to 2014 off the U.S. west coast, and suggested 

that a future trend analysis is appropriate. 

3.7.2.3.13.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Delphinus species fluctuate in vocal activity, with more vocal activity during late evening and early 

morning, apparently linked to feeding on the deep scattering layer, which rises in this same time frame 

(Henderson et al., 2012). Predation by killer whales on this species has been observed (Leatherwood et 

al., 1973).

3.7.2.3.13.5 Species-Specific Threats

Short-beaked common dolphins are particularly susceptible to fisheries interactions and entanglement. 

From 2007 to 2011, there were 20 known short-beaked common dolphin deaths attributed to human 

related causes along the U.S. west coast (primarily gillnet fishery entanglement) (Carretta et al., 2013b). 

Between 2010 to 2014, there were 24 observed fishery related mortalities to short-beaked common 

dolphins along the U.S. West Coast (Carretta et al., 2016b) and two serious injuries outside the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (Bradford & Forney, 2017). Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer 

data, NMFS has estimated that the overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious 

injury to short-beaked common dolphins from this fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the 

period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 2017a). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses 

general threats to marine mammals.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-84

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.14 Common Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

The common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) is present throughout most of the HSTT 

Study Area.

3.7.2.3.14.1 Status and Management

The common bottlenose dolphin is not listed under the ESA. For the MMPA stock assessment reports, 

bottlenose dolphins within the Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone are divided into seven stocks: (1) 

Kauai and Niihau, (2) Oahu, (3) the 4-Islands, (4) Hawaii Island, (5) the Hawaii Pelagic stock, (6) California 

Coastal stock, and (7) the California, Oregon and Washington Offshore stock (Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.14.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Common bottlenose dolphins typically are found in coastal and continental shelf waters of tropical and 

temperate regions of the world (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Wells et al., 2009). Common bottlenose 

dolphins occur throughout the Hawaiian Islands, and they are typically observed throughout the main 

islands and from the Island of Hawaii to Kure Atoll (Baird et al., 2013c; Shallenberger, 1981). There were 

multiple common bottlenose dolphin sightings during both the 2002 (15 sightings) and 2010 (19 

sightings) systematic surveys of the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone (Barlow, 2006; Bradford et al., 

2013). In the Hawaiian Islands, this species is found in both shallow coastal waters and deep offshore 

waters (Baird et al., 2003b; Barlow et al., 2008; Bradford et al., 2013; Mobley et al., 2000). The offshore 

variety is typically larger than the inshore. Photo-identification and genetics indicate the presence of 

island associated populations of bottlenose dolphins in the Hawaiian Islands (Martien et al., 2012). 

Bottlenose dolphins were observed during Navy monitoring surveys at Kaula Island in 2000, 2003, and 

2009-2011 (Richie et al., 2012). Habitat-based models developed from systematic ship survey data 

collected in the central North Pacific show some of the highest common bottlenose dolphin densities 

around the Hawaiian Islands (Becker et al., 2012b; Forney et al., 2015). Twelve stranding records from 

the main Hawaiian Islands exist (Maldini et al., 2005) (Maldini, 2003). 

Four broad areas covering the main Hawaiian Islands have been identified for Small and Resident 

Populations of bottlenose dolphins (Baird et al., 2015a). These delineated areas are based on the range 

for each of the four recognized stocks around each island region with the offshore extent defined by the 

1,000 m depth contour (Baird et al., 2015a). A more detailed analysis of the area has been presented in 

Appendix K. 

Common bottlenose dolphins are known to occur year round in both coastal and offshore waters of 

Monterey Bay, Santa Monica Bay, San Diego Bay, and San Clemente Island, California (Bearzi, 2005a, 

2005b; Bearzi et al., 2009; Carretta et al., 2000; Henkel & Harvey, 2008). In the Southern California

portion of the Study Area, they are routinely encountered in San Diego Bay in transit to the waters off 

Coronado where they feed (Graham & Saunders, 2015). 

During surveys off California, offshore common bottlenose dolphins were generally found at distances 

greater than 1.9 mi. from the coast and throughout the waters of Southern California (Barlow & Forney, 

2007; Barlow, 2016; Bearzi et al., 2009; Hamilton et al., 2009). Sighting records off California and Baja 

California suggest a continuous distribution of offshore common bottlenose dolphins in these regions 

(Mangels & Gerrodette, 1994). Analyses of sighting data collected during winter aerial surveys in 1991–

1992 and summer shipboard surveys in 1991 indicated no significant seasonal shifts in distribution 

(Forney & Barlow, 1998). Based on habitat models derived from line-transect survey data collected 

between 1991 and 2009 off the U.S. west coast, offshore common bottlenose dolphins exhibit a 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-85

3.7 Marine Mammals

disjunctive longitudinal distribution, suggesting that there may be two separate populations in this area, 

although additional genetic data are required for confirmation (Becker et al., 2016). 

California coastal bottlenose dolphins are found within about 0.6 NM. offshore, generally from Point 

Conception to as far south as San Quintin, Mexico (Carretta et al., 1998; Defran & Weller, 1999; Hwang 

et al., 2014). Coastal common bottlenose dolphins also have been consistently sighted off central 

California and as far north as San Francisco since the 1983 El Niño when they apparently traveled further 

north tracking prey due to the northern extent of warmer waters and continued using those more 

northern waters after that El Niño had ended (Hwang et al., 2014). Off Southern California, animals are 

found within 500 m of the shoreline 99 percent of the time and within 250 m of the shoreline 90 percent 

of the time (Hanson & Defran, 1993; Hwang et al., 2014). The dolphins in the nearshore waters of San 

Diego, California differ somewhat from other coastal populations of this species in distribution, site 

fidelity, and school size (Bearzi, 2005a, 2005b; Carretta et al., 2017c; Defran & Weller, 1999; Defran et 

al., 2015). Photo identification analyses suggest that there may be two separate stocks of coastal

bottlenose dolphins that exhibit limited integration, a California Coastal stock and a Northern Baja 

California stock (Defran et al., 2015), but this is not yet reflected in the Pacific Stock Assessment Report 

(Carretta et al., 2017c). The results from relatively contemporaneous surveys at Ensenada, San Diego, 

Santa Monica Bay, and Santa Barbara between 1996 and 2001 provided samples of the speed and 

distances individual coastal bottlenose dolphins routinely traveled (Hwang et al., 2014). The minimum 

travel speed observed as 53 km per day and the maximum was 95 km per day and the total distances 

traveled between points was between 104 km and 965 km (Hwang et al., 2014).

3.7.2.3.14.3 Population Trends

For the Hawaiian Islands Stock Complex of common bottlenose dolphins, stock-specific abundance 

numbers and a provisional boundary between the pelagic and insular stocks of bottlenose dolphin in 

Hawaii have been presented in the most recent (2015) Pacific Stock Assessment Report (Carretta et al., 

2017c). For the Hawaii Pelagic stock, the large abundance difference between the 2002 and 2010 

survey-based estimates and the overlapping confidence intervals preclude assessment of population 

trends with the available data (Carretta et al., 2017c). For the four island associated insular stocks (Kauai 

and Niihau, Oahu, 4-Islands, and Hawaii Island), only one abundance estimate is available for each so 

there is insufficient information to assess population trends for those stocks (Carretta et al., 2017c). 

For the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, the California Coastal stock population size 

has remained stable over the period for which data are available (Carretta et al., 2017c; Dudzik et al., 

2006). For the California, Oregon and Washington Offshore stock, there has been no trend analysis for 

the population (Carretta et al., 2017c). 

3.7.2.3.14.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Common bottlenose dolphins are opportunistic feeders, taking a wide variety of fishes, cephalopods, 

shrimps (Wells & Scott, 1999), and using a variety of feeding strategies (Shane, 1990). As with all 

odontocetes, bottlenose dolphins use echolocation for locating prey and also likely detect and orient to 

fish prey by passively listening for the sounds their prey produce (Barros & Myrberg, 1987; Barros & 

Wells, 1998). Coastal bottlenose dolphins prey predominantly on coastal fish and cephalopods, while 

offshore individuals prey on open ocean cephalopods and a large variety of near-surface and mid-water 

fish species (Mead & Potter, 1995). Pacific coast bottlenose dolphins feed primarily on surf perches 

(family Embiotocidae) and croakers (family Sciaenidae) (Wells & Scott, 1999). Throughout its range this 

species is known to be preyed on by killer whales and sharks (Wells & Scott, 2008).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-86

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.14.5 Species-Specific Threats

Common bottlenose dolphins are particularly susceptible to entanglement and other interactions with 

fishery operations. In Hawaii from 2010 to 2014, longline fisheries were observed interacting with 14

bottlenose dolphins (Bradford & Forney, 2017) and one case of a dolphin with a trolling hook in its 

mouth (Bradford & Lyman, 2015). From 2007 to 2011, there were two known bottlenose dolphin deaths 

attributed to human-related causes along the U.S. west coast and between 2010 to 2014 there four

deaths as a result of fishery interactions (Carretta et al., 2013b; Carretta et al., 2016b). Based on 

California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated that the overall probability 

of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to bottlenose dolphins from this fishery was 

one based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 2017a). Section 

3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.15 Pantropical Spotted Dolphin (Stenella attenuata)

3.7.2.3.15.1 Status and Management

The species is not listed under the ESA. For the MMPA stock assessment reports, the species has been 

divided into four stocks based on genetics and the frequency of sightings in pelagic waters around 

Hawaii (Courbis et al., 2014; Oleson et al., 2013). For the MMPA stock assessment reports, the four 

management stocks within the Hawaiian Islands Exclusive Economic Zone are: 1) the Oahu stock, which 

includes spotted dolphins within 20 km of Oahu; 2) the 4-Islands stock, which includes spotted dolphins 

within 20 km of the island group formed by Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe and their adjacent 

waters; 3) the Hawaii Island stock, which includes spotted dolphins found within 65 km from Hawaii 

Island; and 4) the Hawaii Pelagic stock, which includes spotted dolphins inhabiting the waters 

throughout the Hawaiian Islands Exclusive Economic Zone, outside of the insular stock areas (Carretta et 

al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.15.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The pantropical spotted dolphin is distributed in offshore tropical and subtropical waters of the Pacific, 

Atlantic, and Indian Oceans between about 40° N and 40° S (Baldwin et al., 1999; Perrin, 2008c). The 

species is much more abundant in the lower latitudes of its range. It is found mostly in deeper offshore 

waters but does approach the coast in some areas (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Perrin, 2001).

Based on sightings during small boat surveys from 2000 to 2012 in the main Hawaiian Islands, 

pantropical spotted dolphins were the most abundant species of cetacean, although they were 

frequently observed leaping out of the water which likely increased their detectability (Baird et al., 

2013c). This species was also one of the most abundant based on analyses of line-transect data collected 

in the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone in 2002 and 2010 (Barlow, 2006; Bradford et al., 2013). Known 

habitat preferences and sighting data indicate the primary occurrence for the pantropical spotted 

dolphin in Hawaiian waters is shallow coastal waters to depths of 5,000 m, although the peak sighting 

rates occur in depths from 1,500 to 3,500 m (Baird et al., 2013e; Bradford et al., 2013; Oleson et al., 

2013). Habitat-based models developed from systematic ship survey data collected in the central North 

Pacific show relatively high pantropical spotted dolphin densities around the Hawaiian Islands, 

particularly around the Main Hawaiian Islands (Becker et al., 2012a; Forney et al., 2015), consistent with 

sightings from two systematic ship surveys of the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone (Barlow 2006; 

(Bradford et al., 2017). 

A year-round Small and Resident Population area has been identified for pantropical spotted dolphins 

around the main Hawaiian Islands (Baird et al., 2015a). Sighting data from small-boat surveys were used 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-87

3.7 Marine Mammals

to delineate the three locations forming this area but these data are biased by survey effort that has 

occurred mainly off the protected leeward sides of the Hawaiian Islands (Baird et al., 2015a). A more 

detailed analysis of the area has been presented in Appendix K. 

Pantropical spotted dolphins are not present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. 

3.7.2.3.15.3 Population Trends

No data are available on current population trend for any of the stocks of pantropical spotted dolphins 

in Hawaii (Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.15.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Pantropical spotted dolphins prey on near-surface fish, squid, and crustaceans and on some mid-water 

species (Perrin & Hohn, 1994). Results from various tracking and feeding studies suggest that 

pantropical spotted dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific and off Hawaii feed primarily at night on 

surface and mid-water species that rise with the deep scattering layer toward the water’s surface after 

dark (Baird et al., 2001; Silva et al., 2016). Pantropical spotted dolphins may be preyed on by killer 

whales and sharks, and have been observed fleeing killer whales in Hawaiian waters (Baird et al., 2006a). 

Other predators may include the pygmy killer whale, false killer whale, and occasionally the short-finned 

pilot whale (Perrin, 2008c).

3.7.2.3.15.5 Species-Specific Threats

Even though bycatch has been reduced for tuna purse seine fisheries, interactions may have negative 

effects on species survival and reproduction (Archer et al., 2010). Pantropical spotted dolphins in Hawaii 

have been observed interacting with the longline fishery resulting in injury (Bradford & Forney, 2014), 

and there was one case of serious injury to a spotted dolphin observed entangled in fishing line 

(Bradford & Lyman, 2015). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to 

marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.16 Striped Dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba)

3.7.2.3.16.1 Status and Management 

This species is not listed under the ESA. In the eastern north Pacific, NMFS identifies two striped dolphin 

management stocks within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone: the Hawaiian stock and the California, 

Oregon, and Washington stock (Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.16.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Although primarily a warm-water species, the range of the striped dolphin extends higher into 

temperate regions than those of any other species in the genus Stenella. Striped dolphins are generally 

restricted to oceanic regions and are seen close to shore only where deep water approaches the coast. 

In some areas (e.g., the eastern tropical Pacific), they are mostly associated with convergence zones and 

regions of upwelling (Au & Perryman, 1985; Reilly, 1990). The northern limits are the Sea of Japan, 

Hokkaido, Washington State, and along roughly 40° N across the western and central Pacific (Reeves et 

al., 2002b). In the eastern tropical Pacific, striped dolphins inhabit areas with large seasonal changes in 

surface temperature and thermocline depth, as well as seasonal upwelling (Au & Perryman, 1985; Reilly, 

1990). In some areas, this species appears to avoid waters with sea temperatures less than 68°F (20°C) 

(Van Waerebeek et al., 1998).

The striped dolphin regularly occurs around the Hawaiian Islands. Two comprehensive shipboard 

surveys of the Hawaiian U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone resulted in 15 sightings of striped dolphins in 2002 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-88

3.7 Marine Mammals

(Barlow, 2006) and 25 sightings in 2010 (Bradford et al., 2017). Resulting density estimates from these 

surveys suggest that they are one of the most abundant species in the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic 

Zone. Based on sighting records, this species occurs primarily seaward of the 1,000-m depth contour. 

Striped dolphins are occasionally sighted closer to shore in Hawaii, so an area of secondary occurrence is 

expected from a depth range of 100 to 1,000 m. Occurrence patterns are assumed to be the same 

throughout the year (Mobley et al., 2000). Habitat-based models developed from systematic ship survey 

data collected in the central North Pacific show more uniform striped dolphin densities throughout the 

Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone, consistent with this species’ known occurrence in deep waters 

(Becker et al., 2012b; Forney et al., 2015).

Based on sighting records, striped dolphins appear to have a continuous distribution in offshore waters 

from California to Mexico (Mangels & Gerrodette, 1994). The striped dolphin also occurs far offshore, in 

waters affected by the warm Davidson Current as it flows northward (Archer, 2009; Jefferson et al., 

2008b). During ship surveys conducted off the U.S. west coast in the summer and fall from 1991 to 2005, 

striped dolphins were sighted primarily from 100 to 300 NM offshore of the California coast (Barlow & 

Forney, 2007). Striped dolphin encounters increase in deep, relatively warmer waters off the U.S. west 

coast (Becker et al., 2012a; Becker et al., 2016; Henderson et al., 2014a), and their abudance decreases 

north of about 42°N (Barlow et al., 2009; Becker et al., 2012a; Becker et al., 2016; Forney et al., 2012). 

There were only three striped dolphin encounters during 16 ship surveys off southern California from 

2004 to 2008 (Douglas et al., 2014b) and they were not detected during 15 aerial surveys conducted in 

the Southern California Range Complex from 2008 through 2012 (Smultea & Jefferson, 2014).

3.7.2.3.16.3 Population Trends

For the Hawaiian stock of striped dolphin, the large abundance difference between the 2002 and 2010 

survey-based estimates and the overlapping confidence intervals preclude assessment of population 

trends with the available data (Carretta et al., 2017c). 

For the California, Oregon, and Washington stock of striped dolphins, there is currently no evidence of a 

trend in abundance for this stock (Carretta et al., 2017c). 

3.7.2.3.16.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Striped dolphins often feed in open sea or sea bottom zones along the continental slope or just beyond 

it in oceanic waters. Most of their prey possess light-emitting organs, suggesting that striped dolphins 

may be feeding at great depths, possibly diving to 200 to 700 m (Archer & Perrin, 1999). Striped dolphins 

may feed at night in order to take advantage of the deep scattering layer’s diurnal vertical movements. 

Small mid-water fishes (in particular lanternfishes) and squids are the predominant prey (Perrin et al., 

1994b). This species has been documented to be preyed upon by sharks (Ross & Bass, 1971). It may also 

be subject to predation by killer whales.

3.7.2.3.16.5 Species-Specific Threats

In Hawaii between 2010 and 2014 for striped dolphins, there were six observed interactions and one 

serious injury from a longline fishery interaction (Bradford & Forney, 2017). From 2007 to 2014, there 

was one human-caused death of a striped dolphin along the U.S. west coast (Carretta et al., 2013b; 

Carretta et al., 2016b). Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has 

estimated that the overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to 

striped dolphins from this fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 

2015 (Carretta et al., 2017a). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine 

mammals.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-89

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.17 Spinner Dolphin (Stenella longirostris)

Four well differentiated geographical forms of spinner dolphins have been described as separate 

subspecies but only Stenella longirostris (Gray’s spinner dolphin) is present in the HSTT Study Area.

3.7.2.3.17.1 Status and Management 

The spinner dolphin is not listed under the ESA. The eastern spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris 

orientalis) is listed as depleted under the MMPA. Hawaiian spinner dolphins (considered a form of 

Gray’s or pantropical spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris longirostris) are considered as separate stocks 

from those involved in the tuna purse-seine fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific (Dizon et al., 1994). 

Under the MMPA, there are six stocks found within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone of the Hawaiian 

Islands: (1) Hawaii Island, (2) Oahu/4-Islands, (3) Kauai/Niihau, (4) Pearl & Hermes Reef, (5) 

Kure/Midway, and (6) Hawaii Pelagic, including animals found both within the Hawaiian Islands Exclusive 

Economic Zone (outside of island-associated boundaries) and in adjacent international waters (Carretta 

et al., 2013a).

3.7.2.3.17.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Spinner dolphins occur in both oceanic and coastal environments and seasonal movement patterns for 

this species have not been documented. Spinner dolphins are pantropical, ranging through oceanic 

tropical and subtropical zones in both hemispheres (Jefferson et al., 2015). Based on an analysis of 

individual spinner dolphin movements in Hawaii, no spinner dolphins from the island associated stocks 

have been found farther than 10 NM from shore and few individuals move long distances (from one 

main Hawaiian Island to another) (Hill et al., 2011). Open ocean populations, such as the Hawaii Pelagic 

stock or those animals in the eastern tropical Pacific, often are found in waters with a shallow 

thermocline (rapid temperature difference with depth) (Au & Perryman, 1985; Perrin, 2008b; Reilly, 

1990). The thermocline concentrates open sea organisms in and above it, which spinner dolphins feed 

on. In the eastern tropical Pacific, spinner dolphins are associated with tropical surface waters typified 

by extensive stable thermocline ridging and relatively little annual variation in surface temperature (Au 

& Perryman, 1985; Perrin, 2008b). 

In the Hawaiian Islands, spinner dolphins occur along the leeward coasts of all the major islands and 

around several of the atolls northwest of the main Hawaiian Islands. Spinner dolphins occur year round 

throughout the Hawaiian Islands, with primary occurrence from the shore to the 4,000 m depth. This 

takes into account offshore resting habitat and offshore feeding areas. Spinner dolphins are expected to 

occur in shallow water resting areas (about 50 m deep or less) throughout the middle of the day, moving 

into deep waters offshore during the night to feed (Heenehan et al., 2016; Heenehan et al., 2017; Norris 

& Dohl, 1980). Some of these resting areas are in proximity to bathymetric features that result in 

localized concentration of spinner dolphin prey. For example, there is an escarpment off Hawaii Island’s 

Keahole Point that produces a locally enriched area that spinner dolphins exploit during nightly foraging 

trips from the nearby Makako Bay (Heenehan et al., 2017; Norris et al., 1994). Primary resting areas are 

along the west side of Hawaii, including Makako Bay, Honokohau Bay, Kailua Bay, Kealakekua Bay, 

Honaunau Bay, and Kauhako Bay, and off Kahena on the southeast side of the island (Heenehan et al., 

2016; Heenehan et al., 2017; Norris & Dohl, 1980; Ostman-Lind et al., 2004; Tyne et al., 2015; Tyne et 

al., 2017). Along the Waianae coast of Oahu, Hawaii, spinner dolphins rest along Makua Beach, Kahe 

Point, and Pokai Bay during the day (Lammers, 2004). Kilauea Bay on Kauai is also a popular resting 

areas for Hawaiian spinner dolphins (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2006). Monitoring for the Rim of the 

Pacific Exercise in 2006 resulted in daily sightings of spinner dolphins within the offshore area of Kekaha 

Beach, Kauai, near the Pacific Missile Range Facility (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2006). Spinner 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-90

3.7 Marine Mammals

dolphins have been observed during Navy monitoring surveys at Kaula Island in 2000, 2003, and 2009-

2011 (Richie et al., 2012). Although sightings have been recorded around the mouth of Pearl Harbor, 

Hawaii, spinner dolphin occurrence is rare there (Lammers, 2004; Richie et al., 2016). Occurrence 

patterns are assumed to be the same throughout the year. Habitat-based models developed from 

systematic ship survey data collected in the central North Pacific show the strong island association of 

spinner dolphins (Becker et al., 2012b; Forney et al., 2015), consistent with previously documented 

distribution patterns (Barlow, 2006). 

A number of Small and Resident Population areas have been identified for spinner dolphins in the

Hawaiian Islands (Baird et al., 2015a). These delineated areas are based on the range for each of the five 

recognized stocks and extend 10 NM from the shore of the Islands for which stock is named (Baird et al., 

2015a). A more detailed analysis of the area has been presented in Appendix K.

Spinner dolphins are not present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area.

3.7.2.3.17.3 Population Trends

For spinner dolphins in Hawaii, differences in survey methodologies or insufficient data have precluded 

an assessment of any population trend for any of the six identified stocks (Carretta et al., 2017c). 

3.7.2.3.17.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Spinner dolphins feed primarily on small mid-water fishes, squids, and shrimp, and they dive to at least 

200 to 300 m (Perrin & Gilpatrick, 1994). They forage primarily at night, when the mid-water community 

migrates toward the surface and the shore (Benoit-Bird et al., 2001; Benoit-Bird, 2004). Spinner dolphins 

track the horizontal and vertical migrations of their prey (Benoit-Bird & Au, 2003), allowing for foraging 

efficiencies (Benoit-Bird & Au, 2003; Benoit-Bird, 2004). Foraging behavior has also been linked to lunar 

phases in scattering layers off of Hawaii (Benoit-Bird & Au, 2004). Spinner dolphins may be preyed on by 

sharks, killer whales, pygmy killer whales, and short-finned pilot whales (Perrin, 2008b).

3.7.2.3.17.5 Species-Specific Threats

Bradford and Lyman (2015) report that from 2008 to 2012 there were three observed serious injuries 

(leading to death) to spinner dolphins in Hawaii. Two of these injuries were fishing related and one 

involved marine debris preventing the individual’s mouth from opening. 

In 2015, a spinner dolphin stranded at a beach on Hawaii Island’s Kohala coast and was found to have 

parasitic toxoplasmosis from feral cats as the case of death (Rogers, 2016). The prevalence of this 

parasite as a threat to spinner dolphins in Hawaii is not yet known. 

Spinner dolphins in Hawaii are also subjected to chronic disturbance in their resting habitats from 

tourism that may have negative, long-term impacts (Courbis & Timmel, 2009; Tyne et al., 2014; Tyne, 

2015; Tyne et al., 2015; Tyne et al., 2017). Courbis (2009) found changes in spinner dolphin aerial 

behaviors and suggested it was likely that vessel and swimmer activity was at least synergistically 

involved in causing these changes, but whether the behavioral changes affected the survival and fitness 

of spinner dolphins remains unknown. Following a subsequent analysis, Tyne (2015) recommended that 

management actions be taken to keep the spinner dolphin resting areas free from human activities. As a 

result of the findings noted above, NMFS has proposed regulations to protect spinner dolphins from 

these types of disturbance related adverse impacts (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016d, 

2016f).Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-91

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.18 Rough-toothed Dolphin (Steno bredanensis)

3.7.2.3.18.1 Status and Management 

This species is not listed under the ESA. Rough-toothed dolphins are among the most widely distributed 

species of tropical dolphins, but little information is available regarding population status (Jefferson et 

al., 2015). There is a single Pacific management stock for rough-toothed dolphins found within the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone of the Hawaiian Islands, but there is no recognized stock of rough-toothed 

dolphins for the U.S. west coast (Carretta et al., 2017c)

3.7.2.3.18.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Rough-toothed dolphins are well known in deep ocean waters off the Hawaiian Islands but are also seen 

relatively frequently during nearshore surveys (Baird et al., 2008a; Baird et al., 2015e; Barlow et al., 

2008; Bradford et al., 2013; Carretta et al., 2015; Pitman & Stinchcomb, 2002; Shallenberger, 1981; 

Webster et al., 2015). During NMFS 2010 survey of the Hawaiian Islands, this species was encountered 

24 times and has been observed as far northwest as Pearl and Hermes Reef in the Northwest Hawaiian 

Islands (Bradford et al., 2013). Habitat-based models developed from systematic ship survey data 

collected in the central North Pacific show the strong island association of rough-toothed dolphins 

(Becker et al., 2012b; Forney et al., 2015). Over a 10-day near-shore survey effort off Kauai in 2014, 

rough-toothed dolphins were encountered on two occasions and 7 of the 8 individuals photo-identified 

had been observed in previous years (Baird et al., 2015d). Data from 14 satellite tags deployed off Kauai 

between 2011–2015 on rough-toothed dolphins indicated a large portion of the core area for those 

animals overlaps the Pacific Missile Range Facility range and the channel between Kauai and Niihau 

(Baird et al., 2015d). The data presented by Baird et al. (2015d) and Webster et al. (2015) are indicative 

of residency on or near the Pacific Missile Range Facility range by some of those animals (see also (Baird 

et al., 2008a). Because there are insufficient data at present, the area has not been identified as a 

biologically important area for this small resident population off Kauai (Baird et al., 2015b).

Unpublished data from small boat surveys off the west coast of Hawaii Island between 2002–2014 have 

provided sighting locations and genetic evidence indicative of another resident population, resulting in 

the identification of a biologically important area for that population (Baird et al., 2015b). The 

delineated area is a rough triangle encompassing all the locations where rough-toothed dolphins were 

sighted during those surveys (Baird et al., 2015b). A more detailed analysis of the area within the Hawaii 

Portion of the HSTT Study Area has been presented in Appendix K.

Rough-toothed dolphins are not expected to be present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT 

Study Area. The range of the rough-toothed dolphin is known to include the southern portion of the 

California coast but there is no recognized stock for the U.S west coast (Carretta et al., 2015). Several 

strandings were documented for this species in central and Southern California between 1977 and 2002 

(Zagzebski et al., 2006). This species has not been observed during seven systematic ship surveys from 

1991 to 2014 off the U.S. west coast (Barlow, 2016). During 16 quarterly ship surveys off southern 

California from 2004 to 2008, there was one encounter with a group of 9 rough-toothed dolphins, which 

was considered an extralimital occurrence (Douglas et al., 2014b).

3.7.2.3.18.3 Population Trends

The large abundance difference between the 2002 and 2010 survey-based estimates and the 

overlapping confidence intervals for rough-toothed dolphins preclude assessment of population trends 

with the available data (Carretta et al., 2017c).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-92

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.18.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Prey of rough-toothed dolphins includes fish and cephalopods. They are known to feed on large fish 

species, such as mahi mahi (Miyazaki & Perrin, 1994; Pitman & Stinchcomb, 2002). They may also prey 

on reef fish, as Perkins and Miller (1983) noted that parts of reef fish had been found in the stomachs of 

stranded rough-toothed dolphins in Hawaii, although the stomach contents of a stranded animal may 

not be representative of the species. Gannier and West (2005) observed rough-toothed dolphins feeding 

during the day on near-surface fishes, including flying fishes.

Although this species has not been documented as prey by other species, it may be subject to predation 

from killer whales.

3.7.2.3.18.5 Species-Specific Threats 

From 2010 to 2014, two rough-toothed dolphins were observed injured during deep-set and shallow-set 

fisheries in the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone (Bradford & Forney, 2017). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General 

Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.19 Pacific White-sided Dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens)

3.7.2.3.19.1 Status and Management

This species is not listed under the ESA. NMFS recognizes a single stock, the California, Oregon, and 

Washington stock for the U.S. west coast (Carretta et al., 2017c). 

3.7.2.3.19.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Pacific white-sided dolphins are not present in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area.

Pacific white-sided dolphins are found in cold temperate waters across the northern rim of the Pacific 

Ocean as far north as the southern Bering Sea and as far south as the Gulf of California off Mexico 

(Ferguson, 2005; Jefferson et al., 2015; Leatherwood et al., 1984; Reeves et al., 2002b). It is also known 

to inhabit inshore regions of southeast Alaska, British Columbia, and Washington, and occurs seasonally 

off Southern California (Brownell et al., 1999; Forney & Barlow, 1998). Sighting records and captures in 

open sea driftnets indicate that this species also occurs in oceanic waters well beyond the shelf and 

slope (Ferrero & Walker, 1996; Leatherwood et al., 1984). 

Off California, Forney and Barlow (1998) found significant north/south shifts in the seasonal distribution 

of Pacific white-sided dolphin, with the animals moving north into Oregon and Washington waters 

during the summer, and showing increased abundance in the Southern California Bight in the winter. 

During ship surveys conducted off the U.S. west coast in the summer and fall from 1991 to 2005, the 

number of Pacific white-sided dolphin sightings showed no clear pattern with respect to geographic 

region, although they were consistently found in larger groups off central California (Barlow & Forney, 

2007; Henderson et al., 2014a). Based on habitat models developed with survey data collected during 

summer and fall from 1991 to 2009, Becker et al. (2016) found that encounters of Pacific white-sided 

dolphin increased in shelf and slope waters and in relatively cooler waters in the study area. These 

patterns are consistent with previous habitat modeling efforts using a subset of the same data (Barlow 

et al., 2009; Becker et al., 2010; Becker et al., 2012b; Becker et al., 2014; Forney et al., 2012). Based on 

ship survey data collected quarterly from 2004 to 2013, Pacific white-sided dolphins occurred yearround off southern California, but the majority of the sightings were in winter and spring when their 

distribution was more widespread (Campbell et al., 2014). There were 21 sightings of Pacific white-sided 

dolphin during 18 aerial surveys conducted in the southern California Bight from 2008 to 2013 (Jefferson 

et al., 2014). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-93

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.19.3 Population Trends

Multiple analyses of sightings and stranding data have indicated a significant decline in abundance over 

time from the Southern California Bight to the Gulf of California in Mexico (Barlow, 2016; Campbell et 

al., 2015; Salvadeo et al., 2010; Smultea & Jefferson, 2014).

3.7.2.3.19.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Pacific white-sided dolphins in the eastern north Pacific feed primarily on near-surface and mid-water 

fishes, such as lanternfish, anchovies, mackerel, and hake, as well as cephalopods (Black, 1994; Brownell 

et al., 1999; Heise, 1997; Jefferson et al., 2008b; Morton, 2000). Feeding appears to be mostly on deep 

scattering layer organisms by use of cooperative feeding methods (Black, 2009; Jefferson et al., 2008b). 

Large schools have been observed feeding cooperatively on large shoals of schooling fish (Black, 2009; 

Jefferson et al., 2008b). Pacific white-sided dolphins have been observed being preyed on by killer 

whales and typically flee when they come in contact with the predator (Black, 2009).

3.7.2.3.19.5 Species-Specific Threats

Pacific white-sided dolphins are particularly susceptible to entanglement and other fishery interactions.

Along the U.S. west coast from 2007 to 2012 there were 35 human related deaths of and 4 serious 

injuries to Pacific white-sided dolphins (Carretta et al., 2013b). Based on California swordfish drift gillnet 

fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated that the overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in 

mortality or serious injury to Pacific white-sided dolphins from this fishery was one based on observed 

bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 2017a). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General 

Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.20 Northern Right Whale Dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis)

3.7.2.3.20.1 Status and Management 

This species it is not listed under the ESA but is protected by the MMPA. The management stock in U.S. 

waters consists of a single California, Oregon, and Washington stock (Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.20.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The northern right whale dolphin occurs in cool-temperate to subarctic waters of the North Pacific 

Ocean, from the west coast of North America to Japan and Russia. This oceanic species is distributed 

from approximately 30°N to 50°N, 145°W to 118° E and generally not as far north as the Bering Sea 

(Jefferson et al., 2015). Occasional movements south of 30°N are associated with unusually cold water 

temperatures (Jefferson & Lynn, 1994). This species tends to occur along the outer continental shelf and 

slope, normally in waters colder than 68°F (20°C) (Jefferson & Lynn, 1994). Northern right whale 

dolphins generally move nearshore only in areas where the continental shelf is narrow or where 

productivity on the shelf is especially high (Smith et al., 1986). 

Northern right whale dolphins are not present in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area.

Off California, the northern right whale dolphin is known to occur year round, but abundance and 

distribution vary seasonally (Becker et al., 2014; Dohl et al., 1983; Douglas et al., 2014b; Forney & 

Barlow, 1998). Northern right whale dolphins are primarily found off California during the colder water 

months, with distribution shifting northward into Oregon and Washington as water temperatures 

increase during late spring and summer (Barlow, 1995; Forney et al., 1995; Forney & Barlow, 1998; 

Henderson et al., 2014a). In the cool water period, the peak abundance of northern right whale dolphins 

in the Southern California portion of the Study Area corresponds closely with the peak abundance of 

squid (Forney & Barlow, 1998; Jefferson & Lynn, 1994). Northern right whale dolphins were sighted 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-94

3.7 Marine Mammals

year-round during 16 ship surveys conducted from 2004 to 2008 off southern California, but the 

majority of the sightings were in winter and spring (Douglas et al., 2014b). There were 16 sightings of 

northern right whale dolphins during 18 aerial surveys conducted in the southern California Bight from 

2008 to 2013 (Jefferson et al., 2014). 

As noted above, in the warm water periods, the northern right whale dolphin is not as abundant in 

Southern California due to shifting distributions north into Oregon and Washington (Barlow, 1995; 

Forney et al., 1995; Forney & Barlow, 1998). Based on habitat models developed with line-transect 

survey data collected off the U.S. west coast during summer and fall from 1991 to 2009, Becker et al. 

(2016) found that encounters of northern right whale dolphin increased in shelf and slope waters, and 

encounters decreased substantially in waters warmer than approximately 64°F (18°C). These patterns 

are consistent with previous habitat modeling efforts using a subset of the same data (Barlow et al., 

2009; Becker et al., 2010; Becker et al., 2012b; Becker et al., 2014; Forney et al., 2012). Northern right 

whale dolphins also tend to occur further offshore of southern California during the summer months 

(Douglas et al., 2014b; Forney & Barlow, 1998).

3.7.2.3.20.3 Population Trends

Examination of sighting and stranding data from the 1950s through 2012 suggest that the relative 

occurrence of northern right whale dolphin in the Southern California Bight has not changed over that 

period (Smultea & Jefferson, 2014) and the Pacific Stock Assessment Report states that there is no 

evidence of a trend in abundance for this stock (Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.20.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Northern right whale dolphins are known to feed on a wide variety of near-surface and mid-water prey 

species, including fishes and cephalopods, such as squid. Otolith (earbone) identification has shown that 

the northern right whale dolphin preys on many different species. Squid and lanternfish appear to be 

the main prey species in Southern California waters (Jefferson et al., 2015). This species may be preyed 

on by killer whales and occasionally sharks (Lipsky, 2009).

3.7.2.3.20.5 Species-Specific Threats

Northern right whale dolphins are particularly susceptible to entanglement and other fishery 

interactions. Northern right whale dolphins have never been hunted extensively in a major fishery, but 

incidental catches have occurred in purse seines and driftnets (Jefferson et al., 2015). The major threat 

appears to be bycatch in the California/Oregon thresher shark driftnet fishery, but catches are low-only 

about five to nine individuals per year (Carretta et al., 2010). From 2007 to 2014 there were 13 known 

northern right whale dolphins deaths attributed to human related causes along the U.S. west coast 

(Carretta et al., 2013b; Carretta et al., 2016b). Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer 

data, NMFS has estimated that the overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious 

injury to northern right whale dolphins from this fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the 

period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 2017a). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses 

general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.21 Fraser’s Dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei)

Since its discovery in 1956, Fraser’s dolphin was known only from skeletal specimens until it was once 

again identified in the early 1970s (Perrin et al., 1973). Although still one of the least-known species of 

cetaceans, Fraser’s dolphin has become much better described as a species in recent years.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-95

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.21.1 Status and Management

Fraser’s dolphin is not listed under the ESA. For the MMPA stock assessment reports, there is a single 

Pacific management stock including only animals found within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone of the 

Hawaiian Islands (Carretta et al., 2010).

3.7.2.3.21.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

In the offshore eastern tropical Pacific, this species is distributed mainly in upwelling modified waters 

(Aguayo & Sanchez, 1987; Au & Perryman, 1985; Ferguson, 2005; Miyazaki & Wada, 1978; Reilly, 1990).

Fraser’s dolphins have been documented within Hawaiian waters with the first published sightings 

occurring during a 2002 cetacean survey (Barlow, 2006). Fraser’s dolphin vocalizations have also been 

documented in the Hawaiian Islands (Barlow et al., 2004; Barlow et al., 2008). Based on line-transect 

survey data collected in summer/fall of 2010, Fraser’s dolphin was one of the most abundant species 

within the Exclusive Economic Zone ocean areas around the Hawaiian Islands; having a notably large 

group size in the pods observed with a mean of 283 animals (Bradford et al., 2013). In small boat surveys 

nearshore around the Hawaiian Islands, Fraser’s dolphins have only been seen twice in 10 years (both 

times off the Kona Coast of Hawaii Island) (Baird et al., 2013d). It is not known whether Fraser’s dolphins 

found in Hawaiian waters are part of the same population that occurs in the eastern tropical Pacific 

(Carretta et al., 2010). There are no records of strandings of this species in the Hawaiian Islands (Maldini 

et al., 2005; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015e). 

Fraser’s dolphins are not present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area.

3.7.2.3.21.3 Population Trends

No data are available on current population trend for the Hawaiian stock of Fraser’s dolphin (Carretta et 

al., 2015).

3.7.2.3.21.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Fraser’s dolphin feeds on mid-water fishes, squids, and shrimps and has not been documented to be 

prey to any other species (Jefferson & Leatherwood, 1994; Perrin et al., 1994a). 

3.7.2.3.21.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no known significant species-specific threats to Fraser’s dolphins in the Study Area. Section 

3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.22 Risso’s Dolphin (Grampus griseus)

3.7.2.3.22.1 Status and Management

Risso’s dolphin is not listed under the ESA. For the MMPA stock assessment reports, Risso's dolphins 

within the Pacific U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone are divided into two separate stocks: the Hawaiian stock 

in Hawaiian waters and the California, Oregon and Washington stock in the Southern California portion 

of the HSTT Study Area (Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.22.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

In the Pacific, Risso’s dolphins are found in the waters around the Hawaiian Islands (Bradford et al., 

2017) and off the U.S. west coast (Barlow, 2016). Studies have documented that Risso’s dolphins are 

found along the continental slope, over the outer continental shelf (Baumgartner, 1997; Cañadas et al., 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-96

3.7 Marine Mammals

2002; Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Davis et al., 1998; Green et al., 1992; Kruse et al., 

1999; Mignucci-Giannoni, 1998), and over submarine canyons (Mussi et al., 2004).

Risso’s dolphins had been considered rare in Hawaiian waters (Shallenberger, 1981). However, during a 

2002 survey of the Hawaiian Islands U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, seven sightings were reported; in 

addition, two sightings were reported from aerial surveys in the Hawaiian Islands (Barlow, 2006; Mobley 

et al., 2000). During a more recent 2010 systematic survey of the Hawaiian Islands U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone, there were 13 sightings of Risso’s dolphins (Bradford et al., 2017). In December–January

2014 using a passive acoustic recording device onboard an unmanned glider south of Oahu, Risso’s 

dolphins were acoustically detected throughout the entire survey except for the southernmost part 

between Bishop Seamount and McCall Seamount (Klinck et al., 2015). In addition, Risso’s dolphins were 

sighted eight times during Navy monitoring activities within the Hawaii Range Complex between 2005 

and 2012 (HDR, 2012). Seven stranding records exist from the main Hawaiian Islands (Maldini et al., 

2005; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015e).

Risso’s dolphin exhibits an apparent seasonal shift in distribution off the U.S. west coast, with 

movements from California waters north into Oregon and Washington waters in summer (Carretta et al., 

2000; Forney & Barlow, 1998; Green et al., 1992; Soldevilla et al., 2008). During ship surveys conducted 

quarterly off Southern California from 2004 to 2008, Risso’s dolphins were encountered year-round, 

with highest encounters during the cold-water months (Douglas et al., 2014b), consistent with 

previously observed seasonal shifts in distribution (Carretta et al., 2000; Forney & Barlow, 1998; 

Henderson et al., 2014a; Soldevilla, 2008). Off California, they are commonly seen over the slope and in 

offshore waters (Barlow & Forney, 2007; Forney et al., 1995; Jefferson et al., 2008b). This species is 

frequently observed in the waters surrounding San Clemente Island, California (Carretta et al., 2000). 

Habitat models derived from line-transect survey data collected between 1991 and 2009 off the U.S. 

west coast show that Risso’s dolphins exhibit a disjunctive longitudinal distribution, suggesting that 

there may be two separate populations in this area, although additional genetic data are required for 

confirmation (Becker et al., 2016). Several stranding records have been documented for this species in 

central and Southern California between 1977 and 2002 (Zagzebski et al., 2006).

3.7.2.3.22.3 Population Trends

In Hawaii, the broad and overlapping confidence intervals around the two Hawaii survey estimates of 

abundance preclude any assessment of a trend for this population (Carretta et al., 2015). 

For Risso’s dolphins in California, Oregon, and Washington waters, differences in estimated abundance 

between survey years is most likely due to the inter-annual variability in species distribution rather than 

a true abundance trend (Carretta et al., 2015). However, based on density estimates derived from aerial 

survey data collected from 2008 to 2013, the abundance of Risso’s dolphin in Southern California waters 

appears to have increased (Jefferson et al., 2014). Further, examination of sighting and stranding data 

from the 1950s through 2012 also indicated an increase in the relative occurrence of this species in the 

Southern California Bight over this time period (Smultea & Jefferson, 2014).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-97

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.22.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Cephalopods and crustaceans are the primary prey for Risso’s dolphins (Clarke, 1996), which feed mainly 

at night (Baird et al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2008b). This dolphin may be preyed on by both killer whales 

and sharks, although there are no documented reports of predation by either species (Weller, 2008).

3.7.2.3.22.5 Species-Specific Threats

Risso’s dolphins are particularly susceptible to entanglement and fisheries interactions. In Hawaii from 

2010 to 2014 there were 21 observed interactions between the longline fishery and Risso’s dolphins 

(Bradford & Forney, 2017). From 2007 to 2011, there were 4 known Risso’s dolphin deaths attributed to 

human related causes along the U.S. west coast (primarily gillnet fishery entanglement) (Carretta et al., 

2013b). Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated that the 

overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to Risso’s dolphins from this 

fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 

2017a). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.23 Dall’s Porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli)

3.7.2.3.23.1 Status and Management

This species is not listed under the ESA. Dall’s porpoise is managed by NMFS in United States Pacific 

waters as two stocks: (1) a California, Oregon, and Washington stock and (2) an Alaskan stock (Allen & 

Angliss, 2010; Carretta et al., 2010).

3.7.2.3.23.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Dall’s porpoise is one of the most common odontocete species in north Pacific waters (Calambokidis & 

Barlow, 2004; Ferrero & Walker, 1999; Houck & Jefferson, 1999; Jefferson, 1991; Jefferson et al., 2008b; 

Williams & Thomas, 2007; Zagzebski et al., 2006). Dall’s porpoise is found from northern Baja California, 

Mexico, north to the northern Bering Sea and south to southern Japan (Jefferson et al., 1993). However, 

the species is only common between 32° N and 62° N in the eastern North Pacific (Houck & Jefferson, 

1999; Morejohn, 1979). It is typically found in waters at temperatures less than 63° F (17° C) with depths 

of more than 180 m (Houck & Jefferson, 1999; Reeves et al., 2002b). 

Dall’s porpoises are not present in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area.

Dall’s porpoise distribution off the U.S. west coast is highly variable between years, most likely due to 

changes in oceanographic conditions (Barlow et al., 2009; Becker et al., 2010; Becker et al., 2012b; 

Forney & Barlow, 1998; Forney et al., 2012). North-south movements in California, Oregon, and 

Washington have been observed, with Dall’s porpoise shifting their distribution southward during coolerwater periods on both interannual and seasonal time scales (Forney & Barlow, 1998). Based on habitat 

models developed using 1991–2009 survey data collected during summer and fall, Becker et al. (2016)

found that encounters of Dall’s porpoise increased in shelf and slope waters in the Study Area, and 

encounters decreased substantially in waters warmer than approximately 63° F (17° C). These patterns 

are consistent with previous habitat modeling efforts using a subset of the same data (Barlow et al., 

2009; Becker et al., 2010; Becker et al., 2012b; Becker et al., 2014; Forney et al., 2012; Henderson et al., 

2014a).

During ship surveys conducted quarterly off southern California from 2004 to 2008, Dall’s porpoise was 

encountered year-round, with highest encounters during the cold-water months (Douglas et al., 2014b). 

There were only five Dall’s porpoise sightings during 18 aerial surveys conducted year-round in the 

Southern California Range Complex from 2008 to 2013 (Jefferson et al., 2014).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-98

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.23.3 Population Trends

No data are available regarding population trends for the stock of Dall’s porpoises in California, Oregon 

and Washington (Carretta et al., 2015). Examination of sighting and stranding data from the 1950s 

through 2012 suggest that the relative occurrence of this species in the Southern California Bight has not 

changed substantially over this time period (Smultea & Jefferson, 2014).

3.7.2.3.23.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

The diet of Dall’s porpoises, determined from analyses of stomach contents during studies in the north 

Pacific along the west coast, included 33 species of near-surface and mid-water fishes, as well as squid 

(Houck & Jefferson, 1999). Dall’s porpoises are known to be preyed on by killer whales and large sharks 

(Jefferson & Barros, 1997). Attacks by killer whales occur often in Alaskan waters, where they are 

considered to be a major predator of Dall’s porpoise (Jefferson, 2009).

3.7.2.3.23.5 Species-Specific Threats

Dall’s porpoises are particularly susceptible to fisheries interactions and entanglement. Mortality occurs 

as bycatch in a number of United States fisheries, but annual takes are considered small (Carretta et al., 

2015). Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated that the 

overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to Dall’s porpoises from this 

fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 

2017a). Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.24 Cuvier’s Beaked Whale (Ziphius cavirostris)

3.7.2.3.24.1 Status and Management

Cuvier’s beaked whale is not listed under the ESA. Within the HSTT Study Area, Cuvier’s beaked whales 

in Hawaii have been assigned to the Hawaiian stock and in the Southern California portion of the HSTT 

Study Area, animals are assigned to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock (Carretta et al., 

2017c).

3.7.2.3.24.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Cuvier’s beaked whales have an extensive range that includes all oceans, from the tropics to the polar 

waters of both hemispheres. Cuvier’s beaked whales are have been encountered in almost all areas of 

the Pacific, including the open mid-ocean, wherever surveys have occurred (Hamilton et al., 2009). 

Cuvier’s beaked whales are generally sighted in waters with a bottom depth greater than 200 m and are 

frequently recorded in waters with bottom depths greater than 1,000 m (Bradford et al., 2013; Falcone 

et al., 2009; Jefferson et al., 2015). Acoustic sampling of bathymetrically featureless areas off Southern 

California detected many beaked whales over an abyssal plain, which counters a common misperception 

that beaked whales are primarily found over slope waters, in deep basins, or over seamounts (Griffiths & 

Barlow, 2016).

Cuvier’s beaked whales are regularly found in waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands (Baird et al., 

2009; Baird et al., 2013d; Baird et al., 2015b; Barlow, 2006; Baumann-Pickering et al., 2010; BaumannPickering et al., 2014; Bradford et al., 2013; Lammers et al., 2015; Mobley, 2004; Oleson et al., 2013; 

Oleson et al., 2015; Shallenberger, 1981). In Hawaii, Cuvier’s beaked whales have been occasionally 

observed breaching and this along with their large size and visible blows likely increases their 

detectability (Baird et al., 2013d). During NMFS 2010 survey of the Hawaiian Islands Exclusive Economic 

Zone, there were 23 sightings of Cuvier’s beaked whales, which were commonly seen nearshore in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Bradford et al., 2013; Oleson et al., 2013; Oleson et al., 2015). Sightings 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-99

3.7 Marine Mammals

have been reported off the Hawaiian Islands of Lanai, Maui, Hawaii, Niihau, and Kauai, supporting the 

hypothesis that there is a resident population found in the Hawaiian Islands (Baird et al., 2009Mobley, 

2004 #986; Baird et al., 2013d; Baird et al., 2015b; Barlow, 2016; Oleson et al., 2013; Oleson et al., 2015; 

Shallenberger, 1981). Passive acoustic monitoring around in the main Hawaiian Islands has routinely 

recorded the presence of Cuvier’s beaked whales (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2010; Lammers et al., 

2015). There does not seem to be any association of Cuvier’s beaked whales with the presence of 

seamounts in the Hawaiian Islands. Research by McDonald et al, (2009) did not detect the acoustic 

presence of Cuvier’s beaked whales at Cross Seamount but did detect other beaked whale sounds from 

an as yet unidentified type or species; subsequently referred to as a BW38 FM pulse type (BaumannPickering et al., 2012; Baumann-Pickering et al., 2014; Baumann-Pickering et al., 2016). These absence of 

acoustic signals from Cuvier’ beaked whales and presence of the BW38 FM pulse type were 

subsequently verified in the winter of 2014–2015 (December to January), for Cross Seamount and other 

seamounts to the south of Oahu over the 3-week period of a survey (Klinck et al., 2015). BaumannPickering et al. (2016), have suggested a possible opposing pattern of presence, with Cuvier’s beaked 

whales being present when acoustic encounters of BW38 FM pulse type were fewer based on passive 

acoustic records from a seamount to the west of the Northern Line Islands.

A year-round Small and Resident Population area has been identified for Cuvier’s beaked whales 

surrounding Hawaii Island and including the Alenuihaha Channel across to Maui (Baird et al., 2015a). A 

more detailed analysis of the area within the Hawaii Portion of the HSTT Study Area has been presented 

in Appendix K. 

Research involving tagged Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Southern California Range Complex (Falcone et 

al., 2009; Falcone & Schorr, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014) has documented movements in excess of hundreds 

of kilometers. Schorr et al. (2014) reported that 5 out of 8 tagged whales journeyed approximately 250 

km from their tag deployment location and one of these 5 made an extra-regional excursion over 450 

km to the south to Mexico and back. 

Cuvier’s beaked whale is the most commonly encountered beaked whale off the west coast of the 

United States (Carretta et al., 2017c). This species is found from Alaska to Baja California, Mexico, and 

there are no apparent seasonal changes in distribution (Mead, 1989; Pitman et al., 1988). However, 

Mitchell (1968) reported that strandings from Alaska to Baja California were the most common between 

February and September. During ship surveys conducted quarterly off southern California from 2004 to 

2008, there were only six beaked whale sightings and half of these were Cuvier’s beaked whales 

(Douglas et al., 2014b). During 18 aerial surveys conducted in the Southern California Range Complex 

from 2008 through 2013, Cuvier’s beaked whales were sighted on two occasions (Jefferson et al., 2014). 

Repeated sightings of the same individuals have been reported off San Clemente Island in Southern 

California, which indicates some level of site fidelity (Falcone et al., 2009; Schorr et al., 2017). This 

species has also frequently been heard on passive acoustic recording devices in the Southern California 

portion of the Study Area (Griffiths & Barlow, 2016; Širović et al., 2016). In a test of drifting passive 

acoustic recorders off California in fall 2014, Griffiths and Barlow (2016) reported beaked whale 

detections over slopes and seamounts, which was not unexpected, and also over deep-ocean abyssal

plains, which was a novel finding.

3.7.2.3.24.3 Population Trends

For the Hawaiian Islands, the currently available data precludes evaluation of population trends for 

Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Hawaiian stock (Carretta et al., 2017c).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-100

3.7 Marine Mammals

A Bayesian trend analysis of systematic survey data collected from 1991–2008 suggested a decline in the 

abundance of beaked whales found in waters off California, Oregon, and Washington (Moore & Barlow, 

2013). However, a more recent study (Barlow, 2016) included data from an additional survey conducted 

in 2014 and indicated that the pattern seen for the U.S. west coast from 1996 to 2014 may indicate a 

change in that downward trend. Given that the population trend for the entire U.S. west coast is 

uncertain, an additional trend analysis that includes data from the recent survey may be appropriate for 

beaked whales in the California/Oregon/Washington stock (Barlow, 2016). When considering beaked 

whales within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, multiple studies have indicated 

that for waters surrounding the Navy training and testing areas in Southern California the abundance of 

beaked whales remains high, including specifically where Navy has been training and testing for 

decades. Results from passive acoustic monitoring and other research have estimated regional Cuvier’s 

beaked whale densities that were higher than indicated by NMFS’s broad-scale visual surveys for the 

U.S. west coast (Debich et al., 2015a; Debich et al., 2015b; Falcone & Schorr, 2012, 2014; Hildebrand et 

al., 2009; Moretti, 2016; Širović et al., 2016; Smultea & Jefferson, 2014). In a series of surveys from 2006 

to 2008, Falcone et al. (2009) proposed that the ocean basin west of San Clemente Island may be an 

important region for Cuvier’s beaked whales. While these location-specific results provide no indication 

of a trend for the U.S. west coast, the higher abundances observed on the Navy’s training and testing 

areas in Southern California are inconsistent with the decline noted over the remainder of the U.S. west 

coast from 1991–2008. Research also indicates higher than expected residency in the Navy’s 

instrumented Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range in particular (Falcone & Schorr, 2012). 

Photo identification studies in the Southern California Range Complex have identified approximately 100 

individual Cuvier’s beaked whale individuals with 40 percent having been seen in one or more prior 

years, with re-sightings up to 7 years apart (Falcone & Schorr, 2014). The documented residency by 

many Cuvier’s beaked whale over multiple years indicate that a stable population may exist in that small 

portion of the stock’s overall range (Falcone et al., 2009; Falcone & Schorr, 2014; Schorr et al., 2017).

3.7.2.3.24.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Cuvier’s beaked whales, similar to other beaked whale species, are apparently deepwater feeders

(Gassmann et al., 2015; Griffiths & Barlow, 2016). Stomach content analyses show that they feed mostly 

on deep-sea squid, fish, and crustaceans (Hickmott, 2005; Santos et al., 2007; West et al., 2017). 

Documented prey includes a diverse diet represented by at least 45 prey species (West et al., 2017).

Feeding may also occur at mid-water rather than only at or near the bottom as shown from tagging data 

on Cuvier’s beaked whales (Baird et al., 2005b; Baird et al., 2006c) and from acoustic tracking of their 

feeding sounds in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area (Gassmann et al., 2015). They 

apparently use suction to catch and swallow prey (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Werth, 2006a, 2006b). Beaked 

whales may be preyed upon by killer whales (Heyning & Mead, 2009; Jefferson et al., 2008b; Wellard et 

al., 2016).

3.7.2.3.24.5 Species-Specific Threats

There were four observed interactions between an unidentified beaked whale and longline fishing 

activities in Hawaiian waters between 2010 and 2014 (Bradford & Forney, 2016, 2017). Based on 

California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated that the overall probability 

of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to Cuvier’s beaked whales from this fishery was 

0.95 based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 2017a). Section 

3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-101

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.25 Baird’s Beaked Whale (Berardius bairdii)

3.7.2.3.25.1 Status and Management

Baird’s beaked whale is not listed under the ESA. Baird’s beaked whale stocks are defined for the two 

separate areas within Pacific U.S. waters where they are found: (1) Alaska and (2) California, Oregon, 

and Washington (Carretta et al., 2010). Baird’s beaked whales have a history of commercial harvesting in 

small numbers by the Russians, Canadians and Americans. The Japanese fishery has historically been 

responsible for large numbers of deaths (Jefferson et al., 2008b).

3.7.2.3.25.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Baird’s beaked whale occurs mainly in deep waters over the continental slope, near oceanic seamounts, 

and areas with submarine escarpments, although they may be seen close to shore where deep water 

approaches the coast (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Kasuya, 2009). This species is generally found throughout

the colder waters of the North Pacific, ranging from off Baja California, Mexico, to the Aleutian Islands of 

Alaska (Jefferson et al., 2008b; MacLeod & D'Amico, 2006).

Baird’s beaked whales are not present in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area.

The continental shelf margins from the California coast to 125° West (W) longitude were identified as 

key areas for beaked whales (MacLeod & D'Amico, 2006). Baird’s beaked whale is found mainly north of 

28° N in the eastern Pacific (Kasuya & Miyashita, 1997; Reeves et al., 2003). Along the west coast, Baird’s 

beaked whales are seen primarily along the continental slope, from late spring to early fall (Carretta et 

al., 2010; Green et al., 1992; Hamilton et al., 2009). Baird’s beaked whales are sighted less frequently 

and are presumed to be farther offshore during the colder water months of November through April 

(Carretta et al., 2010). Based on habitat models developed using 1991–2008 survey data collected off 

the west coast during summer and fall, Becker et al. (2012b) found that encounters of Baird’s beaked 

whale increased in waters near the 2,000 m isobath. These patterns are consistent with previous habitat 

modeling efforts using a subset of the same data (Barlow et al., 2009; Forney et al., 2012). During ship 

surveys conducted quarterly off southern California from 2004 to 2008, there was a single sighting of a 

group of 20 Baird’s beaked whales near the shelf break during a summer survey (Douglas et al., 2014b). 

Baird’s beaked whales were not detected during 15 aerial surveys conducted in the Southern California

Range Complex from 2008 through 2012 (Smultea & Jefferson, 2014). 

Although it is unknown if the species migrates, Baird’s beaked whales in the western north Pacific are 

known to move between waters of depths ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 m, where fish that live on or 

near the bottom of the ocean are abundant (Ohizumi et al., 2003).

3.7.2.3.25.3 Population Trends

For the Hawaiian Islands, the currently available data precludes evaluation of population trends for 

Baird’s beaked whales in the Hawaiian stock (Carretta et al., 2017c).

Bayesian trend analyses indicated no trend in the abundance of Baird’s beaked whales off the U.S. west 

coast from 1991-2008 (Carretta et al., 2017c; Moore & Barlow, 2013).

3.7.2.3.25.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Baird’s beaked whales feed mainly on bottom-dwelling fishes and cephalopods, but occasionally take 

open ocean fish, such as mackerel, sardine, and saury (Kasuya, 2009; Ohizumi et al., 2003; Walker et al., 

2002). Stomach contents from specimens taken in whaling operations off Vancouver Island and off 

central California included squid, octopus, various species of fishes, and skate egg cases (MacLeod et al., 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-102

3.7 Marine Mammals

2003). Baird’s beaked whale is known to forage for prey opportunistically at depths of about 1,000 m or 

more (Ohizumi et al., 2003). This species has been documented to be prey for killer whales and sharks, 

as evidenced by wounds and scars observed on their bodies (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Kasuya, 2009).

3.7.2.3.25.5 Species-Specific Threats

There were two observed interactions between an unidentified beaked whale and longline fishing 

activities in Hawaiian waters between 2009 and 2013 (Bradford & Forney, 2016). Based on California 

swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated that the overall probability of a 

bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to Baird’s beaked whales from this fishery was one

based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 2017a). 

3.7.2.3.26 Blainville’s Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon densirostris)

3.7.2.3.26.1 Status and Management 

Blainville’s beaked whale is not listed under the ESA. Due to the difficulty in distinguishing different 

Mesoplodon species from one another at sea during visual surveys, the United States management unit 

is usually defined to include all Mesoplodon species that occur in an area. This is the case in the 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area where the six species of Mesoplodon beaked whales 

present along the U.S. west coast is a single stock for all Mesoplodon in the 

California/Oregon/Washington region waters, including Blainville’s beaked whale (Carretta et al., 2015). 

This is not, however, the case for this species in Hawaii, where based on the number of sightings and 

genetic analysis of individuals around the Hawaiian Islands, NMFS recognizes a Hawaiian stock of 

Blainville’s beaked whale (Carretta et al., 2015; Oleson et al., 2013).

3.7.2.3.26.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Blainville’s beaked whales are one of the most widely distributed of the distinctive toothed whales 

within the Mesoplodon genus (Jefferson et al., 2008b; MacLeod & Mitchell, 2006). They are found 

mostly offshore in deeper waters along the California coast, Hawaii, Fiji, Japan, and Taiwan, as well as 

throughout the eastern tropical Pacific (Leslie et al., 2005; MacLeod & Mitchell, 2006; Mead, 1989). 

Blainville’s beaked whales are regularly sighted in Hawaiian waters (Baird et al., 2003b; Baird et al., 

2006c; Baird et al., 2015a; Barlow, 2006; Bradford et al., 2017; McSweeney et al., 2007), and their 

vocalizations have been routinely detected in acoustic monitoring in the Hawaiian Islands (Henderson et 

al., 2015a; Klinck et al., 2015; Lammers et al., 2015; Manzano-Roth et al., 2016; Manzano-Roth et al., 

2013; Rankin & Barlow, 2007). Blainville’s beaked whale sounds were detected once at Cross Seamount 

during a 6-month acoustic monitoring in 2005-2006 (McDonald et al., 2009). In the winter of 2014–2015 

during a 3-week period (December to January), Blainville’s beaked whale sounds were acoustically 

detected by an autonomous glider operating in an open ocean area to the south of Oahu and East of 

Hawaii Island (Klinck et al., 2015). These Blainville’s beaked whale sounds were detected along the 

glider’s course both in open ocean areas that lacked significant bathymetric relief and at Brigham 

Seamount, but not at Cross Seamount or any of the other seamounts areas sampled (Klinck et al., 2015). 

Blainville’s beaked whale has been detected off the coast of Oahu, Hawaii for prolonged periods 

annually, and this species is consistently observed in the same site off the west coast of the Island of 

Hawaii (Abecassis et al., 2015; Baird et al., 2006c; McSweeney et al., 2007). Thirteen Blainville’s beaked 

whales were satellite tagged off Hawaii Island between 2006 and 2012 with data records ranging from 

15 to 159 days (Baird et al., 2011; Baird et al., 2015a). One tagged individual ranged from approximately 

18 km to 573 km from land and moved a total of over 900 km from the initial tag location in 20 days. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-103

3.7 Marine Mammals

Similar data over an 8-day period for an individual tagged off Kauai showed movement on and off the

Navy’s instrument range at Pacific Missile Range Facility three times before transiting to the southwest 

over a distance of approximately 100 km from the original tag location (Baird et al., 2015d).

Population studies in Hawaii have demonstrated some evidence for residency (McSweeney et al., 2007). 

A year-round Small and Resident Population area has been identified for Blainville’s beaked whales off 

the west coast and North Kohala portion of the Island of Hawaii (Baird et al., 2015a). The area forms a 

rough polygon around satellite tag locations for 10 whales in the area from 2009-2011 (Baird et al., 

2015a). A more detailed analysis of the area within the Hawaii Portion of the HSTT Study Area has been 

presented in Appendix K. 

There are a handful of known records of Blainville’s beaked whale from the coast of California and Baja 

California, Mexico, but the species does not appear to be common in the Southern California portion of 

the Study Area (Hamilton et al., 2009; Mead, 1989; Pitman et al., 1988). Mesoplodon beaked whales 

were not detected during 15 aerial surveys conducted in the Southern California Range Complex from 

2008 through 2012 (Smultea & Jefferson, 2014).

3.7.2.3.26.3 Population Trends

For the Hawaiian Islands, the currently available data precludes evaluation of population trends for 

Blainville’s beaked whales in the Hawaiian stock (Carretta et al., 2017c). Acoustic monitoring using the 

Navy range hydrophones off Kauai from 2010 to 2014 suggest a low but stable abundance of 

Mesoplodon beaked whales at that location (Moretti, 2016).

A Bayesian trend analysis of systematic survey data collected from 1991–2008 suggested a decline in the 

abundance of beaked whales found in waters off California, Oregon, and Washington (Moore & Barlow, 

2013). However, a more recent study (Barlow, 2016) included data from an additional survey conducted 

in 2014 and indicated that the pattern seen for the U.S. west coast from 1996 to 2014 may indicate a 

change in that downward trend. Given that the population trend for the entire U.S. west coast is 

uncertain, an additional trend analysis that includes data from the recent survey may be appropriate for 

beaked whales in the California/Oregon/Washington stock (Barlow, 2016).

3.7.2.3.26.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

All beaked whales probably feed at or close to the bottom in deep oceanic waters, taking suitable prey 

opportunistically or as locally abundant, typically by suction feeding (Heyning & Mead, 1996; Jefferson 

et al., 2015; MacLeod et al., 2003; Werth, 2006a, 2006b). Feeding may also occur at mid-water rather 

than only at or near the bottom as shown from tagging data from Blainville’s beaked whales (Baird et al., 

2005a; Baird et al., 2006d). Blainville’s beaked whales are known to echolocate in groups when they are 

on foraging dives which makes them more easily detectable by passive acoustic means (Moretti & Baird, 

2015). Mesoplodon beaked whales have been observed being actively preyed upon by killer whales 

(Wellard et al., 2016).

3.7.2.3.26.5 Species-Specific Threats

There were five observed interactions between an unidentified beaked whale, unidentified Mesoplodont

beaked whale, or Blainville’s beaked whale and longline fishing activities in Hawaiian waters between 

2010 and 2014 (Bradford & Forney, 2016, 2017). There were two strandings of Blainville’s beaked 

whales between 2010 and 2014 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015e). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-104

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.27 Longman’s Beaked Whale (Indopacetus pacificus)

3.7.2.3.27.1 Status and Management

Longman’s beaked whale is not listed under the ESA. Only one, the Hawaiian stock, is identified for the 

Pacific (Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.27.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Longman’s beaked whale is found in warm tropical waters, with most sightings occurring in waters with 

sea surface temperatures warmer than 78 °F (26°C) (Anderson et al., 2006; MacLeod & D'Amico, 2006; 

MacLeod et al., 2006). Although the full extent of this species’ distribution is not fully understood, there 

have been many recorded sightings at various locations in tropical waters of the Pacific and Indian 

Oceans (Afsal et al., 2009; Dalebout et al., 2002; Dalebout et al., 2003; Moore, 1972). Sighting records of 

this species in the Indian Ocean showed that Longman’s beaked whales are typically found in waters 

over deep bathymetric slopes of 200 to 2,000+ m (Anderson et al., 2006). In the Pacific, records of this 

species indicate presence in the eastern, central, and western Pacific, including waters off the coast of 

Mexico. 

Based on systematic survey data collected from 1986-2005 in the eastern Pacific, all Longman’s beaked 

whale sightings were south of 25° N (Hamilton et al., 2009).

There was a single sighting of approximately 18 Longman’s beaked whales during the 2002 Hawaiian 

Islands Cetacean and Ecosystem Assessment survey (Barlow, 2006). During the follow-on 2010 survey, 

there were three sightings of Longman’s beaked whales, with group sizes ranging from approximately 32 

to 99 individuals (Bradford et al., 2017). Longman’s beaked whales have also been sighted off Kona 

(Cascadia Research, 2012) and there have been two known strandings of this species in the main 

Hawaiian Islands (Maldini et al., 2005; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015e; West et al., 2012).

Longman's beaked whales are not present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area.

3.7.2.3.27.3 Population Trends

A change in the analysis methodology between the 2002 and 2010 surveys precludes evaluation of 

population trend for Longman’s beaked whales at this time (Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.27.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

All beaked whales probably feed at or close to the bottom in deep oceanic waters, taking suitable prey 

opportunistically or as locally abundant, typically by suction feeding (Heyning, 1989; Heyning & Mead, 

1996; MacLeod et al., 2003). Feeding may also occur at mid-water rather than only at or near the 

bottom as shown from tagging data on Cuvier’s and Blainville’s beaked whales (Baird et al., 2005b; Baird 

et al., 2006d). This may also be the case with Longman’s beaked whales. Mesoplodon beaked whales

have been observed being actively preyed upon by killer whales (Wellard et al., 2016) so this may be the 

case for Longman’s beaked whales as well.

3.7.2.3.27.5 Species-Specific Threats

Little information exists regarding species-specific threats to Longman’s beaked whales in the HSTT 

Study Area. There have been two known strandings of this species in the main Hawaiian Islands (Maldini 

et al., 2005; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015e; West et al., 2012). Morbillivirus in the central 

Pacific was present in a juvenile male Longman’s beaked whale that stranded on Maui in 2010 (West et 

al., 2012) and was present in a stranding in New Caledonia involving five individuals (Garrigue et al., 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-105

3.7 Marine Mammals

2016). There were two observed interactions between an unidentified beaked whales and longline 

fishing activities in Hawaiian waters between 2009 and 2013 (Bradford & Forney, 2016).

3.7.2.3.28 Ginkgo-toothed Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon ginkgodens)

Due to the similarities between the species, the ginkgo-toothed beaked whales may be virtually 

indistinguishable at sea from other Mesoplodon species. 

3.7.2.3.28.1 Status and Management 

The ginkgo-toothed beaked whale is not listed under the ESA. Due to the difficulty in distinguishing the 

different Mesoplodon species from one another at sea during visual surveys, the United States 

management unit is defined to include all Mesoplodon species that occur in the area (Carretta et al., 

2015; Jefferson et al., 2008b). The ginkgo-toothed beaked whale has been combined with five other 

Mesoplodon species to make up the California, Oregon, and Washington stock (Carretta et al., 2015).

3.7.2.3.28.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Worldwide, beaked whales normally inhabit continental slope and deep ocean waters (greater than 200 

m) and are only occasionally reported in waters over the continental shelf (Cañadas et al., 2002; 

Ferguson et al., 2006b; MacLeod et al., 2006; Pitman, 2008; Waring et al., 2001).

Assuming that the ginkgo-toothed beaked whale distribution is continuous across the north Pacific, this 

species could be found in waters off Hawaii; however, no strandings, captures, or sightings have been 

recorded for this species in Hawaiian waters (MacLeod & D'Amico, 2006). Baumann-Pickering et al. 

(2012) hypothesize that an unknown likely beaked whale acoustic signal detected at Cross Seamount in 

Hawaii is likely produced by a ginkgo-toothed beaked whale, although there has been no visual 

confirmation (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2012; Baumann-Pickering et al., 2014; Baumann-Pickering et al., 

2016; Klinck et al., 2015). NMFS does not currently recognize the ginkgo-toothed beaked whales as 

being present in Hawaiian waters (Carretta et al., 2017c). 

The distribution of the ginkgo-toothed beaked whale likely includes deep waters off the Pacific coast of 

North America. The handful of known records of the ginkgo-toothed beaked whale are from strandings, 

one of which occurred in California (Jefferson et al., 2015; MacLeod & D'Amico, 2006). Mesoplodon

beaked whales were not detected during 15 aerial surveys conducted in the Southern California Range 

Complex from 2008 through 2012 (Smultea & Jefferson, 2014).

3.7.2.3.28.3 Population Trends

A Bayesian trend analysis of systematic survey data collected from 1991-2008 suggested a decline in the 

abundance of beaked whales found in waters off California, Oregon, and Washington (Moore & Barlow, 

2013). However, a more recent study (Barlow, 2016) included data from an additional survey conducted 

in 2014 and indicated that the pattern seen for the U.S. west coast from 1996 to 2014 may indicate a 

change in that downward trend. Given that the population trend for the entire U.S. west coast is 

uncertain, an additional trend analysis that includes data from the recent survey may be appropriate for 

beaked whales in the California/Oregon/Washington stock (Barlow, 2016).

3.7.2.3.28.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

All beaked whales probably feed at or close to the bottom in deep oceanic waters, taking suitable prey 

opportunistically or as locally abundant, typically by suction feeding (Heyning, 1989; Heyning & Mead, 

1996; MacLeod et al., 2003). Feeding may also occur at mid-water rather than only at or near the 

bottom as shown from tagging data on Cuvier’s and Blainville’s beaked whales (Baird et al., 2005b; Baird 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-106

3.7 Marine Mammals

et al., 2006d). This may also be the case with ginkgo-toothed beaked whales. Although published 

analyses of stomach content from ginkgo-toothed beaked whales are not available, this species 

presumably preys on squid and possibly fish, similar to other Mesoplodon species. These species occupy 

an ecological niche distinct from Cuvier’s beaked whales by feeding on smaller squids, allowing the 

different beaked whale species to coexist (MacLeod et al., 2003; MacLeod, 2005). Mesoplodon beaked 

whales have been observed being actively preyed upon by killer whales (Wellard et al., 2016).

3.7.2.3.28.5 Species-Specific Threats

No information exists regarding species-specific threats to ginkgo-toothed beaked whales in the Study 

Area. Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated that the 

overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to unidentified Mesoplodon

from this fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et 

al., 2017a). 

3.7.2.3.29 Perrin’s Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon perrini)

Perrin’s beaked whale was described as a new species of marine mammal in 2002 (Dalebout et al., 

2002).

3.7.2.3.29.1 Status and Management

Perrin’s beaked whale is not listed under the ESA. Due to the difficulty in distinguishing the Mesoplodon

species at sea during visual surveys, the management unit has been defined by NMFS to include all 

Mesoplodon species that occur in the area. Perrin’s beaked whale has been combined with other 

Mesoplodon species to make up the California, Oregon, and Washington stock (Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.29.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Worldwide, beaked whales normally inhabit continental slope and deep oceanic waters (greater than 

200 m) and are only occasionally reported in waters over the continental shelf (Cañadas et al., 2002; 

Ferguson et al., 2006b; MacLeod & Mitchell, 2006; Pitman, 2008; Waring et al., 2001).

Perrin’s beaked whales are not present in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area.

Perrin’s beaked whale is known only from five stranded specimens along the California coastline from 

1975 to 1997 (Dalebout et al., 2002; MacLeod et al., 2006). These strandings include two at U.S. Marine 

Corps Base Camp Pendleton (33°15' N, 117°26' W), and one each at Carlsbad, (33°07' N, 117°20' W), 

Torrey Pines State Reserve (32°55' N, 117°15' W), and Monterey (36°37' N, 121°55' W) (Dalebout et al., 

2002; Mead, 1981). These stranded animals were previously identified as Hector’s beaked whale but 

have been reclassified as Perrin’s beaked whale (Dalebout et al., 2002; Mead, 1981; Mead & Baker, 

1987; Mead, 1989). While this stranding pattern suggests an eastern North Pacific Ocean distribution, 

too few records exist for this to be conclusive (Dalebout et al., 2002). Due to the scarcity of data, the full 

extent of Perrin’s beaked whale distribution is unknown; however, it likely occurs primarily in oceanic 

waters of the eastern north Pacific with depths exceeding 1,000 m (MacLeod et al., 2006). Mesoplodon

beaked whales were not detected during 15 aerial surveys conducted in the Southern California Range 

Complex from 2008 through 2012 (Smultea & Jefferson, 2014). Acoustic monitoring from devices

located at seven sites in the Southern California Bight (across a broad area stretching of from Santa Cruz 

Island to an open ocean area south of San Clemente Island) documented the presence of a beaked 

whale-like frequency modulated pulse type that may possibly be produced by Perrin’s beaked whale 

since it is otherwise unidentified (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2015; Debich et al., 2015b{BaumannPickering, 2014 #7339)}.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-107

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.29.3 Population Trends

A Bayesian trend analysis of systematic survey data collected from 1991-2008 suggested a decline in the 

abundance of beaked whales found in waters off California, Oregon, and Washington (Moore & Barlow, 

2013). However, a more recent study (Barlow, 2016) included data from an additional survey conducted 

in 2014 and indicated that the pattern seen for the U.S. west coast from 1996 to 2014 may indicate a 

change in that downward trend. Given that the population trend for the entire U.S. west coast is 

uncertain, an additional trend analysis that includes data from the recent survey may be appropriate for 

beaked whales in the California/Oregon/Washington stock (Barlow, 2016). 

3.7.2.3.29.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

All beaked whales probably feed at or close to the bottom in deep oceanic waters taking suitable prey 

opportunistically or as locally abundant (Heyning, 1989; Heyning & Mead, 1996; MacLeod et al., 2003). 

Feeding may also occur at mid-water rather than only at or near the bottom as shown from recent 

tagging data on Cuvier’s and Blainville’s beaked whales (Baird et al., 2004). This may also be the case 

with this species. Stomach content analyses of captured and stranded individuals suggest beaked whales 

are deep divers that feed by suction on mid-water fishes, squids, and deepwater bottom-feeding 

invertebrates (Heyning, 1989; Heyning & Mead, 1996; MacLeod et al., 2003; Santos et al., 2001; Santos 

et al., 2007). Dalebout et al. (2002) reported finding deep-sea squid species within stomach contents of 

stranded Perrin’s beaked whales. Mesoplodon species occupy an ecological niche distinct from Cuvier’s 

beaked whales by feeding on smaller squids, allowing the different beaked whale species to coexist 

(MacLeod et al., 2003; MacLeod, 2005). Mesoplodon beaked whales have been observed being actively 

preyed upon by killer whales (Wellard et al., 2016).

3.7.2.3.29.5 Species-Specific Threats

No information exists regarding species-specific threats to Perrin’s beaked whales in the Study Area.

Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated that the overall 

probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to unidentified Mesoplodon from 

this fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 

2017a). 

3.7.2.3.30 Stejneger’s Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon stejnegeri)

Stejneger’s beaked whale was initially described in 1885 from a skull, and nothing more of the species 

was known for nearly a century. The late 1970s saw several strandings, but it was not until 1994 that the 

external appearance was well described from fresh (stranded) specimens.

3.7.2.3.30.1 Status and Management 

Stejneger’s beaked whale is not listed under the ESA. Due to the difficulty in distinguishing the 

Mesoplodon species at sea during visual surveys, the United States management unit is usually defined 

to include all Mesoplodon species that occur in the area. Stejneger’s beaked whale has been combined 

with five other Mesoplodon species to make up the California, Oregon, and Washington stock (Carretta 

et al., 2015).

3.7.2.3.30.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Worldwide, beaked whales normally inhabit continental slope and deep oceanic waters (greater than 

200 m) (Cañadas et al., 2002; Ferguson et al., 2006b; MacLeod & Mitchell, 2006; Pitman, 2008; Waring 

et al., 2001). They are occasionally reported in waters over the continental shelf (Pitman & Stinchcomb, 

2002).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-108

3.7 Marine Mammals

Stejneger’s beaked whales are not present in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area.

Stejneger’s beaked whale appears to prefer cold to temperate and subpolar waters (MacLeod et al., 

2006). This species has been observed in waters ranging in bottom depths from 730 to 1,560 m on the 

steep slope of the continental shelf (Loughlin & Perez, 1985). The southern limit in the central Pacific is 

unknown but is likely to range between 50° N and 60° N, and 30° N (Loughlin & Perez, 1985; MacLeod et 

al., 2006). Specific movement patterns of this species are not known, but high stranding rates in the 

winter and spring along the Pacific coast suggest that Stejneger’s beaked whales migrate north during 

summer (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Pitman, 2008). Stejneger’s beaked whales are not considered to 

regularly occur in Southern California coastal waters ((Jefferson et al., 2008b; MacLeod et al., 2006). The 

farthest south this species has been observed in the eastern Pacific is Cardiff, California (33° N), but this 

is considered an extralimital occurrence (Loughlin & Perez, 1985; MacLeod et al., 2006; Mead, 1989). 

Mesoplodon beaked whales were not detected during 15 aerial surveys conducted in the Southern 

California Range Complex from 2008 through 2012 (Smultea & Jefferson, 2014). Beaked whales produce 

species-specific frequency modulated echolocation pulses. Acoustic monitoring at a site (Site “M”) 

located at the northern edge of the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area recorded the 

presence of sounds from Stejenger’s beaked whales once in July 2009 and again in July 2010 (BaumannPickering et al., 2014).

3.7.2.3.30.3 Population Trends

A Bayesian trend analysis of systematic survey data collected from 1991-2008 suggested a decline in the 

abundance of beaked whales found in waters off California, Oregon, and Washington (Moore & Barlow, 

2013). However, a more recent study (Barlow, 2016) included data from an additional survey conducted 

in 2014 and indicated that the pattern seen for the U.S. west coast from 1996 to 2014 may indicate a 

change in that downward trend. Given that the population trend for the entire U.S. west coast is 

uncertain, an additional trend analysis that includes data from the recent survey may be appropriate for 

beaked whales in the California/Oregon/Washington stock (Barlow, 2016).

3.7.2.3.30.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Stejneger’s beaked whales are known to feed primarily on squids of the families Gonatidae and 

Cranchiidae, typically in mid-water to near bottom depths. Analyses of stomach contents of this species 

also include deep-sea fish (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Walker & Hanson, 1999; Yamada, 1998). This species 

has not been documented to be prey to any other species, though other Mesoplodon beaked whales 

have been observed being actively preyed upon by killer whales (Wellard et al., 2016).

3.7.2.3.30.5 Species-Specific Threats

Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated that the overall 

probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to Stejneger’s beaked whales from 

this fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 

2017a). 

3.7.2.3.31 Hubbs’ Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon carlhubbsi)

3.7.2.3.31.1 Status and Management

Hubbs’ beaked whale is not listed under the ESA. Due to the difficulty in distinguishing the different 

Mesoplodon species from one another at sea during visual surveys, the United States management unit 

is defined to include all Mesoplodon species that occur in the area. Hubbs’ beaked whale has been 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-109

3.7 Marine Mammals

combined with five other Mesoplodon species to make up the California, Oregon, and Washington stock 

(Carretta et al., 2015).

3.7.2.3.31.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The distribution of Hubbs’ beaked whale is generally associated with the deep subarctic current system 

along the Pacific coast of North America (Mead et al., 1982; Mead, 1989). MacLeod et al. (2006)

speculated that the distribution of Hubbs’ beaked whale might be continuous across the north Pacific 

between about 30° N and 45° N, but this remains to be confirmed. The beaked whale-like frequency 

modulated pulse type (“BW40”) recorded off Pearl and Hermes Reef (in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands) 

and Wake Atoll may possibly be produced by Hubbs’ beaked whale (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2014). 

Assuming that Hubbs’ beaked whale distribution is continuous across the north Pacific, they could be 

found in waters off Hawaii; however, no strandings or sightings have been recorded for this species in 

Hawaiian waters (MacLeod et al., 2006; Mead, 1989). NMFS does not recognize this species as a stock in 

the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area. 

Mead (1989) speculated that the range of Hubbs’ beaked whale includes the northernmost portion of 

the Study Area off California. During systematic surveys conducted from 1986- 2005 in the eastern

Pacific, there was one confirmed sighting of Hubbs’ beaked whale in offshore waters off the state of 

Washington (Hamilton et al., 2009). Mesoplodon beaked whales were not detected during 15 aerial 

surveys conducted in the Southern California Range Complex from 2008 through 2012 (Smultea & 

Jefferson, 2014). The beaked whale-like frequency modulated pulse type (“BW40”) recorded off 

Southern California may possibly be produced by Hubbs’ beaked whale (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2014; 

Debich et al., 2015b). 

3.7.2.3.31.3 Population Trends

A Bayesian trend analysis of systematic survey data collected from 1991–2008 suggested a decline in the 

abundance of beaked whales found in waters off California, Oregon, and Washington (Moore & Barlow, 

2013). However, a more recent study (Barlow, 2016) included data from an additional survey conducted 

in 2014 and indicated that the pattern seen for the U.S. west coast from 1996 to 2014 may indicate a 

change in that downward trend. Given that the population trend for the entire U.S. west coast is 

uncertain, an additional trend analysis that includes data from the recent survey may be appropriate for 

beaked whales in the California/Oregon/Washington stock (Barlow, 2016). 

3.7.2.3.31.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

All beaked whales probably feed at or close to the bottom in deep oceanic waters (Heyning, 1989; 

Heyning & Mead, 1996; MacLeod et al., 2003). Feeding may also occur at mid-water rather than only at 

or near the bottom as shown from tagging data on Cuvier’s and Blainville’s beaked whales (Baird et al., 

2004). This may also be the case with this species. Stomach content analyses of Hubbs’ beaked whales 

indicated squid beaks, fish ear bones, and other fish bones (MacLeod et al., 2003; Mead et al., 1982). 

Mesoplodon species occupy an ecological niche distinct from that of Cuvier’s beaked whales by feeding 

on smaller squids, allowing the different beaked whale species to coexist (MacLeod et al., 2003; 

MacLeod, 2005). Mesoplodon beaked whales have been observed being actively preyed upon by killer 

whales (Wellard et al., 2016).

3.7.2.3.31.5 Species-Specific Threats

Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated that the overall 

probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to Hubb’s beaked whales from this 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-110

3.7 Marine Mammals

fishery was one based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 

2017a).

3.7.2.3.32 Pygmy Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon peruvianus)

Literature published before the pygmy beaked whale was identified referred to it by the common name 

“Mesoplodon species A” (Pitman & Lynn, 2001). It is also commonly referred to as “Lesser beaked 

whale” (Carretta et al., 2015). The pygmy beaked whale was first described as a new species in 1991 

(Jefferson et al., 2008b).

3.7.2.3.32.1 Status and Management 

The pygmy beaked whale is not listed under the ESA. Due to the difficulty in distinguishing the 

Mesoplodon species at sea during visual surveys, the United States management unit is defined to 

include all Mesoplodon species that occur in the area. The pygmy beaked whale has been combined with

five other Mesoplodon species to make up the California, Oregon, and Washington stock (Carretta et al., 

2010).

3.7.2.3.32.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Worldwide, beaked whales normally inhabit continental slope and deep oceanic waters (greater than 

200 m) and are only occasionally reported in waters over the continental shelf (Cañadas et al., 2002; 

Ferguson et al., 2006b; MacLeod et al., 2006; Pitman, 2008; Waring et al., 2001). Based on stranding 

data from the Pacific coast of Bahia de La Paz, Mexico, this species’ range is thought to include deep 

waters off the Pacific coast of North America (Aurioles-Gamboa & Urban-Ramirez, 1993; Jefferson et al., 

2008b; Urban-Ramirez & Aurioles-Gamboa, 1992). This species was first described in 1991 from 

stranded specimens from Peru, and since then, strandings have been recorded along the coasts of both 

North and South America at Mexico, Peru, and Chile (Pitman & Lynn, 2001; Reyes et al., 1991; Sanino et 

al., 2007). Based on sightings and strandings, the pygmy beaked whale is presumed to be found only in 

the eastern tropical Pacific. MacLeod et al. (2006) suggested that the pygmy beaked whale occurs in the 

eastern Pacific from about 30° N to about 30° South (S).

There have been no strandings or sightings of pygmy beaked whales in Hawaiian waters (MacLeod et al., 

2006; Mead, 1989); pygmy beaked whales are not expected to be present in the Hawaii portion of the 

HSTT Study Area. 

Pygmy beaked whales are assumed to be present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area. Mesoplodon beaked whales were not detected during 15 aerial surveys conducted in the Southern 

California Range Complex from 2008 through 2012 (Smultea & Jefferson, 2014). Acoustic monitoring has

documented the presence of a beaked whale-like frequency modulated pulse type (“BW70”) in 

Southern California that may possibly be produced by pygmy beaked whales (Baumann-Pickering et al., 

2014).

3.7.2.3.32.3 Population Trends

A Bayesian trend analysis of systematic survey data collected from 1991-2008 suggested a decline in the 

abundance of beaked whales found in waters off California, Oregon, and Washington (Moore & Barlow, 

2013). However, a more recent study (Barlow, 2016) included data from an additional survey conducted 

in 2014 and indicated that the pattern seen for the U.S. west coast from 1996 to 2014 may indicate a 

change in that downward trend. Given that the population trend for the entire U.S. west coast is 

uncertain, an additional trend analysis that includes data from the recent survey may be appropriate for 

beaked whales in the California/Oregon/Washington stock (Barlow, 2016).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-111

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.32.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

All beaked whales probably feed at or close to the bottom in deep oceanic waters taking suitable prey 

opportunistically or as locally abundant (Heyning, 1989; Heyning & Mead, 1996; MacLeod et al., 2003). 

Feeding may also occur at mid-water rather than only at or near the bottom as shown from recent 

tagging data on Cuvier’s and Blainville’s beaked whales (Baird et al., 2004). This may also be the case 

with this species. Stomach contents analyses are available for only two pygmy beaked whales; the 

contents included no squid beaks but did include ear bones of perches and ray-finned fish (Reyes et al., 

1991). Mesoplodon species occupy an ecological niche distinct from Cuvier’s beaked whales by feeding 

on smaller squids, allowing the different beaked whale species to coexist. The stomach contents of this 

species suggests even less overlap with the Cuvier’s beaked whale (MacLeod et al., 2003; MacLeod, 

2005). Mesoplodon beaked whales have been observed being actively preyed upon by killer whales 

(Wellard et al., 2016).

3.7.2.3.32.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no known species-specific threats to pygmy beaked whales in the Study Area. Based on 

California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated that the overall probability 

of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to unidentified Mesoplodon from this fishery 

was one based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 (Carretta et al., 2017a). 

3.7.2.3.33 California Sea Lion (Zalophus californianus)

3.7.2.3.33.1 Status and Management 

The California sea lion is not listed under the ESA. The California sea lion is managed by NMFS as the 

designated U.S. Stock (Carretta et al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.33.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The California sea lion occurs in the eastern north Pacific from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, through the Gulf 

of California and north along the west coast of North America to the Gulf of Alaska (Barlow et al., 2008; 

Jefferson et al., 2008b; Maniscalco et al., 2004). Typically, during the summer, California sea lions 

congregate near rookery islands and specific open-water areas. The primary rookeries off the coast of 

the United States are on San Nicolas, San Miguel, Santa Barbara, and San Clemente Islands (Carretta et 

al., 2000; Le Boeuf & Bonnell, 1980; Lowry et al., 1992; Lowry & Forney, 2005). Haulout sites are also 

found on Santa Catalina Island in the Southern California Bight (Le Boeuf, 2002). This species is prone to 

invade human-modified coastal sites that provide good haulout substrate, such as marinas, buoys, bait 

barges, and rip-rap tidal control structures. 

California sea lions are the most common marine mammal in San Diego Bay based on monitoring and 

survey results (Graham & Saunders, 2015; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2015b). There are two “bait” 

barges near the mouth of San Diego Bay that are resting locations for California sea lions (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2015b). Monitoring (October 2014 to April 2015) during a pier replacement 

project in at Point Loma found the number of California sea lions averaged approximately 38 sea lions 

hauled out and 2 to 3 individuals in the water (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2015b). 

In the nonbreeding season, beginning in late-summer, adult and subadult males migrate northward 

along the coast of California to Washington and return south the following spring (Lowry & Forney, 

2005). Females and juveniles also disperse somewhat, but tend to stay in the Southern California area 

although north and west of the Channel Islands (Lowry & Forney, 2005; Melin & DeLong, 2000; Thomas 

et al., 2009). California sea lions from the west coast of the Baja California peninsula also migrate to 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-112

3.7 Marine Mammals

Southern California during the fall and winter (Lowry & Forney, 2005) and sea lions from San Clemente 

Island tend to remain in Southern California (Melin, 2015). There is a general distribution shift northwest 

in fall and southeast during winter and spring, probably in response to changes in prey availability 

(Carretta et al., 2010).

California sea lions can be found in California open ocean and coastal waters (Barlow et al., 2008; 

Jefferson et al., 2008b; Lander et al., 2010). California sea lions are usually found in waters over the 

continental shelf and slope; however, they are also known to occupy locations far offshore in deep, 

oceanic waters, such as Guadalupe Island, Alijos Rocks off Baja California (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Melin 

et al., 2008; Urrutia & Dziendzielewski, 2012; Zavala-Gonzalez & Mellink, 2000). California sea lions are 

the most frequently sighted pinnipeds offshore of Southern California during the spring, and peak 

abundance is during the May through August breeding season (Green et al., 1992; Keiper et al., 2005).

Tagged California sea lions from Monterey Bay and San Nicolas Island, California, demonstrated that 

adult males can travel more than 450 km from shore during longer foraging bouts (Weise et al., 2006; 

Weise et al., 2010); however, rehabilitated females and subadults normally stay mostly within 65 km of 

the coast (Thomas et al., 2009). Most individuals stay within 50 km of the rookery islands during the 

breeding season (Melin & DeLong, 2000). Females breeding and pupping on the Channel Islands typically 

feed over the continental shelf and generally remain within 150 km north and west of the islands (Kuhn 

& Costa, 2014; Melin & DeLong, 2000; Melin et al., 2008; Melin et al., 2012). Tagging results showed that 

lactating females foraging along the coast would travel as far north as Monterey Bay and offshore to the 

1,000 m depth (Henkel & Harvey, 2008; Kuhn & Costa, 2014; Melin & DeLong, 2000; Melin et al., 2008). 

During the nonbreeding season, most locations of occurrence are over the slope or offshore; during the 

breeding season, most locations of occurrence are over the continental shelf (Melin & DeLong, 2000; 

Melin et al., 2008). Lowry and Forney (2005) estimated that 47 percent of sea lions would potentially be 

at-sea during the cold seasons. 

Dive durations range from 1.4-5.0 minutes with longer dives during El Niño events; surface intervals 

range from 0.7-17.0 minutes with sea lions diving about 32-47 percent of the time at sea (Feldkamp et 

al., 1989; Kuhn & Costa, 2014; Melin et al., 2008; Melin et al., 2012). Adult females alternate between 

nursing their pup on shore and foraging at sea, spending approximately 67-77 percent of time at sea 

(Kuhn & Costa, 2014; Melin & DeLong, 2000).

3.7.2.3.33.3 Population Trends

The California sea lion is the most abundant pinniped along the California coast. Overall, the California 

sea lion population is abundant and generally increasing (Carretta et al., 2010; Jefferson et al., 2008b).

In spite of the robustness of the overall species population, in Mexican waters in the Gulf of California, 

the abundance of California sea lions has declined over the last decade (Urrutia & Dziendzielewski, 

2012). A time-series data analysis supported the hypothesis that the Gulf of California has four 

subpopulations of California sea lions, most of which exhibit lower-than-expected growth rates and two 

of which have high probabilities of extinction within the next 50 years (Ward et al., 2010).

3.7.2.3.33.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

California sea lions are known to feed in both benthic and open-water habitats, which allows for a 

broader feeding spectrum than other pinnipeds that have overlapping foraging areas (e.g., Guadalupe 

fur seal). The California sea lion is adapted to cope with changes in prey availability (Aurioles-Gamboa & 

Camacho-Rios, 2007). California sea lions feed on a variety of fish and cephalopod species, including 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-113

3.7 Marine Mammals

salmon, Pacific sardines, northern anchovy, Pacific mackerel, Pacific whiting, rockfish, market squid, 

bass, cutlassfish, cusk eels, greenlings, dogfish, perch, various flatfish, and various species of

midshipmen and lanternfish (Lowry & Forney, 2005; Orr et al., 2011; Orr et al., 2012). California sea lions 

have been documented to be preyed on by killer whales, sharks, coyotes, and feral dogs. In the 

California Channel Islands, California sea lion pups were at one time observed being preyed on by bald 

eagles (Heath & Perrin, 2009).

3.7.2.3.33.5 Species-Specific Threats

California sea lions are susceptible to entanglement and other interactions with fishery operations. 

Carretta et al. (2013b) report 334 deaths and 469 serious injuries to California sea lions along the U.S. 

west coast from 2007 to 2011 due to human-related causes (primarily hook and line fishery 

entanglement). Based on California swordfish drift gillnet fishery observer data, NMFS has estimated 

that the overall probability of a bycatch event resulting in mortality or serious injury to California sea 

lions from this fishery was 0.98 based on observed bycatch for the period between 1990 and 2015 

(Carretta et al., 2017a). Along California’s coast mortality has been documented due to domoic acid 

toxicity, which is a neurotoxin associated with algal blooms which may be exacerbated by the recent 

increase in water temperature in the northeastern Pacific (Bond et al., 2015). The toxoplasmosis 

parasite (often attributed to feral cat feces in urban area storm run-off) also impacts sea lions (Simeone 

et al., 2015).

Starting in January 2013, an elevated number of strandings of California sea lion pups were observed in 

five Southern California counties, including San Diego County, which is part of the Study Area. These 

strandings were declared an Unusual Mortality Event by NMFS. This is the sixth Unusual Mortality Event 

involving California sea lions that has occurred in California since 1991. The 2013 Unusual Mortality 

Event has been confined to California sea lion pups born in the summer of 2012 but as of 2016, has now 

affected other pinniped species in the area (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015d). The stranded 

pups were found to be emaciated, dehydrated, and underweight for their age. Although the exact 

causes of this Unusual Mortality Event are unknown, the working hypotheses are that a shift in the sea 

lion prey may have resulted in these young animals being abandoned by their mothers, nutritional stress 

of pups resulting from a lack of forage fish available to lactating mothers, and unknown disease agents 

(Carretta et al., 2017c; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016c). Surveys in 2016 at San 

Nicolas Island and San Miguel Island found better growth and body condition for sea lions at both 

locations (Laake, 2017). 

3.7.2.3.34 Northern Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus)

3.7.2.3.34.1 Status and Management

Two stocks of northern fur seals are recognized in United States waters: an eastern Pacific stock and a 

California stock (Carretta et al., 2017c). The California stock, which is present in the Southern California

portion of the HSTT Study Area, is not considered depleted and is not listed under the ESA (Carretta et 

al., 2017c).

3.7.2.3.34.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Northern fur seals range throughout the north Pacific along the west coast, from California (32° N) to 

the Bering Sea, and west to the Okhotsk Sea and Honshu Island, Japan (36° N) (Baird & Hanson, 1997; 

Carretta et al., 2010; Gentry, 2009; Jefferson et al., 2008b; Ream et al., 2005). They are typically found 

over the edge of the continental shelf and slope (Gentry, 2009; Sterling & Ream, 2004), although two fur 

seals were tracked over 2,000 km offshore into the central North Pacific Ocean (Ream et al., 2005). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-114

3.7 Marine Mammals

Northern fur seals are found throughout their offshore range throughout the year, although seasonal 

peaks are known to occur. Females and subadult males are often observed off Canada’s west coast 

during winter (Baird & Hanson, 1997).

Northern fur seals do not normally occur in Hawaiian waters. In July 2012, an adult female northern fur 

seal was found on the north shore of Oahu in an emaciated condition (Marine Mammal Center, 2012). 

This was the first known occurrence of a northern fur seal in Hawaii and they are considered extralimital 

to those waters. 

To the north of the northern boundary for the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, 

northern fur seal colonies are present at Adams Cove on San Miguel Island and on Castle Rock, an 

offshore island 1.1 km northwest of San Miguel Island (Baird & Hanson, 1997; Melin et al., 2012; Pyle et 

al., 2001; Stewart & Huber, 1993). Northern fur seal can also occasionally be present on San Nicolas 

Island during summer (Baird & Hanson, 1997; Melin et al., 2012; Pyle et al., 2001). Animals from the 

California stock may remain in or near the area throughout the year but generally move to the North 

Pacific in waters off Washington, Oregon, and northern California to forage (Carretta et al., 2017c; Koski 

et al., 1998; Melin et al., 2012; Sterling et al., 2014).

Most northern fur seals, excluding those of the California stock, migrate along continental margins from 

low-latitude winter foraging areas to northern breeding islands (Gentry, 2009; Ragen et al., 1995). They 

leave the breeding islands in November and concentrate around the continental margins of the north 

Pacific Ocean in January and February, where they have access to vast, predictable food supplies 

(Gentry, 2009; Ream et al., 2005). Juveniles have been known to conduct trips between 8 and 29 days in 

duration, ranging from 171 to 680 km (Sterling & Ream, 2004). Adult female fur seals equipped with 

radio transmitters have been recorded conducting roundtrip foraging trips of up to 740 km (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2007b; Robson et al., 2004).

3.7.2.3.34.3 Population Trends

The abundance of northern fur seals at San Miguel Island, the primary rookery for the California stock,

has increased steadily over the past 4 decades, except for two severe declines associated with El NiñoSouthern Oscillation events in 1993 and 1998 (Carretta et al., 2015; DeLong & Stewart, 1991; Melin et 

al., 2006; Melin et al., 2008; Orr et al., 2012). The San Miguel Island population makes up 96 percent of 

the California stock of northern fur seals (Carretta et al., 2015).

3.7.2.3.34.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Northern fur seals are opportunistic feeders. The principal prey off California includes northern anchovy, 

hake, Pacific saury, Pacific whiting, squid, rockfishes, and salmon (Antonelis et al., 1990; Gentry, 2009; 

Jefferson et al., 2008b; Kajimura, 1984). This species is known to feed along the continental slope and 

off the shelf; females forage in areas of 100 to 200 m in depth, while males forage in areas greater than 

400 m in depth (Calambokidis et al., 2004; Gentry, 2009). Lactating female northern fur seals primarily 

forage north of San Miguel Island in areas of 200 to 3,000 m; mean depth of 933 m in depth (Antonelis 

et al., 1990). 

This species may be preyed on by killer whales and sharks (Gentry, 2009; Jefferson et al., 2008b).

3.7.2.3.34.5 Species-Specific Threats

Along the U.S. west coast from 2007 to 2014, there 19 deaths and 7 serious injuries to northern fur seals 

due to human-related causes reported; primarily fishing interactions and marine debris entanglement

(Carretta et al., 2013b; Carretta et al., 2016b).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-115

3.7 Marine Mammals

Counts of northern fur seal from 1972 to 2012 at San Miguel and Castle Rock appear to show that the 

population greatly affected and the abundance reduced by El Niño events resulting from animals being 

in poor physical condition, having reduced reproductive success, and high mortality during those events 

(Carretta et al., 2017c). 

3.7.2.3.35 Northern Elephant Seal (Mirounga angustirostris)

The northern elephant seal is one of two species of elephant seal.

3.7.2.3.35.1 Status and Management

The northern elephant seal is not listed under the ESA. The northern elephant seal population has 

recovered dramatically after being reduced to perhaps no more than 10 to 100 animals surviving in 

Mexico in the 1890s (Carretta et al., 2010; Hoelzel, 1999; Stewart et al., 1994). Movement and some 

genetic interchange occur among rookeries, but most elephant seals return to the rookeries where they 

were born to breed and thus may have limited genetic differentiation (Carretta et al., 2010). There are 

two distinct populations of northern elephant seals: one that breeds in Baja, Mexico, and a population 

that breeds in California. NMFS stock assessment report considers northern elephant seals in the Study 

Area to be from the California Breeding Stock, although elephant seals from Baja Mexico frequently 

migrate north through the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area (Aurioles-Gamboa & 

Camacho-Rios, 2007).

3.7.2.3.35.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Northern elephant seals are found in both coastal and deep waters of the eastern and central north 

Pacific. Elephant seals spend more than 80 percent of their annual cycle at sea, making long migrations 

to offshore foraging areas and feeding intensively to build up the blubber stores required to support 

them during breeding and molting haulouts (Hindell & Perrin, 2009; Le Boeuf & Laws, 1994; Worthy et 

al., 1992). Breeding and pupping take place on offshore islands and mainland rookeries (Carretta et al., 

2010; Le Boeuf & Laws, 1994). Small colonies of northern elephant seals breed and haul-out on Santa 

Barbara Island and San Clemente Island with large colonies on San Nicolas and San Miguel Islands 

(Stewart et al., 1993; Stewart et al., 1994). Aerial survey that included all the Channel Islands in July 

2015 found the majority (approximately 61 percent) of elephant seals at San Miguel Island, 

approximately 21 percent at San Nicolas Island, and 18 percent at Santa Rosa Island (Lowry et al., 2017). 

Elephant seals use these islands as rookeries from late December to February, and to molt from April to 

July. Northern elephant seals spend little time nearshore, and migrate through offshore waters four 

times a year as they travel to and from breeding/pupping and molting areas on various islands and 

mainland sites along the Mexico and California coasts. 

With most of their prey found in open oceans, northern elephant seal juveniles and females are often 

found in deepwater zones while males also engage in benthic foraging and travel as far north as 

seamounts in the Gulf of Alaska (Le Boeuf et al., 1996; Le Boeuf et al., 2000; Robinson et al., 2012; 

Simmons et al., 2007; Simmons et al., 2010; Stewart & DeLong, 1995). 

There are records of three northern elephant seals being present in the Hawaiian Islands, indicating that 

movements beyond their normal range do occur, but are very rare. A female, an immature male, and 

mature male were sighted on Midway Island in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands in 1978 (Tomich, 

1986). On January 2, 2002, a juvenile male elephant seal was discovered on Molokai and reported to be 

the second confirmed sighting in the Main Hawaiian Islands since 2001 (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2006). This same elephant seal was next encountered on January 11, 2002 on the Kona coast of 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-116

3.7 Marine Mammals

Hawaii at Kawaihae Beach and later at the Kona Village Resort where it was captured and returned to 

California by NMFS (Fujimori, 2002). 

Northern elephant seals are found in both coastal areas and deeper waters off Southern California 

(Carretta et al., 2010; Jefferson et al., 2008b; Robinson et al., 2012). The foraging range of northern 

elephant seals extends thousands of kilometers offshore from the breeding range into the central North 

Pacific Transition Zone well to the north of Hawaii; however, their range is not considered to be 

continuous across the Pacific (Simmons et al., 2010; Stewart & Huber, 1993). Adult males and females 

segregate while foraging and migrating (Simmons et al., 2010; Stewart & DeLong, 1995; Stewart, 1997). 

Adult females mostly range west to about 173° W, between the latitudes of 40° N and 45° N, whereas 

adult males range farther north into the Gulf of Alaska and along the Aleutian Islands to between 47° N 

and 58° N (Le Boeuf et al., 2000; Robinson et al., 2012; Stewart et al., 1993; Stewart & DeLong, 1995). 

Adults stay offshore during migration, while juveniles are often seen along the coasts of Oregon, 

Washington, and British Columbia (Le Boeuf et al., 1996; Stewart & Huber, 1993). The most far-ranging 

individual appeared on Nijima Island off the Pacific coast of Japan in 1989 (Kiyota et al., 1992). This 

demonstrates the great distances that these animals are capable of covering.

3.7.2.3.35.3 Population Trends

The population in California continues to increase, but the Mexican stock appears to be stable or slowly 

decreasing (Carretta et al., 2015; Lowry et al., 2014; Stewart & DeLong, 1994). Some evidence indicates 

that elephant seals may be expanding their pupping range northward, possibly in response to continued 

population growth (Hodder et al., 1998). Hodder et al. (1998) noted a possible emerging breeding colony 

at Shell Island off Cape Arago in southern Oregon. Other northern mainland breeding rookeries include 

Ano Nuevo, Point Reyes and Cape San Martin (Stewart et al., 1994).

3.7.2.3.35.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

The diet of the northern elephant seal is known to include 53 different prey species (Antonelis et al., 

1994; Jefferson et al., 2008b). They primarily feed on cephalopods, hake, and other near-surface and 

mid-water fishes and crustaceans, such as pelagic red crabs as well as open ocean prey and bottomdwelling prey (Stewart & Huber, 1993). This species is not known to feed in the Study Area. Elephant 

seals from the Mexico breeding stock probably feed farther south and over a broader longitudinal scale 

than those from the California breeding stock (Aurioles-Gamboa & Camacho-Rios, 2007) Male and 

female northern elephant seals are known to conduct different foraging strategies. Males feed near the 

eastern Aleutian Islands and in the Gulf of Alaska, and females feed farther south, south of 45° N 

(Carretta et al., 2010; Stewart & Huber, 1993). Females range widely over deep water, apparently 

foraging on patchily distributed, vertically-migrating, open ocean prey (Le Boeuf et al., 2000). Males 

forage along the continental margin at the end of their migration and may feed on bottom-dwelling prey 

(Le Boeuf et al., 2000). Northern elephant seals are preyed on by killer whales and great white sharks, 

which have been known to group around the haulout and rookery sites of this species (Hindell & Perrin, 

2009; Jefferson et al., 2008b; Klimley et al., 2001; Kuhn et al., 2014).

3.7.2.3.35.5 Species-Specific Threats

In 2013, two elephant seals were observed interacting with the deep-set and shallow-set fisheries north 

of the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone, resulting in one serious injury (Bradford & Forney, 2017).

There were 34 deaths and 18 serious injuries to northern elephant seals along the U.S. west coast from 

2011 to 2015 due to human-related causes, with oil-related injuries, fishery interactions, and shootings 

identified as the leading causes (Carretta et al., 2017b).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-117

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.36 Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina)

3.7.2.3.36.1 Status and Management 

The harbor seal is not listed under the ESA. The Society of Marine Mammalogy’s Committee on 

Taxonomy (2016) has determined that all harbor seals in the north Pacific should be recognized as a 

single subspecies (Phoca vitulina richardii) until the subspecies limits of various populations are better 

known. There are 17 stocks of harbor seal along the U.S. west coast (Carretta et al., 2017c; Muto & 

Angliss, 2016); there is a single California stock occurring within the Southern California portion of the 

HSTT Study Area. 

3.7.2.3.36.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The harbor seal is one of the most widely-distributed seals, found in nearly all temperate coastal waters 

of the northern hemisphere (Jefferson et al., 2008b). Harbor seals are generally not present in the open 

ocean. Harbor seals are not present in the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area.

Harbor seals, while primarily aquatic, also use the coastal terrestrial environment, where they haulout of 

the water periodically. Harbor seals are a coastal species, rarely found more than 20 km from shore, and 

frequently occupying bays, estuaries, and inlets (Baird, 2001). Individual seals have been observed 

several kilometers upstream in coastal rivers (Baird, 2001). Harbor seals are not considered migratory 

(Burns, 2008; Jefferson et al., 2008b).

Ideal harbor seal habitat includes suitable haulout sites, shelter from high surf during the breeding 

periods, and sufficient food near haulout sites to sustain the population throughout the year (Bjorge, 

2002). Haulout sites vary, but include intertidal and subtidal rock outcrops, sandbars, sandy beaches, 

estuaries, and even peat banks in salt marshes (Burns, 2008; Gilbert & Guldager, 1998; Prescott, 1982; 

Schneider & Payne, 1983; Wilson, 1978).

Small numbers of harbor seals are found hauled out on coastal and island sites and forage in the 

nearshore waters of the Southern California Range Complex, but are found in only moderate numbers 

compared to sea lions and elephant seals. In California, approximately 400 to 600 harbor seal haulout 

sites are widely distributed along the mainland and on offshore islands of the state (Lowry et al., 2008). 

The harbor seal haul-out sites in the San Diego area include mainland beaches and all of the Channel 

Islands, including Santa Barbara, Santa Catalina, and San Nicolas Islands (Lowry et al., 2008). There were 

1,367 harbor seals counted in the Channel Islands during aerial surveys in July 2015 (Lowry et al., 2017). 

Individuals have also been observed hauled out at La Jolla Cove, and within the channel of San Diego Bay 

at Ballast Point and Navy Base Point Loma. Monitoring during a pier replacement project in Point Loma 

(October 2014 to April 2015) encountered a mean number of 3 harbor seals hauled out and 2.00 to 2.48 

per day in the water (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2015b). A total of 15 harbor seals were sighted off 

the coast during 18 aerial surveys conducted between 2008 and 2013 in the Southern California portion

of the HSTT Study Area (Jefferson et al., 2014). There were no harbor seals detected in the 17 days of 

surveys (between October 2013 and September 2014) nearshore off the Silver Strand Training Complex 

and San Diego Bay (Graham & Saunders, 2015).

3.7.2.3.36.3 Population Trends

The most recent (2011) survey of California harbor seal rookeries resulted in the highest recorded pup 

count since 1975 (Carretta et al., 2015). In the short term, this trend may be affected by the pinniped 

Unusual Mortality Event that has been ongoing on the U.S. west coast since 2013. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-118

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.36.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

The main prey species of the harbor seal are cod, some rockfish species, sand eels, herring, and capelin. 

Harbor seals are also known to feed on cephalopods. Pups feed on bottom-dwelling crustaceans during 

their first few weeks of foraging. Sand eels are the main prey for individuals foraging in the south of 

their range, while cod is the main prey for other geographic areas included in the harbor seal range. 

There is no seasonal variation in prey species, but capelin and herring are more numerous in the fall and 

winter (Gibble & Harvey, 2015; Grigg et al., 2009; Hauksson & Bogason, 1997; Jefferson et al., 2008b; 

Reeves et al., 1992). Harbor seals are known to be preyed on by killer whales, sharks, eagles, ravens, 

gulls, and coyotes (Burns, 2008; Weller, 2008).

3.7.2.3.36.5 Species-Specific Threats

There were a reported 160 deaths and 41 serious injuries to harbor seals along the U.S. west coast from 

2010 to 2014 due to human-related causes; primarily from shore-based electrical power plant intake 

entrainment (Carretta et al., 2016b).

3.7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section evaluates how and to what degree the activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) potentially impact marine mammals known to occur within the Study 

Area. Tables 2.8-1 through 2.8-5 present the No Action Alternative and the proposed training and 

testing activity locations for Alternatives 1 and 2. The stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, 

and location within the Study Area. General characteristics of all Navy stressors were introduced in 

Section 3.0.3.3 (Identification of Stressors for Analysis), and living resources' general susceptibilities to 

stressors were introduced in Section 3.0.3.6 (Biological Resource Methods).The stressors analyzed for 

marine mammals are:

• Acoustic (sonar and other transducers; air guns; pile driving; vessel noise; aircraft noise; and 

weapons noise)

• Explosives (explosive shock wave and sound; explosive fragments)

• Energy (electromagnetic devices; high-energy lasers; radar)

• Physical disturbance and strike (vessels and in-water devices, military expended materials, 

seafloor devices; pile driving)

• Entanglement (wires and cables; decelerators/parachutes; biodegradable polymer) 

• Ingestion (military expended materials - munitions; military expended materials other than 

munitions)

• Secondary stressors (Impacts on Habitat; Impacts on Prey Availability)

In this analysis, marine mammal species are grouped together based on similar biology (e.g., hearing) or 

behaviors (e.g., feeding or expected reaction to stressors) when most appropriate for the discussion. In 

addition, for some stressors, species are grouped based on their taxonomic relationship and discussed 

as follows: mysticetes (baleen whales), odontocetes (toothed whales), pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), 

and mustelids (sea otter).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-119

3.7 Marine Mammals

When impacts are expected to be similar to all species or when it is determined there is no impact on 

any species, the discussion will be general and not species-specific. However, when impacts are not the 

same to certain species or groups of species, the discussion will be as specific as the best available data 

allow. In addition, if activities only occur in or will be concentrated in certain areas, the discussion will be 

geographically specific. Based on acoustic thresholds and criteria developed with NMFS, impacts from 

sound sources as acoustic stressors will be quantified at the species or stock level as is required 

pursuant to authorization of the proposed actions under the MMPA.

The analysis includes consideration of the mitigation that the Navy will implement to avoid potential 

impacts on marine mammals from acoustics, explosives, and physical disturbance and strike stressors. 

Mitigation for marine mammals will be coordinated with NMFS and the USFWS through the 

consultation processes. 

3.7.3.1 Acoustic Stressors

Assessing whether a sound may disturb or injure a marine mammal involves understanding the 

characteristics of the acoustic sources, the marine mammals that may be present in the vicinity of the 

sources, and the effects that sound may have on the physiology and behavior of those marine mammals. 

Although it is known that sound is important for marine mammal communication, navigation, and 

foraging (National Research Council, 2003, 2005), there are many unknowns in assessing impacts such as 

the potential interaction of different effects and the significance of responses by marine mammals to 

sound exposures (Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). Furthermore, many other factors besides 

just the received level of sound may affect an animal's reaction such as the duration of the sound 

producing activity, the animal's physical condition, prior experience with the sound, activity at the time 

of exposure (e.g., feeding, traveling, resting), the context of the exposure (e.g., in a semi-enclosed bay vs 

open ocean), and proximity to the source of the sound.

The ways in which an acoustic exposure could result in immediate effects or long-term consequences for 

an animal are explained in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive 

Activities (Section 3.0.3.6.1). The following Background section discusses what is currently known about 

acoustic effects to marine mammals. These effects could hypothetically extend from physical injury or 

trauma to a behavioral or stress response that may or may not be detectable. Injury (physical trauma) 

can occur to organs or tissues of an animal (Section 3.7.3.1.1.1, Injury). Hearing loss (Section 3.7.3.1.1.2, 

Hearing Loss and Auditory Injury) is a noise-induced decrease in hearing sensitivity, which can be either 

temporary or permanent. Masking (Section 3.7.3.1.1.4, Masking) can occur when the perception of a 

biologically important sound (i.e., signal) is interfered with by a second sound (i.e., noise). Physiological 

stress (Section 3.7.3.1.1.3, Physiological Stress) is an adaptive process that helps an animal cope with 

changing conditions, however too much stress can result in physiological effects. Behavioral response 

(Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions) ranges from brief distractions to avoidance of a sound source 

to prolonged flight. Extreme behavioral or physiological responses can lead to stranding (Section 0, 

Stranding). Long-term consequences (Section 3.7.3.1.1.7, Long-Term Consequences) are those impacts, 

or accumulation of impacts, that can result in decreases in individual fitness or population changes. In 

order to reduce or avoid as many of these impacts as possible, the Navy implements marine mammal 

mitigation measures during most Navy training and testing activities (see Chapter 5, Mitigation).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-120

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.1.1 Background 

3.7.3.1.1.1 Injury

Injury (i.e., physical trauma) refers to the effects on the tissues or organs of an animal due to exposure 

to pressure waves. Injury due to exposure to non-explosive acoustic stressors such as sonar is discussed 

below. Moderate- to low-level sound sources including vessel and aircraft noise would not cause any 

injury. The Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities (see 

Section 3.0.3.6.1) provides additional information on injury (i.e., physical trauma) and the framework 

used to analyze this potential impact.

Several mechanisms of acoustically-induced tissue damage (non-auditory) have been proposed and are 

discussed below.

Injury due to Sonar-Induced Acoustic Resonance

An object exposed to its resonant frequency will tend to amplify its vibration at that frequency, a 

phenomenon called acoustic resonance. Acoustic resonance has been proposed as a mechanism by 

which a sonar or sources with similar operating characteristics could damage tissues of marine 

mammals. In 2002, NMFS convened a panel of government and private scientists to investigate the 

potential for acoustic resonance to occur in marine mammals (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2002). They modeled and evaluated the likelihood that Navy mid-frequency sonar 

caused resonance effects in beaked whales that eventually led to their stranding. The conclusions of the 

group were that resonance in air-filled structures was not likely to have caused the Bahamas stranding 

in 2000. The frequency at which resonance was predicted to occur in the animals’ lungs was 50 Hz, well 

below the frequencies used by the mid-frequency sonar systems associated with the Bahamas event. 

Furthermore, air cavity vibrations, even at resonant frequencies, were not considered to be of sufficient 

amplitude to cause tissue damage, even under the unrealistic scenario in which air volumes would be 

undamped (unrestrained) by surrounding tissues and the amplitude of the resonant response would be 

greatest. These same conclusions would apply to other training and testing activities involving acoustic 

sources. Therefore, the Navy concludes that acoustic resonance would not occur under realistic 

conditions during training and testing activities, and this type of impact is not considered further in this 

analysis.

Nitrogen Decompression

Marine mammals are thought to deal with nitrogen loads in their blood and other tissues, caused by gas 

exchange from the lungs under conditions of high ambient pressure during diving, through anatomical, 

behavioral, and physiological adaptations (Hooker et al., 2012). 

Although not a direct injury, variations in marine mammal diving behavior or avoidance responses could 

result in nitrogen off-gassing in super-saturated tissues, possibly to the point of deleterious vascular and 

tissue bubble formation (Hooker et al., 2012; Jepson et al., 2003; Saunders et al., 2008) with resulting 

symptoms similar to decompression sickness (also known as “the bends”). The process has been under 

debate in the scientific community (Hooker et al., 2012; Saunders et al., 2008), although analyses of bycaught and drowned animals has demonstrated that nitrogen bubble formation can occur once animals 

are brought to the surface and tissues are supersaturated with nitrogen (Bernaldo de Quiros et al., 

2013b; Moore et al., 2009). Deep diving whales, such as beaked whales, normally have higher nitrogen 

loads in body tissues, which may make them more susceptible to decompression for certain modeled 

changes in dive behavior (Fahlman et al., 2014b; Fernández et al., 2005; Hooker et al., 2012; Jepson et 

al., 2003).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-121

3.7 Marine Mammals

Researchers have examined how dive behavior affects tissue supersaturation conditions that could put 

an animal at risk of gas bubble embolism. An early hypothesis was that if exposure to a startling sound 

elicits a rapid ascent to the surface, tissue gas saturation sufficient for the evolution of nitrogen bubbles 

might result (Fernández et al., 2005; Jepson et al., 2003). However, modeling suggested that even 

unrealistically rapid rates of ascent from normal dive behaviors are unlikely to result in supersaturation 

to the extent that bubble formation would be expected in beaked whales (Zimmer & Tyack, 2007). 

Instead, emboli observed in animals exposed to mid-frequency active sonar (Fernández et al., 2005; 

Jepson et al., 2003) could stem from a behavioral response that involves repeated dives, shallower than 

the depth of lung collapse (Hooker et al., 2012; 2006; Zimmer & Tyack, 2007). Longer times spent diving 

at mid-depths above lung collapse would allow gas exchange from the lungs to continue under high 

hydrostatic pressure conditions, increasing potential for supersaturation; below the depth of lung 

collapse, gas exchange from the lungs to the blood would likely not occur (Fahlman et al., 2014b). 

However, Costidis and Rommel (Costidis & Rommel, 2016) suggest that gas exchange may continue to 

occur across the tissues of air-filled sinuses in deep-diving odontocetes below the depth of lung collapse, 

if hydrostatic pressures are high enough to drive gas exchange across into non-capillary veins, 

contributing to tissue gas loads. To examine the potential for gas bubble formation, a bottlenose dolphin 

was trained to dive repetitively to depths shallower than lung collapse to elevate nitrogen saturation to 

the point that asymptomatic nitrogen bubble formation was predicted to occur. However, inspection of 

the vascular system of the dolphin via ultrasound did not demonstrate the formation of any nitrogen gas 

bubbles (Houser et al., 2009). To estimate risk of decompression sickness, Kvadsheim et al. (2012)

modeled gas exchange in the tissues of sperm, pilot, killer, and beaked whales based on actual dive 

behavior during exposure to sonar in the wild. Results indicated that venous supersaturation was within 

the normal range for these species, which have naturally high levels of nitrogen loading. Researchers 

have also considered the role of accumulation of carbon dioxide produced during periods of high activity 

by an animal, theorizing that accumulating carbon dioxide, which cannot be removed by gas exchange 

below the depth of lung collapse, may facilitate the formation of bubbles in nitrogen saturated tissues 

(Bernaldo de Quiros et al., 2012; Fahlman et al., 2014b). 

Modeling has suggested that the long, deep dives performed regularly by beaked whales over a lifetime 

could result in the saturation of long-halftime tissues (i.e., tissues that take longer to give off nitrogen, 

e.g., fat and bone lipid) to the point that they are supersaturated when the animals are at the surface 

(Fahlman et al., 2014b; Hooker et al., 2009; Saunders et al., 2008). The presence of osteonecrosis (bone 

death due to reduced blood flow) in deep diving sperm whales has been offered as evidence of chronic 

supersaturation (Moore & Early, 2004). Proposed adaptations for prevention of bubble formation under 

conditions of persistent tissue saturation have been suggested (Fahlman et al., 2006; Hooker et al., 

2009), while the condition of supersaturation required for bubble formation in these tissues has been 

demonstrated in marine mammals drowned at depth as fisheries bycatch and brought to the surface 

(Moore et al., 2009). For beaked whale strandings associated with sonar use, one theory is that 

observed bubble formation may be caused by long periods of compromised blood flow caused by the 

stranding itself (which reduces ability to remove nitrogen from tissues) following rapid ascent dive 

behavior that does not allow for typical management of nitrogen in supersaturated, long-halftime 

tissues (Houser et al., 2009). 

A fat embolic syndrome (out of place fat particles, typically in the bloodstream) was identified by 

Fernández et al. (2005) coincident with the identification of bubble emboli in stranded beaked whales. 

The fat embolic syndrome was the first pathology of this type identified in marine mammals and was 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-122

3.7 Marine Mammals

thought to possibly arise from the formation of bubbles in fat bodies, which subsequently resulted in the 

release of fat emboli into the blood stream. 

Dennison et al. (2011) reported on investigations of dolphins stranded in 2009–2010 and, using 

ultrasound, identified gas bubbles in kidneys of 21 of the 22 live-stranded dolphins and in the liver of 

two of the 22. The authors postulated that stranded animals are unable to recompress by diving, and 

thus may retain bubbles that are otherwise re-absorbed in animals that can continue to dive. The 

researchers concluded that the minor bubble formation observed could be tolerated since the majority 

of stranded dolphins released did not re-strand. 

The appearance of extensive bubble and fat emboli in beaked whales is unique to strandings associated 

with certain high intensity sonar events; the phenomenon has not been observed in other stranded 

marine mammals, including other beaked whale strandings not associated with sonar use. Thus, it is 

uncertain as to whether there is some mechanism for this phenomenon specific to beaked whales or 

whether the phenomenon occurs only following rapidly occurring stranding events (i.e., when whales 

are not capable of sufficiently decompressing). Because of the lack of evidence for extensive nitrogen 

bubble formation while diving, Navy believes that the potential for marine mammals to get “the bends” 

following acoustic exposure to be unlikely and does not consider it in its effect analysis. 

Acoustically-Induced Bubble Formation due to Sonars

A suggested cause of injury to marine mammals is rectified diffusion (Crum & Mao, 1996), the process of 

increasing the size of a microscopic gas bubble by exposing it to a sound field. The process is dependent 

upon a number of factors including the sound pressure level (SPL) and duration. Under this hypothesis, 

microscopic bubbles assumed to exist in the tissues of marine mammals may experience one of three 

things: (1) bubbles grow to the extent that tissue hemorrhage (injury) occurs, (2) bubbles develop to the 

extent that a complement immune response is triggered or the nervous tissue is subjected to enough 

localized pressure that pain or dysfunction occurs (a stress response without injury), or (3) the bubbles 

are cleared by the lung without negative consequence to the animal. 

Rectified diffusion is facilitated if the environment in which the ensonified bubbles exist is 

supersaturated with gas. As discussed above, repetitive diving by marine mammals can cause the blood 

and some tissues to become supersaturated (Ridgway & Howard, 1979). The dive patterns of some 

marine mammals (e.g., beaked whales) are predicted to induce greater supersaturation (Houser et al., 

2001). If rectified diffusion were possible in marine mammals exposed to high-level sound, conditions of 

tissue supersaturation could theoretically speed the rate and increase the size of bubble growth. 

Subsequent effects due to tissue trauma and emboli would presumably mirror those observed in 

humans suffering from decompression sickness.

It is unlikely that the short duration of sonar pulses would be long enough to drive bubble growth to any 

substantial size, if such a phenomenon occurs. However, an alternative but related hypothesis has also 

been suggested: stable microbubbles could be destabilized by high-level sound exposures such that 

bubble growth then occurs through static diffusion of gas out of supersaturated tissues. In such a 

scenario, the marine mammal would need to be in a gas-supersaturated state for a long enough time for 

bubbles to become a problematic size. The phenomena of bubble growth due to a destabilizing 

exposure was shown by Crum et al. (2005) by exposing highly supersaturated ex vivo bovine tissues to a 

37 kHz source at 214 dB re 1 μPa. Although bubble growth occurred under the extreme conditions 

created for the study, these conditions would not exist in the wild because the levels of tissue 

supersaturation in the study (as high as 400–700 percent) are substantially higher than model 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-123

3.7 Marine Mammals

predictions for marine mammals (Fahlman et al., 2009; Fahlman et al., 2014b; Houser et al., 2001; 

Saunders et al., 2008), and such high exposure level would only occur in very close proximity to the most 

powerful sonars. It is improbable that this mechanism is responsible for stranding events or traumas 

associated with beaked whale strandings. 

There has been considerable disagreement among scientists as to the likelihood of this phenomenon 

(Evans & Miller, 2003; Piantadosi & Thalmann, 2004). Although it has been argued that traumas from 

beaked whale strandings are consistent with gas emboli and bubble-induced tissue separations

(Fernández et al., 2005; Jepson et al., 2003), nitrogen bubble formation as the cause of the traumas has 

not been verified. The presence of bubbles postmortem, particularly after decompression, is not 

necessarily indicative of bubble pathology (Bernaldo de Quiros et al., 2012; Bernaldo de Quiros et al., 

2013a; Bernaldo de Quiros et al., 2013b; Dennison et al., 2011; Moore et al., 2009). 

3.7.3.1.1.2 Hearing Loss and Auditory Injury

Exposure to intense sound may result in noise-induced hearing loss that persists after cessation of the 

noise exposure. Hearing loss may be temporary or permanent, depending on factors such as the 

exposure frequency, received sound pressure level, temporal pattern, and duration. The frequencies 

affected by hearing loss will vary depending on the frequency of the fatiguing noise, with frequencies at 

and above the noise frequency most strongly affected. The amount of hearing loss may range from 

slight to profound, depending on the ability of the individual to hear at the affected frequencies. 

The Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities (see Section 

3.0.3.6.1) provides additional information on hearing loss and the framework used to analyze this 

potential impact. Hearing loss has only been studied in a few species of marine mammals, although 

hearing studies with terrestrial mammals are also informative. 

Hearing loss is typically quantified in terms of threshold shift (TS)—the amount (in dB) that hearing 

thresholds at one or more specified frequencies are elevated, compared to their pre-exposure values, at 

some specific time after the noise exposure. The amount of TS measured usually decreases with 

increasing recovery time—the amount of time that has elapsed since a noise exposure. If the TS 

eventually returns to zero (i.e., the hearing threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), the threshold 

shift is called a temporary threshold shift (TTS). If the TS does not completely recover (the threshold 

remains elevated compared to the pre-exposure value), the remaining TS is called a permanent 

threshold shift (PTS). Notes: TTS: Temporary Threshold Shift; TS: Threshold Shift; PTS: Permanent Threshold Shift

Figure 3.7-3 shows two hypothetical TSs: one that completely recovers, a TTS, and one that does not 

completely recover, leaving some PTS. By definition, TTS is a function of the recovery time, therefore 

comparing the severity of noise exposures based on the amount of induced TTS can only be done if the 

recovery times are also taken into account. For example, a 20-dB TTS measured 24 hr post-exposure 

indicates a more hazardous exposure than one producing 20 dB of TTS measured only 2 min after 

exposure; if the TTS is 20 dB after 24 h, the TTS measured after 2 min would have likely been much 

higher. Conversely, if 20 dB of TTS was measured after 2 min, the TTS measured after 24 hr would likely 

have been much smaller. 

Studies have revealed that intense noise exposures may also cause auditory system injury that does not 

result in PTS; i.e., hearing thresholds return to normal after the exposure, but there is injury 

nonetheless. Kujawa and Liberman (2009) found that noise exposures sufficient to produce a TTS in 

neural thresholds of 40 dB, measured 24 hr post-exposure, resulted in acute loss of nerve terminals and 

delayed degeneration of the cochlear nerve in mice. Lin et al. (2011) found a similar result in guinea pigs, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-124

3.7 Marine Mammals

that a TTS in auditory evoked potential of up to approximately 50 dB, measured 24 hr post-exposure, 

resulted in neural degeneration. These studies demonstrate that PTS should not be used as the sole 

indicator of auditory injury, since exposures producing high levels of TTS (40 to 50 dB measured 24 hr 

after exposure)—but no PTS—may result in auditory injury. 

Notes: TTS: Temporary Threshold Shift; TS: Threshold Shift; PTS: Permanent Threshold Shift

Figure 3.7-3: Two Hypothetical Threshold Shifts

There are no simple functional relationships between TTS and the occurrence of PTS or other auditory 

injury (e.g., neural degeneration). However, TTS and PTS are, by definition, mutually exclusive: An 

exposure that produces TTS cannot also produce PTS in the same individual; conversely, if an initial 

threshold shift only partially recovers, resulting in some amount PTS, the difference between the initial 

TS and the PTS is not called TTS. As TTS increases, the likelihood that additional exposure SPL or duration 

will result in PTS and/or other injury also increases. Exposure thresholds for the occurrence of PTS or 

other auditory injury can therefore be defined based on a specific amount of TTS; i.e., although an 

exposure has been shown to produce only TTS, we assume that any additional exposure may result in 

some PTS or other injury. The specific upper limit of TTS is based on experimental data showing amounts 

of TTS that have not resulted in PTS or injury. In other words, we do not need to know the exact 

functional relationship between TTS and PTS or other injury, we only need to know the upper limit for 

TTS before some PTS or injury is possible. 

A variety of human and terrestrial mammal data indicate that threshold shifts up to 40 to 50 dB may be 

induced without PTS, and that 40 dB is a reasonable upper limit for allowable threshold shift to prevent 

PTS (e.g., Kryter et al., 1965; Miller et al., 1963; Ward, 1960; Ward et al., 1958; Ward et al., 1959). It is 

reasonable to assume the same relationship would hold for marine mammals, since there are many 

similarities between the inner ears of marine and terrestrial mammals and experiments with marine 

mammals have revealed similarities to terrestrial mammals for features such as TTS, age-related hearing 

loss, drug-induced hearing loss, masking, and frequency selectivity (Finneran et al., 2005a; Finneran, 

2015; Ketten, 2000). Therefore, we assume that sound exposures sufficient to produce 40 dB of TTS 

measured ~4 min after exposure represent the limit of a non-injurious exposure; i.e., higher level 

exposures have the potential to cause auditory injury. Exposures sufficient to produce a TTS of 40 dB, 

measured ~4 min after exposure, therefore represent the threshold for auditory injury. The predicted 

injury could consist of either hair cell damage/loss resulting in PTS or other auditory injury, such as the 

delayed neural degeneration identified by Kujawa and Liberman (2009) and Lin et al. (2011) that may 

not result in PTS. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-125

3.7 Marine Mammals

Numerous studies have directly examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran, 

2015). In these studies, hearing thresholds were measured in marine mammals before and after 

exposure to intense sounds. The difference between the pre-exposure and post-exposure thresholds 

was then used to determine the amount of TTS at various post-exposure times. The major findings from 

these studies include the following:

• The method used to test hearing may affect the resulting amount of measured TTS, with 

neurophysiological measures producing larger amounts of TTS compared to psychophysical 

measures (Finneran et al., 2007; Finneran, 2015).

• The amount of TTS varies with the hearing test frequency. As the exposure SPL increases, the 

frequency at which the maximum TTS occurs also increases (Kastelein et al., 2014c). For high 

level exposures, the maximum TTS typically occurs one-half to one octave above the exposure 

frequency (Finneran et al., 2007; Mooney et al., 2009a; Nachtigall et al., 2004; Popov et al., 

2011; Popov et al., 2013; Schlundt et al., 2000). The overall spread of TTS from tonal exposures 

can therefore extend over a large frequency range; i.e., narrowband exposures can produce 

broadband (greater than one octave) TTS.

• The amount of TTS increases with exposure SPL and duration, and is correlated with sound 

exposure level (SEL), especially if the range of exposure durations is relatively small (Kastak et 

al., 2007; Kastelein et al., 2014c; Popov et al., 2014). As the exposure duration increases, 

however, the relationship between TTS and SEL begins to break down. Specifically, duration has 

a more significant effect on TTS than would be predicted on the basis of SEL alone (Finneran et 

al., 2010b; Kastak et al., 2005; Mooney et al., 2009a). This means if two exposures have the 

same SEL but different durations, the exposure with the longer duration (thus lower SPL) will 

tend to produce more TTS than the exposure with the higher SPL and shorter duration. In most 

acoustic impact assessments, the scenarios of interest involve shorter duration exposures than 

the marine mammal experimental data from which impact thresholds are derived; therefore, 

use of SEL tends to over-estimate the amount of TTS. Despite this, SEL continues to be used in 

many situations because it is relatively simple, more accurate than SPL alone, and lends itself 

easily to scenarios involving multiple exposures with different SPL. 

• The amount of TTS depends on the exposure frequency. Sounds at low frequencies, well below 

the region of best sensitivity, are less hazardous than those at higher frequencies, near the 

region of best sensitivity (Finneran & Schlundt, 2013). The onset of TTS—defined as the 

exposure level necessary to produce 6 dB of TTS (i.e., clearly above the typical variation in 

threshold measurements)—also varies with exposure frequency. At low frequencies onset-TTS 

exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity. 

• TTS can accumulate across multiple exposures, but the resulting TTS will be less than the TTS 

from a single, continuous exposure with the same SEL (Finneran et al., 2010b; Kastelein et al., 

2015b; Mooney et al., 2009b) (Kastelein et al., 2014b). This means that TTS predictions based on 

the total, cumulative SEL will overestimate the amount of TTS from intermittent exposures such 

as sonars and impulsive sources. 

• The amount of observed TTS tends to decrease with increasing time following the exposure; 

however, the relationship is not monotonic (i.e., increasing exposure does not always increase 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-126

3.7 Marine Mammals

TTS). The time required for complete recovery of hearing depends on the magnitude of the 

initial shift; for relatively small shifts recovery may be complete in a few minutes, while large 

shifts (e.g., ~40 dB) may require several days for recovery. Under many circumstances TTS 

recovers linearly with the logarithm of time (Finneran et al., 2010a, 2010b; Finneran & Schlundt, 

2013; Kastelein et al., 2012a; Kastelein et al., 2012b; Kastelein et al., 2013a; Kastelein et al., 

2014b, 2014c; Kastelein et al., 2014d; Popov et al., 2011; Popov et al., 2013; Popov et al., 2014). 

This means that for each doubling of recovery time, the amount of TTS will decrease by the 

same amount (e.g., 6 dB recovery per doubling of time).

Due to the higher exposure levels or longer exposure durations required to induce hearing loss, only a 

few types of man-made sound sources have the potential to cause a threshold shift to a marine 

mammal in the wild. These include some sonars and other transducers and impulsive sound sources 

such as air guns and impact pile driving.

Threshold Shift due to Sonars and Other Transducers

TTS in mid-frequency cetaceans exposed to non-impulsive sound has been investigated in multiple 

studies (Finneran et al., 2005b; Finneran et al., 2010a; Finneran & Schlundt, 2013; Mooney et al., 2009a; 

Mooney et al., 2009b; Nachtigall et al., 2003; Nachtigall et al., 2004; Popov et al., 2013; Popov et al., 

2014; Schlundt et al., 2000) from two species, bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales. Two highfrequency cetacean species have been studied for TTS due to non-impulsive sources: the harbor 

porpoise (Kastelein et al., 2012b) and the finless porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides) (Popov et al., 

2011). TTS from non-impulsive sounds has also been investigated in three pinniped species: harbor seal 

(Phoca vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and Northern elephant seal (Mirounga 

angustirostris) (e.g., Kastak et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012a). These data are reviewed in detail in 

Finneran (2015) as well as the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects 

Analysis (Phase III) technical report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a), and the major findings are 

summarized above.

Threshold Shift due to Impulsive Sound Sources 

Marine mammal TTS data from impulsive sources are limited to two studies with measured TTS of 6 dB 

or more: Finneran et al. (2002) reported behaviorally-measured TTSs of 6 and 7 dB in a beluga exposed 

to single impulses from a seismic water gun and Lucke et al. (2009) reported auditory evoked potentialmeasured TTS of 7 to 20 dB in a harbor porpoise exposed to single impulses from a seismic air gun. 

In addition to these data, Kastelein et al. (2015a) reported behaviorally-measured mean TTS of 4 dB at 8 

kHz and 2 dB at 4 kHz after a harbor porpoise was exposed to a series of impulsive sounds produced by 

broadcasting underwater recordings of impact pile driving strikes through underwater sound projectors. 

The cumulative SEL was approximately 180 dB re 1 μPa2

s. The pressure waveforms for the simulated pile 

strikes exhibited significant “ringing” not present in the original recordings and most of the energy in the 

broadcasts was between 500 and 800 Hz. As a result, some questions exist regarding whether the 

fatiguing signals were representative of underwater pressure signatures from impact pile driving.

Several impulsive noise exposure studies have also been conducted without behaviorally measurable 

TTS. Finneran et al. (2000) exposed dolphins and belugas to single impulses from an “explosion 

simulator” and Finneran et al. (2015) exposed three dolphins to sequences of 10 impulses from a seismic 

air gun (maximum cumulative SEL = 193 to 195 dB re 1 μPa2

s, peak SPL =196 to 210 dB re 1 μPa) without 

measurable TTS. Finneran et al. (2003b) exposed two sea lions to single impulses from an arc-gap 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-127

3.7 Marine Mammals

transducer with no measurable TTS (maximum unweighted SEL = 163 dB re 1 μPa2s, peak SPL = 183 dB 

re 1 μPa). 

3.7.3.1.1.3 Physiological Stress

The growing field of conservation physiology relies in part on the ability to monitor stress hormones in 

populations of animals, particularly those that are threatened or endangered. The ability to make

predictions from stress hormones about impacts on individuals and populations exposed to various 

forms of stressors, natural and human-caused, relies on understanding the linkages between changes in 

stress hormones and resulting physiological impacts. At this time, the sound characteristics that 

correlate with specific stress responses in marine mammals are poorly understood, as are the ultimate 

consequences due to these changes. Navy-funded efforts are underway to try to improve understanding 

of and the ability to predict how stressors ultimately affect marine mammal populations (e.g., King et al., 

2015; New et al., 2013a; New et al., 2013b; Pirotta et al., 2015a). With respect to acoustically-induced 

stress, this includes not only determining how and to what degree various types of anthropogenic sound 

cause stress in marine mammals, but what factors can mitigate those responses. Factors potentially 

affecting an animal’s response to a stressor include the mammal’s life history stage, sex, age, 

reproductive status, overall physiological and behavioral plasticity, and whether they are naïve or 

experienced with the sound [e.g., prior experience with a stressor may result in a reduced response due 

to habituation (Finneran & Branstetter, 2013; St. Aubin & Dierauf, 2001)]. Because there are many 

unknowns regarding the occurrence of acoustically-induced stress responses in marine mammals, the 

Navy assumes in its effect analysis that any physiological response (e.g., hearing loss or injury) or 

significant behavioral response is also associated with a stress response.

Marine mammals naturally experience stressors within their environment and as part of their life 

histories. Changing weather and ocean conditions, exposure to disease and naturally occurring toxins, 

lack of prey availability, and interactions with predators all contribute to the stress a marine mammal 

experiences (Atkinson et al., 2015). Breeding cycles, periods of fasting, social interactions with members 

of the same species, and molting (for pinnipeds) are also stressors, although they are natural 

components of an animal’s life history. Anthropogenic activities have the potential to provide additional 

stressors beyond those that occur naturally (Fair et al., 2014; Meissner et al., 2015; Rolland et al., 2012). 

Anthropogenic stressors potentially include such things as fishery interactions, pollution, tourism, and 

ocean noise.

The stress response is a suite of physiological changes that are meant to help an organism mitigate the 

impact of a stressor (Moberg & Mench, 2000). However, if the magnitude and duration of the stress 

response is too great or too long, then it can have negative consequences to the organism (e.g., 

decreased immune function, decreased reproduction). The generalized stress response is classically 

characterized by the release of cortisol, a hormone that has many functions including elevation of blood 

sugar, suppression of the immune system, and alteration of the biochemical pathways that affect fat, 

protein, and carbohydrate metabolism. However, it is now known that the endocrine response 

(glandular secretions of hormones into the blood) to a stressor can extend to other hormones. For 

instance, thyroid hormones can also vary under the influence of certain stressors, particularly food 

deprivation. These types of responses typically occur on the order of minutes to days. The “fight or 

flight” response, an acute stress response, is characterized by the very rapid release of hormones that 

stimulate glucose release, increase heart rate, and increase oxygen consumption.

What is known about the function of the various stress hormones is based largely upon observations of 

the stress response in terrestrial mammals. The endocrine response of marine mammals to stress may 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-128

3.7 Marine Mammals

not be the same as that of terrestrial mammals because of the selective pressures marine mammals 

faced during their evolution in an ocean environment (Atkinson et al., 2015). For example, due to the 

necessity of breath-holding while diving and foraging at depth, the physiological role of the epinephrine 

and norepinephrine (the catecholamines) may have changed. Catecholamines increase during breathhold diving in seals, co-occurring with a reduction in heart rate, peripheral vasoconstriction (constriction 

of blood vessels), and an increased reliance on anaerobic metabolism during extended dives (Hance et 

al., 1982; Hochachka et al., 1995; Hurford et al., 1996); the catecholamine increase is not associated 

with an increased heart rate, glycemic release, and increased oxygen consumption typical of terrestrial

mammals. Other hormone functions may also be different, such as aldosterone, which has been 

speculated to not only contribute to electrolyte balance, but possibly also the maintenance of blood 

pressure during periods of vasoconstriction (Houser et al., 2011). In marine mammals, aldosterone is 

thought to play a particular role in stress mediation because of its noted response to handling stress (St. 

Aubin & Geraci, 1989; St. Aubin & Dierauf, 2001).

Relatively little information exists on the linkage between anthropogenic sound exposure and stress in 

marine mammals, and even less information exists on the ultimate consequences of sound-induced 

stress responses (either acute or chronic). Most studies to date have focused on acute responses to 

sound either by measuring catecholamines or by measuring heart rate as an assumed proxy for an acute 

stress response. Belugas demonstrated no catecholamine response to the playback of oil drilling sounds 

(Thomas et al., 1990b) but showed a small but statistically significant increase in catecholamines 

following exposure to impulsive sounds produced from a seismic water gun (Romano et al., 2004). A 

bottlenose dolphin exposed to the same seismic water gun signals did not demonstrate a catecholamine 

response, but did demonstrate a statistically significant elevation in aldosterone (Romano et al., 2004), 

albeit the increase was within the normal daily variation observed in this species (St. Aubin et al., 1996). 

Increases in heart rate were observed in bottlenose dolphins to which known calls of other dolphins 

were played, although no increase in heart rate was observed when background tank noise was played 

back (Miksis et al., 2001). Unfortunately, in this study, it cannot be determined whether the increase in 

heart rate was due to stress or an anticipation of being reunited with the dolphin to which the 

vocalization belonged. Similarly, a young beluga's heart rate was observed to increase during exposure 

to noise, with increases dependent upon the frequency band of noise and duration of exposure, and 

with a sharp decrease to normal or below normal levels upon cessation of the exposure (Lyamin et al., 

2011). However, this response may have been in part due to the conditions during testing and the young 

age of the animal, and therefore heart rate may not be a good predictor of a stress response in 

cetaceans. Along the same lines, a young, recently captured beluga whale exposed to broadband highfrequency noise demonstrated a two-stage heart rate response, with an initial tachycardia (increased 

heart rate) followed by a decreased heart rate (Bakhchina et al., 2017). However, a year later the 

exposure was repeated at a slightly higher received level and there was no heart rate response, 

indicating the beluga whale had likely acclimated to its surroundings and was familiar with this type of 

noise. Kvadsheim et al. (2010b) measured the heart rate of captive hooded seals during exposure to 

sonar signals, and found an increase in the heart rate of the seals during exposure periods vs. control 

periods when the animals were at the surface. When the animals dove, the normal dive-related 

bradycardia (decrease in heart rate) was not impacted by the sonar exposure. Similarly, Thompson et al. 

(1998) observed a rapid but short-lived decrease in heart rates in harbor and grey seals exposed to 

seismic air guns (cited in Gordon et al., 2003). Williams et al. (2017) found a non-linear increase in 

oxygen consumption with both stroke rate and heart rate in swimming and diving bottlenose dolphins, 

and found that the average energy expended per stroke increased from 2.81 J/kg/stroke during 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-129

3.7 Marine Mammals

preferred swim speeds to a maximum cost of 6.41 J/kg/stroke when freely following a boat. Collectively, 

these results demonstrate the difficulty in interpreting the sparse amount of available information on 

acute stress responses to sound in marine mammals.

Whereas a limited amount of work has addressed the potential for acute sound exposures to produce a 

stress response, almost nothing is known about how chronic exposure to acoustic stressors affect stress 

hormones in marine mammals, particularly as it relates to survival or reproduction. In what is probably 

the only study of chronic noise exposure in marine mammals associating changes in a stress hormone 

with changes in anthropogenic noise, Rolland et al. (2012) compared the levels of cortisol metabolites in 

North Atlantic right whale feces collected before and after September 11, 2001. Following the events of 

September 11, shipping was significantly prohibited in the region where fecal collections were made and 

regional ocean background noise declined. Fecal cortisol metabolites significantly decreased during the 

period of reduced ship traffic and ocean noise (Rolland et al., 2012). Considerably more work has been 

conducted in an attempt to determine the potential effect of boating on smaller cetaceans, particularly 

killer whales (Bain, 2002; Erbe, 2002; Lusseau, 2006; Noren et al., 2009; Pirotta et al., 2015b; Read et al., 

2014; Rolland et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2006; Williams et al., 2009; Williams et al., 2014b; Williams et 

al., 2014c). Most of these efforts focused primarily on estimates of metabolic costs associated with 

altered behavior or inferred consequences of boat presence and noise, but did not directly measure 

stress hormones. However, Ayres et al. (2012) investigated southern resident killer whale fecal thyroid 

hormone and cortisol metabolites to assess two potential threats to the species recovery: lack of prey 

(salmon) and impacts from exposure to the physical presence of vessel traffic (but without measuring 

vessel traffic noise). Ayres et al. (2012) concluded from these stress hormone measures that the lack of 

prey overshadowed any population-level physiological impacts on southern resident killer whales due to 

vessel traffic. Collectively, these studies indicate the difficulty in teasing out factors that are dominant in 

exerting influence on the secretion of stress hormones, including the separate and additive effects of 

vessel presence and vessel noise. Nevertheless, although the reduced presence of the ships themselves 

cannot be ruled out as potentially contributing to the reduction in fecal cortisol metabolites in North 

Atlantic right whales, the work of Rolland et al. (2012) represents the most provocative link between 

ocean noise and cortisol in cetaceans to date.

Navy-funded efforts are underway to try and improve our understanding and ability to predict how 

stressors ultimately affect marine mammal populations (King et al., 2015; e.g., New et al., 2013a; New et 

al., 2013b; Pirotta et al., 2015a), and whether they are naïve or experienced with the sound (e.g., prior 

experience with a stressor) may result in a reduced response due to habituation (St. Aubin & Dierauf, 

2001).

3.7.3.1.1.4 Masking

Masking occurs when one sound, distinguished as the “noise”, interferes with the detection or 

recognition of another sound. The quantitative definition of masking is the amount in decibels an 

auditory detection or discrimination threshold is raised in the presence of a masker (Erbe et al., 2015). 

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and 

Explosive Activities), masking can effectively limit the distance over which a marine mammal can 

communicate, detect biologically relevant sounds, and echolocate (odontocetes). Masking only occurs in 

the presence of the masking noise and does not persist after the cessation of the noise. Masking can 

lead to vocal changes (e.g., Lombard effect, increasing amplitude, or changing frequency) and behavior 

changes (e.g., cessation of foraging, leaving an area) to both signalers and receivers, in an attempt to 

compensate for noise levels (Erbe et al., 2015).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-130

3.7 Marine Mammals

Critical ratios are the lowest signal-to-noise ratio in which detection occurs (Finneran & Branstetter, 

2013; Johnson et al., 1989; Southall et al., 2000). When expressed in dB, critical ratios can easily be 

calculated by subtracting the noise level (in dB re 1 μPa2

/Hz) from the signal level (in dB re 1 μPa) at 

threshold. Critical ratios have been measured for pinnipeds (Southall et al., 2000, 2003), odontocetes 

(Figure 3.7-4) (Au & Moore, 1990; Johnson et al., 1989; Kastelein & Wensveen, 2008; Lemonds et al., 

2011; Thomas et al., 1990a), manatees (Gaspard et al., 2012), and sea otters (Ghoul & Reichmuth, 

2014b). Critical ratios are directly related to the bandwidth of auditory filters and as a result, critical 

ratios increase as a function of signal frequency (Au & Moore, 1990; Lemonds et al., 2011). Higher 

frequency noise is more effective at masking higher frequency signals. Although critical ratios are 

typically estimated in controlled laboratory conditions using Gaussian (white) noise, critical ratios can 

vary considerably depending on the noise type (Branstetter et al., 2013; Trickey et al., 2010). 

Figure 3.7-4: Critical ratios (in dB) measured in different odontocetes species(from Finneran & 

Branstetter, 2013)

Clark et al. (2009) developed a method for estimating masking effects on communication signals for lowfrequency cetaceans, including calculating the cumulative impact of multiple noise sources. For 

example, their technique calculates that a right whale’s optimal communication space (around 20 km) is 

decreased by 84 percent when two commercial ships pass through it. Similarly, Aguilar de Soto et al. 

(2006) found that a 15 dB increase in background noise due to vessels led to a communication range of 

only 18 percent of its normal value for foraging beaked whales. This method relies on empirical data on 

source levels of calls (which is unknown for many species) and requires many assumptions such as preindustrial ambient noise conditions and simplifications of animal hearing and behavior, but it is an 

important step in determining the impact of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. Erbe (2015)

developed a model with a noise source-centered view of masking to examine how a call may be masked 

from a receiver by a noise as a function of caller, receiver, and noise-source location, distance relative to 

each other and received level of the call.

Vocal changes in response to anthropogenic noise can occur across the repertoire of sound production 

modes used by marine mammals, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. 

Vocalization changes may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-131

3.7 Marine Mammals

include increasing the source level, modifying the frequency, increasing the call repetition rate of 

vocalizations, or ceasing to vocalize in the presence of increased noise (Hotchkin & Parks, 2013). In 

cetaceans, vocalization changes were reported from exposure to anthropogenic noise sources such as 

sonar, vessel noise, and seismic surveying (Gordon et al., 2003; Holt et al., 2008; Holt et al., 2011; Lesage 

et al., 1999; McDonald et al., 2009; Rolland et al., 2012) as well as changes in the natural acoustic 

environment (Dunlop et al., 2014). Vocal changes can be temporary, or can be permanent, as seen in the 

increase in starting frequency for the North Atlantic right whale upcall over the last fifty years 

(Tennessen & Parks, 2016). This shift in frequency was modeled, and it was found that it lead to increase 

detection ranges between right whales; the frequency shift, coupled with an increase in call intensity by 

20 dB, led to a call detectability range of less than 3 km to over 9 km (Tennessen & Parks, 2016). In some 

cases, these vocal changes may have fitness consequences, such as an increase in metabolic rates and 

oxygen consumption, as was found for bottlenose dolphins when increasing their call amplitude (Holt et 

al., 2015). A switch from vocal communication to physical, surface-generated sounds such as pectoral fin 

slapping or breaching was observed for humpback whales in the presence of increasing natural

background noise levels, indicating that adaptations to masking may also move beyond vocal 

modifications (Dunlop et al., 2010). These changes all represent possible tactics by the sound-producing 

animal to reduce the impact of masking. The receiving animal can also reduce masking by using active 

listening strategies such as orienting to the sound source, moving to a different location to improve 

binaural cues (time or intensity differences between the ears due to a sound source’s location relative to 

the animal’s head), or going still to reduce noise associated with hydrodynamic flow. The structure of 

some noises (e.g., amplitude modulation) may also provide some release from masking through 

comodulation masking release (the difference in masking when a noise is broadband versus having the 

same bandwidth as the signal) (Branstetter & Finneran, 2008; Branstetter et al., 2013). Signal 

characteristics (e.g., whether the signal has harmonics, or is frequency modulated) may further enhance 

the detectability of a signal in noise (Cunningham et al., 2014).

Evidence suggests that at least some marine mammals have the ability to acoustically identify potential 

predators (Allen et al., 2014; Cummings & Thompson, 1971; Curé et al., 2015; Fish & Vania, 1971), which

may be reduced in the presence of a masking noise, particularly if it occurs in the same frequency band. 

Therefore, the occurrence of masking may prevent marine mammals from responding to the acoustic 

cues produced by their predators. Whether this is a possibility depends on the duration of the masking 

and the likelihood of encountering a predator during the time that detection and identification of 

predator cues are impeded. For example, harbor seals that reside in the coastal waters off British 

Columbia are frequently targeted by certain groups of killer whales. The seals discriminate between the 

calls of threatening and non-threatening killer whales (Deecke et al., 2002), a capability that should 

increase survivorship while reducing the energy required to attend to all killer whale calls. Similarly, 

sperm whales (Curé et al., 2016; Isojunno et al., 2016), long-finned pilot whales (Visser et al., 2016), and 

humpback whales (Curé et al., 2015) changed their behavior in response to killer whale vocalization 

playbacks; these findings indicating that some recognition of predator cues could be missed if the killer 

whale vocalizations were masked.

Masking as a Result of Impulsive Noise

Masking could occur in mysticetes due to the overlap between their low-frequency vocalizations and the 

dominant frequencies of air gun pulses, however, masking in odontocetes or pinnipeds is less likely 

unless the seismic survey activity is in close range when the pulses are more broadband. For example, 

differential vocal responses in marine mammals were documented in the presence of seismic survey 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-132

3.7 Marine Mammals

noise. An overall decrease in vocalizations during active surveying was noted in large marine mammal 

groups (Potter et al., 2007), while blue whale feeding/social calls increased when seismic exploration 

was underway (Di Lorio & Clark, 2010), indicative of a possible compensatory response to the increased 

noise level. Bowhead whales were found to increase call rates in the presence of seismic air gun noise at 

lower received levels (below 100 dB re: 1 μPa2

s cumulative SEL), but once the received level rose above 

127 dB re 1 μPa2

s cumulative SEL the call rate began decreasing, and stopped altogether once received 

levels reached 170 dB re 1 μPa2

s cumulative SEL (Blackwell et al., 2015). Nieukirk et al. (2012) recorded 

both seismic surveys and fin whale 20 Hz calls at various locations around the mid-Atlantic Ocean, and 

hypothesized that distant seismic noise could mask those calls thereby decreasing the communication 

range of fin whales, whose vocalizations may propagate over 400 km to reach conspecifics (Spiesberger 

& Fristrup, 1990). A spotted and ringed seal in captivity were exposed to seismic air gun sounds 

recorded within 1 km and 30 km of an air gun survey conducted in shallow (< 40 m) water. They were 

then tested on their ability to detect a 500 ms upsweep centered at 100 Hz at different points in the air 

gun pulse (start, middle, and end). Based on these results, a 100 Hz vocalization with a source level of 

130 dB re 1 μPa would not be detected above a seismic survey 1 km away unless the animal was within 

1–5 m, and would not be detected above a survey 30 km away beyond 46 m (Sills et al., 2017).

Masking as a Result of Sonar and Other Transducers

Masking as a result of duty-cycled low-frequency or mid-frequency active sonar with relatively low duty 

cycles is unlikely for most cetacean and pinnipeds as sonar tones occur over a relatively short duration 

and narrow bandwidth that does not overlap with vocalizations for most marine mammal species. While 

dolphin vocalizations can occur in the same bandwidth as mid-frequency active sonar, the duty cycle of

most low-frequency and mid-frequency active sonars are low enough that delphinid whistles might be 

masked only a small percentage of the time they are whistling, and so masking by sonar would not likely 

have any short- or long-term consequences. Low-frequency active sonar could also overlap with 

mysticete vocalizations (e.g., minke and humpback whales). For example, in the presence of lowfrequency active sonar, humpback whales were observed to increase the length of their songs (Fristrup 

et al., 2003; Miller et al., 2000), possibly due to the overlap in frequencies between the whale song and 

the low-frequency active sonar.

Newer high duty cycle or continuous active sonars also have more potential to mask vocalizations, 

particularly for delphinids and other mid-frequency cetaceans. These sonars transmit more frequently 

(greater than 80 percent duty cycle) than traditional sonars, but at a substantially lower source level. 

Similarly, high frequency acoustic sources such as pingers that operate at higher repetition rates (e.g., 2-

10 kHz with harmonics up to 19 kHz, 76–77 pings per minute (Culik et al., 2001), also operate at lower 

source levels. While the lower source levels of these systems limits the range of impact compared to 

more traditional systems, animals close to the sonar source are likely to experience masking on a much 

longer time scale than those exposed to traditional sonars. The frequency range at which high duty cycle 

systems operate overlaps the vocalization frequency of a number of mid-frequency cetaceans. 

Continuous noise at the same frequency of communicative vocalizations may cause disruptions to 

communication, social interactions, and acoustically-mediated cooperative behaviors such as foraging or 

reproductive activities. Similarly, because the systems are mid-frequency, there is the potential for the 

sonar signals to mask important environmental cues like predator vocalizations (e.g., killer whales), 

possibly affecting survivorship for targeted animals. While there are currently no available studies of the 

impacts of high duty cycle sonars on marine mammals, masking due to these systems is likely analogous 

to masking produced by other continuous sources (e.g., vessel noise and low-frequency cetaceans), and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-133

3.7 Marine Mammals

will likely have similar short-term consequences, though longer in duration due to the duration of the 

masking noise. These may include changes to vocalization amplitude and frequency (Brumm & 

Slabbekoorn, 2005; Hotchkin & Parks, 2013) and behavioral impacts such as avoidance of the area and 

interruptions to foraging or other essential behaviors (Gordon et al., 2003). Long-term consequences 

could include changes to vocal behavior and vocalization structure (Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 

2007), abandonment of habitat if masking occurs frequently enough to significantly impair 

communication (Brumm & Slabbekoorn, 2005), a potential decrease in survivorship if predator 

vocalizations are masked (Brumm & Slabbekoorn, 2005), and a potential decrease in recruitment if 

masking interferes with reproductive activities or mother-calf communication (Gordon et al., 2003).

Masking as a Result of Vessel and Vibratory Pile Driving Noise

Masking is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such 

as vessels and vibratory pile driving. For example, right whales were observed to shift the frequency 

content of their calls upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic noise 

(Parks et al., 2007) as well as increasing the amplitude (intensity) of their calls (Parks, 2009; Parks et al., 

2011). Right whales also had their communication space reduced by up to 84 percent in the presence of 

vessels (Clark et al., 2009). Although humpback whales did not change the frequency or duration of their 

vocalizations in the presence of ship noise, their source levels were lower than expected based on 

source level changes to wind noise, potentially indicating some signal masking (Dunlop, 2016).

Multiple delphinid species have also been shown to increase the minimum or maximum frequencies of 

their whistles in the presence of anthropogenic noise (Papale et al., 2015). More specifically, Williams et 

al. (2014b) found that in median noise conditions in Haro Strait, killer whales lose 62 percent of their 

acoustic communication space due to vessel traffic noise, and in peak traffic hours lose up to 97 percent 

of that space. Holt et al. (2008; 2011) showed that southern resident killer whales in the waters 

surrounding the San Juan Islands increased their call source level as vessel noise increased. Hermannsen 

et al. (2014) estimated that broadband vessel noise could extend up to 160 kHz at ranges from 60–1200 

m, and that the higher frequency portion of that noise might mask harbor porpoise clicks. However, this 

may not be an issue as harbor porpoises may avoid vessels and so may not be close enough to have 

their clicks masked (Dyndo et al., 2015; Polacheck & Thorpe, 1990; Sairanen, 2014a). Furthermore, 

Hermannsen et al. (2014) estimated that a 6 dB elevation in noise would decrease the hearing range of a 

harbor porpoise by 50 percent, and a 20 dB increase in noise would decrease the hearing range by 90 

percent. Dugong vocalizations were recorded in the presence of passing boats, and although the call 

rate, intensity or frequency of the calls did not change, the duration of the vocalizations was increased, 

as was the presence of harmonics. This may indicate more energy was being used to vocalize in order to 

maintain the same received level (Ando-Mizobata et al., 2014). Gervaise et al. (2012) estimated that 

beluga whales in the St. Lawrence Marine Park had their estimated communication space under typical 

background noise conditions already reduced to 30 percent due to vessel traffic, which was further 

reduced to only 15 percent of their communication space during peak vessel traffic hours coinciding 

with the arrival and departure of whale watching vessels. Lesage et al. (1999) found belugas in the St. 

Lawrence River estuary to reduce overall call rates but increase the production of certain call types 

when ferry and small outboard motor boats were approaching, and to increase the vocalization 

frequency band when vessels were in close proximity.

Vibratory pile driving noise is a continuous, broadband noise source similar to vessel noise. Wang et al. 

(2014) found that whistles of humpback dolphins could be masked by a very large vibration pile driving 

hammer within 200 m, but clicks would not be masked. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-134

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.1.1.5 Behavioral Reactions

As discussed in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities 

(Section 3.0.3.6.1), any stimuli in the environment can cause a behavioral response in marine mammals. 

These stimuli include noise from anthropogenic sources such as vessels, sonar, air guns, or pile driving, 

but could also include the physical presence of a vessel or aircraft. However, these stimuli could also 

influence how or if a marine mammal responds to a sound such as the presence of predators, prey, or 

conspecifics. Furthermore, the response of a marine mammal to an anthropogenic sound may depend 

on the frequency, duration, temporal pattern and amplitude of the sound as well as the animal’s prior 

experience with the sound and their behavioral state (i.e., what the animal is doing and their energetic 

needs at the time of the exposure) (Ellison et al., 2011). The distance from the sound source and 

whether it is approaching or moving away can also affect the way an animal responds to a sound 

(Wartzok et al., 2003).

For marine mammals, a review of responses to anthropogenic sound was first conducted by Richardson 

et al. (1995b). Other reviews (Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007) addressed studies conducted 

since 1995 and focused on observations where the received sound level of the exposed marine 

mammal(s) was known or could be estimated, and also examined the role of context. Southall et al. 

(2007) synthesized data from many past behavioral studies and observations to determine the likelihood 

of behavioral reactions at specific sound levels. While in general, the louder the sound source the more 

intense the behavioral response, it was clear that the proximity of a sound source and the animal’s 

experience, motivation, and conditioning were also critical factors influencing the response (Southall et 

al., 2007; Southall et al., 2016). Ellison et al. (2011) outlined an approach to assessing the effects of 

sound on marine mammals that incorporates these contextual-based factors. They recommend 

considering not just the received level of sound, but also in what activity the animal is engaged, the 

nature and novelty of the sound (i.e., is this a new sound from the animal’s perspective), and the 

distance between the sound source and the animal. They submit that this “exposure context,” as 

described, greatly influences the type of behavioral response exhibited by the animal (see technical 

report Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2017a)). Forney et al. (2017) also point out that an apparent lack of response 

(e.g., no displacement or avoidance of a sound source) may not necessarily mean there is no cost to the 

individual or population, as some resources or habitats may be of such high value that animals may 

choose to stay, even when experiencing stress or hearing loss. Forney et al. (2017) recommend 

considering both the costs of remaining in an area of noise exposure such as TTS, PTS or masking, which 

could lead to an increased risk of predation or other threats or a decreased capability to forage, and the 

costs of displacement, including potential increased risk of vessel strike or bycatch, increased risks of 

predation or competition for resources, or decreased habitat suitable for foraging, resting, or socializing.

Behavioral reactions could result from a variety of sound sources, including impulsive sources such as 

explosives, air guns, and impact pile driving, and non-impulsive sources such as sonar and other active 

acoustic sources (e.g., pingers), and vessel and aircraft noise. For some of these noise sources numerous 

studies exist (e.g., sonar), whereas for others the data are sparse (e.g., pile driving), and surrogate sound 

sources must be relied upon to assess the potential for behavioral response. Similarly, there is data on 

the reactions of some species in different behavioral states, providing evidence on the importance of 

context in gauging a behavioral response. However, for most species, little or no data exist on behavioral 

responses to any sound source, and so all species have been grouped into broad taxonomic groups from 

which general response information can be inferred (see technical report Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. 

Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-135

3.7 Marine Mammals

Behavioral Reactions to Impulsive Sound Sources

Impulsive signals, particularly at close range, have a rapid rise time and higher instantaneous peak 

pressure than other signal types, making them more likely to cause startle responses or avoidance 

responses. However, at long distances the rise time increases as the signal duration lengthens (similar to 

a “ringing” sound), making the impulsive signal more similar to a non-impulsive signal. Data on 

behavioral responses to impulsive sound sources are limited across all marine mammal groups, with 

only a few studies available for mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds. No data currently exist for sea 

otters. Most data have come from seismic surveys that occur over long durations (e.g., on the order of 

days to weeks), and typically utilize large multi-air gun arrays that fire repeatedly. While seismic data 

provide the best available science for assessing behavioral responses to impulsive sounds by marine 

mammals, it is likely that these responses represent a worst-case scenario as compared to responses to 

Navy impulsive sources analyzed in this document such as single air guns and small, short-duration pile 

driving activities.

Mysticetes

Baleen whales have shown a variety of responses to impulsive sound sources, including avoidance, 

attraction to the source, reduced surface intervals, altered swimming behavior, and changes in 

vocalization rates (Gordon et al., 2003; McCauley et al., 2000; Richardson et al., 1985; Southall et al., 

2007). Studies have been conducted on many baleen whale species, including gray, humpback, blue, fin 

and bowhead whales; it is assumed that these responses are representative of all baleen whale species. 

The behavioral state of the whale seems to be an integral part of whether or not the animal responds 

and how they respond, as does the location and movement of the sound source, more than the received 

level of the sound.

Migratory behavior seems to lead to a higher likelihood of response, with some species demonstrating 

more sensitivity than others do. For example, migrating gray whales showed avoidance responses to 

seismic vessels at received levels between 164 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (Malme et al., 1986, 1988). Similarly, 

migrating humpback whales showed avoidance behavior at ranges of 5–8 km from a seismic array 

during observational studies and controlled exposure experiments in one Australian study (McCauley et 

al., 1998), and in another Australian study decreased their dive times and reduced their swimming 

speeds (Dunlop et al., 2015). However, when comparing received levels and behavioral responses when 

using ramp-up versus a constant noise level of air guns, humpback whales did not change their dive 

behavior but did deviate from their predicted heading and decreased their swim speeds (Dunlop et al., 

2016). In addition, the whales demonstrated more course deviation during the constant source trials but 

reduced travel speeds more in the ramp-up trials; in either case there was no dose-response 

relationship with the received level of the air gun noise, and similar responses were observed in control 

trials with vessel movement but no air guns so some of the response was likely due to the presence of 

the vessel and not the received level of the air guns. McDonald et al. (1995) tracked a blue whale with 

seafloor seismometers and reported that it stopped vocalizing and changed its travel direction at a 

range of 10 km from the seismic vessel (estimated received level 143 dB re 1 μPa peak-to-peak). 

Bowhead whales seem to be the most sensitive species, perhaps due to a higher overlap between 

bowhead whale distribution and seismic surveys in Arctic and sub-Arctic waters, as well as a recent 

history of being hunted. While most bowhead whales did not show active avoidance until within 8 km of 

seismic vessels (Richardson et al., 1995b), some whales avoided vessels by more than 20 km at received 

levels as low as 120 dB re 1 μPa. Additionally, Malme et al. (1988) observed clear changes in diving and 

breathing patterns in bowheads at ranges up to 73 km from seismic vessels, with received levels as low 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-136

3.7 Marine Mammals

as 125 dB re 1 μPa. Bowhead whales may also avoid the area around seismic surveys, from 6–8 km 

(Koski and Johnson 1987, as cited in Gordon et al., 2003) out to 20 or 30 km (Richardson et al., 1999). 

However, work by Robertson (2014) supports the idea that behavioral responses are contextually 

dependent, and that during seismic operations bowhead whales may be less “available” for counting 

due to alterations in dive behavior but that they may not have left the area after all.

In contrast, noise from seismic surveys was not found to impact feeding behavior or exhalation rates in 

western gray whales while resting or diving off the coast of Russia (Gailey et al., 2007; Yazvenko et al., 

2007); however, the increase in vessel traffic associated with the surveys and the proximity of the 

vessels to the whales did affect the orientation of the whales relative to the vessels and shortened their 

dive-surface intervals (Gailey et al., 2016). Todd et al. (1996) found no clear short-term behavioral 

responses by foraging humpbacks to explosions associated with construction operations in 

Newfoundland but did see a trend of increased rates of net entanglement closer to the noise source, 

possibly indicating a reduction in net detection associated with the noise through masking or TTS.

Distributions of fin and minke whales were modeled with a suite of environmental variables along with 

the occurrence or absence of seismic surveys, and no evidence of a decrease in sighting rates relative to 

seismic activity was found for either species (Vilela et al., 2016). Their distributions were driven entirely 

by environmental variables, particularly those linked to prey including warmer sea surface 

temperatures, higher chlorophyll-a values, and higher photosynthetically available radiation (a measure 

of primary productivity).

Vocal responses to seismic surveys have been observed in a number of baleen whale species, including a 

cessation of calling, a shift in frequency, increases in amplitude or call rate, or a combination of these 

strategies. Blue whale feeding/social calls were found to increase when seismic exploration was 

underway, with seismic pulses at average received SELs of 131 dB re 1 μPa2

s (Di Lorio & Clark, 2010), a 

potentially compensatory response to increased noise level. Responses by fin whales to a 10-day seismic 

survey in the Mediterranean Sea included possible decreased 20-Hz call production and movement of 

animals from the area based on lower received levels and changes in bearings (Castellote et al., 2012). 

However, similarly distant seismic surveys elicited no apparent vocal response from fin whales in the 

mid-Atlantic Ocean; instead, Nieukirk et al. (2012) hypothesized that 20-Hz calls may have been masked 

from the receiver by distant seismic noise. Models of humpback whale song off Angola showed 

significant seasonal and diel variation, but also showed a decrease in the number of singers with 

increasing received levels of air gun pulses (Cerchio et al., 2014). Bowhead whale calling rates decreased 

significantly at sites near seismic surveys (41–45 km) where median received levels were between 

116–129 dB re 1 μPa, and did not decrease at sites further from the seismic surveys (greater than 104 

km) where median received levels were 99-108 dB re 1 μPa (Blackwell et al., 2013). In fact, bowhead 

whale calling rates increased at the lower received levels, began decreasing at around 127 dB re 1 μPa2

s 

cumulative SEL, and ceased altogether at received levels over 170 dB re 1 μPa2

s cumulative SEL 

(Blackwell et al., 2015).

Mysticetes seem to be the most sensitive taxonomic group of marine mammals to impulsive sound 

sources, with possible avoidance responses occurring out to 30 km and vocal changes occurring in 

response to sounds over 100 km away. However, responses appear to be behaviorally mediated, with 

most avoidance responses occurring during migration behavior and little observed response during 

feeding behavior. These response patterns are likely to hold true for Navy impulsive sources; however, 

Navy impulsive sources would largely be stationary (e.g., pile driving), short term (on the order of hours 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-137

3.7 Marine Mammals

rather than days or weeks), and lower source level (e.g., swimmer defense air guns) than were found in 

these studies and so responses would likely occur in closer proximity or not at all.

Odontocetes

Few data are available on odontocete responses to impulsive sound sources, with only a few studies on 

responses to seismic surveys, pile driving and construction activity available. However, odontocetes 

appear to be less sensitive to impulsive sound than mysticetes, with responses occurring at much closer 

distances. This may be due to the predominance of low-frequency sound associated with these sources 

that propagates long distances and overlaps with the range of best hearing for mysticetes but is below 

that range for odontocetes. The exception to this is the harbor porpoise, which has been shown to be 

highly sensitive to most sound sources, avoiding both stationary (e.g., pile driving) and moving (e.g., 

seismic survey vessels) impulsive sound sources out to approximately 20 km (e.g., Haelters et al., 2014; 

Pirotta et al., 2014). However, even this response is short-term, with porpoises returning to the area 

within hours after the cessation of the noise.

Madsen et al. (2006a) and Miller et al. (2009) tagged and monitored eight sperm whales in the Gulf of 

Mexico exposed to seismic air gun surveys. Sound sources were from approximately 2 to 7 nautical miles 

(NM) away from the whales, and received levels were as high as 162 dB SPL re 1 μPa (Madsen et al., 

2006). The whales showed no horizontal avoidance, however one whale rested at the water’s surface 

for an extended period of time until air guns ceased firing (Miller et al., 2009). While the remaining 

whales continued to execute foraging dives throughout exposure, tag data suggested there may have 

been subtle effects of noise on foraging behavior (Miller et al., 2009). Similarly, Weir (2008) observed 

that seismic air gun surveys along the Angolan coast did not significantly reduce the encounter rate of 

sperm whales during the 10-month survey period, nor were avoidance behaviors to air gun impulsive 

sounds observed. In contrast, Atlantic spotted dolphins did show a significant, short-term avoidance 

response to air gun impulses within approximately 1 km of the source (Weir, 2008). The dolphins were 

observed at greater distances from the vessel when the air gun was in use, and when the air gun was 

not in use they readily approached the vessel to bow ride.

Captive bottlenose dolphins sometimes vocalized or were reluctant to return to the test station after 

exposure to single impulses from a seismic water gun (Finneran et al., 2002). When exposed to multiple 

impulses from a seismic air gun, some dolphins turned their heads away from the sound source just 

before the impulse, showing that they could anticipate the timing of the impulses and perhaps reduce 

the received level (Finneran et al., 2015). During construction (including the blasting of old bastions) of a 

bridge over a waterway commonly used by the Tampa Bay, FL stock of bottlenose dolphins, the use of 

the area by females decreased while males displayed high site fidelity and continued using the area, 

perhaps indicating differential habitat uses between the sexes (Weaver, 2015).

A study was conducted on the response of harbor porpoises to a seismic survey using aerial surveys and 

C-PODs (an autonomous recording device that counts odontocete clicks); the animals appeared to have 

left the area of the survey, and decreased their foraging activity within 5–10 km, as evidenced by both a 

decrease in vocalizations near the survey and an increase in vocalizations at a distance (Pirotta et al., 

2014; Thompson et al., 2013). However, the animals returned within a day after the air gun operation 

ceased, and the decrease in occurrence over the survey period was small relative to the observed 

natural seasonal decrease compared to the previous year. A number of studies (Brandt et al., 2011; 

Dähne et al., 2014; Haelters et al., 2014; Thompson et al., 2010; Tougaard et al., 2005; Tougaard et al., 

2009) also found strong avoidance responses by harbor porpoises out to 20 km during pile driving; 

however, all studies found that the animals returned to the area after the cessation of pile driving. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-138

3.7 Marine Mammals

Kastelein et al. (2013b) exposed a captive harbor porpoise to impact pile driving sounds, and found that 

above 136 dB re 1 μPa (zero-to-peak) the animal’s respiration rates increased, and at higher levels it 

jumped more frequently. Bergstrom et al. (2014) found that although there was a high likelihood of 

acoustic disturbance during wind farm construction (including pile driving), the impact was short-term.

Graham et al. (2017) assessed the occurrence of bottlenose dolphins and harbor porpoises over 

different area and time scales with and without impact and vibratory pile driving. While there were 

fewer hours with bottlenose dolphin detections, reduced detection durations within the pile driving 

area, and increased detection durations outside the area, the effects sizes were small, and the reduced 

harbor porpoise encounter duration was attributed to seasonal changes outside the influence of the pile 

driving. However, received levels in this area were lower due to propagation effects than in the other 

areas described above, which may have led to the lack of or reduced response.

Odontocete behavioral responses to impulsive sound sources are likely species- and context-dependent, 

with most species demonstrating little to no apparent response. Responses might be expected within 

close proximity to a noise source, under specific behavioral conditions such as females with offspring, or 

for sensitive species such as harbor porpoises.

Pinnipeds

A review of behavioral reactions by pinnipeds to impulsive noise can be found in Richardson et al.

(1995b) and Southall et al. (2007). Blackwell et al. (2004) observed that ringed seals exhibited little or no 

reaction to pipe-driving noise with mean underwater levels of 157 dB re 1 μPa and in air levels of 112 dB 

re 20 μPa, suggesting that the seals had habituated to the noise. In contrast, captive California sea lions 

avoided sounds from an underwater impulsive source at levels of 165–170 dB re 1 μPa (Finneran et al., 

2003b). Harbor and grey seals were also observed to avoid a seismic air gun by rapidly swimming away, 

and ceased foraging during exposure, but returned to normal behavior afterwards (Thompson et al. 

1998, cited in Gordon et al., 2003). In another study, few responses were observed by New Zealand fur 

seals to a towed air gun array operating at full power; rather, when responses were observed it seemed 

to be to the physical presence of the vessel and tow apparatus, and these only occurred when the vessel 

was within 200 m and sometimes as close as 5 m (Lalas & McConnell, 2016). Captive Steller sea lions 

were exposed to a variety of tonal, sweep, impulsive and broadband sounds to determine what might 

work as a deterrent from fishing nets. The impulsive sound had a source level of 120 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m, 

and caused the animals to haul out and refuse to eat fish presented in a net (Akamatsu et al., 1996). 

Steller sea lions exposed to in-air explosive blasts increased their activity levels and often re-entered the 

water when hauled out (Demarchi et al., 2012). However, these responses were short-lived and within 

minutes, the animals had hauled out again, and there were no lasting behavioral impacts in the days 

following the blasts.

Experimentally, Götz & Janik (2011) tested underwater startle responses to a startling sound (sound 

with a rapid rise time and a 93 dB sensation level [the level above the animal's hearing threshold at that 

frequency]) and a nonstartling sound (sound with the same level, but with a slower rise time) in wildcaptured gray seals. The animals exposed to the startling treatment avoided a known food source, 

whereas animals exposed to the nonstartling treatment did not react or habituated during the exposure 

period. The results of this study highlight the importance of the characteristics of the acoustic signal in 

an animal’s response of habituation.

Pinnipeds may be the least sensitive taxonomic group to most noise sources, although some species 

may be more sensitive than others, and are likely to only respond to loud impulsive sound sources at 

close ranges by startling, jumping into the water when hauled out, or even cease foraging, but only for 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-139

3.7 Marine Mammals

brief periods before returning to their previous behavior (e.g., Southall et al. 2007). Pinnipeds may even 

experience TTS (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.2, Hearing Loss and Auditory Injury) before exhibiting a behavioral 

response (Southall et al., 2007).

Sea Otters

There are few available studies on responses of sea otters to impulsive sounds. A playback study of 

multiple and single air guns had no impact on sea otters in California; foraging and dive behaviors 

remained undisturbed, as did the density and distribution of sea otters in the area (Reidman, 1983). Sea 

otters spend approximately 80 percent of their time on the surface of the water (Curland, 1997) with 

their heads above the surface, which reduces their exposure to underwater sounds. If reactions were to 

occur, they may be similar to those of pinnipeds, which show temporary avoidance responses or 

cessation of foraging behavior (Thompson et al. 1998, cited in Gordon et al., 2003). However, 

underwater hearing sensitivities are significantly reduced in sea otters when compared to pinnipeds 

(Ghoul & Reichmuth, 2014a, 2014b), so reactions may not be as strong, if they occur at all. Additionally, 

sea otters are predicted to live too far inshore to be disturbed by the construction (involving pile driving) 

or operation of offshore wind farms (Inger et al., 2009; Michel et al., 2007). Although pile driving during 

pier construction occurs inshore, it would not occur in areas that overlap the current range of sea otters 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016). 

Behavioral Reactions to Sonar and other Transducers

Sonar and other transducers can range in frequency from less than 1 kHz (e.g., low-frequency active 

sonar) to over 200 kHz (e.g., fish finders), with duty cycles that range from one ping per minute to an 

almost continuous sound. Although very-high-frequency sonars are out of the hearing range of most 

marine mammals, some of these sources may contain artifacts at lower frequencies that could be 

detected (Deng et al., 2014; Hastie et al., 2014). High duty-cycle sonar systems operate at lower source 

levels, but with a more continuous sound output. These sources can be stationary, or on a moving 

platform, and there can be more than one source present at a time. Guan et al. (2017) also found that 

sound levels in the mid-frequency sonar bandwidth remained elevated at least 5 dB above background 

levels for the first 7 – 15 seconds (within 2 km) after the emission of a sonar ping; depending on the 

length of the sonar ping and the inter-ping interval this reverberation could increase cumulative SEL 

estimates during periods of active sonar. This variability in parameters associated with sonar and other 

transducers makes the estimation of behavioral responses to these sources difficult, with observed 

responses ranging from no apparent change in behavior to more severe responses that could lead to 

some costs to the animal. As discussed in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework) and Section 

3.7.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions), responses may also occur in the presence of different contextual 

factors regardless of received level, including the proximity and number of vessels, the behavioral state 

and prior experience of an individual, and even characteristics of the signal itself or the propagation of 

the signal through the environment.

In order to explore this complex question, behavioral response studies have been conducted through 

the collaboration of various research and government organizations in Bahamian, United States (off 

Southern California), Mediterranean, Australian, and Norwegian waters. These studies have attempted 

to define and measure responses of beaked whales and other cetaceans to controlled exposures of 

sonar and other sounds to understand better their potential impacts. While controlling for as many 

variables as possible (e.g., the distance and movement of the source), these studies also introduce 

additional variables that do not normally occur in a real Navy training or testing activity, including the 

tagging of whales, following the tagged animals with multiple vessels, and continually approaching the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-140

3.7 Marine Mammals

animal to create a dose escalation. In addition, distances of the sound source from the whales during 

behavioral response studies were always within 1-8 km. Some of these studies have suggested that 

ramping-up a source from a lower source level would act as a protective measure to mitigate higher 

order (e.g., TTS or PTS) impacts of sonar; however, this practice may only be effective for more 

responsive animals, and for short durations (e.g., 5 min) of ramp-up (Von Benda-Beckmann et al., 2014; 

von Benda-Beckmann et al., 2016). Therefore, while these studies have provided the most information 

to date on behavioral responses of marine mammals to sonar, there are still many contextual factors to 

be teased apart and determining what might produce a significant behavioral response is not a trivial 

task.

Passive acoustic monitoring and visual observational behavioral response studies have also been 

conducted on Navy ranges, taking advantage of the existing seafloor hydrophones and real testing and 

training activity and associated sources to assess behavioral responses (Deakos & Richlen, 2015; 

Henderson et al., 2016; Manzano-Roth et al., 2016; Martin et al., 2015b; McCarthy et al., 2011; Mobley 

& Deakos, 2015; Moretti et al., 2014; Tyack et al., 2011). In addition, extensive aerial, visual, and 

acoustic monitoring is conducted before, during and after training events to watch for behavioral 

responses during training and look for injured or stranded animals after training (Farak et al., 2011; HDR, 

2011; Norris et al., 2012; Smultea & Mobley, 2009; Smultea et al., 2009; Trickey et al., 2015; U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2011c, 2013a, 2014b, 2015a). During all of these monitoring efforts, very few 

behavioral responses were observed, and no injured or dead animal was observed that was directly 

related to a training event (some dead animals were observed but typically before the event or 

appeared to have been deceased prior to the event; e.g., Smultea et al., 2011). While passive acoustic 

studies are limited to observations of vocally-active marine mammals and visual studies are limited to 

what can be observed at the surface, these study types have the benefit of occurring in the absence of 

some of the added contextual variables in the controlled exposure studies. Furthermore, when visual 

and passive acoustic data collected during a training event are combined with ship movements and 

sonar use they provide a unique and realistic scenario for analysis. In addition to these types of 

observational behavioral response studies, Harris & Thomas (2015) highlighted additional research 

approaches that may provide further information on behavioral responses to sonars and other 

transducers beyond behavior response type studies or passive acoustic monitoring, including conducting 

controlled exposures on captive animals with scaled (smaller sized and deployed at closer proximity) 

sources, on wild animals with both scaled and real but directed sources, and predator playback studies, 

all of which will be discussed below.

The above behavioral response studies and observations have been conducted on a number of 

mysticete and odontocete species, which can be extrapolated to other similar species in these 

taxonomic groups. No field studies of pinniped behavioral responses to sonar have been conducted; 

however, there are several captive studies on some pinniped and odontocete species that can provide 

insight into how these animals may respond in the wild. The captive studies typically represent a more 

controlled approach, which allow researchers to better estimate the direct impact of the received level 

of sound leading to behavioral responses, and to potentially link behavioral to physiological responses. 

However, there are still contextual factors that must be acknowledged, including previous training to 

complete tasks and the presence of food rewards upon completion. There are no corresponding captive 

studies on mysticete whales, therefore some of the responses to higher level exposures must be 

extrapolated from odontocetes.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-141

3.7 Marine Mammals

Mysticetes

As with impulsive sounds, the responses of mysticetes to sonar and other duty-cycled tonal sounds are 

highly dependent upon the characteristics of the signal, the behavioral state of the animal, the particular 

sensitivity and previous experience of an individual, and other contextual factors including distance of 

the source, movement of the source, and the physical presence of vessels in addition to the sonar 

(Goldbogen et al., 2013; Harris et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2015b; Sivle et al., 2015). Behavioral response 

studies have been conducted over a variety of contextual and behavioral states, helping to identify 

which contextual factors may lead to a response beyond just the received level of the sound. Observed 

reactions during behavioral response studies have not been consistent across individuals based on 

received sound levels alone, and likely were the result of complex interactions between these 

contextual factors.

Surface feeding blue whales did not show a change in behavior in response to mid-frequency simulated 

and real sonar sources with received levels between 90 and 179 dB re 1 μPa, but deep feeding and nonfeeding whales showed temporary reactions including cessation of feeding, reduced initiation of deep 

foraging dives, generalized avoidance responses, and changes to dive behavior (DeRuiter et al., 2017; 

Goldbogen et al., 2013; Sivle et al., 2015). Similarly, while the rates of foraging lunges decreased in 

humpback whales due to sonar exposure, there was variability in the response across individuals, with 

one animal ceasing to forage completely and another animal starting to forage during the exposure 

(Sivle et al., 2016). In addition, lunges decreased (although not significantly ) during a no-sonar control 

vessel approach prior to the sonar exposure, and lunges decreased less during a second sonar approach 

than during the initial approach, possibly indicating some response to the vessel and some habituation 

to the sonar and vessel after repeated approaches. In the same experiment, most of the non-foraging 

humpback whales did not response to any of the approaches (Sivle et al., 2016). These findings indicate 

that the behavioral state of the animal plays a role in the type and severity of a behavioral response. In 

fact, when the prey field was mapped and used as a covariate in similar models looking for a response in 

the same blue whales, the response in deep-feeding behavior by blue whales was even more apparent, 

reinforcing the need for contextual variables to be included when assessing behavioral responses 

(Friedlaender et al., 2016). However, even when responses did occur the animals quickly returned to 

their previous behavior after the sound exposure ended (Goldbogen et al., 2013; Sivle et al., 2015). In 

another study, humpback whales exposed to a 3 kHz pinger meant to act as a net alarm to prevent 

entanglement did not respond or change course, even when within 500 m (Harcourt et al., 2014). 

However, five out of six North Atlantic right whales exposed to an acoustic alarm interrupted their 

foraging dives; in this case, the alarm was comprised of a mixture of signals with frequencies from 500 

to 4500 Hz, was long in duration lasting several minutes, and was purposely designed to elicit a reaction 

from the animals as a prospective means to protect them from ship strikes (Nowacek et al., 2004a). 

Although the animals’ received SPL was similar in the latter two studies (133–150 dB re 1 μPa2

s), the 

frequency, duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation were different.

Humpback whales in another behavioral response experiment in Australia also responded to a 2 kHz 

tone stimulus by changing their course during migration to move more offshore and surfaced more 

frequently, but otherwise did not respond (Dunlop et al., 2013). Humpback whales in the Norwegian 

behavioral response study may have habituated slightly between the first and second sonar exposure 

(Sivle et al., 2015), and actually responded more severely to killer whale vocalization playbacks than they 

did to the sonar playbacks. Several humpback whales have been observed during aerial or visual surveys 

during Navy training events involving sonar; no avoidance or other behavioral responses were ever 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-142

3.7 Marine Mammals

noted, even when the whales were observed within 5 km of a vessel with active (or possibly active) 

sonar and maximum received levels were estimated to be between 135 and 161 dB re 1 μPa (Mobley & 

Milette, 2010; Mobley, 2011; Mobley & Pacini, 2012; Mobley et al., 2012; Smultea et al., 2009). In fact, 

one group of humpback whales approached a vessel with active sonar so closely that the sonar was 

shut-down and the vessel slowed; the animals continued approaching and swam under the bow of the 

vessel (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011b). Another group of humpback whales continued heading 

towards a vessel with active sonar as the vessel was moving away for almost 30 minutes, with an 

estimated median received level of 143 dB re 1 μPa. This group was observed producing surface active 

behaviors such as pec slaps, tail slaps and breaches, however these are very common behaviors in 

competitive pods during the breeding season and were not considered to have occurred in response to 

the sonar (Mobley et al., 2012).

The strongest baleen whale response in any behavioral response study was observed in a minke whale 

in the 3S2 study, which responded at 146 dB re 1 μPa by strongly avoiding the sound source (Kvadsheim 

et al., 2017; Sivle et al., 2015). Although the minke whale increased their swim speed, directional 

movement and respiration rate, none of these were greater than rates observed in baseline behavior, 

and their dive behavior remained similar to baseline dives. A minke whale tagged in the SOCAL BRS 

study also responded by increasing their directional movement, but maintained their speed and dive 

patterns, so did not demonstrate as strong of a response (Kvadsheim et al., 2017). In addition, the 3S2 

minke whale demonstrated some of the same avoidance behavior during the controlled ship approach 

with no sonar, indicating at least some of the response was to the vessel (Kvadsheim et al., 2017). 

Martin et al. (2015b) found that the density of calling minke whales was reduced during periods of Navy 

training involving sonar relative to the periods before training, and increased again in the days after 

training was completed. The responses of individual whales could not be assessed, so in this case it is 

unknown whether the decrease in calling animals indicated that the animals left the range, or simply 

ceased calling. Similarly, minke whale detections made using Marine Acoustic Recording Instruments off 

Jacksonville, FL were reduced or ceased altogether during periods of sonar use (Norris et al., 2012; U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2013a), especially with an increased ping rate (Charif et al., 2015). Two minke 

whales also stranded in shallow water after the US Navy training event in the Bahamas in 2000, although 

these animals were successfully returned to deep water with no physical examinations, therefore no 

final conclusions were drawn on whether the sonar led to their stranding (Filadelfo et al., 2009a; 

Filadelfo et al., 2009b; U.S. Department of Commerce & U.S. Department of the Navy, 2001).

Baleen whales have also been exposed to lower frequency sonars, with the hypothesis that these whales 

may react more strongly to lower frequency sounds that overlap with their vocalization range. One 

series of studies was undertaken in 1997–1998 pursuant to the Navy’s Low-Frequency Sound Scientific 

Research Program. The frequency bands of the low-frequency sonars used were between 100 and 500 

Hz, with received levels between 115 and 150 dB re 1 μPa, and the source was always stationary. Fin 

and blue whales were targeted on foraging grounds, singing humpback whales were exposed on 

breeding grounds, and gray whales were exposed during migratory behavior. These studies found only 

short-term responses to low-frequency sound by some fin and humpback whales, including changes in 

vocal activity and avoidance of the source vessel, while other fin, humpback, and blue whales did not 

respond at all. When the source was in the path of migrating gray whales they changed course up to 2 

km to avoid the sound, but when the source was outside their path, little response was observed (Clark 

& Fristrup, 2001; Croll et al., 2001; Fristrup et al., 2003; Miller et al., 2000; Nowacek et al., 2007). Lowfrequency signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate sound source were also not found to 

affect dive times of humpback whales in Hawaiian waters (Frankel & Clark, 2000).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-143

3.7 Marine Mammals

Opportunistic passive acoustic based studies have also detected behavioral responses to sonar, although 

definitive conclusions are harder to draw. Blue whales exposed to mid-frequency sonar in the Southern 

California Bight were less likely to produce low-frequency calls usually associated with feeding behavior, 

beginning at received levels of 110–120 dB re 1 μPa (Melcón et al., 2012); however, without visual 

observations it is unknown whether there was another factor that contributed to the reduction in 

foraging calls, such as the presence of conspecifics. In another example, Risch et al. (Risch et al., 2012, 

2014) determined that humpback whale song produced in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary was reduced, and since the timing was concurrent with an Ocean Acoustic Waveguide 

Remote Sensing experiment occurring 200 km away, they concluded that the reduced song was a result 

of the Ocean Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing. However, Gong et al. (2014) analyzed the same data 

set while also looking at the presence of herring in the region, and found that the singing humpbacks 

were actually located on nearby Georges Bank and not on Stellwagen, and that the song rate in their 

data did not change in response to Ocean Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing, but could be explained 

by natural causes.

Although some strong responses have been observed in mysticetes to sonar and other active acoustic 

sources (e.g., the single minke whale), for the most part mysticete responses appear to be fairly 

moderate across all received levels. While some responses such as cessation of foraging or changes in 

dive behavior could carry short-term impacts, in all cases behavior returned to normal after the signal 

stopped. Mysticete responses also seem to be highly mediated by behavioral state, with no responses 

occurring in some behavioral states, and contextual factors and signal characteristics having more 

impact than received level alone. Many of the contextual factors resulting from the behavioral response 

studies (e.g., close approaches by multiple vessels or tagging) would never be introduced in real Navy 

testing and training scenarios. While there is a lack of data on behavioral responses of mysticetes to 

continuously active sonars, these species are known to be able to habituate to novel and continuous 

sounds (Nowacek et al., 2004a), suggesting that they are likely to have similar responses to high duty 

cycle sonars. Therefore mysticete behavioral responses to Navy sonar will likely be a result of the 

animal’s behavioral state and prior experience rather than external variables such as ship proximity; 

thus, if significant behavioral responses occur they will likely be short-term. In fact, no significant 

behavioral responses such as panic, stranding or other severe reactions have been observed during 

monitoring of actual training exercises (Smultea et al., 2009; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011c, 2014a; 

Watwood et al., 2012).

Odontocetes

Behavioral response studies have been conducted on odontocete species since 2007, with a focus on 

beaked whale responses to active sonar transmissions or controlled exposure playback of simulated 

sonar on various military ranges (Claridge et al., 2009; Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, 

2007; Manzano-Roth et al., 2013; McCarthy et al., 2011; Moretti et al., 2009; Southall et al., 2011; 

Southall et al., 2012; Southall et al., 2013; Southall et al., 2014; Southall et al., 2015; Tyack et al., 2011). 

Through analyses of these behavioral response studies, a preliminary overarching effect of greater 

sensitivity to most anthropogenic exposures was seen in beaked whales compared to the other 

odontocetes studied (Southall et al., 2009).

Observed reactions by Blainville’s, Cuvier’s, and Baird’s beaked whales to mid-frequency sonar sounds 

have included cessation of clicking, termination of foraging dives, changes in direction to avoid the 

sound source, slower ascent rates to the surface, and other unusual dive behavior (Boyd et al., 2008; 

Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, 2007; DeRuiter et al., 2013b; Miller et al., 2015; Southall et 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-144

3.7 Marine Mammals

al., 2011; Stimpert et al., 2014; Tyack et al., 2011). A similar response was observed in a northern 

bottlenose whale, which conducted the longest and deepest dive on record for that species after the 

sonar exposure and continued swimming away from the source for over 7 hours (Miller et al., 2015). 

Responses occurred at received levels between 95 and 150 dB re 1 μPa; although all of these exposures 

occurred within 1-8 km of the focal animal, within a few hours of tagging the animal, and with one or 

more boats within a few kilometers to observe responses and record acoustic data. One Cuvier’s beaked 

whale was also incidentally exposed to real Navy sonar located over 100 km away, and the authors did 

not detect similar responses at comparable received levels. Received levels from the mid-frequency

active sonar signals from the controlled and incidental exposures were calculated as 84-144 and 78-106 

dB re 1 μPa, respectively, indicating that context of the exposures (e.g., source proximity, controlled 

source ramp-up) may have been a significant factor in the responses to the simulated sonars (DeRuiter 

et al., 2013b). Furthermore, recent long-term tagging work has demonstrated that the longer duration 

dives considered a behavioral response by DeRuiter et al. (2013b) fell within the normal range of dive 

durations found for eight tagged Cuvier’s beaked whales on the Southern California Offshore Range 

(Schorr et al., 2014). However, the longer inter-deep dive intervals found by DeRuiter et al. (2013b)were 

among the longest found by Schorr et al. (2014) and could indicate a response to sonar. In addition, 

Williams et al. (2017) note that in normal deep dives or during fast swim speeds, beaked whales and 

other marine mammals use strategies to reduce their stroke rates, including leaping or wave surfing 

when swimming, and interspersing glides between bouts of stroking when diving. They determined that 

in the post-exposure dives by the tagged Cuvier's beaked whales described in DeRuiter et al. (2013b), 

the whales ceased gliding and swam with almost continuous strokes. This change in swim behavior was 

calculated to increase metabolic costs about 30.5 percent and increase the amount of energy expending 

on fast swim speeds from 27 to 59 percent of their overall energy budget. This repartitioning of energy 

was detected in the model up to 1.7 hours after the single sonar exposure. Therefore while the overall 

post-exposure dive durations were similar, the metabolic energy calculated by Williams et al. (2017) was 

higher.

On Navy ranges, Blainville’s beaked whales located on the range appear to move off-range during sonar 

use and return only after the sonar transmissions have stopped, sometimes taking several days to do so 

(Claridge et al., 2009; Henderson et al., 2015b; Manzano-Roth et al., 2016; McCarthy et al., 2011; 

Moretti et al., 2009; Tyack et al., 2011). However, Blainville’s beaked whales remain on the range to 

forage throughout the rest of the year (Henderson et al., 2016), possibly indicating that this a preferred 

foraging habitat regardless of the effects of the noise, or it could be that there are no long-term 

consequences of the sonar activity. Similarly, photo identification studies in the Southern California 

Range Complex have identified approximately 100 individual Cuvier’s beaked whale individuals, with 40 

percent having been seen in one or more prior years, with re-sightings up to 7 years apart, indicating a 

possibly resident population on the range (Falcone et al., 2009; Falcone & Schorr, 2014).

Tyack et al. (2011) hypothesized that beaked whale responses to sonar may represent an anti-predator 

response. To test this idea, vocalizations of a potential predator—a killer whale—were also played back 

to a Blainville’s beaked whale. This exposure resulted in a similar but more pronounced reaction than 

that elicited by sonar playback, which included longer inter-dive intervals and a sustained straight-line 

departure of more than 20 km from the area (Allen et al., 2014; Tyack et al., 2011). This anti-predator 

hypothesis was also tested by playing back killer whale vocalizations to pilot whales, sperm whales, and 

even other killer whales, to determine responses by both potential prey and conspecifics (Miller et al., 

2011; Miller et al., 2012). Results varied, from no response by killer whales to an increase in group size 

and attraction to the source in pilot whales (Cure et al., 2012).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-145

3.7 Marine Mammals

While there has been a focus on beaked whale responses to sonar, other species have been studied 

during behavioral response studies as well, including pilot whales, killer whales, and sperm whales. 

Responses by these species have also included horizontal avoidance, changes in behavioral state, and 

changes in dive behavior (Antunes et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2012). 

Additionally, separation of a killer whale calf from its group during exposure to mid-frequency sonar 

playback was observed (Miller et al., 2011). Received level thresholds at the onset of avoidance behavior 

were generally higher for pilot whales (mean 150 dB re 1μPa) and sperm whales (mean 140 dB re 1μPa) 

than killer whales (mean 129 dB re 1μPa) (Antunes et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2012). A 

close examination of the tag data from the Norwegian groups showed that responses seemed to be 

behaviorally or signal frequency mediated. For example, killer whales only changed their dive behavior 

when doing deep dives at the onset of 1–2 kHz sonar (sweeping across frequencies), but did not change 

their dive behavior if they were deep diving during 6–7 kHz sonar (sweeping across frequencies). Nor did 

they change their dive behavior if they were conducting shallow dives at the onset of either type of 

sonar. Similarly, pilot whales and sperm whales performed normal deep dives during 6–7 kHz sonar, 

while during 1–2 kHz sonar the pilot whales conducted fewer deep dives and the sperm whales 

performed shorter and shallower dives (Sivle et al., 2012). In addition, pilot whales were also more likely 

to respond to lower received levels when non-feeding than feeding during 6–7 kHz sonar exposures, but 

were more likely to respond at higher received levels when non-feeding during 1–2 kHz sonar 

exposures. Furthermore, pilot whales exposed to a 38 kHz downward-facing echosounder did not 

change their dive and foraging behavior during exposure periods, although the animals’ heading 

variance increased and fewer deep dives were conducted (Quick et al., 2017). In contrast, killer whales 

were more likely to respond to either sonar type when non-feeding than when feeding (Harris et al., 

2015). These results again demonstrate that the behavioral state of the animal mediates the likelihood 

of a behavioral response, as do the characteristics (e.g., frequency) of the sound source itself.

Other responses during behavioral response studies included the synchronization of pilot whale 

surfacings with sonar pulses during one exposure, possibly as a means of mitigating the sound 

(Wensveen et al., 2015), and mimicry of the sonar with whistles by pilot whales (Alves et al., 2014), false 

killer whales (DeRuiter et al., 2013b) and Risso’s dolphins (Smultea et al., 2012a). In contrast, in another 

study melon-headed whales had “minor transient silencing” (a brief, non-lasting period of silence) after 

each 6–7 kHz signal, and (in a different oceanographic region) pilot whales had no apparent response 

(DeRuiter et al., 2013a). The probability of detecting delphinid vocalizations (whistles, clicks, and buzzes) 

increased during periods of sonar relative to the period prior to sonar in a passive acoustic study using 

Marine Autonomous Recording Units in the Jacksonville Range Complex, while there was no impact of 

sonar to the probability of detecting sperm whale clicks (Charif et al., 2015; U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2013d).

In addition, killer whale sighting data from the same region in Norway as the behavioral response study 

was used to compare the presence or absence of whales from other years against the period with sonar. 

The authors found a strong relationship between the presence of whales and the abundance of herring, 

and only a weak relationship between the whales and sonar activity (Kuningas et al., 2013). Baird et al. 

(2013b; 2014; 2017) also tagged four shallow-diving odontocete species (rough toothed dolphins, pilot 

whales, bottlenose dolphins, and false killer whales) in Hawaii off the Pacific Missile Range Facility 

before Navy training events. None of the tagged animals demonstrated a large-scale avoidance response 

to the sonar as they moved on or near the range, in some cases even traveling towards areas of higher 

noise levels, while estimated received SPLs varied from 130–168 dB re 1 μPa and distances from sonar 

sources ranged between 3.2 – 94.4 km. However, one pilot whale did have reduced dive rates (from 2.6 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-146

3.7 Marine Mammals

dives per hour before to 1.6 dives per hour during) and deeper dives (from a mean of 124 m to 268 m) 

during a period of sonar exposure.Baird et al. (2016) also tagged four short-finned pilot whales from 

both the resident island-associated population and from the pelagic population. The core range for the 

pelagic population was over 20 times larger than for the pelagic population, leading Baird et al. (2016) to 

hypothesize that that likelihood of exposure to mid-frequency active sonar, and therefore the potential 

for response, would be very different between the two populations. These diverse examples 

demonstrate that responses can be varied, are often context- and behaviorally-driven, and can be 

species and even exposure specific.

Other opportunistic observations of behavioral responses to sonar have occurred as well, although in 

those cases it is difficult to attribute observed responses directly to the sonar exposure, or to know 

exactly what form the response took. For example, both sperm and pilot whales potentially ceased 

sound production during the Heard Island feasibility test, with transmissions centered at 57 Hz and up to 

220 dB re1 μPa (Bowles et al., 1994), although it could not be determined whether the animals ceased 

sound production or left the area. In May 2003, killer whales in Haro Strait, Washington exhibited what 

were believed by some observers to be aberrant behaviors, during which time the USS Shoup was in the 

vicinity and engaged in mid-frequency active sonar operations. Sound fields modeled for the USS Shoup 

transmissions (Fromm, 2009; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2005; U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2003) estimated a mean received SPL of approximately 169 dB re 1μPa at the location of the killer 

whales at the closest point of approach between the animals and the vessel (estimated SPLs ranged 

from 150 to 180 dB re 1μPa). However, attributing the observed behaviors to any one cause is 

problematic given there were six nearby whale watch vessels surrounding the pod, and subsequent 

research has demonstrated that “Southern Residents modify their behavior by increasing surface activity 

(breaches, tail slaps, and pectoral fin slaps) and swimming in more erratic paths when vessels are close” 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2014a). Several odontocete species, including 

bottlenose dolphins, Risso’s dolphins, Pacific white-sided dolphins, and common dolphins have been 

observed near the Southern California Offshore Range during periods of mid-frequency active sonar; 

responses included changes in or cessation of vocalizations, changes in behavior, and leaving the area, 

and at the highest received levels animals were not present in the area at all (Henderson et al., 2014b). 

However, these observations were conducted from a vessel off-range, and so any observed responses 

could not be attributed to the sonar with any certainty. Research on sperm whales in the Caribbean in 

1983 coincided with the U.S. intervention in Grenada, where animals were observed scattering and 

leaving the area in the presence of military sonar, presumably from nearby submarines (Watkins & 

Schevill, 1975; Watkins et al., 1985). The authors did not report received levels from these exposures 

and reported similar reactions from noise generated by banging on their boat hull; therefore, it was 

unclear if the sperm whales were reacting to the sonar signal itself or to a potentially new unknown 

sound in general.

During aerial and visual monitoring of Navy training events involving sonar, rough-toothed dolphins and 

unidentified dolphins were observed approaching the vessel with active sonar as if to bowride, while 

spotted dolphins were observed nearby but did not avoid or approach the vessel (HDR, 2011; U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2011b; Watwood et al., 2012). During small boat surveys near the Southern 

California Offshore Range in southern California, more dolphins were encountered in June compared to 

a similar survey conducted the previous November after 7 days of mid-frequency sonar activity; it was 

not investigated if this change was due to the sonar activity or was a seasonal difference that was also 

observed in other years (Campbell et al., 2010). There were also fewer passive acoustic dolphin 

detections during and after longer sonar activities in the Marianas Islands Range Complex, with the post-
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-147

3.7 Marine Mammals

activity absence lasting longer than the mean dolphin absence of two days when sonar was not present 

(Munger et al., 2014; Munger et al., 2015).

Acoustic harassment devices and acoustic deterrent devices have been used to deter marine mammals 

from fishing gear both to prevent entanglement and to reduce depredation (taking fish). These devices 

have been used successfully to deter harbor porpoises and beaked whales from getting entangled in 

fishing nets. For example, Kyhn et al. (2015) tested two types of pingers, one with a 10 kHz tone and one 

with a broadband 30–160 kHz sweep. Porpoise detection rates were reduced by 65 percent for the 

sweep and 40 percent for the tone, and while there was some gradual habituation after the first 2–4 

exposures, longer term exposures (over 28 days) showed no evidence of additional habituation. 

Additionally, sperm whales in the Caribbean stopped vocalizing when presented with sounds from 

nearby acoustic pingers (Watkins & Schevill, 1975). However, acoustic harassment devices used to deter 

marine mammals from depredating long lines or aquaculture enclosures have proven less successful. For 

example, Tixier et al. (2014) used a 6.5 kHz pinger with a source level of 195 dB re 1 μPa on a longline to 

prevent depredation by killer whales, and although two groups of killer whales fled over 700 m away 

during the first exposure, they began depredating again after the 3rd and 7th exposures, indicating rapid 

habituation. In a review of marine mammal deterrents, Schakner & Blumstein (2013) point out that both 

the characteristics of deterrents and the motivation of the animal play a role in the effectiveness of 

acoustic harassment devices. Deterrents that are strongly aversive or simulate a predator or are 

otherwise predictive of a threat are more likely to be effective, unless the animal habituates to the 

signal or learns that there is no true threat associated with the signal. In some cases net pingers may 

create a “dinner bell effect”, where marine mammals have learned to associate the signal with the 

availability of prey (Jefferson & Curry, 1996; Schakner & Blumstein, 2013). This may be why net pingers 

have been more successful at reducing entanglements for harbor porpoise and beaked whales since 

these species are not depredating from the nets but are getting entangled when foraging in the area and 

are unable to detect the net (Carretta et al., 2008; Schakner & Blumstein, 2013). Additional behavioral 

studies have been conducted with captive harbor porpoises using acoustic alarms, such as those used on 

fishing nets to help deter marine mammals from becoming caught or entangled (Kastelein et al., 2006; 

Kastelein et al., 2001). These studies have found that high-frequency sources with varied duration, 

interval, and sweep characteristics can prove to be effective deterrents for harbor porpoises (Kastelein 

et al., 2017). Van Beest et al. (2017) modeled the long-term, population-level impacts of fisheries 

bycatch, pinger deterrents, and time-area closures on a population of harbor porpoises. They found that 

when pingers were used alone (in the absence of gillnets or time-area closures), the animals were 

deterred from the area often enough to cause a population level reduction of 21 percent, greater even 

than the modeled level of current bycatch impacts. However, when the pingers were coupled with 

gillnets in the model, and time-area closures were also used (allowing a net- and pinger-free area for the 

porpoises to move into while foraging), the population only experienced a 0.8 percent decline even with 

current gillnet use levels. This demonstrates that, when used correctly, pingers can successfully deter 

porpoises from gillnets without leading to any negative impacts.

Controlled experiments have also been conducted on captive animals to estimate received levels at 

which behavioral responses occur. In one study, bottlenose dolphin behavioral responses were recorded 

when exposed to 3 kHz sonar-like tones between 115 and 185 dB re 1 μPa (Houser et al., 2013), and in 

another study bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales were presented with 1-second tones up to 203 dB 

re 1 μPa to measure TTS (Finneran et al., 2001; Finneran et al., 2003a; Finneran & Schlundt, 2004; 

Finneran et al., 2005b; Schlundt et al., 2000). During these studies, responses included changes in 

respiration rate, fluke slaps, and a refusal to participate or return to the location of the sound stimulus. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-148

3.7 Marine Mammals

This refusal included what appeared to be deliberate attempts to avoid a sound exposure or to avoid the 

location of the exposure site during subsequent tests (Finneran et al., 2002; Schlundt et al., 2000). In the 

behavioral response experiment, bottlenose dolphins demonstrated a 50 percent probability of 

response at 172 dB re 1 μPa over 10 trials, and in the TTS study bottlenose dolphins exposed to 1-

second intense tones exhibited short-term changes in behavior above received sound levels of 178 to 

193 dB re 1 μPa, and beluga whales did so at received levels of 180 to 196 dB re 1 μPa and above. In 

some instances, animals exhibited aggressive behavior toward the test apparatus (Ridgway et al., 1997; 

Schlundt et al., 2000). While animals were commonly reinforced with food during these studies, the 

controlled environment and ability to measure received levels provide insight on received levels at 

which animals will behaviorally responds to noise sources.

Behavioral responses to a variety of sound sources have been studied in harbor porpoises, including 

acoustic alarms (Kastelein et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2001), emissions for underwater data 

transmission (Kastelein et al., 2005), and tones, including 1–2 kHz and 6–7 kHz sweeps with and without 

harmonics (Kastelein et al., 2014e), and 25 kHz with and without sidebands (Kastelein et al., 2015e; 

Kastelein et al., 2015f). Responses include increased respiration rates, more jumping, or swimming 

further from the source, but responses were different depending on the source. For example, harbor 

porpoises responded to the 1–2 kHz upsweep at 123 dB re 1 μPa, but not to the downsweep or the 6–7 

kHz tonal at the same level (Kastelein et al., 2014e). When measuring the same sweeps for a startle 

response, the 50 percent response threshold was 133 and 101 dB re 1 μPa for 1–2 kHz and 6–7 kHz 

sweeps respectively when no harmonics were present, and decreased to 90 dB re 1 μPa for 1–2 kHz 

sweeps with harmonics present (Kastelein et al., 2014e). Harbor porpoises responded to seal scarers 

with broadband signals up to 44 kHz with a slight respiration response at 117 dB re 1 μPa and an 

avoidance response at 139 dB re 1 μPa, but another scarer with a fundamental (strongest) frequency of 

18 kHz didn’t have an avoidance response until 151 dB re 1 μPa (Kastelein et al., 2014a). Exposure of the 

same acoustic pinger to a striped dolphin under the same conditions did not elicit a response (Kastelein 

et al., 2006), again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences in the tolerance of 

underwater noise, although sample sizes in these studies was small so these could reflect individual 

differences as well.

Behavioral responses by odontocetes to sonar and other transducers appear to run the full gamut from 

no response at all to responses that could potentially lead to long-term consequences for individual 

animals (e.g., mother-calf separation). This is likely in part due to the fact that this taxonomic group is so 

broad and includes some of the most sensitive species (e.g., beaked whales and harbor porpoise) as well 

as some of the least sensitive species (e.g., bottlenose dolphins). This is also the only group for which 

both field behavioral response studies and captive controlled exposure experiments have been 

conducted, leading to the assessment of both contextually-driven responses as well as dose-based 

responses. This wide range in both exposure situations and individual- and species-sensitivities makes 

reaching general conclusions difficult. However, it does appear as though exposures in close proximity, 

with multiple vessels that approach the animal lead to higher-level responses in most odontocete 

species regardless of received level or behavioral state. In contrast, in more “real-world” exposure 

situations, with distant sources moving in variable directions, behavioral responses appear to be driven 

by behavioral state, individual experience or species-level sensitivities. These responses may also occur 

more in-line with received level such that the likelihood of a response would increase with increased 

received levels. However, these “real-world” responses are more likely to be short-term, lasting the 

duration of the exposure or even shorter as the animal assesses the sound and (based on prior 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-149

3.7 Marine Mammals

experience or contextual cues) determines a threat is unlikely. Therefore, while odontocete behavioral 

responses to Navy sonar will vary across species, populations, and individuals, they are not likely to lead 

to long-term consequences or population-level effects.

Pinnipeds

Different responses displayed by captive and wild phocid seals to sound judged to be “unpleasant” or 

threatening have been reported, including habituation by captive seals (they did not avoid the sound), 

and avoidance behavior by wild seals (Götz & Janik, 2010). Captive seals received food (reinforcement) 

during sound playback, while wild seals were exposed opportunistically. These results indicate that 

motivational state (e.g., reinforcement via food acquisition) can be a factor in whether or not an animal 

tolerates or habituates to novel or unpleasant sounds. Another study found that captive hooded seals 

reacted to 1–7 kHz sonar signals, in part with displacement (i.e., avoidance) to the areas of least SPL, at 

levels between 160 and 170 dB re 1 μPa (Kvadsheim et al., 2010b); however, the animals adapted to the 

sound and did not show the same avoidance behavior upon subsequent exposures. Captive harbor seals 

responded differently to three signals at 25 kHz with different waveform characteristics and duty cycles. 

The seals responded to the frequency modulated signal at received levels over 137 dB re 1 μPa by 

hauling out more, swimming faster, and raising their heads or jumping out of the water, but did not 

respond to the continuous wave or combination signals at any received level (up to 156 dB re 1 μPa) 

(Kastelein et al., 2015d). Captive California sea lions were exposed to mid-frequency sonar at various 

received levels (125 – 185 dB re 1 μPa) during a repetitive task (Houser et al., 2013). Behavioral 

responses included a refusal to participate, hauling out, an increase in respiration rate, and an increase 

in the time spent submerged. Young animals (less than 2 years old) were more likely to respond than 

older animals. Dose-response curves were developed both including and excluding those young animals. 

The majority of responses below 155 dB re 1 μPa were changes in respiration, whereas over 170 dB re 1 

μPa more severe responses began to occur (such as hauling out or refusing to participate); many of the 

most severe responses came from the younger animals.

Low-frequency signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate sound source centered at 75 Hz, 

with received levels between 118 and 137 dB re 1 μPa, were not found to overtly affect elephant seal 

dives (Costa et al., 2003). However, they did produce subtle effects that varied in direction and degree 

among the individual seals, again illustrating the equivocal nature of behavioral effects and consequent 

difficulty in defining and predicting them.

Harbor seals exposed to seal scarers (i.e., acoustic harassment devices) used to deter seals from fishing 

nets did not respond at levels of 109–134 dB re 1 μPa and demonstrated minor responses by 

occasionally hauling out at 128–138 dB re 1 μPa (Kastelein et al., 2015c). Pingers have also been used to 

deter marine mammals from fishing nets; in some cases, this has led to the “dinner bell effect” where 

the pinger becomes an attractant rather than a deterrent (Carretta & Barlow, 2011). Steller sea lions 

were exposed to a variety of tonal, sweep, impulse and broadband sounds. The broadband sounds did 

not cause a response, nor did the tones at levels below 165 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m, but the 8 kHz tone and 

1–4 kHz sweep at source levels of 165 dB re 1 μPa caused the sea lions to haul out (Akamatsu et al., 

1996).

Similar to the other taxonomic groups assessed, pinniped behavioral responses to sonar and other 

active acoustic sources seem to be mediated by the contextual factors of the exposure, including the 

proximity of the source, the characteristics of the signal, and the behavioral state of the animal. 

However, all pinniped behavioral response studies have been conducted in captivity, so while these 

results may be broadly applied to real-world exposure situations, it must be done with caution. Based on 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-150

3.7 Marine Mammals

exposures to other sound sources in the wild (e.g., impulsive sounds and vessels), pinnipeds are not 

likely to respond strongly to Navy sonar that is not in close proximity to the animal or approaching the 

animal. 

Sea Otters

There is no research on the effects of sonar on sea otters. Sea otters spend approximately 80 percent of 

their time on the surface of the water (Curland, 1997) with their heads above the surface, which reduces 

their exposure to underwater sounds, however they may show similar reactions to those of pinnipeds 

which are also amphibious hearers. However, underwater hearing sensitivities are significantly reduced 

in sea otters when compared to pinnipeds (Ghoul & Reichmuth, 2014a, 2014b), so any reactions may 

have lower overall severity. Pinnipeds may haul out, swim faster, or increase their respiration rate in 

response to sonar (Houser et al., 2013; Kastelein et al., 2015d). Pinnipeds also showed that they may 

avoid an area temporarily, but may habituate to sounds quickly (Kvadsheim et al., 2010a; Kvadsheim et 

al., 2010b). Sea otters may also habituate to sonar signals. However, sea otters live too far inshore to 

likely be exposed to or impacted by Navy sonar or other transducers, and live out of the area of pierside 

activity.

Behavioral Reactions to Vessels

Sound emitted from large vessels, such as cargo ships, is the principal source of low-frequency noise in 

the ocean today, and marine mammals are known to react to or be affected by that noise (Hatch & 

Wright, 2007; Hildebrand, 2005; Richardson et al., 1995b). For example, Erbe et al. (2012) estimated the 

maximum annual underwater SEL from vessel traffic near Seattle was 215 dB re 1 μPa2

-s, and Bassett et 

al. (2010) measured mean SPLs at Admiralty Inlet from commercial shipping at 117 dB re 1 μPa with a 

maximum exceeding 135 dB re 1 μPa on some occasions. Similarly, Veirs et al. (2015b) found average 

broadband noise levels in Haro Strait to be 110 dB re 1 μPa that extended up to 40 kHz, well into the 

hearing range of odontocetes.

Cargo ships, bulk carriers and tankers account for almost three fourths of commercial vessel traffic in 

the HSTT Study Area, which occurs throughout the Study Area but is heaviest along the coast of 

California and near the major Hawaiian Islands (Mintz, 2012). Annual commercial vessel traffic in HSTT 

was estimated to be almost 900,000 hours in 2009, compared to just under 100,000 hours for Navy 

vessel traffic, which was generally concentrated is the easternmost part of the Southern California 

region and in the area near Honolulu (Mintz, 2012).

Many studies of behavioral responses by marine mammals to vessels have been focused on the shortand long-term impacts of whale watching vessels. In short-term studies, researchers noted changes in 

resting and surface behavior states of cetaceans to whale watching vessels (Acevedo, 1991; Aguilar de 

Soto et al., 2006; Arcangeli & Crosti, 2009; Au & Green, 2000; Christiansen et al., 2010; Erbe, 2002; 

Noren et al., 2009; Stockin et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2009). Received levels were often not reported so

it is difficult to distinguish responses to the presence of the vessel from responses to the vessel noise. 

Most studies examined the short-term response to vessel sound and vessel traffic (Magalhães et al.,

2002; Richardson et al., 1995b; Watkins, 1981), with behavioral and vocal responses occurring when 

received levels were over 20 dB greater than ambient noise levels. Other research has attempted to 

quantify the effects of whale watching using focused experiments (Meissner et al., 2015; Pirotta et al., 

2015b).

The impact of vessel noise has received increased consideration, particularly as whale watching and 

shipping traffic has risen (McKenna et al., 2012; Pirotta et al., 2015b; Veirs et al., 2015b). Odontocetes 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-151

3.7 Marine Mammals

and mysticetes in particular have received increased attention relative to vessel noise and vessel traffic, 

with pinnipeds less so. Still, not all species in all taxonomic groups have been studied, and so results do 

have to be extrapolated across these broad categories in order to assess potential impacts. 

Mysticetes

Baleen whales demonstrate a variety of responses to vessel traffic and noise, from not responding at all 

to both horizontal (swimming away) and vertical (increased diving) avoidance (Baker et al., 1983; Gende 

et al., 2011; Watkins, 1981). Other common responses include changes in vocalizations, surface time, 

swimming speed, swimming angle or direction, respiration rates, dive times, feeding behavior, and 

social interactions (Au & Green, 2000; Richter et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2002a).

The likelihood of response may be driven by the distance or speed of the vessel, the animal’s behavioral

state, or by the prior experience of the individual or population. For example, in one study fin and 

humpback whales largely ignored vessels that remained 100 m or more away (Watkins, 1981). In 

another study, minke whales in the Antarctic did not show any apparent response to a survey vessel 

moving at normal cruising speeds (about 12 knots) at a distance of 5.5 NM. However, when the vessel 

drifted or moved at very slow speeds (about 1 knot), many whales approached it (Leatherwood et al., 

1982). Similarly, Bernasconi et al. (2012) observed the reactions of six individual baleen whales of 

unknown species at distances of 50 to 400 m from a fishing vessel conducting an acoustic survey of 

pelagic fisheries, with only a slight change in swim direction when the vessel began moving around the 

whales. Sei whales have been observed ignoring the presence of vessels entirely and even passing close 

to the vessel (Reeves et al., 1998), and North Atlantic right whales tend not to respond to the sounds of 

oncoming vessels and continue to use habitats in high vessel traffic areas (Nowacek et al., 2004a). 

Studies show that North Atlantic right whales demonstrate little if any reaction to sounds of vessels 

approaching or the presence of the vessels themselves. This lack of response may be due to habituation 

to the presence and associated noise of vessels in right whale habitat, or may be due to propagation 

effects that may attenuate vessel noise near the surface (Nowacek et al., 2004a; Terhune & Verboom, 

1999).

When baleen whales do respond to vessels, responses can be as minor as a change in breathing patterns 

(e.g., Baker et al., 1983; Jahoda et al., 2003), or can be evidenced by a decrease in overall presence, as 

was observed during a construction project in the UK, when fewer minke whales were observed as 

vessel traffic increased (Anderwald et al., 2013). Avoidance responses can be as simple as an alteration 

in swim patterns or direction by increasing speed and heading away from the vessel (Jahoda et al., 

2003), or by increasing swim speed, changing direction to avoid, and staying submerged for longer 

periods of time (Au & Green, 2000). For example, in the presence of approaching vessels, blue whales 

perform shallower dives accompanied by more frequent surfacing but otherwise do not exhibit strong 

reactions (Calambokidis et al., 2009c). In another study in Hawaii, humpback whales exhibited two forms 

of behavioral avoidance: horizontal avoidance (changing direction or speed) when vessels were between 

2,000 m and 4,000 m away, and vertical avoidance (increased dive times and change in diving pattern) 

when vessels were less than 2,000 m away (Baker et al., 1983). Similarly, humpback whales in Australia 

demonstrated variable responses to whale watching vessels, including both horizontal avoidance, 

approaching, and changes in dive and surface behavior (Stamation et al., 2009). Humpback whales 

avoided a Navy vessel by increasing their dive times and decreasing respiration rates at the surface 

(Smultea et al., 2009). Williamson et al. (2016) specifically looked at close approaches to humpback 

whales by small research boats for the purposes of tagging. They found that while dive behavior did not 

change for any groups, some groups did increase their speed and change their course during or right 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-152

3.7 Marine Mammals

after the approach, but resumed pre-approach speed and heading shortly thereafter. Only mother-calf 

groups were found to increase their speed during the approach and maintain the increased speed for 

longer after the approach, but these groups too resumed normal swim speeds after about 40 minutes. It 

should be noted that there were no responses by any groups that were approached closely but with no 

attempts at tagging, indicating that the responses were not due to the vessel presence but to the 

tagging attempt. In addition, none of the observed changes in behavior were outside the normal range 

of swim speeds or headings for these migrating whales.

Mysticetes have been shown to both increase and decrease calling behavior in the presence of vessel 

noise. Based on passive acoustic recordings and in the presence of sounds from passing vessels, Melcón 

et al. (2012) reported that blue whales had an increased likelihood of producing certain types of calls. An 

increase in feeding call rates and repetition by humpback whales in Alaskan waters is associated with 

vessel noise (Doyle et al., 2008), while decreases in singing activity have been noted near Brazil due to 

boat traffic (Sousa-Lima & Clark, 2008). Frequency parameters of fin whale calls also decreased in the 

presence of increasing background noise due to shipping traffic (Castellote et al., 2012). Bowhead 

whales avoided the area around icebreaker ship noise and increased their time at the surface and 

number of blows (Richardson et al., 1995a). Right whales increase the amplitude or frequency of their 

vocalizations or call at a lower rate in the presence of increased vessel noise (Parks et al., 2007; Parks et 

al., 2011), and these vocalization changes may persist over long periods if background noise levels 

remained elevated.

The long-term consequences of vessel noise are not well understood (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.7, Long-Term 

Consequences). In a short-term study, minke whales on feeding grounds in Iceland responded to 

increased whale-watching vessel traffic with a decrease in foraging, both during deep dives and at the 

surface (Christiansen et al., 2013). They also increased their avoidance of the boats while decreasing 

their respiration rates, likely leading to an increase in their metabolic rates. Christiansen and Lusseau 

(2015) and Christiansen et al. (2014) followed up this study by modeling the cumulative impacts of 

whale watching boats on minke whales, but found that although the boats cause temporary feeding 

disruptions, there were not likely to be long-term consequences as a result. This suggests that shortterm responses may not lead to long-term consequences and that over time animals may habituate to 

the presence of vessel traffic. However, in an area of high whale watch activity, vessels were within 

2000 m of blue whales 70 percent of the time, with a maximum of eight vessels observed within 400 m 

of one whale at the same time. This study found reduced surface time, fewer breaths at the surface, and 

shorter dive times when vessels were within 400 m (Lesage et al., 2017). Since blue whales in this area 

forage 68 percent of the time, and their foraging dive depths are constrained by the location of prey 

patches, these reduced dive durations may indicated reduced time spent foraging by over 36 percent. In 

the short term this reduction may be compensated for, but prolonged exposure to vessel traffic could 

lead to long-term consequences. Using historical records, Watkins (1986) showed that the reactions of 

four species of mysticetes to vessel traffic and whale watching activities in Cape Cod had changed over 

the 25-year period examined (1957-1982). Reactions of minke whales changed from initially more 

positive reactions, such as coming towards the boat or research equipment to investigate, to more 

uninterested reactions towards the end of the study. Fin whales, the most numerous species in the area, 

showed a trend from initially more negative reactions, such as swimming away from the boat with 

limited surfacing, to more uninterested reactions (ignoring) allowing boats to approach within 30 m. 

Right whales showed little change over the study period, with a roughly equal number of reactions 

judged to be negative and uninterested; no right whales were noted as having positive reactions to 

vessels. Humpback whales showed a trend from negative to positive reactions with vessels during the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-153

3.7 Marine Mammals

study period. The author concluded that the whales had habituated to the human activities over time 

(Watkins, 1986).

Overall baleen whale responses to vessel noise and traffic are varied but are generally minor, and 

habituation or disinterest seems to be the predominant long-term response. When baleen whales do 

avoid ships they do so by altering their swim and dive patterns to move away from the vessel, but no 

strong reactions have been observed. In fact, in many cases the whales do not appear to change their 

behavior at all. This may result from habituation by the whales, but may also result from reduced 

received levels near the surface due to propagation, or due to acoustic shadowing of the propeller 

cavitation noise by the ship’s hull. Although a lack of response in the presence of a vessel may minimize 

potential disturbance from passing ships, it does increase the whales’ vulnerability to vessel strike, 

which may be of greater concern for baleen whales than vessel noise (see Section 3.7.3.4, Physical 

Disturbance and Strike Stressors).

Odontocetes

Most odontocetes react neutrally to vessels, although both avoidance and attraction behavior have 

been observed (Hewitt, 1985; Würsig et al., 1998). Würsig et al. (1998) found that Kogia whales and 

beaked whales were the most sensitive species to vessels, and reacted by avoiding marine mammal 

survey vessels in 73 percent of sightings, more than any other odontocetes. Avoidance reactions include 

a decrease in resting behavior or change in travel direction (Bejder et al., 2006a). Incidents of attraction 

include common, rough-toothed, and bottlenose dolphins bow riding and jumping in the wake of a 

vessel (Norris & Prescott, 1961; Ritter, 2002; Shane et al., 1986; Würsig et al., 1998). A study of vessel 

reactions by dolphin communities in the eastern tropical Pacific found that populations that were often 

the target of tuna purse-seine fisheries (spotted, spinner, and common dolphins) show evasive behavior 

when approached; however, populations that live closer to shore (within 100 NM; coastal spotted and 

bottlenose dolphins) that are not set on by purse-seine fisheries tend to be attracted to vessels (Archer 

et al., 2010). The presence of vessels has also been shown to interrupt feeding behavior in delphinids 

(Meissner et al., 2015; Pirotta et al., 2015b).

Short-term displacement of dolphins due to tourist boat presence has been documented (Carrera et al., 

2008), while longer term or repetitive/chronic displacement for some dolphin groups due to chronic 

vessel noise has been noted (Haviland-Howell et al., 2007). Delphinid behavioral states also change in 

the presence of tourist boats that often approach animals, with travel increasing and foraging 

decreasing (Cecchetti et al., 2017; Meissner et al., 2015). Most studies of the behavioral reactions to 

vessel traffic of bottlenose dolphins have documented at least short-term changes in behavior, 

activities, or vocalization patterns when vessels are near, although the distinction between vessel noise 

and vessel movement has not been made clear (Acevedo, 1991; Arcangeli & Crosti, 2009; Berrow & 

Holmes, 1999; Gregory & Rowden, 2001; Janik & Thompson, 1996; Lusseau, 2004; Mattson et al., 2005; 

Scarpaci et al., 2000). Steckenreuter (2011) found bottlenose dolphin groups to feed less, become more 

tightly clustered, and have more directed movement when approached to 50 m than groups approached 

to 150 m or approached in a controlled manner. Guerra et al. (2014) demonstrated that bottlenose 

dolphins subjected to chronic noise from tour boats responded to boat noise by alterations in group 

structure and in vocal behavior but also found the dolphins’ reactions varied depending on whether the 

observing research vessel was approaching or moving away from the animals being observed. This 

demonstrates that the influence of the sound exposure cannot be decoupled from the physical presence 

of a surface vessel, thus complicating interpretations of the relative contribution of each stimulus to the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-154

3.7 Marine Mammals

response. Indeed, the presence of surface vessels, their approach and speed of approach, seemed to be 

significant factors in the response of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng & Leung, 2003).

The effects of tourism and whale watching have highly impacted killer whales, such as the Northern and 

Southern Resident populations. These animals are targeted by numerous small whale-watching vessels 

in the Pacific Northwest and, from 1998 to 2012 during the viewing season, have had an annual monthly 

average of nearly 20 vessels of various types within 0.5 mile of their location during daytime hours 

(Clark, 2015; Eisenhardt, 2014; Erbe et al., 2014). These vessels have source levels that ranged from 145 

to 169 dB re 1 μPa and produce broadband noise up to 96 kHz and 116 dB re 1 μPa. They have the 

potential to result in behavioral disturbance, interfere with communication, and affect the killer whales’ 

hearing capabilities via masking (Erbe, 2002; Veirs et al., 2015b). Killer whales foraged significantly less 

and traveled significantly more when boats were within 100 m of the whales (Kruse, 1991; Lusseau et 

al., 2009; Trites & Bain, 2000; Williams et al., 2002a; Williams et al., 2002b; Williams et al., 2009). These 

short-term feeding activity disruptions may have important long-term population-level effects (Lusseau 

et al., 2009; Noren et al., 2009). As with other delphinids, the reaction of the killer whales to whalewatching vessels may be in response to the vessel pursuing them rather than to the noise of the vessel 

itself, or to the number of vessels in their proximity. Williams et al. (2014b) modeled behavioral 

responses of killer whales to vessel traffic by looking at their surface behavior relative to the received 

level of three large classes of ships. The authors found that the severity of the response was largely 

dependent on seasonal data (e.g., year and month) as well as the animal’s prior experience with vessels 

(e.g., age and sex), and the number of other vessels present, rather than the received level of the larger 

ships (Williams et al., 2014b).

Sperm whales generally react only to vessels approaching within several hundred meters; however, 

some individuals may display avoidance behavior, such as quick diving (Magalhães et al., 2002; Würsig et 

al., 1998) or a decrease in time spent at the surface (Isojunno & Miller, 2015). One study showed that 

after diving, sperm whales showed a reduced timeframe before they emitted the first click than prior to 

a vessel interaction (Richter et al., 2006). Smaller whale watching and research vessels generate more 

noise in higher-frequency bands and are more likely to approach odontocetes directly, and to spend 

more time near an individual whale. Azzara et al. (2013) also found a reduction in sperm whale clicks 

while a vessel was passing, as well as up to a half hour after the vessel had passed. It is unknown 

whether the whales left the area, ceased to click, or surfaced during this period. However, some of the 

reduction in click detections may be due to masking of the clicks by the vessel noise, particularly during 

the closest point of approach.

Little information is available on the behavioral impacts of vessels or vessel noise on beaked whales (Cox 

et al., 2006), although it seems most beaked whales react negatively to vessels by quick diving and other 

avoidance maneuvers (Würsig et al., 1998). Limited evidence suggests that beaked whales respond to 

vessel noise, anthropogenic noise in general, and mid-frequency sonar at similar sound levels (Aguilar de 

Soto et al., 2006; Tyack, 2009; Tyack et al., 2011). An observation of vocal disruption of a foraging dive 

by a Cuvier’s beaked whale when a large noisy vessel passed suggests that some types of vessel traffic 

may disturb foraging beaked whales (Aguilar de Soto et al., 2006). Tyack et al. (2011) noted the result of 

a controlled exposure to pseudorandom noise suggests that beaked whales would respond to vessel 

noise at similar received levels to those noted previously for mid-frequency sonar. Pirotta et al. (2012)

found that the distance to a vessel did not change the duration of a foraging dive, however, the 

proximity of the vessel may have restricted the movement of the group. The maximum distance at 

which this change was significant was 5.2 km, with an estimated received level of 135 dB re 1 μPa.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-155

3.7 Marine Mammals

Small dolphins and porpoises may also be more sensitive to vessel noise. Both finless porpoises (Li et al., 

2008) and harbor porpoises (Polacheck & Thorpe, 1990) routinely avoid and swim away from large 

motorized vessels, and harbor porpoises may click less when near large ships (Sairanen, 2014b). A 

resident population of harbor porpoise in Swansea Bay are regularly near vessel traffic, but only 2

percent of observed vessels had interactions with porpoises in one study (Oakley et al., 2017). Of these, 

74 percent of the interactions were neutral (no response by the porpoises) while vessels were 10 m–1 

km away. Of the 26 percent of interactions in which there was an avoidance response, most were 

observed in groups of one to two animals and in response to fast-moving or steady plane-hulling 

motorized vessels. Larger groups reacted less often, and few responses were observed to non-motorized 

or stationary vessels. Another study found that when vessels were within 50 m, harbor porpoises had an 

80 percent probability of changing their swimming direction when vessels were fast moving; this 

dropped to 40 percent probability when vessels were beyond 400 m (Akkaya Bas et al., 2017). These 

porpoises also demonstrated a reduced proportion of feeding and shorter behavioral bout durations in 

general if vessels were in close proximity 62 percent of the time. Although most vessel noise is 

constrained to lower frequencies below 1 kHz, at close range vessel noise can extend into mid- and highfrequencies (into the tens of kHz) (Hermannsen et al., 2014; Li et al., 2015); these frequencies are what 

harbor porpoises are likely responding to, at M-weighted received SPLs with a mean of 123 dB re 1 μPa 

(Dyndo et al., 2015). The vaquita, which is closely related to the harbor porpoise, appears to avoid large 

vessels at about 900 m (Jaramillo-Legorreta et al., 1999).

Odontocetes have been shown to make short-term changes to vocal parameters such as intensity as an 

immediate response to vessel noise, as well as increase the pitch, frequency modulation, and length of 

whistling (May-Collado & Wartzok, 2008). For example, bottlenose dolphins in Portuguese waters 

decrease their call rates and change the frequency parameters of whistles in the presence of boats (Luís 

et al., 2014), while dolphin groups with calves increase their whistle rates when tourist boats are within 

200 m and when the boats increase their speed (Guerra et al., 2014). Likewise, modification of multiple 

vocalization parameters was shown in belugas residing in an area known for high levels of commercial 

traffic. These animals decreased their call rate, increased certain types of calls, and shifted upward in 

frequency content in the presence of small vessel noise (Lesage et al., 1999). Another study detected a 

measurable increase in the amplitude of their vocalizations when ships were present (Scheifele et al., 

2005). Killer whales are also known to modify their calls during increased noise. For example, the source 

level of killer whale vocalizations was shown to increase with higher background noise levels associated 

with vessel traffic (the Lombard effect) (Holt et al., 2008). In addition, calls with a high-frequency 

component have higher source levels than other calls, which may be related to behavioral state, or may 

reflect a sustained increase in background noise levels (Holt et al., 2011). On the other hand, long-term 

modifications to vocalizations may be indicative of a learned response to chronic noise, or of a genetic 

or physiological shift in the populations. This type of change has been observed in killer whales off the 

northwestern coast of the United States between 1973 and 2003. This population increased the 

duration of primary calls once a threshold in observed vessel density (e.g., whale watching) was 

reached, which is suggested as being a long-term response to increased masking noise produced by the 

vessels (Foote et al., 2004).

The long-term and cumulative implications of ship sound on odontocetes is largely unknown (National 

Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007e), 

although some long-term consequences have been reported (Lusseau & Bejder, 2007). Repeated 

exposure to acoustic and other anthropogenic stimuli has been studied in several cases, especially as 

related to vessel traffic and whale watching. Common dolphins in New Zealand responded to dolphin-
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-156

3.7 Marine Mammals

watching vessels by interrupting foraging and resting bouts, and took longer to resume behaviors in the 

presence of the vessel (Stockin et al., 2008). The authors speculated that repeated interruptions of the 

dolphins' foraging behaviors could lead to long-term implications for the population. Bejder et al. 

(2006a) studied responses of bottlenose dolphins to vessel approaches and found stronger and longer 

lasting reactions in populations of animals that were exposed to lower levels of vessel traffic overall. The 

authors indicated that lesser reactions in populations of dolphins regularly subjected to high levels of 

vessel traffic could be a sign of habituation, or it could be that the more sensitive animals in this 

population previously abandoned the area of higher human activity.

Similar to mysticetes, odontocete responses to vessel noise are varied, although many odontocete 

species seem to be more sensitive to vessel presence and vessel noise, and these two factors are 

difficult to tease apart. Some species, in particular killer whales and porpoises, may be sensitized to 

vessels and respond at further distances and lower received levels than other delphinids. In contrast, 

many odontocete species also approach vessels to bowride, indicating either that these species are less 

sensitive to vessels, or that the behavioral drive to bowride supersedes any impact of the associated 

noise. With these broad and disparate responses, it is difficult to assess the impacts of vessel noise on 

odontocetes.

Pinnipeds

Pinniped reactions to vessels are variable and reports include a wide spectrum of possibilities from 

avoidance and alert, to cases where animals in the water are attracted, and cases on land where there is 

lack of significant reaction suggesting habituation to or tolerance of vessels (Richardson et al., 1995b). 

Specific case reports in Richardson et al. (1995b) vary based on factors such as routine anthropogenic 

activity, distance from the vessel, engine type, wind direction, and ongoing subsistence hunting. As with 

reactions to sound reviewed by Southall et al. (2007), pinniped responses to vessels are affected by the 

context of the situation and by the animal’s experience.

Anderwald et al. (2013) investigated grey seal reactions to an increase in vessel traffic off Ireland’s coast 

in association with construction activities, and their data suggests the number of vessels had an 

indeterminate effect on the seals’ presence. Harbor seals haul out on tidewater glaciers in Alaska, and 

most haul outs occur during pupping season. Blundell & Pendleton (2015) found that the presence of 

any vessel reduces haul out time, but cruise ships and other large vessels in particular shorten haul out 

times. Another study of reactions of harbor seals hauled out on ice to cruise ship approaches in 

Disenchantment Bay, Alaska, revealed that animals are more likely to flush and enter the water when 

cruise ships approach within 500 m and four times more likely when the cruise ship approaches within 

100 m (Jansen et al., 2010). Karpovich et al. (2015) also found that harbor seal heart rates increased 

when vessels were present during haul out periods, and increased further when vessels approached and 

animals re-entered the water. Harbor seals responded more to vessels passing by haulout sites in areas 

with less overall vessel activity, and the model best predicting their flushing behavior included the 

number of boats, type of boats, and distance to boats. More flushing occurred to non-motorized vessels 

(e.g., kayaks), likely because they tended to occur in groups rather than as single vessels, and tended to 

pass closer (25–184 m) to the haulout sites than motorized vessels (55–591 m) (Cates & AcevedoGutiérrez, 2017). Jones et al. (Jones et al., 2017) also modeled the spatial overlap of vessel traffic and 

grey and harbor seals in the UK, and found most overlap to occur within 50 km of the coast, with high 

overlap occurring within 5 of 13 grey seal Special Areas of Conservation and within 6 of 12 harbor seal 

Special Areas of Conservation. They also estimated received levels of shipping noise and found 

maximum daily M-weighted cumulative SEL values from 170 to 189 dB, with the upper confidence 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-157

3.7 Marine Mammals

intervals of those estimates sometimes exceeding TTS values. However, there was no evidence of 

reduced population size in any of these high overlap areas.

Sea Otters

Sea otters live far inshore and may be exposed to noise from recreational boats and commercial and 

military ships transiting in and out of port areas. Sea otters have similar in-air hearing sensitivities as 

pinnipeds (Ghoul & Reichmuth, 2014a, 2014b), and may react in a similar fashion when approached by 

vessels. However, underwater hearing sensitivities are significantly reduced in sea otters when 

compared to pinnipeds (Ghoul & Reichmuth, 2014a, 2014b), so while reactions to underwater vessel 

noise may occur, they will have lower overall severity to those of pinnipeds. Sea otters in Monterey, CA 

that were living in areas of disturbance from human activity such as recreational boating spent more 

time engaged in travel than resting (Curland, 1997). Sea otters in undisturbed areas spent 5 percent of 

their time travelling; otters in areas of disturbance due to vessels were shown to spend 13 percent of 

their time travelling. However, sea otters may habituate quickly. Even when purposefully harassed in an 

effort to cause a behavioral response, sea otters generally moved only a short distance (100 to 200 m) 

before resuming normal activity, and nearby boats, nets, and floating oil containment booms were 

sometimes an attractant (Davis et al., 1988). 

Behavioral Reactions to Aircraft Noise

The following paragraphs summarize what is known about the reaction of various marine mammal 

species to overhead flights of many types of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, as well as unmanned 

aerial systems. Thorough reviews of the subject and available information is presented in Richardson et 

al. (1995b) and elsewhere (e.g., Efroymson et al., 2001; Holst et al., 2011; Luksenburg & Parsons, 2009; 

Smith et al., 2016). The most common responses of cetaceans to overflights were short surfacing 

durations, abrupt dives, and percussive behavior (breaching and tail slapping) (Nowacek et al., 2007). 

Other behavioral responses such as flushing and fleeing the area of the source of the noise have also 

been observed (Holst et al., 2011; Manci et al., 1988). Richardson et al. (1995b) noted that marine 

mammal reactions to aircraft overflight largely consisted of opportunistic and anecdotal observations 

lacking clear distinction between reactions potentially caused by the noise of the aircraft and the visual 

cue an aircraft presents. In addition, it was suggested that variations in the responses noted were due to 

generally other undocumented factors associated with overflights (Richardson et al., 1995b). These 

factors could include aircraft type (single engine, multi-engine, jet turbine), flight path (altitude, 

centered on the animal, off to one side, circling, level and slow), environmental factors (e.g., wind 

speed, sea state, cloud cover) and locations where native subsistence hunting continues and animals are 

more sensitive to anthropogenic impacts, including the noise from aircraft. Christiansen et al. (2016b)

measured the in air and underwater noise levels of two unmanned aerial vehicles, and found that in air 

the broadband source levels were around 80 dB re 20 μPa, while at a meter underwater received levels 

were 95–100 dB re 1 μPa when the vehicle was only 5–10 m above the surface, and were not 

quantifiable above ambient noise levels when the vehicle was higher. Therefore if an animal is near the 

surface and the unmanned aerial vehicle is low, it may be detected, but in most cases these vehicles are 

operated at much higher altitudes (e.g., over 30 m) and so are not likely to be heard.

The impact of aircraft overflights is one of the least well-known sources of potential behavioral response 

by any species or taxonomic group, and so many generalities must be made based on the little data 

available. There is some data for each taxonomic group; taken together it appears that in general, 

marine mammals have varying levels of sensitivity to overflights depending on the species and context.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-158

3.7 Marine Mammals

Mysticetes

Mysticetes either ignore or occasionally dive in response to aircraft overflights (Koski et al., 1998). 

Richardson (1985; 1995b) found no evidence that single or occasional aircraft flying above mysticetes 

causes long-term displacement of these mammals.

Bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea exhibited a transient behavioral response to fixed-wing aircraft and 

vessels. Reactions were frequently observed at less than 1,000 ft. (304.8 m) above sea level, 

infrequently observed at 1,500 ft. (457.2 m), and not observed at all at 2,000 ft. (609.6 m) (Richardson et 

al., 1985). Bowhead whales reacted to helicopter overflights by diving, breaching, changing direction or 

behavior, and altering breathing patterns. Behavioral reactions decreased in frequency as the altitude of 

the helicopter increased to 150 m or higher. The bowheads exhibited fewer behavioral changes than did 

the odontocetes in the same area (Patenaude et al., 2002). It should be noted that bowhead whales in 

this study may have more acute responses to anthropogenic activity than many other marine mammals 

since these animals were presented with restricted egress due to limited open water between ice floes. 

Additionally, these animals are hunted by Alaska Natives, which could lead to animals developing 

additional sensitivity to human noise and presence.

A pilot study was conducted on the use of unmanned aerial systems to observe bowhead whales; flying 

at altitudes between 120 to 210 m above the surface, no behavioral responses were observed in any 

animals (Koski et al., 1998; Koski et al., 2015). Similarly, Christiansen et al. (2016a) did not observe any 

responses to an unmanned aerial vehicle flown 30–120 m above the water when taking photos of 

humpback whales to conduct photogrammetry and assess fitness. Acevedo-Whitehouse et al. (2010)

successfully maneuvered a remote controlled helicopter over large baleen whales to collect samples of 

their blows, with no more avoidance behavior than noted for typical photo-id vessel approaches. These 

vehicles are much smaller and quieter than typical aircraft and so are less likely to cause a behavioral 

response, although they may fly at much lower altitudes (Smith et al., 2016).

Odontocetes

Variable responses to aircraft have been observed in toothed whales, though overall little change in 

behavior has been observed during flyovers. Some toothed whales dove, slapped the water with their 

flukes or flippers, or swam away from the direction of the aircraft during overflights; others did not 

visibly react (Richardson et al., 1995b). Würsig et al. (1998) found that beaked whales were the most 

sensitive cetacean and reacted by avoiding marine mammal survey aircraft in 89 percent of sightings 

and at more than twice the rate as Kogia whales, which was the next most reactive of the odontocetes 

in 39 percent of sightings; these are the same species that were sensitive to vessel traffic.

During standard marine mammal surveys at an altitude of 750 ft., some sperm whales remained on or 

near the surface the entire time the aircraft was in the vicinity, while others dove immediately or a few 

minutes after being sighted. Other authors have corroborated the variability in sperm whales’ reactions 

to fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters (Green et al., 1992; Richter et al., 2003; Richter et al., 2006; Smultea 

et al., 2008; Würsig et al., 1998). In one study, sperm whales showed no reaction to a helicopter until 

they encountered the downdrafts from the rotors (Richardson et al., 1995b). A group of sperm whales 

responded to a circling aircraft (altitude of 800 to 1,100 ft.) by moving closer together and forming a 

defensive fan-shaped semicircle, with their heads facing outward. Several individuals in the group 

turned on their sides, apparently to look up toward the aircraft (Smultea et al., 2008). Whale-watching 

aircraft (fixed-wing airplanes and helicopters) apparently caused sperm whales to turn more sharply but 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-159

3.7 Marine Mammals

did not affect blow interval, surface time, time to first click, or the frequency of aerial behavior (Richter 

et al., 2003).

Smaller delphinids generally react to overflights either neutrally or with a startle response (Würsig et al., 

1998). The same species that show strong avoidance behavior to vessel traffic (Kogia species and beaked 

whales) show similar reactions to aircraft (Würsig et al., 1998). Beluga whales reacted to helicopter 

overflights by diving, breaching, changing direction or behavior, and altering breathing patterns to a 

greater extent than mysticetes in the same area (Patenaude et al., 2002). These reactions increased in 

frequency as the altitude of the helicopter dropped below 150 m. A change in travel direction was noted 

in a group of pilot whales as the aircraft circled while conducting monitoring (State of Hawaii, 2015).

Much like mysticetes, odontocetes have demonstrated no responses to unmanned aerial systems. For 

example, Durban et al. (2015) conducted photogrammetry studies of killer whales using a small 

helicopter flown 35–40 m above the animals with no disturbance noted. However, odontocete 

responses may increase with reduced altitude, due either to noise or the shadows created by the vehicle 

(Smith et al., 2016).

Pinnipeds

Richardson et al. (1995b) noted that responsiveness to aircraft overflights generally was dependent on 

the altitude of the aircraft, the abruptness of the associated aircraft sound, and life cycle stage 

(breeding, molting, etc.). In general pinnipeds are unresponsive to overflights, and may startle, orient 

towards the sound source or increase vigilance, or may briefly re-enter the water, but typically remain 

hauled out or immediately return to their haul out location (Blackwell et al., 2004; Gjertz & Børset, 

1992). Adult females, calves and juveniles are more likely to enter the water than males, and stampedes 

resulting in mortality to pups (by separation or crushing) can occur when disturbance is severe, although 

they are rare (Holst et al., 2011). Responses may also be dependent on the distance of the aircraft. For 

example, reactions of walruses on land varied in severity and included minor head raising at a distance 

of 2.5 km, orienting toward or entering the water at less than 150 m and 1.3 km in altitude, to full flight 

reactions at horizontal ranges of less than 1 km at altitudes as high as 1,000–1,500 m (Richardson et al., 

1995b).

Helicopters are used in studies of several species of seals hauled out and are considered an effective 

means of observation (Bester et al., 2002; Gjertz & Børset, 1992), although they have been known to 

elicit behavioral reactions such as fleeing (Hoover, 1988). For California sea lions and Steller sea lions at 

a rocky haulout off Crescent City in northern California, helicopter approaches to landing sites typically 

caused the most severe response of diving into the water (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2010). Responses were also dependent on the species, with Steller sea lions being more 

sensitive and California sea lions more tolerant. Depending on the time between subsequent 

approaches, animals hauled out in between and fewer animals reacted upon subsequent exposures 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010).

Pinniped reactions to rocket launches and overflight at San Nicholas Island were studied from August 

2001 to October 2008 (Holst et al., 2011). California sea lions startled and increased vigilance for up to 

two minutes after a rocket overflight, with some individuals moving down the beach or returning to the 

water. Northern elephant seals showed little reaction to any overflight. Harbor seals had the most 

pronounced reactions of the three species observed with most animals within approximately 4 km of 

the rocket trajectory leaving their haul-out sites for the water and not returning for several hours. The 

authors concluded that the effects of the rocket launches were minor with no effects on local 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-160

3.7 Marine Mammals

populations evidenced by the growing populations of pinnipeds on San Nicholas Island (Holst et al., 

2011).

Pinnipeds may be more sensitive to unmanned aerial systems, especially those flying at low altitudes, 

due to their possible resemblance to predatorial birds (Smith et al., 2016), which could lead to flushing 

behavior (Olson, 2013). Responses may also vary by species, age class, behavior, and habituation to 

other anthropogenic noise, as well as by the type, size, and configuration of unmanned aerial vehicle 

used (Pomeroy et al., 2015). However, in general pinnipeds have demonstrated little to no response to 

unmanned aerial systems, with some orienting towards the vehicle, other alerting behavior, or shortterm flushing possible (Moreland et al., 2015; Sweeney et al., 2015).

Sea Otters

Sea otters spend approximately 80 percent of their time on the surface of the water (Curland, 1997)

with their heads above the surface, and will most likely be exposed to noise from aircraft or missile 

overflights. Sea otters have similar in-air hearing sensitivities as pinnipeds (Ghoul & Reichmuth, 2014a, 

2014b), and may react in a similar fashion when exposed to aircraft and missile overflight noise. 

Pinnipeds in general are unresponsive but may react depending on the altitude of the aircraft or the 

abruptness of the associated sound (Richardson et al., 1995b), with reactions ranging from 

unresponsiveness to flushing into the water location (Blackwell et al., 2004; Gjertz & Børset, 1992). Sea 

otters may dive below the surface of the water or flush into the water to avoid overflight noise. 

However, there has been no evidence that any aircraft or missile overflight has had adverse effects on 

the translocated colony of sea otters at San Nicolas Island or in the Southern California portion of the 

Study Area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012b, 2015). 

3.7.3.1.1.6 Stranding

Marine mammals are subjected to a variety of natural and anthropogenic factors, acting alone or in 

combination, which may cause a marine mammal to strand (Geraci et al., 1999; Geraci & Lounsbury, 

2005). When a marine mammal (alive or dead) swims or floats onto shore and becomes beached or 

incapable of returning to sea, the event is termed a “stranding” (Geraci et al., 1999; Geraci & Lounsbury, 

2005; Perrin & Geraci, 2002). A stranding can also occur away from the shore if the animal is unable to 

cope in its present situation (e.g., disabled by a vessel strike, out of habitat) (Geraci & Lounsbury, 2005). 

Specifically, under U.S. law, a stranding is an event in the wild in which: (A) a marine mammal is dead 

and is (i) on a beach or shore of the United States; or (ii) in waters under the jurisdiction of the United 

States (including any navigable waters); or (B) a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on a beach or shore of 

the United States and is unable to return to the water; (ii) on a beach or shore of the United States and, 

although able to return to the water, is in need of medical attention; or (iii) in the waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters), but is unable to return to its natural 

habitat under its own power or without assistance” (16 U.S.C. section 1421h).

Natural factors related to strandings include limited food availability or following prey inshore, 

predation, disease, parasitism, natural toxins, echolocation disturbance, climatic influences, and aging 

(Bradshaw et al., 2006; Culik, 2004; Geraci et al., 1999; Geraci & Lounsbury, 2005; Huggins et al., 2015; 

National Research Council, 2006; Perrin & Geraci, 2002; Walker et al., 2005). Anthropogenic factors 

include pollution (Hall et al., 2006; Jepson et al., 2005), vessel strike (Geraci & Lounsbury, 2005; Laist et 

al., 2001), fisheries interactions (Read et al., 2006), entanglement (Baird & Gorgone, 2005; Saez et al., 

2012; Saez et al., 2013), human activities (e.g., feeding, gunshot) (Geraci & Lounsbury, 2005; Dierauf & 

Gulland, 2001), and noise (Cox et al., 2006; National Research Council, 2003; Richardson et al., 1995b). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-161

3.7 Marine Mammals

For some stranding events, environmental factors (e.g., ocean temperature and wind speed and 

geographic conditions) can be utilized in predictive models to aid in understanding why marine 

mammals strand in certain areas more than others (Berini et al., 2015). In most instances, even for the 

more thoroughly investigated strandings involving post-stranding data collection and necropsies, the 

cause (or causes) for strandings remains undetermined.

Along the coasts of the continental United States and Alaska between 2001 and 2009, there were on 

average approximately 12,545 cetacean strandings and 39,104 pinniped strandings (51,649 total) per 

year (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016e). Several mass strandings (strandings that involve two or 

more individuals of the same species, excluding a single mother-calf pair) that have occurred over the 

past two decades have been associated with anthropogenic activities that introduced sound into the 

marine environment such as naval operations and seismic surveys. An in-depth discussion of strandings 

is in the Navy’s Technical Report on Marine Mammal Strandings Associated with U.S. Navy Sonar 

Activities (U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program & SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, 2017).

Sonar use during exercises involving the U.S. Navy has been identified as a contributing cause or factor 

in five specific mass stranding events: Greece in 1996; the Bahamas in March 2000; Madeira Island, 

Portugal in 2000; the Canary Islands in 2002, and Spain in 2006 (Cox et al., 2006; Fernandez, 2006; U.S. 

Navy Marine Mammal Program & SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, 2017). These five mass strandings 

have resulted in about 40 known cetacean deaths consisting mostly of beaked whales and with close 

linkages to mid-frequency active sonar activity. In these circumstances, exposure to non-impulsive 

acoustic energy was considered a potential indirect cause of death of the marine mammals (Cox et al., 

2006). Strandings of other marine mammal species have not been as closely linked to sonar exposure, 

but rather, have typically been attributed to natural or anthropogenic factors. The Navy has reviewed 

training requirements, safety procedures, and possible mitigation measures and implemented changes

to reduce the potential for acoustic related strandings to occur in the future. Discussions of procedures 

associated with these and other training and testing events are presented in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), 

which details all mitigations. 

Multiple hypotheses regarding the relationship between non-impulsive sound exposure and stranding 

have been proposed. These range from direct impact of the sound on the physiology of the marine 

mammal, to behavioral reactions contributing to altered physiology (e.g., “gas and fat embolic 

syndrome” (Fernández et al., 2005; Jepson et al., 2003; Jepson et al., 2005), to behaviors directly 

contributing to the stranding (e.g., beaching of fleeing animals). Unfortunately, without direct 

observation of not only the event but also the underlying process, and the potential for artefactual 

evidence ( e.g., chronic condition, previous injury) to complicate conclusions from the post-mortem 

analyses of stranded animals (Cox et al., 2006), it has not been possible to determine with certainty the 

exact mechanism underlying these strandings. 

Historically, stranding reporting and response efforts have been inconsistent, although they have 

improved considerably over the last 25 years. Although reporting forms have been standardized 

nationally, data collection methods, assessment methods, detail of reporting and procedures vary by 

region and are not yet standardized across the United States. Conditions such as weather, time, 

location, and decomposition state may also affect the ability to thoroughly examine a specimen 

(Carretta et al., 2016b; Moore et al., 2013). Because of this, the current ability to interpret long-term 

trends in marine mammal stranding is limited. While the investigation of stranded animals provides 

insight into the types of threats marine mammal populations face, investigations are only conducted on 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-162

3.7 Marine Mammals

a small fraction of the total number of strandings that occur, limiting our understanding of the causes of 

strandings (Carretta et al., 2016a).

Data were gathered from stranding networks that operate within and adjacent to the HSTT Study Area 

and reviewed in an attempt to better understand the frequency that marine mammal strandings occur 

and what major causes of stranding’s (both human-related and natural) exist in areas around the HSTT 

Study Area (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). From 2010 through 2014, there were 314 

cetacean and phocid strandings reported in Hawaii, an annual average of 63 strandings per year. 

Twenty-seven species stranded in this region. The most common species reported include the Hawaiian 

monk seal, humpback whale, sperm whale, striped and spinner dolphin. Although many marine 

mammals likely strand due to natural or anthropogenic causes, the majority of reported type of 

occurrences in marine mammal strandings in the Study Area include fisheries interactions, 

entanglement, vessel strike and predation. Bradford and Lyman (2015) address overall threats from 

human activities and industries on stocks in Hawaii. 

In 2004, a mass out-of-habitat aggregation of melon-headed whales occurred in Hanalei Bay. It is 

speculated that sonar operated during a major training exercise may be related to the incident. Upon 

further investigation, sonar was only considered as a plausible, but not sole, contributing factor among 

many factors in the event. The Hanalei Bay incident does not share the characteristics observed with 

other mass strandings of whales coincident with sonar activity (e.g., specific traumas, species 

composition, etc.) (Southall et al., 2006; U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program & SPAWAR Systems Center 

Pacific, 2017). Additional information on this event is available in the Navy’s Technical Report on Marine 

Mammal Strandings Associated with U.S. Navy Sonar Activities (U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program & 

SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, 2017).

Records for strandings in San Diego County (covering the shoreline for the Southern California portion of 

the HSTT Study Area) indicate that there were 143 cetacean and 1,235 pinniped strandings between 

2010 and 2014, an annual average of about 29 and 247 per year, respectively. A total of 16 different 

species have been reported as stranded within this time frame. The majority of species reported include 

long-beaked common dolphins and California sea lions, but there were also reports of pacific whitesided, bottlenose and Risso’s dolphins, gray, humpback, and fin whales, harbor seals and Northern 

elephant seals (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015b, 2016g). However, stranded marine mammals 

are reported along the entire western coast of the United States each year. Within the same timeframe, 

there were 714 cetacean and 11,132 pinniped strandings reported outside of the Study Area, an annual 

average of about 142 and 2,226 respectively. Species that strand along the entire west coast are similar 

to those that typically strand within the Study Area with additional reports of harbor porpoise, Dall’s 

porpoise, Steller sea lions, and various fur seals. The most common reported type of occurrence in 

stranded marine mammals in this region include fishery interactions, illness, predation, and vessel 

strikes (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016g). It is important to note that the mass stranding of 

pinnipeds along the west coast considered part of a NMFS declared Unusual Morality Event are still 

being evaluated. The likely cause of this event is the lack of available prey near rookeries due to 

warming ocean temperatures (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016c). Carretta et al. 

(2013b; 2016b) provide additional information and data on the threats from human-related activities 

and the potential causes of strandings for the U.S. Pacific coast marine mammal stocks.

3.7.3.1.1.7 Long-Term Consequences

Long-term consequences to a population are determined by examining changes in the population 

growth rate (see Section 3.0.3.6.1). Physical effects that could lead to a reduction in the population 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-163

3.7 Marine Mammals

growth rate include mortality or injury, which could remove animals from the reproductive pool, and 

permanent hearing impairment or chronic masking, which could impact navigation, foraging, predator 

avoidance, or communication. The long-term consequences due to individual behavioral reactions and 

short-term or chronic instances of physiological stress are especially difficult to predict because 

individual experience over time can create complex contingencies, especially for long-lived animals like 

marine mammals. For example, a lost reproductive opportunity could be a measureable cost to the 

individual, or for very small populations to the population as a whole (e.g., Hawaiian monk seals; 

however, short-term costs may be recouped during the life of an otherwise healthy individual. These 

factors are taken into consideration when assessing risk of long-term consequences. It is more likely that 

any long-term consequences to an individual would be a result of costs accumulated over a season, 

year, or life stage due to multiple behavioral or stress responses resulting from exposure to many 

sound-producing activities over significant periods.

Marine mammals exposed to high levels of human activities may leave the area, habituate to the 

activity, or tolerate the disturbance and remain in the area (Wartzok et al., 2003). Longer-term 

displacement can lead to changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the species in the affected 

region (Bejder et al., 2006b; Blackwell et al., 2004; Teilmann et al., 2006). Gray whales in Baja California 

abandoned a historical breeding lagoon in the mid-1960s due to an increase in dredging and commercial 

shipping operations. However, whales did repopulate the lagoon after shipping activities had ceased for 

several years (Bryant et al., 1984). Mysticetes in the northeast tended to adjust to vessel traffic over a 

number a of years, trending towards more neutral responses to passing vessels (Watkins, 1986), 

indicating that some animals may habituate or otherwise learn to cope with high levels of human 

activity. Bejder et al. (2006a) studied responses of bottlenose dolphins to vessel approaches and found 

that lesser reactions in populations of dolphins regularly subjected to high levels of vessel traffic could 

be a sign of habituation, or it could be that the more sensitive animals in this population previously 

abandoned the area of higher human activity.

Moore and Barlow (2013) noted a decline in the overall beaked whale population in a broad area of the 

Pacific Ocean along the U.S. west coast. Moore and Barlow (2013) provide several hypotheses for the 

decline of beaked whales in those waters, one of which is anthropogenic sound including the use of 

sonar by the U.S. Navy; however, new data has been published raising uncertainties over whether a 

decline in the beaked whale population occurred off the U.S. west coast between 1996 and 2014

(Barlow, 2016). In addition, studies on the Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center instrumented 

range in the Bahamas have shown that some Blainville's beaked whales may be resident during all or 

part of the year in the area. Individuals may move off the range for several days during and following a 

sonar event, but return within a few days (McCarthy et al., 2011; Tyack et al., 2011). Photo identification 

studies in the Southern California Range Complex have identified approximately 100 individual Cuvier’s 

beaked whale individuals, with 40 percent having been seen in one or more prior years and re-sightings 

up to 7 years apart (Falcone et al., 2009; Falcone & Schorr, 2014). These results indicate long-term 

residency by individuals in an intensively used Navy training and testing area, which may suggest a lack 

of long-term consequences as a result of exposure to Navy training and testing activities, but could also 

be indicative of high-value resources that exceed the cost of remaining in the area. Long-term residency 

does not mean there has been no impact to population growth rates and there are no data existing on 

the reproductive rates of populations inhabiting the Navy range area around San Clemente Island as 

opposed to beaked whales from other areas. In that regard however, recent results from photoidentifications are beginning to provide critically needed calving and weaning rate data for resident 

animals on the Navy’s Southern California range. Three adult females that had been sighted with calves 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-164

3.7 Marine Mammals

in previous years were again sighted in 2016, one of these was associated with her second calf, and a 

fourth female that was first identified in 2015 without a calf, was sighted in 2016 with a calf (Schorr et 

al., 2017). Resident females documented with and without calves from year to year will provide the data 

for this population that can be applied to future research questions.

Research involving three tagged Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Southern California Range Complex 

reported on by Falcone and Schorr (2012, 2014) has documented movements in excess of hundreds of 

kilometers by some of those animals. Schorr et al. (2014) reported the results for an additional eight 

tagged Cuvier’s beaked whales in the same area. Five of these eight whales made journeys of 

approximately 250 km from their tag deployment location, and one of these five made an extra-regional 

excursion over 450 km south to Mexico and back again. Given that some beaked whales may routinely 

move hundreds of kilometers as part of their normal pattern (Schorr et al., 2014), temporarily leaving an 

area to avoid sonar or other anthropogenic activity may have little cost.

Another approach has been an attempt to link short-term effects to individuals due to anthropogenic 

stressors with long-term consequences to populations using population models. Population models are 

well known from many fields in biology including fisheries and wildlife management. These models 

accept inputs for the population size and changes in vital rates of the population such as the mean 

values for survival age, lifetime reproductive success, and recruitment of new individuals into the 

population. Unfortunately, for acoustic and explosive impacts on marine mammal populations, many of 

the inputs required by population models are not known. Nowacek et al. (2016) reviewed new 

technologies, including passive acoustic monitoring, tagging, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, 

that can improve scientists’ abilities to study these model inputs and link behavioral changes to 

individual life functions and ultimately population-level effects. The linkage between immediate 

behavioral or physiological effects to an individual due to a stressor such as sound, the subsequent 

effects on that individual’s vital rates (growth, survival, and reproduction), and in turn the consequences 

for the population have been reviewed in National Research Council (2005).

The Population Consequences of Acoustic Disturbance model (National Research Council 2005) proposes 

a conceptual model for determining how changes in the vital rates of individuals (i.e., a biologically 

significant consequence to the individual) translates into biologically significant consequences to the 

population. In 2009, the U.S. Office of Naval Research set up a working group to transform the 

Population Consequences of Acoustic Disturbance framework into a mathematical model and include 

other stressors potentially causing disturbance in addition to noise. The model, now called Population 

Consequences of Disturbance, has been used for case studies involving bottlenose dolphins, North 

Atlantic right whales, beaked whales, southern elephant seals, California sea lions, blue whales, 

humpback whales, and harbor porpoise (Costa et al., 2016a; Costa et al., 2016b; Harwood & King, 2014; 

Hatch et al., 2012; King et al., 2015; New et al., 2013a; New et al., 2013b; New et al., 2014), but the 

Population Consequences of Disturbance model is still in the preliminary stages of development.

Costa et al. (2016a) emphasized taking into account the size of an animal’s home range, whether 

populations are resident and non-migratory or if they migrate over long areas and share their feeding or 

breeding areas with other populations. These factors, coupled with the extent, location, and duration of 

a disturbance can lead to markedly different impact results. For example, Costa et al. (2016a) modeled 

seismic surveys with different radii of impacts on the foraging grounds of Bering Sea humpback whales, 

West Antarctic Peninsula humpback whales, and California Current blue whales, and used data from 

tagged whales to determine foraging locations and effort on those grounds. They found that for the blue 

whales and the West Antarctic humpback whales, less than 19% and 16% (respectively) of each 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-165

3.7 Marine Mammals

population would be exposed, and less than 19% and 6% of foraging behavior would be disturbed. This 

was likely due to the fact that these populations forage for krill over large areas. In contrast, the Bering 

Sea population of humpback whales had over 90% of the population exposed when the disturbance 

zones extended beyond 50 km, and 100% of their foraging behavior was disturbed when the zone was 

over 25 km. These animals forage for fish over a much smaller area, thereby having a limited range for 

foraging that can be disturbed. Similarly, Costa et al. (2016b) placed disturbance zones in the foraging 

and transit areas of northern elephant seals and California sea lions. Again, the location and radius of 

disturbance impacted how many animals were exposed and for how long, with California sea lions 

disturbed for a longer period than elephant seals, which extend over a broader foraging and transit area.

However, even the animals exposed for the longest periods had negligible modeled impacts to their 

reproduction and pup survival rates.

Using the Population Consequences of Disturbance framework, modeling of the long-term 

consequences of exposure has been conducted for a variety of marine mammal species and stressors.

Even when high and frequent exposure levels are included, few long-term consequences have been 

predicted. For example, De Silva et al. (2014) conducted a population viability analysis on the long-term 

impacts of pile driving and construction noise on harbor porpoises and bottlenose dolphins. Despite 

including the extreme and unlikely assumptions that 25 percent of animals that received PTS would die, 

and that behavioral displacement from an area would lead to breeding failure, the model only found 

short-term impacts on the population size and no long-term effects on population viability. Similarly, 

King et al. (2015) developed a Population Consequences of Disturbance framework using expert 

elicitation data on impacts from wind farms on harbor porpoises, and even under the worst case 

scenarios predicted less than a 0.5 percent decline in harbor porpoise populations. Nabe-Nelson et al. 

(2014) also modeled the impact of noise from wind farms on harbor porpoises and predicted that even 

when assuming a 10 percent reduction in population size if prey is impacted up to two days, the 

presence of ships and wind turbines did not deplete the population. In contrast, Heinis and De Jong

(2015) used the Population Consequences of Disturbance framework to estimate impacts from both pile 

driving and seismic exploration on harbor porpoises and found a 23 percent decrease in population size 

over six years, with an increased risk for further reduction with additional disturbance days.

The Population Consequences of Disturbance model developed by New et al. (2013b) predicted that 

beaked whales require energy dense prey and high quality habitat, and that non-lethal disturbances that 

displace whales from that habitat could lead to long-term impacts on fecundity and survival; however, 

the authors were forced to use many conservative assumptions within their model since many 

parameters are unknown for beaked whales. As discussed above in Schorr et al. (2014), beaked whales 

have been tracked roaming over distances of 250 km or more indicating that temporary displacement 

from a small area may not preclude finding energy dense prey or high quality habitat. Another 

Population Consequences of Disturbance model developed in New et al. (2014) predicted elephant seal 

populations to be relatively robust even with a greater than 50 percent reduction in foraging trips (only 

a 0.4 percent population decline in the following year). It should be noted that in all of these models, 

assumptions were made and many input variables were unknown and so were estimated using available 

data. It is still not possible to utilize individual short-term behavioral responses to estimate long-term or 

population level effects.

The best assessment of long-term consequences from Navy training and testing activities will be to 

monitor the populations over time within the Study Area. A U.S. workshop on Marine Mammals and 

Sound (Fitch et al., 2011) indicated a critical need for baseline biological data on marine mammal 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-166

3.7 Marine Mammals

abundance, distribution, habitat, and behavior over sufficient time and space to evaluate impacts from 

human-generated activities on long-term population survival. The Navy has developed and implemented 

comprehensive monitoring plans since 2009 for protected marine mammals occurring on Navy ranges 

with the goal of assessing the impacts of training and testing activities on marine species and the 

effectiveness of the Navy’s current mitigation practices. The results of this long-term monitoring are 

now being compiled and analyzed for trends in occurrence or abundance over time (e.g., Martin et al., 

2017); preliminary results of this analysis at PMRF indicate no changes in detection rates for several 

species over the past decade. Continued monitoring efforts over time will be necessary to begin to 

evaluate the long-term consequences of exposure to noise sources.

3.7.3.1.2 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers

Sonar and other transducers proposed for use could be used throughout the Study Area. Sonar and 

other transducers emit sound waves into the water to detect objects, safely navigate, and communicate. 

General categories of these systems are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors).

Sonar induced acoustic resonance and bubble formation phenomena are very unlikely to occur under 

realistic conditions, as discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.1 (Injury). Non-auditory injury (i.e., other than PTS) 

and mortality from sonar and other transducers is so unlikely as to be discountable under normal 

conditions and is therefore not considered further in this analysis. 

The most probable impacts from exposure to sonar and other transducers are PTS, TTS, behavioral 

reactions, masking, and physiological stress (Sections 3.7.3.1.1.2, Hearing Loss and Auditory Injury; 

3.7.3.1.1.3, Physiological Stress; 3.7.3.1.1.4, Masking; and 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions).

3.7.3.1.2.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and Other Transducers

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number of times that marine mammals 

could be affected by sonars and other transducers used during Navy training and testing activities. The 

Navy Acoustic Effects Model is used to produce initial estimates of the number of animals that may 

experience these effects; these estimates are further refined by considering animal avoidance of soundproducing activities and implementation of mitigation. A detailed explanation of this analysis is provided 

in the technical report titled Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to 

Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017d).

Criteria and Thresholds Used to Estimate Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers

See the technical report titled Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects 

Analysis (Phase III) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a) for detailed information on how the criteria 

and thresholds were derived.

Auditory Weighting Functions

Animals are not equally sensitive to noise at all frequencies. To capture the frequency-dependent nature 

of the effects of noise, auditory weighting functions are used (see Figure 3.7-5). Auditory weighting 

functions are mathematical functions that adjust received sound levels to emphasize ranges of best 

hearing and de-emphasize ranges with less or no auditory sensitivity. They are based on a generic band 

pass filter and incorporates species-specific hearing abilities to calculate a weighted received sound level 

in units SPL or SEL. Due to the band pass nature of auditory weighting functions, they resemble an 

inverted “U” shape with amplitude plotted as a function of frequency. The flatter portion of the plotted 

function, where the amplitude is closest to zero, is the emphasized frequency range (i.e., the pass-band), 

while the frequencies below and above this range (where amplitude declines) are de-emphasized. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-167

3.7 Marine Mammals

Note: HF = High-Frequency Cetacean, LF = Low-Frequency Cetacean, MF = Mid-Frequency Cetacean, PW = Phocid (In-water), 

and OW = Otariid (In-water). For parameters used to generate the functions and more information on weighting function 

derivation see U.S. Department of the Navy (2017a)

Figure 3.7-5: Navy Auditory Weighting Functionsfor all Species Groups

Hearing Loss from Sonar and Other Transducers

Defining the TTS and PTS exposure functions (see Figure 3.7-6) requires identifying the weighted 

exposures necessary for TTS and PTS onset from sounds produced by sonar and other transducers. The 

criteria used to define threshold shifts from non-impulsive sources (e.g., sonar) determines TTS onset as 

the SEL necessary to induce 6 dB of threshold shift. An SEL 20 dB above the onset of TTS is used in all 

hearing groups of marine mammals underwater to define the PTS threshold (Southall et al., 2007). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-168

3.7 Marine Mammals

Note: The solid curve is the exposure function for TTS onset and the large dashed curve is the exposure function for PTS onset. 

Small dashed lines and asterisks indicate the SEL threshold for TTS and PTS onset in the frequency range of best hearing.

Figure 3.7-6: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources

Behavioral Responses from Sonar and Other Transducers

Behavioral response criteria are used to estimate the number of animals that may exhibit a behavioral 

response to sonar and other transducers. See the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and 

Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) technical report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a) for detailed 

information on how the Behavioral Response Functions were derived. Developing the new behavioral 

criteria involved multiple steps. All peer-reviewed published behavioral response studies conducted 

both in the field and on captive animals were examined in order to understand the breadth of 

behavioral responses of marine mammals to sonar and other transducers.

The data from the behavioral studies were analyzed by looking for significant responses, or lack thereof, 

for each experimental session. The terms “significant response” or “significant behavioral response” are 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-169

3.7 Marine Mammals

used in describing behavioral observations from field or captive animal research that may rise to the 

level of “harassment” for military readiness activities. Under the MMPA, for military readiness activities, 

such as Navy training and testing, behavioral “harassment” is: “any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb

a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to 

a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered.” (Section 315(f) of Public 

Law 107-314; 16 U.S.C. 703 note). Due to the nature of behavioral response research to date, it is not 

currently possible to ascertain the types of observed reactions that would lead to an abandonment or 

significant alteration of a natural behavior pattern. Therefore, the Navy has developed a methodology to 

estimate the possible significance of behavioral reactions and impacts on natural behavior patterns.

Behavioral response severity is described herein as ‘low’, ‘moderate’, or ‘high’. These are derived from 

the Southall et al. (2007) severity scale. Low severity responses are those behavioral responses that fall 

within an animal’s range of typical (baseline) behaviors and are unlikely to disrupt an individual to a 

point where natural behavior patterns are significantly altered or abandoned. Low severity responses 

include an orientation or startle response, change in respiration, change in heart rate, and change in 

group spacing or synchrony.

Moderate severity responses could become significant if sustained over a longer duration. What 

constitutes a long-duration response is different for each situation and species, although it is likely 

dependent upon the magnitude of the response and species characteristics such as age, body size, 

feeding strategy, and behavioral state at the time of the exposure. In general, a response could be 

considered “long-duration” if it lasted for a few tens of minutes to a few hours, or enough time to 

significantly disrupt an animal’s daily routine. 

Moderate severity responses included:

• alter migration path

• alter locomotion (speed, heading)

• alter dive profiles

• stop/alter nursing

• stop/alter breeding

• stop/alter feeding/foraging

• stop/alter sheltering/resting

• stop/alter vocal behavior if tied to foraging or social cohesion

• avoidance of area near sound source 

For the derivation of behavioral criteria, a significant duration was defined as a response that lasted for 

the duration of exposure or longer, regardless of how long the exposure session may have been. This 

assumption was made because it was not possible to tell if the behavioral responses would have 

continued if the exposure had continued. The costs associated with these observed behavioral reactions 

were not measured so it is not possible to judge whether reactions would have risen to the level of 

significance as defined above, although it was conservatively assumed the case. High severity responses 

include those responses with immediate consequences (e.g., stranding, mother-calf separation), and 

were always considered significant behavioral reactions regardless of duration.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-170

3.7 Marine Mammals

Marine mammal species were placed into behavioral criteria groups based on their known or suspected 

behavioral sensitivities to sound (Figure 3.7-7 through Figure 3.7-10). In most cases, these divisions are 

driven by taxonomic classifications (e.g., mysticetes, pinnipeds).

Figure 3.7-7: Behavioral Response Function for Odontocetes. 

Figure 3.7-8: Behavioral Response Function for Pinnipeds. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-171

3.7 Marine Mammals

Figure 3.7-9: Behavioral Response Function for Mysticetes. 

Figure 3.7-10: Behavioral Response Function for Beaked Whales. 

For all taxa, distances beyond which significant behavioral responses to sonar and other active acoustic 

sources are unlikely to occur, denoted as “cutoff distances,” were defined based on existing data (Table 

3.7-3). The distance between the animal and the sound source is a strong factor in determining that 

animal’s potential reaction (e.g., DeRuiter et al., 2013b). For training and testing exercises that contain 

multiple platforms or tactical sonar sources that exceed 215 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m, this cutoff distance is 

substantially increased (i.e., doubled) from values derived from the literature. The use of multiple 

platforms and intense sound sources are factors that probably increase responsiveness in marine 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-172

3.7 Marine Mammals

mammals overall. There are currently few behavioral observations under these circumstances; 

therefore, the Navy will conservatively predict significant behavioral responses at further ranges for 

these more intense activities.

Table 3.7-3: Cutoff Distances for Moderate Source Level, Single Platform Training and Testing 

Events and for All Other Events with Multiple Platforms or Sonar with Source Levels at or 

Exceeding 215 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m

Criteria Group

Moderate 

SL/Single Platform 

Cutoff Distance

High SL/MultiPlatform Cutoff 

Distance

Odontocetes 10 km 20 km

Pinnipeds 5 km 10 km

Mysticetes 10 km 20 km

Beaked Whales 25 km 50 km

Assessing the Severity of Behavioral Responses from Sonar under Military Readiness

As discussed above, the terms “significant response” or “significant behavioral response” are used in 

describing behavioral reactions that may lead to an abandonment or significant alteration of a natural 

behavior pattern. Due to the limited amount of behavioral response research to date and relatively 

short durations of observation, it is not possible to ascertain the true significance of the majority of the 

observed reactions. When deriving the behavioral criteria, it was assumed that most reactions that 

lasted for the duration of the sound exposure or longer were significant, even though many of the 

exposures lasted for 30 minutes or less. Furthermore, the experimental designs used during many of the 

behavioral response studies were unlike Navy activities in many important ways. These differences 

include tagging subject animals, following subjects for sometimes hours before the exposure, vectoring 

towards the subjects after animals began to avoid the sound source, and multiple close passes on focal 

groups. This makes the estimated behavioral impacts from Navy activities using the criteria derived from 

these experiments difficult to interpret. It is not currently possible to distinguish between significant and 

insignificant behavioral reactions using the functions derived using this data, although it is assumed for 

the purposes of this analysis that more intense and longer duration activities would lead to a higher 

probability of animals having significant behavioral reactions.

The estimated behavioral reactions from the Navy’s quantitative analysis are grouped into several 

categories based on the most powerful sonar source, the number of platforms, the duration, and 

geographic extent of each Navy activity attributed to the predicted impact. Activities that occur on Navy 

instrumented ranges or within Navy homeports require special consideration due to the repeated 

nature of activities in these areas.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-173

3.7 Marine Mammals

Figure 3.7-11: Relative Likelihood of a Response Being Significant Based on the Duration and 

Severity of Behavioral Reactions

Low severity responses are within an animal’s range of typical (baseline) behaviors and are unlikely to 

disrupt an individual to a point where natural behavior patterns are significantly altered or abandoned. 

Although the derivation of the Navy’s behavioral criteria did not count low severity responses as 

significant behavioral responses, in practice, some reactions estimated using the behavioral criteria are 

likely to be low severity (Figure 3.7-11).

High severity responses are those with a higher potential for direct consequences to growth, 

survivability, or reproduction. Examples include prolonged separation of females and dependent 

offspring, panic, flight, stampede, or stranding. High severity reactions would always be considered 

significant, however these types of reactions are probably rare under most conditions and may still not 

lead to direct consequences on survivability. For example, a separation of a killer whale mother-calf pair 

was observed once during a behavioral response study to an active sonar source (Miller et al., 2014), but 

the animals were rejoined as soon as the ship had passed. Therefore, although this was a severe 

response, it did not lead to a negative outcome. Five beaked whale strandings have also occurred 

associated with U.S. Navy active sonar use as discussed above (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.6, Stranding), but 

the confluence of factors that contributed to those strandings is now better understood, and the 

avoidance of those factors has resulted in no known marine mammal strandings associated with U.S. 

Navy sonar activities for over a decade. 

The Navy is unable to predict these high severity responses for any activities since the probability of 

occurrence is apparently very low, although the Navy acknowledges that severe reactions could 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-174

3.7 Marine Mammals

occasionally occur. In fact, no significant behavioral responses such as panic, stranding or other severe 

reactions have been observed during monitoring of actual training or testing activities.

Many of the responses estimated using the Navy’s quantitative analysis are most likely to be moderate 

severity. Moderate severity responses would be considered significant if they were sustained for a 

duration long enough that it caused an animal to be outside of normal daily variations in feeding, 

reproduction, resting, migration/movement, or social cohesion. As mentioned previously, the behavioral 

response functions used within the Navy’s quantitative analysis were primarily derived from 

experiments using short-duration sound exposures lasting, in many cases, for less than 30 minutes. If 

animals exhibited moderate severity reactions for the duration of the exposure or longer, then it was 

conservatively assumed that the animal experienced a significant behavioral reaction. However the 

experiments did not include measurements of costs to animals beyond the immediately observed 

reactions, and no direct correlations exist between an observed behavioral response and a cost that may 

result in long-term consequences. Within the Navy’s quantitative analysis, many behavioral reactions 

are estimated from exposure to sonar that may exceed an animal’s behavioral threshold for only a single 

ping to several minutes. It is likely that many of the estimated behavioral reactions within the Navy’s 

quantitative analysis would not constitute significant behavioral reactions; however, the numbers of 

significant verses non-significant behavioral reactions are currently impossible to predict.

Marine Mammal Density

A quantitative analysis of impacts on a species requires data on their abundance and distribution in the 

potentially impacted area. The most appropriate metric for this type of analysis is density, which is the 

number of animals present per unit area. To characterize the marine species density for large areas such 

as the Study Area, the Navy compiled data from several sources. The Navy developed a protocol to 

select the best available data sources based on species, area, and time (season). The resulting 

Geographic Information System database called the Navy Marine Species Density Database includes 

seasonal density values for every marine mammal species present within the Study Area. This database 

is described in the technical report titled U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Database Phase III for the 

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b), 

hereafter referred to as the Density Technical Report.

A variety of density data and density models are needed in order to develop a density database that 

encompasses the entirety of the Study Area. Because this data is collected using different methods with 

varying amounts of accuracy and uncertainty, the Navy has developed a model hierarchy to ensure the 

most accurate data is used when available. The density technical report describes these models in detail 

and provides detailed explanations of the models applied to each species density estimate. The below 

list describes models in order of preference. 

1. Spatial density models are preferred and used when available because they provide an estimate 

with the least amount of uncertainty by deriving estimates for divided segments of the sampling 

area. These models (see Becker et al., 2016; Forney et al., 2015) predict spatial variability of 

animal presence as a function of habitat variables (e.g., sea surface temperature, seafloor depth, 

etc.). This model is developed for areas, species, and, when available, specific timeframes 

(months or seasons) with sufficient survey data. 

2. Stratified designed-based density estimates use line-transect survey data with the sampling area 

divided (stratified) into sub-regions, and a density is predicted for each sub-region (see Barlow, 

2016; Becker et al., 2016; Bradford et al., 2017; Campbell et al., 2014; Jefferson et al., 2014). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-175

3.7 Marine Mammals

While geographically stratified density estimates provide a better indication of a species’ 

distribution within the study area, the uncertainty is typically high because each sub-region 

estimate is based on a smaller stratified segment of the overall survey effort.

3. Design-based density estimations use line-transect survey data from land and aerial surveys 

designed to cover a specific geographic area (see Carretta et al., 2015). These estimates use the 

same survey data as Stratified design-based estimates, but are not segmented into sub-regions 

and instead provide one estimate for a large surveyed area. 

Although relative environmental suitability models provide estimates for areas of the oceans that have 

not been surveyed using information on species occurrence and inferred habitat associations and have 

been used in past density databases, these models were not used in the current quantitative analysis.

When interpreting the results of the quantitative analysis, as described in the density technical report it 

is important to consider that “each model is limited to the variables and assumptions considered by the 

original data source provider. No mathematical model representation of any biological population is 

perfect, and with regards to marine mammal biodiversity, any single model will not completely explain 

the results.” (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017c)

These factors and others described in the density technical report should be considered when examining 

the estimated impact numbers in comparison to current population abundance information for any 

given species or stock. For a detailed description of the density and assumptions made for each species, 

see the Density Technical Report.

The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model

The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model calculates sound energy propagation from sonar and other 

transducers during naval activities and the sound received by animat dosimeters. Animat dosimeters are 

virtual representations of marine mammals distributed in the area around the modeled naval activity 

that each records its individual sound “dose.” The model bases the distribution of animats over the 

Study Area on the density values in the Navy Marine Species Density Database and distributes animats 

in the water column proportional to the known time that species spend at varying depths. 

The model accounts for environmental variability of sound propagation in both distance and depth 

when computing the received sound level on the animats. The model conducts a statistical analysis 

based on multiple model runs to compute the estimated effects on animals. The number of animats that 

exceed the thresholds for effects is tallied to provide an estimate of the number of marine mammals 

that could be affected. 

Assumptions in the Navy model intentionally err on the side of overestimation when there are 

unknowns. Naval activities are modeled as though they would occur regardless of proximity to marine 

mammals (i.e., mitigation is not modeled) and without any avoidance of the activity by the animal. The 

final step of the quantitative analysis of acoustic effects is to consider the implementation of mitigation 

and the possibility that marine mammals would avoid continued or repeated sound exposures.

The model estimates the impacts caused by individual training and testing exercises. During any 

individual modeled event, impacts on individual animats are considered over 24-hour periods. The 

animats do not represent actual animals, but rather allow for a statistical analysis of the number of 

instances that marine mammals may be exposed to sound levels resulting in an effect. Therefore, the 

model estimates the number of instances in which an effect threshold was exceeded over the course of 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-176

3.7 Marine Mammals

a year, but does not estimate the number of individual marine mammals that may be impacted over a 

year (i.e., some marine mammals could be impacted several times, while others would not experience 

any impact). A detailed explanation of the Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model is provided in the technical 

report Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea 

Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017d).

Accounting for Mitigation

The Navy implements mitigation measures (described in Chapter 5, Mitigation) during activities that use 

sonar and other transducers, including the power-down or shut-down (i.e., power-off) of sonar when a 

marine mammal is observed in the mitigation zone. The mitigation zones encompass the estimated 

ranges to injury (including PTS) for a given sonar exposure. Therefore, the impact analysis quantifies the 

potential for mitigation to reduce the risk of PTS. Two factors are considered when quantifying the 

effectiveness of mitigation: (1) the extent to which the type of mitigation proposed for a soundproducing activity (e.g., active sonar) allows for observation of the mitigation zone prior to and during 

the activity; and (2) the sightability of each species that may be present in the mitigation zone, which is 

determined by species-specific characteristics and the viewing platform. A detailed explanation of the 

analysis is provided in the technical report Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive 

Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017d).

In the quantitative analysis, consideration of mitigation measures means that, for activities where 

mitigation is feasible, some model-estimated PTS is considered mitigated to the level of TTS. The impact 

analysis does not analyze the potential for mitigation to reduce TTS or behavioral effects, even though 

mitigation could also reduce the likelihood of these effects. In practice, mitigation also protects all 

unobserved (below the surface) animals in the vicinity, including other species, in addition to the 

observed animal. However, the analysis assumes that only animals sighted at the water surface would 

be protected by the applied mitigation. The analysis, therefore, does not capture the protection 

afforded to all marine species that may be near or within the mitigation zone.

The ability to observe the range to PTS was estimated for each training or testing event. The ability of 

Navy Lookouts to detect marine mammals in or approaching the mitigation zone is dependent on the 

animal’s presence at the surface and the characteristics of the animal that influence its sightability (such 

as group size or surface active behavior). The behaviors and characteristics of some species may make 

them easier to detect. For example, based on small boat surveys between 2000 and 2012 in the 

Hawaiian Islands, pantropical spotted dolphins and striped dolphins were frequently observed leaping 

out of the water and Cuvier’s beaked whales (Baird et al., 2013c) and Blainville’s beaked whales (HDR, 

2012) were occasionally observed breaching. These behaviors are visible from a great distance and likely 

increase sighting distances and detections of these species. Environmental conditions under which the 

training or testing activity could take place are also considered such as the sea surface conditions, 

weather (e.g., fog or rain), and day versus night.

Marine Mammal Avoidance of Sonar and other Transducers

Because a marine mammal is assumed to initiate avoidance behavior after an initial startle reaction 

when exposed to relatively high received levels of sound, a marine mammal could reduce its cumulative 

sound energy exposure over a sonar event with multiple pings (i.e., sound exposures). This would 

reduce risk of both PTS and TTS, although the quantitative analysis conservatively only considers the 

potential to reduce instances of PTS by accounting for marine mammals swimming away to avoid 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-177

3.7 Marine Mammals

repeated high-level sound exposures. All reductions in PTS impacts from likely avoidance behaviors are 

instead considered TTS impacts.

3.7.3.1.2.2 Impact Ranges for Sonar and Other Transducers

The following section provides range to effects for sonar and other active acoustic sources to specific 

criteria determined using the Navy Acoustic Effects Model. Marine mammals within these ranges would 

be predicted to receive the associated effect. Range to effects is important information in not only 

predicting acoustic impacts, but also in verifying the accuracy of model results against real-world 

situations and determining adequate mitigation ranges to avoid higher level effects, especially 

physiological effects to marine mammals.

The ranges to the PTS threshold for an exposure of 30 seconds are shown in Table 3.7-4 relative to the

marine mammal’s functional hearing group. This period (30 seconds) was chosen based on examining 

the maximum amount of time a marine mammal would realistically be exposed to levels that could 

cause the onset of PTS based on platform (e.g., ship) speed and a nominal animal swim speed of 

approximately 1.5 meters per second. The ranges provided in the table include the average range to 

PTS, as well as the range from the minimum to the maximum distance at which PTS is possible for each 

hearing group. For a SQS-53C (i.e., bin MF1) sonar transmitting for 30 seconds at 3 kHz and a source 

level of 235 dB re 1 μPa2

-s at 1 m, the average range to PTS for the most sensitive species (the highfrequency cetaceans) extends from the source to a range of 181 m. PTS ranges for all other functional 

hearing groups, besides high-frequency cetaceans, are much shorter. Since any hull-mounted sonar, 

such as the SQS-53, engaged in anti-submarine warfare training would be moving at between 10–15 

knots and nominally pinging every 50 seconds, the vessel will have traveled a minimum distance of 

approximately 257 m during the time between those pings (note: 10 knots is the speed used in the Navy 

Acoustic Effects Model). As a result, there is little overlap of PTS footprints from successive pings, 

indicating that in most cases, an animal predicted to receive PTS would do so from a single exposure 

(i.e., ping). For all other bins (besides MF1), PTS ranges are short enough that marine mammals (with a 

nominal swim speed of approximately 1.5 meters per second) should be able to avoid higher sound 

levels capable of causing onset PTS within this 30-second period.

For all other functional hearing groups (low-frequency cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, phocid,

seals, and otariids), 30-second average PTS zones are substantially shorter. A scenario could occur where 

an animal does not leave the vicinity of a ship or travels a course parallel to the ship, however, the close

distances required make PTS exposure unlikely. For a Navy vessel moving at a nominal 10 knots, it is 

unlikely a marine mammal could maintain the speed to parallel the ship and receive adequate energy 

over successive pings to suffer PTS.

The tables below illustrate the range to TTS for 1, 30, 60, and 120 seconds from five representative 

sonar systems (see Table 3.7-5 through Table 3.7-9). Due to the lower acoustic thresholds for TTS versus 

PTS, ranges to TTS are longer. Therefore, successive pings can be expected to add together, further 

increasing the range to onset-TTS.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-178

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-4: Range to Permanent Threshold Shift for Five Representative Sonar Systems

Hearing Group

Approximate PTS (30 seconds) Ranges (meters)1

Sonar bin LF5

(Low 

Frequency 

Sources <180 

dB Source 

level)

Sonar bin MF1

(e.g., SQS-53 

ASW Hull 

Mounted 

Sonar)

Sonar bin MF4

(e.g., AQS-22 

ASW Dipping 

Sonar)

Sonar bin MF5

(e.g., SSQ-62 

ASW 

Sonobuoy)

Sonar bin HF4

(e.g., SQS-20 

Mine Hunting 

Sonar)

Low-frequency 

Cetacean

0

(0–0)

65

(65–65)

14

(0–15)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

Mid-frequency 

Cetacean

0

(0–0)

16

(16–16)

3

(3–3)

0

(0–0)

1

(0–2)

High-frequency 

Cetacean

0

(0–0)

181

(180–190)

30

(30–30)

9

(8–10)

30

(8–80)

Otariids

0

(0–0)

6

(6–6)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

Phocids

0

(0–0)

45

(45–45)

11

(11–11)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0) 1 PTS ranges extend from the sonar or other active acoustic sound source to the indicated distance. The average range to 

PTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to PTS in parentheses.

Table 3.7-5: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin LF5 over a Representative 

Range of Environments within the Study Area

Functional Hearing 

Group

Approximate TTS Ranges (meters)1

Sonar Bin LF5 (Low Frequency Sources <180 dB Source Level)

1 sec 30 sec 60 sec 120 sec

Low-frequency 

Cetacean

3

(0–4)

3

(0–4)

3

(0–4)

3

(0–4)

Mid-frequency 

Cetacean

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

High-frequency 

Cetacean

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

Otariids

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

Phocids 0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in 

which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to 

TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-179

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-6: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin MF1 over a Representative 

Range of Environments within the Study Area

Functional Hearing Group

Approximate TTS Ranges (meters)1 

Sonar Bin MF1 (e.g., SQS-53 ASW Hull Mounted Sonar)

1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

Low-frequency Cetacean 903

(850–1,025)

903

(850–1,025)

1,264

(1,025–2,275)

1,839

(1,275–3,025)

Mid-frequency Cetacean 210

(210–210)

210

(210–210)

302

(300–310)

379

(370–390)

High-frequency Cetacean 3,043

(1,525–4,775)

3,043

(1,525–4,775)

4,739

(2,025–6,275)

5,614

(2,025–7,525)

Otariids

65

(65–65)

65

(65–65)

106

(100–110)

137

(130–140)

Phocids 669

(650–725)

669

(650–725)

970

(900–1,025)

1,075

(1,025–1,525) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in which 

animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as 

well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses.

Note: Ranges for 1-sec and 30-sec periods are identical for Bin MF1 because this system nominally pings every 50 seconds, 

therefore these periods encompass only a single ping.

Table 3.7-7: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin MF4 over a Representative 

Range of Environments within the Study Area

Functional Hearing Group

Approximate TTS Ranges (meters)1

Sonar Bin MF4 (e.g., AQS-22 ASW Dipping Sonar)

1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

Low-frequency Cetacean 77

(0–85)

162

(150–180)

235

(220–290)

370

(310–600)

Mid-frequency Cetacean 22

(22–22)

35

(35–35)

49

(45–50)

70

(70–70)

High-frequency Cetacean 240

(220–300)

492

(440–775)

668

(550–1,025)

983

(825–2,025)

Otariids

8

(8–8)

15

(15–15)

19

(19–19)

25

(25–25)

Phocids 65

(65–65)

110

(110–110)

156

(150–170)

269

(240–460) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in which 

animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as 

well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-180

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-8: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin MF5 over a Representative 

Range of Environments within the Study Area

Functional Hearing 

Group

Approximate TTS Ranges (meters)1

Sonar Bin MF5 (e.g., SSQ-62 ASW Sonobuoy)

1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

Low-frequency 

Cetacean

10

(0–12)

10

(0–12)

14

(0–18)

21

(0–25)

Mid-frequency Cetacean 6

(0–9)

6

(0–9)

12

(0–13)

17

(0–21)

High-frequency 

Cetacean

118

(100–170)

118

(100–170)

179

(150–480)

273

(210–700)

Otariids

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

Phocids 9

(8–10)

9

(8–10)

14

(14–16)

21

(21–25) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in which 

animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided 

as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses

Table 3.7-9: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar Bin HF4 over a Representative 

Range of Environments within the Study Area

Functional 

Hearing Group

Approximate TTS Ranges (meters)1

Sonar Bin HF4 (e.g., SQS-20 Mine Hunting Sonar)

1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

Low-frequency 

Cetacean

1

(0–3)

2

(0–5)

4

(0–7)

6

(0–11)

Mid-frequency 

Cetacean

10

(4–17)

17

(6–35)

24

(7–60)

34

(9–90)

High-frequency 

Cetacean

168

(25–550)

280

(55–775)

371

(80–1,275)

470

(100–1,525)

Otariids

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

1

(0–1)

Phocids 2

(0–5)

5

(2–8)

8

(3–13)

11

(4–22) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in 

which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to 

TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parentheses.

The range to received sound levels in 6-dB steps from five representative sonar bins and the percentage 

of animals that may exhibit a significant behavioral response under each behavioral response function 

(or step function in the case of the harbor porpoise) are shown in Table 3.7-10 through Table 3.7-14, 

respectively. See Section 3.7.3.1.2.1 (Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and Other 

Transducers) for details on the derivation and use of the behavioral response functions, thresholds, and 

the cutoff distances.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-181

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-10: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin LF5 over a 

Representative Range of Environments within the Study Area

Received 

Level 

(dB re 1 

μPa)

Minimum and Maximum

Range (m)

Probability of Behavioral Response

Odontocete Mysticete Pinniped Beaked 

Whale

196 0 (0–0) 100% 100% 100% 100%

190 0 (0–0) 100% 98% 99% 100%

184 0 (0–0) 99% 88% 98% 100%

178 1 (1–1) 97% 59% 92% 100%

172 2 (1–2) 91% 30% 76% 99%

166 3 (1–5) 78% 20% 48% 97%

160 7 (1–13) 58% 18% 27% 93%

154 16 (1–30) 40% 17% 18% 83%

148 35 (1–85) 29% 16% 16% 66%

142 81 (1–230) 25% 13% 15% 45%

136 183 (1–725) 23% 9% 15% 28%

130 404 (1–1,525) 20% 5% 15% 18%

124 886 (1–3,025) 17% 2% 14% 14%

118 1,973 (725–5,775) 12% 1% 13% 12%

112 4,472 (900–18,275) 6% 0% 9% 11%

106 8,936 (900–54,525) 3% 0% 5% 11%

100 27,580 (900–88,775) 1% 0% 2% 8%

dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; m: meters

Note: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance 

cutoff range for a particular hearing group. Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are 

included in the estimated impacts. Cut-off ranges in this table are for activities with high source levels 

and/or multiple platforms (see Table 3.7-3 for behavioral cut-off distances).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-182

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-11: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin MF1 over 

a Representative Range of Environments within the Study Area

Received 

Level 

(dB re 1 

μPa)

Minimum and Maximum

Range (m)

Probability of Behavioral Response

Odontocete Mysticete Pinniped Beaked 

Whale

196 109 (100–110) 100% 100% 100% 100%

190 239 (190–250) 100% 98% 99% 100%

184 502 (310–575) 99% 88% 98% 100%

178 1,024 (550–2,025) 97% 59% 92% 100%

172 2,948 (625–5,775) 91% 30% 76% 99%

166 6,247 (625–10,025) 78% 20% 48% 97%

160 11,919 (650–20,525) 58% 18% 27% 93%

154 20,470 (650–62,025) 40% 17% 18% 83%

148 33,048 (725–63,525) 29% 16% 16% 66%

142 43,297 (2,025–71,775) 25% 13% 15% 45%

136 52,912 (2,275–91,525) 23% 9% 15% 28%

130 61,974 (2,275–100,000*) 20% 5% 15% 18%

124 66,546 (2,275–100,000*) 17% 2% 14% 14%

118 69,637 (2,525–100,000*) 12% 1% 13% 12%

112 73,010 (2,525–100,000*) 6% 0% 9% 11%

106 75,928 (2,525–100,000*) 3% 0% 5% 11%

100 78,899 (2,525–100,000*) 1% 0% 2% 8%

dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; m: meters

* Indicates maximum range to which acoustic model was run, a distance of approximately 100 

kilometers from the sound source.

Note: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance 

cutoff range for a particular hearing group. Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are 

included in the estimated impacts. Cut-off ranges in this table are for activities with high source levels 

and/or multiple platforms (see Table 3.7-3 for behavioral cut-off distances).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-183

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-12: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin MF4 over 

a Representative Range of Environments within the Study Area 

Received 

Level 

(dB re 1 

μPa)

Minimum and Maximum

Range (m)

Probability of Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin MF4

Odontocete Mysticete Pinniped

Beaked 

Whale

196 8 (1–8) 100% 100% 100% 100%

190 17 (1–17) 100% 98% 99% 100%

184 34 (1–35) 99% 88% 98% 100%

178 68 (1–75) 97% 59% 92% 100%

172 145 (130–300) 91% 30% 76% 99%

166 388 (270–875) 78% 20% 48% 97%

160 841 (470–1,775) 58% 18% 27% 93%

154 1,748 (700–6,025) 40% 17% 18% 83%

148 3,163 (1,025–13,775) 29% 16% 16% 66%

142 5,564 (1,275–27,025) 25% 13% 15% 45%

136 8,043 (1,525–54,275) 23% 9% 15% 28%

130 17,486 (1,525–65,525) 20% 5% 15% 18%

124 27,276 (1,525–84,775) 17% 2% 14% 14%

118 33,138 (2,775–85,275) 12% 1% 13% 12%

112 39,864 (3,775–100,000*) 6% 0% 9% 11%

106 45,477 (5,275–100,000*) 3% 0% 5% 11%

100 48,712 (5,275–100,000*) 1% 0% 2% 8%

dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; m: meters

* Indicates maximum range to which acoustic model was run, a distance of approximately 100 

kilometers from the sound source.

Note: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance 

cutoff range for a particular hearing group. Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are 

included in the estimated impacts. Cut-off ranges in this table are for activities with high source levels 

and/or multiple platforms (see Table 3.7-3 for behavioral cut-off distances).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-184

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-13: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin MF5 over 

a Representative Range of Environments within the Study Area

Received 

Level 

(dB re 1 

μPa)

Minimum and Maximum

Range (m)

Probability of Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin MF5

Odontocete Mysticete Pinniped Beaked 

Whale

196 0 (0–0) 100% 100% 100% 100%

190 2 (1–3) 100% 98% 99% 100%

184 4 (1–7) 99% 88% 98% 100%

178 14 (1–15) 97% 59% 92% 100%

172 29 (1–30) 91% 30% 76% 99%

166 59 (1–70) 78% 20% 48% 97%

160 133 (1–340) 58% 18% 27% 93%

154 309 (1–950) 40% 17% 18% 83%

148 688 (430–2,275) 29% 16% 16% 66%

142 1,471 (650–4,025) 25% 13% 15% 45%

136 2,946 (700–7,525) 23% 9% 15% 28%

130 5,078 (725–11,775) 20% 5% 15% 18%

124 7,556 (725–19,525) 17% 2% 14% 14%

118 10,183 (725–27,775) 12% 1% 13% 12%

112 13,053 (725–63,025) 6% 0% 9% 11%

106 16,283 (1,025–64,525) 3% 0% 5% 11%

100 20,174 (1,025–70,525) 1% 0% 2% 8%

dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; m: meters

* Indicates maximum range to which acoustic model was run, a distance of approximately 100 

kilometers from the sound source.

Note: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance cutoff range for 

a particular hearing group. Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are included in the 

estimated impacts. Cut-off ranges in this table are for activities with high source levels and/or multiple 

platforms (see Table 3.7-3 for behavioral cut-off distances).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-185

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-14: Ranges to a Potentially Significant Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin HF4 over a 

Representative Range of Environments within the Study Area

Received 

Level 

(dB re 1 

μPa)

Minimum and Maximum

Range (m)

Probability of Behavioral Response for Sonar Bin HF4

Odontocete Mysticete Pinniped Beaked 

Whale

196 3 (1–6) 100% 100% 100% 100%

190 8 (1–16) 100% 98% 99% 100%

184 17 (1–35) 99% 88% 98% 100%

178 34 (1–90) 97% 59% 92% 100%

172 68 (1–180) 91% 30% 76% 99%

166 133 (12–430) 78% 20% 48% 97%

160 255 (30–750) 58% 18% 27% 93%

154 439 (50–1,525) 40% 17% 18% 83%

148 694 (85–2,275) 29% 16% 16% 66%

142 989 (110–3,525) 25% 13% 15% 45%

136 1,378 (170–4,775) 23% 9% 15% 28%

130 1,792 (270–6,025) 20% 5% 15% 18%

124 2,259 (320–7,525) 17% 2% 14% 14%

118 2,832 (320–8,525) 12% 1% 13% 12%

112 3,365 (320–10,525) 6% 0% 9% 11%

106 3,935 (320–12,275) 3% 0% 5% 11%

100 4,546 (320–16,775) 1% 0% 2% 8%

dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; m: meters

* Indicates maximum range to which acoustic model was run, a distance of approximately 100 

kilometers from the sound source.

3.7.3.1.2.3 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under the Action Alternatives

Sonar and other transducers emit sound waves into the water to detect objects, safely navigate, and 

communicate. Use of sonar and other transducers would typically be transient and temporary. General 

categories and characteristics of sonar systems and the number of hours these sonars would be 

operated during training under Alternative 1 and 2 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic 

Stressors). Activities using sonars and other transducers would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 

(Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). The 

major differences between the action alternatives for the purposes of analyzing impacts on marine 

mammals are:

• Under Alternative 1, for training, the number of major training exercises and Civilian Port 

Defense activities would fluctuate annually. In addition, alternative one accounts for the portion 

of Unit Level Surface Ship ASW that is met during participation in other ASW exercises or 

through the use of synthetic trainers for very basic levels of training. Training activities using 

sonar and other transducers could occur throughout the Study Area, although use would 

generally occur within 200 NM of shore in Navy Operating Areas, on Navy range complexes, on 

Navy testing ranges, or around inshore locations identified in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-186

3.7 Marine Mammals

• Under Alternative 1, for testing, the number of testing activities would fluctuate annually. 

Testing activities using sonar and other transducers could occur throughout the Study Area, 

although use would generally occur within Navy range complexes, on Navy testing ranges, or 

around inshore locations identified in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives).

• Under Alternative 2, for training, the maximum number of major training exercises could occur 

every year and only the number of Civilian Port Defense activities would fluctuate annually. In 

addition, all unit level surface ship ASW training requirements would be completed through 

individual events conducted at sea, rather than through leveraging other ASW training exercises 

or the use of synthetic trainers. Training activities using sonar and other transducers could occur 

throughout the Study Area, although use would generally occur within 200 NM of shore in Navy 

Operating Areas, on Navy range complexes, on Navy testing ranges, or around inshore locations 

identified in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives).

• Under Alternative 2, for testing, the maximum number of nearly all testing activities would 

occur every year. This would result in an increase of sonar use compared to Alternative 1.

Testing activities using sonar and other transducers could occur throughout the Study Area, 

although use would generally occur within Navy range complexes, on Navy testing ranges, or 

around inshore locations identified in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives).

Major training exercises (Composite Training Unit Exercise, Rim of the Pacific Exercise) are multi-day 

exercises that transition across large areas and involve multiple anti-submarine warfare assets. It is 

important to note that, while major training exercises focus on anti-submarine warfare, there are 

significant periods when active anti-submarine warfare sonars are not in use. Nevertheless, behavioral 

reactions are assumed more likely to be significant than during other anti-submarine warfare activities 

due to the duration (i.e., multiple days) and scale (i.e., multiple sonar platforms) of the major training 

exercises. Although major training exercises tend to progress to different locations as the event unfolds, 

some animals could be exposed multiple times over the course of a few days.

Anti-submarine warfare activities also include unit-level training and coordinated/integrated training, 

and anti-submarine warfare sonar systems would be active when conducting surface ship and 

submarine sonar maintenance. Submarine and surface ship sonar maintenance activities involve the use 

of a single system in a limited manner; therefore, significant reactions to maintenance are less likely 

than with most other anti-submarine warfare activities. Furthermore, sonar maintenance activities 

typically occur either pierside or within entrances to harbors where higher levels of anthropogenic 

activity, including elevated noise levels, already exist. Unit level training activities typically involve the 

use of a single vessel or aircraft and last for only a few hours over a small area of ocean. These unit-level 

training and maintenance activities are limited in scope and duration; therefore, significant behavioral 

reactions are less likely than with other anti-submarine warfare activities with greater intensity and 

duration. Unit level training activities are more likely to occur close to homeports and in the same 

general locations each time, so resident animals could be more frequently exposed to these types of 

activities. Coordinated/integrated exercises involve multiple assets and can last for several days 

transiting across large areas of a range complex. Repeated exposures to some individual marine 

mammals are likely during coordinated/integrated exercises. However, due to the shorter duration and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-187

3.7 Marine Mammals

smaller footprint compared to major training exercises, impacts from these activities are less likely to be 

significant with the possible exception of resident animals near homeports or Navy instrumented ranges 

that may incur some repeated exposures.

Anti-submarine warfare testing activities are typically similar to unit level training. Vessel evaluation 

testing activities also use the same anti-submarine warfare sonars on ships and submarines. Testing 

activities that use anti-submarine warfare sonars typically occur in water deeper than approximately 200 

m and therefore out of most nearshore habitats where productivity is typically higher (i.e., more food) 

and many marine mammals have higher abundances. Therefore, significant reactions to anti-submarine 

warfare and vessel evaluation testing activities are less likely than with larger anti-submarine warfare 

training activities discussed above in Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for 

Training Activities. Anti-submarine warfare and vessel evaluation testing activities are more likely to 

occur close to homeports and testing facilities and in the same general locations each time, so resident 

animals could be more frequently exposed to these types of activities. These testing activities are limited 

in scope and duration; therefore, many of the impacts estimated by the quantitative analysis are 

unlikely to rise to the level of a significant behavioral response. 

Mine warfare training activities typically involve a ship, helicopter, or unmanned vehicle using a minehunting sonar to locate mines. Most mine warfare sonar systems have a lower source level, higherfrequency, and narrower, often downward facing beam pattern as compared to most anti-submarine 

warfare sonars. Significant reactions in marine mammals have not been reported due to exposure to 

mine warfare sonars. While individual animals could show short-term and minor responses to mine 

warfare sonar training activities, these reactions are very unlikely to lead to any costs or long-term 

consequences for individuals or populations.

Mine warfare testing activities typically involve a ship, helicopter, or unmanned vehicle testing a minehunting sonar system. Unmanned underwater vehicle testing also employs many of the same sonar 

systems as mine warfare testing and usually involves only a single sonar platform (i.e., unmanned 

underwater vehicle). Most of the sonar systems and other transducers used during these testing 

activities typically have a lower source level, higher-frequency, and narrower, often downward facing 

beam pattern as compared to most anti-submarine warfare sonars. Significant reactions in marine 

mammals have not been reported due to exposure to these types of systems sonars. Animals are most 

likely to show short-term and minor to moderate responses to these testing activities; therefore, many 

of the impacts estimated by the quantitative analysis are unlikely to rise to the level of a significant 

behavioral response.

Navigation and object detection activities typically employ ship and submarine based sonar systems and 

other transducers to navigate and avoid underwater objects. Significant reactions in marine mammals 

have not been reported due to exposure to most of the sonars and other transducers typically used in 

these activities. Some hull-mounted anti-submarine warfare sonars (e.g., Bin MF1) have a mode to look 

for objects in the water such as mines, but this mode uses different source characteristics as compared 

to the anti-submarine warfare mode. Significant behavioral reactions have not been observed in relation 

to hull-mounted sonars using object-detection mode, however significant reactions may be more likely 

than for all other sonar systems and transducers used within these activities due to the additional 

presence of a moving vessel and higher source levels. Individual animals could show short-term and 

minor to moderate responses to these systems, although these reactions are very unlikely to lead to any 

costs or long-term consequences for individuals or populations.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-188

3.7 Marine Mammals

Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Research uses a number of different sonar systems and other 

transducers to sense and measure the parameters of the ocean (e.g., temperature) and conduct 

research on the ways sound travels underwater. Many of these systems generate only moderate sound 

levels and are stationary. Significant reactions in marine mammals have not been reported due to 

exposure to the sonars and other transducers typically used in these activities. Animals are most likely to 

show short-term and minor to moderate responses to these testing activities; therefore, many of the 

impacts estimated by the quantitative analysis are unlikely to rise to the level of a significant 

behavioral response.

Other testing activities include testing of individual sonar systems and other transducers for 

performance and acoustic signature. Most sources used during these exercises have moderate source 

levels between 160 and 200 dB re 1 μPa @ 1m and are used for a limited duration, up to a few hours in 

most cases. Significant reactions in marine mammals have not been reported due to exposure to the 

sonars and other transducers typically used in these activities. Animals are most likely to show shortterm and minor to moderate responses to these testing activities; therefore, many of the impacts 

estimated by the quantitative analysis are unlikely to rise to the level of a significant behavioral 

response. 

Surface warfare activities require limited use of sonar or other transducers as compared to other types 

of activities discussed above, typically limited to the sonar targeting system of a few torpedoes. The 

limited scope and duration of sonar use in these activities makes significant behavioral reactions less 

likely than with other activities that use anti-submarine warfare sonar systems and other transducers, 

which are discussed above.

Presentation of Estimated Impacts from the Quantitative Analysis

The results of the analysis of potential impacts on marine mammals from sonars and other transducers 

(Section 3.7.3.1.2.1, Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and Other Transducers) are discussed 

below. The numbers of potential impacts estimated for individual species and stocks of marine 

mammals from exposure to sonar for training and testing activities under each action alternative are 

shown in Appendix E (Estimated Marine Mammals and Sea Turtle Impacts from Exposure to Acoustic 

and Explosive Stressors under Navy Training and Testing Activities) and presented below in figures for 

each species of marine mammal with any estimated effects (e.g., Figure 3.7-12). The Activity Categories 

that are most likely to cause impacts and the most likely region in which impacts could occur are 

represented in the pie charts of each figure. There is a potential for impacts on occur anywhere within 

the Study Area where sound from sonar and the species overlap, although only Regions or Activity 

Categories where 0.5 percent of the impacts or greater are estimated to occur are graphically 

represented on the pie charts below. All (i.e., grand total) estimated impacts for that species are 

included in the bar plots, regardless of region or category. 

Regions within the HSTT Study Area include (see Study Area maps Chapter 2) the Hawaii OPAREA, the 

Temporary Hawaii OPAREA, the SOCAL Defined Training Areas, the Western SOCAL OPAREA, and the 

Transit Lane. The SOCAL portion of the HSTT Study Area encompasses the SOCAL Defined Training Areas 

that are located within approximately 200 NM of the coast and the Western SOCAL OPAREA, which 

extends westward beyond 200 NM. Similarly, the Hawaii Range Complex portion of the HSTT Study Area 

is divided into the Hawaii OPAREA that is located around the main Hawaiian Islands within about 200 

NM and the Temporary Hawaii OPAREA that extends to the northwest beyond about 200 NM.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-189

3.7 Marine Mammals

Note that the numbers of activities planned under Alternative 1 can vary from year-to-year. Results are 

presented for a “representative sonar use year” and a “maximum sonar use year” to provide a range of 

potential impacts that could occur. Planned activities for Alternative 2 are more consistent from year to 

year so only maximum annual impacts are presented. The number of hours these sonars would be 

operated under each alternative are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors).

It is important to note when examining the results of the quantitative analysis that the behavioral 

response functions used to predict the numbers of reactions in this analysis are largely derived from 

several studies (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). These behavioral response studies 

represent a significant portion of the best available science used for deriving these criteria; however, 

many of the factors inherent in these studies that potentially increased the likelihood and severity of 

observed responses (e.g., close approaches by multiple vessels, tagging animals, and vectoring towards 

animals that have already begun avoiding the sound source) would not occur during Navy activities. 

Because the Navy purposely avoids approaching marine mammals, many of the behavioral responses 

estimated by the quantitative analysis are unlikely to occur or unlikely to rise to the severity observed 

during many of the behavioral response studies.

Although the statutory definition of Level B harassment for military readiness activities under the MMPA 

requires that the natural behavior patterns of a marine mammal be significantly altered or abandoned, 

the current state of science for determining those thresholds is somewhat unsettled. Therefore, in its 

analysis of impacts associated with acoustic sources, the Navy is adopting a conservative approach that 

overestimates the number of takes by Level B harassment. Many of the responses estimated using the 

Navy’s quantitative analysis are most likely to be moderate severity. Moderate severity responses would 

be considered significant if they were sustained for a duration long enough that it caused an animal to 

be outside of normal daily variations in feeding, reproduction, resting, migration/movement, or social 

cohesion. As discussed in section 3.7.3.1.2.1, the behavioral response functions used within the Navy’s 

quantitative analysis were primarily derived from experiments using short-duration sound exposures 

lasting, in many cases, for less than 30 minutes. If animals exhibited moderate severity reactions for the 

duration of the exposure or longer, then it was conservatively assumed that the animal experienced a 

significant behavioral reaction. However the experiments did not include measurements of costs to 

animals beyond the immediately observed reactions, and no direct correlations exist between an 

observed behavioral response and a cost that may result in long-term consequences. Within the Navy’s 

quantitative analysis, many behavioral reactions are estimated from exposure to sound that may exceed 

an animal’s behavioral threshold for only a single exposure to several minutes. It is likely that many of 

the estimated behavioral reactions within the Navy’s quantitative analysis would not constitute 

significant behavioral reactions; however, the numbers of significant verses non-significant behavioral 

reactions are currently impossible to predict. Consequently, there is a high likelihood that significant 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to acoustic sources are not significantly altering or abandoning 

their natural behavior patterns. As such, the overall impact of acoustic sources from military readiness 

activities on marine mammal species and stocks is negligible, i.e., cannot be reasonably expected to, and 

is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.

Mysticetes

Mysticetes may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year, although many species are not present in the Hawaii Range Complex in 

the summer months. Most low- (less than 1 kHz) and mid- (1–10 kHz) frequency sonars and other 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-190

3.7 Marine Mammals

transducers produce sounds that are likely to be within the hearing range of mysticetes (Section 

3.7.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization). Some high-frequency sonars (greater than 10 kHz) also produce 

sounds that should be audible to mysticetes, although only smaller species of mysticetes such as minke 

whales are likely to be able to hear higher frequencies, presumably up to 30 kHz. Therefore, some highfrequency sonars and other transducers with frequency ranges between 10 and 30 kHz may also be 

audible to some mysticetes. If a sound is within an animal’s hearing range then behavioral reactions, 

physiological stress, masking and hearing loss are potential impacts that must be analyzed. If a marine 

mammal cannot hear a sound, then behavioral reactions, physiological stress, masking, or hearing loss is 

not likely to occur. Impact ranges for mysticetes are discussed under low-frequency cetaceans in Section 

3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers).

A few behavioral reactions in mysticetes resulting from exposure to sonar could take place at distances 

of up to 20 km. Behavioral reactions, however, are much more likely within a few kilometers of the 

sound source. As discussed above in Assessing the Severity of Behavioral Responses from Sonar and 

other Transducers, the quantitative analysis very likely overestimated the numbers of behavioral 

reactions due to the underlying nature of the data used to derive the behavioral response functions. 

Research shows that if mysticetes do respond they may react in a number of ways, depending on the 

characteristics of the sound source, their experience with the sound source, and whether they are 

migrating or on seasonal grounds (i.e., breeding or feeding). Behavioral reactions may include alerting; 

breaking off feeding dives and surfacing; or diving or swimming away. Overall, mysticetes have been 

observed to be more reactive to acoustic disturbance when a noise sources is located directly on their 

migration route. Mysticetes disturbed while migrating could pause their migration or route around the 

disturbance. Animals disturbed while engaged in other activities such as feeding or reproductive 

behaviors may be more likely to ignore or tolerate the disturbance and continue their natural behavior 

patterns. Therefore, most behavioral reactions from mysticetes are likely to be short-term and low to 

moderate severity. 

Some mysticetes may avoid larger activities such as a major training exercise as it moves through an 

area, although these activities generally do not use the same training locations day-after-day during 

multi-day activities. Therefore, displaced animals could return quickly after the major training exercise 

finishes. It is unlikely that most mysticetes would encounter a major training exercise more than once 

per year. In the ocean, the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources is transient and is unlikely to 

expose the same population of animals repeatedly over a short period except around homeports and 

fixed instrumented ranges. However, a few behavioral reactions per year by a single individual are 

unlikely to produce long-term consequences for that individual.

Behavioral research indicates that mysticetes most likely avoid sound sources at levels that would cause 

any hearing loss (i.e., TTS) (Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). Therefore, it is likely that the 

quantitative analysis overestimates PTS and TTS in marine mammals because it does not account for 

animals avoiding sound sources at closer ranges. Mysticetes that do experience PTS or TTS from sonar 

sounds may have reduced ability to detect biologically important sounds around the frequency band of 

the sonar until their hearing recovers. Recovery from hearing loss begins almost immediately after the 

noise exposure ceases and can take a few minutes to a few days to fully recover, depending on the 

magnitude of the initial threshold shift. TTS would be recoverable and PTS would leave some residual 

hearing loss. Most TTS, if it does actually occur, would be more likely to be minor to moderate (i.e., less 

than 20 dB of TTS directly after the exposure) and would recover within a matter of minutes to hours. 

Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all hearing frequencies equally, and typically manifest 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-191

3.7 Marine Mammals

themselves at the exposure frequency or within an octave above the exposure frequency. During the 

period that a mysticete had hearing loss, social calls from conspecifics could be more difficult to detect 

or interpret if they fell in the octave band of the sonar frequency. Killer whales are a primary predator of 

mysticetes. Some hearing loss could make killer whale calls more difficult to detect at farther ranges 

until hearing recovers. It is unclear how or if mysticetes use sound for finding prey or feeding; therefore, 

it is unknown whether hearing loss would affect a mysticete’s ability to locate prey or rate of feeding. A 

single or even a few minor TTS (less than 20 dB of TTS) to an individual mysticete per year are unlikely to 

have any long-term consequences for that individual.

Research and observations of masking in marine mammals are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.4

(Masking). Most anti-submarine warfare sonars and countermeasures use mid-frequency ranges and a 

few use low frequency ranges. Most of these sonar signals are limited in the temporal, frequency, and 

spatial domains. The duration of most individual sounds is short, lasting up to a few seconds each. Some 

systems operate with higher duty cycles or nearly continuously, but typically use lower power. 

Nevertheless, masking may be more prevalent at closer ranges to these high-duty cycle and continuous 

active sonar systems. Most anti-submarine warfare activities are geographically dispersed and last for 

only a few hours, often with intermittent sonar use even within this period. Most anti-submarine 

warfare sonars also have a narrow frequency band (typically less than one-third octave). These factors 

reduce the likelihood of sources causing significant masking in mysticetes. High-frequency (greater than

10 kHz) sonars fall outside of the best hearing and vocalization ranges of mysticetes (see Section 

3.7.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization). Furthermore, high frequencies (above 10 kHz) attenuate more 

rapidly in the water due to absorption than do lower frequency signals, thus producing only a small zone 

of potential masking. High-frequency sonars are typically used for mine hunting, navigation, and object 

detection (avoidance). Masking in mysticetes due to exposure to high-frequency sonar is unlikely. 

Potential costs to mysticetes from masking are similar to those discussed above for mild to moderate 

levels of TTS, with the primary difference being that the effects of masking are only present when the 

sound source (i.e., sonar) is actively pinging and the effect is over the moment the sound has ceased. By 

contrast, hearing loss lasts beyond the exposure for a period. Nevertheless, mysticetes that do 

experience some masking for a short period from low- or mid-frequency sonar may have their ability to 

communicate with conspecifics reduced, especially at further ranges. However, larger mysticetes (e.g., 

blue whale, fin whale, sei whale) communicate at frequencies below those of mid-frequency sonar and 

even most low frequency sonars. Mysticetes that communicate at higher frequencies (e.g., minke 

whale) may be affected by some short-term and intermittent masking. Sounds from mid-frequency 

sonar could mask killer whale vocalizations making them more difficult to detect, especially at further 

ranges. It is unknown whether a masking would affect a mysticete’s ability to feed since it is unclear how 

or if mysticetes use sound for finding prey or feeding. A single or even a few short periods of masking, if 

it were to occur, to an individual mysticete per year are unlikely to have any long-term consequences for 

that individual.

Many activities such as submarine under ice certification and most mine hunting exercises use only highfrequency sonars that are not within mysticetes’ hearing range; therefore, there were no predicted 

effects. Section 3.7.2.1.4 (Hearing and Vocalization) discusses low-frequency cetacean (i.e., mysticetes) 

hearing abilities.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-192

3.7 Marine Mammals

Blue Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Blue whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See below Figure 3.7-12 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-15).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Four of nine feeding areas for blue whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015a) along the U.S. West 

Coast overlap (2 wholly and 2 partially) the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area in 

July through October. Navy training activities that use sonar and other transducers could occur year 

round within the Study Area although are concentrated on Navy ranges; however, these four feeding 

areas make up a very small portion of the Southern California Range Complex. As discussed above, blue 

whale reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound 

sources are located more than a few kilometers away and when the animals are engaged in important 

biological behaviors such as feeding. Therefore, significant impacts on blue whale feeding behaviors 

from training with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within the blue whale feeding areas 

identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of blue whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed blue whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Blue whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-12 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-15).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Four of nine feeding areas for blue whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015a) along the U.S. West 

Coast overlap (2 wholly and 2 partially) the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area in 

July through October. Navy testing activities that use sonar and other transducers could occur year 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-193

3.7 Marine Mammals

round within the Study Area; however, these four feeding areas make up a very small portion of the 

Southern California Range Complex. As discussed above, blue whale reactions to sonar are most likely 

short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few 

kilometers away and when the animals are engaged in important biological behaviors such as feeding. 

Therefore, significant impacts on blue whale feeding behaviors from testing with sonar and other 

transducers are unlikely to occur within the blue whale feeding areas identified by Calambokidis et al. 

(2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of blue whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed blue whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-194

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species.

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-12: Blue Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-195

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-15: Estimated Impacts on Individual Blue Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Blue whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-13 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-16). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of blue whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed blue whales. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Blue whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-13 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-16). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of blue whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed blue whales. 

Stock Training Testing

Eastern North Pacific 97% 98%

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Central North Pacific 3% 2%
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-196

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species.

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-13: Blue Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-197

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-16: Estimated Impacts on Individual Blue Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2.

Bryde’s Whales

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Bryde’s whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-14 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-17).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Bryde’s whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-14 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-17).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Stock Training Testing

Eastern North Pacific 97% 98%

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Central North Pacific 3% 2%
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-198

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-14: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-199

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-17: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bryde’s Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Bryde’s whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-15 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-18).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Bryde’s whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-15 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-18).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Stock Training Testing

Hawaiian 81% 74%

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Eastern Tropical Pacific 19% 26%
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-200

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-15: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-201

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-18: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bryde’s Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2.

Fin Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Fin whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-16 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-19).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed fin whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Fin whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-16 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-19)

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences 

for individuals although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to 

long-term consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that 

would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or 

stock would not be expected.

Stock Training Testing

Hawaiian 79% 74%

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Eastern Tropical Pacific 21% 26%
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-202

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species.

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-16: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-203

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed fin whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Table 3.7-19: Estimated Impacts on Individual Fin Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Fin whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-17 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-20).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed fin whales. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Fin whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-17 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-20).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed fin whales. 

Stock Training Testing

California, Oregon, and 

Washington

97% 98%

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Hawaiian 3% 2%
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-204

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species.

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-17: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-205

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-20: Estimated Impacts on Individual Fin Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2.

Gray Whales 

The vast majority of gray whales in the Study Area are from the non-endangered Eastern North Pacific 

stock, and all of the modeled impacts are for this stock. On very rare occasions Western North Pacific 

gray whales, which are Endangered Species Act-Listed, occur in the Study Area but did not have any 

estimated takes in this analysis.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Gray whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-18 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Eastern North Pacific stock.

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS, if it were to occur, would leave some residual hearing loss after 

recovery from the initial threshold shift. Minor PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term 

consequences for individuals. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Four migration areas for gray whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015a) along the U.S. West Coast 

overlap the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. The identified areas are active 

altogether during the months of July through March, although each individual area has its own specific 

date range depending on what portion of the northbound or southbound migration it is meant to cover. 

Navy training activities that use sonar and other transducers could occur year round within the Study 

Area. As discussed above, gray whales may either pause their migration until the sound source ceases or 

moves, or they could route around the source by a couple of kilometers if it was directly in their 

migratory path. Although, as with most other mysticetes, gray whale reactions to sonar are most likely 

to be short-term and mild to moderate. Therefore, significant impacts on gray whale migration 

behaviors from training with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within the gray whale 

migration areas identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of gray whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Stock Training Testing

California, Oregon, and 

Washington

98% 98%

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Hawaiian 2% 2%
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-206

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would not affect ESA-listed gray whales. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Gray whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-18 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). 

Estimated impacts apply only to the Eastern North Pacific stock.

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS, if it were to occur, would leave some residual hearing loss after 

recovery from the initial threshold shift. Minor PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term 

consequences for individuals. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Four migration areas for gray whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015a) along the U.S. West Coast 

overlap the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. The identified areas are active 

altogether during the months of July through March, although each individual area has its own specific 

date range depending on what portion of the northbound or southbound migration it is meant to cover. 

Navy testing activities that use sonar and other transducers could occur year round within the Study 

Area. As discussed above, gray whales may either pause their migration until the sound source ceases or 

moves, or they could route around the source by a couple of kilometers if it was directly in their 

migratory path. Although, as with most other mysticetes, gray whale reactions to sonar are most likely 

to be short-term and mild to moderate. Therefore, significant impacts on gray whale migration 

behaviors from testing with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within the gray whale 

migration areas identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of gray whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would not affect ESA-listed gray whales. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-207

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% Eastern North Pacific Stock.

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-18: Gray Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-208

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Gray whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-19 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Eastern North Pacific stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of gray whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would not affect ESA-listed gray whales.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Gray whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-19 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Eastern North Pacific stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of gray whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would not affect ESA-listed gray whales. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-209

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% Eastern North Pacific Stock.

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-19: Gray Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-210

3.7 Marine Mammals

Humpback Whales 

Impacts have been modeled for the Hawaiian population of humpback whales, which are not 

Endangered Species Act-Listed, and for the Mexican and Central American populations of humpback 

whales, which are Endangered Species Act-Listed. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Humpback whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-20 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-21).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS, if it were to occur, would leave some residual hearing loss after 

recovery from the initial threshold shift. Minor PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term 

consequences for individuals. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A seasonal reproduction area for humpback whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) overlaps the Hawaii 

Range Complex within the HSTT Study Area in December through April. Navy training activities that use 

sonar and other transducers could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified 

humpback whale reproduction area is mostly in shallow, near-shore waters where the Navy does not 

typically conduct activities that involve sonar or other transducers, especially more intense activities 

such as anti-submarine warfare training or major training events. Sound from sonar or other transducers 

used outside of the area might expose animals within the identified humpback whale reproduction area 

identified by Baird et al. (2015). For distant sources, spreading losses in deep water, attenuation over 

long distances and upslope propagation with the associated bottom losses will likely reduce received 

levels in the reproductive areas. Some impacts on reproductive behavior could occur due to activities 

more proximal to the reproductive area. As discussed above, humpback whale reactions to sonar are 

most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a 

few kilometers away and when the animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, 

significant impacts on humpback whale reproductive behaviors from training with sonar and other 

transducers are unlikely to occur within the reproduction area identified by Baird et al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed humpback whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Humpback whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-211

3.7 Marine Mammals

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-20 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-21).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS, if it were to occur, would leave some residual hearing loss after 

recovery from the initial threshold shift. Minor PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term 

consequences for individuals. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A seasonal reproduction area for humpback whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) overlaps the Hawaii 

Range Complex within the HSTT Study Area in December through April. Navy testing activities that use 

sonar and other transducers could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified 

humpback whale reproduction area is mostly in shallow, near-shore waters where the Navy does not 

typically conduct activities that involve sonar or other transducers, especially more intense activities 

such as anti-submarine warfare testing. The highest concentrations of humpback whales occur within 

the Cautionary Area as discussed in Chapter 5. Sound from sonar or other transducers used outside of 

the area might expose animals within the identified humpback whale reproduction area identified by 

Baird et al. (2015). Although propagation from distant sources combined with signal loss from deepwater to shallow water transition would likely mean relatively low receive levels occur within the 

reproductive area, some impacts on reproductive behavior could occur due to the proximity of the 

activities to the reproductive areas. As discussed above, humpback whale reactions to sonar are most 

likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few 

kilometers away and when the animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, 

significant impacts on humpback whale reproductive behaviors from testing with sonar and other 

transducers are unlikely to occur within the reproduction area identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed humpback whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-212

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-20: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-213

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-21: Estimated Impacts on Individual Humpback Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Humpback whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-21 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-22).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed humpback whales. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Humpback whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-21 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-22).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-214

3.7 Marine Mammals

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed humpback whales. 

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-21: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-215

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-22: Estimated Impacts on Individual Humpback Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2.

Minke Whales

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Minke whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-22 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-23).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS, if it were to occur, would leave some residual hearing loss after 

recovery from the initial threshold shift. Minor PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term 

consequences for individuals. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Minke whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-22 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-23).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-216

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Figure 3.7-22: Minke Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-217

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-23: Estimated Impacts on Individual Minke Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Minke whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-23 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-24).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Minke whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-23 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-24).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Stock Training Testing

California, Oregon, and 

Washington

16% 16%

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Hawaiian 84% 84%
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-218

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Figure 3.7-23: Minke Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-219

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-24: Estimated Impacts on Individual Minke Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2.

Sei Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Sei whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-24 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-25).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed sei whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Sei whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-24 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-25).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Stock Training Testing

California, Oregon, and 

Washington

18% 16%

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Hawaiian 82% 84%
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-220

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed sei whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-24: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-221

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-25: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sei Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Sei whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-25 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-26).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed sei whales. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Sei whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-25 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-26).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed sei whales. 

Stock Training Testing

Hawaiian 69% 65%

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Eastern North Pacific 31% 35%
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-222

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-25: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training and Testing Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-223

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-26: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sei Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2.

Odontocetes

Odontocetes may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. Low- (less than 1 kHz), mid- (1–10 kHz), high-frequency (10–100 kHz), and 

very high-frequency (100–200 kHz) sonars produce sounds that are likely to be within the audible range 

of odontocetes (see Section 3.7.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization). If a sound is within an animal’s hearing 

range then behavioral reactions, physiological stress, masking and hearing loss are potential impacts 

that must be analyzed. If a marine mammal cannot hear a sound, then behavioral reactions, 

physiological stress, masking, or hearing loss could not occur. Impact ranges for odontocetes are 

discussed under mid-frequency cetaceans in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and 

Other Transducers).

A few behavioral reactions in odontocetes (except beaked whales and harbor porpoise) resulting from 

exposure to sonar could take place at distances of up to 20 km. Beaked whales and harbor porpoise 

have demonstrated a high level of sensitivity to human made noise and activity; therefore, the 

quantitative analysis assumes that some harbor porpoises and some beaked whales could experience 

significant behavioral reactions at distance of up to 40 km and 50 km from the sound source, 

respectively. Behavioral reactions, however, are much more likely within a few kilometers of the sound 

source for most species of odontocetes such as delphinids and sperm whales. On the other hand, harbor 

porpoises and beaked whales have generally demonstrated a high level of sensitivity to human made 

sound and disturbance. Even for harbor porpoise and beaked whales, as discussed above in Assessing 

the Severity of Behavioral Responses from Sonar, the quantitative analysis very likely overestimated the 

numbers of behavioral reactions due to the underlying nature of the data used to derive the behavioral 

response functions. 

Research shows that if odontocetes do respond they may react in a number of ways, depending on the 

characteristics of the sound source and their experience with the sound source. Behavioral reactions 

may include alerting; breaking off feeding dives and surfacing; or diving or swimming away. Animals 

disturbed while engaged in other activities such as feeding or reproductive behaviors may be more likely 

to ignore or tolerate the disturbance and continue their natural behavior patterns. Therefore, most 

behavioral reactions from odontocetes are likely to be short-term and low to moderate severity. 

Large odontocetes such as killer whales and pilot whales have been the subject of behavioral response 

studies (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5). Based on these studies, a number of reactions could occur such as a 

short-term cessation of natural behavior such as feeding, avoidance of the sound source, or even 

attraction towards the sound source as seen in pilot whales. Due to the factors involved in Navy training 

exercises versus the conditions under which pilot whales and killer whales were exposed during 

behavioral response studies, large odontocetes are unlikely to have more than short-term and moderate 

Stock Training Testing

Hawaiian 67% 65%

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Eastern North Pacific 33% 35%
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-224

3.7 Marine Mammals

severity reactions to sounds from sonar or other human disturbance, and typically only at ranges within 

a few kilometers. Most estimated impacts are due to anti-submarine warfare activities, which could vary 

in duration and intensity. Anti-submarine warfare unit-level exercises and maintenance typically last for 

a matter of a few hours and involves a limited amount of sonar use so significant responses would be 

less likely than with longer and more intense exercises (more sonar systems and vessel). 

Coordinated/integrated anti-submarine warfare exercises involve multiple sonar systems and can last 

for a period of days, making significant response more likely. A single or few short-lived TTS or 

behavioral reactions per year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for 

individuals.

Small odontocetes have been the subject of behavioral response studies and observations in the field 

(see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5). Based on these studies, small odontocetes (dolphins) appear to be less 

sensitive to sound and human disturbance than other cetacean species. If reactions did occur, they 

could consist of a short-term behavior response such as cessation of feeding, avoidance of the sound 

source, or even attraction towards the sound source. Small odontocetes are unlikely to have more than 

short-term and moderate severity reactions to sounds from sonar or other human disturbance, and 

typically only at ranges within a few kilometers. Most estimated impacts are due to anti-submarine 

warfare activities, which could vary in duration and intensity. Anti-submarine warfare unit-level 

exercises and maintenance typically last for a matter of a few hours and involve a limited amount of 

sonar use so significant responses would be less likely than with longer and more intense exercises 

(more sonar systems and vessels). Coordinated/integrated anti-submarine warfare exercises involve 

multiple sonar systems and can last for a period of days, making significant response more likely. Some 

bottlenose dolphin estimated impacts could also occur due to navigation and object avoidance 

(detection) since these activities typically occur entering and leaving Navy homeports that overlap the 

distribution of coastal populations of this species. Navigation and object avoidance (detection) activities 

normally involve a single ship or submarine using a limited amount of sonar, therefore significant 

reactions are unlikely. A single or few short-lived TTS or behavioral reactions per year are unlikely to 

have any significant costs or long-term consequences for individuals.

Some odontocetes may avoid larger activities such as a major training exercise as it moves through an 

area, although these activities typically do not use the same training locations day-after-day during 

multi-day activities. Sensitive species of odontocetes, such as beaked whales, may avoid the area for the 

duration of the event. Section 3.7.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions) discusses these species’ observed 

reactions to sonar and other active acoustic sources. Displaced animals would likely return after the 

sonar activity subsides within an area, as seen in Blainville’s beaked whales in the Bahamas (Tyack et al., 

2011) and Hawaii (Henderson et al., 2015b; Henderson et al., 2016; Manzano-Roth et al., 2016). This 

would allow the animal to recover from any energy expenditure or missed resources, reducing the 

likelihood of long-term consequences for the individual. It is unlikely that most animals would encounter 

a major training exercise more than once per year. Outside of Navy instrumented ranges and 

homeports, the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources is transient and is unlikely to expose the 

same population of animals repeatedly over a short period. However, a few behavioral reactions per 

year from a single individual are unlikely to produce long-term consequences for that individual.

Behavioral research indicates that most odontocetes avoid sound sources at levels that would cause any 

temporary hearing loss (i.e., TTS) (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5). TTS and even PTS is more likely for highfrequency cetaceans, such as harbor porpoises and Kogia whales, because hearing loss thresholds for 

these animals are lower than for all other marine mammals. These species, especially harbor porpoises, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-225

3.7 Marine Mammals

have demonstrated a high level of sensitivity to human made sound and activities and may avoid at 

further distances. This increased distance could avoid or minimize hearing loss for these species as well, 

especially as compared to the estimates from the quantitative analysis. Therefore, it is likely that the 

quantitative analysis overestimates TTS and PTS in marine mammals because it does not account for 

animals avoiding sound sources at closer ranges. Recovery from hearing loss begins almost immediately 

after the noise exposure ceases and can take a few minutes to a few days to fully recover, depending on 

the magnitude of the initial threshold shift. TTS would be recoverable and PTS would leave some 

residual hearing loss. Most TTS, if it does actually occur, would be more likely to be minor to moderate 

(i.e., less than 20 dB of TTS directly after the exposure) and would recover within a matter of minutes to 

hours. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all hearing frequencies equally, and typically manifest 

themselves at the exposure frequency or within an octave above the exposure frequency. During the 

period that an odontocete had hearing loss, social calls from conspecifics could be more difficult to 

detect or interpret. Killer whales are a primary predator of odontocetes. Some hearing loss could make 

killer whale calls more difficult to detect at further ranges until hearing recovers. Odontocetes use 

echolocation clicks to find and capture prey. These echolocation clicks and vocalizations are at 

frequencies above a few tens of kHz for delphinids, beaked whales, and sperm whales, and above 100 

kHz for harbor porpoise and Kogia whales. Therefore, echolocation associated with feeding and 

navigation in odontocetes is unlikely to be affected by threshold shift at lower frequencies and should 

not have any significant effect on an odontocete’s ability to locate prey or navigate, even in the shortterm. Therefore, a single or even a few minor TTS (less than 20 dB of TTS) to an individual odontocete 

per year are unlikely to have any long-term consequences for that individual. Minor PTS in an individual 

could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals. 

Research and observations of masking in marine mammals are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.4

(Masking). Many anti-submarine warfare sonars and countermeasures use low- and mid-frequency 

sonar. Most low- and mid-frequency sonar signals (i.e., sounds) are limited in their temporal, frequency, 

and spatial domains. The duration of most individual sounds is short, lasting up to a few seconds each. 

Some systems operate with higher duty cycles or nearly continuously, but typically use lower power. 

Nevertheless, masking may be more prevalent at closer ranges to these high-duty cycle and continuous 

active sonar systems. Most anti-submarine warfare activities are geographically dispersed and last for 

only a few hours, often with intermittent sonar use even within this period. Most anti-submarine 

warfare sonars also have a narrow frequency band (typically much less than one-third octave). These 

factors reduce the likelihood of sources causing significant masking in odontocetes due to exposure to 

sonar used during anti-submarine warfare activities. Odontocetes may experience some limited masking 

at closer ranges from high-frequency sonars and other transducers; however, the frequency band of the 

sonar is narrow, limiting the likelihood of masking. High frequency sonars are typically used for mine 

hunting, navigation, and object detection (avoidance). Potential costs to odontocetes from masking are 

similar to those discussed above for mild to moderate levels of TTS, with the primary difference being 

that the effects of masking are only present when the sound source (i.e., sonar) is actively pinging and 

the effect is over the moment the sound has ceased. 

Nevertheless, odontocetes that do experience some masking from sonar or other transducers may have 

their ability to communicate with conspecifics reduced, especially at further ranges. Sounds from midfrequency sonar could mask killer whale vocalizations making them more difficult to detect, especially at 

further ranges. As discussed above for TTS, odontocetes use echolocation to find prey and navigate. The 

echolocation clicks of odontocetes are above the frequencies of most sonar systems, especially those 

used during anti-submarine warfare. Therefore, echolocation associated with feeding and navigation in 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-226

3.7 Marine Mammals

odontocetes is unlikely to be masked by sounds from sonars or other transducers. A single or even a few 

short periods of masking, if it were to occur, to an individual odontocete per year are unlikely to have 

any long-term consequences for that individual.

Sperm Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed) 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Sperm whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-26 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-27).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed sperm whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Sperm whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-26 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-27).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS, if it were to occur, would leave some residual hearing loss after 

recovery from the initial threshold shift. Minor PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term 

consequences for individuals. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed sperm whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-227

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-26: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-228

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-27: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Sperm whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-27 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-28). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed sperm whales. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Sperm whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-27 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-28).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed sperm whales. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-229

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-27: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-230

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-28: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2.

Kogia Whales

Kogia whales include two species that are often difficult to distinguish from one another: dwarf sperm 

whales and pygmy sperm whales. While impacts to the Hawaii populations of dwarf and pygmy sperm 

whales are modeled separately, impacts to the California, Oregon and Washington stock of kogia are not 

broken out by species.

TTS and PTS thresholds for high-frequency cetaceans, such as Kogia whales are lower than for all other 

marine mammals, which leads to a higher number of estimated hearing loss impacts relative to the 

number of animals exposed to the sound as compared to other hearing groups (e.g., mid-frequency 

cetaceans).

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Kogia whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-28 through Figure 3.7-30 below or Appendix E for tabular results. 

Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers). Estimated impacts to pygmy and dwarf sperm whales apply only to the Hawaiian stock. 

Estimated impacts to kogia whales apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS could reduce an animal’s ability to detect biologically important sounds; 

however, as discussed above, a small threshold shift due to exposure to sonar is unlikely to affect the 

hearing range that Kogia whales rely upon. Nevertheless, PTS could have minor long-term consequences 

for individuals. This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any long-term consequences 

for the species or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for the dwarf sperm whale identified by Baird et al. (2015a) is 

within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use sonar and other 

transducers could occur year-round within the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and resident 

population area only takes up a very small portion of the Range Complex; therefore, sonar use in this 

area would be infrequent and typically only last for a short duration. The sound from sonar or other 

transducers could expose animals within the dwarf sperm whale small and resident population area

identified by Baird et al. (2015a) and impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, dwarf sperm
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-231

3.7 Marine Mammals

whales may be more sensitive human sounds and activity. Some significant behavioral reactions to sonar 

within the identified area could occur; however, sound sources at ranges greater than a few kilometers 

are less likely to lead to significant reactions. A small number of significant behavioral responses from 

dwarf sperm whales could occur within the small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. 

(2015a) due to training with sonar and other transducers. However, abandonment of the identified 

areas by dwarf sperm whales is unlikely to occur because the Navy has been training in these areas with 

sonar and other transducers for decades.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Kogia whales (i.e., dwarf and pygmy sperm 

whales) incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Kogia whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-28 through Figure 3.7-30 below or Appendix E for tabular results. 

Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers). Estimated impacts to pygmy and dwarf sperm whales apply only to the Hawaiian stock. 

Estimated impacts to kogia whales apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS, if it were to occur, would leave some residual hearing loss after 

recovery from the initial threshold shift. Minor PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term 

consequences for individuals. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for the dwarf sperm whale identified by Baird et al. (2015a) is 

within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use sonar and other 

transducers could occur year-round within the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and resident 

population area only takes up a very small portion of the Range Complex; therefore, sonar use in this 

area would be infrequent and typically only last for a short duration. The sound from sonar or other 

transducers could expose animals within the dwarf sperm whale small and resident population area

identified by Baird et al. (2015a) and impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, dwarf sperm

whales may be more sensitive human sounds and activity. Some significant behavioral reactions to sonar 

within the identified area could occur; however, sound sources at ranges greater than a few kilometers 

are less likely to lead to significant reactions. A small number of significant behavioral responses from 

dwarf sperm whales could occur within the small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. 

(2015a) due to testing with sonar and other transducers. However, abandonment of the identified areas 

by dwarf sperm whales is unlikely to occur because the Navy has been testing in these areas with sonar 

and other transducers for decades.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Kogia whales (i.e., dwarf and pygmy sperm 

whales) incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-232

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% Hawaiian Stock.

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-28: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-233

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% Hawaiian Stock.

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-29: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-234

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% California, Oregon, and 

Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-30: Kogia Whales Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-235

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Kogia whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-31 through Figure 3.7-33 below or Appendix E for tabular results. 

Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers). Estimated impacts to pygmy and dwarf sperm whales apply only to the Hawaiian stock. 

Estimated impacts to kogia whales apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Kogia whales (i.e., dwarf and pygmy sperm 

whales) incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Kogia whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-31 through Figure 3.7-33 below or Appendix E for tabular results. 

Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers). Estimated impacts to pygmy and dwarf sperm whales apply only to the Hawaiian stock. 

Estimated impacts to kogia whales apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Kogia whales (i.e., dwarf and pygmy sperm 

whales) incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-236

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: AntiSubmarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-31: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-237

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% Hawaiian Stock.

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-32: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-238

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% California, Oregon, and 

Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-33: Kogia Whales Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-239

3.7 Marine Mammals

Beaked Whales 

Beaked whales within the HSTT study area include: Baird’s beaked whale, Blainville’s beaked whale, 

Cuvier’s beaked whale, Hubb's beaked whale, Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale, Longman’s beaked whale, 

Perrin’s beaked whale, Stejneger’s beaked whale, and the Pygmy beaked whale. Impacts to Hubb's 

beaked whale, Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale, Perrin’s beaked whale, Stejneger’s beaked whale and the 

Pygmy beaked whale are combined and represented in the beaked whale guild (Mesoplodon spp.).

As discussed above for odontocetes overall, the quantitative analysis overestimates hearing loss in 

marine mammals because behavioral response research has shown that most marine mammals are 

likely to avoid sound levels that could cause more than minor to moderate TTS (6–20 dB). Specifically for 

beaked whales, behavioral response research discussed below and in Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral 

Reactions, has demonstrated that beaked whales are sensitive to sound from sonars and usually avoid 

sound sources by 10 or more kilometers. These are well beyond the ranges to TTS for mid-frequency 

cetaceans such as beaked whales. Therefore, any TTS predicted by the quantitative analysis is unlikely to 

occur in beaked whales. 

Research and observations (3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions) show that if beaked whales are exposed 

to sonar or other active acoustic sources they may startle, break off feeding dives, and avoid the area of 

the sound source at levels ranging between 95 and 157 dB re 1 μPa (McCarthy et al., 2011). 

Furthermore, in research done at the Navy’s fixed tracking range in the Bahamas and Hawaii, animals 

leave the immediate area of the anti-submarine warfare training exercise but return within a few days 

after the event ends (Henderson et al., 2015b; Henderson et al., 2016; Manzano-Roth et al., 2016; Tyack 

et al., 2011). Populations of beaked whales and other odontocetes on Navy fixed ranges that have been 

operating for decades appear to be stable. Significant behavioral reactions seem likely in most cases if 

beaked whales are exposed to anti-submarine sonar within a few tens of kilometers, especially for 

prolonged periods (a few hours or more) since this is one of the most sensitive marine mammal groups 

to human-made sound of any species or group studied to date. 

Based on the best available science, the Navy believes that beaked whales that exhibit a significant 

behavioral reaction due to sonar and other active acoustic training or testing activities would generally 

not have long-term consequences for individuals or populations. However, because of a lack of scientific 

consensus regarding the causal link between sonar and stranding events, NMFS has stated in a letter to 

the Navy dated October 2006 that it “cannot conclude with certainty the degree to which mitigation 

measures would eliminate or reduce the potential for serious injury or mortality.” The Navy does not 

anticipate that marine mammal strandings or mortality will result from the operation of sonar during 

Navy exercises within the Study Area. Additionally, through the MMPA process (which allows for 

adaptive management), NMFS and the Navy will determine the appropriate way to proceed in the event 

that a causal relationship were to be found between Navy activities and a future stranding. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Beaked whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-34 through Figure 3.7-38 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers). Estimated impacts to Baird’s beaked whales and beaked whale guild (Mesoplodon spp.) 

apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock. Estimated impacts to Blainville’s beaked 

whales, Cuvier’s beaked whales, and Longman’s beaked whales apply only to the Hawaiian stock. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-240

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for Cuvier’s beaked whales and small and resident population area 

for Blainville’s beaked whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) are within the Hawaii Range Complex 

year-round. Navy training activities that use sonar and other transducers could occur year round within 

the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and resident population areas only take up a very small 

portion of the Range Complex; therefore, sonar use in this area would be infrequent and typically only 

last for a short duration. The sound from sonar or other transducers could expose animals within the 

beaked whale small and resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a) and impacts on 

behavior could occur. As discussed above, beaked whales are one of the most sensitive species groups 

to sounds from sonars that have been studied, especially those used during anti-submarine warfare 

training. Some significant behavioral reactions to sonar are likely within the identified areas; however, 

sound sources at ranges greater than a few tens of kilometers are less likely to lead to significant 

reactions. Therefore, some impacts on beaked whale natural behaviors could occur within the small and 

resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a) due to training with sonar and other 

transducers. However, abandonment of the identified areas by Cuvier’s or Blainville’s beaked whales is 

unlikely to occur because the Navy has been training in these areas with sonar and other transducers 

for decades.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Baird’s, Blainville’s, Cuvier’s, Longman’s, and 

Mesoplodon spp. beaked whales (species within the beaked whale guild) incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Beaked whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-34 through Figure 3.7-38 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers). Estimated impacts to Baird’s beaked whales and beaked whale guild (Mesoplodon spp.) 

apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock. Estimated impacts to Blainville’s beaked 

whales, Cuvier’s beaked whales, and Longman’s beaked whales apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for Cuvier’s beaked whales and small and resident population area 

for Blainville’s beaked whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) are within the Hawaii Range Complex 

year-round. Navy testing activities that use sonar and other transducers could occur year round within 

the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and resident population areas only take up a very small 

portion of the Range Complex; therefore, sonar use in this area would be infrequent and typically only 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-241

3.7 Marine Mammals

last for a short duration. The sound from sonar or other transducers could expose animals within the 

beaked whale small and resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a) and impacts on 

behavior could occur. As discussed above, beaked whales are one of the most sensitive species studied 

to sounds from sonars, especially those used during anti-submarine warfare testing. Some significant 

behavioral reactions to sonar are likely within the identified areas; however, sound sources at ranges 

greater than a few tens of kilometers are less likely to lead to significant reactions. Therefore, some 

impacts on beaked whale natural behaviors could occur within the small and resident population areas 

identified by Baird et al. (2015a) due to testing with sonar and other transducers. However, 

abandonment of the identified areas by Cuvier’s or Blainville’s beaked whales is unlikely to occur 

because the Navy has been testing in these areas with sonar and other transducers for decades.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Baird’s, Blainville’s, Cuvier’s, Longman’s, and 

Mesoplodon spp. beaked whales (species within the beaked whale guild) incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-242

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species.

100% California, Oregon, and Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-34: Baird’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-243

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-35: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-244

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-36: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-245

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-37: Longman’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-246

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% California, Oregon, and Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-38: Mesoplodon Spp. (Beaked Whale Guild) Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar 

and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-247

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Beaked whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-39 through Figure 3.7-43 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers). Estimated impacts to Baird’s beaked whales and beaked whale guild (Mesoplodon spp.) 

apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock. Estimated impacts to Blainville’s beaked 

whales, Cuvier’s beaked whales, and Longman’s beaked whales apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Baird’s, Blainville’s, Cuvier’s, Longman’s, and 

Mesoplodon spp. beaked whales (species within the beaked whale guild) incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Beaked whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-39 through Figure 3.7-43 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers). Estimated impacts to Baird’s beaked whales and beaked whale guild (Mesoplodon spp.) 

apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock. Estimated impacts to Blainville’s beaked 

whales, Cuvier’s beaked whales, and Longman’s beaked whales apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Baird’s, Blainville’s, Cuvier’s, Longman’s, and 

Mesoplodon spp. beaked whales (species within the beaked whale guild) incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-248

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species.

100% California, Oregon, and Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-39: Baird’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-249

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-40: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-250

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-41: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-251

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-42: Longman’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-252

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for these species. 

100% California, Oregon, and Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-43: Mesoplodon Spp. (Beaked Whale Guild) Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar 

and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-253

3.7 Marine Mammals

Bottlenose Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Bottlenose dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-44 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-29). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not 

be expected.

Four small and resident population areas for bottlenose dolphins identified by Baird et al. (2015a) are 

within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use sonar and other 

transducers could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and resident 

population areas are mostly located within shallow, near-shore waters where the Navy does not 

typically conduct activities that involve sonar or other transducers, although anti-submarine warfare 

activities could occur in waters deeper than 200 m around the main Hawaiian Islands, and sonar may be 

used as ships enter and exit Pearl Harbor. However, sound from sonar or other transducers could still 

expose animals within the identified bottlenose dolphin small and resident population areas identified

by Baird et al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, bottlenose 

dolphin reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound 

sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in important 

biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on bottlenose dolphin natural behaviors or 

abandonment due to training with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within the small 

and resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Bottlenose dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-44 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). 

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-29). 

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-254

3.7 Marine Mammals

Four small and resident population areas for bottlenose dolphins identified by Baird et al. (2015a) are 

within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use sonar and other 

transducers could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and resident 

population areas are mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically 

conduct activities that involve sonar or other transducers, although anti-submarine warfare activities 

could occur in waters deeper than 200 m around the main Hawaiian Islands, and sonar may be used as 

ships enter and exit Pearl Harbor. However, sound from sonar or other transducers could still expose 

animals within the identified bottlenose dolphin small and resident population areas identified by Baird 

et al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, bottlenose dolphin 

reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are 

located more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in important biological 

behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on bottlenose dolphin natural behaviors or abandonment due 

to testing with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within the small and resident 

population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-255

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species.

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-44: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-256

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-29: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bottlenose Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Bottlenose dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-45 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-30). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Bottlenose dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-45 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-30).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Hawaiian Pelagic 5% 5%

California Coastal 0% 6%

California, Oregon, and 

Washington Offshore 75% 85%

Stock Training Testing

4-Island 0% 1%

Kauai and Niihau 0% 2%

Oahu 19% 2%
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-257

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species.

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-45: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-258

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-30: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bottlenose Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2.

False Killer Whales

The Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock of false killer whales is Endangered Species Act-listed.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

False killer whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-46 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-31). 

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for the endangered insular population of false killer whales 

identified by Baird et al. (2015a) is within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities 

that use sonar and other transducers could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This 

identified small and resident population area is mostly located within shallow, near-shore waters where 

the Navy does not typically conduct activities that involve sonar or other transducers, especially more 

intense activities such as anti-submarine warfare training or major training events. However, sound from 

sonar or other transducers could still expose animals within the false killer whale small and resident 

population area identified by Baird et al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As 

discussed above, false killer whale reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, 

especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are 

engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on false killer whale natural 

behaviors or abandonment due to training with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within 

the small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Training Testing

4-Island 0% 1%

Kauai and Niihau 0% 2%

Oahu 16% 2%

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Hawaiian Pelagic 5% 4%

California Coastal 0% 6%

California, Oregon, and 

Washington Offshore 78% 86%

Stock
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-259

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock of false killer whales. The Navy 

will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

False killer whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-46 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-31).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for the endangered insular population of false killer whales 

identified by Baird et al. (2015a) is within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities 

that use sonar and other transducers could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This 

identified small and resident population area is mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy 

does not typically conduct activities that involve sonar or other transducers. However, sound from sonar 

or other transducers could still expose animals within the false killer whale small and resident 

population area identified by Baird et al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As 

discussed above, false killer whale reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, 

especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are 

engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on false killer whale natural 

behaviors or abandonment due to testing with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within 

the small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock of false killer whales. The Navy 

will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-260

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-46: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-261

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-31: Estimated Impacts on Individual False Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

False killer whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-47 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-32).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect the ESA-listed Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock of false killer whales. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

False killer whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-47 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-32).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock of false killer whales. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-262

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species.

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-47: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-263

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-32: Estimated Impacts on Individual False Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2.

Fraser’s Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Fraser’s dolphin may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-48 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphin incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Fraser’s dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-48 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Training Testing

Hawaii Pelagic 51% 52%

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 19% 19%

Main Hawaiian Islands Insular 30% 29%

Stock
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-264

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-48: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-265

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Fraser’s dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-49 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Fraser’s dolphin may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-49 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-266

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-49: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-267

3.7 Marine Mammals

Killer Whales

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Killer whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-50 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-33).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of killer whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Killer whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-50 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-33).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of killer whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-268

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-50: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-269

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-33: Estimated Impacts on Individual Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Killer whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-51 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-34).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of killer whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Killer whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-51 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-34).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of killer whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-270

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-51: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-271

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-34: Estimated Impacts on Individual Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 

2.

Long-Beaked Common Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Long-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-52 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of long-beaked common dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Long-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-52 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-272

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of long-beaked common dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% California Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-52: Long-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-273

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Long-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-53 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of long-beaked common dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Long-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-53 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of long-beaked common dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-274

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% California Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-53: Long-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-275

3.7 Marine Mammals

Melon-Headed Whales

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Melon-headed whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-54 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-35).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for melon-headed whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) is within 

the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use sonar and other transducers 

could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident population 

area is mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not routinely conduct antisubmarine warfare activities that involve sonar or other transducers, especially more intense activities 

such as anti-submarine warfare training or major training events. However, sound from sonar or other 

transducers could still expose animals within the melon-headed whale small and resident population 

area identified by Baird et al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, 

melon-headed whale reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially 

when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in 

important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on melon-headed whale natural behaviors 

or abandonment due to training with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within the small 

and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Melon-headed whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-54 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-35).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for melon-headed whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) is within 

the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use sonar and other transducers 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-276

3.7 Marine Mammals

could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident population 

area is mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not routinely conduct 

antisubmarine warfare activities that involve sonar or other transducers. However, sound from sonar or 

other transducers could still expose animals within the melon-headed whale small and resident 

population area identified by Baird et al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As 

discussed above, melon-headed whale reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to 

moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the 

animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on melon-headed 

whale natural behaviors or abandonment due to testing with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to 

occur within the small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-277

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-54: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-278

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-35: Estimated Impacts on Individual Melon-Headed Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Melon-headed whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-55 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-36).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Melon-headed whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-55 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-36).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-279

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-55: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-280

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-36: Estimated Impacts on Individual Melon-Headed Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2.

Northern Right Whale Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Northern right whale dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-56 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Northern right whale dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Northern right whale dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-56 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Northern right whale dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-281

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% California, Oregon, and Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-56: Northern Right Whale Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-282

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Northern right whale dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-57 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Northern right whale dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Northern right whale dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-57 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of northern right whale dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-283

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% California, Oregon, and Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-57: Northern Right Whale Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-284

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pantropical Spotted Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Pantropical spotted dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and 

TTS under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-58 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-37).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Three small and resident population areas for pantropical spotted dolphins identified by Baird et al. 

(2015a) are within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use sonar and 

other transducers could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and 

resident population areas are mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not 

typically conduct activities that involve sonar or other transducers, especially more intense activities 

such as anti-submarine warfare training or major training events. However, sound from sonar or other 

transducers could still expose animals within the identified pantropical spotted dolphin small and 

resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. 

As discussed above, pantropical spotted dolphin reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild 

to moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the 

animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on pantropical 

spotted dolphin natural behaviors or abandonment due to training with sonar and other transducers are 

unlikely to occur within the small and resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Pantropical spotted dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and 

TTS under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-58 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-37).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Three small and resident population areas for pantropical spotted dolphins identified by Baird et al. 

(2015a) are within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use sonar and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-285

3.7 Marine Mammals

other transducers could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and 

resident population areas are mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not 

typically conduct activities that involve sonar or other transducers. However, sound from sonar or other 

transducers could still expose animals within the identified pantropical spotted dolphin small and 

resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. 

As discussed above, pantropical spotted dolphin reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild 

to moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the 

animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on pantropical 

spotted dolphin natural behaviors or abandonment due to testing with sonar and other transducers are 

unlikely to occur within the small and resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-286

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-58: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-287

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-37; Estimated Impacts on Individual Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing

Under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Pantropical spotted dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and 

TTS under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-59 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-38).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

pantropical spotted dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-59 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-38).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-288

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-59: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-289

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-38: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing

Under Alternative 2.

Pacific White-Sided Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Pacific white-sided dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-60 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Pacific white-sided dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Pacific white-sided dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-60 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Pacific white-sided dolphins incidental to 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-290

3.7 Marine Mammals

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% California, Oregon, and Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-60: Pacific White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-291

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Pacific white-sided dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-61 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Pacific white-sided dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Pacific white-sided dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-61 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Pacific white-sided dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-292

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% California, Oregon, and Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-61: Pacific White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-293

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pygmy Killer Whales

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Pygmy killer whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-62 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-39).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for pygmy killer whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) is within 

the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use sonar and other transducers 

could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident population 

area is mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities 

that involve sonar or other transducers, especially more intense activities such as anti-submarine 

warfare training or major training events. However, sound from sonar or other transducers could still 

expose animals within the pygmy killer whale small and resident population area identified by Baird et 

al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, pygmy killer whale reactions 

to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are located 

more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. 

Therefore, significant impacts on pygmy killer whale natural behaviors or abandonment due to training 

with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within the small and resident population area 

identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Pygmy killer whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-62 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-39).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for pygmy killer whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) is within 

the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use sonar and other transducers 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-294

3.7 Marine Mammals

could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident population 

area is mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities 

that involve sonar or other transducers. However, sound from sonar or other transducers could still 

expose animals within the pygmy killer whale small and resident population area identified by Baird et 

al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, pygmy killer whale reactions 

to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are located 

more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. 

Therefore, significant impacts on pygmy killer whale natural behaviors or abandonment due to testing 

with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within the small and resident population area 

identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-295

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-62: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-296

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-39: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pygmy Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Pygmy killer whale may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-63 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-40).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Pygmy killer whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-63 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-40).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-297

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-63: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-298

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-40: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pygmy Killer Whale Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2.

Risso’s Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Risso’s dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-64 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-41).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Risso’s dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-64 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-41).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Tropical 8% 10%

Stock Training Testing

Hawaiian 92% 90%
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-299

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-64: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-300

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-41: Estimated Impacts on Individual Risso’s Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Risso’s dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-65 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-42).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Risso’s dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-65 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-42).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-301

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-65: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-302

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-42: Estimated Impacts on Individual Risso’s Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2.

Rough-Toothed Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Rough-toothed dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-66 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for rough-toothed dolphins identified by Baird et al. (2015a) is 

within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use sonar and other 

transducers could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident 

population area only takes up a very small portion Range Complex; therefore, sonar use in this area 

would be infrequent and typically only last for a short duration if it did occur. The sound from sonar or 

other transducers could still expose animals within the identified rough-toothed dolphin small and 

resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As 

discussed above, rough-toothed dolphin reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to 

moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the 

animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on rough-toothed 

dolphin natural behaviors or abandonment due to training with sonar and other transducers are unlikely 

to occur within the small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Rough-toothed dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-303

3.7 Marine Mammals

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-66 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for rough-toothed dolphins identified by Baird et al. (2015a) is 

within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use sonar and other 

transducers could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident 

population area only takes up a very small portion Range Complex; therefore, sonar use in this area 

would be infrequent and typically only last for a short duration if it did occur. The sound from sonar or 

other transducers could still expose animals within the identified rough-toothed dolphin small and 

resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As 

discussed above, rough-toothed dolphin reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to 

moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the 

animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on rough-toothed 

dolphin natural behaviors or abandonment due to testing with sonar and other transducers are unlikely 

to occur within the small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-304

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-66: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-305

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Rough-toothed dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-67 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Rough-toothed dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-67 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-306

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-67: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-307

3.7 Marine Mammals

Short-Beaked Common Dolphin

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Short-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with training activities throughout the year. Under The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral 

reactions, TTS, and PTS under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-68 below or Appendix E for tabular results. 

Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers). Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS, if it were to occur, would leave some residual hearing loss after 

recovery from the initial threshold shift. Minor PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term 

consequences for individuals. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental 

to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) 

of the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Short-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-68 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental 

to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) 

of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-308

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% California, Oregon, and 

Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-68: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-309

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Short-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, 

TTS, and PTS under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-69 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers). Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental 

to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) 

of the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Short-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated 

with testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and

TTS under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-69 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental 

to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) 

of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-310

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% California, Oregon, and 

Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-69: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-311

3.7 Marine Mammals

Short-Finned Pilot Whales

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Short-finned pilot whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-70 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-43).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for short-finned pilot whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) is 

within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use sonar and other 

transducers could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident 

population area is mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct 

activities that involve sonar or other transducers. However, sound from sonar or other transducers 

could still expose animals within the short-finned pilot whale small and resident population area

identified by Baird et al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, shortfinned pilot whale reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when 

sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in 

important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on short-finned pilot whale natural 

behaviors or abandonment due to testing with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within 

the small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of short-finned pilot whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Short-finned pilot whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-70 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-43).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for short-finned pilot whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) is 

within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use sonar and other 

transducers could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-312

3.7 Marine Mammals

population area is mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct 

activities that involve sonar or other transducers. However, sound from sonar or other transducers 

could still expose animals within the short-finned pilot whale small and resident population area

identified by Baird et al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, shortfinned pilot whale reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when 

sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in 

important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on short-finned pilot whale natural 

behaviors or abandonment due to testing with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within 

the small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of short-finned pilot whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-313

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-70: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-314

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-43: Estimated Impacts on Individual Short-Finned Pilot Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing 

Under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Short-finned pilot whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-71 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-44).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of short-finned pilot whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Short-finned pilot whales may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-71 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-44).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of short-finned pilot whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-315

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-71: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-316

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-44: Estimated Impacts on Individual Short-Finned Pilot Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing 

Under Alternative 2.

Spinner Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Spinner dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-72 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-45).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Five small and resident population areas for spinner dolphins identified by Baird et al. (2015a) are within 

the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use sonar and other transducers 

could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and resident population 

areas are mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities 

that involve sonar or other transducers, especially more intense activities such as anti-submarine 

warfare training or major training events. However, sound from sonar or other transducers could still 

expose animals within the identified spinner dolphin small and resident population areas identified by 

Baird et al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, spinner dolphin 

reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are 

located more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in important biological 

behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on spinner dolphin natural behaviors or abandonment due to 

training with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within the small and resident population

areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-317

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Spinner dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-72 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-45).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Five small and resident population areas for spinner dolphins identified by Baird et al. (2015a) are within 

the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use sonar and other transducers 

could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and resident population 

areas are mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities 

that involve sonar or other transducers. However, sound from sonar or other transducers could still 

expose animals within the identified spinner dolphin small and resident population areas identified by 

Baird et al. (2015a) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, spinner dolphin 

reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are 

located more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in important biological 

behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on spinner dolphin natural behaviors or abandonment due to 

testing with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within the small and resident population

areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-318

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-72: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-319

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-45: Estimated Impacts on Individual Spinner Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Spinner dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-73 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-46).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Spinner dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-73 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-46).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-320

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-73: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-321

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-46: Estimated Impacts on Individual Spinner Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2.

Striped Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Striped dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-74 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-47).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Striped dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-74 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-47).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-322

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-323

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-74: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-324

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-47: Estimated Impacts on Individual Striped Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Striped dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-75 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-48).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Striped dolphins may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-75 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-48).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-325

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-75: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-326

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-48: Estimated Impacts on Individual Striped Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under 

Alternative 2.

Dall’s Porpoises

Dall’s porpoises are most likely to respond to exposures to sonar and other transducers with behavioral 

reactions or minor to moderate TTS that would fully recover quickly (i.e., a few minutes to a few hours).

The quantitative analysis predicts a few PTS per year; however, as discussed above, odontocetes would 

likely avoid sound levels that could cause higher levels of TTS (> 20 dB) or PTS. TTS and PTS thresholds 

for high-frequency cetaceans, including Dall’s porpoises, are lower than for all other marine mammals, 

which leads to a higher number of estimated impacts relative to the number of animals exposed to the 

sound as compared to other hearing groups (e.g., mid-frequency cetaceans). Dall’s porpoises that do 

experience hearing loss (i.e., TTS or PTS) from sonar sounds may have a reduced ability to detect 

biologically important sounds until their hearing recovers. TTS would be recoverable and PTS would 

leave some residual hearing loss. During the period that a Dall’s porpoise had hearing loss, biologically 

important sounds could be more difficult to detect or interpret. Odontocetes, including Dall’s porpoises, 

use echolocation clicks to find and capture prey. These echolocation clicks are at frequencies above 100 

kilohertz in Dall’s porpoises; therefore, echolocation is unlikely to be affected by a threshold shift at 

lower frequencies and should not affect a Dall’s porpoise’s ability to locate prey or rate of feeding. The 

information available on harbor porpoise behavioral reactions to human disturbance (a closely related 

species) suggests that these species may be more sensitive and avoid human activity, and sound 

sources, to a longer range than most other odontocetes. This would make Dall’s porpoises less 

susceptible to hearing loss; therefore, it is likely that the quantitative analysis over-predicted hearing 

loss impacts (i.e., TTS and PTS) in Dall’s porpoises.

Research and observations on reactions to sound from sonar or other transducers are not available for

Dall’s porpoise. Another porpoise species, the harbor porpoise, is very sensitive to human-made sound 

and wary of human activity. It is assumed that Dall’s porpoise is also more reactive than most other 

odontocetes and would avoid human-made sound and activities within a few kilometers. Reactions 

could include alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, diving or swimming away, 

change in vocalization, or showing no response at all. Animals disturbed while engaged in other 

activities such as feeding or reproductive behaviors may be more likely to ignore or tolerate the 

disturbance and continue their natural behavior patterns. Behavioral reactions from Dall’s porpoises are 

more likely to be significant than in other species of odontocetes; however, most reactions estimated by 

the quantitative analysis are likely to be short-term and low to moderate severity. 

Most estimated impacts are due to anti-submarine warfare activities, which could vary in duration and 

intensity. Anti-submarine warfare unit level events and maintenance typically last for a matter of a few 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-327

3.7 Marine Mammals

hours and involve a limited amount of sonar use so that significant responses would be less likely than 

with longer and more intense events. Coordinated/integrated anti-submarine warfare events and major 

training events involve multiple sonar systems and can last for a period of days, making significant 

responses more likely. However, even a few minor to moderate TTS and behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Dall’s porpoises may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-76 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

A few behavioral reactions in an individual animal within a given year are unlikely to have any long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS could reduce an animal’s ability to detect biologically important 

sounds; however, as discussed above, hearing loss beyond a minor TTS is unlikely and a small threshold 

shift due to exposure to sonar is unlikely to affect the hearing range that Dall’s porpoise rely upon if it 

did occur. Nevertheless, PTS could have minor long-term consequences for individuals if it were to 

occur. This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the 

species or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Dall’s porpoises incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Dall’s porpoises may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-76 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

A few behavioral reactions in an individual animal within a given year are unlikely to have any long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS could reduce an animal’s ability to detect biologically important 

sounds; however, as discussed above, hearing loss beyond a minor TTS is unlikely and a small threshold 

shift due to exposure to sonar is unlikely to affect the hearing range that Dall’s porpoise rely upon if it 

did occur. Nevertheless, PTS could have minor long-term consequences for individuals if it were to 

occur. This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the 

species or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Dall’s porpoises incidental to those 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-328

3.7 Marine Mammals

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% California, Oregon, and 

Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-76: Dall’s Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-329

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Dall’s porpoise may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-77 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Dall’s porpoises incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Dall’s porpoise may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-77 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Dall’s porpoises incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-330

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% California, Oregon, and 

Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-77: Dall’s Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-331

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pinnipeds

Pinnipeds include phocid seals (true seals) and otariids (sea lions and fur seals).

Pinnipeds may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers associated with training activities 

throughout the year. Low- (less than 1 kHz), mid- (1–10 kHz), and high-frequency (10–100 kHz) sonars 

produce sounds that are likely to be within the audible range of pinnipeds (see Section 3.7.2.1.4, 

Hearing and Vocalization). If a sound is within an animal’s hearing range then behavioral reactions, 

physiological stress, masking and hearing loss are potential impacts that must be analyzed. If a marine 

mammal cannot hear a sound, then behavioral reactions, physiological stress, masking, or hearing loss 

could not occur. Impact ranges for pinnipeds are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Sonar and Other Transducers).

A few behavioral reactions in pinnipeds resulting from exposure to sonar could take place at distances of 

up to 10 km. Behavioral reactions, however, are much more likely within a kilometer or less of the sound 

source (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). As discussed above in Assessing the Severity of 

Behavioral Responses from Sonar, the quantitative analysis very likely overestimated the numbers of 

behavioral reactions due to the underlying nature of the data used to derive the behavioral response 

functions. Research shows that pinnipeds in the water are generally tolerant of human made sound and 

activity (see 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). If pinnipeds are exposed to sonar or other active acoustic 

sources, they may react in various ways, depending on their experience with the sound source and what 

activity they are engaged in at the time of the acoustic exposure. Pinnipeds may not react at all until the 

sound source is approaching within a few hundred meters and then may alert, ignore the stimulus, 

change their behaviors, or avoid the immediate area by swimming away or diving. Significant behavioral 

reactions would not be expected in most cases, and long-term consequences for individual pinnipeds

from a single or several impacts per year are unlikely.

Behavioral research indicates that most pinnipeds probably avoid sound sources at levels that could 

cause higher levels of TTS (greater than 20 dB of TTS) and PTS. Recovery from TTS begins almost 

immediately after the noise exposure ceases and can take a few minutes to a few days to fully recover, 

depending on the magnitude of the initial threshold shift. Most TTS, if it does actually occur, would be 

more likely to be minor to moderate (i.e., less than 20 dB of TTS directly after the exposure) and would 

recover within a matter of minutes to hours. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all hearing 

frequencies equally, and typically manifest themselves at the exposure frequency or within an octave 

above the exposure frequency. During the short period that a pinniped had TTS, social calls from 

conspecifics could be more difficult to detect or interpret. Killer whales are a primary predator of 

pinnipeds. Some TTS could make killer whale calls more difficult to detect at further ranges until hearing 

recovers. Pinnipeds probably use sound and vibrations to find and capture prey underwater. Therefore, 

it could be more difficult for pinnipeds with TTS to locate food for a short period before their hearing 

recovers. Because TTS would likely be minor to moderate (less than 20 dB of TTS), costs would be shortterm and could be recovered. A single or even a few mild to moderate TTS per year are unlikely to have 

any long-term consequences for that individual.

Research and observations of masking in marine mammals are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.4

(Masking). Many low- (less than 1 kHz), mid- (1–10 kHz), and high-frequency (10–100 kHz) sonars 

produce sounds that are likely to be within the hearing range of pinnipeds. Many anti-submarine 

warfare (anti-submarine warfare) sonars and countermeasures use low- and mid-frequency ranges. 

Most low- and mid-frequency sonar signals (i.e., sounds) are limited in the temporal, frequency, and 

spatial domains. The duration of most individual sounds is short, lasting up to a few seconds each. Some 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-332

3.7 Marine Mammals

systems operate with higher duty cycles or nearly continuously, but typically use lower power. 

Nevertheless, masking may be more prevalent at closer ranges to these high-duty cycle and continuous 

active sonar systems. Most anti-submarine warfare activities are geographically dispersed and last for 

only a few hours, often with intermittent sonar use even within this period. Most anti-submarine 

warfare sonars also have a narrow frequency band (typically less than one-third octave). These factors 

reduce the likelihood of sources causing significant masking in pinnipeds due to exposure to sonar used 

during anti-submarine warfare activities. Pinnipeds may experience some limited masking at closer 

ranges from high-frequency sonars and other transducers; however, the frequency band of the sonar is 

narrow, limiting the likelihood of masking. Sonars that employ high frequencies are typically used for 

mine hunting, navigation, and object detection (avoidance). Potential costs to pinnipeds from masking 

are similar to those discussed above for mild to moderate levels of TTS, with the primary difference 

being that the effects of masking are only present when the sound source (i.e., sonar) is actively 

transmitting and the effect is over the moment the sound has ceased. Nevertheless, pinnipeds that do 

experience some masking for a short period from sonar or other transducers may have their ability to 

communicate with conspecifics reduced, especially at further ranges. Sounds from mid-frequency sonar 

could mask killer whale vocalizations making them more difficult to detect, especially at further ranges.

Pinnipeds probably use sound and vibrations to find and capture prey underwater. Therefore, it could be 

more difficult for pinnipeds to locate food if masking is occurring. A single or even a few short periods of 

masking, if it were to occur, to an individual pinniped per year are unlikely to have any long-term 

consequences for that individual.

Guadalupe Fur Seals (Endangered Species Act-listed) 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Guadalupe fur seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-78 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Mexico stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species 

or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described 

in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Guadalupe fur seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed Guadalupe fur seals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Guadalupe fur seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-78 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-333

3.7 Marine Mammals

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Mexico stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species 

or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described 

in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Guadalupe fur seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed Guadalupe fur seals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-334

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% Mexico Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-78: Guadalupe Fur Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-335

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Guadalupe fur seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-79 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Mexico stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking Guadalupe fur seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed Guadalupe fur seals. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Guadalupe fur seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-79 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Mexico stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking Guadalupe fur seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed Guadalupe fur seals. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-336

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% Mexico Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-79: Guadalupe Fur Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-337

3.7 Marine Mammals

Hawaiian Monk Seals (Endangered Species Act-listed)

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Hawaiian monk seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-80 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

As discussed in Section 3.7.2.2.9 (Hawaiian Monk Seal), the Study Area does overlap the marine portions 

of the Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat and some limited use of sonar and other transducers does 

take place within these areas; however, the sound from sonar and other transducers would not affect 

the designated essential features (i.e., marine areas from 0 to 200 m in depth that support adequate 

prey quality and quantity for juvenile and adult monk seal foraging).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Hawaiian monk seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed Hawaiian monk seals and would not affect Hawaiian monk seal 

critical habitats. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Hawaiian monk seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-80 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species 

or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described 

in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

As discussed in Section 3.7.2.2.9 (Hawaiian Monk Seal), the Study Area does overlap the marine portions 

of the Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat and some limited use of sonar and other transducers does 

take place within these areas; however, the sound from sonar and other transducers would not affect 

the designated essential features (i.e., marine areas from 0 to 200 m in depth that support adequate 

prey quality and quantity for juvenile and adult monk seal foraging).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Hawaiian monk seals incidental to those 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-338

3.7 Marine Mammals

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed Hawaiian monk seals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-339

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-80: Hawaiian Monk Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-340

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Hawaiian monk seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-81 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Hawaiian monk seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed Hawaiian monk seals and would not affect Hawaiian monk seal 

critical habitats. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Hawaiian monk seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-81 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the Hawaiian stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking Hawaiian monk seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed Hawaiian monk seals and would not affect Hawaiian monk seal 

critical habitats. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-341

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-81: Hawaiian Monk Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-342

3.7 Marine Mammals

Harbor Seals 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Harbor seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-82 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS could reduce an animal’s ability to detect biologically important sounds; however, as discussed 

above, hearing loss beyond a minor TTS is unlikely. Nevertheless, PTS could have minor long-term 

consequences for individuals if it were to occur. This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to 

have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation 

measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for 

the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of harbor seals incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Harbor seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-82 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply only to the California stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species 

or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described 

in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of harbor seals incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-343

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% California Stock. ASW: AntiSubmarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-82: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-344

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Harbor seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-83 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of harbor seals incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Harbor seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-83 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply only to the California stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking harbor seals incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-345

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% California Stock. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-83: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-346

3.7 Marine Mammals

Northern Elephant Seals 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Northern elephant seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, 

and PTS under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-84 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges 

for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS could reduce an animal’s ability to detect biologically important sounds; however, as discussed 

above, hearing loss beyond a minor TTS is unlikely. Nevertheless, PTS could have minor long-term 

consequences for individuals if it were to occur. This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to 

have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation 

measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for 

the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of northern elephant seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Northern elephant seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-84 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species 

or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described 

in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Northern elephant seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-347

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% California Stock. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-84: Northern Elephant Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-348

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Northern elephant seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, 

and PTS under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-85 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges 

for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of northern elephant seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Northern elephant seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-85 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the California stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking Northern elephant seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-349

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% California Stock. 

ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-85: Northern Elephant Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-350

3.7 Marine Mammals

California Sea Lions 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

California sea lions may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-86 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply only to the U.S. stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of California sea lions incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

California sea lions may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-86 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the U.S. stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species 

or stocks. PTS, if it were to occur, would leave some residual hearing loss after recovery from the initial 

threshold shift. Minor PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for 

individuals. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking California sea lions incidental to those

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-351

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% U.S. Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine 

Warfare

Figure 3.7-86: California Sea Lion Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-352

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

California sea lions may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-87 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply only to the U.S. stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of California sea lions incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

California sea lions may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-87 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Estimated impacts apply only to the U.S. stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking California sea lions incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-353

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. 100% U.S. Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine 

Warfare

Figure 3.7-87: California Sea Lion Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-354

3.7 Marine Mammals

Northern Fur Seals 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Northern fur seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-88 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply only to the California stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of northern fur seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Northern fur seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-88 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply only to the California stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species 

or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described 

in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Northern fur seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-355

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% California Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-88: Northern Fur Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-356

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Northern fur seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-89 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply only to the California stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with sonar and other transducers would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that the use of sonar 

and other transducers would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 

1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts from training 

under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of northern fur seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Northern fur seals may be exposed to sounds from sonar and other transducers associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-89 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers). Estimated 

impacts apply only to the California stock.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Northern fur seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-357

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

100% California Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-89: Northern Fur Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training and Testing Under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-358

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.1.2.4 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, training or testing activities associated with the Proposed Action would 

not be conducted in the HSTT Study Area. Based on the analysis presented in Sections 3.7.3.1.2.3

(Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under the Action Alternatives), impacts on individual 

marine mammals from activities that use sonar and other transducers could occur under either 

alternative, but impacts on marine mammal populations are not anticipated. Therefore, discontinuing 

activities that use sonar and other transducers under the No Action Alternative would remove the 

potential for impacts on individual marine mammals, but would not measurably improve the status of 

marine mammal populations or otherwise contribute to the recovery of threatened or endangered 

species that occur in the Study Area.

3.7.3.1.3 Impacts from Air Guns

Air guns use bursts of pressurized air to create broadband, impulsive sounds. Any use of air guns would 

typically be transient and temporary. Section 3.0.3.3.1.2 (Air Guns) provides additional details on the use 

and acoustic characteristics of the small air guns used in these activities.

3.7.3.1.3.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Air Guns

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number times that marine mammals could 

be affected by air guns used during Navy testing activities. The Navy Acoustic Effects Model was used to 

produce initial estimates of the number of instances that animals may experience these effects. Inputs 

to the quantitative analysis included marine mammal density estimates; marine mammal depth 

distributions; oceanographic and environmental data; and criteria and thresholds for levels of potential 

impacts. A detailed explanation of this analysis is provided in the technical report Quantitative Analysis 

for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of 

the Navy, 2017d).

Criteria and Thresholds used to Predict Impacts to Marine Mammals from Air Guns

See the technical report titled Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects 

Analysis (Phase III) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a) for detailed information on how the criteria 

and thresholds were derived.

Auditory Weighting Functions

Weighting functions are specific to each hearing group, but are the same across all noise types (e.g., 

sonar, air guns, and pile driving). See Auditory Weighting Functions under Section 3.7.3.1.2.1, Methods 

for Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and Other Transducers, for information on the weighting thresholds 

used for analyzing sound from air guns.

Hearing Loss from Air Guns

Criteria used to define threshold shifts from impulsive sound sources were derived from the two known 

studies designed to induce TTS in marine mammals from impulsive sources. Finneran et al. (2002)

reported behaviorally-measured TTS of 6 and 7 dB in a beluga exposed to single impulses from a seismic 

water gun and Lucke et al. (2009) reported auditory evoked potential-measured TTS of 7 to 20 dB in a 

harbor porpoise exposed to single impulses from a seismic air gun. Since marine mammal PTS data from 

impulsive noise exposures do not exist, onset-PTS levels for all groups were estimated by adding 15 dB 

to the onset TTS SEL threshold for impulsive sources and 6 dB to the onset TTS peak SPL thresholds. This 

relationship was derived by Southall et al. (2007). These frequency dependent thresholds are depicted 

by the exposure functions for each group’s range of best hearing (see Table 3.7-49 and Figure 3.7-90).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-359

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-49: Thresholds for Onset of TTS and PTS for Underwater Air Gun Sounds

Hearing group

Onset TTS Onset PTS

SEL

dB re 1 μPa2s

(weighted)

SPL peak

dB re 1 μPa

(unweighted)

SEL

dB re 1 μPa2s

(weighted)

SPL peak

dB re 1 μPa

(unweighted)

Low-frequency Cetaceans 168 213 183 219

Mid-frequency Cetaceans 170 224 185 230

High-frequency Cetaceans 140 196 155 202

Otariids in water 188 226 203 232

Phocid seals in water 170 212 185 218

PTS: permanent threshold shift; SEL: sound exposure level; SPL: sound pressure level; TTS: temporary threshold shift
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-360

3.7 Marine Mammals

The solid curve is the exposure function for TTS onset and the large dashed curve is the exposure function for PTS onset. Small 

dashed lines and asterisks indicate the SEL threshold for TTS and PTS onset in the frequency range of best hearing.

Figure 3.7-90: Temporary Threshold Shift and Permanent Threshold Shift Exposure Functions 

for Air Guns

Behavioral Responses from Air Guns

The existing NMFS Level B disturbance threshold of 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) is applied to the unique 

sounds generated by air guns. The root mean square calculation for air guns is based on the duration 

defined by 90 percent of the cumulative energy in the impulse.

Marine Mammal Density

A quantitative analysis of impacts on a species requires data on their abundance and distribution in the 

potentially impacted area. The most appropriate metric for this type of analysis is density, which is the 

number of animals present per unit area. To characterize the marine species density for large areas such 

as the Study Area, the Navy compiled data from several sources. The Navy developed a protocol to 

select the best available data sources based on species, area, and time (season). The resulting 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-361

3.7 Marine Mammals

Geographic Information System database called the Navy Marine Species Density Database includes 

seasonal density values for every marine mammal species present within the Study Area (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2017b).

The models used to estimate density for a specific species or stock in a specific area, as described in in 

the HSTT Density Technical Report, should be considered when examining the estimated impact 

numbers in comparison to current population abundance information for any given species or stock. For 

a detailed description of the density and assumptions made for each species, see the Density 

Technical Report.

The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model

The Navy’s quantitative analysis estimates the sound and energy received by marine mammals 

distributed in the area around planned Navy activities involving air guns. See the technical report titled 

Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017d) for additional details. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-362

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.1.3.2 Impact Ranges for Air Guns

Table 3.7-50 and Table 3.7-51 present the approximate ranges in meters to PTS, TTS, and potential 

behavioral reactions for air guns for 10 and 100 pulses, respectively. Ranges are specific to the HSTT 

Study area and also to each marine mammal hearing group, dependent upon their criteria and the 

specific locations where animals from the hearing groups and the air gun activities could overlap. 

Table 3.7-50: Range to Effects from Air Guns for 1 Pulse

Range to Effects for Air guns1 for 1 pulse (m)

Hearing Group

PTS

(SEL)

PTS

(Peak SPL)

TTS

(SEL)

TTS

(Peak SPL) Behavioral2

High-Frequency Cetacean

0

(0–0)

18

(15–25)

1

(0–2)

33

(25–80)

702

(290–1,525)

Low-Frequency Cetacean

3

(3–4)

2

(2–3)

27

(23–35)

5

(4–7)

651

(200–1,525)

Mid-Frequency Cetacean

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

689

(290–1,525)

Otariids

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

590

(290–1,525)

Phocids

0

(0–0)

2

(2–3)

0

(0–0)

5

(4–8)

668

(290–1,525)

1Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances 

which are in parentheses.

2Behavioral values depict the ranges produced by RMS hearing threshold criteria levels.

Table 3.7-51: Range to Effects from Air Guns for 10 Pulses

Range to Effects for Air guns1 for 10 pulses (m)

Hearing Group

PTS

(SEL)

PTS

(Peak SPL)

TTS

(SEL)

TTS

(Peak SPL) Behavioral2

High-Frequency Cetacean 0

(0–0)

18

(15–25)

3

(0–9)

33

(25–80)

702

(290–1,525)

Low-Frequency Cetacean 15

(12–20)

2

(2–3)

86

(70–140)

5

(4–7)

651

(200–1,525)

Mid-Frequency Cetacean 0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

689

(290–1,525)

Otariids 0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

590

(290–1,525)

Phocids 0

(0–0)

2

(2–3)

4

(3–5)

5

(4–8)

668

(290–1,525)

1Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances 

which are in parentheses. 

2Behavioral values depict the ranges produced by RMS hearing threshold criteria levels.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-363

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.1.3.3 Impacts from Air Guns under Alternative 1

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Training activities do not include the use of air guns.

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Characteristics of air guns and the number of times they would be operated during testing under 

Alternative 1 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). Activities using air guns would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A 

(Navy Activity Descriptions). Under Alternative 1, small air guns (12–60 in.3

) would be fired at off-shore 

locations in both the Southern California and Hawaii Range Complexes. 

Single, small air guns lack the peak pressures that could cause non-auditory injury [see Finneran et al. 

(2015); also Section 3.7.3.2.1.1 (Injury) in Explosive Stressors]. Potential impacts could include PTS, TTS, 

behavioral reactions, physiological stress and masking (see Figure 3.7-91 and Appendix E for 

tabular results).

Research and observations (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions) show that if marine mammals 

are exposed to sounds from air guns they could potentially react with short-term behavioral reactions 

and physiological stress. It is important to point out that many observations of marine mammal 

reactions to air guns are from oil and gas exploration activities that use large air gun arrays and operate 

continuously for multiple weeks to cover large areas of the ocean. Navy activities, in contrast, only use 

single air guns over a much shorter period over a limited area. Reactions to single air guns, which are 

used in a limited fashion, are less likely to occur or rise to the same level of severity. Cetaceans (both 

mysticetes and odontocetes) may react in a variety of ways to impulsive sounds, which may include 

alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, diving or swimming away, changing 

vocalization, or showing no response at all. Research shows that pinnipeds may be the least sensitive 

taxonomic group to most noise sources, and are likely to respond to loud impulsive sound sources only 

at close ranges by startling or ceasing foraging, but only for brief periods before returning to their 

previous behavior. Pinnipeds may even experience mild TTS before exhibiting a behavioral response 

(Southall et al., 2007). Marine mammals disturbed while engaged in activities such as feeding or 

reproductive behaviors may be more likely to ignore or tolerate the disturbance and continue their 

natural behavior patterns. Because noise from air gun activities is short-term and intermittent, it is 

unlikely that a marine mammal would be exposed to noise that would result in any more than a shortterm and mild to moderate behavioral responses. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-364

3.7 Marine Mammals

Figure 3.7-91: Estimated Annual Impacts from Air Gun Use. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-365

3.7 Marine Mammals

The sound from air gun shots is broadband, but they have a very short duration, lasting for less than a 

second each, and are used intermittently. This limits the potential for any significant masking in marine 

mammals. Potential costs to marine mammals from masking, if it were to occur, are similar to those 

discussed above for mild to moderate levels of TTS, with the primary difference being that the effects of 

masking are only present when the sound source is actively producing sound and the effect is over the 

moment the sound has ceased. Given these factors, significant masking is unlikely to occur in marine 

mammals due to exposure to sound from air guns.

As discussed above, estimated impacts on marine mammals from air gun sounds associated with testing 

activities are likely to consist of a small number of behavioral responses, TTS and PTS. PTS, if it were to 

occur, would leave some residual hearing loss after recovery from the initial threshold shift. Minor PTS 

in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals. Because these activities 

only occur a few times per year, have a small footprint of potential impacts with no impacts estimated 

for most species, and mitigation measures would be conducted as discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), 

long-term consequences for any marine mammal species or stocks would be unlikely.

The reproduction area for humpback whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) overlaps the Hawaii Range 

Complex within the HSTT Study Area. No impacts on humpback whales from exposure to air gun sounds 

are estimated by the quantitative analysis. This identified humpback whale reproduction area is mostly 

in shallow, near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct testing activities. Therefore, 

most exposures to air gun noise within this identified reproduction area would be from activities. 

Impacts, if they did occur, would most likely be short-term, minor behavioral responses. Therefore, 

significant impacts to humpback whale reproductive behaviors from air gun sounds associated with 

testing activities are unlikely to occur within the reproduction area identified by Baird et al. (2015b).

Twenty areas for small and resident populations of various species of odontocetes identified by Baird et 

al. (2015) are located within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. These identified areas cover 11 

species of odontocetes: dwarf sperm whales (1 area), Blainville’s beaked whales (1 area), Cuvier’s 

beaked whales (1 area), pygmy killer whales (1 area), short-finned pilot whales (1 area), melon-headed 

whales (1 area), false killer whales (1 area), pantropical spotted dolphins (3 areas), spinner dolphins (5 

areas), rough-toothed dolphins (1 area), and common bottlenose dolphins (4 areas). The quantitative 

analysis did estimate a single TTS for dwarf sperm whales, although as discussed above, this is unlikely 

to occur. Behavioral reactions, if they did occur, would most likely be short-term, minor behavioral 

responses. Significant impacts to natural behaviors or abandonment of any of the 20 small and resident 

population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015b) for 11 species of odontocetes would not be 

anticipated due to exposure to air gun sounds associated with testing activities.

Four of nine feeding areas for blue whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015a) along the U.S. West 

Coast overlap (2 wholly and 2 partially) the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. 

However, these feeding areas make up a very small portion of the Study Area. The quantitative analysis 

estimates a single blue whale may behaviorally respond to an air gun exposure. It is unlikely that air gun 

noise would affect the feeding behaviors of blue whales on their identified feeding areas beyond shortterm, minor behavioral responses. Therefore, significant impacts on blue whale feeding behaviors from 

air gun sounds associated with testing activities are unlikely to occur within the blue whale feeding areas 

identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015a).

Four migration areas for gray whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015a) along the U.S. West Coast 

overlap the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. The identified areas are active 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-366

3.7 Marine Mammals

altogether during the months of July through March, although each individual area has its own specific 

date range depending on what portion of the northbound or southbound migration it is meant to cover. 

Navy testing activities with air guns could occur year round within the Study Area. The quantitative 

analysis estimates a single gray whale may behaviorally respond to an air gun exposure. Behavioral 

responses, if they did occur, would most likely be sort-term and minor. Therefore, significant impacts on 

gray whale migration behaviors from air gun sounds associated with testing activities are unlikely to 

occur within the gray whale migration areas identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015a).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of air guns during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will 

result in the unintentional taking of blue whales, gray whales, Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, kogia 

whales, bottlenose dolphins, Northern right whale dolphins, Pacific white-sided dolphins, Risso’s 

dolphins, short-beaked common dolphins, Dall’s porpoise, harbor seals, Northern elephant seals, 

California sea lions, and Northern fur seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of air guns during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed blue whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.7.3.1.3.4 Impacts from Air Guns under Alternative 2

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Training activities do not include the use of air guns.

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Air gun activities planned under Alternative 2 are identical to those planned under Alternative 1; 

therefore, the estimated impacts would be identical (see Figure 3.7-91 and Appendix E for tabular results).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of air guns during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 will 

result in the unintentional taking of blue whales, gray whales, Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, kogia 

whales, bottlenose dolphins, Northern right whale dolphins, Pacific white-sided dolphins, Risso’s 

dolphins, short-beaked common dolphins, Dall’s porpoise, harbor seals, Northern elephant seals, 

California sea lions, and Northern fur seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of air guns during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed blue whales. 

3.7.3.1.3.5 Impacts from Air Guns Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, training or testing activities associated with the Proposed Action would 

not be conducted in the HSTT Study Area. Based on the analysis presented in Sections 3.7.3.1.3.3 

(Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1) and 3.7.3.1.3.4 (Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 

2), impacts on individual marine mammals from air gun activities could occur under either action 

alternative, but impacts on marine mammal populations are not anticipated. Therefore, discontinuing 

air gun activities under the No Action Alternative would remove the potential for impacts on individual 

marine mammals, but would not measurably improve the status of marine mammal populations or 

otherwise contribute to the recovery of threatened or endangered species that occur in the Study Area.

3.7.3.1.4 Impacts from Pile Driving

Marine mammals could be exposed to sounds from impact and vibratory pile driving during the 

construction and removal phases of the Elevated Causeway System described in Chapter 2 (Description 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-367

3.7 Marine Mammals

of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.3-1. The training involves the use of an impact hammer to 

drive the 24-inch (in.) steel piles into the sediment followed by a vibratory hammer to remove the piles 

that support the causeway structure. Impact pile driving operations to install the piles averages about 20 

days, and removal of the piles at the end of the exercise takes approximately 10 days. Section 3.0.3.3.1.3 

(Pile Driving) provides additional details on pile driving and noise levels measured from 

similar operations. 

3.7.3.1.4.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Pile Driving

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number of marine mammals that could be 

impacted by pile driving used during Navy training activities. Inputs to the quantitative analysis included 

marine mammal density estimates and criteria for levels of potential effects. 

Criteria and Thresholds Used to Estimate Impacts to Marine Mammals from Pile Driving

See the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) technical 

report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a) for detailed information on how the criteria and thresholds 

were derived.

Auditory Weighting Functions

Weighting functions are specific to each hearing group, but are the same across all noise types (e.g., 

sonar, air guns, and pile driving). See Auditory Weighting Functions under Section 3.7.3.1.2.1, Methods 

for Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and Other Transducers, for information on the weighting functions 

used for analyzing sound from pile driving.

Hearing Loss from Pile Driving

Because vibratory pile removal produces continuous, non-impulsive noise, the criteria used to assess the 

onset of TTS and PTS due to exposure to sonars are used to assess auditory impacts on marine mammals 

(see Hearing Loss from Sonar and Other Transducers in Section 3.7.3.1.2.1, Methods for Analyzing 

Impacts from Sonars and Other Transducers).

Because impact pile driving produces impulsive noise, the criteria used to assess the onset of TTS and 

PTS are identical to those used for air guns (see Hearing Loss from Air Guns in Section 3.7.3.1.3.1, 

(Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Air Guns).

Behavioral Responses from Pile Driving

Existing NMFS risk criteria are applied to estimate behavioral effects from impact and vibratory pile 

driving (Table 3.7-52).

Table 3.7-52: Pile Driving Level B Thresholds Used in this Analysis to Predict Behavioral 

Responses from Marine Mammals

Pile Driving Level B Disturbance Threshold (Sound Pressure Level, dB re 1 μPa)

Underwater Vibratory Underwater Impact

120 dB rms 160 dB rms

Note: Root mean square calculation for impact pile driving is based on the duration defined by 90 percent 

of the cumulative energy in the impulse. Root mean square for vibratory pile driving is calculated 

based on a representative time series long enough to capture the variation in levels, usually on the 

order of a few seconds.

dB: decibel; dB re 1 μPa: decibel referenced to 1 micro pascal; rms: root mean square
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-368

3.7 Marine Mammals

Marine Mammal Density

A quantitative analysis of impacts on a species requires data on their abundance and distribution in the 

potentially impacted area. The most appropriate metric for this type of analysis is density, which is the 

number of animals present per unit area. To characterize the marine species density for large areas such 

as the Study Area, the Navy compiled data from several sources. The Navy developed a protocol to 

select the best available data sources based on species, area, and time (season). The resulting 

Geographic Information System database called the Navy Marine Species Density Database includes 

seasonal density values for every marine mammal species present within the Study Area (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2017b).

The models used to estimate density for a specific species or stock in a specific area, as described in in 

the HSTT Density Technical Report, should be considered when examining the estimated impact 

numbers in comparison to current population abundance information for any given species or stock. For 

a detailed description of the density and assumptions made for each species, see the Density 

Technical Report.

Modeling of Pile Driving Noise

Underwater noise effects from pile driving and vibratory pile extraction were modeled using actual 

measures of impact pile driving and vibratory removal during construction of an elevated causeway 

(Illingworth and Rodkin, 2015, 2016). A conservative estimate of spreading loss of sound in shallow 

coastal waters (i.e., transmission loss = 16.5*Log10[radius]) was applied based on spreading loss 

observed in actual measurements. Inputs used in the model are provided in Section 3.0.3.3.1.3 (Pile 

Driving), including source levels; the number of strikes required to drive a pile and the duration of 

vibratory removal per pile; the number of piles driven or removed per day; and the number of days of 

pile driving and removal.

The exposures predicted from elevated causeway assessment rely on the assumption that marine 

mammals are uniformly distributed within the ocean waters adjacent the proposed event locations. In 

fact, animal presence in the surf zone and nearshore waters of the Silver Strand Training Complex and 

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (within a few kilometers) is known to be patchy and infrequent with 

the exception of a few coastal species (e.g., common dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, harbor seals, and 

sea lions; sea otters should not be present where proposed pile driving may occur). 

3.7.3.1.4.2 Impact Ranges for Pile Driving

Table 3.7-53 and Table 3.7-54 present the approximate ranges in meters to PTS, TTS, and potential 

behavioral reactions for impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal, respectively. 

Table 3.7-53: Average Ranges to Effects from Impact Pile Driving

Hearing Group PTS (m) TTS (m) Behavioral (m)

Low-frequency Cetaceans 65 529 870

Mid-frequency Cetaceans 2 16 870

High-frequency Cetaceans 65 529 870

Phocids 19 151 870

Otariids 2 12 870

PTS: permanent threshold shift; TTS: temporary threshold shift
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-369

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-54: Average Ranges to Effect from Vibratory Pile Extraction

Hearing Group PTS (m) TTS (m) Behavioral (m)

Low-frequency Cetaceans 0 3 376

Mid-frequency Cetaceans 0 4 376

High-frequency Cetaceans 7 116 376

Phocids 0 2 376

Otariids 0 0 376

PTS: permanent threshold shift; TTS: temporary threshold shift

3.7.3.1.4.3 Impacts from Pile Driving under Alternative 1

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Characteristics of pile driving and the number of times pile driving for the Elevated Causeway System

would occur during training under Alternative 1 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors).

Activities with pile driving would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). This activity would take place 

nearshore and within the surf zone, up to two times per year, once at Silver Strand Training Complex 

and once at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. These coastal areas tend to have high ambient noise 

levels due to natural and anthropogenic sources and typically have limited numbers of sensitive marine 

mammal species present. 

Sounds from the impact hammer are impulsive, broadband and dominated by lower frequencies. The 

impulses are within the hearing range of marine mammals. Sounds produced from a vibratory hammer 

are similar in frequency range as that of the impact hammer, except the levels are much lower than for 

the impact hammer and the sound is continuous while operating. Potential impacts to marine mammals 

due to exposure to pile driving sounds include hearing loss, behavioral reactions, physiological stress, 

and masking, although the quantitative analysis (see Figure 3.7-92 and Appendix E for tabular results) 

estimates only behavioral reactions in a few species due to exposure to pile driving activities associated 

with the construction and removal of the elevated causeway.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-370

3.7 Marine Mammals

No impacts are anticipated for any other species within the HSTT Study Area. See Appendix E for tabular. No PTS is estimated 

for pile driving activities. This activity would not occur within the Hawaii Range Complex.

Figure 3.7-92: Estimated Annual Impacts (Assuming Two Events per Year) from Pile Driving 

and Extraction Associated with the Construction and Removal of the Elevated 

Causeway System. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-371

3.7 Marine Mammals

Behavioral responses due to impact pile driving could occur out to a distance of approximately 1 km. The 

vibratory hammer produces a much lower source level than the impact hammer, especially when 

extracting piles from sandy, nearshore ground; therefore, the potential for reactions in marine mammals 

due to vibratory pile extraction are unlikely. Short-term behavioral reactions to impact pile driving are 

much more likely.

Research and observations (see 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions) show that if marine mammals are 

exposed to sounds from pile driving or extraction they could potentially react with short-term 

behavioral reactions and physiological stress. Mysticetes may react in a variety of ways, which may 

include alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, diving or swimming away, changing 

vocalization, or showing no response at all. Overall, mysticetes have been observed to be more reactive 

to acoustic disturbance when a noise sources is located directly on their migration route, although 

training associated with the elevated causeway is conducted nearshore, outside of any migratory paths 

for mysticetes. Odontocete reactions could include alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and 

surfacing, diving or swimming away, change in vocalization, or showing no response at all. Research 

shows that pinnipeds may be the least sensitive taxonomic group to most noise sources, and are likely 

to respond to loud impulsive sound sources only at close ranges by startling or ceasing foraging, but only 

for brief periods before returning to their previous behavior. Pinnipeds may even experience mild TTS 

before exhibiting a behavioral response (Southall et al., 2007). Marine mammals disturbed while 

engaged in activities such as feeding or reproductive behaviors may be more likely to ignore or tolerate 

the disturbance and continue their natural behavior patterns. Because noise from pile driving activities 

is short-term, intermittent, and occurs within a nearshore environment with high levels of ambient 

noise, it is unlikely that a marine mammal would be exposed to noise that would result in any more than 

a short-term and mild to moderate behavioral responses. Additionally, mitigation measure discussed in 

Chapter 5 (Mitigation) would be conducted to further reduce any potential for impacts.

The vibratory hammer is broadband and continuous, creating the potential to cause some masking in 

marine mammals, but the effect would be temporary because extracting a pile only takes about 6 

minutes, with a pause between each pile. Due to the low source level of vibratory pile extraction, the 

zone for potential masking would only extend a few hundred meters from where the hammer is 

operating. For impact pile driving, the average rate of 35 strikes per minute has the potential to result in 

some masking in marine mammals. The effect would be temporary as each pile only takes about 15 

minutes to drive, with a pause of up to an hour before the next pile is driven. Furthermore, the Elevated 

Causeway System is constructed in shallow, nearshore areas where ambient noise levels are already 

typically high. Potential costs to marine mammals from masking, if it were to occur, are similar to those 

discussed above for mild to moderate levels of TTS, with the primary difference being that the effects of 

masking are only present when the sound source is actively producing sound and the effect is over the 

moment the sound has ceased. Given these factors, significant masking is unlikely to occur in marine 

mammals due to exposure to sound from impact pile driving or vibratory pile extraction.

As discussed above, estimated impacts on marine mammals from pile driving and extraction associated 

with the construction and removal of the elevated causeway consist of primarily short-term behavioral 

reactions. Because these activities only occur a few weeks per year and have a small footprint of 

potential impacts, the same animal would not be expected to be impacted more than a few times in a 

given year due to exposure pile driving sound. A single behavioral reaction in an individual animal within 

a given year is very unlikely to have any long-term consequences for that individual. Considering these 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-372

3.7 Marine Mammals

factors, and the low number of overall estimated impacts, long-term consequences for marine mammal 

species or stocks would be unlikely.

Four migration areas for gray whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) along the U.S. West Coast 

overlap the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. The identified areas are active 

altogether during the months of July through March, although each individual area has its own specific 

date range depending on what portion of the northbound or southbound migration it is meant to cover. 

Construction and removal of the elevated causeway could up to four times per year during any time of 

year at Silver Strand Training Complex or MCB Camp Pendleton in the nearshore environment, which is 

within a designated gray whale migration area. As discussed above, gray whales may pause their 

migration or re-route if a sound source is located directly on their path, however pile driving and 

extraction is performed within the surf zone and in the nearshore environment, outside of the migratory 

corridor. Gray whale reactions, if they did occur would most likely to be short-term and mild. Therefore, 

significant impacts on gray whale migration behaviors from are unlikely to occur within the gray whale 

migration areas identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) because of pile driving and extraction associated 

with the construction and removal of the Elevated Causeway System.

Four of nine feeding areas for blue whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) along the U.S. West 

Coast overlap (2 wholly and 2 partially) the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area in July 

through October. Construction and removal of the elevated causeway could occur up to two times per 

year during any time of year at Silver Strand Training Complex or MCB Camp Pendleton in the nearshore 

environment, which is near a designated blue whale feeding area. Blue whales within this designated 

area could be exposed to distant sounds from pile driving and extraction training activities; however, the 

quantitative analysis estimates no impacts. As discussed above, mysticete reactions to impulsive sound 

would most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are located more 

than a few kilometers away and when the animals are engaged in important biological behaviors such as 

feeding. Therefore, significant impacts on blue whale feeding behaviors are unlikely to occur within the 

blue whale feeding areas identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) because of pile driving and extraction 

associated with the construction and removal of the elevated causeway.

Pursuant to the MMPA, pile driving and removal during training activities as described under Alternative 

1 will result in the unintentional taking of gray whales, bottlenose dolphins, long-beaked common 

dolphins, northern right whale dolphins, Pacific white sided dolphins, Risso’s dolphins, striped dolphins, 

short-beaked common dolphins, Dall’s porpoises, harbor seals, Northern elephant seals, California sea 

lions and Northern fur seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from 

NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, pile driving and removal during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

may affect ESA-listed blue whales and sperm whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities do not include pile driving.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-373

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.1.4.4 Impacts from Pile Driving under Alternative 2

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Pile driving activities planned under Alternative 2 are identical to those planned under Alternative 1; 

therefore, the estimated impacts would be identical (see Figure 3.7-92 and Appendix E for 

tabular results). 

Pursuant to the MMPA, pile driving and removal during training activities as described under Alternative 

2 will result in the unintentional taking of gray whales, bottlenose dolphins, long-beaked common 

dolphins, northern right whale dolphins, Pacific white sided dolphins, Risso’s dolphins, striped dolphins, 

short-beaked common dolphins, Dall’s porpoises, harbor seals, Northern elephant seals, California sea 

lions and Northern fur seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from 

NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, pile driving and removal during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

may affect ESA-listed blue whales and sperm whales.

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Testing activities do not include pile driving.

3.7.3.1.4.5 Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, training or testing activities associated with the Proposed Action would 

not be conducted in the HSTT Study Area. Based on the analysis presented in Sections 3.7.3.1.4.3 

(Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1) and 3.7.3.1.4.4 (Impacts from Pile Driving Under 

Alternative 2), impacts on individual marine mammals from pile driving activities could occur under 

either action alternative, but impacts on marine mammal populations are not anticipated. Therefore, 

discontinuing pile driving activities under the No Action Alternative would remove the potential for 

impacts on individual marine mammals, but would not measurably improve the status of marine 

mammal populations or otherwise contribute to the recovery of threatened or endangered species that 

occur in the Study Area.

3.7.3.1.5 Impacts from Vessel Noise

Marine mammals may be exposed to noise from vessel movement. A detailed description of the 

acoustic characteristics and typical sound levels of vessel noise are in Section 3.0.3.3.1.4 (Vessel Noise). 

Vessel movements involve transits to and from ports to various locations within the Study Area. At San 

Diego Bay for example, there are about 225 commercial ship transits per day, most during daylight 

hours, plus an unknown but potentially equal number of recreational vessels moving in and out of the 

bay (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013c, 2015b). 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). 

Noise from vessels generally lacks the amplitude and duration to cause any hearing loss in marine 

mammals under realistic conditions. Noise from vessels is generally low frequency (10 to hundreds Hz), 

although at close range or in shallow water it can extend above 100 kHz at received levels above 100 dB 

re 1 μPa (Hermannsen et al., 2014). Although periods of broadband noise tend to be brief, occurring 

only as a vessel is passing within a few hundred meters, vessel noise could lead to short-term masking 

for all marine mammal species (Section 3.7.3.1.1.4, Masking). Vessel noise has been linked to behavioral 

responses (Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions), although it is difficult to separate responses to the 

noise from reactions to the physical presence of the vessel. Physiological stress has also been linked to 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-374

3.7 Marine Mammals

chronic vessel noise, such as that in shipping lanes or heavily trafficked whale-watch areas (Section 

3.7.3.1.1.3, Physiological Stress). However, based on the generally short duration, relatively low source 

levels of many Navy vessels, and the transient nature of Navy vessel noise, behavioral, physiological 

stress and masking reactions, if they occur, are unlikely to be significant.

3.7.3.1.5.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Vessel Noise

Responses to vessel noise have been observed for marine mammals when the noise is chronic and 

persistent such as near constricted ocean shipping lanes, and while Navy vessels do transit over regular 

areas, the number of ships is several magnitudes smaller than found in shipping lanes. Navy vessels also 

maneuver to avoid marine mammals when possible; therefore, significant responses to passing vessels 

are unlikely. The amount of radiated sound from Navy vessels is based on measured levels (see Section 

3.0.3.3.1.4, Vessel Noise). These sound levels, along with operational characteristics of the vessel (e.g., 

source level due to cavitation, speed), are compared to situations where researchers have observed 

behavioral reactions (see Behavioral Responses to Vessel Noise under Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral 

Reactions) or masking (see 3.7.3.1.1.4, Masking) in marine mammals. The likelihood of behavioral and 

physiological stress reactions or masking due to Navy vessel noise is then discussed in light of 

this research.

3.7.3.1.5.2 Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Characteristics of Navy vessel noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). Activities with 

vessel noise would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Vessel movements involve transits to and 

from ports to various locations within the Study Area, and many ongoing and proposed activities within 

the Study Area involve maneuvers by various types of surface ships, boats, and submarines (collectively 

referred to as vessels), as well as unmanned vehicles. Activities involving vessel movements occur 

intermittently and are variable in duration, ranging from a few hours up to two weeks. Navy vessel 

traffic could occur anywhere within the Study Area, but would be concentrated within the easternmost 

part of Southern California and around the major Hawaiian Islands, particularly the area surrounding 

Honolulu (Mintz, 2012). Training activities that could generate vessel noise could occur throughout the 

Study Area but would occur primarily in the Southern California and Hawaii Range Complexes. 

Activities involving vessel movements are variable in duration, ranging from a few hours up to two 

weeks, but are typically episodic and related to training. During training, speeds generally range from 10 

to 14 knots; however, vessels can and will, on occasion, operate within the entire spectrum of their 

specific operational capabilities. In addition, a variety of smaller craft will be operated within the Study 

Area. Small craft types, sizes, and speeds vary. In all cases, the vessels/craft will be operated in a safe 

manner consistent with the local conditions. Section 3.7.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions) discusses 

scientific studies and observations of marine mammal reactions, while potential masking from vessel 

presence and noise is discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.4 (Masking).

Vessel traffic related to the proposed activity would pass near marine mammals only on an incidental 

basis. Navy mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) include several provisions to avoid 

approaching marine mammals, which would further reduce any potential impacts. Navy ports such as 

San Diego and Pearl Harbor are heavily trafficked with private and commercial vessels in addition to 

naval vessels. Because Navy ships make up only a small proportion of the total ship traffic, even in the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-375

3.7 Marine Mammals

most concentrated port and inshore areas, proposed Navy vessel transits are unlikely to cause 

significant behavioral responses or long-term abandonment of habitat by a marine mammal. 

Vessel noise can potentially mask vocalizations and other biologically important sounds (e.g., sounds of 

prey or predators) that marine mammals may rely on. Potential masking can vary depending on the 

ambient noise level within the environment, the received level and frequency of the vessel noise, and 

the received level and frequency of the sound of biological interest. In the open ocean, ambient noise 

levels are between about 60 and 80 dB re 1 μPa in the band between 10 Hz and 10 kHz due to a 

combination of natural (e.g., wind) and anthropogenic sources ((Urick, 1983), while inshore noise levels, 

especially around busy ports, can exceed 120 dB re 1 μPa. When the noise level is above the sound of 

interest, and in a similar frequency band, masking could occur (Section 3.7.3.1.1.4, Masking). This 

analysis assumes that any sound that is above ambient noise levels and within an animal’s hearing range 

may potentially cause masking. However, the degree of masking increases with increasing noise levels; a 

noise that is just detectable over ambient levels is unlikely to cause any substantial masking. Masking by 

passing ships or other sound sources transiting the Study Area would be short term and intermittent, 

and therefore unlikely to result in any substantial costs or consequences to individual animals or 

populations. Areas with increased levels of ambient noise from anthropogenic noise sources such as 

areas around busy shipping lanes and near harbors and ports may cause sustained levels of masking for 

marine mammals, which could reduce an animal’s ability to find prey, find mates, socialize, avoid 

predators, or navigate. However, Navy vessels make up a very small percentage of the overall traffic 

(two orders of magnitude lower than commercial ship traffic in the Study Area), and the rise of ambient 

noise levels in these areas is a problem related to all ocean users, including commercial and recreational 

vessels and shoreline development and industrialization.

Surface combatant ships (e.g., guided missile destroyer, guided missile cruiser, and Littoral Combat Ship) 

and submarines are designed to be very quiet to evade enemy detection and typically travel at speeds of 

10 or more knots. Actual acoustic signatures and source levels of combatant ships and submarines are 

classified; however, they are quieter than most other motorized ships. Still, these surface combatants 

and submarines are likely to be detectable by marine mammals over open-ocean ambient noise levels at 

distances of up to a few kilometers, which could cause some masking to marine mammals for a few 

minutes as the vessel passes by. Other Navy ships and small vessels have higher source levels, similar to 

equivalently sized commercial ships and private vessels. Ship noise tends to be low frequency and 

broadband; therefore, it may have the largest potential to mask mysticetes that vocalize and hear at 

lower frequencies than other marine mammals. Noise from large vessels and outboard motors on small 

craft can produce source levels of 160 to over 200 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. Therefore, in the open ocean, 

noise from noncombatant Navy vessels may be detectable over ambient levels for tens of kilometers, 

and some masking, especially for mysticetes, is possible. In noisier inshore areas around Navy ports and 

ranges, vessel noise may be detectable above ambient for only several hundred meters. Some masking 

to marine mammals is likely from noncombatant Navy vessels, on par with similar commercial and 

recreational vessels, especially in quieter, open-ocean environments. 

Vessel noise has the potential to disturb marine mammals and elicit an alerting, avoidance, or other 

behavioral reaction. Most studies have reported that marine mammals react to vessel sounds and traffic 

with short-term interruption of feeding, resting, or social interactions (Magalhães et al., 2002; 

Richardson et al., 1995b; Watkins, 1981). Some species respond negatively by retreating or responding 

to the vessel antagonistically, while other animals seem to ignore vessel noises altogether or are 

attracted to the vessel (Watkins, 1986). Marine mammals are frequently exposed to vessels due to 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-376

3.7 Marine Mammals

research, ecotourism, commercial and private vessel traffic, and government activities. It is difficult to 

differentiate between responses to vessel sound and visual cues associated with the presence of a 

vessel; thus, it is assumed that both play a role in prompting reactions from animals.

Based on studies of a number of species, mysticetes are not expected to be disturbed by vessels that 

maintain a reasonable distance from them, which varies with vessel size, geographic location, and 

tolerance levels of individuals. Odontocetes could have a variety of reactions to passing vessels, 

including attraction, increased traveling time, decreased feeding behaviors, diving, or avoidance of the 

vessel, which may vary depending on their prior experience with vessels. Kogia species, harbor 

porpoises, and beaked whales have been observed avoiding vessels. For pinnipeds, data indicate 

tolerance of vessel approaches, especially for animals in the water. Navy vessels do not purposefully 

approach marine mammals and are not expected to elicit significant behavioral responses. Overall, 

marine mammal reactions to vessel noise associated with training activities are likely to be minor and 

short term, leading to no significant reactions and no long-term consequences.

The reproduction area for humpback whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) overlaps the Hawaii Range 

Complex within the HSTT Study Area. This identified humpback whale reproduction area is mostly in 

shallow, near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct training activities, especially 

more intense activities such as major training events. The identified humpback whale reproduction area 

does not overlap areas near Honolulu and Pearl Harbor where most Navy vessel traffic occurs. 

Therefore, most exposures to Navy vessel noise within this identified reproduction areas would be from 

distant vessels. Small Navy boats are more likely to expose humpback whales to vessel noise within 

identified areas, although Navy vessels (including small boats) avoid approaching marine mammals 

within 500 yards, which would make reactions unlikely in a mysticete such as a humpback whale. 

Impacts, if they did occur, would most likely be short-term masking and minor behavioral responses. 

Therefore, significant impacts on humpback whale reproductive behaviors from vessel noise associated 

with training activities are unlikely to occur within the reproduction area identified by Baird et al. 

(2015a).

Four of nine feeding areas for blue whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) along the U.S. West 

Coast overlap (2 wholly and 2 partially) the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. 

However, these feeding areas make up a very small portion of the Study Area. It is unlikely that vessel 

noise would affect the feeding behaviors of blue whales on their identified feeding areas beyond brief 

behavioral responses or temporary masking. Furthermore, Navy vessels (including small boats) avoid 

approaching marine mammals within 500 yards, which would make reactions unlikely in a mysticete 

such as a blue whale. Impacts, if they did occur, would most likely be short-term masking and minor 

behavioral responses. Therefore, significant impacts on blue whale feeding behaviors from vessel noise 

associated with training activities are unlikely to occur within the blue whale feeding areas identified by 

Calambokidis et al. (2015).

Four migration areas for gray whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) along the U.S. West Coast 

overlap the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. The identified areas are active 

altogether during the months of July through March, although each individual area has its own specific 

date range depending on what portion of the northbound or southbound migration it is meant to cover. 

Navy training activities could occur year round within the Study Area. Gray whales may experience brief 

periods of masking by vessel noise in their migration corridor, or they may alter their migration path 

slightly if vessels are directly on their route. Behavioral responses, if they did occur, would most likely be 

minor. Therefore, significant impacts on gray whale migration behaviors from vessel noise associated 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-377

3.7 Marine Mammals

with training activities are unlikely to occur within the gray whale migration areas identified by 

Calambokidis et al. (2015).

Twenty areas for small and resident populations of various species of odontocetes identified by Baird et 

al. (2015a) are located within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. These identified areas cover 11 

species of odontocetes: dwarf sperm whales (1 area), Blainville’s beaked whales (1 area), Cuvier’s 

beaked whales (1 area), pygmy killer whales (1 area), short-finned pilot whales (1 area), melon-headed 

whales (1 area), false killer whales (1 area), pantropical spotted dolphins (3 areas), spinner dolphins (5 

areas), rough-toothed dolphins (1 area), and common bottlenose dolphins (4 areas). Most of these 

identified small and resident population areas are located outside of the areas with significant Navy 

vessel traffic. However, spinner, bottlenose and pantropical dolphins have resident populations that 

overlap high vessel use areas off the island of Oahu (Calambokidis et al. 2015) although Navy vessel 

traffic is an order of magnitude less than commercial vessel traffic in this area (Mintz 2012). Reactions, if 

they did occur, would most likely be short-term masking and minor behavioral responses. Vessels in 

close proximity may cause a brief approach or startle response, or may lead to no response at all. 

Significant impacts on natural behaviors or abandonment of any of the 20 small and resident population 

areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a) for 11 species of odontocetes would not be anticipated due to 

exposure to vessel noise associated with training activities.

Pursuant to the MMPA, vessel noise during training activities as described under Alternative 1 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Characteristics of Navy vessel noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). Activities with 

vessel noise would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Testing activities under Alternative 1 include 

vessel movement during many events. Because many testing activities would use the same or similar 

vessels as Navy training events, the general locations and types of effects due to vessel noise described 

above for training would be similar for many testing activities. In addition, smaller vessels would 

typically be used on Navy testing ranges.

Activities involving vessel movements occur intermittently and are variable in duration, ranging from a 

few hours up to two weeks, but are typically episodic. In addition, a variety of smaller craft will be 

operated within the Study Area. Small craft types, sizes, and speeds vary. During testing, speeds 

generally range from 10 to 14 knots; however, vessels can and will, on occasion, operate within the 

entire spectrum of their specific operational capabilities. In all cases, the vessels will be operated in a 

safe manner consistent with the local conditions. 

Based on studies on a number of species, mysticetes are not expected to be disturbed by vessels that 

maintain a reasonable distance from them, which varies with vessel size, geographic location, and 

tolerance levels of individuals. Odontocetes could have a variety of reactions to passing vessels, 

including attraction, increased traveling time, decreased feeding behaviors, diving, or avoidance of the 

vessel, which may vary depending on their prior experience with vessels. Kogia whales, harbor 

porpoises, and beaked whales have been observed avoiding vessels. For pinnipeds, data indicate 

tolerance of vessel approaches, especially for animals in the water. Navy vessels do not purposefully 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-378

3.7 Marine Mammals

approach marine mammals and are not expected to elicit significant behavioral responses. Overall, 

marine mammal reactions to vessel noise associated with testing activities are likely to be minor and 

short-term, leading to no significant reactions and no long-term consequences.

Proposed testing activities under Alternative 1 that involve vessel movement differ in number and 

location from training activities under Alternative 1; however the types and severity of impacts would 

not be discernible from those described above in Alternative 1 for Training Activities.

The reproduction area for humpback whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) overlaps the Hawaii Range 

Complex within the HSTT Study Area. This identified humpback whale reproduction area is mostly in 

shallow, near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct testing activities. The identified 

humpback whale reproduction area does not overlap areas near Honolulu and Pearl Harbor where most 

Navy vessel traffic occurs. Therefore, most exposures to Navy vessel noise within this identified 

reproduction areas would be from distant vessels. Small Navy boats are more likely to expose humpback 

whales to vessel noise within identified areas, although Navy vessels (including small boats) avoid 

approaching marine mammals within 500 yards, which would make reactions unlikely in a mysticete 

such as a humpback whale. Impacts, if they did occur, would most likely be short-term masking and 

minor behavioral responses. Therefore, significant impacts on humpback whale reproductive behaviors

from vessel noise associated with testing activities are unlikely to occur within the reproduction area 

identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Four of nine feeding areas for blue whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) along the U.S. West 

Coast overlap (2 wholly and 2 partially) the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. 

However, these feeding areas make up a very small portion of the Study Area. It is unlikely that vessel 

noise would affect the feeding behaviors of blue whales on their identified feeding areas beyond brief 

behavioral responses or temporary masking. Furthermore, Navy vessels (including small boats) avoid 

approaching marine mammals within 500 yards, which would make reactions unlikely in a mysticete 

such as a blue whale. Impacts, if they did occur, would most likely be short-term masking and minor 

behavioral responses. Therefore, significant impacts on blue whale feeding behaviors from vessel noise 

associated with testing activities are unlikely to occur within the blue whale feeding areas identified by 

Calambokidis et al. (2015).

Four migration areas for gray whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) along the U.S. West Coast 

overlap the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. The identified areas are active 

altogether during the months of July through March, although each individual area has its own specific 

date range depending on what portion of the northbound or southbound migration it is meant to cover. 

Navy testing activities could occur year round within the Study Area. Gray whales may experience brief 

periods of masking by vessel noise in their migration corridor, or they may alter their migration path 

slightly if vessels are directly on their route. Behavioral responses, if they did occur, would most likely be 

minor. Therefore, significant impacts on gray whale migration behaviors from vessel noise associated 

with testing activities are unlikely to occur within the gray whale migration areas identified by 

Calambokidis et al. (2015).

Twenty areas for small and resident populations of various species of odontocetes identified by Baird et 

al. (2015a)are located within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. These identified areas cover 11 

species of odontocetes: dwarf sperm whales (1 area), Blainville’s beaked whales (1 area), Cuvier’s 

beaked whales (1 area), pygmy killer whales (1 area), short-finned pilot whales (1 area), melon-headed 

whales (1 area), false killer whales (1 area), pantropical spotted dolphins (3 areas), spinner dolphins (5 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-379

3.7 Marine Mammals

areas), rough-toothed dolphins (1 area), and common bottlenose dolphins (4 areas). Most of these 

identified small and resident population areas are located outside of the areas with significant Navy 

vessel traffic. However, spinner, bottlenose and pantropical dolphins have resident populations that 

overlap high vessel use areas off the island of Oahu (Calambokidis et al. 2015) although Navy vessel 

traffic is an order of magnitude less than commercial vessel traffic in this area (Mintz 2012). Reactions, if 

they did occur, would most likely be short-term masking and minor behavioral responses. Vessels in 

close proximity may cause a brief approach or startle response, or may lead to no response at all. 

Significant impacts on natural behaviors or abandonment of any of the 20 small and resident population 

areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a) for 11 species of odontocetes would not be anticipated due to 

exposure to vessel noise associated with testing activities.

Pursuant to the MMPA, vessel noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.

3.7.3.1.5.3 Impacts from Vessel Noise under Alternative 2

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Proposed Training Activities under Alternative 2 that involve vessel movement would increase compared 

to Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, the maximum number of major training exercises could occur 

every year and only the number of Civilian Port Defense activities would fluctuate annually. In addition, 

all unit level training requirements would be completed at sea rather than synthetically. Still, the 

locations, types, and severity of impacts would be similar to those described above in Section 3.7.3.1.5.2

(Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities).

Pursuant to the MMPA, vessel noise during training activities as described under Alternative 2 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. 

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Proposed Testing Activities under Alternative 2 that involve vessel movement slightly increase from 

Testing Activities proposed under Alternative 1, but the locations, types, and severity of impacts would 

not be discernible from those described above in Section 3.7.3.1.5.2 (Impacts from Vessel Noise Under 

Alternative 1 for Testing Activities).

Pursuant to the MMPA, vessel noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. 

3.7.3.1.5.4 Impacts from Vessel Noise Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, training or testing activities associated with the Proposed Action would 

not be conducted in the HSTT Study Area. Based on the analysis presented in Sections 3.7.3.1.5.2

(Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1) and 3.7.3.1.5.3 (Impacts from Vessel Noise Under 

Alternative 2), impacts on individual marine mammals from vessel noise could occur under either action 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-380

3.7 Marine Mammals

alternative, but impacts on marine mammal populations are not anticipated. Therefore, discontinuing 

activities involving vessel noise under the No Action Alternative would remove the potential for impacts 

on individual marine mammals, but would not measurably improve the status of marine mammal 

populations or otherwise contribute to the recovery of threatened or endangered species that occur in 

the Study Area.

3.7.3.1.6 Impacts from Aircraft Noise

Marine mammals may be exposed to aircraft-generated noise throughout the Study Area. Fixed- and 

rotary-wing aircraft are used for a variety of training and testing activities throughout the Study Area. 

Most of these sounds would be concentrated around airbases and fixed ranges within each of the range 

complexes. Aircraft produce extensive airborne noise from either turbofan or turbojet engines. An 

infrequent type of aircraft noise is the sonic boom, produced when the aircraft exceeds the speed of 

sound. Rotary-wing aircraft (helicopters) produce low-frequency sound and vibration (Pepper et al., 

2003). A detailed description of aircraft noise as a stressor is in Section 3.0.3.3.1.5 (Aircraft 

Overflight Noise).

Sound from aircraft noise, including occasional sonic booms, lack the amplitude or duration to cause any 

hearing loss in marine mammals underwater (see Section 3.0.3.3.1.5, Aircraft Overflight Noise). Aircraft 

would pass quickly overhead and rotary-wing aircraft (e.g., helicopters) may hover for a few minutes at 

a time over the ocean. Due to the brief and dispersed nature of aircraft overflights, masking is also 

unlikely. Potential impacts from overflight noise are limited to brief behavioral and physiological stress 

reactions as aircraft passes overhead. Based on the short duration of potential exposure to overflight 

noise, behavioral and physiological stress reactions, if they did occur, are unlikely to be significant.

3.7.3.1.6.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Aircraft Noise

Potential impacts on marine mammals due to exposure to aircraft noise are analyzed qualitatively. As 

mentioned above in the summary, behavioral reactions and physiological stress are the only potential 

impacts on marine mammals from aircraft and missile overflight; therefore, the analysis focuses on the 

potential for those impacts. The amount of sound entering the water from aircraft is based on measured 

and modeled levels (see Section 3.0.3.3.1.5, Aircraft Noise). These sound levels, along with the 

operational characteristics of the aircraft (e.g., altitude, speed), are compared to situations where 

researchers have observed behavioral responses in marine mammals (see Behavioral Reactions to 

Aircraft Overflights under Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). The likelihood of behavioral and 

physiological stress reactions due to Navy aircraft noise is then discussed in light of this research.

3.7.3.1.6.2 Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Characteristics of aircraft noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors) and the number of 

training activities that include aircraft under Alternative 1 are shown in Section 3.0.3.3.4.4 (Aircraft).

Training activities with aircraft would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). 

Marine mammals may respond to both the physical presence and to the noise generated by aircraft, 

making it difficult to attribute causation to one or the other stimulus. In addition to noise produced, all 

low-flying aircraft make shadows, which can cause animals at the surface to react. Helicopters may also 

produce strong downdrafts, a vertical flow of air that becomes a surface wind, which can also affect an 

animal’s behavior at or near the surface. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-381

3.7 Marine Mammals

Transmission of sound from a moving airborne source to a receptor underwater is influenced by 

numerous factors, but significant acoustic energy is primarily transmitted into the water directly below 

the craft in a narrow cone, as discussed in detail in Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts). 

Underwater sounds from aircraft are strongest just below the surface and directly under the aircraft. 

Section 3.0.3.3.1.5 (Aircraft Overflight Noise) provides additional information on aircraft 

noise characteristics. 

Section 3.7.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions) reviews research and observations regarding marine mammal 

behavioral reactions to aircraft overflights; many of the observations cited in this section are of marine 

mammal reactions to aircraft flown for whale-watching and marine research purposes. Marine mammal 

survey aircraft are typically used to locate, photograph, track, and sometimes follow animals for long 

distances or for long periods of time, all of which results in the animal being much more frequently 

located directly beneath the aircraft (in the cone of the loudest noise and potentially in the shadow of 

the aircraft) for extended periods. Navy aircraft would not follow marine mammals. In contrast to 

whale-watching excursions or research efforts, Navy overflights would not result in prolonged exposure 

of marine mammals to overhead noise or encroachment.

In most cases, exposure of a marine mammal to fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters aircraft presence and 

noise would last for only seconds as the aircraft quickly passes overhead. Animals would have to be at or 

near the surface at the time of an overflight to be exposed to appreciable sound levels. Takeoffs and 

landings occur at established airfields as well as on vessels at sea at unspecified locations across the 

Study Area. Takeoffs and landings from Navy vessels could startle marine mammals; however, these 

events only produce in-water noise at any given location for a brief period as the aircraft climbs to 

cruising altitude. Some sonic booms from aircraft could startle marine mammals, but these events are 

transient and happen infrequently at any given location within the Study Area. Repeated exposure to 

most individuals over short periods (days) is extremely unlikely, except for animals that are resident in 

inshore areas around Navy ports, on Navy fixed ranges (e.g., the Undersea Warfare Training Range), or 

during major training exercises. These animals could be subjected to multiple overflights per day; 

however, aircraft would pass quickly overhead, typically at altitudes above 3,000 ft., which would make 

marine mammals unlikely to respond. No long-term consequences for individuals or populations would 

be expected.

Low flight altitudes of helicopters during some anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare activities, 

often under 100 ft., may elicit a somewhat stronger behavioral response due to the proximity to marine 

mammals, the slower airspeed and therefore longer exposure duration, and the downdraft created by 

the helicopter’s rotor. Marine mammals would likely avoid the area under the helicopter. It is unlikely 

that an individual would be exposed repeatedly for long periods because these aircraft typically transit 

open ocean areas within the Study Area. The consensus of all the studies reviewed is that aircraft noise 

would cause only small temporary changes in the behavior of marine mammals. Specifically, marine 

mammals at or near the surface when an aircraft flies overhead at low altitude may startle, divert their 

attention to the aircraft, or avoid the immediate area by swimming away or diving. No more than shortterm reactions are likely. No long-term consequences for individuals, species or stocks would 

be expected.

The reproduction area for humpback whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) overlaps the Hawaii Range 

Complex. Aircraft and missile overflight noise from Navy training activities could occur throughout the 

Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to aircraft and missile 

overflight noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, significant impacts on 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-382

3.7 Marine Mammals

humpback whale reproductive behaviors from aircraft and missile overflight noise associated with 

training activities are unlikely to occur within the reproduction area identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Four of nine feeding areas for blue whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) along the U.S. West 

Coast overlap (2 wholly and 2 partially) the Southern California Range Complex. Aircraft and missile 

overflight noise from Navy training activities could occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed above 

for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to aircraft and missile overflight noise are likely to be 

brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, significant impacts on blue whale feeding behaviors 

from aircraft and missile overflight noise associated with training activities are unlikely to occur within 

the blue whale feeding areas identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015).

Four migration areas for gray whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) along the U.S. West Coast 

overlap the Southern California Range Complex. The identified areas are active altogether during the 

months of July through March, although each individual area has its own specific date range depending 

on what portion of the northbound or southbound migration it is meant to cover. Navy training activities 

could occur year round within the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, 

behavioral reactions to aircraft and missile overflight noise are likely to be brief and minor if they 

occurred at all. Therefore, significant impacts on gray whale migration behaviors from aircraft and 

missile overflight noise associated with training activities are unlikely to occur within the gray whale 

migration areas identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015).

Twenty areas for small and resident populations of various species of odontocetes identified by Baird et 

al. (2015a) are located within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. These identified areas cover 11 

species of odontocetes: dwarf sperm whales (1 area), Blainville’s beaked whales (1 area), Cuvier’s 

beaked whales (1 area), pygmy killer whales (1 area), short-finned pilot whales (1 area), melon-headed 

whales (1 area), false killer whales (1 area), pantropical spotted dolphins (3 areas), spinner dolphins (5 

areas), rough-toothed dolphins (1 area), and common bottlenose dolphins (4 areas). Navy training 

activities could occur year round within the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, 

behavioral reactions to aircraft and missile overflight noise are likely to be brief and minor if they 

occurred at all. Significant impacts on natural behaviors or abandonment of any of the 20 small and 

resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a) for 11 species of odontocetes would not be 

anticipated due to exposure to aircraft and missile overflight noise associated with training activities.

Pursuant to the MMPA, aircraft noise during training activities as described under Alternative 1 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), testing activities under 

Alternative 1 include fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft overflights. Certain portions of the Study Area such 

as areas near Navy airfields, installations, and ranges are used more heavily by Navy aircraft than other 

portions. Proposed testing activities under Alternative 1 that involve aircraft overflights differ in number 

and location from training activities under Alternative 1; however, the types and severity of impacts 

would not be discernible from those described above in Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-383

3.7 Marine Mammals

The reproduction area for humpback whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) overlaps the Hawaii Range 

Complex within the HSTT Study Area. Navy testing activities could occur year round within the Study 

Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to aircraft and missile 

overflight noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, significant impacts on 

humpback whale reproductive behaviors from aircraft and missile overflight noise associated with 

testing activities are unlikely to occur within the reproduction area identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Four of nine feeding areas for blue whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) along the U.S. West 

Coast overlap (2 wholly and 2 partially) the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. 

Navy testing activities could occur year round within the Study Area. As discussed above for marine 

mammals overall, behavioral reactions to aircraft and missile overflight noise are likely to be brief and 

minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, significant impacts on blue whale feeding behaviors from 

aircraft and missile overflight noise associated with testing activities are unlikely to occur within the blue 

whale feeding areas identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015).

Four migration areas for gray whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) along the U.S. West Coast 

overlap the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. The identified areas are active 

altogether during the months of July through March, although each individual area has its own specific 

date range depending on what portion of the northbound or southbound migration it is meant to cover. 

Navy testing activities could occur year round within the Study Area. As discussed above for marine 

mammals overall, behavioral reactions to aircraft and missile overflight noise are likely to be brief and 

minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, significant impacts on gray whale migration behaviors from 

aircraft and missile overflight noise associated with testing activities are unlikely to occur within the gray 

whale migration areas identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015).

Twenty areas for small and resident populations of various species of odontocetes identified by Baird et 

al. (2015a) are located within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. These identified areas cover 11 

species of odontocetes: dwarf sperm whales (1 area), Blainville’s beaked whales (1 area), Cuvier’s 

beaked whales (1 area), pygmy killer whales (1 area), short-finned pilot whales (1 area), melon-headed 

whales (1 area), false killer whales (1 area), pantropical spotted dolphins (3 areas), spinner dolphins (5 

areas), rough-toothed dolphins (1 area), and common bottlenose dolphins (4 areas). Navy testing 

activities could occur year round within the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, 

behavioral reactions to aircraft and missile overflight noise are likely to be brief and minor if they 

occurred at all. Significant impacts on natural behaviors or abandonment of any of the 20 small and 

resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a) for 11 species of odontocetes would not be 

anticipated due to exposure to aircraft and missile overflight noise associated with testing activities.

Pursuant to the MMPA, aircraft noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-384

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.1.6.3 Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

There would be a minor increase in aircraft overflights during training activities under Alternative 2 

compared to Alternative 1; however, the types of impacts would not be discernible from those 

described for training under Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, aircraft noise during training activities as described under Alternative 2 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. 

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

There would be a minor increase in aircraft overflights under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; 

however, the types of impacts would not be discernible from those described for testing under 

Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, aircraft noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. 

3.7.3.1.6.4 Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, training or testing activities associated with the Proposed Action would 

not be conducted in the HSTT Study Area. Based on the analysis presented in Sections 3.7.3.1.6.2

(Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1) and 3.7.3.1.6.3 (Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under 

Alternative 2), impacts on individual marine mammals from activities that produce aircraft noise could 

occur under either action alternative, but impacts on marine mammal populations are not anticipated. 

Therefore, discontinuing activities involving aircraft noise under the No Action Alternative would remove 

the potential for impacts on individual marine mammals, but would not measurably improve the status 

of marine mammal populations or otherwise contribute to the recovery of threatened or endangered 

species that occur in the Study Area.

3.7.3.1.7 Impacts from Weapons Noise

Marine mammals may be exposed to sounds caused by the firing of weapons, objects in flight, and inert 

impact of non-explosive munitions on the water's surface, which are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 

(Weapons Noise). In general, these are impulsive sounds generated in close vicinity to or at the water 

surface, with the exception of items that are launched underwater. The firing of a weapon may have 

several components of associated noise. Firing of guns could include sound generated in air by firing a 

gun (muzzle blast) and a crack sound due to a low amplitude shock wave generated by a supersonic 

projectile flying through the air. Most in-air sound would be reflected at the air-water interface. 

Underwater sounds would be strongest just below the surface and directly under the firing point. Any 

sound that enters the water only does so within a narrow cone below the firing point or path of the 

projectile. Vibration from the blast propagating through a ship’s hull, the sound generated by the impact 

of an object with the water surface, and the sound generated by launching an object underwater are 

other sources of impulsive sound in the water. Sound due to missile and target launches is typically at a 

maximum at initiation of the booster rocket and rapidly fades as the missile or target travels downrange.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-385

3.7 Marine Mammals

Reactions by marine mammals to these specific stressors have not been recorded; however, marine 

mammals would be expected to react to weapons noise as they would other transient sounds 

(Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). 

3.7.3.1.7.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Weapons Noise

Potential impacts on marine mammals due to exposure to weapons noise are analyzed qualitatively. 

Observations of behavioral reactions to these specific types of noise do not exist; however, observations 

of marine mammal reactions to other impulsive and transient sounds give some indication as to how 

marine mammals may react to weapons noise. The amount of sound entering the water from various 

types of weapons noise is based on measured levels (see Section 3.0.3.3.1.6, Weapons Noise). These 

sound levels are compared to situations where researchers have observed behavioral responses in 

marine mammals (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). The likelihood of behavioral and 

physiological stress reactions due to exposure to weapons noise is then discussed in light of 

this research.

3.7.3.1.7.2 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Activities using weapons and deterrents would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). General characteristics 

of types of weapons noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Weapons Noise), and quantities and 

locations of expended non-explosive practice munitions and explosives (fragment-producing) for 

training under Alternative 1 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2. (Military Expended Materials). [For explosive 

munitions, only associated firing noise is considered in the analysis of weapons noise. The noise 

produced by the detonation of explosive weapons is analyzed in Section 3.7.3.2 (Explosive Stressors)].

Use of weapons during training would occur in the range complexes, with greatest use of most types of 

munitions in within 200 NM of the shore in the Hawaii and Southern California Range Complexes. Most 

activities involving large-caliber naval gunfire or the launching of targets, missiles, bombs, or other 

munitions are conducted more than 3 NM from shore.

A gun fired from a ship on the surface of the water propagates a blast wave away from the gun muzzle 

into the water (see Section 3.0.3.3.1.6, Weapons Noise). Average peak sound pressure in the water 

measured directly below the muzzle of the gun and under the flight path of the shell (assuming it 

maintains an altitude of only a few meters above the water’s surface) was approximately 200 dB re 

1 μPa. Animals at the surface of the water, in a narrow footprint under a weapons trajectory, could be 

exposed to naval gunfire noise and may exhibit brief startle reactions, avoidance, diving, or no reaction 

at all. Due to the short-term, transient nature of gunfire noise, animals are unlikely to be exposed 

multiple times within a short period. Behavioral reactions would likely be short term (minutes) and are 

unlikely to lead to substantial costs or long-term consequences for individuals, species, or stocks.

Sound due to missile and target launches is typically at a maximum at initiation of the booster rocket 

and rapidly fades as the missile or target travels downrange. These sounds would be transient and of 

short duration, lasting no more than a few seconds at any given location. Many missiles and targets are 

launched from aircraft, which would produce minimal noise in the water due to the altitude of the 

aircraft at launch. Missiles and targets launched by ships or near the water’s surface may expose marine 

mammals to levels of sound that could produce brief startle reactions, avoidance, or diving. Due to the 

short-term, transient nature of launch noise, animals are unlikely to be exposed multiple times within a 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-386

3.7 Marine Mammals

short period. Behavioral reactions would likely be short-term (minutes) and are unlikely to lead to longterm consequences for individual, species, or stocks. 

Some objects, such as hyperkinetic projectiles and non-explosive practice munitions, could impact the 

water with great force and produce a large impulse (see Section 3.0.3.3.1.6, Weapons Noise). Marine 

mammals within a few meters could experience some temporary hearing loss, although the probability 

is low of the non-explosive ordnance landing within this range while a marine mammal is near the 

surface. Animals within the area may hear the impact of non-explosive ordnance on the surface of the 

water and would likely alert, startle, dive, or avoid the immediate area. Significant behavioral reactions 

from marine mammals would not be expected due to non-explosive ordnance impact noise; therefore, 

long-term consequences for the individual, species, or stocks are unlikely. 

To further avoid the potential for impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation for weapons firing noise 

that includes ceasing large-caliber gunnery activities if a marine mammal is observed in the mitigation 

zone, as discussed in Section 5.3.2 (Acoustic Stressors).

Sea otters prefer inland waters and are unlikely to encounter noise from weapons use associated with 

proposed Navy training activities that typically occur more than 3 NM from shore. 

The reproduction area for humpback whales identified by Baird et al. (2015a) overlaps the Hawaii Range 

Complex. This identified humpback whale reproduction area is mostly in shallow, near-shore waters

where the Navy does not typically conduct training activities, especially more intense activities such as 

major training events. Weapons firing, launch, and inert impact noise from Navy training activities could 

occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions 

to weapons firing, launch, and inert impact noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. 

Therefore, significant impacts on humpback whale reproductive behaviors from weapons firing, launch, 

and inert impact noise associated with training activities are unlikely to occur within the reproduction 

area identified by Baird et al. (2015a).

Twenty areas for small and resident populations of various species of odontocetes identified by Baird et 

al. (2015a) are located within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. These identified areas cover 11 

species of odontocetes: dwarf sperm whales (1 area), Blainville’s beaked whales (1 area), Cuvier’s 

beaked whales (1 area), pygmy killer whales (1 area), short-finned pilot whales (1 area), melon-headed 

whales (1 area), false killer whales (1 area), pantropical spotted dolphins (3 areas), spinner dolphins (5 

areas), rough-toothed dolphins (1 area), and common bottlenose dolphins (4 areas). Most of these 

identified small and resident population areas are located outside of the areas with significant Navy 

weapon firing activity. Weapons firing, launch, and inert impact noise from Navy training activities could 

occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions 

to weapons firing, launch, and inert impact noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. 

Significant impacts on natural behaviors or abandonment of any of the 20 small and resident population 

areas identified by Baird et al. (2015a) for 11 species of odontocetes would not be anticipated due to 

exposure to weapons firing, launch, and inert impact noise associated with training activities.

Four of nine feeding areas for blue whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) along the U.S. West 

Coast overlap (2 wholly and 2 partially) the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. 

However, these feeding areas make up a very small portion of the Study Area. Weapons firing, launch, 

and inert impact noise from Navy training activities could occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed 

above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to weapons firing, launch, and inert impact 

noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, significant impacts on blue whale 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-387

3.7 Marine Mammals

feeding behaviors from weapons firing, launch, and inert impact noise associated with training activities 

are unlikely to occur within the blue whale feeding areas identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015).

Four migration areas for gray whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) along the U.S. West Coast 

overlap the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. The identified areas are active 

altogether during the months of July through March, although each individual area has its own specific 

date range depending on what portion of the northbound or southbound migration it is meant to cover. 

Weapons firing, launch, and inert impact noise from Navy training activities could occur throughout the 

Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to weapons firing, 

launch, and inert impact noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, 

significant impacts on gray whale migration behaviors from weapons firing, launch, and inert impact

noise associated with training activities are unlikely to occur within the gray whale migration areas 

identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, weapons noise during training activities as described under Alternative 1 will 

not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Activities using weapons and deterrents would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). General characteristics 

of types of weapons noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Weapons Noise), and quantities and 

locations of expended non-explosive practice munitions and explosives (fragment-producing) for testing 

under Alternative 1 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2. (Military Expended Materials). [For explosive munitions, 

only associated firing noise is considered in the analysis of weapons noise. The noise produced by the 

detonation of explosive weapons is analyzed in Section 3.7.3.2 (Explosive Stressors)].

Use of weapons during testing would typically occur on the range complexes, with some activity also 

occurring on testing ranges. Most activities involving large-caliber naval gunfire or the launching of 

targets, missiles, bombs, or other munitions are conducted more than 3 NM from shore. 

The associated impacts would differ in quantity and location from training activities; however, the types 

and severity of impacts would not be discernible from those described above for training activities.

To further avoid the potential for impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation for weapons firing noise 

that includes ceasing large-caliber gunnery activities if a marine mammal is observed in the mitigation 

zone, as discussed in Section 5.3.2 (Acoustic Stressors).

The reproduction area for humpback whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) overlaps the Hawaii Range 

Complex within the HSTT Study Area. This identified humpback whale reproduction area is mostly in 

shallow, near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct testing activities. Weapons noise 

from Navy testing activities could occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine 

mammals overall, behavioral reactions to weapons firing, launch, and inert impact noise are likely to be 

brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, significant impacts on humpback whale reproductive 

behaviors from weapons firing, launch, and inert impact noise associated with testing activities are 

unlikely to occur within the reproduction area identified by Baird et al. (2015).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-388

3.7 Marine Mammals

Twenty areas for small and resident populations of various species of odontocetes identified by Baird et 

al. (2015) are located within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. These identified areas cover 11 

species of odontocetes: dwarf sperm whales (1 area), Blainville’s beaked whales (1 area), Cuvier’s 

beaked whales (1 area), pygmy killer whales (1 area), short-finned pilot whales (1 area), melon-headed 

whales (1 area), false killer whales (1 area), pantropical spotted dolphins (3 areas), spinner dolphins (5 

areas), rough-toothed dolphins (1 area), and common bottlenose dolphins (4 areas). Most of these 

identified small and resident population areas are located outside of the areas where Navy weapons 

firing testing occurs. Significant impacts on natural behaviors or abandonment of any of the 20 small and 

resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015) for 11 species of odontocetes would not be 

anticipated due to exposure to weapons firing, launch, and inert impact noise associated with testing 

activities.

Four of nine feeding areas for blue whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) along the U.S. West 

Coast overlap (2 wholly and 2 partially) the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. 

However, these feeding areas make up a very small portion of the Study Area. Weapons firing, launch, 

and inert impact noise from Navy testing activities could occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed 

above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to weapons firing, launch, and inert impact 

noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, significant impacts on blue whale 

feeding behaviors from weapons firing, launch, and inert impact noise associated with testing activities 

are unlikely to occur within the blue whale feeding areas identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015).

Four migration areas for gray whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) along the U.S. West Coast 

overlap the Southern California Range Complex within the Study Area. The identified areas are active 

altogether during the months of July through March, although each individual area has its own specific 

date range depending on what portion of the northbound or southbound migration it is meant to cover. 

Weapons firing, launch, and inert impact noise from Navy testing activities could occur throughout the 

Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to weapons firing, 

launch, and inert impact noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, 

significant impacts on gray whale migration behaviors from weapons firing, launch, and inert impact

noise associated with testing activities are unlikely to occur within the gray whale migration areas 

identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, weapons noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.

3.7.3.1.7.3 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Weapons Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Activities using weapons and deterrents would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). General characteristics 

of types of weapons noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Weapons Noise), and quantities and 

locations of expended non-explosive practice munitions and explosives (fragment-producing) for 

training under Alternative 2 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2. (Military Expended Materials). [For explosive 

munitions, only associated firing noise is considered in the analysis of weapons noise. The noise 

produced by the detonation of explosive weapons is analyzed in Section 3.7.3.2 (Explosive Stressors)].
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-389

3.7 Marine Mammals

There would be a minor increase in these activities under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; 

however, the types and severity of impacts would not be discernible from those described above in 

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities. To further avoid the potential for 

impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation for weapons firing noise that includes ceasing large-caliber 

gunnery activities if a marine mammal is observed in the mitigation zone, as discussed in Section 5.3.2 

(Acoustic Stressors).

Pursuant to the MMPA, weapons noise during training activities as described under Alternative 2 will 

not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed marine mammals. 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Activities using weapons and deterrents would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). General characteristics 

of types of weapons noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Weapons Noise), and quantities and 

locations of expended non-explosive practice munitions and explosives (fragment-producing) for testing 

under Alternative 2 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2. (Military Expended Materials). [For explosive munitions, 

only associated firing noise is considered in the analysis of weapons noise. The noise produced by the 

detonation of explosive weapons is analyzed in Section 3.7.3.2 (Explosive Stressors)].

There would be a minor increase in these activities under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; 

however, the types and severity of impacts would not be discernible from those described above in 

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities. To further avoid the potential for 

impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation for weapons firing noise that includes ceasing large-caliber 

gunnery activities if a marine mammal is observed in the mitigation zone, as discussed in Section 5.3.2 

(Acoustic Stressors).

Pursuant to the MMPA, weapons noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. 

3.7.3.1.7.4 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, training or testing activities associated with the Proposed Action will 

not be conducted in the HSTT Study Area. Based on the analysis presented in Sections 3.7.3.1.7.2

(Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1) and 3.7.3.1.7.3 (Impacts from Weapons Noise Under 

Alternative 2), impacts on individual marine mammals from activities that produce weapons noise could 

occur under either alternative, but impacts on marine mammal populations are not anticipated. 

Therefore, discontinuing activities that involve weapons noise under the No Action Alternative would 

remove the potential for impacts on individual marine mammals, but would not measurably improve 

the status of marine mammal populations or otherwise contribute to the recovery of threatened or 

endangered species that occur in the Study Area.

3.7.3.2 Explosive Stressors 

Assessing whether an explosive detonation may disturb or injure a marine mammal involves 

understanding the characteristics of the explosive sources, the marine mammals that may be present 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-390

3.7 Marine Mammals

near the sources, the physiological effects of a close explosive exposure, and the effects of impulsive 

sound on marine mammal hearing and behavior. Many other factors besides just the received level or 

pressure wave of an explosion such as the animal’s physical condition and size; prior experience with the 

explosive sound; and proximity to the explosion may influence physiological effects and behavioral 

reactions.

The ways in which an explosive exposure could result in immediate effects or lead to long-term 

consequences for an animal are explained in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from 

Acoustic and Explosive Stressors (Section 3.0.3.6.1). The following Background section discusses what is 

currently known about explosive effects to marine mammals.

3.7.3.2.1 Background 

3.7.3.2.1.1 Injury

Injury refers to the direct effects on the tissues or organs of an animal due to exposure to pressure 

waves. Injury in marine mammals can be caused directly by exposure to explosions. The Conceptual 

Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Stressors (see Section 3.0.3.6.1) provides 

additional information on injury and the framework used to analyze this potential impact.

Injury due to Explosives

Explosive injury to marine mammals would consist of primary blast injury, which refers to those injuries 

that result from the compression of a body exposed to a blast wave and is usually observed as 

barotrauma of gas-containing structures (e.g., lung and gut) and structural damage to the auditory 

system (Greaves et al., 1943; Office of the Surgeon General, 1991; Richmond et al., 1973). The near 

instantaneous high magnitude pressure change near an explosion can injure an animal where tissue 

material properties significantly differ from the surrounding environment, such as around air-filled 

cavities such as in the lungs or gastrointestinal tract. Large pressure changes at tissue-air interfaces in 

the lungs and gastrointestinal tract may cause tissue rupture, resulting in a range of injuries depending 

on degree of exposure. The lungs are typically the first site to show any damage, while the solid organs 

(e.g., liver, spleen, and kidney) are more resistant to blast injury (Clark & Ward, 1943). Recoverable 

injuries would include slight lung injury, such as capillary interstitial bleeding, and contusions to the 

gastrointestinal tract. More severe injuries, such as tissue lacerations, major hemorrhage, organ 

rupture, or air in the chest cavity (pneumothorax), would significantly reduce fitness and likely cause 

death in the wild. Rupture of the lung may also introduce air into the vascular system, producing air 

emboli that can cause a stroke or heart attack by restricting oxygen delivery to critical organs. 

If an animal is exposed to an explosive blast underwater, the likelihood of injury depends on the charge 

size, the geometry of the exposure (distance to the charge, depth of the animal and the charge), and the 

size of the animal. In general, an animal would be less susceptible to injury near the water surface 

because the pressure wave reflected from the water surface would interfere with the direct path 

pressure wave, reducing positive pressure exposure. Susceptibility would increase with depth, until 

normal lung collapse (due to increasing hydrostatic pressure) and increasing ambient pressures again 

reduce susceptibility. See Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts) for an overview of explosive 

propagation and an explanation of explosive effects on gas cavities.

The only known occurrence of mortality or injury to a marine mammal due to a Navy training or testing 

event involving explosives occurred in March 2011 in nearshore waters off San Diego, California, at the 

Silver Strand Training Complex. This area had been used for underwater demolitions training for at least 

three decades without prior known incident. On this occasion, however, a group of approximately 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-391

3.7 Marine Mammals

100-150 long-beaked common dolphins entered the mitigation zone surrounding an area where a timedelayed firing device had been initiated on an explosive with a net explosive weight of 8.76 pounds (lb.) 

(3.97 kilograms [kg]) placed at a depth of 48 ft. (14.6 m). Approximately 1 minute after detonation, 

three animals were observed dead at the surface. The Navy recovered those animals and transferred 

them to the local stranding network for necropsy. A fourth animal was discovered stranded and dead 

42 NM to the north of the detonation 3 days later. It is unknown exactly how close those four animals 

were to the detonation. Upon necropsy, all four animals were found to have sustained typical 

mammalian primary blast injuries (Danil & St. Ledger, 2011). 

Relatively little is known about auditory system trauma in marine mammals resulting from explosive 

exposure, although it is assumed that auditory structures would be vulnerable to blast injuries. Auditory

trauma was found in two humpback whales that died following the detonation of a 5,000 kg explosive 

used off Newfoundland during demolition of an offshore oil rig platform (Ketten et al., 1993), but the 

proximity of the whales to the detonation was unknown. Eardrum rupture was examined in submerged 

terrestrial mammals exposed to underwater explosions (Richmond et al., 1973; Yelverton et al., 1973); 

however, results may not be applicable to the anatomical adaptations for underwater hearing in marine 

mammals. In this discussion, primary blast injury to auditory tissues is considered gross structural tissue 

damage distinct from threshold shift or other auditory effects (see Section 3.7.3.2.1.2, Hearing Loss and 

Auditory Injury). 

Controlled tests with a variety of lab animals (mice, rats, dogs, pigs, sheep and other species) are the 

best data sources on actual injury to mammals due to underwater exposure to explosions. In the early 

1970s, the Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research conducted a series of tests in an 

artificial pond at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico to determine the effects of underwater explosions 

on mammals, with the goal of determining safe ranges for human divers. The resulting data were 

summarized in two reports (Richmond et al., 1973; Yelverton et al., 1973). Specific physiological 

observations for each test animal are documented in Richmond et al. (1973). Gas-containing internal 

organs, such as lungs and intestines, were the principle damage sites in submerged terrestrial mammals; 

this is consistent with earlier studies of mammal exposures to underwater explosions in which lungs 

were consistently the first areas to show damage, with less consistent damage observed in the 

gastrointestinal tract (Clark & Ward, 1943; Greaves et al., 1943). Results from all of these tests suggest 

two explosive metrics are predictive of explosive injury: peak pressure and impulse.

Impulse as a Predictor of Explosive Injury

In the Lovelace studies, acoustic impulse was found to be the metric most related to degree of injury, 

and size of an animal’s gas-containing cavities was thought to play a role in blast injury susceptibility. 

The lungs of most marine mammals are similar in proportion to overall body size as those of terrestrial 

mammals, so the magnitude of lung damage in the tests may approximate the magnitude of injury to 

marine mammals when scaled for body size. Within the marine mammals, mysticetes and deeper divers 

(e.g., Kogiidae, Physeteridae, Ziphiidae) tend to have lung to body size ratios that are smaller and more 

similar to terrestrial animal ratios than the shallow diving odontocetes (e.g., Phocoenidae, Delphinidae) 

and pinnipeds (Fahlman et al., 2014a; Piscitelli et al., 2010). The use of test data with smaller lung to 

body ratios to set injury thresholds may result in a more conservative estimate of potential for damaging 

effects (i.e., lower thresholds) for animals with larger lung to body ratios.

For these shallow exposures of small terrestrial mammals (masses ranging from 3.4 to 50 kg) to 

underwater detonations, Richmond et al. (1973) reported that no blast injuries were observed when 

exposures were less than 6 pounds per square inch per millisecond (psi-ms) (40 Pa-s), no instances of 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-392

3.7 Marine Mammals

slight lung hemorrhage occurred below 20 psi-ms (140 Pa-s), and instances of no lung damage were 

observed in some exposures at higher levels up to 40 psi-ms (280 Pa-s). An impulse of 34 psi-ms (230

Pa-s) resulted in about 50 percent incidence of slight lung hemorrhage. About half of the animals had 

gastrointestinal tract contusions (with slight ulceration, i.e., some perforation of the mucosal layer) at 

exposures of 25-27 psi-ms (170-190 Pa-s). Lung injuries were found to be slightly more prevalent than GI 

tract injuries for the same exposure.

The Lovelace subject animals were exposed near the water surface; therefore, depth effects were not 

discernible in this data set. In addition, this data set included only small terrestrial animals, whereas 

marine mammals may be several orders of magnitude larger and have respiratory structures adapted for 

the high pressures experienced at depth. Goertner (1982) examined how lung cavity size would affect 

susceptibility to blast injury by considering both marine mammal size and depth in a bubble oscillation 

model of the lung. Animal depth relates to injury susceptibility in two ways: injury is related to the 

relative increase in explosive pressure over hydrostatic pressure, and lung collapse with depth reduces 

the potential for air cavity oscillatory damage. The period over which an impulse must be delivered to 

cause damage is assumed to be related to the natural oscillation period of an animal’s lung, which 

depends on lung size. 

Because gas-containing organs are more vulnerable to primary blast injury, adaptations for diving that 

allow for collapse of lung tissues with depth may make animals less vulnerable to lung injury with depth. 

Adaptations for diving include a flexible thoracic cavity, distensible veins that can fill space as air 

compresses, elastic lung tissue, and resilient tracheas with interlocking cartilaginous rings that provide 

strength and flexibility (Ridgway, 1972). Older literature suggested complete lung collapse depths at 

approximately 70 m for dolphins (Ridgway & Howard, 1979) and 20–50 m for phocid seals (Falke et al., 

1985; Kooyman et al., 1972). Follow-on work by Kooyman and Sinnett (1982), in which pulmonary 

shunting was studied in harbor seals and sea lions, suggested that complete lung collapse for these 

species would be about 170 m and about 180 m, respectively. More recently, evidence in sea lions 

suggests that complete collapse might not occur until depths as great as 225 m; although the depth of 

collapse and depth of the dive are related, sea lions can affect the depth of lung collapse by varying the 

amount of air inhaled on a dive (McDonald & Ponganis, 2012). This is an important consideration for all 

divers who can modulate lung volume and gas exchange prior to diving via the degree of inhalation and 

during diving via exhalation (Fahlman et al., 2009); indeed, there are noted differences in pre-dive 

respiratory behavior with some marine mammals exhibiting pre-dive exhalation to reduce the lung 

volume [e.g., phocid seals (Kooyman et al., 1973)].

Peak Pressure as a Predictor of Explosive Injury

High instantaneous peak pressures can cause damaging tissue distortion. Goertner (1982) suggested a 

peak overpressure gastrointestinal tract injury criterion because the size of gas bubbles in the GI tract 

are variable, and their oscillation period could be short relative to primary blast wave exposure duration. 

The potential for gastrointestinal tract injury, therefore, may not be adequately modeled by the single 

oscillation bubble methodology used to estimate lung injury due to impulse. Like impulse, however, high 

instantaneous pressures may damage many parts of the body, but damage to the gastrointestinal tract 

is used as an indicator of any peak pressure-induced injury due to its vulnerability.

Older military reports documenting exposure of human divers to blast exposure generally describe peak 

pressure exposures around 100 psi (237 dB re 1 μPa peak) to feel like slight pressure or stinging 

sensation on skin, with no enduring effects (Christian & Gaspin, 1974). Around 200 psi, the shock wave 

felt like a blow to the head and chest. Data from the Lovelace Foundation experiments show instances 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-393

3.7 Marine Mammals

of gastrointestinal tract contusions after exposures up to 1147 psi peak pressure, while exposures of up 

to 588 psi peak pressure resulted in many instances of no observed gastrointestinal tract effects. The 

lowest exposure for which slight contusions to the gastrointestinal tract were reported was 237 dB re 1 

μPa peak. As a vulnerable gas-containing organ, the gastrointestinal tract is vulnerable to both high peak 

pressure and high impulse, which may vary to differing extents due to blast exposure conditions (i.e., 

animal depth, distance from the charge). This likely explains the range of effects seen at similar peak 

pressure exposure levels and shows the utility of considering both peak pressure and impulse when 

analyzing the potential for injury due to explosives.

3.7.3.2.1.2 Hearing Loss and Auditory Injury

Exposure to intense sound may result in noise-induced hearing loss that persists after cessation of the 

noise exposure. Hearing loss may be temporary or permanent, depending on factors such as the 

exposure frequency, received SPL, temporal pattern, and duration. The frequencies affected by hearing 

loss may vary depending on the exposure frequency, with frequencies at and above the exposure 

frequency most strongly affected. The amount of hearing loss may range from slight to profound, 

depending on the ability of the individual to hear at the affected frequencies. The Conceptual 

Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Stressors (see Section 3.0.3.6.1) provides 

additional information on hearing loss and the framework used to analyze this potential impact. 

Hearing loss has only been studied in a few species of marine mammals, although hearing studies with 

terrestrial mammals are also informative. There are no direct measurements of hearing loss in marine 

mammals due to exposure to explosive sources. The sound resulting from an explosive detonation is 

considered an impulsive sound and shares important qualities (i.e., short duration and fast rise time) 

with other impulsive sounds such as those produced by air guns. General research findings regarding 

TTS and PTS in marine mammals as well as findings specific to exposure to other impulsive sound 

sources are discussed in Hearing Loss and Auditory Injury under Acoustic Stressors above (see 

Section 3.7.3.1.1.2).

3.7.3.2.1.3 Physiological Stress

Marine mammals naturally experience stress within their environment and as part of their life histories. 

The stress response is a suite of physiological changes that are meant to help an organism mitigate the 

impact of a stressor. However, if the magnitude and duration of the stress response is too great or too 

long, then it can have negative consequences to the organism (e.g., decreased immune function, 

decreased reproduction). The Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive 

Activities (see Section 3.0.3.6.1) provides additional information on physiological stress and the 

framework used to analyze this potential impact. 

There are no direct measurements of physiological stress in marine mammals due to exposure to 

explosive sources. General research findings regarding physiological stress in marine mammals due to 

exposure to sound and other stressors are discussed in detail in Physiological Stress under Acoustic 

Stressors above (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.3). Because there are many unknowns regarding the occurrence 

of acoustically induced stress responses in marine mammals, it is assumed that any physiological 

response (e.g., hearing loss or injury) or significant behavioral response is also associated with a 

stress response. 

3.7.3.2.1.4 Masking 

Masking occurs when one sound, distinguished as the ‘noise’, interferes with the detection or 

recognition of another sound. The quantitative definition of masking is the amount in decibels an 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-394

3.7 Marine Mammals

auditory detection or discrimination threshold is raised in the presence of a masker (Erbe et al., 2015). 

As discussed in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Stressors 

(Section 3.0.3.6.1), masking can effectively limit the distance over which a marine mammal can 

communicate, detect biologically relevant sounds, and echolocate (odontocetes). Masking only occurs in 

the presence of the masking noise and does not persist after the cessation of the noise. Masking may 

lead to a change in vocalizations or a change in behavior (e.g., cessation of foraging, leaving an area).

There are no direct observations of masking in marine mammals due to exposure to explosive sources. 

General research findings regarding masking in marine mammals due to exposure to sound and other 

stressors are discussed in detail in Masking under Acoustic Stressors above (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.4). 

Potential masking from explosive sounds is likely to be similar to masking studied for other impulsive 

sounds such as air guns. 

3.7.3.2.1.5 Behavioral Reactions

As discussed in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Stressors 

(Section 3.0.3.6.1), any stimuli in the environment can cause a behavioral response in marine mammals, 

including noise from explosions. There are no direct observations of behavioral reactions from marine 

mammals due to exposure to explosive sounds. Behavioral reactions from explosive sounds are likely to 

be similar to reactions studied for other impulsive sounds such as those produced by air guns. Impulsive 

signals, particularly at close range, have a rapid rise time and higher instantaneous peak pressure than 

other signal types, making them more likely to cause startle responses or avoidance responses. Most 

data has come from seismic surveys that occur over long durations (e.g., on the order of days to weeks), 

and typically utilize large multi-air gun arrays that fire repeatedly. While seismic air gun data (as 

presented in 3.7.3.1 Acoustic Stressors) provides the best available science for assessing behavioral 

responses to impulsive sounds (i.e., sounds from explosives) by marine mammals, it is likely that these 

responses represent a worst-case scenario compared to most Navy explosive noise sources. 

General research findings regarding behavioral reactions from marine mammals due to exposure to 

impulsive sounds, such as those associated with explosions, are discussed in detail in Behavioral 

Reactions under Acoustic Stressors above (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5).

3.7.3.2.1.6 Stranding

When a marine mammal (alive or dead) swims or floats onto shore and becomes beached or incapable 

of returning to sea, the event is termed a “stranding” (Geraci et al., 1999; Geraci & Lounsbury, 2005; 

Perrin & Geraci, 2002). Specifically, under U.S. law, a stranding is an event in the wild where: (A) a 

marine mammal is dead and is (i) on a beach or shore of the United States; or (ii) in waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters); or (B) a marine mammal is alive and is 

(i) on a beach or shore of the United States and is unable to return to the water; (ii) on a beach or shore 

of the United States and, although able to return to the water, is in need of medical attention; or (iii) in 

the waters under the jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters), but is unable to 

return to its natural habitat under its own power or without assistance” (16 U.S.C. section 1421h).

Impulsive sources (e.g., explosions) also have the potential to contribute to strandings, but such 

occurrences are even less common than those that have been related to certain sonar activities. During 

a Navy training event on March 4, 2011, at the Silver Strand Training Complex in San Diego, California, 

three long-beaked common dolphins were killed by an underwater detonation. Further details are 

provided above. Discussions of procedures associated with these and other training and testing 

exercises are presented in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), which details all mitigations. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-395

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.2.1.7 Long-Term Consequences

Long-term consequences to a population are determined by examining changes in the population 

growth rate. For additional information on the determination of long-term consequences, see 

Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Stressors (Section 3.0.3.6.1). 

Physical effects from explosive sources that could lead to a reduction in the population growth rate 

include mortality or injury, which could remove animals from the reproductive pool, and permanent 

hearing impairment or chronic masking, which could impact navigation, foraging, predator avoidance, or 

communication. The long-term consequences due to individual behavioral reactions, masking and shortterm instances of physiological stress are especially difficult to predict because individual experience 

over time can create complex contingencies, especially for long-lived animals like marine mammals. For 

example, a lost reproductive opportunity could be a measureable cost to the individual; however, shortterm costs may be recouped during the life of an otherwise healthy individual. These factors are taken 

into consideration when assessing risk of long-term consequences. 

3.7.3.2.2 Impacts from Explosives

Marine mammals could be exposed to energy, sound, and fragments from underwater explosions 

associated with the proposed activities. Energy from an explosion is capable of causing mortality, injury,

hearing loss, a behavioral response, masking, or physiological stress, depending on the level and 

duration of exposure. 

The death of an animal would eliminate future reproductive potential, which is considered in the 

analysis of potential long-term consequences to the population. Exposures that result in non-auditory 

injuries or PTS may limit an animal’s ability to find food, communicate with other animals, or interpret 

the surrounding environment. Impairment of these abilities can decrease an individual’s chance of 

survival or impact its ability to successfully reproduce. TTS can also impair an animal’s abilities, but the 

individual is likely recover quickly with little significant effect.

Explosions in the ocean or near the water surface can introduce loud, impulsive, broadband sounds into 

the marine environment. These sounds, which are within the audible range of most marine mammals, 

could cause behavioral reactions, masking and elevated physiological stress. Behavioral responses can 

include shorter surfacings, shorter dives, fewer blows (breaths) per surfacing, longer intervals between 

blows, ceasing or increasing vocalizations, shortening or lengthening vocalizations, and changing 

frequency or intensity of vocalizations (National Research Council 2005). Sounds from explosives could 

also mask biologically important sounds; however, the duration of individual sounds is very short, 

reducing the likelihood of substantial auditory masking.

3.7.3.2.2.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Explosives

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number times that marine mammals could 

be impacted by explosives used during Navy training and testing activities. The Navy Acoustic Effects 

Model is used to produce initial estimates of the number of instances that animals that may experience 

these effects; these estimates are further refined by considering animal avoidance of sound-producing 

activities and implementation of mitigation. A detailed explanation of this analysis is provided in the 

technical report Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine 

Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017d).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-396

3.7 Marine Mammals

Criteria and Thresholds used to Estimate Impacts to Marine Mammals from Explosives

See the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) technical 

report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017d) for detailed information on how the criteria and thresholds 

were derived.

Mortality and Injury from Explosives 

As discussed above in Section 3.7.3.2.1.1 (Injury), two metrics have been identified as predictive of 

injury: impulse and peak pressure. Peak pressure contributes to the “crack” or “stinging” sensation of a 

blast wave, compared to the “thump” associated with received impulse. Older military reports 

documenting exposure of human divers to blast exposure generally describe peak pressure exposures 

around 100 psi (237 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak) to feel like slight pressure or stinging sensation on skin, with 

no enduring effects (Christian & Gaspin, 1974).

Because data on explosive injury do not indicate a set threshold for injury, rather a range of risk for 

explosive exposures, two sets of criteria are provided for use in non-auditory injury assessment. The first 

set provides thresholds to estimate the number of animals that may be affected during Navy training 

and testing activities (see Table 3.7-55). The second set (Table 3.7-56) provides thresholds for the onset 

of the effect to estimate farthest range for potential occurrence of an effect. Both sets of criteria are 

useful for assessing potential effects to marine mammals and the range at which mitigation could be 

effective. Increasing animal mass and increasing animal depth both increase the impulse thresholds (i.e., 

decrease susceptibility), whereas smaller mass and decreased animal depth reduce the impulse 

thresholds (i.e., increase susceptibility). For impact assessment, marine mammal populations are 

assumed to be 70 percent adult and 30 percent calf/pup. Sub-adult masses are used to determine onset 

of effect, in order to estimate the farthest range at which an effect may first be observable. The 

derivation of these injury criteria and the species mass estimates are provided in the technical report 

Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) (U.S. Department 

of the Navy, 2017a).

Table 3.7-55: Criteria to Quantitatively Assess Non-Auditory Injury Due to Underwater 

Explosions

Impact Assessment Criterion Threshold

50% Mortality (Impulse) 144MM1 3� �1 + DD

10.1

�

1 6�

Pa-s

50% Injury (Impulse) 65.8MM1 3� �1 + DD

10.1

�

1 6�

Pa-s

Injury (Peak Pressure) 243 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak

dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; Pa-s: pascal 

second; SPL: sound pressure level; D = depth of animal (m); M = 

mass of animal (kg) 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-397

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-56: Criteria for Estimating Ranges to Potential Effect for Mitigation Purposes

Mitigation Criterion Threshold

Onset Mortality 

(Impulse) 103MM1 3� �1 + DD

10.1

�

1 6�

Pa-s

Onset Injury 

(Impulse) 47.5MM1 3� �1 + DD

10.1

�

1 6�

Pa-s

Onset Injury (Peak 

Pressure)

237 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak

dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; Pa-s: pascal 

second; SPL: sound pressure level; D = depth of animal (m); M 

= mass of animal (kg)

When explosive ordnance (e.g., bomb or missile) detonates, fragments of the weapon are thrown at 

high-velocity from the detonation point, which can injure or kill marine mammals if they are struck. Risk 

of fragment injury reduces exponentially with distance as the fragment density is reduced. Fragments 

underwater tend to be larger than fragments produced by in-air explosions (Swisdak & Montaro, 1992). 

Underwater, the friction of the water would quickly slow these fragments to a point where they no 

longer pose a threat. On the other hand, the blast wave from an explosive detonation moves efficiently 

through the seawater. Because the ranges to mortality and injury due to exposure to the blast wave are 

likely to far exceed the zone where fragments could injure or kill an animal, the above threshold are 

assumed to encompass risk due to fragmentation.

Auditory Weighting Functions

Animals are not equally sensitive to noise at all frequencies. To capture the frequency-dependent nature 

of the effects of noise, auditory weighting functions are used (Figure 3.7-93). Auditory weighting 

functions are mathematical functions based on a generic band-pass filter and incorporate speciesspecific hearing abilities to calculate a weighted received sound level in units SPL or SEL. Due to the band 

pass nature of auditory weighting functions, they resemble an inverted “U” shape with amplitude 

plotted as a function of frequency. The flatter portion of the plotted function, where the amplitude is 

closest to zero, is the emphasized frequency range (i.e., the pass-band), while the frequencies below and 

above this range (where amplitude declines) are de-emphasized.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-398

3.7 Marine Mammals

For parameters used to generate the functions and more information on weighting function derivation see (Finneran, 2015). 

MF = Mid-Frequency Cetacean; HF = High-Frequency Cetacean; LF = Low-Frequency Cetacean; PW = Phocid (in-water); 

OW = Otariid (in-water)

Figure 3.7-93: Navy Phase 3 Weighting Functions for all Species Groups

Hearing Loss from Explosives

Criteria used to define threshold shifts from explosions are derived from the two known studies 

designed to induce TTS in marine mammals from impulsive sources. Finneran et al. (2002) reported 

behaviorally-measured TTS of 6 and 7 dB in a beluga exposed to single impulses from a seismic water 

gun and Lucke et al. (2009) reported auditory evoked potential-measured TTS of 7 to 20 dB in a harbor 

porpoise exposed to single impulses from a seismic air gun. Since marine mammal PTS data from 

impulsive noise exposures do not exist, onset-PTS levels for all groups were estimated by adding 15 dB 

to the threshold for non-impulsive sources. This relationship was derived by Southall et al. (2007) from 

impulsive noise TTS growth rates in chinchillas. These frequency dependent thresholds are depicted by 

the exposure functions for each group’s range of best hearing (see Figure 3.7-94).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-399

3.7 Marine Mammals

The dark dashed curve is the exposure function for PTS onset, the solid black curve is the exposure function for TTS onset, and 

the light grey curve is the exposure function for behavioral response. Small dashed lines indicate the SEL threshold for 

behavioral response, TTS, and PTS onset at each group’s most sensitive frequency (i.e., the weighted SEL threshold).

Figure 3.7-94: Navy Phase III Behavioral, TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Explosives
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-400

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-57: Navy Phase III Weighted Sound Exposure Thresholds for Underwater Explosive 

Sounds

Hearing Group

Explosive Sound Source

Behavior (SEL) 

weighted (dB)

TTS (SEL) 

weighted (dB)

TTS (Peak SPL) 

unweighted (dB)

PTS (SEL) 

weighted (dB)

PTS (Peak SPL) 

unweighted (dB)

Low-frequency 

Cetacean 163 168 213 183 219

Mid-frequency 

Cetacean 165 170 224 185 230

High-frequency 

Cetacean 135 140 196 155 202

Otariids in water 183 188 226 203 232

Phocid seal in 

water

165 170 212 185 218

dB: decibels; PTS: permanent threshold shift; SEL: sound exposure level; SPL: sound pressure level; TTS: temporary 

threshold shift

Behavioral Responses from Explosives

If more than one explosive event occurs within any given 24-hour period within a training or testing 

activity, criteria are applied to predict the number of animals that may have a behavioral reaction. For 

exercises with multiple explosions, the behavioral threshold used in this analysis is 5 dB less than the TTS 

onset threshold (in SEL). This value is derived from observed onsets of behavioral response by test 

subjects (bottlenose dolphins) during non-impulsive TTS testing (Schlundt et al., 2000). 

Some multiple explosive exercises, such as certain naval gunnery exercises, may be treated as a single 

event because a few explosions occur closely spaced within a very short time (a few seconds). For single 

explosions at received sound levels below hearing loss thresholds, the most likely behavioral response is 

a brief alerting or orienting response. Since no further sounds follow the initial brief impulses, significant 

behavioral reactions would not be expected to occur. This reasoning was applied to previous shock trials 

(63 Federal Register230; 66 Federal Register87; 73 Federal Register143) and is extended to the criteria 

used in this analysis. 

Marine Mammal Density

A quantitative analysis of impacts on a species requires data on their abundance and distribution in the 

potentially impacted area. The most appropriate metric for this type of analysis is density, which is the 

number of animals present per unit area. To characterize the marine species density for large areas such 

as the Study Area, the Navy compiled data from several sources. The Navy developed a protocol to 

select the best available data sources based on species, area, and time (season). The resulting 

Geographic Information System database called the Navy Marine Species Density Database includes 

seasonal density values for every marine mammal species present within the Study Area (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2017b).

The models used to estimate density for a specific species or stock in a specific area, as described in in 

the HSTT Density Technical Report, should be considered when examining the estimated impact 

numbers in comparison to current population abundance information for any given species or stock. For 

a detailed description of the density and assumptions made for each species, see the Density 

Technical Report.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-401

3.7 Marine Mammals

The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model

The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model calculates sound energy propagation from explosives during naval 

activities and the sound received by animat dosimeters. Animat dosimeters are virtual representations 

of marine mammals distributed in the area around the modeled naval activity that each record its 

individual sound ‘dose.’ The model bases the distribution of animats over the Study Area on the density 

values in the Navy Marine Species Density Database and distributes animats in the water column 

proportional to the known time that species spend at varying depths. 

The model accounts for environmental variability of sound propagation in both distance and depth 

when computing the received sound level on the animats. The model conducts a statistical analysis 

based on multiple model runs to compute the estimated effects on animals. The number of animats that 

exceed the thresholds for effects is tallied to provide an estimate of the number of marine mammals 

that could be affected. 

Assumptions in the Navy model intentionally err on the side of overestimation when there are 

unknowns. 

• Naval activities are modeled as though they would occur regardless of proximity to marine 

mammals (i.e., mitigation is not modeled) and without any avoidance of the activity by the 

animal. The final step of the quantitative analysis of acoustic effects is to consider the 

implementation of mitigation.

• Many explosions from ordnances such as bombs and missiles could occur upon impact with 

above-water targets. However, for this analysis, sources such as these were modeled as 

exploding underwater. This overestimates the amount of explosive and acoustic energy entering 

the water. 

The model estimates the impacts caused by individual training and testing exercises. During any 

individual modeled event, impacts on individual animats are considered over 24-hour periods. The 

animats do not represent actual animals, but rather allow for a statistical analysis of the number of 

instances that marine mammals may be exposed to sound levels resulting in an effect. Therefore, the 

model estimates the number of instances in which an effect threshold was exceeded over the course of 

a year, but does not estimate the number of individual marine mammals that may be impacted over a 

year (i.e., some marine mammals could be impacted several times, while others would not experience 

any impact). A detailed explanation of the Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model is provided in the technical 

report Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea 

Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017d).

Accounting for Mitigation

The Navy implements mitigation measures (described in Chapter 5, Mitigation) during explosive 

activities, including delaying detonations when a marine mammal is observed in the mitigation zone. 

The mitigation zones encompass the estimated ranges to mortality for a given explosive. Therefore, the 

impact analysis quantifies the potential for mitigation to reduce the risk of mortality due to exposure to 

explosives. Two factors are considered when quantifying the effectiveness of mitigation: (1) the extent 

to which the type of mitigation proposed for a sound-producing activity (e.g., active sonar) allows for 

observation of the mitigation zone prior to and during the activity; and (2) the sightability of each 

species that may be present in the mitigation zone, which is determined by species-specific 

characteristics and the viewing platform. A detailed explanation of the analysis is provided in the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-402

3.7 Marine Mammals

technical report Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine 

Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017d).

In the quantitative analysis, consideration of mitigation measures means that, for activities where 

mitigation is feasible, model-estimated mortality is considered mitigated to the level of injury. The 

impact analysis does not analyze the potential for mitigation to reduce non-auditory injury, PTS, TTS or 

behavioral effects, even though mitigation would also reduce the likelihood of these effects. In practice, 

mitigation also protects all unobserved (below the surface) animals in the vicinity, including other 

species, in addition to the observed animal. However, the analysis assumes that only animals sighted at 

the water surface would be protected by the applied mitigation. The analysis, therefore, does not 

capture the protection afforded to all marine species that may be near or within the mitigation zone.

3.7.3.2.2.2 Impact Ranges for Explosives

The following section provides the range (distance) over which specific physiological or behavioral 

effects are expected to occur based on the explosive criteria (Section 3.7.3.2.2.1, Criteria and Thresholds 

Used to Estimate Impacts to Marine Mammals from Explosives) and the explosive propagation 

calculations from the Navy Acoustic Effects Model (Section 3.7.3.2.2.1, Navy Acoustic Effects Model). 

The range to effects are shown for a range of explosive bins (Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from 

Explosives), from E1 (up to 0.25 lb. net explosive weight) to E12 (up to 1,000 lb. net explosive weight). 

Ranges are determined by modeling the distance that noise from an explosion will need to propagate to 

reach exposure level thresholds specific to a hearing group that will cause behavioral response, TTS, PTS, 

and non-auditory injury. Range to effects is important information in not only predicting impacts from 

explosives, but also in verifying the accuracy of model results against real-world situations and 

determining adequate mitigation ranges to avoid higher level effects, especially physiological effects to 

marine mammals.

Table 3.7-58 and Table 3.7-59 shows the minimum, average, and maximum ranges due to varying 

propagation conditions to non-auditory injury as a function of animal mass and explosive bin (i.e. net 

explosive weight). These ranges represent the larger of the range to slight lung injury or gastrointestinal 

tract injury for representative animal masses ranging from 5 to 72,000 kg and different explosive bins 

ranging from 0.25 to 1,000 lb. net explosive weight. Animals within these water volumes would be 

expected to receive minor injuries at the outer ranges, increasing to more substantial injuries, and finally 

mortality as an animal approaches the detonation point.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-403

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-58: Ranges1 to 50 % Non-Auditory Injury for All Marine Mammal Hearing Groups

Bin Range (m)

E1 12

(11–13)

E2 15

(15–20)

E3 25

(25–30)

E4 32

(0–75)

E5 40

(35–140)

E6 52

(40–120)

E7 145

(100–500)

E8 117

(75–400)

E9 120

(90–290)

E10 174

(100–480)

E11 443

(350–1,775)

E12 232

(110–775)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-404

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-59: Ranges1 to 50 % Mortality Risk for All Marine Mammal Hearing Groups as a 

Function of Animal Mass

Bin

Animal Mass Intervals (kg)1

10 250 1,000 5,000 25,000 72,000

E1 3

(2–3)

0

(0–3)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

E2 4

(3–5)

1

(0–4)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

E3 8

(6–10)

4

(2–8)

1

(0–2)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

E4 15

(0–35)

9

(0–30)

4

(0–8)

2

(0–6)

0

(0–3)

0

(0–2)

E5 13

(11–45)

7

(4–35)

3

(3–12)

2

(0–8)

0

(0–2)

0

(0–2)

E6 18

(14–55)

10

(5–45)

5

(3–15)

3

(2–10)

0

(0–3)

0

(0–2)

E7 67

(55–180)

35

(18–140)

16

(12–30)

10

(8–20)

5

(4–9)

4

(3–7)

E8 50

(24–110)

27

(9–55)

13

(0–20)

9

(4–13)

4

(0–6)

3

(0–5)

E9 32

(30–35)

20

(13–30)

10

(8–12)

7

(6–9)

4

(3–4)

3

(2–3)

E10 56

(40–190)

25

(16–130)

13

(11–16)

9

(7–11)

5

(4–5)

4

(3–4)

E11 211

(180–500)

109

(60–330)

47

(40–100)

30

(25–65)

15

(0–25)

13

(11–22)

E12 94

(50–300)

35

(20–230)

16

(13–19)

11

(9–13)

6

(5–8)

5

(4–8)

1

Average distance (m) to mortality is depicted above the minimum and maximum distances 

which are in parentheses.

The following tables (Table 3.7-60 through Table 3.7-69) show the minimum, average, and maximum 

ranges to onset of auditory and behavioral effects based on the thresholds described in Section 

3.7.3.2.2.1 (Criteria and Thresholds Used to Estimate Impacts to Marine Mammals from Explosives). 

Ranges are provided for a representative source depth and cluster size for each bin. For events with 

multiple explosions, sound from successive explosions can be expected to accumulate and increase the 

range to the onset of an impact based on SEL thresholds. Modeled ranges to TTS and PTS based on peak 

pressure for a single explosion generally exceed the modeled ranges based on SEL even when 

accumulated for multiple explosions. Peak pressure based ranges are estimated using the best available 

science; however, data on peak pressure at far distances from explosions are very limited. For additional 

information on how ranges to impacts from explosions were estimated, see the technical report 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-405

3.7 Marine Mammals

Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles: Methods and Analytical Approach 

for Phase III Training and Testing Ranges (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017e).

Table 3.7-60: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for HighFrequency Cetaceans

Range to Effects for Explosives: High Frequency Cetacean1

Bin Source Depth 

(m)

Cluster 

Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 0.1

1 353

(130–825)

1,234

(290–3,025)

2,141

(340–4,775)

25 1,188

(280–3,025)

3,752

(490–8,525)

5,196

(675–12,275)

E2 0.1

1 425

(140–1,275)

1,456

(300–3,525)

2,563

(390–5,275)

10 988

(280–2,275)

3,335

(480–7,025)

4,693

(650–10,275)

E3

0.1

1 654

(220–1,525)

2,294

(350–4,775)

3,483

(490–7,775)

12 1,581

(300–3,525)

4,573

(650–10,275)

6,188

(725–14,775)

18.25

1 747

(550–1,525)

3,103

(950–6,025)

5,641

(1,000–9,275)

12 1,809

(875–4,025)

7,807

(1,025–12,775)

10,798

(1,025–17,775)

E4

3 2 2,020

(1,025–3,275)

3,075

(1,025–6,775)

3,339

(1,025–9,775)

15.25 2 970

(600–1,525)

4,457

(1,025–8,525)

6,087

(1,275–12,025)

19.8 2 1,023

(1,000–1,025)

4,649

(2,275–8,525)

6,546

(3,025–11,025)

198 2 959

(875–1,525)

4,386

(3,025–7,525)

5,522

(3,025–9,275)

E5

0.1 25 2,892

(440–6,275)

6,633

(725–16,025)

8,925

(800–22,775)

15.25 25 4,448

(1,025–7,775)

10,504

(1,525–18,275)

13,605

(1,775–24,775)

E6

0.1 1 1,017

(280–2,525)

3,550

(490–7,775)

4,908

(675–12,275)

3 1 2,275

(2,025–2,525)

6,025

(4,525–7,275)

7,838

(6,275–9,775)

15.25 1 1,238

(625–2,775)

5,613

(1,025–10,525)

7,954

(1,275–14,275)

E7

3 1 3,150

(2,525–3,525)

7,171

(5,525–8,775)

8,734

(7,275–10,525)

18.25 1 2,082

(925–3,525)

6,170

(1,275–10,525)

8,464

(1,525–16,525)

E8

0.1 1 1,646

(775–2,525)

4,322

(1,525–9,775)

5,710

(1,525–14,275)

45.75 1 1,908

(1,025–4,775)

5,564

(1,525–12,525)

7,197

(1,525–18,775)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-406

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-60: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for HighFrequency Cetaceans (continued)

Range to Effects for Explosives: High Frequency Cetacean1

Bin Source Depth 

(m)

Cluster 

Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E9 0.1 1 2,105

(850–4,025)

4,901

(1,525–12,525)

6,700

(1,525–16,775)

E10 0.1 1 2,629

(875–5,275)

5,905

(1,525–13,775)

7,996

(1,525–20,025)

E11

18.5 1 3,034

(1,025–6,025)

7,636

(1,525–16,525)

9,772

(1,775–21,525)

45.75 1 2,925

(1,525–6,025)

7,152

(2,275–18,525)

9,011

(2,525–24,525)

E12 0.1

1 2,868

(975–5,525)

6,097

(2,275–14,775)

8,355

(4,275–21,275)

3 3,762

(1,525–8,275)

7,873

(3,775–20,525)

10,838

(4,275–26,525) 1Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances 

which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels.

Table 3.7-61: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for High-Frequency 

Cetaceans

Range to Effects for Explosives: High Frequency Cetacean1

Bin Source Depth (m) PTS TTS

E1 0.1 660

(170–1,025)

1,054

(270–1,775)

E2 0.1 806

(190–2,025)

1,280

(300–6,025)

E3

0.1 1,261

(290–6,025)

2,068

(480–9,025)

18.25 1,615

(925–5,275)

2,813

(1,025–6,775)

E4

3 2,466

(1,025–4,025)

2,823

(1,025–4,275)

15.25 2,524

(1,025–6,525)

4,955

(1,775–11,025)

19.8 2,113

(1,275–3,025)

3,570

(1,775–6,275)

198 3,682

(2,275–7,025)

5,586

(3,025–11,275)

E5

0.1 1,869

(410–7,775)

2,751

(600–13,275)

15.25 2,908

(1,525–7,775)

5,291

(2,025–11,775)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-407

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-61: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for High-Frequency 

Cetaceans (continued)

Range to Effects for Explosives: High Frequency Cetacean1

Bin Source Depth (m) PTS TTS

E6

0.1 2,177

(525–9,275)

3,136

(625–14,025)

3 2,817

(2,525–3,525)

4,817

(4,025–5,775)

15.25 4,061

(1,775–11,275)

6,726

(2,025–16,775)

E7

3 4,525

(3,775–5,275)

6,171

(5,525–7,525)

18.25 5,496

(2,525–12,775)

8,114

(3,025–14,275)

E8

0.1 2,986

(925–5,775)

3,806

(1,525–9,775)

45.75 4,916

(1,525–13,525)

7,111

(2,275–27,775)

E9 0.1 3,365

(1,275–8,025)

4,409

(1,525–13,525)

E10 0.1 3,791

(1,275–9,775)

5,540

(1,775–26,025)

E11

18.5 10,062

(4,025–23,025)

13,369

(5,025–33,025)

45.75 7,635

(2,275–31,025)

12,673

(3,775–37,775)

E12 0.1 4,110

(1,525–13,525)

5,603

(2,025–21,775) 1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-408

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-62: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for LowFrequency Cetaceans

Range to Effects for Explosives: Low Frequency Cetacean1

Bin Source 

Depth (m)

Cluster 

Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 0.1

1 51

(40–70)

227

(100–320)

124

(70–160)

25 205

(95–270)

772

(270–1,275)

476

(190–725)

E2 0.1

1 65

(45–95)

287

(120–400)

159

(80–210)

10 176

(85–240)

696

(240–1,275)

419

(160–625)

E3

0.1

1 109

(65–150)

503

(190–1,000)

284

(120–430)

12 338

(130–525)

1,122

(320–7,775)

761

(240–6,025)

18.25

1 205

(170–340)

996

(410–2,275)

539

(330–1,275)

12 651

(340–1,275)

3,503

(600–8,275)

1,529

(470–3,275)

E4

3 2 493

(440–1,000)

2,611

(1,025–4,025)

1,865

(950–2,775)

15.25 2 583

(350–850)

3,115

(1,275–5,775)

1,554

(1,000–2,775)

19.8 2 378

(370–380)

1,568

(1,275–1,775)

926

(825–950)

198 2 299

(290–300)

2,661

(1,275–3,775)

934

(900–950)

E5

0.1 25 740

(220–6,025)

2,731

(460–22,275)

1,414

(350–14,275)

15.25 25 1,978

(1,025–5,275)

8,188

(3,025–19,775)

4,727

(1,775–11,525)

E6

0.1 1 250

(100–420)

963

(260–7,275)

617

(200–1,275)

3 1 711

(525–825)

3,698

(1,525–4,275)

2,049

(1,025–2,525)

15.25 1 718

(390–2,025)

3,248

(1,275–8,525)

1,806

(950–4,525)

E7

3 1 1,121

(850–1,275)

5,293

(2,025–6,025)

3,305

(1,275–4,025)

18.25 1 1,889

(1,025–2,775)

6,157

(2,775–11,275)

4,103

(2,275–7,275)

E8

0.1 1 460

(170–950)

1,146

(380–7,025)

873

(280–3,025)

45.75 1 1,049

(550–2,775)

4,100

(1,025–14,275)

2,333

(800–7,025)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-409

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-62: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for LowFrequency Cetaceans (continued)

Range to Effects for Explosives: Low Frequency Cetacean1

Bin Source 

Depth (m)

Cluster 

Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E9 0.1 1 616

(200–1,275)

1,560

(450–12,025)

1,014

(330–5,025)

E10 0.1 1 787

(210–2,525)

2,608

(440–18,275)

1,330

(330–9,025)

E11

18.5 1 4,315

(2,025–8,025)

10,667

(4,775–26,775)

7,926

(3,275–21,025)

45.75 1 1,969

(775–5,025)

9,221

(2,525–29,025)

4,594

(1,275–16,025)

E12

0.1 1 815

(250–3,025)

2,676

(775–18,025)

1,383

(410–8,525)

0.1 3 1,040

(330–6,025)

4,657

(1,275–31,275)

2,377

(700–16,275) 1Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances 

which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-410

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-63: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Low-Frequency 

Cetaceans

Range to Effects for Explosives: Low Frequency Cetacean1

Bin Source Depth (m) PTS TTS

E1 0.1 126

(55–140)

226

(90–270)

E2 0.1 161

(65–180)

280

(100–340)

E3

0.1 264

(100–320)

453

(140–600)

18.25 330

(240–875)

614

(330–1,775)

E4

3 531

(420–625)

916

(650–2,025)

15.25 525

(350–725)

864

(550–1,275)

19.8 390

(370–400)

730

(650–800)

198 379

(340–400)

746

(675–1,525)

E5

0.1 404

(130–525)

679

(180–1,025)

15.25 547

(360–1,275)

991

(675–1,525)

E6

0.1 496

(150–700)

797

(210–6,025)

3 817

(650–975)

1,317

(1,025–1,775)

15.25 735

(420–1,275)

1,266

(875–2,525)

E7

3 1,017

(925–1,025)

1,977

(1,775–2,275)

18.25 1,246

(875–1,775)

2,368

(1,525–3,775)

E8

0.1 830

(260–1,275)

1,045

(360–1,775)

45.75 1,306

(550–3,775)

2,008

(675–6,025)

E9 0.1 966

(310–1,525)

1,240

(420–2,525)

E10 0.1 1,057

(330–1,775)

1,447

(450–6,025)

E11

18.5 2,945

(1,025–7,525)

5,497

(2,025–12,525)

45.75 2,023

(700–6,775)

2,779

(775–11,275)

E12 0.1 1,155

(390–2,025)

1,512

(550–3,775) 1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-411

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-64: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for MidFrequency Cetaceans

Range to Effects for Explosives: Mid-Frequency Cetacean1

Bin Source 

Depth (m)

Cluster 

Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 0.1

1 25

(25–25)

118

(80–210)

178

(100–320)

25 107

(75–170)

476

(150–1,275)

676

(240–1,525)

E2 0.1

1 30

(30–35)

145

(95–240)

218

(110–400)

10 88

(65–130)

392

(140–825)

567

(190–1,275)

E3

0.1

1 50

(45–65)

233

(110–430)

345

(130–600)

12 153

(90–250)

642

(220–1,525)

897

(270–2,025)

18.25

1 38

(35–40)

217

(190–900)

331

(290–850)

12 131

(120–250)

754

(550–1,525)

1,055

(600–2,525)

E4

3 2 139

(110–160)

1,069

(525–1,525)

1,450

(875–1,775)

15.25 2 71

(70–75)

461

(400–725)

613

(470–750)

19.8 2 69

(65–70)

353

(350–360)

621

(600–650)

198 2 49

(0–55)

275

(270–280)

434

(430–440)

E5

0.1 25 318

(130–625)

1,138

(280–3,025)

1,556

(310–3,775)

15.25 25 312

(290–725)

1,321

(675–2,525)

1,980

(850–4,275)

E6

0.1 1 98

(70–170)

428

(150–800)

615

(210–1,525)

3 1 159

(150–160)

754

(650–850)

1,025

(1,025–1,025)

15.25 1 88

(75–180)

526

(450–875)

719

(500–1,025)

E7

3 1 240

(230–260)

1,025

(1,025–1,025)

1,900

(1,775–2,275)

18.25 1 166

(120–310)

853

(500–1,525)

1,154

(550–1,775)

E8

0.1 1 160

(150–170)

676

(500–725)

942

(600–1,025)

45.75 1 128

(120–170)

704

(575–2,025)

1,040

(750–2,525)

E9 0.1 1 215

(200–220)

861

(575–950)

1,147

(650–1,525)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-412

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-64: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for MidFrequency Cetaceans (continued)

Range to Effects for Explosives: Mid-Frequency Cetacean1

Bin Source 

Depth (m)

Cluster 

Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E10 0.1 1 275

(250–480)

1,015

(525–2,275)

1,424

(675–3,275)

E11

18.5 1 335

(260–500)

1,153

(650–1,775)

1,692

(775–3,275)

45.75 1 272

(230–825)

1,179

(825–3,025)

1,784

(1,000–4,275)

E12

0.1 1 334

(310–350)

1,151

(700–1,275)

1,541

(800–3,525)

0.1 3 520

(450–550)

1,664

(800–3,525)

2,195

(925–4,775) 1Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances 

which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-413

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-65: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Mid-Frequency 

Cetaceans

Range to Effects for Explosives: Mid-Frequency Cetacean1

Bin Source Depth (m) PTS TTS

E1 0.1 43

(35–45)

81

(45–95)

E2 0.1 57

(40–65)

102

(50–110)

E3

0.1 96

(50–110)

174

(65–210)

18.25 101

(100–130)

196

(180–725)

E4

3 261

(180–300)

421

(250–460)

15.25 162

(120–290)

328

(240–725)

19.8 120

(120–120)

240

(240–240)

198 117

(80–120)

229

(210–230)

E5

0.1 149

(65–160)

272

(95–300)

15.25 178

(160–430)

358

(290–825)

E6

0.1 188

(70–230)

338

(110–400)

3 268

(230–360)

527

(410–625)

15.25 240

(200–460)

479

(400–725)

E7

3 459

(320–625)

730

(575–900)

18.25 429

(310–550)

676

(550–800)

E8

0.1 337

(300–370)

580

(400–750)

45.75 431

(340–1,025)

806

(600–2,275)

E9 0.1 450

(350–525)

757

(450–1,025)

E10 0.1 534

(240–700)

902

(410–1,275)

E11

18.5 896

(725–1,025)

1,577

(1,025–2,275)

45.75 824

(600–2,775)

1,484

(900–4,775)

E12 0.1 669

(430–925)

1,074

(525–1,525) 1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-414

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-66: SEL Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Otariids

Range to Effects for Explosives: Otariids1

Bin Source 

Depth (m)

Cluster 

Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 0.1

1 7

(7–7)

34

(30–40)

56

(45–70)

25 30

(25–35)

136

(80–180)

225

(100–320)

E2 0.1

1 9

(9–9)

41

(35–55)

70

(50–95)

10 25

(25–30)

115

(70–150)

189

(95–250)

E3

0.1

1 16

(15–19)

70

(50–95)

115

(70–150)

12 45

(35–65)

206

(100–290)

333

(130–450)

18.25

1 15

(15–15)

95

(90–100)

168

(150–310)

12 55

(50–60)

333

(280–750)

544

(440–1,025)

E4

3 2 64

(40–85)

325

(240–340)

466

(370–490)

15.25 2 30

(30–35)

205

(170–300)

376

(310–575)

19.8 2 25

(25–25)

170

(170–170)

290

(290–290)

198 2 17

(0–25)

117

(110–120)

210

(210–210)

E5

0.1 25 98

(60–120)

418

(160–575)

626

(240–1,000)

15.25 25 151

(140–260)

750

(650–1,025)

1,156

(975–2,025)

E6

0.1 1 30

(25–35)

134

(75–180)

220

(100–320)

3 1 53

(50–55)

314

(280–390)

459

(420–525)

15.25 1 36

(35–40)

219

(200–380)

387

(340–625)

E7

3 1 93

(90–100)

433

(380–500)

642

(550–800)

18.25 1 73

(70–75)

437

(360–525)

697

(600–850)

E8

0.1 1 50

(50–50)

235

(220–250)

385

(330–450)

45.75 1 55

(55–60)

412

(310–775)

701

(500–1,525)

E9 0.1 1 68

(65–70)

316

(280–360)

494

(390–625)

E10 0.1 1 86

(80–95)

385

(240–460)

582

(390–800)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-415

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-66: SEL Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Otariids (continued)

Range to Effects for Explosives: Otariids1

Bin Source 

Depth (m)

Cluster 

Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E11

18.5 1 158

(150–200)

862

(750–975)

1,431

(1,025–2,025)

45.75 1 117

(110–130)

756

(575–1,525)

1,287

(950–2,775)

E12

0.1 1 104

(100–110)

473

(370–575)

709

(480–1,025)

0.1 3 172

(170–180)

694

(480–1,025)

924

(575–1,275) 1Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances 

which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-416

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-67: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Otariids

Range to Effects for Explosives: Otariids1

Bin Source Depth (m) PTS TTS

E1 0.1 35

(30–40)

64

(40–95)

E2 0.1 45

(35–50)

82

(45–95)

E3

0.1 77

(45–95)

133

(60–150)

18.25 81

(80–100)

163

(150–480)

E4

3 175

(130–210)

375

(220–410)

15.25 114

(100–190)

252

(190–420)

19.8 100

(100–100)

190

(190–190)

198 98

(95–100)

187

(180–190)

E5

0.1 117

(55–130)

212

(80–250)

15.25 144

(130–310)

278

(240–725)

E6

0.1 148

(65–170)

263

(95–310)

3 215

(190–260)

463

(330–625)

15.25 191

(170–410)

386

(310–825)

E7

3 355

(260–500)

614

(490–750)

18.25 439

(330–550)

628

(575–675)

E8

0.1 272

(260–280)

482

(370–525)

45.75 401

(280–950)

770

(500–1,775)

E9 0.1 368

(320–400)

610

(420–800)

E10 0.1 442

(230–525)

715

(330–1,025)

E11

18.5 765

(625–1,000)

1,342

(950–2,025)

45.75 811

(525–2,025)

1,498

(850–3,525)

E12 0.1 550

(400–700)

881

(500–1,275) 1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-417

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-68: SEL-Based Ranges to PTS, TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for Phocids

Range to Effects for Explosives: Phocids1

Bin Source 

Depth (m)

Cluster 

Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 0.1

1 45

(40–65)

210

(100–290)

312

(130–430)

25 190

(95–260)

798

(280–1,275)

1,050

(360–2,275)

E2 0.1

1 58

(45–75)

258

(110–360)

383

(150–550)

10 157

(85–240)

672

(240–1,275)

934

(310–1,525)

E3

0.1

1 96

(60–120)

419

(160–625)

607

(220–900)

12 277

(120–390)

1,040

(370–2,025)

1,509

(525–6,275)

18.25

1 118

(110–130)

621

(500–1,275)

948

(700–2,025)

12 406

(330–875)

1,756

(1,025–4,775)

3,302

(1,025–6,275)

E4

3 2 405

(300–430)

1,761

(1,025–2,775)

2,179

(1,025–3,275)

15.25 2 265

(220–430)

1,225

(975–1,775)

1,870

(1,025–3,275)

19.8 2 220

(220–220)

991

(950–1,025)

1,417

(1,275–1,525)

198 2 150

(150–150)

973

(925–1,025)

2,636

(2,025–3,525)

E5

0.1 25 569

(200–850)

2,104

(725–9,275)

2,895

(825–11,025)

15.25 25 920

(825–1,525)

5,250

(2,025–10,275)

7,336

(2,275–16,025)

E6

0.1 1 182

(90–250)

767

(270–1,275)

1,011

(370–1,775)

3 1 392

(340–440)

1,567

(1,275–1,775)

2,192

(2,025–2,275)

15.25 1 288

(250–600)

1,302

(1,025–3,275)

2,169

(1,275–5,775)

E7

3 1 538

(450–625)

2,109

(1,775–2,275)

2,859

(2,775–3,275)

18.25 1 530

(460–750)

2,617

(1,025–4,525)

3,692

(1,525–5,275)

E8

0.1 1 311

(290–330)

1,154

(625–1,275)

1,548

(725–2,275)

45.75 1 488

(380–975)

2,273

(1,275–5,275)

3,181

(1,525–8,025)

E9 0.1 1 416

(350–470)

1,443

(675–2,025)

1,911

(800–3,525)

E10 0.1 1 507

(340–675)

1,734

(725–3,525)

2,412

(800–5,025)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-418

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-68: SEL-Based Ranges to PTS, TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for Phocids (continued)

Range to Effects for Explosives: Phocids1

Bin Source 

Depth (m)

Cluster 

Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E11

18.5 1 1,029

(775–1,275)

5,044

(2,025–8,775)

6,603

(2,525–14,525)

45.75 1 881

(700–2,275)

3,726

(2,025–8,775)

5,082

(2,025–13,775)

E12

0.1 1 631

(450–750)

1,927

(800–4,025)

2,514

(925–5,525)

0.1 3 971

(550–1,025)

2,668

(1,025–6,275)

3,541

(1,775–9,775) 1Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances 

which are in parentheses. Values depict the range produced by SEL hearing threshold criteria levels.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-419

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-69: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS ad Onset TTS for Phocids

Range to Effects for Explosives: Phocids1

Bin Source Depth (m) PTS TTS

E1 0.1 144

(60–160)

258

(95–300)

E2 0.1 180

(70–220)

323

(110–370)

E3

0.1 303

(100–350)

533

(150–675)

18.25 373

(270–950)

697

(470–1,775)

E4

3 548

(470–700)

1,230

(675–2,525)

15.25 567

(460–750)

927

(675–1,525)

19.8 459

(440–480)

823

(800–900)

198 431

(420–440)

864

(800–1,000)

E5

0.1 469

(140–600)

815

(190–6,025)

15.25 604

(550–900)

1,061

(725–1,775)

E6

0.1 582

(160–775)

910

(230–6,025)

3 888

(750–1,025)

1,484

(1,025–1,775)

15.25 822

(650–1,525)

1,426

(875–2,775)

E7

3 1,109

(1,025–1,525)

2,109

(1,775–2,525)

18.25 1,482

(1,025–2,025)

2,766

(1,775–4,775)

E8

0.1 987

(500–1,275)

1,472

(625–2,025)

45.75 1,695

(800–4,525)

2,896

(1,275–8,025)

E9 0.1 1,207

(550–1,525)

1,790

(700–3,025)

E10 0.1 1,407

(450–3,275)

2,043

(775–5,275)

E11

18.5 3,311

(1,775–7,025)

5,848

(2,275–12,525)

45.75 3,053

(1,525–8,275)

4,178

(1,775–11,275)

E12 0.1 1,580

(675–2,525)

2,228

(825–3,775) 1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-420

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.2.2.3 Impacts from Explosives Under the Action Alternatives

The following provides a brief description of training and testing as it pertains to underwater and nearsurface explosions under the action alternatives:

• As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.6-2, and 

Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors), training activities under Alternative 1 would use 

underwater detonations and explosive ordnance. Within Alternative 1, most training activities 

that use explosives reoccur on an annual basis, with some variability year-to-year. Activities that 

involve underwater detonations and explosive ordnance typically occur more than 3 NM from 

shore and often in areas designated for explosive use. 

• As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.6-3 through 

Table 2.6-5, and Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors), testing activities under Alternative 1 

would use underwater detonations and explosive ordnance. Within Alternative 1, most testing 

activities that use explosives reoccur on an annual basis. Testing activities using explosions do 

not normally occur within 3 NM of shore. 

• As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.6-2, and 

Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors), training activities under Alternative 2 would use 

underwater detonations and explosive ordnance. Within Alternative 2, most training activities 

that use explosives reoccur on an annual basis, with the same number of exercises planned each 

year. Activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive ordnance typically occur 

more than 3 NM from shore and often in areas designated for explosive use. 

• As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.6-3 through 

Table 2.6-5, and Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors), testing activities under Alternative 2 

would use underwater detonations and explosive ordnance. Within Alternative 2, most testing 

activities that use explosives reoccur on an annual basis. Testing activities using explosions do 

not normally occur within 3 NM of shore. 

Presentation of Estimated Impacts from the Quantitative Analysis

The results of the analysis of potential impacts on marine mammals from explosives (see above Section 

3.7.3.2.2.1, Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and Other Transducers) are discussed below. 

The numbers of potential impacts estimated for individual species of marine mammals from exposure to 

explosive energy and sound for training activities under Alternative 1 and 2 are shown in Appendix E 

(Acoustic Impact Tables). Additionally, estimated numbers of potential impacts from the quantitative 

analysis for each species are presented below (e.g., Figure 3.7-95). The most likely regions and activity 

categories from which the impacts could occur are displayed in the pie charts for each species. There is a 

potential for impacts on occur anywhere within the Study Area where sound and energy from explosives 

and the species overlap, although only areas or categories where 0.5 percent of the impacts, or greater, 

are estimated to occur are graphically represented on the pie charts below. All (i.e., grand total) 

estimated impacts are included in the bar plots, regardless of region or category. 

Regions within the HSTT Study Area include (see Study Area maps Chapter 2) the Hawaii OPAREA, the 

Temporary Hawaii OPAREA, the SOCAL Defined Training Areas, the Western SOCAL OPAREA, and the 

Transit Lane. The SOCAL portion of the HSTT Study Area encompasses the SOCAL Defined Training Areas 

that are located within approximately 200 NM of the coast and the Western SOCAL OPAREA, which 

extends westward beyond 200 NM. Similarly, the Hawaii Range Complex portion of the HSTT Study Area 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-421

3.7 Marine Mammals

is divided into the Hawaii OPAREA that is located around the main Hawaiian Islands within about 200 

NM and the Temporary Hawaii OPAREA that extends to the northwest beyond about 200 NM.

The numbers of activities planned under Alternative 1 can vary slightly from year-to-year. Alternative 1 

results are presented for a maximum explosive use year; however, during most years, explosive use 

would be less resulting in fewer potential impacts. The numbers of activities planned under Alternative 2 

are consistent from year-to-year. The numbers of explosives used under each alternative are described 

in Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors).

Mysticetes

Mysticetes may be exposed to sound and energy from explosives associated with training and testing 

activities throughout the year. Explosives produce sounds that are within the hearing range of 

mysticetes (see Section 3.7.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization). Potential impacts from explosive energy 

and sound include non-auditory injury, behavioral reactions, physiological stress, masking, and hearing 

loss. Impact ranges for mysticetes exposed to explosive sound and energy are discussed under lowfrequency cetaceans in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges for Explosives. 

Mysticetes that do experience TTS from explosive sounds may have reduced ability to detect biologically 

important sounds (e.g., social vocalizations) until their hearing recovers. Recovery from TTS begins 

almost immediately after the noise exposure ceases and can take a few minutes to a few days, 

depending on the severity of the initial shift, to fully recover. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect 

all hearing frequencies equally, and typically manifest themselves at the exposure frequency or within 

an octave above the exposure frequency. Noise from explosions is broadband with most energy below a 

few hundred Hertz; therefore, any hearing loss from exposure to explosive sounds is likely to be 

broadband with effects predominantly at lower frequencies. During the short period that a mysticete

had TTS, social calls from conspecifics could be more difficult to detect or interpret, the ability to detect 

predators may be reduced, and the ability to detect and avoid sounds from approaching vessels or other 

stressors might be reduced. It is unclear how or if mysticetes use sound for finding prey or feeding; 

therefore, it is unknown whether a TTS would affect a mysticete’s ability to locate prey or rate of 

feeding. 

Research and observations of auditory masking in marine mammals due to impulsive sounds are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.4 (Masking). Explosions introduce low-frequency, broadband sounds into 

the environment, which could mask hearing thresholds in mysticetes that are nearby, although sounds 

from explosions last for only a few seconds at most. Masking due to time-isolated detonations would 

not be significant. Activities that have multiple detonations such as some naval gunfire exercises could 

create some masking for mysticetes in the area over the short duration of the event. Potential costs to 

mysticetes from masking are similar to those discussed above for TTS, with the primary difference being 

that the effects of masking are only present when the sound from the explosion is present within the 

water and the effect is over the moment the sound has ceased. 

Research and observations (see Behavioral Responses from Explosives) show that if mysticetes are 

exposed to impulsive sounds such as those from explosion, they may react in a variety of ways, which 

may include alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, diving or swimming away, 

changing vocalization, or showing no response at all. Overall, mysticetes have been observed to be more 

reactive to acoustic disturbance when a noise sources is located directly on their migration route. 

Mysticetes disturbed while migrating could pause their migration or route around the disturbance. 

Animals disturbed while engaged in other activities such as feeding or reproductive behaviors may be 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-422

3.7 Marine Mammals

more likely to ignore or tolerate the disturbance and continue their natural behavior patterns. Because 

noise from most activities using explosives is short-term and intermittent, and because detonations 

usually occur within a small area, behavioral reactions from mysticetes are likely to be short-term and 

low to moderate severity. 

Physiological stress could be caused by injury or hearing loss and could accompany any behavioral 

reaction as well. Research and observations of physiological stress in marine mammals are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.1.3, Physiological Stress. Due to the short-term and intermittent use of explosives, 

physiological stress is also likely to be short-term and intermittent. Long-term consequences from 

physiological stress due to the sound of explosives would not be expected.

Blue Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Blue whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS and PTS (see Figure 3.7-95 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply to multiple 

stocks (see Table 3.7-70).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of blue whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed blue whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Blue whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-95 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see 

Table 3.7-70).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-423

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of blue whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed blue whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-424

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses or injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: AntiSubmarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-95: Blue Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-425

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-70: Estimated Impacts on Individual Blue Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of blue whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed blue whales. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of blue whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed blue whales. 

Bryde’s Whales

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Bryde’s whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-96 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-426

3.7 Marine Mammals

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see 

Table 3.7-70)

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Bryde’s whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no Bryde’s whales would be 

impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will not result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. 

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No impacts are estimated for testing activities. No behavioral responses, PTS, or injuries

(non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-96: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-427

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-71: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bryde’s Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions 

Under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Bryde’s whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no Bryde’s whales would be 

impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2

will not result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. 

Fin Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Fin whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-97 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see 

Table 3.7-72).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

0%

0%

27%

73%

Hawaiian

Eastern Tropical Pacific

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Stock Training Testing
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-428

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed fin whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Fin whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS and PTS (see Figure 3.7-97 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply to multiple 

stocks (see Table 3.7-72).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed fin whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-429

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses or injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: AntiSubmarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-97: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-430

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-72: Estimated Impacts on Individual Fin Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed fin whales. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed fin whales. 

Gray Whales 

The vast majority of gray whales in the study are from the non-endangered Eastern North Pacific stock, 

and all of the modeled impacts are for this stock. On rare occasions Western North Pacific gray whales, 

which are Endangered Species Act-Listed, occur in the Study Area but are not included in this analysis.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-431

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Gray whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS and PTS (see Figure 3.7-98 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the 

Eastern North Pacific stock.

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

A migration corridor for gray whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) overlaps the Southern 

California Range Complex within the Study Area. Navy training activities that use explosives could occur 

year round within the Southern California Range Complex; however, within the Southern California 

Range Complex training with explosives typically occurs only within localized designated areas, which 

are all small compared to the size of the migration corridor that spreads across the entire southern 

California Bight (Calambokidis et al. 2015). Gray whales in the identified feeding area could be exposed 

to limited sound or energy from explosives; therefore, impacts on migration might include a slight shift 

in migration path or slowing in travel speed as has been observed for migrating gray whales when 

seismic noise was in their path (e.g., Malme 1984). This would be a low severity behavioral response and 

would not affect their overall migration behavior within the designated migration corridor.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of gray whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

would not affect ESA-listed gray whales.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Gray whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS and PTS (see Figure 3.7-98 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the 

Eastern North Pacific stock.

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-432

3.7 Marine Mammals

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

A migration corridor for gray whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) overlaps the Southern 

California Range Complex within the Study Area. Navy testing activities that use explosives could occur 

year round within the Southern California Range Complex; however, within the Southern California 

Range Complex testing with explosives typically occurs only within localized designated areas, which are 

all small compared to the size of the migration corridor that spreads across the entire southern 

California Bight (Calambokidis et al. 2015). Gray whales in the identified feeding area could be exposed 

to limited sound or energy from explosives; therefore, impacts on migration might include a slight shift 

in migration path or slowing in travel speed as has been observed for migrating gray whales when 

seismic noise was in their path (e.g., Malme 1984). This would be a low severity behavioral response and 

would not affect their overall migration behavior within the designated migration corridor.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of gray whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

would not affect ESA-listed gray whales.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-433

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses or injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. 100% 

Eastern North Pacific Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-98: Gray Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-434

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of gray whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

would not affect ESA-listed gray whales.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of gray whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

would not affect ESA-listed gray whales.

Humpback Whales 

Impacts have been modeled for the Hawaiian population of humpback whales, which are not 

Endangered Species Act-Listed, and for the Mexican and Central American populations of humpback 

whales, which are Endangered Species Act-Listed. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Humpback whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates TTS and PTS (see Figure 3.7-99 and tabular results in Appendix E). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply to multiple 

stocks (see Table 3.7-73).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-435

3.7 Marine Mammals

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

The breeding area for humpback whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) overlaps the Hawaii Range 

Complex within the Study Area. Navy training activities that use explosives could occur year round 

within the Hawaii Range Complex; however, within the Hawaii Range Complex training with explosives 

typically occurs only in offshore waters except for some activity near Honolulu. In either case, the 

training occurs outside the humpback whale breeding area identified by Baird et al. (2015). Humpback 

whales within the identified breeding area would not be directly exposed to sound or energy from 

explosions; therefore, impacts on breeding behaviors would not be anticipated within the identified 

humpback whale breeding area from training with explosives.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed humpback whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of 

the ESA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Humpback whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS and PTS (see Figure 3.7-99 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply to multiple 

stocks (see Table 3.7-73).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

The breeding area for humpback whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) overlaps the Hawaii Range 

Complex within the Study Area. Navy testing activities that use explosives could occur year round within 

the Hawaii Range Complex; however, within the Hawaii Range Complex testing with explosives typically 

occurs only in offshore waters except for some activity near Honolulu; in either case, the testing occurs 

outside the humpback whale breeding area identified by Baird et al. (2015). Humpback whales within 

the identified breeding area would not be directly exposed to sound or energy; therefore, impacts on 

breeding behaviors would not be anticipated within the identified humpback whale breeding area from 

testing with explosives.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-436

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed humpback whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of 

the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-437

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses or injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: AntiSubmarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-99: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-438

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-73: Estimated Impacts on Individual Humpback Whale Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions 

Under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed humpback whales. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed humpback whales. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-439

3.7 Marine Mammals

Minke Whales

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Minke whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS and PTS (see Figure 3.7-100 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply to multiple 

stocks (see Table 3.7-74).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Minke whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS and PTS (see Figure 3.7-100 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply to multiple 

stocks (see Table 3.7-74).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual.

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-440

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses or injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: AntiSubmarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-100: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-441

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-74: Estimated Impacts on Individual Minke Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Sei Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Sei whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-101 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks 

(see Table 3.7-75).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-442

3.7 Marine Mammals

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed sei whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Sei whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-101 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see 

Table 3.7-75).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed sei whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-443

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS, or injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: 

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-101: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-444

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-75: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sei Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed sei whales. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts on this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see Appendix 

E). 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed sei whales. 

Odontocetes

Odontocetes may be exposed to sound and energy from explosives associated with training and testing 

activities throughout the year. Explosives produce sounds that are within the hearing range of 

odontocetes (see Section 3.7.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization). Potential impacts from explosive energy 

and sound include non-auditory injury, behavioral reactions, physiological stress, masking and hearing 

loss. Impact ranges for odontocetes exposed to explosive sound and energy are discussed in Section 

55%

45%

29%

71%

Hawaiian

Eastern North Pacific

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Stock Training Testing
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-445

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges for Explosives) under mid-frequency cetaceans for most species, and under 

high-frequency cetaceans for Kogia whales and Dall’s porpoises. 

Injuries (non-auditory) to odontocetes, if they did occur, could include anything from mild injuries that 

are recoverable and are unlikely to have long-term consequences, to more serious injuries, including 

mortality. It is possible for marine mammals to be injured or killed by an explosion in isolated instances. 

Mitigation measures discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) prescribe pausing detonations when animals 

are sighted within, or entering the mitigation zones around an explosion to protect against injuries. 

Nevertheless, animals that did sustain injury could have long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering that dolphin species for which these impacts are predicted have populations with tens to 

hundreds of thousands of animals, removing several animals from the population would be unlikely to 

have measurable long-term consequences for the species or stocks. 

Odontocetes that do experience a hearing threshold shift from explosive sounds may have reduced 

ability to detect biologically important sounds (e.g., social vocalizations) until their hearing recovers. 

Recovery from a hearing threshold shift begins almost immediately after the noise exposure ceases. A 

threshold shift can take a few minutes to a few days, depending on the severity of the initial shift, to 

recover. TTS would recover fully and PTS would leave some residual hearing loss. Threshold shifts do not 

necessarily affect all hearing frequencies equally, and typically manifest themselves at the exposure 

frequency or within an octave above the exposure frequency. Noise from explosions is broadband with 

most energy below a few hundred Hertz; therefore, any hearing loss from exposure to explosive sounds 

is likely to be broadband with effects predominantly at lower frequencies. During the period that an 

odontocete had hearing loss, social calls from conspecifics and sounds from predators such as killer 

whale vocalizations could be more difficult to detect or interpret, although many of these sounds may 

be above the frequencies of the threshold shift. Odontocetes use echolocation clicks to find and capture 

prey. These echolocation clicks and vocalizations are at frequencies above a few kHz, which are less 

likely to be affected by threshold shift at lower frequencies, and should not affect odontocete’s ability to 

locate prey or rate of feeding. 

Research and observations of masking in marine mammals due to impulsive sounds are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.1.1.4 (Masking). Explosions introduce low-frequency, broadband sounds into the 

environment, which could mask hearing thresholds in odontocetes that are nearby, although sounds 

from explosions last for only a few seconds at most. Also, odontocetes typically communicate, vocalize, 

and echolocate at higher frequencies that would be less affected by masking noise at lower frequencies 

such as those produced by an explosion. Masking due to time-isolated detonations would not be 

significant. Activities that have multiple detonations such as some naval gunfire exercises could create 

some masking for odontocetes in the area over the short duration of the event. Potential costs to 

odontocetes from masking are similar to those discussed above for TTS, with the primary difference 

being that the effects of masking are only present when the sound from the explosion is present within 

the water and the effect is over the moment the sound has ceased.

Research and observations (see 3.7.3.1.1.5 Behavioral Reactions) show that odontocetes do not typically 

show strong behavioral reactions to impulsive sounds such as explosions. Reactions, if they did occur, 

would likely be limited to short ranges, within a few kilometers of multiple explosions. Reactions could 

include alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, diving or swimming away, change in 

vocalization, or showing no response at all. Animals disturbed while engaged in other activities such as 

feeding or reproductive behaviors may be more likely to ignore or tolerate the disturbance and continue 

their natural behavior patterns. Because noise from most activities using explosives is short-term and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-446

3.7 Marine Mammals

intermittent, and because detonations usually occur within a small area, behavioral reactions from 

odontocetes are likely to be short-term and low to moderate severity. 

Physiological stress could be caused by injury or hearing loss and could accompany any behavioral 

reaction as well. Research and observations of physiological stress in marine mammals are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.1.3, Physiological Stress. Due to the short-term and intermittent use of explosives, 

physiological stress is also likely to be short-term and intermittent. Long-term consequences from 

physiological stress due to the sound of explosives would not be expected.

Sperm Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed) 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Sperm whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-102 and tabular results in Appendix 

E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply to 

multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-76).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed sperm whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Sperm whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-102 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks 

(see Table 3.7-76).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the course 

of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-447

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed sperm whales. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA.

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: Anti-Submarine 

Warfare

Figure 3.7-102: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-448

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-76: Estimated Impacts on Individual Sperm Whale Stocks Within the Study Area per 

Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under 

Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed sperm whales. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed sperm whales. 

Kogia Whales

Kogia whales include two species that are often difficult to distinguish from one another: dwarf sperm 

whales and pygmy sperm whales. Impacts to the California, Oregon and Washington stock of Kogia 

whales are not broken out by species.

TTS and PTS thresholds for high-frequency cetaceans, such as Kogia whales are lower than for all other 

marine mammals, which leads to a higher number of estimated hearing loss impacts relative to the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-449

3.7 Marine Mammals

number of animals exposed to the sound as compared to other hearing groups (e.g., mid-frequency 

cetaceans).

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Kogia whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-103 through Figure 3.7-105, 

and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. Impact ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from 

Explosives. Estimated impacts to pygmy and dwarf sperm whales apply only to the Hawaiian stock. 

Estimated impacts to kogia whales apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for dwarf sperm whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) is within 

the Hawaii Range Complex. This area occurs off the west coast of the Big Island of Hawaii. The Navy does 

not generally train with explosives in this area. Dwarf sperm whales in the identified small and resident 

population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015) would not be exposed directly to sound or energy from 

explosives; therefore, impacts would not be anticipated within the identified dwarf sperm whale small 

and resident population area from training with explosives.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of dwarf and pygmy sperm whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Kogia whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-103 through Figure 3.7-105, 

and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. Impact ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from 

Explosives. Estimated impacts to pygmy and dwarf sperm whales apply only to the Hawaiian stock. 

Estimated impacts to kogia whales apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-450

3.7 Marine Mammals

A small and resident population area for dwarf sperm whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) is within 

the Hawaii Range Complex. This area occurs off the west coast of the Big Island of Hawaii. The Navy does 

not generally conduct explosive testing in this area. Dwarf sperm whales in the identified small and 

resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015) would not be exposed directly to sound or 

energy from explosives; therefore, impacts would not be anticipated within the identified dwarf sperm 

whale small and resident population area from testing with explosives.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of dwarf and pygmy sperm whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-451

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. 100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: AntiSubmarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-103: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-452

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. 100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: AntiSubmarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-104: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-453

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for these species. 100% California, Oregon, and 

Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-105: Kogia Whales Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-454

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of dwarf and pygmy sperm whales (Hawaiian stocks) and kogia 

whales (California, Oregon, Washington stock) incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of dwarf and pygmy sperm whales (Hawaiian stocks) and kogia 

whales (California, Oregon, Washington stock) incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Beaked Whales 

Beaked whales within the HSTT study area include: Baird’s beaked whale, Blainville’s beaked whale, 

Cuvier’s beaked whale, Hubb's beaked whale, Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale, Longman’s beaked whale, 

Perrin’s beaked whale, Stejneger’s beaked whale, and the Pygmy beaked whale. Impacts to Hubb's 

beaked whale, Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale, Perrin’s beaked whale, Stejneger’s beaked whale and the 

Pygmy beaked whale are combined and represented in the beaked whale guild (Mesoplodon spp.).

Research and observations (see Behavioral Responses from Explosives) show that beaked whales are 

sensitive to human disturbance including noise from sonars, although no research on specific reactions 

to impulsive or explosion noise is available. Odontocetes overall have shown little responsiveness to 

impulsive sounds although it is likely that beaked whales are more reactive than most other 

odontocetes. Reactions could include alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, diving 

or swimming away, change in vocalization, or showing no response at all. Beaked whales on Navy ranges 

have been observed leaving the area for a few days during sonar training exercises. It is reasonable to 

expect that animals may leave an area of more intense explosive activity for a few days, however most 

explosive use during Navy activities is short-duration consisting of only a single or few closely timed 

explosions (i.e., detonated within a few minutes) with a limited footprint due to a single detonation 

point. Because noise from most activities using explosives is short-term and intermittent and because 

detonations usually occur within a small area, behavioral reactions from beaked whales are likely to be 

short-term and moderate severity.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-455

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Beaked whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral and TTS for the beaked whale guild (Mesoplodon spp.) (see Figure 

3.7-106 and Figure 3.7-107 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be 

less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, 

Impact Ranges from Explosives. No impacts are estimated for Baird’s beaked whale, Blainville’s beaked 

whale, Cuvier’s beaked whale, or Longman’s beaked whale. Estimated impacts for the beaked whale 

guild (Mesoplodon spp.) only apply to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock. 

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for Blainville’s beaked whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) 

occurs in the Hawaii Range Complex off the west coast of the Big Island of Hawaii. A small and resident 

population area for Cuvier’s beaked whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) occurs in the Hawaii Range 

Complex around the Big Island of Hawaii. The Navy does not generally train with explosives in either of 

these areas. Blainville’s and Cuvier’s beaked whales in the identified small and resident population areas 

identified by Baird et al. (2015) would not be exposed directly to sound or energy from explosions; 

therefore, impacts would not be anticipated within the identified Blainville’s and Cuvier’s beaked whale 

small and resident population areas from training with explosives.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Hubb’s, ginkgo-toothed, Perrin’s, Stejneger’s, and pygmy beaked 

whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Beaked whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS for Longman’s beaked whales and behavioral and TTS for the beaked 

whales guild (Mesoplodon spp.) (see Figure 3.7-106 and Figure 3.7-107 and tabular results in Appendix 

E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for these 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. No impacts are estimated 

for Baird’s, Blainville’s, or Cuvier’s beaked whales. Estimated impacts to Longman’s beaked whales apply 

only to the Hawaiian stock. Estimated impacts to the beaked whale guild (Mesoplodon Spp.) apply only 

to the California, Oregon, and Washington stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for Blainville’s beaked whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) 

occurs in the Hawaii Range Complex off the west coast of the Big Island of Hawaii. A small and resident 

population area for Cuvier’s beaked whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) occurs in the Hawaii Range 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-456

3.7 Marine Mammals

Complex around the Big Island of Hawaii. The Navy does not generally test with explosives in either of 

these areas. Blainville’s and Cuvier’s beaked whales in the identified small and resident population areas 

identified by Baird et al. (2015) would not be exposed directly to sound or energy from explosives; 

therefore, impacts would not be anticipated within the identified Blainville’s and Cuvier’s beaked whale 

small and resident population areas from testing with explosives.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Longman’s, Hubb’s, ginkgo-toothed, Perrin’s, Stejneger’s, and 

Pygmy beaked whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as 

required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No impacts are estimated for training activities. No behavioral responses, PTS, or injuries 

(non-auditory) are estimated for this species. 100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-106: Longman’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-457

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. 100% California, Oregon, 

and Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-107: Mesoplodon Spp. (Beaked Whale Guild) Impacts Estimated per Year from the 

Maximum Number of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-458

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Hubb’s, ginkgo-toothed, Longman’s, Perrin’s, Stejneger’s, and 

pygmy beaked whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as 

required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts on these species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for these species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Hubb’s, ginkgo-toothed, Longman’s, Perrin’s, Stejneger’s, and 

pygmy beaked whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as 

required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Bottlenose Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Bottlenose dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-108 and tabular 

results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-77).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Four small and resident population areas for bottlenose dolphins identified by Baird et al. (2015) are 

within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use explosives could occur 

year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and resident population areas are 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-459

3.7 Marine Mammals

mostly located within shallow, near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities 

that involve explosives with the exception of mine neutralization activities. However, sound from 

explosives could still expose animals within the identified bottlenose dolphin small and resident 

population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As 

discussed above, bottlenose dolphin reactions to sounds are most likely short-term and mild to 

moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the 

animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on bottlenose 

dolphin natural behaviors or abandonment due to training with explosives are unlikely to occur within 

the small and resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Bottlenose dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-108 and tabular 

results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-77).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Four small and resident population areas for bottlenose dolphins identified by Baird et al. (2015) are 

within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use explosives could occur 

year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and resident population areas are 

mostly located within shallow, near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities 

that involve explosives. However, sound from explosives could still expose animals within the identified 

bottlenose dolphin small and resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015) and some 

impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, bottlenose dolphin reactions to sounds are most 

likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few 

kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, 

significant impacts on bottlenose dolphin natural behaviors or abandonment due to testing with 

explosives are unlikely to occur within the small and resident population areas identified by Baird et al. 

(2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-460

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-108: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-461

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-77: Estimated Impacts on Individual Bottlenose Dolphin Stocks Within the Study 

Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of 

Explosions Under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

False Killer Whales

False killer whales main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock is Endangered Species Act Listed.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

False killer whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-109 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-462

3.7 Marine Mammals

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the Main Hawaiian 

Islands Insular stock. 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the course 

of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for false killer whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) is within the 

Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use explosives could occur year round 

within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident population area is mostly located 

within shallow, near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities that involve 

explosives. However, sound from explosives could still expose animals within the false killer whale small 

and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015) and some impacts on behavior could occur. 

As discussed above, false killer whale reactions to sound are most likely short-term and mild to 

moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the 

animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on false killer 

whale natural behaviors or abandonment due to training with explosives are unlikely to occur within the 

small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock of false killer whales. The Navy will consult with 

NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

False killer whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

under Alternative 1 throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no false killer 

whales would be impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not 

be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will not result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those activities. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

would not affect ESA-listed Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock of false killer whales. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-463

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No impacts are estimated for testing activities. No behavioral responses, PTS, or injuries

(non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-109: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock of false killer whales. The Navy will consult with 

NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-464

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

False killer whales (main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock is Endangered Species Act Listed) may be 

exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 

throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no false killer whales would be 

impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will not result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those activities. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

would not affect ESA-listed Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock of false killer whales. 

Fraser’s Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Fraser’s dolphin may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reaction, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-110 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts only 

apply to the Hawaiian Stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Fraser’s dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-110) and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply 

only to the Hawaiian Stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-465

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-466

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. 100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: AntiSubmarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-110: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-467

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts on this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see Appendix 

E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Killer Whales

Killer whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training or testing 

activities throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no killer whales would 

be impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training or testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 or 2 will not result in the unintentional taking of killer whales incidental to those activities. 

Long-Beaked Common Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Long-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) 

injury (see Figure 3.7-111 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be 

less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, 

Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the California Stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-468

3.7 Marine Mammals

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of long-beaked common dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Long-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) 

injury (see Figure 3.7-111 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be 

less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, 

Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the California Stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual or 

lead to mortality. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of long-beaked common dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-469

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. 100% California Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-111: Long-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the 

Maximum Number of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-470

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of long-beaked common dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of long-beaked common dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Melon-Headed Whales

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Melon-headed whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-112 and tabular results 

in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges 

for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts 

apply only to the Hawaiian Islands Stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not 

be expected.

A small and resident population area for melon-headed whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) is within 

the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use explosives could occur year 

round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident population area is mostly 

located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities that involve 

explosives. However, sound from explosives could still expose animals within the melon-headed whale 

small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015) and some impacts on behavior could 

occur. As discussed above, melon-headed whale reactions to sound are most likely short-term and mild 

to moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the 

animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on melon-headed 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-471

3.7 Marine Mammals

whale natural behaviors or abandonment due to training with explosives are unlikely to occur within the 

small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Melon-headed whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing

activities throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no melon-headed 

whales would be impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not 

be expected.

A small and resident population area for melon-headed whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) is within 

the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use explosives could occur year round 

within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident population area is mostly located 

within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities that involve explosives. 

However, sound from explosions could still expose animals within the melon-headed whale small and 

resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As 

discussed above, melon-headed whale reactions to sound are most likely short-term and mild to 

moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the 

animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on melon-headed 

whale natural behaviors or abandonment due to testing with explosives are unlikely to occur within the 

small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will not result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those activities. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-472

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No impacts are estimated for testing activities. No PTS or injuries (non-auditory) are 

estimated for this species. 100% Hawaiian Islands Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-112: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts on this species under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives

Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for training does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E). 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Melon-headed whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing

activities under Alternative 2 throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-473

3.7 Marine Mammals

melon-headed whale would be impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will not result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those activities. 

Northern Right Whale Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Northern right whale dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) 

injury (see Figure 3.7-113 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be 

less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, 

Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and 

Washington Stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Northern right whale dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Northern right whale dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-113

and tabular results in Appendix E). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, 

Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and 

Washington Stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Northern right whale dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-474

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. 100% California, Oregon, and Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-113: Northern Right Whale Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-475

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Northern right whale dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts on this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of northern right whale dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pantropical Spotted Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Pantropical spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-114 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply 

to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-78).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the course 

of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Three small and resident population areas for pantropical spotted dolphins identified by Baird et al. 

(2015) are within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use explosives 

could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and resident population 

areas are mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities 

that involve explosives. However, sound from explosives could still expose animals within the identified 

pantropical spotted dolphin small and resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015) and 

some impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, pantropical spotted dolphin reactions to 

explosives are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are located 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-476

3.7 Marine Mammals

more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. 

Therefore, significant impacts on pantropical spotted dolphin natural behaviors or abandonment due to 

training with explosives are unlikely to occur within the small and resident population areas identified by 

Baird et al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Pantropical spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-114 and 

tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. 

Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges for Explosives.

Estimated impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-78).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not 

be expected.

Three small and resident population areas for pantropical spotted dolphins identified by Baird et al. 

(2015) are within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use explosives 

could occur year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and resident population 

areas are mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities 

that involve explosions However, sound from explosives could still expose animals within the identified 

pantropical spotted dolphin small and resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015) and 

some impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, pantropical spotted dolphin reactions to 

explosives are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are located 

more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. 

Therefore, significant impacts on pantropical spotted dolphin natural behaviors or abandonment due to 

testing with explosives are unlikely to occur within the small and resident population areas identified by 

Baird et al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-477

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: AntiSubmarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-114: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-478

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-78: Estimated Impacts on Individual Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of 

Explosions Under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pacific White-Sided Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Pacific white-sided dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-115

and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges for 

Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington Stock.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-479

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Pacific white-sided dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Pacific white-sided dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-115 and tabular 

results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated 

impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington Stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Pacific white-sided dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-480

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. 100% California, Oregon, and 

Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-115: Pacific White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-481

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Pacific white-sided dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Pacific white-sided dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pygmy Killer Whales

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Pygmy killer whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-116 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the 

Hawaiian stock. 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the course 

of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for pygmy killer whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) is within 

the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use explosives could occur year 

round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident population area is mostly 

located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities that involve 

explosives. However, sound from explosives could still expose animals within the pygmy killer whale 

small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015) and some impacts on behavior could 

occur. As discussed above, pygmy killer whale reactions to sound are most likely short-term and mild to 

moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the 

animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on pygmy killer 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-482

3.7 Marine Mammals

whale natural behaviors or abandonment due to training with explosives are unlikely to occur within the 

small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Pygmy killer whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-116 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the 

Hawaiian stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the course 

of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for pygmy killer whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) is within 

the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use explosives could occur year round 

within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident population area is mostly located 

within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities that involve explosives. 

However, sound from explosives could still expose animals within the pygmy killer whale small and 

resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As 

discussed above, pygmy killer whale reactions to sound are most likely short-term and mild to 

moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the 

animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on pygmy killer 

whale natural behaviors or abandonment due to testing with explosives are unlikely to occur within the 

small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-483

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS, or injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: 

Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-116: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-484

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts on this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives

Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for training does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E). 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts on this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E). 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Risso’s Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Risso’s dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-117 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply 

to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-79).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-485

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Risso’s dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-117 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply 

to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-79).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-486

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-117: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-487

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-79: Estimated Impacts on Individual Risso’s Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions 

Under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts on this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Rough-Toothed Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Rough-toothed dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no rough toothed 

dolphins would be impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not 

be expected.

A small and resident population area for rough-toothed dolphins identified by Baird et al. (2015) is 

within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use explosives could occur 

year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident population area only 

Estimated Impacts per Species' Stock

Stock Training Testing

Hawaiian

California, Oregon, & 

Washington

2%

98%

5%

95%
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-488

3.7 Marine Mammals

takes up a very small portion Range Complex; therefore, explosive use in this area would be infrequent 

and typically only last for a short duration if it did occur. The sound from explosives could expose 

animals within the identified rough-toothed dolphin small and resident population area identified by 

Baird et al. (2015) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, rough-toothed 

dolphin reactions to sound are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound 

sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in important 

biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on rough-toothed dolphin natural behaviors or 

abandonment due to training with explosives are unlikely to occur within the small and resident 

population area identified by Baird et al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will not result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those activities. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Rough-toothed dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-118 and tabular results 

in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges 

for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts 

apply only to the Hawaiian Stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not 

be expected.

A small and resident population area for rough-toothed dolphins identified by Baird et al. (2015) is 

within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use explosives could occur 

year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident population area only 

takes up a very small portion Range Complex; therefore, explosive use in this area would be infrequent 

and typically only last for a short duration if it did occur. The sound from explosives could expose 

animals within the identified rough-toothed dolphin small and resident population area identified by 

Baird et al. (2015) and some impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed above, rough-toothed 

dolphin reactions to sound are most likely short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound 

sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in important 

biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on rough-toothed dolphin natural behaviors or 

abandonment due to testing with explosives are unlikely to occur within the small and resident 

population area identified by Baird et al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-489

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No impacts are estimated for training activities. No PTS or injuries (non-auditory) are 

estimated for this species. 100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-118: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Rough-toothed dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities under Alternative 2 throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no 

rough-toothed dolphin would be impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or 

stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2

will not result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those activities. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts on this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-490

3.7 Marine Mammals

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E). 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Short-Beaked Common Dolphin

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Short-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) 

injuries (see Figure 3.7-119 and tabular results in Appendix E). In addition, the quantitative analysis 

estimates one mortality for short-beaked common dolphin from training activities. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Estimated impacts most years would be less based 

on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges 

from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the California, Oregon, and Washington Stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Short-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) 

injuries (see Figure 3.7-119 and tabular results in Appendix E). In addition, the quantitative analysis 

estimates one mortality for short-beaked common dolphin from training activities. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the California, 

Oregon, and Washington Stock.

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-491

3.7 Marine Mammals

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in 

Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-492

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. 100% California, Oregon, and Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-119: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the 

Maximum Number of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-493

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be nearly identical to 

the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under 

Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent 

year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, 

over a multi-year period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than 

under Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Short-Finned Pilot Whales

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Short-finned pilot whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-120 and tabular 

results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact 

ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated 

impacts apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-80).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for short-finned pilot whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) is 

within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use explosives could occur 

year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident population area is 

mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities that 

involve explosives. However, sound from explosives could still expose animals within the short-finned 

pilot whale small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015) and some impacts on 

behavior could occur. As discussed above, short-finned pilot whale reactions to sound are most likely 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-494

3.7 Marine Mammals

short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few 

kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, 

significant impacts on short-finned pilot whale natural behaviors or abandonment due to training with 

explosives are unlikely to occur within the small and resident population area identified by Baird et 

al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of short-finned pilot whales incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Short-finned pilot whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-120, and tabular results 

in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges 

for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts 

apply to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-80).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not 

be expected.

A small and resident population area for short-finned pilot whales identified by Baird et al. (2015) is 

within the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use explosives could occur 

year round within the Hawaii Range Complex. This identified small and resident population area is 

mostly located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities that 

involve explosives. However, sound from explosives could still expose animals within the short-finned 

pilot whale small and resident population area identified by Baird et al. (2015) and some impacts on 

behavior could occur. As discussed above, short-finned pilot whale reactions to sound are most likely 

short-term and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few 

kilometers away or when the animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, 

significant impacts on short-finned pilot whale natural behaviors or abandonment due to testing with 

explosives are unlikely to occur within the small and resident population area identified by Baird et 

al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of short-finned pilot whales incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-495

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-120: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-496

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-80: Estimated Impacts on Individual Short-Finned Pilot Whale Stocks Within the 

Study Area per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of 

Explosions Under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of short-finned pilot whales incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of short-finned pilot whales incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Spinner Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Spinner dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-121 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply 

to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-81).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-497

3.7 Marine Mammals

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Five small and resident population areas for spinner dolphins identified by Baird et al. (2015) are within 

the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy training activities that use explosives could occur year 

round within the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and resident population areas are mostly 

located within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities that involve 

explosives. However, sound from explosives could still expose animals within the identified spinner 

dolphin small and resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015) and some impacts on 

behavior could occur. As discussed above, spinner dolphin reactions to sounds are most likely shortterm and mild to moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers 

away or when the animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts 

on spinner dolphin natural behaviors or abandonment due to training with explosives are unlikely to 

occur within the small and resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Spinner dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-121 and tabular results in Appendix 

E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply to 

multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-81).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not 

be expected.

Five small and resident population areas for spinner dolphins identified by Baird et al. (2015) are within 

the Hawaii Range Complex year-round. Navy testing activities that use explosives could occur year round 

within the Hawaii Range Complex. The identified small and resident population areas are mostly located 

within near-shore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities that involve explosives. 

However, sound from explosives could still expose animals within the identified spinner dolphin small 

and resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015) and some impacts on behavior could 

occur. As discussed above, spinner dolphin reactions to sounds are most likely short-term and mild to 

moderate, especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away or when the 

animals are engaged in important biological behaviors. Therefore, significant impacts on spinner dolphin 

natural behaviors or abandonment due to testing with explosives are unlikely to occur within the small 

and resident population areas identified by Baird et al. (2015).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-498

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-499

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-121: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-500

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-81: Estimated Impacts on Individual Spinner Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions 

Under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Striped Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Striped dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-122 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply 

to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-82).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-501

3.7 Marine Mammals

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Striped dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-122 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges for Explosives. Estimated impacts apply 

to multiple stocks (see Table 3.7-82).

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-502

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-122: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-503

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-82: Estimated Impacts on Individual Striped Dolphin Stocks Within the Study Area 

per Year from Training and Testing Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions 

Under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Dall’s Porpoises

TTS and PTS thresholds for high-frequency cetaceans, such as Dall’s porpoises, are lower than for all 

other marine mammals, which leads to a higher number of estimated hearing loss impacts relative to 

the number of animals exposed to the sound as compared to other hearing groups (e.g., mid-frequency 

cetaceans). During the period that a Dall’s porpoise had hearing loss, vocalizations from conspecifics 

could be more difficult to detect or interpret, however Dall’s porpoises vocalize at frequencies above 

100 kHz which is likely to be well above the frequency of threshold shift induced by sound from an 

explosion. Odontocetes, including the Dall’s porpoise, use echolocation clicks to find and capture prey. 

These echolocation clicks and vocalizations are at frequencies above 100 kHz for Dall’s porpoises and are 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-504

3.7 Marine Mammals

therefore unlikely to be affected by threshold shift at lower frequencies. This should not affect Dall’s 

porpoise’s ability to locate prey or rate of feeding. 

Research and observations (see Behavioral Responses from Explosives) show that harbor porpoises, a 

closely related species to Dall’s porpoises, are sensitive to human disturbance including noise from 

impulsive sources. Observations of harbor porpoises near seismic surveys using air guns and pile driving 

operations show animals avoiding by 5–20 km, but returning quickly to the area after activities cease. 

Reactions could include alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, diving or swimming 

away, change in vocalization, or showing no response at all. It is reasonable to expect that animals may 

leave an area of more intense explosive activity, but return within a few days, however most explosive 

use during Navy activities is short-duration consisting of only a single or few closely timed explosions 

with a limited footprint due to a single detonation point. Because noise from most activities using 

explosives is short-term and intermittent, and because detonations usually occur within a small area, 

behavioral reactions from Dall’s porpoises are likely to be short-term and moderate severity. 

A few TTS or behavioral reactions in an individual animal within a given year are unlikely to result in any 

long-term consequences. PTS could reduce an animal’s ability to detect biologically important sounds; 

however, as discussed above, a small threshold shift due to low frequency sound from an explosion is 

unlikely to affect the hearing range that Dall’s porpoises rely upon. Nevertheless, PTS could have minor 

long-term consequences for individuals. This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any 

long-term consequences for the species or stocks. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Dall’s porpoises may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-123 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply 

only to the California, Oregon, and Washington Stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not 

be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Dall’s porpoises incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Dall’s porpoises may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-123 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-505

3.7 Marine Mammals

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply 

only to the California, Oregon, and Washington Stock.

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences 

for individuals although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to 

long-term consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that 

would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or 

stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Dall’s porpoises incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-506

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. 100% California, Oregon, and 

Washington Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-123: Dall’s Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-507

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Dall’s porpoises incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Dall’s porpoises incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pinnipeds

Pinnipeds include phocid seals (true seals) and otariids (sea lions and fur seals).

Pinnipeds that do experience TTS from explosive sounds may have reduced ability to detect biologically 

important sounds until their hearing recovers. Recovery from TTS begins almost immediately after the 

noise exposure ceases and can take a few minutes to a few days, depending on the severity of the initial 

shift, to fully recover. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all hearing frequencies equally, and 

typically manifest themselves at the exposure frequency or within an octave above the exposure 

frequency. Noise from explosions is broadband with most energy below a few hundred Hertz; therefore, 

any hearing loss from exposure to explosive sounds is likely to be broadband with effects predominantly 

at lower frequencies. During the short period that a pinniped had TTS, social calls from conspecifics 

could be more difficult to detect or interpret, however most pinniped vocalizations may be above the 

frequency of TTS induced by an explosion. Killer whales are one of the pinniped primary predators. Killer 

whale vocalizations are typically above a few kHz, well above the region of hearing that is likely to be 

affected by exposure to explosive energy. Therefore, TTS in pinnipeds due to sound from explosions is 

unlikely to reduce detection of killer whale calls. Pinnipeds may use sound underwater to find prey and 

feed; therefore, a TTS could have a minor and temporary effect on a phocid seal’s ability to locate prey. 

Research and observations of auditory masking in marine mammals due to impulsive sounds are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.4 (Masking). Explosions introduce low frequency, broadband sounds into 

the environment, which could mask hearing thresholds in pinnipeds that are nearby, although sounds 

from explosions last for only a few seconds at most. Masking due to time-isolated detonations would 

not be significant. Activities that have multiple detonations such as some naval gunfire exercises could 

create some masking for pinnipeds in the area over the short duration of the event. Potential costs to 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-508

3.7 Marine Mammals

pinnipeds from masking are similar to those discussed above for TTS, with the primary difference being 

that the effects of masking are only present when the sound from the explosion is present within the 

water and the effect is over the moment the sound has ceased. 

Research and observations (see Behavioral Responses from Explosives) show that pinnipeds may be the 

least sensitive taxonomic group to most noise sources. They are likely to only respond to loud impulsive 

sound sources at close ranges by startling, jumping into the water when hauled out, or even cease 

foraging, but only for brief periods before returning to their previous behavior. Pinnipeds may even 

experience TTS before exhibiting a behavioral response (Southall et al., 2007). Because noise from most 

activities using explosives is short-term and intermittent, and because detonations usually occur within 

a small area, behavioral reactions from phocid seals are likely to be short-term and low severity. 

Physiological stress could be caused by injury or hearing loss and could accompany any behavioral 

reaction as well. Research and observations of physiological stress in marine mammals are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.1.3, Physiological Stress. Due to the short-term and intermittent use of explosives, 

physiological stress is also likely to be short-term and intermittent. Long-term consequences from 

physiological stress due to the sound of explosives would not be expected.

Guadalupe Fur Seals (Endangered Species Act-listed) 

Guadalupe fur seals (Mexico stock is Endangered Species Act Listed) may be exposed to sound or energy 

from explosions associated with training or testing activities throughout the year, although the 

quantitative analysis estimates that no Guadalupe fur seals would be impacted. Long-term 

consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training or testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 or 2 will not result in the unintentional taking of Guadalupe fur seals incidental to 

those activities. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training and testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may not affect ESA-listed Guadalupe fur seals. 

Hawaiian Monk Seals (Endangered Species Act-listed)

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Hawaiian monk seals may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates TTS and PTS (see Figure 3.7-124 and tabular results in Appendix E). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the 

Hawaiian Stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the course of a year are 

unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. PTS in an individual 

could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single minor long-term 

consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a population. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

As discussed in Section 3.7.2.2.9 (Hawaiian Monk Seal), the Study Area does overlap the marine portions 

of the Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat although the use of explosives generally does not take place 

within these areas. The sound and energy from explosives would not affect the designated essential 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-509

3.7 Marine Mammals

features (i.e., marine areas from 0 to 200 m in depth that support adequate prey quality and quantity 

for juvenile and adult monk seal foraging).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Hawaiian monk seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed Hawaiian monk seals and would not affect Hawaiian monk seal critical habitats. The 

Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Hawaiian monk seals may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-124 and tabular results 

in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges 

for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts 

apply only to the Hawaiian Stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

As discussed in Section 3.7.2.2.9 (Hawaiian Monk Seal), the Study Area does overlap the marine portions 

of the Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat although the use of explosives generally does not take place 

within these areas. The sound and energy from explosives would not affect the designated essential 

features (i.e., marine areas from 0 to 200 m in depth that support adequate prey quality and quantity 

for juvenile and adult monk seal foraging).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Hawaiian monk seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed Hawaiian monk seals and would not affect Hawaiian monk seal critical habitats. The 

Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-510

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. 100% Hawaiian Stock. ASW: AntiSubmarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-124: Hawaiian Monk Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number 

of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-511

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Hawaiian monk seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed Hawaiian monk seals and would not affect Hawaiian monk seal critical habitats. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts on these species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for these species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking Hawaiian monk seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed Hawaiian monk seals and would not affect Hawaiian monk seal critical habitats. 

Harbor Seals 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Harbor seals may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-125 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply 

only to the California Stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-512

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of harbor seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Harbor seals may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS for harbor seals (see Figure 3.7-125 and 

tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. 

Impact ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives.

Estimated impacts apply only to the California Stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of harbor seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-513

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for this species. 100% California Stock. ASW: AntiSubmarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-125: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-514

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of harbor seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts on these species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for these species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking harbor seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Northern Elephant Seals 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Northern elephant seals may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) injury (see Figure 

3.7-126 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from 

Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the California Stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, any long term 

consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the population 

are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. Considering 

these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 

(Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of northern elephant seals incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-515

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Northern elephant seals may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-126 and tabular 

results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact 

ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated 

impacts apply only to the California Stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Northern elephant seals incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-516

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. 100% California Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-126: Northern Elephant Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum 

Number of Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-517

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of northern elephant seals incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts on these species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for these species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking Northern elephant seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

California Sea Lions 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

California sea lions may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) injury (see Figure

3.7-127 and tabular results in Appendix E). In addition, the quantitative analysis estimates one mortality 

for California sea lions from training activities. Estimated impacts most years would be less based on 

fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from 

Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the U.S. Stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, any long term 

consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the population 

are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. Considering 

these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 

(Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-518

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of California sea lions incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

California sea lions may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) injury for California sea lions 

(see Figure 3.7-127 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact 

Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts apply only to the U.S. Stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, any long term 

consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the population 

are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. Considering 

these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 

(Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking California sea lions incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-519

3.7 Marine Mammals

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. 100% U.S. Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-127: California Sea Lion Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-520

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of California sea lions incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts on these species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for these species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking California sea lions incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Northern Fur Seals 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Northern fur seals may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training

activities under Alternative 1 throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no 

northern fur seals would be impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will not result in the unintentional taking of northern fur seals incidental to those activities. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Northern fur seals may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-128 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from Explosives. Estimated impacts 

apply only to the California Stock.

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-521

3.7 Marine Mammals

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Northern fur seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No impacts are estimated for training activities. No injuries (non-auditory) are estimated for 

this species. 100% California Stock. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.7-128: Northern Fur Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing Under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Northern fur seals may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training

activities under Alternative 2 throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no 

northern fur seals would be impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2

will not result in the unintentional taking of northern fur seals incidental to those activities. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-522

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts on these species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives

Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for these species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking Northern fur seals incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

3.7.3.2.2.4 Impacts from Explosives Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, training or testing activities associated with the Proposed Action would 

not be conducted in the HSTT Study Area. Based on the analysis presented in Sections 3.7.3.2.2.3 

(Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1) and 3.7.3.2.2.4 (Impacts from Explosives Under 

Alternative 2), impacts on individual marine mammals from explosive activities could occur under either 

alternative, but impacts on marine mammal populations are not anticipated. Therefore, discontinuing 

explosive activities under the No Action Alternative would remove the potential for impacts on 

individual marine mammals, but would not measurably improve the status of marine mammal 

populations or otherwise contribute to the recovery of threatened or endangered species that occur in 

the Study Area.

3.7.3.3 Energy Stressors

This section analyzes the potential impacts of energy stressors used during training and testing activities 

within the Study Area. This section includes analysis of the potential impacts of: (1) in-water 

electromagnetic devices and (2) high-energy lasers. General discussion of impacts can also be found in 

Section 3.0.3.6.2 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Energy-Producing Activities).

3.7.3.3.1 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices

For a discussion of the types of activities that purposefully create an electromagnetic field underwater, 

refer to Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices), and for information on locations and the number of 

activities proposed for each alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices). The 

devices producing an electromagnetic field are towed or unmanned mine countermeasure systems. The 

electromagnetic field is produced to simulate a vessel’s magnetic field. In an actual mine clearing 

operation, the intent is that the electromagnetic field would trigger an enemy mine designed to sense a 

vessel’s magnetic field.

Neither regulations nor scientific literature provide threshold criteria to determine the significance of 

the potential effects from actions that result in generation of an electromagnetic field. Data regarding 

the influence of electromagnetic fields on cetaceans are inconclusive and are based primarily on the 

assumptions that marine mammals can sense variations in the earth’s magnetic field and that they use 

those magnetic field variations for navigation. There has been renewed interest in this topic of inquiry 

given the unknown potential for electromagnetic fields generated by undersea power cables to possibly 

affect geo-navigation in migrating marine mammals (Gill et al., 2014). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-523

3.7 Marine Mammals

Most of the early research in this regard involved investigating the correlation of the locations where 

live-stranded animals occurred to determine if there was an associated local variation in the earth’s 

magnetic field (Kirschvink et al., 1986; Kirschvink, 1990; Klinowska, 1985; Walker et al., 1992). Species 

included long-finned and short-finned pilot whales, striped dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, Atlantic 

white-sided dolphin, fin whale, common dolphin, harbor porpoise, sperm whale, and pygmy sperm 

whale which had live-stranding locations correlated with areas where the earth’s magnetic field was 

locally weaker than surrounding areas (Kirschvink, 1990). These statistical associations for locally weaker 

areas represented a total intensity variation of less than 0.05 microtesla in the magnetic field (Kirschvink 

et al., 1986). While this correlation had seemed to have also been demonstrated for bottlenose dolphins 

in the Atlantic (Kirschvink et al., 1986), there was no correlation found in the Pacific (Kirschvink, 1990). 

Subsequent research regarding fin whale sightings over the continental shelf off the northeastern 

United States, were consistent with the findings involving stranded fin whales (Kirschvink, 1990), the 

hypothesis that fin whales possess a magnetic sense, and that they use it to migrate (Walker et al., 

1992). Normandeau et al. (2011) reviewed available information on electromagnetic and magnetic field 

sensitivity of marine organisms (including marine mammals) for impact assessment of offshore wind 

farms for the U.S. Department of the Interior and concluded there is no evidence to suggest any 

magnetic sensitivity for sea lions, fur seals, or sea otters. However, Normandeau et al. (2011) concluded 

there was behavioral, anatomical, and theoretical evidence indicating cetaceans sense magnetic fields. 

Anatomical evidence suggests the presence of magnetic material in the brain (Pacific common dolphin, 

Dall’s porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, Cuvier’s beaked whale, and the humpback whale) and in the tongue 

and lower jawbones (harbor porpoise) (Bauer et al., 1985; Kirschvink, 1990). Zoeger et al. (1981) found 

what appeared to be nerve fibers associated with the magnetic material in a Pacific common dolphin 

and proposed that it may be used as a magnetic field receptor. Electrosensitivity was found in the 

Guiana dolphin (Czech-Damal et al., 2011). Kuzhetsov (1999) conducted experiments exposing 

bottlenose dolphins to permanent magnetic field intensities of 32, 108, and 168 microteslas and showed 

both behavioral and physiological reactions during 79 percent, 63 percent, and 53 percent of the trials, 

respectively (as summarized in Normandeau et al. (2011). Behavioral reactions included sharp 

exhalations, acoustic activity, and movement, and physiological reactions included a change in heart 

rate. Kremers et al. (2014) conducted another experiment to observe the spontaneous reactions of 

captive bottlenose dolphins from a magnetized device compared to a demagnetized device. Results 

from this experiment confirmed that dolphins are capable of perceiving magnetic fields from a distance 

of more than 1.5 m from the 1.2 tesla magnetic strength device; creating a magnetic field with a 

strength of approximately 0.051 – 0.240 tesla between two to five centimeters from the source 

(Kremers et al., 2014). However, aside from a shorter latency approach response towards the 

magnetized device compared to the demagnetized device, all other behaviors exhibited by the dolphins 

in the experiment did not differ between either stimulus, suggesting that magnetic fields are neither 

attractive nor repulsive to dolphins (Kremers et al., 2014). 

Potential impacts on marine mammals associated with electromagnetic fields are most likely dependent 

on the animal’s proximity to the source and the strength of the magnetic field. Because the device 

creating the electromagnetic field is towed or is on an unmanned vehicle, it may not be possible to 

distinguish whether an avoidance reaction of an animal is the result of physical disturbance from the 

towed object or unmanned vehicle (see Section 3.7.3.4.1, Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices) or 

from the presence of the electromagnetic field. As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (Electromagnetic 

Devices), electromagnetic fields associated with naval training and testing activities are relatively weak 

(only 10 percent of the earth’s magnetic field at approximately 24 m), temporary, and localized. Once 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-524

3.7 Marine Mammals

the source is turned off or moves from the location, the electromagnetic field is gone. A marine mammal 

would have to be present within the electromagnetic field (approximately 200 m from the source) 

during the activity in order to detect it.

NMFS has previously determined: “Impacts of exposure to electromagnetic stressors are not expected 

to result in substantial changes to an individual’s behavior, growth, survival, annual reproductive 

success, lifetime reproductive success (fitness), or species recruitment, and are not expected to result in 

population-level impacts” for representative mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds in the HSTT Study 

Area (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015c). There has been no new science subsequent to that 

determination that would suggest a different conclusion.

3.7.3.3.1.1 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (Electromagnetic Devices), under the Alternative 1, training activities 

that purposefully create an electromagnetic field underwater occur within both the Hawaii and the 

Southern California portions of the Study Area and have the potential to expose marine mammals to 

that energy stressor. Based on the discussion above, exposure to electromagnetic stressors are not 

expected to result in significant impacts on individual marine mammals or marine mammal populations

during training activities. 

Although it is not fully understood, based on the available evidence described above, it is probable that 

marine mammals use the earth’s magnetic field for orientation or migration (Walker et al., 1992). If a 

marine mammal was in proximity of an electromagnetic field source associated with navy training and 

testing, emitting a field strong enough to be detected, and that animal is sensitive to the exposure, it is 

conceivable that this electromagnetic field could have an effect on a marine mammal, primarily 

impacting that animal’s navigation. Available literature on marine mammals involve investigating their 

ability to sense an electromagnetic field due to the potential it then may have on navigation and 

migration behaviors. Direct impacts on feeding or reproductive behaviors have not been documented 

and impacts on marine mammals feeding and engaging in reproductive behaviors are not anticipated. If 

marine mammals are in fact sensitive to small variations in electromagnetic fields, any impacts from 

Navy training and testing would be temporary and minor, and natural behavioral patterns would not be 

significantly altered or abandoned based on the Navy’s electromagnetic device having: (1) generated a 

relatively low intensity magnetic field (essentially mimicking the magnetic field of a steel vessel); (2) a 

very localized magnetic field proximate to the moving electromagnetic device; (3) as stated in Chapter 5 

(Mitigation), the Navy maneuvers vessels and towed in-water devices to maintain a specified distance 

away from marine mammals, which consequently would provide some avoidance of electromagnetic 

devices that are towed from manned platforms; and (4) the training and testing use of such an 

electromagnetic device being of short duration (hours).

In-water electromagnetic device use associated with Navy training in Hawaii would only occur in Pearl 

Harbor and so would not occur in the critical habitat of the Hawaiian monk seal. 

The use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined 

under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESAlisted marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-525

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (Electromagnetic Devices), under the Alternative 1, testing activities 

that purposefully create an electromagnetic field underwater occur within the Hawaii Range Complex 

and Southern California portion of the Study Area and have the potential to expose marine mammals to 

that energy stressor. Based on the discussion above, exposure to electromagnetic stressors are not 

expected to result in significant impacts on individual marine mammals or marine mammal populations

during testing activities. 

The use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined 

under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESAlisted marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.7.3.3.1.2 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (Electromagnetic Devices), training activities and associated impacts 

for Alternative 2 would be identical to Alternative 1 (Section 3.7.3.3.1.1).

The use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined 

under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals. 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (Electromagnetic Devices), testing activities and associated impacts 

for Alternative 2 would be identical to Alternative 1 (Section 3.7.3.3.1.1). 

The use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined 

under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESAlisted marine mammals.

3.7.3.3.1.3 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various energy stressors (e.g., in-water electromagnetic devices) 

would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-526

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.3.2 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers 

As described in Section 3.0.3.3.3.2 (Lasers), high-energy laser weapons activities involve evaluating the 

effectiveness of an up to 30 kilowatt high-energy laser deployed from a surface ship or helicopter to 

create small but critical failures in potential targets from short ranges. 

The primary concern is the potential for a marine mammal to be exposed to the laser beam at or near 

the water's surface, which could result in injury or death. However, marine mammals could only be 

exposed if the laser beam missed the target. The potential for marine mammals to be directly hit by a 

high-energy laser beam was evaluated using statistical probability modeling (Appendix F, Military 

Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) to estimate the potential direct strike exposures 

to a marine mammal in a worst-case scenario. Model input values include high-energy laser use data 

(e.g., number of high-energy laser events and laser beam footprint), size of the testing area, marine 

mammal density data, and animal footprint. To estimate the probability of hitting a marine mammal in a 

worst-case scenario (based on assumptions listed below), the impact area for all high-energy laser 

testing events was summed over one year in the testing area for each alternative. Finally, the marine 

mammal species with the highest average seasonal density within the testing area was used in the 

analysis. This approach ensures that all other species with a lower density would have a lower 

probability of being struck by the laser.

Within the statistical probability model, the estimated potential for a marine mammal strike is 

influenced by the following assumptions:

• The model is two-dimensional and assumes that all animals would be at or near the surface 100 

percent of the time, when in fact, marine mammals spend up to 90 percent of their time under 

the water (Costa, 1993; Costa & Block, 2009).

• The model assumes the animal is stationary and does not account for any movement of the 

marine mammal or any potential avoidance of the testing activity.

3.7.3.3.2.1 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

No high-energy lasers are used during training activities under Alternative 1.

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.2 (Lasers), under Alternative 1, high-energy laser tests would occur

within the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern California Range Complex. Navy testing activities have 

the potential to expose marine mammals that occur within these locations to this energy stressor. The 

marine mammal species with the highest average seasonal density (short beaked common dolphin) in 

the location with the greatest number of testing activities involving high-energy lasers under 

Alternative 1 (Southern California Range Complex) were used in the probability analysis presented in 

Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses).

Based on the statistical probability model presented in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and 

Direct Strike Impact Analyses), results indicate that even for short-beaked common dolphins and using 

conservative assumptions, the probability of being hit by a high-energy laser is low enough to be 

discountable. Considering the assumptions in the analysis outlined above, there is a high level of 

certainty in the conclusion that no marine mammals that occur in the Study Area would be struck by a 

high-energy laser.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-527

3.7 Marine Mammals

The use of high-energy lasers during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would not result 

in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under 

the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.7.3.3.2.2 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

No high-energy lasers are used during training activities under Alternative 2.

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.2 (Lasers), under Alternative 2, high-energy laser tests would occur 

within the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern California Range Complex. Navy testing activities have 

the potential to expose marine mammals that occur within these locations to this energy stressor. 

Based on Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses), results indicate a 

high level of certainty in the conclusion that no marine mammals that occur in the Study Area would be 

struck by a high-energy laser.

The use of high-energy lasers during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would not result 

in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under 

the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals. 

3.7.3.3.2.3 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Various energy stressors (e.g., high-energy lasers) would not be introduced into 

the marine environment. Therefore baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain 

unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.7.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of physical disturbance including the 

potential for strike during training and testing activities within the Study Area from (1) Navy vessels, (2) 

in-water devices, (3) military expended materials, including non-explosive practice munitions and 

fragments from high-explosive munitions; and (4) seafloor devices. General discussion of impacts can 

also be found in Section 3.0.3.6.3 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Physical 

Disturbance or Strike).

The way a physical disturbance may affect a marine mammal would depend in part on the relative size 

of the object, the speed of the object, the location of the mammal in the water column, and reactions of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic activity, which may include avoidance or attraction. It is not known 

at what point or through what combination of stimuli (visual, acoustic, or through detection in pressure 

changes) an animal becomes aware of a vessel or other potential physical disturbances prior to reacting 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-528

3.7 Marine Mammals

or being struck. Refer to Sections 3.7.3.1.1.3 (Physiological Stress) and 3.7.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions) 

for the discussion of the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli. Given that the presentation of a 

physical disturbance should be very rare and brief, the cost from the response is likely to be within the 

normal variation experienced by an animal in its daily routine unless the animal is struck. If a strike does 

occur, the cost to the individual could range from slight injury to death. 

3.7.3.4.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices

Vessels

Surface vessels in certain contexts can be a source of acute and chronic disturbance for cetaceans (Au & 

Green, 2000; Bejder et al., 2006a; Dyndo et al., 2015; Hewitt, 1985; Lusseau et al., 2009; Magalhães et 

al., 2002; Nowacek et al., 2004a; Nowacek et al., 2007; Nowacek et al., 2004b; Richter et al., 2003; 

Richter et al., 2006; Van der Hoop et al., 2015; Watkins, 1986; Würsig & Richardson, 2008). Studies have 

established that cetaceans generally engage in avoidance behavior when surface vessels move toward 

them. Various research findings report that mysticetes have variable responses to vessels dependent on 

the context (Nowacek et al., 2004a; Richardson et al., 1995b; Watkins, 1986). Mysticetes are not the 

only cetaceans that have demonstrated responses to vessels. One study showed that harbor porpoises 

in a net-pen displayed behavioral responses (increasing swim speed or repeated alternating surfacing 

and diving behaviors [i.e., porpoising]) to the high-frequency components of vessel noise at long ranges 

(more than 1,000 m) in shallow waters (Dyndo et al., 2015). These distances correspond to where 

radiated noise would be more likely to elicit the response, rather than physical presence of the vessel 

(Dyndo et al., 2015; Palka & Hammond, 2001). Conversely, another study demonstrated that boat 

physical presence, and not just noise, was associated with a short-term reduction in foraging activity in 

bottlenose dolphins (Pirotta et al., 2015b). It is noteworthy that the dolphins associated with this report 

were exposed primarily to commercial and leisure boat traffic, not related to military vessel activities. 

Even repeated exposures from increasing vessel traffic in the same area resulting in increased responses 

to the disturbance may not be biologically significant. Mathematic modeling has suggested that 

bottlenose dolphin population dynamics would remain unchanged from a six fold increase in vessel 

traffic (70 to 470 vessels per year) as dolphins are able to compensate for increased disturbance levels 

with little to no impacts on health and vital rates (New et al., 2013a). Aside from the potential for an 

increased risk of collision addressed below, physical disturbance from vessel use is not expected to 

result in more than a short-term behavioral response.

Hauled-out pinnipeds are also disturbed when approached at close distance although the research 

indicates this is somewhat context dependent (Curtin et al., 2009; Hoover-Miller et al., 2013; Jansen et 

al., 2010; Johnson & Acevedo-Gutiérrez, 2007; Suryan & Harvey, 1998; Weiss & Morrill, 2014; Young et 

al., 2014). For example, one study showed that harbor seals were disturbed by tourism-related vessels, 

small boats, and kayaks that stopped or lingered by haulout sites, but that the seals “do not pay 

attention to” passing vessels at closer distances (Johnson & Acevedo-Gutiérrez, 2007). Pinnipeds in the 

water generally appear less responsive (Richardson et al., 1995b) than those at haulout sites. 

In some circumstances, marine mammals respond to vessels with the same behavioral repertoire and 

tactics they employ when they encounter predators. Although it is not clear what environmental cue or 

cues marine animals might respond to, they may include the sounds of water being displaced by the 

ships, the sounds of the ships’ engines, or a combination of environmental cues surface vessels produce 

while they transit. While the analysis of potential impact from the physical presence of the vessel is 

presented here, the analysis of potential impacts in response to sounds produced by vessel movement 

or transit is addressed in Section 3.7.3.1.5 (Impacts from Vessel Noise). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-529

3.7 Marine Mammals

Vessel speed, size and mass are all important factors in determining potential impacts of a vessel strike 

to marine mammals (Conn & Silber, 2013; Gende et al., 2011; Silber et al., 2010; Vanderlaan & Taggart, 

2007; Wiley et al., 2016). For large vessels, speed and angle of approach can influence the severity of a 

strike. Based on modeling, Silber et al. (2010) found that whales at the surface experienced impacts that 

increased in magnitude with the ship’s increasing speed. 

Vessel strikes from commercial, recreational, and Navy vessels are known to have resulted in serious 

injury and occasional fatalities to cetaceans (Abramson et al., 2011; Berman-Kowalewski et al., 2010; 

Calambokidis, 2012; Laggner, 2009; Lammers et al., 2003; Van der Hoop et al., 2012; Van der Hoop et al., 

2013; Van der Hoop et al., 2015). Reviews of the literature on ship strikes mainly involve collisions 

between commercial vessels and whales (e.g., Jensen and Silber (2003); Laist et al. (2001)). 

In the HSTT Study Area, comparison of commercial vessel traffic with Navy vessel traffic over a 1-year 

period showed that Navy surface ships accounted for 97,000 hours of accumulated at-sea time whereas 

commercial shipping accounted for 875,000 hours (Mintz, 2012). Therefore, Navy ship activity

represented only 11 percent of all vessel hours within the HSTT Study Area, but it should be noted that 

Navy vessels in the Pacific often stop or move slowly at sea depending on mission requirements and fuel 

saving mandates. Navy vessels, given they are much fewer in number, are a small component of overall 

vessel traffic in most areas where they operate and this is especially the case in the HSTT Study Area 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015c). 

Within the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area, significant commercial traffic is present as vessels 

bring shipments of goods to Hawaii as well as shipments between the islands. There are, however, a 

much greater number of vessels from major ports in Asia (such as Shanghai, China) that pass through 

the HSTT area and between some of the main Hawaiian Islands en route to the Panama Canal and back.

Within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, evidence of significant mortality of 

species of baleen whales (mostly from data on blue, fin, and humpback whales) from commercial ship 

strikes in the Santa Barbara Channel of Southern California have prompted a detailed analysis of the 

situation and how it can be resolved. There are approximately 6,500 commercial vessels annually using 

the Santa Barbara Channel (Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, 2015). For San Diego Bay and its 

entrance channel, there are about 225 commercial ship transits per day, most during daylight hours, 

plus an unknown but potentially equal number of recreational vessels moving in and out of San Diego 

Bay so that underwater noise from passing ships is expected every few minutes in the North Bay (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2013c, 2015b). An additional large number of vessels also transit farther 

offshore along the coast heading to ports beyond those in Southern California. Stranding locations also 

appeared to be concentrated near major Southern California ports suggesting they are likely indicative 

of commercial vessel interactions (Berman-Kowalewski et al., 2010). This area appears to be highly 

problematic, largely because it represents an overlap of important feeding grounds for these species of 

whale with a major shipping lane to/from Southern California ports (see Abramson et al. (2011)). 

Between 1988 and 2007, 21 blue whale deaths were reported along the California coast, and many of 

these showed evidence of ship strike (Berman-Kowalewski et al., 2010). In 2007, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration declared an Unusual Mortality Event for endangered blue whales in 

Southern California as a result of commercial vessel ship strikes in that year. Several recommendations 

have been put forward to reduce the potential for future ship strikes in the area of Southern California 

commercial ports, including: 1) continuing and expanding scientific studies, 2) considering changing 

shipping patterns and lanes, 3) exploring incentives for reducing shipping speeds, 4) expanding 

education and outreach, and 5) adaptive management approaches. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-530

3.7 Marine Mammals

Large Navy vessels (greater than 18 m in length) within the offshore areas of the HSTT Study Area 

operate differently from commercial vessels in ways important to the prevention of whale collisions. For 

example, the average speed of large Navy ships ranges between 10 and 15 knots. By comparison, this is 

slower than most commercial vessels where full speed for a container ship is typically 24 knots (Bonney 

& Leach, 2010). Even given the advent of “slow steaming” by commercial vessels in recent years due to 

fuel prices (Barnard, 2016; Maloni et al., 2013), this is generally a reduction of only a few knots given 21 

knots would be considered slow; 18 knots is defined as extra slow; and 15 knots is considered super 

slow (Bonney & Leach, 2010), which all exceed the typical Navy large vessel average speed. 

The ability to detect a marine mammal and avoid a collision depends on a variety of factors, including 

environmental conditions, ship design, size, speed and manning, as well as the behavior of the animal. 

Differences between most Navy ships and commercial ships also include the following:

• The Navy has several standard operating procedures for vessel safety that could result in a 

secondary benefit to marine mammals through a reduction in the potential for vessel strike, as 

discussed in Section 2.3.3.2 (Vessel Safety). For example, ships operated by or for the Navy have 

personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when moving through the water 

(underway). Watch personnel undertake extensive training in accordance with the U.S. Navy 

Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent. A primary duty of watch personnel is to 

ensure safety of the ship, and this includes the requirement to detect and report all objects and 

disturbances sighted in the water that may be indicative of a threat to the ship and its crew, 

such as debris, a periscope, surfaced submarine, or surface disturbance. Per safety 

requirements, watch personnel also report any marine mammals sighted that have the potential 

to be in the direct path of the ship as a standard collision avoidance procedure. Navy vessels 

operate in accordance with the navigation rules established by the U.S. Coast Guard. All vessels 

operating on the water are required to follow the International Navigation Rules (COMDTINST 

M16672.2D). These rules require that vessels at all times proceed at a safe speed so that proper 

and effective action can be taken to avoid collision and so they can be stopped within a distance 

appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. 

• Many Navy ships have their bridges positioned closer to the bow, offering good visibility ahead 

of the ship.

• There are often aircraft associated with the Navy’s training or testing activity, which can detect 

marine mammals in the vicinity or ahead of a vessel’s present course.

• Navy ships are generally much more maneuverable than commercial merchant vessels if marine 

mammals are spotted and the need to change direction is necessary. 

• Navy ships operate at the slowest speed possible consistent with either transit needs or training 

or testing needs. While minimum speed is intended as a fuel conservation measure particular to 

a certain ship class, secondary benefits include better ability to spot and avoid objects in the 

water, including marine mammals. 

• In many cases, Navy ships will likely move randomly or with a specific pattern within a sub-area 

of the Study Area for a period of time from 1 day to 2 weeks as compared to straight line pointto-point commercial shipping.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-531

3.7 Marine Mammals

• Navy overall crew size, including bridge crew, is much larger than merchant ships allowing for 

more potential watch personnel on the bridge. 

• When submerged, submarines are generally slow moving (to avoid detection) and therefore 

marine mammals at depth with a submarine are likely able to avoid collision with the 

submarine. When a submarine is transiting on the surface, there are Lookouts serving the same 

function as they do on surface ships. 

• The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from vessel strikes on marine 

mammals (see Chapter 5, Mitigation). Mitigation includes training Lookouts and watch 

personnel with the Marine Species Awareness Training (which provides information on sighting 

cues, visual observation tools and techniques, and sighting notification procedures), and 

requiring vessels to maneuver to maintain a specified distance from marine mammals during 

vessel movements.

Examples of implemented mitigation to avoid collisions with whales includes data presented to NMFS 

regarding Major Exercises in the Southern California Range Complex from January 2009 to August 2012 

involving 27 Major Exercises. That report documented 42 reported instances of Navy ships proactively 

maneuvering to avoid 72 whales during that 3-year period (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013a); See 

also Section 5.1.1 (Monitoring, Research, and Reporting Initiatives). 

It is Navy policy to report all marine mammal strikes by Navy vessel. The information is collected by 

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Readiness and provided to NMFS on an annual 

basis. Only Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard report in this manner. Therefore, it should be noted that Navy 

vessel strikes reported in the scientific literature and NMFS databases are the result of the Navy’s 

commitment to reporting all vessel strikes to NMFS (even if it cannot be confirmed to be a marine 

mammal) rather than a greater frequency of collisions relative to other ship types. Most vessel strikes of 

marine mammals reported involve commercial vessels and occur over or near the continental shelf 

(Laist et al., 2001). Reporting of whale strikes by commercial vessels is not required and reporting rates 

are therefore unknown but likely to be much lower than actual occurrences. 

Since the implementation of the Navy’s Marine Species Awareness Training in 2007, refined policy 

guidance has been issued regarding marine mammal incidents (e.g., ship strikes) in order to collect the 

most accurate and detailed data possible in response to a possible incident. Mitigation, reporting, and 

monitoring requirements have been in place with routine implementation since 2009 and these same 

requirements are expected to continue into the future. The level of vessel use and the manner in which 

the Navy trains and tests in the future (2019-2023) is expected to be consistent with the 2009 to 2016 

time period, so data from this past nine-year period have been used to calculate the probability of a 

Navy vessel striking a whale during proposed training activities in the Study Area as detailed in 

Appendix F. From January 2009 through December 2016, a total of two (2) whale strikes occurred during 

Navy training and testing activities in the HSTT Study Area; both strikes were to fin whales and both 

occurred in 2009 in the Southern California Range Complex. 

Based on the cumulative low history of Navy vessel strikes from 2009-2016, the decrease in Navy strike 

incidents (zero since 2009) since introduction of the Marine Species Awareness Training, and adaptation 

of additional mitigation measures since 2009, the Navy does not anticipate vessel strikes to marine 

mammals within the HSTT Study Area during training and testing activities under any of the alternatives. 

Based on the Appendix F probabilities and in cautionary acknowledgment that the probability of a ship 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-532

3.7 Marine Mammals

strike, although low, could occur over a five year authorization, the Navy is electing to request a small 

number of takes to select large whale stocks from vessel strikes for HSTT. The exact magnitude of this 

request will be determined at the conclusion of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered 

Species Act consultations with NMFS.

Mysticetes 

Vessel strikes have been documented for almost all of the mysticete species (Van der Hoop et al., 2012; 

Van der Hoop et al., 2013; Van der Hoop et al., 2015). This includes blue whales (Berman-Kowalewski et 

al., 2010; Calambokidis, 2012; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), fin whales (Douglas et al., 2008; Van 

Waerebeek et al., 2007), sei whales (Felix & Van Waerebeek, 2005; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), Bryde’s 

whales (Felix & Van Waerebeek, 2005; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), minke whales (Van Waerebeek et 

al., 2007), and humpback whales (Bradford & Lyman, 2015; Douglas et al., 2008; Lammers et al., 2003; 

Van Waerebeek et al., 2007). 

Research suggests that the increasing noise in the ocean has made it difficult for whales to detect 

approaching vessels, which has indirectly raised the risk of vessel strike (Elvin & Taggart, 2008). For 

example, right whales are documented to show little overall reaction to the playback of sounds of 

approaching vessels, suggesting that some whales perform only a last-second flight response (Nowacek 

et al., 2004a). Some individuals may become habituated to low-frequency sounds from shipping and fail

to respond to an approaching vessel (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2008b). Because surface activity 

includes feeding, breeding, and resting, whales may be engaged in this activity and not notice an 

approaching vessel (Silber et al., 2010). On the other hand, the lack of an acoustic cue of vessel presence 

can be detrimental as well. One study documented multiple cases where humpback whales struck 

anchored or drifting vessels; in one case a humpback whale punched a 1.5 meter hole through the hull 

of an anchored 22 m wooden sailboat, and another instance a humpback whale rammed a powered 

down 10 m fiberglass sailboat (Neilson et al., 2012). These results suggest that either the whales did not 

detect the vessel, or they intentionally struck it. In this study, vessel strikes to multiple cetacean species 

were included in the investigation; however, humpback whales were the only species that displayed this 

type of interaction with an unpowered vessel. Another study found that 79 percent of reported 

collisions between sailing vessels and cetaceans occurred when the vessels were under sail, suggesting it 

may be difficult for whales to detect the faint sound of sailing vessels (Ritter, 2012). 

Generally, mysticetes are larger than odontocetes and are not able to maneuver as well as odontocetes 

to avoid vessels. In addition, mysticetes do not typically aggregate in large groups and are therefore 

difficult to visually detect from the water surface. Mysticetes that occur within the HSTT Study Area 

have varying patterns of occurrence and distribution which overlap with areas where vessel use 

associated with Navy training and testing activities would occur.

Odontocetes

In general, odontocetes move quickly and seem to be less vulnerable to vessel strikes than other 

cetaceans; however, most small whale and dolphin species have at least occasionally suffered from 

vessel strikes including: killer whale (Van Waerebeek et al., 2007; Visser & Fertl, 2000), short-finned and 

long-finned pilot whales (Aguilar et al., 2000; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), bottlenose dolphin (Bloom & 

Jager, 1994; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007; Wells & Scott, 1997), white-beaked dolphin (Van Waerebeek 

et al., 2007), short-beaked common dolphin (Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), spinner dolphin (Camargo & 

Bellini, 2007; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), striped dolphin (Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), Atlantic 

spotted dolphin (Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), and pygmy sperm whales (Kogia breviceps) (Van 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-533

3.7 Marine Mammals

Waerebeek et al., 2007). Beaked whales documented in vessel strikes include: Arnoux’s beaked whale 

(Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), Cuvier’s beaked whale (Aguilar et al., 2000; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), 

and several species of Mesoplodon (Van Waerebeek et al., 2007). However, evidence suggests that 

beaked whales may be able to hear the low-frequency sounds of large vessels and thus avoid collision

(Ketten, 1998). Sperm whales may be exceptionally vulnerable to vessel strikes as they spend extended 

periods of time “rafting” at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within their tissues after deep 

dives (Jaquet & Whitehead, 1996; Watkins et al., 1999). Overall, collision avoidance success is 

dependent on a marine mammal’s ability to identify and locate the vessel from its radiated sound and 

the animal’s ability to maneuver away from the vessel in time. Based on hearing capabilities and dive 

behavior, sperm whales may not be capable of successfully completing an escape maneuver, such as a 

dive, in the time available after perceiving a fast-moving vessel. This supports the suggestion that vessel 

speed is a critical parameter for sperm whale collision risks (Gannier & Marty, 2015). 

Odontocetes that occur within the HSTT Study Area have varying patterns of occurrence and distribution 

which overlap with areas where vessel use associated with Navy training and testing activities would 

occur. Available literature suggests based on their smaller body size, maneuverability, larger group sizes, 

and hearing capabilities, most odontocetes (with the exception of sperm whales) are not as likely to be 

struck by a Navy vessel as mysticetes. When generally compared to mysticetes, odontocetes are more 

capable of physically avoiding a vessel strike and since some species occur in large groups, they are more 

easily seen when they are closer to the water surface. The Navy does not anticipate odontocete species 

will be struck by a vessel during Navy training and testing activities.

Pinnipeds

As noted previously in this EIS/OEIS, vessels have a potential to cause behavioral disturbance to 

pinnipeds. The variability observed are related to the context of the situation and by the animal’s 

experience (Ellison et al., 2011; Richardson et al., 1995b; Southall et al., 2007). Reactions include a wide 

spectrum of effects from avoidance and alert, to cases where animals in the water are attracted, and 

cases on land where there is lack of significant reaction suggesting habituation to or tolerance of vessels 

(Richardson et al., 1995b). Physical disturbance to hauled out harbor seals caused by approaching cruise 

ships (Blundell & Pendleton, 2015; Jansen et al., 2015; Young et al., 2014) and by the presence of 

powerboats and kayaks that stopped, lingered, or moved slowly along haul-out sites (Johnson & 

Acevedo-Gutiérrez, 2007) have been documented. Given that Navy vessels do not purposefully 

approach pinnipeds on land, it is unlikely that Navy training and testing involving vessels would result in 

disturbance to pinnipeds on land. At sea, Navy vessel presence may result in minor and insignificant 

changes in behavior. NMFS has previously determined that the rarity of ship strikes involving pinnipeds 

combined with the Navy’s established standard operating procedures and mitigations leads to the 

assumption that the exposure risk of collision from surface vessels or submarines in the HSTT Study Area 

is small enough to be discountable (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015d). There 

has been no new science since that time which suggests a need to change that determination.

Ship strikes were not reported as a global threat to pinniped populations by Kovacs et al. (2012). 

Pinnipeds in general appear to suffer fewer impacts from ship strikes than do cetaceans. This may be 

due, at least in part, to the large amount of time they spend on land (especially when resting and 

breeding), and their high maneuverability in the water. Ship strikes are not a major concern for 

pinnipeds in general, for the threatened Guadalupe fur seal, or for the endangered Hawaiian monk seal 

(Antonelis et al., 2006; Marine Mammal Commission, 2002; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007c, 

2010d, 2014b). Physical disturbance and strike to pinnipeds as a result of large vessels used during Navy 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-534

3.7 Marine Mammals

training and testing activities is most likely an insignificant risk to individuals and populations of 

pinnipeds. Reported sources of human-related injury and mortality for the U.S. west coast from 2010 to 

2014, documented 11 California sea lions, 15 harbor seals, and 2 northern elephant seals having injuries 

caused by boat propellers or small boat collisions (Carretta et al., 2014b). Mortalities of pinnipeds 

(specifically harbor seals and gray seals) initially hypothesized to be injuries from ducted propellers have 

been found to be caused by gray seal predation, cannibalism, and infanticide (Brownlow et al., 2016).

Sea Otters

Sea otters are not expected to be at risk from vessel strike since they spend the majority of time in the 

water in nearshore and shallow water areas were vessels associated with training and testing in the 

HSTT Study Area are generally not present.

Vessel Strikes

In Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses), the Navy has prepared an 

analysis of the potential for a Navy vessel to strike a marine mammal in the HSTT Study Area. This 

analysis predicts up to 1.2 strikes over the period from 2019-2023. 

In NMFS process for authorizing “take” pursuant to the MMPA and ESA for the Navy, NMFS determines 

the number of take by species based on modeled quantification of exposures to those species provided 

as by the Navy. However, for many if not most of the Navy strike incidents, a whale/marine mammal is 

infrequently identified to the species level. As a result, there is limited data for what species might have 

historically been struck, which marine mammal species to seek take authorization for under MMPA, and 

no means to provide the information required for consultation under the ESA with regard to a certainty 

of action since the species cannot be identified.

Given the presence, relative abundances, and behaviors, if a vessel strike were to occur in the HSTT 

Study Area in the future it would most likely be to any one of the large whale species regularly or 

seasonally inhabiting the area that include fin whale, gray whale, blue whale, humpback whale, Bryde’s 

whale, sei whale, minke whale, and sperm whale. In terms of civilian ship strikes to large whales, 

humpback whales the most frequently struck species in Hawaii (Bradford & Lyman, 2015) and in 

Southern California the most frequently struck species are gray whales and fin whales (Carretta et al., 

2016b). 

The Navy and NMFS will continue ongoing discussions and exploring methodologies to better predict 

potential impacts on marine mammal stocks and ESA species that may result from any potential Navy 

vessel strike to a whale. Developments in this regard will be presented to the public when NMFS 

proposes regulations governing the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to Navy military 

readiness activities conducted in the HSTT Study Area from 2019 through 2023. As part of that process, 

NMFS will consider comments on the HSTT Draft EIS/OEIS, all discussions with Navy conducted during 

the development of this EIS/OEIS, and consider public input on the proposed regulations with regard to 

Navy vessel strikes to marine mammals in the HSTT Study Area. The preliminary impact determinations 

by NMFS will be available to the public for review and comment with the proposed rule in the Federal 

Register subsequent to the release of the Draft HSTT EIS/OEIS and in the final impact determinations 

presented in the Final HSTT EIS/OEIS and Final Rule before the proposed actions occur. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-535

3.7 Marine Mammals

In-Water Devices

In-water devices are generally smaller (several inches to 111 feet) than most Navy vessels. For a 

discussion on the types of activities that use in-water devices see Appendix B (Activity Stressor 

Matrices), and for where they are used and how many events would occur under each alternative, see 

Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices).

Devices that could pose a collision risk to marine mammals are those operated at high speeds and are 

unmanned. The Navy reviewed torpedo design features and a large number of previous anti-submarine 

warfare torpedo exercises to assess the potential of torpedo strikes on marine mammals. The tactical 

software that guides U.S. Navy torpedoes is sophisticated and should not identify a marine mammal as a 

target. All training and testing torpedoes are recovered after being fired at targets and are reconfigured 

for re-use. Review of the exercise torpedo records indicates there has never been an impact on a marine 

mammal or other marine organism. 

Since some in-water devices are identical to support craft, marine mammals could respond to the 

physical presence of the device similar to how they respond to the physical presence of a vessel. 

In-water devices, such as unmanned underwater vehicles, and in-water devices towed from unmanned 

platforms, that move slowly through the water are highly unlikely to strike marine mammals because 

the mammal could easily avoid the object. In-water devices towed by manned platforms are unlikely to 

strike a marine mammal because of the observers on the towing platform and other standard safety 

measures employed when towing in-water devices. It is possible that marine mammal species that occur 

in areas that overlap with in-water device use associated with the Proposed Action may experience 

some level of physical disturbance, but it is not expected to result in more than a momentary 

behavioral response.

3.7.3.4.1.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1

Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices) provides estimates of relative vessel and in-water 

device use and locations throughout the Study Area. Under Alternative 1 the concentration of vessel use 

and the manner in which the Navy trains and tests would remain consistent with the levels of activity 

and types of activity undertaken in the HSTT Study Area over the last decade. Consequently, the Navy 

does not foresee any appreciable changes in the levels, frequency, or locations where vessels have been 

used over the last decade. 

The Navy does not anticipate encountering the ESA listed Western North Pacific gray whales during an 

overlap with training or testing activities, as their presence is very rare when migrating through the 

Southern California portion of the Study Area. Therefore, Western North Pacific gray whales are not 

expected to be affected by the Navy’s in-water device use associated with training and testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area.

The Hawaiian monk seal is the only marine mammal species with critical habitat located in the Study 

Area. Vessels and in-water devices would have no effect on monk seal critical habitat. A physical 

disturbance or strike to a Hawaiian monk seal by a vessel or in-water device would be an impact on the 

animal (not the critical habitat) although the likelihood of a collision with a monk seal is small enough to 

be discountable. 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), most training activities involve vessel

transit. Vessel strikes to marine mammals are not associated with any specific training activity but rather 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-536

3.7 Marine Mammals

a limited, sporadic, and accidental result of Navy ship movement within the Study Area. Vessel 

movement can be widely dispersed throughout the HSTT Study Area and would be more concentrated 

near San Diego Bay and Pearl Harbor. Refer to Table 3.0-17 (Annual Number and Location of Activities 

Including Vessels) for the numbers of activities that use vessels in different locations within the HSTT 

Study Area. 

There would be a higher likelihood of vessel strikes over the continental shelf portions of the Southern 

California Portion of the HSTT Study Area than in the Hawaii or transit corridor portions of the Study 

Area because of the concentration of vessel movements and in-water devices in those areas. Marine 

mammal species that occur over the continental shelf in the Southern California portion of the HSTT 

Study Area would therefore have a greater potential for impacts, and include mysticete and odontocete 

species described in Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices). Navy training 

activities involving vessels and in-water devices may occur year round; therefore impacts from vessels, 

including physical disturbance and potential for strike, would depend on each species’ seasonal patterns 

of occurrence or degree of residency in the HSTT Study Area. As previously indicated any physical 

disturbance from vessel transit and use of in-water devices is not expected to result in more than a 

momentary behavioral response. 

Vessels may occasionally be required to operate at speeds that are higher than average operating 

speeds when participating in certain training activities (e.g., unit-level training, carrier launch and 

recovery operations, etc.; for additional details see Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices)). 

Periods of high vessel speed during training activities could occur in the Hawaii Range Complex and the 

Southern California Range Complex. Vessels operating at higher speeds may pose a greater strike risk to 

marine mammals because there would be less time for the vessel crew to detect a marine mammal and 

maneuver to avoid a strike, and there would be less time over a given distance for the animal to react 

and avoid the vessel. However, the potential for greater risk may be offset by marine mammal 

avoidance behavior occurring at a greater distance due to the higher noise levels that are typically 

generated by any vessel transiting at high speed. Historically, the few vessel strikes on whales that have 

occurred in the HSTT Study Area (see Appendix F) have not been associated with vessels operating at 

higher speeds. As noted above, vessels do not travel at higher than average speeds unless required by 

the operational circumstances detailed in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), therefore, 

any increase in the risk of a strike would be minimal compared to the risk of strike from all vessel use 

proposed under Alternative 1.

The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from vessel and towed in-water device 

strikes on marine mammals throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.3.4, Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors). Mitigation includes training Lookouts and watch personnel with the Marine Species 

Awareness Training (which provides information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and 

techniques, and sighting notification procedures), and requiring underway vessels and in-water devices 

that are towed from manned surface platforms to maneuver to maintain a specified distance from 

marine mammals. The Navy’s mitigation measures are detailed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), and are 

expected to reduce the risk of a strike to the point that vessel strikes of mysticetes are not anticipated.

As discussed in Appendix K, marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, reproductive, and 

feeding behaviors within the HSTT Study Area may be impacted by vessels and in-water devices from 

Navy training. Impacts, including physical disturbance and strike, would be similar as what was 

previously discussed for odontocetes and mysticetes in the Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and 

In-Water Devices). Based on the historical Navy vessel strike data presented in Appendix F (Military 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-537

3.7 Marine Mammals

Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) and a consideration of the mitigation discussed in 

Chapter 5 (Mitigation), the Navy does not anticipate that any cetacean would be struck by a vessel as a 

result of training activities in the Study Area. 

Vessel transit and in-water device use may occur in portions of the Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat 

year-round. The constituent elements of this critical habitat would not be impacted by vessel and 

in-water device use during training activities within the Study Area.

Vessel movements related to training activities occur near marine mammals only on an incidental basis. 

Navy mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) will help the Navy avoid interactions with 

marine mammals, which would further reduce any potential physical disturbance and direct strike 

impacts from vessels. Long-term consequences on populations of marine mammals are not expected to 

result from vessel movement and in-water device use associated with the proposed training activities.

The use of vessels during training activities as described under Alternative 1 could result in the 

unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under the MMPA. The 

Navy is consulting with NMFS regarding authorization of those takes as pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(A) 

of the MMPA. 

The use of in-water devices during training activities as described under Alternative 1 will not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), testing activities primarily involve 

large vessel movement. However, the number of activities that include large vessel movement for 

testing is comparatively lower than the number of training activities. In addition, testing often occurs 

jointly with a training event, so it is likely that the testing activity would be conducted from a training 

vessel. Vessel movement and use in conjunction with testing activities could be widely dispersed 

throughout the Study Area, but would be concentrated near naval ports, piers, range complexes, and 

especially in the vicinity of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and San Diego Bay, California. 

Propulsion testing and use of large high speed unmanned surface vessels occur infrequently but may 

pose a higher strike risk because of the high speeds at which the vessels need to achieve in order to 

complete the testing activity. These activities could occur in the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern 

California Range Complex. However, there are just a few of these events proposed per year, so the 

increased risk is nominal compared to all vessel use proposed under Alternative 1. 

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), testing activities involving the use of 

in-water devices would occur in the HSTT Study Area at any time of year. Unmanned surface vehicle use 

would occur within both the Hawaii and Southern California portions of the HSTT Study Area. 

The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from vessel and in-water device strikes 

on marine mammals throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.3.4, Physical Disturbance and Strike 

Stressors). Mitigation includes training Lookouts and watch personnel with the Marine Species 

Awareness Training (which provides information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and 

techniques, and sighting notification procedures), and requiring underway vessels and in-water devices 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-538

3.7 Marine Mammals

that are towed from manned surface platforms to maneuver to maintain a specified distance from 

marine mammals. The Navy’s mitigation measures are detailed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), and are 

expected to reduce the risk of a strike to marine mammals in general.

As discussed in Appendix K, marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, reproductive, and 

feeding behaviors within the HSTT Study Area may be impacted by vessels and in-water devices from 

Navy testing. Impacts, including physical disturbance and strike, would be similar as what was previously 

discussed for odontocetes and mysticetes in the Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water 

Devices). Based on the historical Navy vessel strike data presented in Appendix F (Military Expended 

Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) and a consideration of the mitigation discussed in Chapter 5 

(Mitigation), the Navy does not anticipate that any cetacean would be struck by a vessel as a result of 

testing activities in the Study Area. 

Vessel transit and in-water device use may occur in portions of the Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat 

year-round. The constituent elements of this critical habitat would not be impacted by vessel and 

in-water device use during testing activities within the Study Area.

Vessel transit and in-water device use related to testing activities occur near marine mammals only on 

an incidental basis. Navy mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) will help the Navy 

avoid interactions with marine mammals which would further reduce any potential physical disturbance 

and direct strike impacts on marine mammals from vessel transit. Long-term consequences to 

populations of marine mammals are not expected to result from vessel transit and in-water device use 

associated with the proposed testing activities. 

The use of vessels during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 could result in the 

unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under the MMPA. The 

Navy is consulting with NMFS regarding authorization of those takes as pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(A) 

of the MMPA. 

The use of in-water devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.7.3.4.1.2 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2

Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices) provides locations and number of activities that 

include vessels and in-water device use throughout the Study Area. Under Alternative 2, the locations of 

training activities that include vessels and in-water devices would be the same as what is proposed 

under Alternative 1. However, the number of activities proposed under Alternative 2 varies from what is 

proposed under Alternative 1 and is discussed in detail below.

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As shown in Table 3.0-15 (Annual Number and Location of Activities Including Vessels), training activities 

that involve vessel movement under Alternative 2 would only increase by a small fraction of one percent 

over what is proposed under Alternative 1. Even with this nominal increase in activity level, Navy 

training activities would remain consistent with the levels of activity and types activities undertaken in 

the HSTT Study Area over the last decade. Consequently, the level which physical disturbance and vessel 

strikes are expected to occur is likely to remain consistent with the previous decade. Similarly, Table 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-539

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.0-17 (Annual Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices) shows the use of in-water 

devices associated with training activities under Alternative 2 would increase by approximately 16

percent over what is proposed for training activities under Alternative 1. This level of increased of use 

in-water devices would not appreciably change the potential for physical disturbance or strike of a 

marine mammal. Therefore, impacts from training activities involving vessels and in-water devices under 

Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1 and the analyses presented in Section 3.7.3.4.1.1 

(Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1) for training activities are applicable to 

training activities under Alternative 2. 

The use of vessels and in-water devices during training activities as described under Alternative 2 will 

not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under 

the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals. 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As shown on Table 3.0-15 (Annual Number and Location of Activities Including Vessels), testing activities 

that involve vessel movement under Alternative 2 are proposed to increase by a fraction of one percent 

as compared to Alternative 1. As previously indicated, the number of testing activities that involve 

vessels are much lower than the number of training activities. Furthermore, testing activities may be 

conducted simultaneously with a training event, using a training vessel. The proposed increase in vessel 

use from testing activities under Alternative 2 would still be consistent with the levels of activity and 

types activities undertaken in the HSTT Study Area over the last decade. Therefore, the level which 

physical disturbance and strikes are expected to occur would remain consistent with the previous 

decade. 

As shown on Table 3.0-17 (Annual Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices), inwater device use under Alternative 2 would increase by approximately four times over what is proposed 

annually for testing activities under Alternative 1 for the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area; there is no change in the proposed number for the Hawaii or Transit Corridor portions of the Study 

Area. This level of increased use of in-water devices would increase the potential for physical 

disturbance or strike of a marine mammals in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. 

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), testing activities involving the use of 

in-water devices would occur in the HSTT Study Area at any time of year. Unmanned surface vehicle use 

would occur within both the Southern California and Hawaii portions of the HSTT Study Area. 

The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from vessel and in-water device strikes 

on marine mammals throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.3.4, Physical Disturbance and Strike 

Stressors). Mitigation includes training Lookouts and watch personnel with the Marine Species 

Awareness Training (which provides information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and 

techniques, and sighting notification procedures), and requiring underway vessels and in-water devices 

that are towed from manned surface platforms to maneuver to maintain a specified distance from 

marine mammals. The Navy’s mitigation measures are detailed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), and are 

expected to reduce the risk of a strike to the point that vessel strikes of mysticetes are not anticipated.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-540

3.7 Marine Mammals

As discussed in Appendix K, marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, reproductive, and 

feeding behaviors within the HSTT Study Area may be impacted by vessels and in-water devices from 

Navy testing. Impacts, including physical disturbance and strike, would be similar as what was previously 

discussed for odontocetes and mysticetes in the Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water 

Devices).

Vessel transit and in-water device use may occur in portions of the Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat 

year-round. The constituent elements of this critical habitat would not be impacted by vessel and in 

water device use during testing activities within the Study Area.

Vessel transit and in-water device uses related to testing activities occur near marine mammals only on 

an incidental basis. Navy mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) include several 

provisions to avoid approaching will help the Navy avoid interactions with marine mammals which 

would further reduce any potential physical disturbance and direct strike impacts on marine mammals 

from vessel transits and in-water devices. Long-term consequences to individuals or populations of 

marine mammals are not expected to result from vessel transit and in-water device use associated with 

the proposed testing activities under Alternative 2. 

The use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals.

3.7.3.4.1.3 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., vessels and in-water devices) 

would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities. 

3.7.3.4.2 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets

Impacts from aircraft and aerial targets are not applicable to marine mammals because they do not 

occur in airborne environments and will not be analyzed further in this section. Refer to the Impacts 

from Military Expended Materials section (Section 3.7.3.4.3) for impacts from target fragments and the 

Acoustic Stressors section (Section 3.7.3.1) for potential disturbance from aircraft. 

3.7.3.4.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials

This section analyzes the strike potential to marine mammals from the following categories of military 

expended materials: (1) all sizes of non-explosive practice munitions, (2) fragments from high-explosive 

munitions, (3) expendable targets and target fragments, and (4) expended materials other than 

munitions; such as sonobuoys, expended bathythermographs, and torpedo accessories. For a discussion 

of the types of activities that use military expended materials see Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices) 

and for how many events would occur under each alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended 

Materials). As described in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses), 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-541

3.7 Marine Mammals

for physical disturbance and strike stressors as it relates to marine mammals, impacts from fragments 

from high-explosive munitions are included in the analysis presented in Section 3.7.3.2 (Explosive 

Stressors), and are not considered further in this section. Potential impacts from military expended 

materials as ingestion stressors to marine mammals are discussed in Section 3.7.3.6.1 (Impacts from 

Military Expended Materials–Munitions) and Section 3.7.3.6.2 (Impacts from Military Expended 

Materials Other than Munitions).

The primary concern is the potential for a marine mammal to be hit with a military expended material at 

or near the water’s surface, which could result in injury or death. While disturbance or strike from an 

item falling through the water column is possible, it is not very likely because the objects generally sink 

slowly through the water based on the weights of expended materials and can be avoided by most 

marine mammals. Therefore, the discussion of military expended materials strikes will focus on the 

potential of a strike at the surface of the water. 

While no strike from military expended materials has ever been reported or recorded, the possibility of 

a strike still exists. Therefore, the potential for marine mammals to be struck by military expended 

materials was evaluated using statistical probability modeling to estimate potential direct strike 

exposures to a marine mammal under a worst-case scenario. Specific details of the modeling approach 

including model selection and calculation methods are presented in Appendix F (Military Expended 

Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses). 

To estimate potential direct strike exposures, a worst-case scenario was calculated using the marine 

mammal with the highest average seasonal density in areas with the highest military expended material 

expenditures in the Hawaii and Southern California portions of the HSTT Study Area. This is considered a 

worst-case scenario because, as described below, probability calculations of a single military item hitting 

an animal assumes all activities would be conducted during the season with the highest marine mammal 

densities and that all marine mammals have the equal densities. For estimates of expended materials in 

all areas, see Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials).

For all the remaining marine mammal species with lesser densities, this highest likelihood approach 

would overestimate the likelihood or probability of a strike. Direct strike exposures of marine mammal 

species protected under the ESA are estimated separately from non-ESA species. Because the ESA has 

specific standards for understanding the likelihood of impacts on each endangered species, estimates 

were made for all endangered marine mammals found in the areas where the highest levels of military 

expended materials would be expended. In this way, the appropriate ESA conclusions could be based on 

the highest estimated probabilities of a strike for those species.

Input values include munitions data (frequency, footprint and type), size of the training or testing area, 

marine mammal density data and size of the animal. To estimate the potential of military expended 

materials to strike a marine mammal, the impact area of all military expended materials was totaled 

over one year in the area with highest combined amounts of military expended materials for each of the 

two action alternatives. 

The analysis of the potential for a marine mammal strike is influenced by the following assumptions:

• The model is two-dimensional and assumes that all marine mammals would be at or near the 

surface 100 percent of the time, when in fact, marine mammals spend up to 90 percent of their 

time under the water (Costa & Block, 2009).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-542

3.7 Marine Mammals

• The model also does not take into account the fact that most of the projectiles fired during 

training and testing activities are fired at targets, and most projectiles hit those targets, so only a 

very small portion of those would hit the water with their maximum velocity and force.

• The model assumes the animal is stationary and does not account for any movement of the 

marine mammal or any potential avoidance of the training or testing activity.

The potential of fragments from high explosive munitions or expended material other than munitions to 

strike a marine mammal is likely lower than for the worst-case scenario calculated above because those 

events happen with much lower frequency. Fragments may include metallic fragments from the 

exploded target, as well as from the exploded munitions. 

Marine mammal species that occur in the Study Area may be exposed to the risk of military expended 

material strike, with the exception of the sea otters in the shallow nearshore waters around San Nicolas 

Island where these stressors would not occur. The Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat would not be 

impacted by military expended materials as a physical disturbance and strike stressor. 

The model output (Appendix F, Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) provides a 

reasonably high level of certainty that marine mammals would not be struck by military expended 

materials. These results are summarized in the following sections discussing impacts under each 

alternative. 

As discussed in Appendix K, there are marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, 

reproductive, and feeding behaviors within certain areas in the HSTT Study Area. Marine mammals in 

those areas may be affected by military expended materials from Navy training and testing. Physical 

disturbance from military expended materials may result in a momentary behavioral response and but 

would not result in resident marine mammals avoiding these areas or result in the abandonment of 

behaviors in these areas. 

3.7.3.4.3.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Training activities that involve military expended materials under Alternative 1 would occur throughout 

the Study Area, with the exception of in shallow nearshore areas, San Diego Bay, and Pearl Harbor. 

The model results presented in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact 

Analyses) estimate representative marine mammal exposures from direct strike during training 

activities. Based on a worst case scenario, the results indicate with a reasonable level of certainty that 

marine mammals would not be struck by non-explosive practice munitions, targets, and expended 

materials other than munitions. Direct strike exposure estimates range from 0.00 blue whales to 0.15

short-beaked common dolphin in the HSTT Study Area over the course of a year. In addition, direct 

strike exposure estimates are essentially zero (maximum exposure estimate of less than 0.01) for all 

other marine mammal species in the HSTT Study Area. As discussed above, this does not take into 

account assumptions that likely overestimate potential impacts and the behavior of marine mammals

(e.g., short-beaked common dolphins generally occur in large pods and are relatively easy to spot), 

which would reduce the risk of a strike. 

The use of military expended material during training activities as described under Alternative 1 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under 

the MMPA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-543

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended material during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities that involve military expended materials under Alternative 1 would throughout the 

Study Area, with the exception of in shallow nearshore areas, San Diego Bay, and Pearl Harbor. 

The model results presented in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact 

Analyses) estimate representative marine mammal exposures from direct strike during testing activities. 

Based on a worst case scenario, the results indicate with a reasonable level of certainty that marine 

mammals would not be struck by explosive and non-explosive practice munitions, targets, and expended 

materials other than munitions. Direct strike exposure estimates range from 0.00 blue whales to 0.10 

short-beaked common dolphin in the HSTT Study Area over the course of a year. In addition, direct 

strike exposure estimates are essentially zero (maximum exposure estimate of less than 0.01) for all 

other marine mammal species in the HSTT Study Area. As discussed above, this does not take into 

account assumptions that likely overestimate potential impacts and the behavior of marine mammals 

(e.g., short-beaked common dolphins generally occur in large pods and are relatively easy to spot), 

which would reduce the risk of a strike.

The use of military expended material during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under 

the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended material during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.7.3.4.3.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Training activities under Alternative 2 would involve the same amount of non-explosive practice 

munitions and fragments from high-explosive munitions for all locations in the Study Area as what is 

proposed under Alternative 1. As shown in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials), there 

would be an increase in the use of sonobuoys and other military materials during training under 

Alternative 2 within the Study Area. 

The model results presented in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact 

Analyses) estimate representative marine mammal exposures from direct strike during training 

activities. Based on a worst case scenario, the military expended materials strike exposure estimates 

range from 0.00 blue whales to approximately a 0.84 short-beaked common dolphin in the HSTT Study 

Area over the course of a year. Exposure of 0.03 to an endangered Guadalupe fur seal is also predicted. 

Direct strike exposure estimates are essentially zero (maximum exposure estimate of less than 0.01) for 

all other marine mammal species in the HSTT Study Area. As discussed above, this does not take into 

account assumptions that likely overestimate potential impacts and the behavior of marine mammals 

(e.g., short-beaked common dolphins generally occur in large pods and are relatively easy to spot), 

which would reduce the risk of a strike. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-544

3.7 Marine Mammals

The use of military expended material during training activities as described under Alternative 2 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under 

the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended material during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 2 would involve the same amount of non-explosive practice 

munitions and fragments from high-explosive munitions for all locations in the Study Area as what is 

proposed under Alternative 1. As shown in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials), there 

would be a minor increase in the use of sonobuoys and decelerator/parachutes during testing under 

Alternative 2 within the Study Area. 

Probability analysis results in Appendix F indicates that the minor increase in the amount of expended 

materials proposed under Alternative 2 does not result in any substantial increase in the risk that a 

marine mammal would be struck by a military expended material. Therefore the associated impacts on

marine mammals are expected to be similar to Alternative 1 and the analyses presented in Section 

3.7.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 1) for testing activities would 

be applicable to military expended materials associated with testing activities under Alternative 2. 

The use of military expended material during testing activities, as described under Alternative 2 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under 

the MMPA. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended material during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals.

3.7.3.4.3.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., military expended materials) 

would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities. 

3.7.3.4.4 Impacts from Seafloor Devices

For a discussion of the types of activities that use seafloor devices see Appendix B (Activity Stressor 

Matrices), and for a discussion on where they are used and how many events would occur under each 

alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices). These include items placed on, dropped on or 

moved along the seafloor such as mine shapes, anchor blocks, anchors, bottom-placed devices, and 

bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles. The likelihood of any marine mammal species 

encountering seafloor devices is considered low because these items are either stationary or move very 

slowly along the bottom. In the unlikely event that a marine mammal is in the vicinity of a seafloor 

device, the stationary or very slowly moving devices would not be expected to physically disturb or alter 

natural behaviors of marine mammals. The only seafloor device used during training and testing 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-545

3.7 Marine Mammals

activities that has the potential to strike a marine mammal at or near the surface is an aircraft deployed 

mine shape, which is used during aerial mine laying activities. These devices are identical to nonexplosive practice bombs, therefore the analysis of the potential impacts from those devices are 

covered in Section 3.7.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials) and are not further analyzed in 

this section. 

As discussed in Appendix K, there are marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, 

reproductive, and feeding behaviors within certain areas in the HSTT Study Area. Marine mammals in 

those areas may be affected by seafloor devices from Navy training and testing. Physical disturbance 

from seafloor devices may result in a momentary behavioral response and but would not result in 

resident marine mammals avoiding these areas or result in the abandonment of behaviors in 

these areas. 

3.7.3.4.4.1 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Training activities that use seafloor devices under Alternative 1 would occur throughout the HSTT Study 

Area including within Pearl Harbor in Hawaii and San Diego Bay in California. Based on the analysis in 

Section 3.7.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 1) for training activities, 

there is a reasonable level of certainty that there would be no physical disturbance or strike resulting 

from use of seafloor devices. 

Training activities in Hawaii that use seafloor devices (in particular anchors) could occur within Hawaiian 

monk seal critical habitat. As presented in detail in Section 3.7.2.2.9.1 (Status and Management), the 

essential feature of the critical habitat that could be affected by seafloor devices is identified as marine 

areas from 0 to 500 m in depth preferred by juvenile and adult monk seals for foraging (see National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2015a)). Previously for Navy actions including use of seafloor 

devices in the HSTT Study Area, NMFS determined those actions, “... are not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat that has been designated” (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2015c). Consistent with these previous findings for the same actions and stressor, 

seafloor devices will not affect Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat. 

The use of seafloor devices during training activities as described under Alternative 1 will not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities that use seafloor devices under Alternative 1 would occur throughout the HSTT Study 

Area including within Pearl Harbor in Hawaii and San Diego Bay in California. Based on the analysis in 

Section 3.7.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 1) for training activities, 

there is a reasonable level of certainty that there would be no physical disturbance or strike resulting 

from use of seafloor devices. 

Testing activities in Hawaii that use seafloor devices (in particular anchors) could occur within Hawaiian 

monk seal critical habitat since they may forage on the seafloor. As presented in detail in Section 

3.7.2.2.9.1 (Status and Management), the essential feature of the critical habitat that could be affected 

by seafloor devices is identified as marine areas from 0 to 500 m in depth preferred by juvenile and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-546

3.7 Marine Mammals

adult monk seals for foraging (see National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2015a)).

Consistent with these previous findings for the same actions and stressor, seafloor devices will not affect 

Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015c).

The use of seafloor devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will not result in the 

unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed marine mammals. 

The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.7.3.4.4.2 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices; Table 3.0-26) the locations and annual number of 

training activities that involve seafloor devices are the same for Alternatives 1 and 2 within the Hawaii 

portion of the HSTT Study Area and within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area they

decrease by an insignificant number. Therefore the impacts on marine mammals for the use of seafloor 

devices under Alternative 2 are expected to be the similar to Alternative 1 and as presented in Section 

3.7.3.4.4.1 (Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 1). 

The use of seafloor devices during training activities as described under Alternative 2 will not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals.

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices; Table 3.0-26) the locations and annual number of 

testing activities that involve seafloor devices are the same for Alternatives 1 and 2 within the Hawaii 

portion of the HSTT Study Area and within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area they 

increase by an insignificant number. Therefore the impacts on marine mammals for the use of seafloor 

devices under Alternative 2 are expected to be the similar to Alternative 1 and as presented in Section 

3.7.3.4.4.1 (Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 1). 

The use of seafloor devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 will not result in the 

unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed marine mammals.

3.7.3.4.4.3 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., seafloor devices) would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and 

testing activities. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-547

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.5 Entanglement Stressors

This section analyzes the potential for entanglement of marine mammals as the result of proposed 

training and testing activities within the Study Area. This analysis includes the potential impacts from 

three types of military expended materials: (1) wires and cables, (2) decelerators/parachutes, and (3) 

biodegradable polymers. The number and location of training and testing events that involve the use of 

items that may pose an entanglement risk are provided in Section 3.0.3.3.5 (Entanglement Stressors). 

General discussion of impacts can also be found in Section 3.0.3.6.4 (Conceptual Framework for 

Assessing Effects from Entanglement).

These materials could be encountered by and if encountered, may have the potential to entangle 

marine mammals in the HSTT Study Area at the surface, in the water column, or along the seafloor. 

Since potential impacts depend on how a marine mammal encounters and reacts to items that pose an 

entanglement risk, the following subsections discuss research relevant to specific groups or species. Risk 

factors such as animal size, sensory capabilities and foraging methods are also considered in the 

potential risk for entanglement. Most entanglements discussed are attributable to marine mammal 

encounters with fishing gear or other non-military materials that float or are suspended at the surface. 

Entanglement events are difficult to detect from land or from a boat as they may occur at considerable 

distances from shore and typically take place underwater. Smaller entangled animals are inherently less 

likely to be detected than larger ones, but larger animals may subsequently swim off while still 

entangled, towing lines or fishing gear behind them. The likelihood of witnessing an entanglement event 

is therefore typically low (Benjamins et al., 2014). However, the properties and size of these military 

expended materials, as described in Section 3.0.3.3.5 (Entanglement Stressors) and Section 3.0.3.6.4 

(Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Entanglement), makes entanglement unlikely. 

Since there has never been a reported or recorded instance of a marine mammal entangled in military 

expended materials, the Navy considered the available literature and reports on entanglement

(Bradford & Lyman, 2015; Carretta et al., 2013b; Carretta et al., 2016b; National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014b). These reports indicate that active and 

derelict fishing gear is the predominant cause of entanglement. The reason for this, and the ways that 

fishing gear may be different from military expended materials are as follows: 1) fishing gear is most 

often used in areas of high productivity where whales may congregate and feed; whereas military 

expended materials are generally used in broad, diverse, open ocean areas and expenditures are not 

concentrated; 2) fishing gear is designed to trap/entangle marine life and are made with a high breaking 

strength to withstand prolonged use in the ocean environment; military expended materials are not 

designed to persist in the ocean environment for long periods of time and are not designed to entangle 

or capture marine life; 3) fishing gear and ropes are designed to float or be suspended in the water 

column for long periods of time; where most military expended materials sink immediately and rapidly.

As discussed in Appendix K, there are marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, 

reproductive, and feeding behaviors within certain areas in the HSTT Study Area. Marine mammals in 

those areas may be affected by entanglements stressors from Navy training and testing. Entanglement 

stressors may result in a momentary behavioral response and but would not result in resident marine 

mammals avoiding these areas or result in the abandonment of behaviors in these areas. 

Mysticetes

Mysticete species with documented entanglement reports include blue whale, Bryde’s whales, bowhead 

whales, fin whales, gray whales, humpback whales, minke whales, North Atlantic right whales, and sei 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-548

3.7 Marine Mammals

whales (Baulch & Perry, 2014; Baulch & Simmonds, 2015; Bradford & Lyman, 2015; Carretta et al., 

2013b; Carretta et al., 2016b; Carretta et al., 2017a; Laist, 1997; National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014b; Neilson et al., 2009; Saez et al., 2013). In Southeast 

Alaska, the estimated percentage of humpback whales that have been non-lethally entangled in their 

lifetime ranges from 52 to 78 percent (Neilson et al., 2009) and approximately 19 percent for gray 

whales feeding off Sakhalin Island, Russia (Bradford et al., 2009). Cassoff et al. (2011) report that in the 

western North Atlantic, mortality due to entanglement has slowed the recovery of some populations of 

mysticetes. Included in their analysis of 21 entanglement related mortalities were minke, Bryde’s, North 

Atlantic right whale, and humpback whales.

Based on feeding adaptations for mysticetes, oral entanglement may pose one of the greatest threats to 

survival, due to impaired foraging and possibly loss of function of the hydrostatic seal (formed when 

upper and lower lips come together and keep the mouth closed) requiring the whale to expend energy 

to actively keep the mouth closed during swimming (Cassoff et al., 2011). Impaired foraging could lead 

to deterioration of health, making the animal more susceptible to disease, or eventual starvation over a 

long period of time. Compounding the issue, trailing lengths of rope or line may become wrapped 

around the animal’s appendages as it struggles to free itself (Kozuck, 2003), limiting the animal’s 

mobility. This reduced mobility can also reduce foraging success or even limit the animal’s ability to 

surface. Notably, the single acute cause of entanglement mortalities has been associated with drowning 

from multiple body parts being entangled (Cassoff et al., 2011).

Common sources of entanglements for mysticetes include fishing gear lines and net fragments attached 

through the mouth or around the tail and flippers (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Marine Debris Program, 2014b; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration, 2017). Rope 

diameter and breaking strengths may also determine an animal’s ability to break free from 

entanglement. Increased rope strength has been found to be positively correlated with injury severity in 

right whales, but not for humpback whales (Knowlton et al., 2015). Minke whales were also found 

entangled in lower breaking strength ropes (10.47 kilonewtons [2,617 lb.-force]) than both humpback 

and right whales (17.13 and 19.30 kilonewtons [3,851 and 4,339 lb.-force], respectively) (Knowlton et 

al., 2015). These are significantly greater than the breaking strength of torpedo guidance wires 

(maximum 42 lb.-force) as described in Section 3.0.3.3.5.1, Wires and Cables. Entanglement would be 

more likely for materials with similar physical properties as those described above. 

In the Hawaiian Islands between 2006 and 2011, there were 74 entanglements reported (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2008a, 2010a, 2010e, 2011d). The identified sources of entanglement were 

fishing gear; there are no known cases of marine mammals entangled in Navy expended materials.

From 1998-2005, based on observer records, five fin whales (CA/OR/WA stock), 12 humpback whales 

(Eastern North Pacific stock), and six sperm whales (CA/OR/WA stock) were either seriously injured or 

killed in fisheries due to entanglement off the mainland west coast of the U.S. (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2011g). Subsequent examination of the data indicated that from 1982 to Feb 2012 in the 

California, Oregon, Washington areas inhabited by stocks of large whales there were 279 reported 

whale entanglements (Saez et al., 2012). In 2015-2016, there were 71 cases of entangled whales 

reported off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Adminsitration, 2017), which the range area for the stocks of whales present in the Southern California

portion of the HSTT Study Area. For the identified sources of entanglement, none included Navy 

expended materials. Identified mysticete species entangled off the U.S. west coast in 2015 and 2016 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-549

3.7 Marine Mammals

included humpback, gray, blue, and fin whales with a total of 133 entanglements in the 2-year period 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration, 2017). 

Military expended material is expected to sink to the ocean floor. It is possible that marine mammals 

could encounter these items within the water column as they sink to the bottom. Less buoyant items 

that sink faster are not as likely to become entangled with a marine mammal compared to more 

buoyant materials that would sink slower. Mysticetes that occupy the water column or skim feed along 

the water surface would have to encounter a military expended material at the same time and location 

it is either expended or as it sinks. Mysticete species that feed near or at the bottom in the areas where 

activities make use of military expended materials could encounter items that have already sunk and 

therefore do not have to be present at the precise time when items are expended. Seasonally present 

when migrating through the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study area, the gray whale is the 

only mysticete occurring in the Study Area that regularly feeds at the seafloor, but it does so nearshore 

in relatively shallow water soft sediment seafloor area where these military expended material 

entanglement stressors are less likely to be present. Additionally, gray whales rarely attempt to feed 

when migrating through Southern California and so are not expected to interact with the seafloor in the 

HSTT Study Area.

Odontocetes

Odontocete species with documented records of marine debris entanglement, excluding active fishing 

gear, are the bottlenose dolphin, Dall’s porpoise, harbor porpoise, killer whale, Pacific white-sided 

dolphin, sperm whale, spinner dolphin, and spotted dolphin (Bradford & Lyman, 2015; Carretta et al., 

2016b; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014b; National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration, 2017). Bottlenose dolphins are the most commonly entangled 

odontocete with most entanglements involving monofilament line, net fragments, and rope attached to 

appendages (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014b). Heezen 

(1957) reported two confirmed instances of sperm whales entangled in the slack lengths of telegraph 

cable near cable repair sites along the seafloor. These sperm whales likely became entangled while 

feeding along the bottom, as the cables were most often found wrapped around the jaw. 

Pinnipeds

Entanglement is considered a serious threat to several populations of pinnipeds (Kovacs et al. 2012); 

approximately 66-67 percent of pinniped species have been recorded as entangled (Kuhn et al., 2015; 

Reeves et al., 2013). Younger pinnipeds appear to be more prone to entanglement than adults (Hofmeyr 

et al., 2006; Page et al., 2004). A young pup may become so entangled that its body becomes constricted 

by the material as it grows. Death may occur by strangulation or severing of the arteries (Derraik, 2002). 

In the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area, Hawaiian monk seals have one of the highest documented

entanglement rates of any pinniped species (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2011c, 2016j; National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2011). This most often includes 

derelict fishing gear including nets, fish line, and fishhooks but marine debris are also a large concern; 

there are no known cases of Hawaiian monk seal being entangled in military expended material. While 

pinnipeds in the Study Area feed primarily in the water column, Hawaiian monk seal, which occur in 

Hawaii Range Complex portion of the Study Area, are opportunistic feeders and also forage on the 

seafloor. It is unlikely that Hawaiian monk seal would be impacted by entanglement stressors if 

encountered on the seafloor.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-550

3.7 Marine Mammals

It is not known if, in addition to Hawaiian monk seal, other phocid seals in the Study Area (Northern 

elephant and harbor seals) have similar entanglement occurrence. Fur seals (such as those otariid 

present in the Southern California portion of the Study Area; Northern fur seal, and Guadalupe fur seal) 

and California sea lion appear to be attracted to floating debris and consequently suffer a high rate of 

entanglement in derelict fishing lines and nets (Carretta et al., 2016b; Derraik, 2002) than other pinniped 

species. Their unique habit of rolling on the surface of the water leads to complex entanglement. 

Sea Otters

Sea Otters at San Nicolas Island would not encounter entanglement stressors because the shallow water 

near shore area they inhabit is not an area where entanglement stressors would occur as a result of 

Navy training and testing activities evaluated in this analysis. 

3.7.3.5.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables

For a discussion of the types of activities that use wires and cables see Appendix B (Activity Stressor 

Matrices), and for where they are used and how many events would occur under each alternative, see 

Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables). The likelihood of a marine mammal encountering and becoming 

entangled in a fiber optic cable depends on several factors. The amount of time that the cable is in the 

same vicinity as a marine mammal can increase the likelihood of it posing an entanglement risk. The 

length of a fiber optic cable for training activities varies (up to about 3,000 m), and greater lengths may 

increase the likelihood that a marine mammal could become entangled. The behavior and feeding 

strategy of a species can determine whether they may encounter items on the seafloor, where cables 

will be available for longer periods of time. There is potential for those species that feed on the seafloor 

to encounter cables and potentially become entangled, however the relatively few cables being 

expended within the HSTT Study Area limits the potential for encounters. The physical characteristics of 

the fiber optic material render the cable brittle and easily broken when kinked, twisted, or bent sharply 

(i.e., to a radius greater than 360 degrees). Thus, the physical properties of the fiber optic cable would 

not allow the cable to loop without breaking, greatly reducing or eliminating any potential issues of 

entanglement with regard to marine life. Furthermore, since the cable will only be within the water 

column during the activity and while it sinks, the likelihood of a marine mammal encountering and 

becoming entangled within the water column is extremely low. 

For certain testing activities (see Appendix A - Energy and Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance/Information Operations Sensor Systems), long-length (up to approximately 60 mi.) fiber 

optic cables would be deployed in the water column in the Southern California portion of the HSTT 

Study Area. These long-length fiber optic cables are slightly negatively buoyant, have a breaking strength 

of approximately 100 lb. or less, and are designed to resist coiling or the forming of loops when 

unspooled. The fiber optic cable would be temporarily deployed in the water column between moored 

points at depths of approximately 600 to 850 ft. The fiber optic cable used in this test would be typically 

be deployed for durations of approximately one week while researchers monitor transmissions through 

the fiber optic cable, although deployments could extend to one month. As with fiber optic cables used 

during training events, the likelihood of a marine mammal encountering and becoming entangled within 

the water column during the temporary deployment is extremely low. Additionally, most marine 

mammals do not dive to the depth of deployment and those that may generally spend a small portion of 

their time at that depth (sperm whales – 14 percent, beaked whales 7 percent, Kogia spp., Fraser’s 

dolphin, and short-finned pilot whales all approximately less than 1 percent; see U.S. Department of the 

Navy (2017f). Each fixed mooring points associated with the deployment of fiber optic cables would 

consist of a mooring cable suspended from a float that is anchored to the seafloor or a surface ship. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-551

3.7 Marine Mammals

While the mooring cable at these fixed points would be of higher strength, they would also be recovered 

at the end of the activity and given that short duration, the likelihood of a marine mammal encountering 

and becoming entangled with a mooring cable is extremely low.

Similar to fiber optic cables discussed above, guidance wires may pose an entanglement threat to 

marine mammals either in the water column or after the wire has settled to the seafloor. The likelihood 

of a marine mammal encountering and becoming entangled in a guidance wire depends on several 

factors. With the exception of a chance encounter with the guidance wire while it is sinking to the 

seafloor (at an estimated rate of 0.24 meter per second), it is most likely that a marine mammal would 

only encounter a guidance wire once it had settled on the seafloor. Since the guidance wire will only be 

within the water column during the activity and while it sinks, the likelihood of a marine mammal 

encountering and becoming entangled within the water column is extremely low. Guidance wires have a 

relatively low tensile breaking strength; between 10 and 42 lb. and can be broken by hand. In addition, 

based on degradation times, the guide wires would break down within one to two years and therefore 

no longer pose an entanglement risk. The length of the guidance wires vary, as described in Section 

3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables), but greater lengths increase the likelihood that a marine mammal could 

become entangled. The behavior and feeding strategy of a species can determine whether they may 

encounter items on the seafloor, where guidance wires will most likely be available. There is potential 

for those species that feed on the seafloor to encounter guidance wires and potentially become 

entangled; however, the relatively few guidance wires being expended within the HSTT Study Area limits 

the potential for encounters. Sonobuoy wires are used to attach the surface antenna and float unit with 

the subsurface hydrophone assembly unit of a sonobuoy. They are slightly longer than fiber optic cables 

(up to 1,500 ft.) and have a tensile breaking strength of 40 lb. Operationally, sonobuoys remain 

suspended in the water column for up to 30 hours, which would increase the likelihood that a marine 

mammal could encounter a sonobuoy wire either while it is suspended or as it sinks. Marine mammals 

could encounter the sonobuoy wires while in operation in the water column and species that feed on 

the bottom could encounter the wires after they have sunk to the seafloor. 

Marine mammal species that occur within the HSTT Study Area were evaluated based on the likelihood 

of encountering these items. Mysticete, odontocete, and pinniped species that occur where these 

training and testing activities take place and forage on the bottom could encounter these items once 

they settle to the seafloor. 

An evaluation of potential environmental impacts related to guidance wire left at sea where torpedo 

tests are conducted by the Navy suggests there is an extremely low entanglement potential for marine 

animals found within these range areas (Swope & McDonald, 2013). The chance that an individual 

animal would encounter expended cables or wires is most likely low based on (1) the sparse distribution 

of both the cables and wires expended throughout the Study Area, (2) the fact that the wires and cables 

will sink upon release, and (3) the relatively few marine mammals that are likely to feed on the bottom 

in the deeper waters where these would be expended. It is probably very unlikely that an animal would 

get entangled even if it encountered a cable or wire while it was sinking or upon settling to the seafloor. 

A marine mammal would have to swim through loops, become twisted within the cable or wire to 

become entangled, or in the case of mysticetes, get the cable or wire stuck in their baleen to become 

entangled, and given the properties of the expended wires (low breaking strength, sinking rates, and 

reluctance to coiling or looping) this seems unlikely. As indicated in the report by Neilson et al. (2009), a 

large percentage of humpback whales have been non-lethally entangled in their lifetime, suggesting 

some degree of ability to become disentangled. So while an animal may initially become entangled in a 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-552

3.7 Marine Mammals

cable or wire while either swimming in the water column or feeding on the bottom, they may become 

free in situations where the item breaks or if it is only loosely attached and the animal is able to 

maneuver to free itself from permanent entanglement. As a result, no long-term impacts would occur. 

Based on the estimated concentration of expended cables and wires, impacts from cables or wires are 

extremely unlikely to occur. In fact, current data suggests that torpedo guidance wires do not present a 

physical hazard in the marine environment (Swope & McDonald, 2013). 

3.7.3.5.1.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Training activities under Alternative 1 would expend wires and cables within the Study Area. Refer to 

Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables) for the number of events and locations where cables and wires 

would be expended. Under Alternative 1 and as presented in Table 3.0-28, the majority of wires and 

cables would be expended within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area but there 

would be no areas of concentrated use in either Hawaii or Southern California. Based on the low 

concentration of expended wires and cables combined with their physical characteristics, the Navy 

anticipates that no marine mammals would become entangled.

As discussed in Appendix K, blue whale feeding areas, gray whale migration routes, humpback whale 

reproduction areas, and 11 odontocete species small and resident population areas within or 

overlapping the HSTT Study Area have been identified (Baird et al., 2015a; Calambokidis et al., 2015a).

Any potential overlap of Navy activities involving use of cables and wires with the particular species in 

these areas is unlikely to result in incidental take under the MMPA or ESA. Based on the low 

concentration of expended wires and cables combined with their physical characteristics, the Navy 

anticipates that no marine mammals would become entangled.

The use of wires and cables during training activities as described under Alternative 1 will not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during training activities as described under Alternative 

1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed marine 

mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 1 would expend wires and cables within the Study Area. Refer to 

Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables) for the number of events and locations where cables and wires 

would be expended. Under Alternative 1 and as presented in Table 3.0-29, the majority of wires and 

cables would be expended within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area but there 

would be no areas of concentrated use in either Hawaii or Southern California. Based on the low 

concentration of expended wires and cables combined with their physical characteristics, the Navy 

anticipates that no marine mammals would become entangled. 

As discussed in Appendix K, blue whale feeding areas, gray whale migration routes, humpback whale 

reproduction areas, and 11 odontocete species small and resident population areas within or 

overlapping the HSTT Study Area have been identified (Baird et al., 2015a; Calambokidis et al., 2015a). 

Any potential overlap of Navy activities involving use of cables and wires with the particular species in 

these areas is unlikely to result in incidental take under the MMPA or ESA. Based on the low 

concentration of expended wires and cables combined with their physical characteristics, the Navy 

anticipates that no marine mammals would become entangled. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-553

3.7 Marine Mammals

The use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under Alternative 

1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed marine 

mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.7.3.5.1.2 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As presented in 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables) the locations and annual number of training activities that 

involve wires and cables are the virtually the same for Alternatives 1 and 2 within the Hawaii portion of 

the HSTT Study Area and within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area they increase by 

an insignificant number (approximately three percent). Therefore the impacts on marine mammals for 

the use of wires and cables under Alternative 2 are expected to be the similar to Alternative 1 and as 

presented in Section 3.7.3.5.1.1 (Impacts from Wires and Cables under Alternative 1). 

The use of wires and cables during training activities as described under Alternative 2 will not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during training activities as described under Alternative 

2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed marine 

mammals.

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As presented in 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables) the locations and annual number of testing activities that 

involve wires and cables are the virtually the same for Alternatives 1 and 2 within the HSTT Study Area 

and given they increase by an insignificant number (less than approximately two percent). Therefore the 

impacts on marine mammals for the use of wires and cables under Alternative 2 are expected to be the 

similar to Alternative 1 and as presented in Section 3.7.3.5.1.1 (Impacts from Wires and Cables under 

Alternative 1). 

The use of wires and cables during testing activities, as described under Alternative 2, will not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under Alternative 

2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed marine 

mammals.

3.7.3.5.1.3 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Entanglement stressors (e.g., cables and wires) would not be introduced into the 

marine environment. Therefore baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain 

unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.7.3.5.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes

Refer to Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes) for the number of training and testing events that 

involve the use of decelerators/parachutes and the geographic areas where they would be expended. 

Training and testing activities that introduce decelerators/parachutes into the water column can occur 

anywhere in the HSTT Study Area. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-554

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described in Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes), decelerators/parachutes used during the 

proposed activities range in size from 18 in. up to 19 ft. in diameter. The vast majority of expended

decelerators/parachutes are small (18 in.) cruciform shaped, and are used with sonobuoys. Illumination 

flares and targets use large parachutes, up to 19 ft. in diameter. Decelerators/parachutes have short 

attachment lines and upon water impact may remain at the surface for 5–15 seconds before the 

decelerator/parachute and its housing sink to the seafloor, where it becomes flattened (Environmental 

Sciences Group, 2005). Entanglement of a marine mammal in a decelerator/parachute assembly at the 

surface or within the water column would be unlikely, since the decelerator/parachute would have to 

land directly on an animal, or an animal would have to swim into it and become entangled within the 

cords or fabric panel before it sinks or while it is sinking through the water column. Once on the 

seafloor, if bottom currents are present, the small cruciform fabric panels may temporarily billow and 

pose an entanglement threat to marine animals with bottom-feeding habits; however, the probability of 

a marine mammal encountering a decelerator/parachute assembly on the seafloor and accidental 

entanglement in the small cruciform fabric panel or short suspension cords is unlikely.

The chance that an individual animal would encounter expended decelerators/parachutes is low based 

on the sparse distribution of the decelerators/parachutes expended throughout the Study Area, the fact 

that assemblies are designed to sink upon release, and the relatively few marine mammals that feed on 

the bottom. Based on the information summarized above within the introduction to Section 3.7.3.5

(Entanglement Stressors), mysticetes found within the Study Area are not expected to encounter

decelerators/parachutes on the seafloor because, with the exception of gray whales during seasonal 

migrations through the Study Area, and potentially humpback whales, they do not feed there. The 

majority of decelerators/parachutes expended will occur in deep ocean areas, which are not the shallow 

water locations where gray whales and humpback whales feed on the bottom. The majority of

decelerators/parachutes used are relatively small (approximately 18 in. in diameter) and are not likely to 

be an entanglement hazard to marine mammals. Furthermore, there has never been any recorded or 

reported instance of a marine mammal becoming entangled in a parachute. 

The possibility of odontocetes and pinnipeds becoming entangled exists for species that feed on the 

bottom in areas where decelerators/parachutes have been expended. This is unlikely because 

decelerators/parachutes are primarily used in events that occur in waters far out to sea. Species that are 

known to feed on the bottom in deep water as well as the mid-water column include beaked whales, 

sperm whales, dwarf/pygmy sperm whales, and elephant seals. Even for these species, because the 

majority of decelerators are relatively small and there has never been any recorded or reported instance 

of a marine mammal becoming entangled in a decelerator/parachute, they are not likely to be an 

entanglement hazard.

3.7.3.5.2.1 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Training activities under Alternative 1 would expend decelerators/parachutes within the HSTT Study 

Area, in both the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern California Range Complex. Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 

(Decelerators/Parachutes; Table 3.0-24) shows the number of events where decelerators/parachutes

expended during training under Alternative 1. The Southern California Range Complex would have the 

greatest concentration of expended decelerators/parachutes, where one decelerator/parachute would 

be expended per 4.5 square nautical miles (NM2

), if evenly distributed throughout the area. Based on 

the low concentration of expended decelerator/parachutes, the Navy anticipates that no marine 

mammals would become entangled in decelerators/parachutes. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-555

3.7 Marine Mammals

The use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities as described under Alternative 1 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under 

the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 1 would expend decelerators/parachutes within the HSTT Study 

Area, in both the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern California Range Complex. Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 

(Decelerators/Parachutes; Table 3.0-25) shows the number of decelerators/parachutes expended during 

testing under Alternative 1. The Southern California Range Complex would have the greatest 

concentration of expended decelerators/parachutes, where one decelerator/parachute would be 

expended per 5.5 NM2

, if evenly distributed throughout the area. Based on the low concentration of 

expended decelerator/parachutes, the Navy anticipates that no marine mammals would become 

entangled in decelerators/parachutes. 

The use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under 

the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.7.3.5.2.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As presented in 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes) the locations and annual number of 

decelerators/parachutes used during training are the identical for Alternatives 1 and 2 within the HSTT 

Study Area. Therefore the impacts on marine mammals for the use of decelerators/parachutes during 

training under Alternative 2 are the same as presented in Section 3.7.3.5.2.1 (Impacts from 

Decelerators/Parachutes under Alternative 1). 

The use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities as described under Alternative 2 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under 

the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals.

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 2 would expend decelerators/parachutes within the HSTT Study 

Area, in both the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern California Range Complex. Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 

(Decelerators/Parachutes; Table 3.0-25) shows the number of decelerators/parachutes expended during 

testing under Alternative 2. The Southern California Range Complex would have the greatest 

concentration of expended decelerators/parachutes, where one decelerator/parachute would be 

expended per 5.6 NM2

, if evenly distributed throughout the area. Based on the low concentration of 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-556

3.7 Marine Mammals

expended decelerator/parachutes, the Navy anticipates that no marine mammals would become 

entangled in decelerators/parachutes. 

The use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under the 

MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals.

3.7.3.5.2.3 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Entanglement stressors (e.g., decelerators/parachutes) would not be introduced 

into the marine environment. Therefore baseline conditions of the existing environment would either 

remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.7.3.5.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer

For a discussion of the types of activities that use biodegradable polymers see Appendix B (Activity 

Stressor Matrices) and for a discussion on where they are used and how many activities would occur 

under each alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.5.3 (Biodegradable Polymer). Navy activities that involve 

vessel entanglement systems include the development of the biodegradable polymer and would be 

associated with testing activities in the HSTT Study Area. As indicated by its name, vessel entanglement 

systems that make use of biodegradable polymers are designed to entangle the propellers of in-water 

vessels, which would significantly slow and potentially stop the advance of the vessel. A biodegradable 

polymer is a high molecular weight polymer that degrades to smaller compounds as a result of 

microorganisms and enzymes The rate of biodegradation could vary from hours to years and the type of 

small molecules formed during degradation can range from complex to simple products, depending on 

whether the polymers are natural or synthetic (Karlsson & Albertsson, 1998). Based on the constituents 

of the biodegradable polymer the Navy proposes to use, it is anticipated that the material will 

breakdown into small pieces within a few days to weeks. This will breakdown further and dissolve into 

the water column within weeks to a few months. The final products which are all environmentally 

benign will be dispersed quickly to undetectable concentrations. Unlike other entanglement stressors, 

biodegradable polymers only retain their strength for a relatively short period of time, therefore the 

potential for entanglement by a marine mammal would be limited. Furthermore the longer the 

biodegradable polymer remains in the water, the weaker it becomes making it more brittle and likely to 

break. A marine mammal would have to encounter the biodegradable polymer immediately after it was 

expended for it to be a potential entanglement risk. If an animal were to encounter the polymer a few 

hours after it was expended, it is very likely that it would break easily and would no longer be an 

entanglement stressor. 

3.7.3.5.3.1 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Biodegradable polymers would not be used during training activities associated with the 

Proposed Action.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-557

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 1 that use biodegradable polymers could be conducted throughout 

the HSTT Study Area. The number of testing activities involving biodegradable polymers conducted in 

the HSTT Study Area is relatively low, as shown in Table 3.0-30 (Annual Activities Including 

Biodegradable Polymers). Based on the small levels of activity, the concentration of these items being 

expended throughout the HSTT Study Area is likewise considered low and the Navy does not anticipate

that any marine mammals would become entangled with biodegradable polymers. Testing activities that 

expend biodegradable polymers would not occur within monk seal critical habitat. 

The use of biodegradable polymers during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under 

the MMPA. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of biodegradable polymer during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS and the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA.

3.7.3.5.3.2 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Biodegradable polymers would not be used during training activities associated with the 

Proposed Action.

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The location and number of testing activities that expend biodegradable polymer and associated 

impacts are identical under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.7.3.5.3.2 (Impacts from 

Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1). 

The use of biodegradable polymers during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities as defined under 

the MMPA. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of biodegradable polymer during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals.

3.7.3.5.3.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Biodegradable polymer is not a part of ongoing Navy activities in the Study Area 

and this entanglement stressor would not be introduced into the marine environment under the No 

Action Alternative. Therefore no change in baseline conditions of the existing environment would occur. 

3.7.3.6 Ingestion Stressors

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of ingestion stressors used during 

training and testing activities within the Study Area. This analysis includes the potential impacts from the 

following types of military expended materials: non-explosive practice munitions (small- and mediumcaliber), fragments from high-explosives, fragments from targets, chaff, flare casings (including plastic 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-558

3.7 Marine Mammals

end caps and pistons), decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymers. For a discussion on the 

types of activities that use these materials see Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices), and for discussion 

on where they are used and how many activities would occur under each alternative, see Section 

3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors). General discussion of impacts can also be found in Section 3.0.3.6.5 

(Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Ingestion).

The distribution and density of expended items plays a central role in the likelihood of impact on marine 

mammals. The Navy conducts training and testing activities throughout the Study Area and those that 

result in expended materials that could be ingested are widely distributed and low in density. The 

majority of material expended during Navy training and testing would likely penetrate into the seafloor 

and not be accessible to most marine mammals. Since potential impacts depend on where these items 

are expended and how a marine mammal feeds, the following subsections discuss important 

information for specific groups or species. 

There have been no general surveys to investigate marine debris on the seafloor in Hawaii. Watters et 

al. (2010) conducted a visual survey of the seafloor that included a portion of the Navy’s Southern 

California range complex as part of a 15-year quantitative assessment of marine debris on the seafloor 

off the California coast. Watters et al. (2010) found plastic was the most abundant material and along 

with recreational monofilament fishing line dominate in the debris (note that U.S. Navy vessels have a 

zero-plastic trash discharge policy and return all plastic waste to appropriate disposition sites on shore). 

There was only one item found that was potentially “military” in origin. Keller et al. (2010) characterized 

the composition and abundance of man-made marine debris during Groundfish Bottom Trawl Surveys in 

2007 and 2008 along the U.S. west coast at 1,347 randomly selected stations. This including some 

sample sites that were within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area and within that 

subset, some that included historically used post-WWII dump sites. The evidence that post-WWII dump 

sites were sampled was indicated by items recovered that included equipment described as “helmets,”

“gas masks,” “uniforms,” and other miscellaneous and diverse items including “plastic,” “file cabinets,”

and “buckets” that are not (since approximately the 1970s) disposed of at sea and are not military 

expended material associated with the activities in HSTT proposed action. For this reason, the 

characterization of “military debris” in Keller et al. (2010) has little if any relevance to current Navy 

training and testing procedures or present-day standard Navy conduct that includes (among others) not 

discharging any plastics.

As discussed in Appendix K, there are marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, 

reproductive, and feeding behaviors within certain areas in the HSTT Study Area. Marine mammals in 

those areas may be affected by ingestions stressors from Navy training and testing. Ingestion stressors 

result in a momentary behavioral response and but would not result in resident marine mammals 

avoiding these areas or result in the abandonment of behaviors in these areas.

Mysticetes

Species that feed at the surface or in the water column include blue, fin, Bryde’s, minke, and sei whales. 

While humpback whales feed predominantly by lunging through the water after krill and fish, there are 

data confirming that humpback whales display bottom-feeding behaviors in the Atlantic in areas of high 

concentrations of preferred prey, the northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius) (Hain et al., 1995; Ware 

et al., 2013). Gray whales are also seasonally present when migrating through the Study Area. Gray 

whales and humpback whales are the only mysticetes likely to occur in the Study Area that feed at the 

seafloor, but do so in relatively shallow water and soft sediment areas where ingestion stressors are less 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-559

3.7 Marine Mammals

likely to be present (fewer activities take place in shallow water and expended materials are more likely 

to bury in soft sediment and be less accessible). Since baleen whales feed by filtering large amounts of 

water, they like encounter and consume plastic debris at higher rates than other marine animals 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014a). 

Baleen whales are believed to routinely encounter microplastics within the marine environment based 

on concentrations of these items and baleen whale feeding behaviors (Andrady, 2011). In a 

comprehensive review of documented ingestion of debris by marine mammals by Laist (1997), there are 

two species of mysticetes (bowhead and minke whale) with records of having ingested debris items that 

included plastic sheeting and a polythene bag. This effort was followed up by a comparative summary of 

the earlier review with additional information and the number of mysticete species with documented 

records of ingestion increased to seven species, including right whales, pygmy right whales, gray whales, 

and four rorqual species (Bergmann et al., 2015). Information compiled by Williams et al. (2011) listed 

humpback whale, fin whale, minke whale as three species of mysticetes known to have ingested debris 

including items the authors characterized as fishing gear, polyethylene bag, plastic sheeting, plastic bags, 

rope, and general debris. Besseling et al. (2015b) documented the first occurrence of microplastics in 

the intestines of a humpback whale. 

Feeding behaviors of mysticete species suggest that potential encounters with ingestion stressors would 

only occur when the items are on the water surface at the same time and locations where animals are 

skim feeding or while engulfing prey in the water column as items sink to the bottom. Bottom-feeding 

humpback whales and gray whales may also encounter ingestion stressors that have already sunk.

Odontocetes

Walker and Coe (1990) provided data on the stomach contents from of 16 species of odontocetes, some 

of which occur or had stranded in Southern California waters with evidence of debris ingestion. Of the 

odontocete species occurring in the HSTT Study Area, only sperm whale, Baird’s beaked whale, and 

Cuvier’s beaked whale had ingested items (likely incidentally) that do not float and are thus indicative of 

foraging at the seafloor. While there was no evidence of ingestion by the other species in the study, this 

does not eliminate the possibility that those other species, as well as species not part of the study, may 

also ingest items encountered on the seafloor. Beaked whales use suction feeding to ingest benthic prey 

and may incidentally ingest other items (MacLeod et al., 2003). Both sperm whales and beaked whales 

are known to incidentally ingest foreign objects while foraging; however, this does not always result in 

negative consequences to health or vitality (Laist, 1997; Walker & Coe, 1990). While this incidental 

ingestion has led to sperm whale mortality in some cases (Jacobsen et al., 2010), Whitehead (2003)

suggested the scale to which this affects sperm whale populations was not substantial. Sperm whales 

are recorded as having ingested fishing net scraps, rope, wood, and plastic debris such as plastic bags 

and items from the seafloor (Walker & Coe, 1990; Whitehead, 2003).

Weaned juveniles, who are investigating multiple types of prey items, may be particularly vulnerable to 

ingesting non-food items, as found in a study of juvenile harbor porpoise (Baird & Hooker, 2000). A male 

pygmy sperm whale reportedly died from blockage of two stomach compartments by hard plastic, and a 

Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) washed ashore in Brazil with a ball of plastic thread 

in its stomach (Derraik, 2002). In a comprehensive review of documented ingestion of debris by marine 

mammals, odontocetes had the most ingestion records with 21 species represented (Laist, 1997). A 

follow-up to this review revealed an increase in odontocete ingestion of marine debris. Bergmann et al. 

(2015) reported 40 odontocete species have documented records of ingestion.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-560

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pinnipeds

Pinnipeds are opportunistic foragers, primarily feeding within the water column, but may also forage on 

the seafloor. In a review of documented ingestion of debris by marine animals, 36 percent of seal 

species were found to have ingested plastics (Kuhn et al., 2015). Laist (1997) reported ingestion of 

Styrofoam cups by northern elephant seals and Steller sea lions, and Bravo Rebolledo et al. (2013)

reported plastics in the diet of harbor seals. There is a possibility of prey species transferring ingested 

debris to predators that consume then, as demonstrated by Eriksson and Burton (2003) for fur seals. 

This suggests that the risk of marine mammals ingesting debris may also depend on the likelihood that 

prey items would ingest debris. Even though some pinniped species feed on the bottom, such as harbor 

seals, it is unlikely that pinnipeds would encounter and incidentally or mistakenly consume military 

expended items associated with proposed Navy training and testing activities.

Sea Otters

Sea Otters would not encounter ingestion stressors because the shallow water area they inhabit (at San 

Nicolas Island in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area) is not a proposed location for 

activities involving ingestion stressors. 

3.7.3.6.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions

Different types of explosive and non-explosive practice munitions are expended at sea during training 

and testing activities. This section analyzes the potential for marine mammals to ingest non explosive 

practice munitions and fragments from high explosive munitions. 

Types of non-explosive practice munitions generally include projectiles, missiles, and bombs. Of these, 

only small- or medium-caliber projectiles would be small enough for a marine mammal to ingest. Smalland medium-caliber projectiles include all sizes up to and including 2.25 in. in diameter. These solid 

metal materials would quickly move through the water column and settle to the seafloor. Ingestion of 

non-explosive practice munitions is not expected to occur in the water column because munitions sink 

quickly. Instead, they are most likely to be encountered by species that forage on the bottom.

Types of high explosive munitions that can result in fragments include demolition charges, projectiles, 

missiles, and bombs. Fragments would result from fractures in the munitions casing and would vary in 

size depending on the size of the net explosive weight and munitions type; however, typical sizes of 

fragments are unknown. These solid metal materials would quickly move through the water column and 

settle to the seafloor; therefore, ingestion is not expected by most species. Fragments are primarily 

encountered by species that forage on the bottom. Other military expended materials such as targets, 

large-caliber projectiles, intact training and testing bombs, guidance wires, 55-gallon drums, sonobuoy 

tubes, and marine markers are too large for marine mammals to consume.

Based on the information summarized above in Section 3.7.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), mysticetes found 

within the Study Area, with the exception of bottom-feeding gray whales and potentially humpback 

whales, are not expected to encounter non-explosive practice munitions on the seafloor. Ingestion of 

non-explosive practice munitions by odontocetes is likely to be incidental, with items being potentially 

consumed along with bottom-dwelling prey. Although incidental ingestion of non-explosive practice 

munitions by pinnipeds is not likely based on records of ingestion from stranded animals, it is possible 

because they feed on the seafloor.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-561

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.6.1.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials –Munitions Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials –Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Non-Explosive Practice Munitions and Fragments from High-Explosive Munitions

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), training activities involving non-explosive practice 

munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments would occur within the HSTT Study Area. 

The amount of non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments that an 

individual animal would encounter is generally low based on the patchy distribution of both the 

projectiles and an animal’s feeding habits. In addition, an animal would not likely ingest every projectile 

it encountered. Furthermore, an animal may attempt to ingest a projectile and then reject it when it 

realizes it is not a food item. Even ingestion of certain items (hooks), if they do not become embedded in 

tissue, do not end up resulting in injury or mortality to the individual (Wells et al., 2008). Therefore, 

potential impacts of non-explosive practice munitions ingestion would be limited to the unlikely event in 

which a marine mammal might suffer a negative response from ingesting an item that becomes 

embedded in tissue or is too large to be passed through the digestive system. The Navy considers the 

likelihood of this occurring to be very low.

The use of military expended materials - munitions during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities

as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials - munitions during training activities as 

described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may 

affect ESA-listed marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS and the USFWS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Non-Explosive Practice Munitions and Fragments from High-Explosive Munitions

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), testing activities involving non-explosive practice 

munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments would occur within the HSTT Study Area. 

The amount of non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments that an 

individual animal would encounter is generally low based on the patchy distribution of both the 

projectiles and an animal’s feeding habitat. In addition, an animal would not likely ingest every projectile 

it encountered. Furthermore, an animal may attempt to ingest a projectile and then reject it when it 

realizes it is not a food item. Even ingestion of certain items (hooks), if they do not become embedded in 

tissue, do not end up resulting in injury or mortality to the individual (Wells et al., 2008). Therefore, 

potential impacts of non-explosive practice munitions ingestion would be limited to the unlikely event in 

which a marine mammal might suffer a negative response from ingesting an item that becomes 

embedded in tissue or is too large to be passed through the digestive system. 

The use of military expended materials - munitions during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities

as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials - munitions during testing activities as 

described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may 

affect ESA-listed marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS and the USFWS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-562

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.6.1.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials –Munitions Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Military Expended Materials –Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Non-Explosive Practice Munitions and Fragments from High-Explosive Munitions

Training activities that expend non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments 

under Alternative 2 would be identical to what is proposed under Alternative 1. The analysis presented 

in Section 3.7.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions under Alternative 1) for 

training activities would also apply to training activities proposed for Alternative 2.

The use of military expended materials - munitions during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities

as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials - munitions during training activities as 

described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may 

affect ESA-listed marine mammals. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials –Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Non-Explosive Practice Munitions and Fragments from High-Explosive Munitions

Testing activities that expend non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments 

under Alternative 2 would be identical to what is proposed under Alternative 1. The analysis presented 

in Section 3.7.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions under Alternative 1) for 

testing activities would also apply to testing activities proposed for Alternative 2.

The use of military expended materials - munitions during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities

as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials - munitions during testing activities as 

described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, but may 

affect ESA-listed marine mammals.

3.7.3.6.1.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials –Munitions Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Military Expended Materials –Munitions Under the No Action Alternative for Training

and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, training and testing activities associated with the Proposed Action will 

not be conducted within the HSTT Study Area. Various ingestion stressors (e.g., military expended 

materials - munitions) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline 

conditions of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after 

cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.7.3.6.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other than Munitions

Several different types of materials other than munitions are expended during training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. These include the following that have the potential to be ingested by 

marine mammals:

• target-related materials

• chaff (including fibers, end caps, and pistons)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-563

3.7 Marine Mammals

• flares (including end caps and pistons)

• decelerators/parachutes (cloth, nylon, and metal weights)

• biodegradable polymer

Target-Related Materials

At-sea targets are usually remotely operated airborne, surface, or subsurface traveling units, most of 

which are designed to be recovered for reuse. If they are severely damaged or displaced, targets may 

sink before they can be retrieved. Expendable targets include air-launched decoys, marine markers 

(smoke floats), cardboard boxes, and 10 ft. diameter red balloons tethered by a sea anchor. Most target 

fragments would sink quickly in the sea. Floating material, such as Styrofoam, may be lost from target 

boats and remain at the surface for some time, however during target recovery, personnel would collect 

as much floating debris and Styrofoam as possible.

Chaff

Chaff is an electronic countermeasure designed to reflect radar waves and obscure aircraft, vessels, and 

other equipment from radar tracking sources. Chaff is composed of an aluminum alloy coating on glass 

fibers of silicon dioxide (U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997). It is released or dispensed in cartridges 

or projectiles that contain millions of chaff fibers. When deployed, a diffuse cloud of fibers undetectable 

to the human eye is formed. Chaff is a very light material that can remain suspended in air anywhere 

from 10 minutes to 10 hours and can travel considerable distances from its release point, depending on 

prevailing atmospheric conditions (Arfsten et al., 2002; U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997). Doppler 

radar has tracked chaff plumes containing approximately 900 grams of chaff drifting 200 mi. from the 

point of release, with the plume covering greater than 400 cubic meters (1,667 cubic kilometers) 

(Arfsten et al., 2002).

The chaff concentrations that marine mammals could be exposed to following release of multiple 

cartridges (e.g., following a single day of training) is difficult to accurately estimate because it depends 

on several unknown factors. First, specific release points are not recorded and tend to be random, and 

chaff dispersion in air depends on prevailing atmospheric conditions. After falling from the air, chaff 

fibers would be expected to float on the sea surface for some period, depending on wave and wind 

action. The fibers would be dispersed further by sea currents as they float and slowly sink toward the 

bottom. Chaff concentrations in benthic habitats following release of a single cartridge would be lower 

than the values noted in this section, based on dispersion by currents and the enormous dilution 

capacity of the receiving waters.

Several literature reviews and controlled experiments have indicated that chaff poses little risk, except 

at concentrations substantially higher than those that could reasonably occur from military training 

(Arfsten et al., 2002; Hullar et al., 1999; U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997). Nonetheless, some 

marine mammal species within the Study Area could be exposed to chaff through direct body contact 

and ingestion. Chemical alteration of water and sediment from decomposing chaff fibers is not expected 

to result in exposure. Based on the dispersion characteristics of chaff, it is likely that marine mammals 

would occasionally come in direct contact with chaff fibers while at the water’s surface and while 

submerged, but such contact would be inconsequential. Chaff is similar to fine human hair (U.S. 

Department of the Air Force, 1997). Because of the flexibility and softness of chaff, external contact 

would not be expected to impact most wildlife (U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997) and the fibers 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-564

3.7 Marine Mammals

would quickly wash off shortly after contact. Given the properties of chaff, skin irritation is not expected 

to be a problem (U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997). Arfsten et al. (2002); Hullar et al. (1999); U.S. 

Department of the Air Force (1997) reviewed the potential effects of chaff inhalation on humans, 

livestock, and animals and concluded that the fibers are too large to be inhaled into the lung. The fibers 

are predicted to be deposited in the nose, mouth, or trachea and are either swallowed or expelled; 

however, these reviews did not specifically consider marine mammals.

Based on the small size of chaff fibers, it appears unlikely that marine mammals would confuse the 

fibers with prey or purposefully feed on chaff fibers. However, marine mammals could occasionally 

ingest low concentrations of chaff incidentally from the surface, water column, or seafloor. While no 

studies were conducted to evaluate the effects of chaff ingestion on marine mammals, the effects are 

expected to be negligible, based on the low concentrations that could reasonably be ingested, the small 

size of chaff fibers, and available data on the toxicity of chaff and aluminum. In laboratory studies 

conducted by the University of Delaware (Hullar et al., 1999), blue crabs and killifish were fed a foodchaff mixture daily for several weeks and no significant mortality was observed at the highest exposure 

treatment. Similar results were found when chaff was added directly to exposure chambers containing 

filter-feeding menhaden. Histological examination indicated no damage from chaff exposures. A study 

on calves that were fed chaff found no evidence of digestive disturbance or other clinical symptoms 

(U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997). Based on the dispersion characteristics of chaff, it is possible 

that marine mammals would occasionally come in direct contact with chaff fibers while either at the 

water’s surface or while submerged, but such contact would be inconsequential.

Chaff cartridges, chaff canisters, and chaff components, including end caps and pistons, would also be 

released into the marine environment, where they would persist for long periods and could be ingested 

by marine mammals while initially floating on the surface and sinking through the water column. Chaff 

end caps and pistons would eventually sink in saltwater to the seafloor (Spargo, 2007), which reduces 

the likelihood of ingestion by marine mammals at the surface or in the water column.

Flares

Flares are designed to burn completely. The only material that would enter the water would be a small, 

round, plastic compression pad or piston (0.45 to 4.1 g depending on flare type). The flare pads and 

pistons float in sea water.

An extensive literature review and controlled experiments conducted by the United States Air Force 

demonstrated that self-protection flare use poses little risk to the environment or animals (U.S. 

Department of the Air Force, 1997). Nonetheless, marine mammals within the vicinity of flares could be 

exposed to light generated by the flares. Pistons and end caps from flares would have the same impact 

on marine mammals as discussed under chaff cartridges. It is unlikely that marine mammals would be 

exposed to any chemicals that produce either flames or smoke since these components are consumed in 

their entirety during the burning process. Animals are unlikely to approach or get close enough to the 

flame to be exposed to any chemical components.

Decelerators/Parachutes

Aircraft-launched sonobuoys, lightweight torpedoes (such as the MK 46 and MK 54) and illumination 

flares use nylon decelerators/parachutes ranging in size from 18 to 48 in. in diameter. The majority of 

expended decelerators/parachutes are cruciform parachutes associated with sonobuoys, which are 

relatively small, and have short attachment lines. Parachutes are made up of cloth and nylon, with 

weights attached to the lines for rapid sinking upon impact with the water. At water impact, the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-565

3.7 Marine Mammals

decelerator/parachute assembly is expended, and it sinks away from the unit. The 

decelerator/parachute assembly may remain at the surface for a short time before it and its housing 

sink to the seafloor, where it becomes flattened (Environmental Sciences Group, 2005). The majority of 

decelerators/parachutes expended during deployment of a sonobuoy, are weighted and by design that 

decelerator/parachute must sink below the surface within 5 minutes of contact with the water.

Ingestion of a decelerator/parachute by a marine mammal at the surface or within the water column 

would be unlikely, since the decelerator/parachute would not be available for very long before it sinks. 

Once on the seafloor, if bottom currents are present, the canopy may temporarily billow and be 

available for potential ingestion by marine animals with bottom-feeding habits.

Based on the information summarized above within the introduction to Section 3.7.3.6 (Ingestion 

Stressors), mysticetes found within the HSTT Study Area, with the exception of bottom-feeding gray 

whales and humpback whales, are not expected to encounter decelerators/parachutes on the seafloor 

because they do not feed there. In general, the majority of the decelerators/parachutes (from 

sonobuoys) would be expended in deep ocean areas where gray whales and humpback whales do not 

feed. Ingestion of decelerators/parachutes by odontocetes and pinnipeds is unlikely but is possible if 

individuals are feeding on the bottom. Sea otters are not expected to be present in the deep water 

areas where decelerator/parachutes may be released, would not encounter these items, and the species 

is not further analyzed in this section.

Biodegradable Polymer

As stated in Section 3.0.3.3.5.3 (Biodegradable Polymer), based on the constituents of the 

biodegradable polymer, it is anticipated that the material will breakdown into small pieces within a few 

days to weeks. These small pieces will breakdown further and dissolve into the water column within 

weeks to a few months and could potentially be incidentally ingested by marine mammals. Because the 

final products of the breakdown are all environmentally benign, the Navy does not expect the use of 

biodegradable polymer to have any negative impacts for marine mammals. 

3.7.3.6.2.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Training

Activities 

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), military expended materials other than munitions 

would be expended during training activities under Alternative 1 within the HSTT Study Area. 

Target related material, chaff, flares, decelerators/parachutes, and their subcomponents have the 

potential to be ingested by a marine mammal, although that is considered unlikely since most of these 

materials would quickly drop through the water column and settle on the seafloor; some Styrofoam, 

plastic endcaps, and other small items may float for some time before sinking.

While the smaller items discussed here may pose a hazard to marine mammals, as discussed for nonexplosive practice munitions ingestion, the impacts of ingesting these forms of expended materials on 

marine mammals would be minor because of the following factors:

• The limited geographic area where materials other than munitions are expended during a given 

event 

• The limited period of time these military expended materials would remain in the water column 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-566

3.7 Marine Mammals

• The unlikely chance that a marine mammal might encounter and swallow these items on the 

seafloor, particularly given that many of these items would be expended over deep, offshore 

waters

The impacts of ingesting military expended materials other than munitions would be limited to cases 

where an individual marine mammal might eat an indigestible item too large to be passed through the 

gut. The marine mammals would not be preferentially attracted to these military expended materials, 

with the possible exception of decelerators/parachutes that may appear similar to the prey of some 

species such as sperm whales and beaked whales. For the most part, these military expended materials 

would most likely only be incidentally ingested by individuals feeding on the bottom in the precise 

location where these items were deposited. Non-munition military expended materials that would 

remain floating on the surface are too small to pose a risk of intestinal blockage to any marine mammal 

that happened to encounter it. 

Navy training activities that expend non-munition military expended materials are not likely to occur 

within the Hawaiian monk seal’s designated critical habitat. The Navy does not anticipate that Hawaiian 

monk seals would ingest non-munition military expended materials. The features of monk seal critical 

habitat discussed in Section 3.7.2.2.9.1 (Status and Management) would not be impacted by military 

expended material other than munitions.

The use of military expended materials other than munitions during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those 

activities as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions during training 

activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, 

but may affect ESA-listed marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Testing

Activities

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), military expended materials other than munitions 

would be expended during testing activities under Alternative 1 within the HSTT Study Area. 

Target related material, chaff, flares, decelerators/parachutes, biodegradable polymers, and their 

subcomponents have the potential to be ingested by a marine mammal, although that is considered 

unlikely since most of these materials would quickly drop through the water column and settle on the 

seafloor. Some Styrofoam, plastic endcaps, and other small items may float for some time before 

sinking. In addition, biodegradable polymer fragments would only be temporarily available within the 

water column as they tend to disintegrate fairly quickly. 

While the smaller items discussed here may pose a hazard to marine mammals, as discussed for nonexplosive practice munitions ingestion, the impacts of ingesting these forms of expended materials on 

marine mammals would be minor because of the following factors:

• The limited geographic area where materials other than munitions are expended during a given 

event 

• The limited period of time these military expended materials would remain in the water column 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-567

3.7 Marine Mammals

• The unlikely chance that a marine mammal might encounter and swallow these items on the 

seafloor, particularly given that many of these items would be expended over deep, offshore 

waters

The impacts of ingesting military expended materials other than munitions would be limited to cases 

where an individual marine mammal might eat an indigestible item too large to be passed through the 

gut. The marine mammals would not be preferentially attracted to these military expended materials, 

with the possible exception of decelerators/parachutes that may appear similar to the prey of some 

species such as sperm whales and beaked whales. For the most part, these military expended materials 

would most likely only be incidentally ingested by individuals feeding on the bottom in the precise 

location where these items were deposited. Military expended materials other than munitions that 

would remain floating on the surface are too small to pose a risk of intestinal blockage to any marine 

mammal that happened to encounter it. 

The use of military expended materials other than munitions during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities

as defined under the MMPA. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions during testing 

activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, 

but may affect ESA-listed marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS and the USFWS as required 

by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.7.3.6.2.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Training

Activities

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), the locations and number of military expended 

materials other than munitions used during training activities under Alternative 2 is identical to 

Alternative 1. Therefore the analysis presented in Section 3.7.3.6.2.1 (Impacts from Military Expended 

Materials Other than Munitions Under Alternative 1) for training activities would also apply to training 

activities proposed under Alternative 2.

The use of military expended materials other than munitions during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those 

activities as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions during training 

activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, 

but may affect ESA-listed marine mammals.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Testing

Activities

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), the locations and number of military expended 

materials other than munitions used during testing activities under Alternative 2 is identical to 

Alternative 1 with the exception of an inconsequentially small (less than 2 percent) increase in the 

number of decelerator/parachutes. The fractional increase in amount of military expended materials 

other than munitions would not substantially increase the potential for marine mammals to ingest these 

items. Therefore the analysis presented in Section 3.7.3.6.2.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-568

3.7 Marine Mammals

Other than Munitions Under Alternative 1) for testing activities would also apply to testing activities 

proposed under Alternative 2.

The use of military expended materials other than munitions during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities

as defined under the MMPA.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions during testing 

activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, 

but may affect ESA-listed marine mammals.

3.7.3.6.2.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under the No Action

Alternative

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other than Munitions Under the No Action Alternative 

for Training and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Various ingestion stressors (e.g., military expended materials other than 

munitions) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the 

existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities.

3.7.3.7 Secondary Stressors

This section analyzes potential impacts on marine mammals exposed to stressors indirectly through 

impacts on their habitat (sediment or water quality) or prey. For the purposes of this analysis, indirect 

impacts on marine mammals via sediment or water quality that do not require trophic transfer (e.g., 

bioaccumulation) in order to be observed are considered here. Bioaccumulation considered previously 

in this document in the analysis of fish (Section 3.6), invertebrates (Section 3.4), and marine habitats 

(Section 3.5) indicated minimal to no impacts on potential prey species of marine mammals. It is 

important to note that the terms “indirect” and “secondary” do not imply reduced severity of 

environmental consequences, but instead describe how the impact may occur in an organism. 

Additionally, the transportation of marine mammals (the Navy’s marine mammal system) in association 

with force protection and mine warfare exercises is presented to detail the lack of potential for the 

introduction of disease or parasites from those marine mammals to the Study Area. The potential for 

impacts from all these secondary indirect stressors are discussed below.

Stressors from Navy training and testing activities could pose indirect impacts on marine mammals via 

habitat or prey. These include (1) explosives, (2) explosive byproducts and unexploded munitions, 

(3) metals, (4) chemicals, and (5) transmission of disease and parasites. Analyses of the potential 

impacts on sediment and water quality are discussed in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). 

As discussed in Appendix K, there are marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, 

reproductive, and feeding behaviors within certain areas in the HSTT Study Area. Marine mammals in 

those areas may be affected by secondary stressors from Navy training and testing. Secondary stressors 

may result in a behavioral response but would not result in resident marine mammals avoiding these 

areas or result in the abandonment of behaviors in these areas. 

Explosives

As it pertains to marine mammals, underwater explosions could impact other species in the food web 

including prey species that marine mammals feed upon. The impacts of explosions would differ 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-569

3.7 Marine Mammals

depending upon the type of prey species in the area of the blast. As described in Chapter 2 (Description 

of Proposed Action and Alternatives) Tables 2.6-2 through 2.6-5, training and testing events resulting in 

underwater explosions will occur in the Study Area.

In addition to physical effects of an underwater blast, prey might have behavioral reactions to 

underwater sound. Measurements of underwater detonations during training events in the Southern 

California Range Complex found that 90 percent of the released energy is contained in the frequency 

range from 50 to 2,500 Hz (Soloway & Dahl, 2015), which is within the range that could be sensed by 

marine mammal prey items. For instance, prey species might exhibit a strong startle reaction to 

explosions that might include swimming to the surface or scattering away from the source. This startle 

and flight response is the most common secondary defense among animals (Hanlon & Messenger, 1996; 

Mather, 2004). The abundances of prey species near the detonation point could be diminished for a 

short period of time before being repopulated by animals from adjacent waters. Alternatively, any prey 

species that would be directly injured or killed by the blast could draw in scavengers from the 

surrounding waters that would feed on those organisms, and in turn could be susceptible to becoming 

directly injured or killed by subsequent explosions. This type of scavenger behavior has been observed 

with Hawaiian monk seals in Hawaii (Uyeyama et al., 2012) and California sea lions in Southern California

(Marshall, 2008) in shallow water areas, however there are no records of pinnipeds or other marine 

mammals having been injured or otherwise impacted by subsequent explosions while scavenging. Any 

of these scenarios would be temporary, only occurring during activities involving explosives, and no 

lasting effect on prey availability or the pelagic food web would be expected. The Navy will implement 

mitigation (e.g., not conducting gunnery activities within a specified distance of shallow-water coral 

reefs) to avoid potential impacts from explosives and physical disturbance and strike stressors on 

seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for 

Seafloor Resources). This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts from explosives on 

marine mammal prey species that inhabit shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, precious coral 

beds, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks.

Explosion Byproducts, and Unexploded Munitions

High-order explosions consume most of the explosive material, creating typical combustion byproducts. 

In the case of Royal Demolition Explosive, also known as cyclonite and hexogen, 98 percent of the 

products are common seawater constituents, and the remainder is rapidly diluted below threshold 

effect level (see Section 3.2, Sediments and Water Quality, Table 3.2-9). Explosion byproducts associated 

with high order detonations present no indirect stressors to marine mammals through sediment or 

water. However, low order detonations and unexploded munitions present elevated likelihood of 

impacts on marine mammals.

Deposition of undetonated explosive materials into the marine environment can be reasonably well 

estimated by the known failure and low-order detonation rates of high explosives (see Section 3.2, 

Sediments and Water Quality, Table 3.2-7). While it is remotely possible for marine mammals to come 

into contact with an undetonated explosive, to have contact with unexploded materials in the sediment 

or water and or to ingest unexploded materials in sediments as secondary stressors, it is very unlikely for 

the following reasons.

Indirect impacts of explosives and unexploded munitions to marine mammals via sediment 

contamination is possible only if a marine mammal ingested the sediment. Degradation of explosives 

proceeds through several pathways, as discussed in Section 3.2.3.1 (Explosives and Explosives

Byproducts). Degradation products of Royal Demolition Explosive are not toxic to marine organisms at 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-570

3.7 Marine Mammals

realistic exposure levels (Rosen & 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. Furthermore, while explosives and their degradation products were 

detectable in marine sediment approximately 6–12 in. away from degrading munitions, the 

concentrations of these compounds were not statistically distinguishable from background beyond 3 to 

6 ft. from the degrading munitions (Section 3.2.3.1, Explosives and Explosives Byproducts). Taken 

together, it is possible that marine mammals could be exposed to degrading explosives, but it would be 

within a very small radius of the explosive (1 to 6 ft.). Gray whales, humpback whales, odontocetes, and 

pinnipeds are the only species in the HSTT Study Area that might routinely ingest sediments while 

feeding in shallow water, however this feeding does not occur in the deep water areas where 

unexploded materials are more likely to occur. 

A series of research efforts focused on World War II underwater munitions disposal sites in Hawaii 

(Briggs et al., 2016; Edwards et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 2016; Koide et al., 2016; University of Hawaii, 

2010) and an intensively used live fire range in the Mariana Islands (Smith & Marx, 2016) provide 

information in regard to the impacts of undetonated materials and unexploded munitions on marine 

life. Section 3.2.3.1 (Explosives and Explosives Byproducts) and Section 3.2.3.3 (Metals) contains a 

summary of this literature which investigated water and sediment quality impacts, on a localized scale, 

from munitions ocean disposal sites and ocean disposed dredge spoils sites. Findings from these studies 

indicate that there were no adverse impacts on the local ecology from the presence of degrading 

munitions and there was no bioaccumulation of munitions-related chemicals in local marine species.

On a localized scale, research at World War II munitions ocean disposal sites in Hawaii investigated 

nearby sediments, seawater, or marine life to determine if released constituents from the munitions 

(including explosive components and metals) could be detected. Comparisons were made between 

disposal site samples and “clean” reference sites. The samples analyzed showed no confirmed detection 

for explosives. For metals, although there were localized elevated levels of arsenic and lead in several 

biota samples and in the sediment adjacent to the munitions, the origin of those metals could not be 

definitively linked to the munitions since comparison of sediment between the clean reference site and 

the disposal site showed relatively little difference. This was especially the case for a comparison with 

samples for ocean disposed dredge spoils sites (locations where material taken from the dredging of 

harbors on Oahu was disposed). At individual sampling sites adjacent to munitions, the concentrations 

of metals were not significantly higher as compared to the background at control sites and not 

significant in comparison to typical deep-sea marine sediments (Briggs et al., 2016). Observations and 

data collected also did not indicate any adverse impact to the localized ecology due to the presence of 

munitions degrading for over 75 years when compared to control sites. When specifically looking at 

marine organisms around the munitions (Kelley et al., 2016; Koide et al., 2016), the analysis indicated 

that in soft bottom habitats the expended items were providing hard substrate similar to other disposed 

objects or “artificial reefs” that attracted “hard substrate species” that would not have otherwise 

colonized the area and that there was no bioaccumulation of munitions-related chemicals for the 

species sampled (Koide et al., 2016). In summary, multiple investigations since 2007 involving survey and 

sampling of WWII munition dump sites off Oahu Hawaii, have found the following: (1) chemicals and 

degradation products from underwater munitions “do not pose a risk to human health or to fauna living 

in direct contact with munitions”; (2) metals measured in sediment samples next to WWII munitions are 

lower than naturally occurring marine levels and “do not cause a significant impact on the 

environment”; and (3) sediment is not a significant sink of chemicals released by degradation of the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-571

3.7 Marine Mammals

explosive components in munitions (Edwards et al., 2016). This would indicate a lack of impact to 

benthic marine mammal prey as a secondary stressor. 

On a broader scale, the island of Farallon De Medinilla (in the Mariana Islands) has been used as a target

area since 1971. Between 1997 and 2012, there were 14 underwater scientific survey investigations 

around the island providing a long term look at potential impacts on the marine life from training and 

testing involving the use of munitions (Smith & Marx, 2016). Munitions use has included HE rounds from 

gunfire, HE bombs by Navy aircraft and U.S. Air Force B-52s, in addition to the expenditure of inert 

rounds and non-explosive practice bombs. Marine life assessed during these surveys included algae, 

corals, benthic invertebrates, sharks, rays, and bony fishes, and sea turtles. The investigators found no 

evidence over the 16-year period, that the condition of the biological resources had been adversely 

impacted to a significant degree by the training activities (Smith & Marx, 2016). Furthermore, they 

found that the health, abundance, and biomass of fishes, corals and other marine resources were 

comparable to or superior to those in similar habitats at other locations within the Mariana Archipelago. 

These findings are consistent with other assessments such as that done for the Potomac River Test 

Range at Dahlgren, Virginia which was established in 1918 and is the nation’s largest fully instrumented, 

over-the-water gun-firing range. Munitions tested at Dahlgren has included rounds from small caliber 

guns up to the Navy’s largest (16 inch guns), bombs, rockets, mortars, grenades, mines, depth charges, 

and torpedoes (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013b). Results from the assessment indicate that 

munitions expended at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren have not contributed significant 

concentrations of metals to the Potomac River water and sediments given those contributions are 

orders of magnitude less than concentrations already present in the Potomac River from natural and 

manmade sources (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013b). 

The concentration of munitions/explosions, expended material, or devices in any one location in the 

HSTT Study Area would be a small fraction of that from a World War II dump site, or a target island used 

for 45 years, or a water range in a river used for almost 100 years. Based on findings from much more 

intensively used locations, the water quality effects from the use of munitions, expended material, or 

devices resulting from any of the proposed actions would be negligible by comparison. As a result, 

explosion by-products and unexploded munitions would have no meaningful effect on water quality and 

would therefore not constitute a secondary indirect stressor for marine mammals.

Metals

Metals are introduced into seawater and sediments as a result of training and testing activities involving 

ship hulks, targets, munitions, and other military expended materials (Section 3.2.3.3, Metals, and 

Environmental Sciences Group (2005)). Some metals bioaccumulate and physiological impacts begin to 

occur only after several trophic transfers concentrate the toxic metals (Section 3.5, Habitats, and 

Chapter 4.0, Cumulative Impacts). Evidence from a number of studies (Briggs et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 

2016; Koide et al., 2016; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013b; University of Hawaii, 2010) indicate metal 

contamination is very localized and that bioaccumulation resulting from munitions cannot be 

demonstrated. Specifically in sampled marine life living on or around munitions on the seafloor, metal 

concentrations could not be definitively linked to the munitions since comparison of metals in sediment 

next to munitions show relatively little difference in comparison to other “clean” marine sediments used 

as a control/reference (Koide et al., 2016). Research has demonstrated that some smaller marine 

organisms are attracted to metal munitions as a hard substrate for colonization or as shelter (Kelley et 

al., 2016; Smith & Marx, 2016), but this is unlikely to substantively impact marine mammal prey 

availability.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-572

3.7 Marine Mammals

Chemicals

Several Navy training and testing activities introduce chemicals into the marine environment that are 

potentially harmful in higher concentration; however, rapid dilution would occur and toxic 

concentrations are unlikely to be encountered. Chemicals introduced are principally from flares and 

propellants for missiles and torpedoes. Properly functioning flares, missiles, and torpedoes combust 

most of their propellants; leaving benign or readily diluted soluble combustion byproducts (e.g., 

hydrogen cyanide). Operational failures may allow propellants and their degradation products to be 

released into the marine environment. Flares and missiles that operationally fail may release 

perchlorate, which is highly soluble in water, persistent, and impacts metabolic processes in many plants 

and animals if in sufficient concentration. Such concentrations are not likely to persist in the ocean. 

Research has demonstrated that perchlorate did not bioconcentrate or bioaccumulate, which was 

consistent with the expectations for a water soluble compound (Furin et al., 2013). Perchlorate from 

failed expendable items is therefore unlikely to compromise water quality to that point that it would act 

as a secondary stressor to marine mammals. It should also be noted that chemicals in the marine 

environment as a result of Navy training and testing activities would not occur in isolation and are 

typically associated with military expended materials that release the chemicals while in operation. 

Because marine mammal avoidance of an expended flare, missile, or torpedo in the water is almost 

certain, it would further reduce the potential for introduced chemicals to act as a secondary stressor. 

Transmission of Marine Mammal Diseases and Parasites

The U.S. Navy deploys trained Atlantic common bottlenose dolphins and California sea lions for 

integrated training involving two primary mission areas; to find objects such as inert mine shapes, and to 

detect swimmers or other intruders around Navy facilities such as piers. When deployed, the animals 

are part of what the Navy refers to as Marine Mammal Systems. These Marine Mammal Systems include 

one or more motorized small boats, several crew members, and a trained marine mammal. Based on the 

standard procedures with which these systems are deployed, it is not reasonably foreseeable that use of 

these marine mammals systems would result in the transmission of disease or parasites to cetacea or 

pinnipeds in the Study Area based on the following.

Each trained animal is deployed under behavioral control to find the intruding swimmer or submerged 

object. Upon finding the target of the search, the animal returns to the boat and alerts the animal 

handlers that an object or swimmer has been detected. In the case of a detected object, the human 

handlers give the animal a marker that the animal can bite onto and carry down to place near the 

detected object. In the case of a detected swimmer, animals are given a localization marker or leg cuff 

that they are trained to deploy via a pressure trigger. After deploying the localization marker or leg cuff 

the animal swims free of the area to return to the animal support boat. For detected objects, human 

divers or remote vehicles are deployed to recover the item. Swimmers that have been marked with a leg 

cuff are reeled-in by security support boat personnel via a line attached to the cuff.

Marine mammal systems deploy approximately 1 to 2 weeks before the beginning of a training exercise 

to allow the animals to acclimate to the local environment. Four to 12 marine mammals are involved per 

exercise. Marine Mammal Systems typically participate in object detection and recovery, both 

participating in mine warfare events, and assisting with the recovery of non-explosive mine shapes at 

the conclusion of an event. Marine Mammal Systems may also participate in port security and antiterrorism/force protection events.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-573

3.7 Marine Mammals

During the past 40 years, the Navy Marine Mammal Program has deployed globally. To date, there have 

been no known instances of deployment-associated disease transfer to or from Navy marine mammals. 

Navy animals are maintained under the control of animal handlers and are prevented from having 

sustained contact with indigenous animals.

When not engaged in the training event, Navy Marine Mammals are either housed in temporary 

enclosures or aboard ships involved in training exercises. All marine mammal waste is disposed of in a 

manner approved for the specific holding facilities. When working, sea lions are transported in boats 

and dolphins are transferred in boats or by swimming alongside the boat under the handler’s control. 

Their open-ocean time is under stimulus control and is monitored by their trainers.

Navy marine mammals receive excellent veterinarian care (per Secretary of the Navy Instruction

3900.41E). Appendix A, Section 8, of the Swimmer Interdiction Security System Final EIS (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2009) presents an overview of the veterinary care provided for the Navy's 

marine mammals. Appendix B, Section 2, of the Swimmer Interdiction Security System Final EIS presents 

detailed information on the health screening process for communicable diseases. The following is a brief 

summary of the care received by all of the Navy's marine mammals:

• Qualified veterinarians conduct routine and pre-deployment health examinations on the Navy's 

marine mammals; only animals determined as healthy are allowed to deploy.

• Restaurant-quality frozen fish are fed to prevent diseases that can be caused by ingesting fresh 

fish (e.g., parasitic diseases).

• Navy animals are routinely dewormed to prevent parasitic and protozoal diseases.

• If a valid and reliable screening test is available for a regionally relevant pathogen (e.g., 

polymerase chain reaction assays for morbillivirus), such tests are run on appropriate animal 

samples to ensure that animals are not shedding these pathogens.

The Navy Marine Mammal Program routinely does the following to further mitigate the low risk of 

disease transmission from captive to wild marine mammals during training events:

• Marine mammal waste is disposed of in an approved system dependent upon the animal's 

specific housing enclosure and location.

• Onsite personnel are made aware of the potential for disease transfer, and report any sightings 

of wild marine mammals so that all personnel are alert to the presence of the animal.

• Marine mammal handlers visually scan for indigenous marine animals for at least 5 minutes 

before animals are deployed and maintain a vigilant watch while the animal is working in the 

water. If a wild marine mammal is seen approaching or within 100 m, the animal handler will 

hold the marine mammal in the boat or recall the animal immediately if the animal has already 

been sent on the mission. 

• The Navy obtains appropriate state agriculture and other necessary permits and strictly adheres 

to the conditions of the permit which are included in the bulleted procedures provided above.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-574

3.7 Marine Mammals

Due to the very small amount of time that the Navy marine mammals spend in the open ocean, the 

control that the trainers have over the animals, the collection and proper disposal of marine mammal 

waste, the exceptional screening and veterinarian care given to the Navy's animals, the visual 

monitoring for indigenous marine mammals, and more than 40 years with zero known incidents, there is 

no scientific basis to conclude that the use of Navy marine mammals during training activities will have 

an impact on wild marine mammals.

3.7.3.7.1 Impacts on Habitat

Secondary stressors impacts on habitat from explosives and byproducts, metals, chemicals, and 

transmission of disease and parasites are not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment of any 

marine mammals. 

As presented above in Section 3.7.3.7 (Secondary Stressors), Navy activities that introduce explosive 

byproducts and unexploded munitions, metals, and chemicals into the marine environment have not 

demonstrated long-term impacts on sediment and water quality. Explosive byproducts and unexploded 

munitions from ongoing Navy activities have not resulted in water quality impacts, and the likelihood of 

marine mammals being in contact with sediments contaminated from degrading explosives is low, given 

the small radius of impact around the location of the explosive. Furthermore, there is no evidence of 

bioconcentration or bioaccumulation of chemicals introduced by Navy activities that would alter water 

quality to an extent that would result in overall habitat degradation for marine mammals.

The Hawaiian monk seal is the only marine mammal species with critical habitat located in the Study 

Area. The essential features of the critical habitat have been identified as (1) areas with characteristics 

preferred by monk seals for pupping and nursing, (2) shallow, sheltered aquatic areas adjacent to 

coastal locations preferred by monk marine areas from 0 to 500 m in depth seals for foraging, (4) areas 

with low levels of anthropogenic disturbance, (5) marine areas with adequate prey quantity and quality, 

and (6) significant areas used by monk seals for hauling out, resting, or molting (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2015a). These identified features of the critical habitat (the availability of 

areas for pupping and nursing, etc.) are not expected to be impacted by secondary stressors associated 

with the proposed Navy activities. Note that disturbance or injury to Hawaiian monk seal prey is 

discussed in the following subsection. 

Impacts on habitat from secondary stressors associated with training and testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those

activities as defined under the MMPA. 

Pursuant to the ESA, impacts on habitat from secondary stressors associated with training and testing 

activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat 

and may affect ESA-listed marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.7.3.7.2 Impacts on Prey Availability

Secondary stressors impacts on or prey from explosives and byproducts, metals, chemicals, and 

transmission of disease and parasites) are not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment of any 

marine mammals.

As presented above in Section 3.7.3.7 (Secondary Stressors), Navy activities that introduce explosives, 

metals, and chemicals into the marine environment have not demonstrated long-term impacts on prey 

availability for marine mammals. The Navy’s use of explosives have not demonstrated any lasting effects 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-575

3.7 Marine Mammals

on prey availability for cetaceans. Bioaccumulation of metals from munitions in prey species has not 

been demonstrated and no effects to prey availability from metals and chemicals are known to occur.

The Hawaiian monk seal the only species with critical habitat located in the Study Area. One of the 

essential features of the critical habitat was identified as: “... marine areas with adequate prey quantity 

and quality.” Although disturbance or injury to a small number of fish is possible as a result of the 

explosive ordnance disposal training in shallow water (Uyeyama et al., 2012), those spatially restricted 

effects to fish will not impact prey quantity and quality, and are discountable in that they are not 

expected to have any meaningful impact on Hawaiian monk seals. However, an impact to a prey species 

would constitute a secondary impact as defined in this analysis. Given the limited extent and rare nature 

of any impact to Hawaiian monk seal prey resulting from explosive ordnance disposal training, it would 

not appreciably diminish the habitat or therefore result in secondary impact to the critical habitat. 

Impacts on prey availability from secondary stressors associated with training and testing activities as 

described under Alternative 1 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental 

to those activities as defined under the MMPA. 

Pursuant to the ESA, impacts on prey availability from secondary stressors associated with training and 

testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on Hawaiian monk seal critical 

habitat and may affect ESA-listed marine mammals. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.7.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON MARINE MAMMALS

3.7.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1

As described in Section 3.0.3.5 (Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Multiple Stressors), this section 

evaluates the potential for combined impacts of all the stressors from the proposed action. The analysis 

and conclusions for the potential impacts from each of the individual stressors are discussed in Sections 

3.7.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors) through 3.7.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors) and, for ESA listed species, summarized 

in Section 3.7.5 (Endangered Species Act Determinations). Stressors associated with Navy training and 

testing activities do not typically occur in isolation but rather occur in some combination. For example, 

mine neutralization activities include elements of acoustic, physical disturbance and strike, 

entanglement, ingestion, and secondary stressors that are all coincident in space and time. An analysis 

of the combined impacts of all stressors considers the potential consequences of additive stressors and 

synergistic stressors, as described below. This analysis makes the reasonable assumption that the 

majority of exposures to stressors are non-lethal, and instead focuses on consequences potentially 

impacting marine mammal fitness (e.g., physiology, behavior, reproductive potential).

There are generally two ways that a marine mammal could be exposed to multiple additive stressors. 

The first would be if a marine mammal were exposed to multiple sources of stress from a single event or 

activity within a single testing or training event (e.g., a mine warfare event may include the use of a 

sound source and a vessel). The potential for a combination of these impacts from a single activity 

would depend on the range to effects of each of the stressors and the response or lack of response to 

that stressor. Most of the activities proposed under Alternative 1 generally involve the use of moving 

platforms (e.g., ships, torpedoes, aircraft) that may produce one or more stressors; therefore it is likely 

that if a marine mammal were within the potential impact range of those activities, it may be impacted 

by multiple stressors simultaneously. Individual stressors that would otherwise have minimal to no 

impact, may combine to have a measurable response. However, due to the wide dispersion of stressors, 

speed of the platforms, general dynamic movement of many training and testing activities, and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-576

3.7 Marine Mammals

behavioral avoidance exhibited by many marine mammal species, it is very unlikely that a marine 

mammal would remain in the potential impact range of multiple sources or sequential events. Exposure 

to multiple stressors is more likely to occur at an instrumented range where training and testing using 

multiple platforms may be concentrated during a particular event. In such cases involving a relatively 

small area on an instrumented range, a behavioral reaction resulting in avoidance of the immediate 

vicinity of the activity would reduce the likelihood of exposure to additional stressors. Nevertheless, the 

majority of the proposed activities are unit level training and small testing activities which are conducted 

in the open ocean. Unit level events occur over a small spatial scale (one to a few square miles) and with 

few participants (usually one or two) or short duration (the order of a few hours or less).

Secondly, a marine mammal could be exposed to multiple training and testing activities over the course 

of its life, however, training and testing activities are generally separated in space and time in such a 

way that it would be unlikely that any individual marine mammal would be exposed to stressors from 

multiple activities within a short timeframe. However, animals with a home range intersecting an area of 

concentrated Navy activity have elevated exposure risks relative to animals that simply transit the area 

through a migratory corridor. 

Multiple stressors may also have synergistic effects. For example, marine mammals that experience 

temporary hearing loss or injury from acoustic stressors could be more susceptible to physical strike and 

disturbance stressors via a decreased ability to detect and avoid threats. Marine mammals that 

experience behavioral and physiological consequences of ingestion stressors could be more susceptible 

to entanglement and physical strike stressors via malnourishment and disorientation. These interactions 

are speculative, and without data on the combination of multiple Navy stressors, the synergistic impacts 

from the combination of Navy stressors are difficult to predict in any meaningful way. Research and 

monitoring efforts have included before, during, and after-event observations and surveys, data 

collection through conducting long-term studies in areas of Navy activity, occurrence surveys over large 

geographic areas, biopsy of animals occurring in areas of Navy activity, and tagging studies where 

animals are exposed to Navy stressors. These efforts are intended to contribute to the overall 

understanding of what impacts may be occurring overall to animals in these areas. To date, the findings 

from the research and monitoring and the regulatory conclusions from previous analyses by NMFS 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013, 2015e) are that majority of impacts from Navy 

training and testing activities are not expected to have deleterious impacts on the fitness of any 

individuals or long-term consequences to populations of marine mammals.

Although potential impacts on certain marine mammal species from training and testing activities under 

Alternative 1 may include injury to individuals, those injuries are not expected to lead to long-term 

consequences for populations. The potential impacts anticipated from Alternative 1 are summarized in 

Sections 3.7.5 (Endangered Species Act Determinations) and 3.7.6 (Marine Mammal Protection Act 

Determinations) for each regulation applicable to marine mammals. For a discussion of cumulative 

impacts, see Chapter 4 (Cumulative Impacts). For a discussion of mitigation, see Chapter 5 (Mitigation). 

3.7.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2

Training and testing activities proposed under Alternative 2 would be an increase over what is proposed 

for Alternative 1. However, this increase is not expected to substantially increase the potential for 

impacts over what is analyzed for Alternative 1. The analysis presented in Section 3.7.4.1 (Combined 

Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1) would similarly apply to Alternative 2. The combined 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-577

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts of all stressors for training and testing activities under Alternative 2 are not expected to have 

deleterious impacts or long-term consequences to populations of marine mammals.

3.7.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. All stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities would 

not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities.

3.7.5 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT DETERMINATIONS

Pursuant to the ESA, Navy training and testing activities may affect ESA-listed marine mammals and 

would have no effect on designated critical habitat because the proposed action does not have any 

elements with the potential to impact such habitat. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. The outcome of those consultations pursuant to ESA will be described in the 

Final HSTT EIS/OEIS. 

3.7.6 MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT DETERMINATIONS

The Navy has submitted a request for a Letter of Authorization from NMFS as required by section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) for Navy training and testing in HSTT Study Area 

proposed to occur from December 2018 through December 2023. Given ongoing Navy training and 

testing has been occurring in this HSTT Study Area for decades and that there have been two previous 

five-year MMPA authorizations to conduct that training and testing, it is assumed that NMFS will 

propose regulations governing the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to Navy military 

readiness activities conducted in the HSTT Study Area from December 2018 through December 2023 as 

was done for the previous two five-year periods. NMFS will evaluate the application under the relevant 

standards and will consider the information presented in that request, the HSTT Draft EIS/OEIS, 

subsequent discussions with Navy conducted during the development of this document, and public 

input on the proposed regulations to make final impact determinations for marine mammal stocks, 

species, and marine mammal habitat present in the HSTT Study Area. As has been the process in the 

past, preliminary impact determinations by NMFS would be available to the public for review and 

comment within the proposed rule structure in the Federal Register subsequent to the issuance of the 

Draft HSTT EIS/OEIS and the final impact determinations will be presented in the Final HSTT EIS/OEIS and 

Final Rule before the authorized actions occur. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-578

3.7 Marine Mammals

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-579

References

REFERENCES

Abecassis, M., J. Polovina, R. W. Baird, A. Copeland, J. C. Drazen, R. Domokos, E. Oleson, Y. Jia, G. S. 

Schorr, D. L. Webster, & R. D. Andrews. (2015). Characterizing a Foraging Hotspot for ShortFinned Pilot Whales and Blainville’s Beaked Whales Located off the West Side of Hawai‘i Island 

by Using Tagging and Oceanographic Data. PLoS ONE, 10(11), 1–22. 

Abramson, L., S. Polefka, S. Hastings, & K. Bor. (2011). Reducing the Threat of Ship Strikes on Large 

Cetaceans in the Santa Barbara Channel Region and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary: 

Recommendations and Case Studies (Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series). Silver Spring, MD: 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries.

Acevedo-Whitehouse, K., A. Rocha-Gosselin, & D. Gendron. (2010). A novel non-invasive tool for disease 

surveillance of freeranging whales and its relevance to conservation programs. Animal 

Conservation, 13, 217–225. 

Acevedo, A. (1991). Interactions between boats and bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in the 

entrance to Ensenada De La Paz, Mexico. Aquatic Mammals, 17(3), 120–124. 

Afsal, V. V., P. P. Manojkumar, K. S. S. M. Yousuf, B. Anoop, & E. Vivekanandan. (2009). The first sighting 

of Longman's beaked whale, Indopacetus pacificus in the southern Bay of Bengal. Marine 

Biodiversity Records, 2. 

Aguayo, L. A., & T. R. Sanchez. (1987). Sighting records of Fraser's dolphin in the Mexican Pacific waters. 

Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute, 38, 187–188. 

Aguilar, A. (2009). Fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 433–437). Amsterdam, Netherlands: 

Academic Press.

Aguilar de Soto, N., M. Johnson, P. T. Madsen, P. L. Tyack, A. Bocconcelli, & J. F. Borsani. (2006). Does 

intense ship noise disrupt foraging in deep-diving Cuvier's beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris)? 

Marine Mammal Science, 22(3), 690–789. 

Aguilar, N., M. Carrillo, I. Delgado, F. Diaz, & A. Brito. (2000). Fast ferries impact on cetacean in Canary 

Islands: Collisions and displacement. Paper presented at the European Research on Cetaceans -

14, Cork, Ireland.

Akamatsu, T., K. Nakamura, H. Nitto, & M. Watabe. (1996). Effects of underwater sounds on escape 

behavior of Steller sea lions. Fisheries Science, 62(4), 503–510. 

Akkaya Bas, A., F. Christiansen, A. Amaha Ozturk, B. Ozturk, & C. McIntosh. (2017). The effects of marine 

traffic on the behaviour of Black Sea harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena relicta) within the 

Istanbul Strait, Turkey. PLoS ONE, 12(3), e0172970. 

Allen, A. N., J. J. Schanze, A. R. Solow, & P. L. Tyack. (2014). Analysis of a Blainville's beaked whale's 

movement response to playback of killer whale vocalizations. Marine Mammal Science, 30(1), 

154–168. 

Allen, B. M., & R. P. Angliss. (2010). Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments 2009. Seattle, WA: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-580

References

Allen, B. M., & R. P. Angliss. (2014). Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2013. U.S. Department 

of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum.

Alter, E. S., M. P. Simmonds, & J. R. Brandon. (2010a). Forecasting the consequences of climate-driven 

shifts in human behavior on cetaceans. Marine Policy, 34(5), 943–954. 

Alter, S. E., S. F. Ramirez, S. Nigenda, J. U. Ramirez, L. R. Bracho, & S. R. Palumbi. (2009). Mitochondrial 

and nuclear genetic variation across calving lagoons in Eastern North Pacific gray whales 

(Eschrichtius robustus). The Journal of heredity, 100(1), 34–46. 

Alter, S. E., M. P. Simmonds, & J. R. Brandon. (2010b). Forecasting the consequences of climate-driven 

shifts in human behavior on cetaceans. Marine Policy, 34(5), 943–954. 

Alves, A., R. Antunes, A. Bird, P. L. Tyack, P. J. O. Miller, F. P. A. Lam, & P. H. Kvadsheim. (2014). Vocal 

matching of naval sonar signals by long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas). Marine 

Mammal Science, 30(3), 1248–1257. 

Anderson, R. C., R. Clark, P. T. Madsen, C. Johnson, J. Kiszka, & O. Breysse. (2006). Observations of 

Longman's Beaked Whale (Indopacetus pacificus) in the Western Indian Ocean. Aquatic 

Mammals, 32(2), 223–231. 

Anderwald, P., A. Brandecker, M. Coleman, C. Collins, H. Denniston, M. D. Haberlin, M. O’Donovan, R. 

Pinfield, F. Visser, & L. Walshe. (2013). Displacement responses of a mysticete, an adontocete, 

and a phocid seal to construction-related vessel traffic. Endangered Species Research, 21(3), 

231–240. 

Ando-Mizobata, N., K. Ichikawa, N. Arai, & H. Kato. (2014). Does boat noise affect dugong (Dugong 

dugon) vocalization? Mammal Study, 39(2), 121–127. 

Andrady, A. (2015). Persistence of Plastic Litter in the Oceans. In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow & M. Klages 

(Eds.), Marine anthropogenic litter. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.

Antonelis, G. A., B. S. Stewart, & W. F. Perryman. (1990). Foraging characteristics of female northern fur 

seals (Callorhinus ursinus) and California sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Canadian Journal of 

Zoology, 68, 150–158. 

Antonelis, G. A., M. S. Lowry, C. H. Fiscus, B. S. Stewart, & R. L. DeLong. (1994). Diet of the northern 

elephant seal. In B. J. Le Boeuf & R. M. Laws (Eds.), Elephant seals: Population Ecology, Behavior, 

and Physiology (pp. 211–226). University of California Press.

Antonelis, G. A., J. D. Baker, T. C. Johanos, R. C. Braun, & A. L. Harting. (2006). Hawaiian monk seal 

(Monachus schauinslandi): Status and conservation issues. Atoll Research Bulletin, 543, 75–101. 

Antunes, R., P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, P. L. Tyack, L. Thomas, P. J. Wensveen, & P. J. O. Miller. 

(2014). High thresholds for avoidance of sonar by free-ranging long-finned pilot whales 

(Globicephala melas). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 16 pages. 

Aquatic Mammals. (2015a). Supplemental tables: Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S. 

Waters – Hawaii Region. Aquatic Mammals, 41(1), 33–44. 

Aquatic Mammals. (2015b). Supplemental tables: Biologically Important Areas for selected cetaceans 

within U.S. Waters – West Coast Region. Aquatic Mammals, 41(1), 30–32. 

Aragones, L., M. Roque, M. Flores, R. Encomienda, G. Laule, B. Espinos, F. Maniago, G. Diaz, E. Alesna, & 

R. Braun. (2010). The Philippine Marine Mammal Strandings from 1998 to 2009: Animials in the 

Philippines in Peril? Aquatic Mammals, 36(3), 219–233. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-581

References

Arcangeli, A., & R. Crosti. (2009). The short-term impact of dolphin-watching on the behaviour of 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in western Australia. Journal of Marine Animals and 

Their Ecology, 2(1), 3–9. 

Archer, F. I., S. L. Mesnick, & A. C. Allen. (2010). Variation and predictors of vessel-response behavior in a 

tropical dolphin community.

Archer, F. I., II, & W. F. Perrin. (1999). Stenella coeruleoalba. Mammalian Species, 603, 1–9. 

Archer, F. I., II. (2009). Striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 1127–1129). Academic Press.

Arfsten, D., C. Wilson, & B. Spargo. (2002). Radio Frequency Chaff: The Effects of Its Use in Training on 

the Environment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 53, 1–11. 

Arnould, J. P. Y. (2009). Southern fur seals, Arctocephalus spp. In W. F. Perrin, B. Würsig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 1079–1084). Academic Press.

Aschettino, J. M., R. W. Baird, D. J. McSweeney, D. L. Webster, G. S. Schorr, J. L. Huggins, K. K. Martien, S. 

D. Mahaffy, & K. L. West. (2012). Population structure of melon-headed whales (Peponocephala 

electra) in the Hawaiian Archipelago: Evidence of multiple populations based on photo 

identification. Marine Mammal Science, 28(4), 666–689. 

Atkinson, S., D. Crocker, D. Houser, & K. Mashburn. (2015). Stress physiology in marine mammals: how 

well do they fit the terrestrial model? Journal of Comparative Physiology B, 185, 463–486. 

Au, D. W. K., & W. L. Perryman. (1985). Dolphin habitats in the eastern tropical Pacific. Fishery Bulletin, 

83, 623–643. 

Au, W. W. L., R. W. Floyd, R. H. Penner, & A. E. Murchison. (1974). Measurement of echolocation signals 

of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus Montagu, in open waters. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 56(4), 1280–1290. 

Au, W. W. L., & P. W. B. Moore. (1990). Critical ratio and critical bandwidth for the Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphin. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(3), 1635–1638. 

Au, W. W. L. (1993). The Sonar of Dolphins (pp. 277). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Au, W. W. L., & M. Green. (2000). Acoustic interaction of humpback whales and whale-watching boats. 

Marine Environmental Research, 49(5), 469–481. 

Aurioles-Gamboa, D., & J. Urban-Ramirez. (1993). Sexual dimorphism in the skull of the pygmy beaked 

whale (Mesoplodon peruvianus). Revista de Investigacion Cientifica, 1, 39–52. 

Aurioles-Gamboa, D., & F. J. Camacho-Rios. (2007). Diet and feeding overlap of two otariids, Zalophus 

californianus and Arctocephalus townsendi: Implications to survive environmental uncertaintly. 

Aquatic Mammals, 33(3), 315–326. 

Aurioles-Gamboa, D., F. Elorriaga-Verplancken, & C. J. Hernandez-Camacho. (2010). The current 

population status of Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) on the San Benito Islands, 

Mexico. Marine Mammal Science, 26(2), 402–408. 

Avens, L., & K. J. Lohmann. (2003). Use of multiple orientation cues by juvenile loggerhead sea turtles, 

Caretta caretta. Journal of Experiential Biology, 206(23), 4317–4325. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-582

References

Ayres, K. L., R. K. Booth, J. A. Hempelmann, K. L. Koski, C. K. Emmons, R. W. Baird, K. Balcomb-Bartok, M. 

B. Hanson, M. J. Ford, & S. K. Wasser. (2012). Distinguishing the impacts of inadequate prey and 

vessel traffic on an endangered killer whale (Orcinus orca) population. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e36842. 

Azzara, A. J., W. M. von Zharen, & J. J. Newcomb. (2013). Mixed-methods analytic approach for 

determining potential impacts of vessel noise on sperm whale click behavior. The Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 134(6), 4566–4574. 

Azzellino, A., S. Gaspari, S. Airoldi, & B. Nani. (2008). Habitat use and preferences of cetaceans along the 

continental slope and the adjacent pelagic waters in the western Ligurian Sea. Deep Sea 

Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 55(3), 296–323. 

Bachman, M. J., J. M. Keller, K. L. West, & B. A. Jensen. (2014). Persistent organic pollutant 

concentrations in blubber of 16 species of cetaceans stranded in the Pacific Islands from 1997 

through 2011. Science of the Total Environment, 488–489, 115–123. 

Bachman, M. J., K. M. Foltz, J. M. Lynch, K. L. West, & B. A. Jensen. (2015). Using Cytochrome P4501A1 

Expression in Liver and Blubber to Understand Effects of Persistent Organic Pollutant Exposure 

in Stranded Pacific Island Cetaceans. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(9), 1989–

1995. 

Bailey, H., B. R. Mate, D. M. Palacios, L. Irvine, S. J. Bograd, & D. P. Costa. (2009). Behavioral estimation 

of blue whale movements in the Northeast Pacific from state-space model analysis of satellite 

tracks. Endangered Species Research, 10, 93–106. 

Bain, D. E. (2002). A Model Linking Energetic Effects of Whale Watching to Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) 

Population Dynamics. Friday Harbor, WA: Friday Harbor Laboratories University of Washington.

Baird, R. W., & B. Hanson. (1997). Status of the northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus, in Canada. 

Canadian Field-Naturalist, 111, 263–269. 

Baird, R. W., & S. K. Hooker. (2000). Ingestion of plastic and unusal prey by a juvenile harbour porpoise. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(8), 719–720. 

Baird, R. W. (2001). Status of harbour seals, Phoca vitulina, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 115(4), 

663–675. 

Baird, R. W., A. D. Ligon, S. K. Hooker, & A. M. Gorgone. (2001). Subsurface and nighttime behaviour of 

pantropical spotted dolphins in Hawai'i. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79(6), 988–996. 

Baird, R. W., M. B. Hanson, E. E. Ashe, M. R. Heithaus, & G. J. Marshall. (2003a). Studies of Foraging in 

"Southern Resident" Killer Whales during July 2002: Dive Depths, Bursts in Speed, and the Use of 

a "Crittercam" System for Examining Sub-surface Behavior (Order Number AB133F-02-SE-1744). 

Seattle, WA: U. S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory.

Baird, R. W., D. J. McSweeney, D. L. Webster, A. M. Gorgone, & A. D. Ligon. (2003b). Studies of 

odontocete population structure in Hawaiian waters: Results of a survey through the main 

Hawaiian Islands in May and June 2003. Seattle, WA: NOAA.

Baird, R. W., D. J. McSweeney, A. D. Ligon, & D. L. Webster. (2004). Tagging feasability and diving of 

Cuvier's beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris) and Blainville's beaked whales (Mesoplodon 

densirostris) in Hawai'i. La Jolla, CA: U. S. Department of Commerce.

Baird, R. W. (2005). Sightings of dwarf (Kogia sima) and pygmy (K. breviceps) sperm whales from the 

main Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science, 59, 461–466. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-583

References

Baird, R. W., & A. M. Gorgone. (2005). False Killer Whale Dorsal Fin Disfigurements as a Possible 

Indicator of Long-Line Fishery Interactions in Hawaiian Waters. Pacific Science, 59(4), 593–601. 

Baird, R. W., M. B. Hanson, & L. M. Dill. (2005a). Factors influencing the diving behaviour of fish-eating 

killer whales: sex differences and diel and interannual variation in diving rates. Canadian Journal 

of Zoology, 83(2), 257–267. 

Baird, R. W., D. L. Webster, D. J. McSweeney, A. D. Ligon, & G. S. Schorr. (2005b). Diving Behavior and 

Ecology of Cuvier's (Ziphius cavirostris) and Blainville's Beaked Whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) 

in Hawaii. La Jolla, CA: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Baird, R. W. (2006). Hawaii's other cetaceans. Whale and Dolphin Magazine, 11, 28–31. 

Baird, R. W., D. McSweeney, C. Bane, J. Barlow, D. Salden, L. Antoine, R. LeDuc, & D. Webster. (2006a). 

Killer Whales in Hawaiian Waters: Information on Population Identity and Feeding Habits. Pacific 

Science, 60(4), 523–530. 

Baird, R. W., G. S. Schorr, D. L. Webster, S. D. Mahaffy, A. B. Douglas, A. M. Gorgone, & D. J. McSweeney. 

(2006b). A Survey for Odontocete Cetaceans off Kauai and Niihau Hawaii, During October and 

November 2005: Evidence for Population Structure and Fidelity. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science 

Center, NOAA Fisheries.

Baird, R. W., G. S. Schorr, D. L. Webster, D. J. McSweeney, & S. D. Mahaffy. (2006c). Studies of beaked 

whale diving behavior and odontocete stock structure in Hawaii in March/April 2006 (Report 

prepared under Contract No. AB133F-06-CN-0053). Olympia, WA: Cascadia Research Collective.

Baird, R. W., D. L. Webster, D. J. McSweeney, A. D. Ligon, G. S. Schorr, & J. Barlow. (2006d). Diving 

behaviour of Cuvier’s (Ziphius cavirostris) and Blainville’s (Mesoplodon densirostris) beaked 

whales in Hawaii. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 84(8), 1120–1128. 

Baird, R. W., D. L. Webster, S. D. Mahaffy, D. J. McSweeney, G. S. Schorr, & A. D. Ligon. (2008a). Site 

fidelity and association patterns in a deep-water dolphin: Rough-toothed dolphins (Steno 

bredanensis) in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Marine Mammal Science, 24(3), 535–553. 

Baird, R. W., D. L. Webster, G. S. Schorr, D. J. McSweeney, & J. Barlow. (2008b). Diel variation in beaked 

whale diving behavior. Marine Mammal Science, 24(3), 630–642. 

Baird, R. W. (2009a). False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 405–406). Academic Press.

Baird, R. W. (2009b). A review of false killer whales in Hawaiian waters: Biology, status, and risk factors.

Baird, R. W., D. J. McSweeney, G. S. Schorr, S. D. Mahaffy, D. L. Webster, J. Barlow, M. B. Hanson, J. P. 

Turner, & R. D. Andrews. (2009). Studies of beaked whales in Hawaii: Population size, 

movements, trophic ecology, social organization, and behaviour. In S. J. Dolman, C. D. MacLeod 

& P. G. H. Evans (Eds.), Beaked Whale Research (pp. 23–25). European Cetacean Society.

Baird, R. W., J. M. Aschettino, D. J. McSweeney, D. L. Webster, G. S. Schorr, S. Baumann-Pickering, & S. 

D. Mahaffy. (2010a). Melon-headed Whales in the Hawaiian Archipelago: An Assessment of 

Population Structure and Long-term Site Fidelity based on Photo-Identification. Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Baird, R. W., G. S. Schorr, D. L. Webster, D. J. McSweeney, M. B. Hanson, & R. D. Andrews. (2010b). 

Movements and habitat use of satellite-tagged false killer whales around the main Hawaiian 

Islands. Endangered Species Research, 10, 107–121. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-584

References

Baird, R. W., G. S. Schorr, D. L. Webster, S. D. Mahaffy, D. J. McSweeney, M. B. Hanson, & R. D. Andrews. 

(2011). Open-ocean movements of a satellite-tagged Blainville's beaked whale (Mesoplodon 

densirostris): evidence for an offshore population in Hawaii? Aquatic Mammals, 37(4), 506–511. 

Baird, R. W., M. B. Hanson, G. S. Schorr, D. L. Webster, D. J. McSweeney, A. M. Gorgone, S. D. Mahaffy, 

D. M. Holzer, E. M. Oleson, & R. D. Andrews. (2012). Range and primary habitats of Hawaiian 

insular false killer whales: informing determination of critical habitat. Endangered Species 

Research, 18(1), 47–61. 

Baird, R. W. (2013). False Killer Whales Around Kauai and Niihau. Offshore Neighbors, 24–25. 

Baird, R. W., E. M. Oleson, J. Barlow, A. D. Ligon, A. M. Gorgone, & S. D. Mahaffy. (2013a). Evidence of an 

Island-Associated Population of False Killer Whales (Pseudorca crassidens) in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science, 67(4), 513–521. 

Baird, R. W., J. A. Shaffer, D. L. Webster, S. D. Fisher, J. M. Aschettino, A. M. Gorgone, B. K. Rone, S. D. 

Mahaffy, & D. J. Moretti. (2013b). Odontocete Studies Off the Pacific Missile Range Facility in 

February 2013: Satellite-Tagging, Photo Identification, and Passive Acoustic Monitoring for 

Species Verification. U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

Baird, R. W., D. L. Webster, J. M. Aschettino, G. S. Schorr, & D. J. McSweeney. (2013c). Odontocete 

Cetaceans Around the Main Hawaiian Islands: Habitat Use and Relative Abundance from SmallBoat Sighting Surveys. Aquatic Mammals, 39(3), 253–269. 

Baird, R. W., D. L. Webster, J. M. Aschettino, G. S. Schorr, & D. J. McSweeney. (2013d). Odontocete 

cetaceans around the main Hawaiian islands: Habitat use and relative abundance from smallboat sighting surveys. Aquatic Mammals, 39(3), 253–269. 

Baird, R. W., D. L. Webster, S. D. Mahaffy, G. S. Schorr, J. M. Aschettino, & A. M. Gorgone. (2013e). 

Movements and Spatial Use of Odontocetes in the western Main Hawaiian Islands: Results of a 

Three-year Study off O‘ahu and Kaua‘i (Final report under Grant No. N00244-10-1-0048 from the 

Naval Postgraduate School).

Baird, R. W., S. M. Jarvis, D. L. Webster, B. K. Rone, J. A. Shaffer, S. D. Mahaffy, A. M. Gorgone, & D. J. 

Moretti. (2014). Odontocete Studies on the Pacific Missile Range Facility in July/August 2013: 

Satellite-Tagging, Photo Identification, and Passive Acoustic Monitoring U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

Baird, R. W., D. Cholewiak, D. L. Webster, G. S. Schorr, S. D. Mahaffy, C. Curtice, J. Harrison, & S. M. Van 

Parijs. (2015a). 5. Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S. waters–Hawaii region. 

In S. M. Van Parijs, C. Curtice & M. C. Ferguson (Eds.), Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans 

within U.S. waters (Vol. Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue) 41, pp. 54–64).

Baird, R. W., D. Cholewiak, D. L. Webster, G. S. Schorr, S. D. Mahaffy, C. Curtice, J. Harrison, & S. M. Van 

Parijs. (2015b). Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S. waters – Hawaii Region. 

Aquatic Mammals, 41(1), 54–64. 

Baird, R. W., D. Cholewiak, D. L. Webster, G. S. Schorr, S. D. Mahaffy, C. Curtice, J. Harrison, & S. M. van 

Parijs. (2015c). Biologically important areas for cetaceans within U.S. waters - Hawai'i region. 

Aquatic Mammals, 41(1), 54–64. 

Baird, R. W., A. N. Dilley, D. L. Webster, R. Morrissey, B. K. Rone, S. M. Jarvis, S. D. Mahaffy, A. M. 

Gorgone, & D. J. Moretti. (2015d). Odontocete Studies on the Pacific Missile Range Facility in 

February 2014: Satellite-Tagging, Photo Identification, and Passive Acoustic Monitoring. U.S. 

Navy Pacific Fleet.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-585

References

Baird, R. W., S. D. Mahaffy, A. M. Gorgone, T. Cullins, D. J. McSweeney, E. M. Oleson, A. L. Bradford, J. 

Barlow, & D. L. Webster. (2015e). False killer whales and fisheries interactions in Hawaiian 

waters: Evidence for sex bias and variation among populations and social groups. Marine 

Mammal Science, 31(2), 579–590. 

Baird, R. W., D. L. Webster, S. Watwood, R. Morrissey, B. K. Rone, S. D. Mahaffy, A. M. Gorgone, D. B. 

Anderson, & D. J. Moretti. (2016). Odontocete Studies on the Pacific Missile Range Facility in 

February 2015: Satellite-Tagging, Photo-Identification, and Passive Acoustic Monitoring. Final 

Report (Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific under HDR Environmentl, 

Operations and Construction, Inc. Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, CTO KB28). Honolulu, HI: 

HDR Inc.

Baird, R. W., S. W. Martin, R. Manzano-Roth, D. L. Webster, & B. L. Southall. (2017). Assessing Exposure 

and Response of Three Species of Odontocetes to Mid-frequency Active Sonar during Submarine 

Commanders Courses at the Pacific Missile Range Facility: August 2013 through February 2015. 

Draft Report (Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii under 

Contract N62470-10-D-3011 Task Order KB28 issued to HDR, Inc.). Honolulu, HI.

Baker, A. N., & B. Madon. (2007). Bryde's whales (Balaenoptera cf. brydei Olsen 1913) in the Hauraki 

Gulf and northeastern New Zealand waters. Science for Conservation, 272, 4–14. 

Baker, C. S., L. M. Herman, B. G. Bays, & G. B. Bauer. (1983). The Impact of Vessel Traffic on the Behavior 

of Humpback Whales in Southeast Alaska: 1982 Season. Honolulu, HI: Kewalo Basin Marine 

Mammal Laboratory, University of Hawaii.

Baker, J. D. (2004). Evaluation of closed capture-recapture methods to estimate abundance of Hawaiian 

monk seals. Ecological Applications, 14, 987–998. 

Baker, J. D., & T. C. Johanos. (2004). Abundance of the Hawaiian monk seal in the main Hawaiian Islands. 

Biological Conservation, 116(1), 103–110. 

Baker, J. D., A. L. Harting, & T. C. Johanos. (2006). Use of discovery curves to assess abundance of 

Hawiian monk seals. Marine Mammal Science, 22(4), 847–861. 

Baker, J. D. (2008). Variation in the relationship between offspring size and survival provides insight into 

causes of mortality in Hawaiian monk seals. Endangered Species Research, 5, 55–64. 

Baker, J. D., A. L. Harting, T. A. Wurth, & T. C. Johanos. (2011). Dramatic shifts in Hawaiian monk seal 

distribution predicted from divergent regional trends. Marine Mammal Science, 27(1), 78–93. 

Baker, J. D., A. L. Harting, T. C. Johanos, & C. L. Littnan. (2016). Estimating Hawaiian monk seal rangewide abundance and associated uncertainty. Endangered Species Research, 31, 317–324. 

Bakhchina, A. V., L. M. Mukhametov, V. V. Rozhnov, & O. I. Lyamin. (2017). Spectral analysis of heart 

rate variability in the beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) during exposure to acoustic noise. Journal 

of Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiology, 53(1), 60–65. 

Balcomb, K. C., III. (1987). The Whales of Hawaii Including All Species of Marine Mammals in Hawaiian 

and Adjacent Waters. San Francisco, CA: Marine Mammal Fund.

Baldwin, R., M. Gallagher, & K. Van Waerebeek. (1999). A review of cetaceans from waters off the 

Arabian Peninsula. In M. Fisher, S. A. Ghazanfur & J. A. Soalton (Eds.), The Natural History of 

Oman: A Festschrift for Michael Gallagher (pp. 161–189). Backhuys Publishers.

Barlow, J. (1988). Harbor Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, Abundances Estimation for California, Oregon, 

and Washington: I. Ship Surveys. Fishery Bulletin, 86(3), 417–432. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-586

References

Barlow, J. (1994). Abundance of large whales in California coastal waters: A comparison of ship surveys 

in 1979–1980 and in 1991. Report of the International Whaling Commision, 44, 399–406. 

Barlow, J. (1995). The abundance of cetaceans in California waters. Part I: Ship surveys in summer and 

fall of 1991. Fishery Bulletin, 93, 1–14. 

Barlow, J. (1997). Preliminary Estimates of Cetacean Abundance off California, Oregon and Washington 

based on a 1996 Ship Survey and Comparisons of Passing and Closing Modes. La Jolla, CA: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Barlow, J., S. Rankin, E. Zele, & J. Appler. (2004). Marine Mammal Data Collected During the Hawaiian 

Islands Cetacean and Ecosystem Assessment Survey (HICEAS) Conducted Aboard the NOAA Ships 

McArthur and David Starr Jordan, July–December 2002. NOAA.

Barlow, J. (2006). Cetacean abundance in Hawaiian waters estimated from a Summer–Fall survey in 

2002. Marine Mammal Science, 22(2), 446–464. 

Barlow, J., & R. Gisiner. (2006). Mitigating, monitoring and assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound 

on beaked whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 7(3), 239–249. 

Barlow, J., & K. A. Forney. (2007). Abundance and population density of cetaceans in the California 

Current ecosystem. Fishery Bulletin, 105, 509–526. 

Barlow, J., S. Rankin, A. Jackson, & A. Henry. (2008). Marine Mammal Data Collected During the Pacific 

Islands Cetacean and Ecosystem Assessment Survey (PICEAS) Conducted Aboard the NOAA Ship 

McArthur II, July–November 2005. NOAA.

Barlow, J., M. C. Ferguson, E. A. Becker, J. V. Redfern, K. A. Forney, I. L. Vilchis, P. C. Fiedler, T. 

Gerrodette, & L. T. Ballance. (2009). Predictive Modeling of Cetacean Densities in the Eastern 

Pacific Ocean (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-444). La Jolla, CA: Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center.

Barlow, J. (2010). Cetacean Abundance in the California Current Estimated from a 2008 Ship-Based LineTransect Survey (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-456). La Jolla, CA: Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center.

Barlow, J., J. Calambokidis, E. A. Falcone, C. S. Baker, A. M. Burdin, P. J. Clapham, J. K. B. Ford, C. M. 

Gabriele, R. LeDuc, D. K. Mattila, T. J. Quinn, II, L. Rojas-Bracho, J. M. Straley, B. L. Taylor, J. 

Urbán R, P. Wade, D. Weller, B. H. Witteveen, & M. Yamaguchi. (2011). Humpback whale 

abundance in the North Pacific estimated by photographic capture-recapture with bias 

correction from simulation studies. Marine Mammal Science, 27(4), 793–818. 

Barlow, J. (2016). Cetacean Abundance in the California Current Estimated from Ship-based Line-transect 

Surveys in 1991–2014. (NOAA Administrative Report NMFS-SWFSC-LJ-1601). La Jolla, CA: 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Barnard, B. (2016). Carriers stick with slow-steaming despite fuel-price plunge, The Journal of 

Commerce. 

Barros, N. B., & A. A. Myrberg, Jr. (1987). Prey detection by means of passive listening in bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 82, S65. 

Barros, N. B., & R. S. Wells. (1998). Prey and feeding patterns of resident bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Journal of Mammalogy, 79(3), 1045–1059. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-587

References

Bassett, C., J. Thomson, & B. Polagye. (2010). Characteristics of Underwater Ambient Noise at a Proposed 

Tidal Energy Site in Puget Sound. Seattle, WA: Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy 

Center.

Bauer, G. B., M. Fuller, A. Perry, J. R. Dunn, & J. Zoeger. (1985). Magnetoreception and Biomineralization 

of Magnetite in Cetaceans Magnetite Biomineralization and Magnetoreception in Organisms: A 

New Biomagnetism (pp. 487–507).

Baulch, S., & C. Perry. (2014). Evaluating the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin, 80(1–2), 210–221. 

Baulch, S., & M. P. Simmonds. (2015). An Update on Research into Marine Debris and Cetaceans. 

International Whaling Commision.

Baumann-Pickering, S., L. K. Baldwin, A. E. Simonis, M. A. Roche, M. L. Melcon, J. A. Hildebrand, E. M. 

Oleson, R. W. Baird, G. S. Schorr, D. L. Webster, & D. J. McSweeney. (2010). Characterization of 

Marine Mammal Recordings from the Hawaii Range Complex. Monterey, CA: Naval 

Postgraduate School.

Baumann-Pickering, S., A. E. Simonis, M. A. Roch, M. A. McDonald, A. Solsona-Berga, E. M. Oleson, S. M. 

Wiggins, R. L. Brownell, Jr., & J. A. Hildebrand. (2012). Spatio-temporal patterns of beaked whale 

echolocation signals in the North Pacific (2012 Marine Mammal & Biology Program Review). 

Office of Naval Research.

Baumann-Pickering, S., A. J. Debich, J. T. Trickey, A. Širović, R. Gresalfi, M. A. Roch, S. M. Wiggins, J. A. 

Hildebrand, & J. V. Carretta. (2013). Examining Explosions in Southern California and their 

Potential Impact on Cetacean Acoustic Behavior. Scripps Institution of Oceanography; Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center, NOAA.

Baumann-Pickering, S., M. A. Roch, R. L. Brownell, Jr., A. E. Simonis, M. A. McDonald, A. Solsona-Berga, 

E. M. Oleson, S. M. Wiggins, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2014). Spatio-temporal patterns of beaked 

whale echolocation signals in the North Pacific. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e86072. 

Baumann-Pickering, S., J. S. Trickey, M. A. Roch, & S. M. Wiggins. (2015). Relative densities and spatial 

distribution of beaked whales in southern California. Scripps Institution of Oceanography – U.C. 

San Diego and San Diego State University.

Baumann-Pickering, S., J. S. Trickey, S. M. Wiggins, & E. M. Oleson. (2016). Odontocete occurrence in 

relation to changes in oceanography at a remote equatorial Pacific seamount. Marine Mammal 

Science. 

Baumgartner, M. F. (1997). The distribution of Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) with respect to the 

physiography of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science, 13(4), 614–638. 

Bearzi, M. (2005a). Aspects of the ecology and behavior of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in 

Santa Monica Bay, California. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 7(1), 75–83. 

Bearzi, M. (2005b). Habitat partitioning by three species of dolphins in Santa Monica Bay, California. 

Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, 104(3), 113–124. 

Bearzi, M., C. A. Saylan, & A. Hwang. (2009). Ecology and comparison of coastal and offshore bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in California. Marine and Freshwater Research, 60, 584–593. 

Beatson, E. (2007). The diet of pygmy sperm whales, Kogia breviceps, stranded in New Zealand: 

Implications for conservation. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 17(2–3), 295–303. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-588

References

Becker, E. A., K. A. Forney, M. C. Ferguson, D. G. Foley, R. C. Smith, J. Barlow, & J. V. Redfern. (2010). 

Comparing California Current cetacean–habitat models developed using in situ and remotely 

sensed sea surface temperature data. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 413, 163–183. 

Becker, E. A., K. A. Forney, M. C. Ferguson, J. Barlow, & J. V. Redfern. (2012a). Predictive Modeling of 

Cetacean Densities in the California Current Ecosystem based on Summer/Fall Ship Surveys in 

1991–2008 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-499). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center.

Becker, E. A., K. A. Forney, D. G. Foley, & J. Barlow. (2012b). Density and Spatial Distribution Patterns of 

Cetaceans in the Central North Pacific based on Habitat Models (NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SWFSC-490). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Becker, E. A., K. A. Forney, D. G. Foley, R. C. Smith, T. J. Moore, & J. Barlow. (2014). Predicting seasonal 

density patterns of California cetaceans based on habitat models. Endangered Species Research, 

23(1), 1–22. 

Becker, E. A., K. A. Forney, P. C. Fiedler, J. Barlow, S. J. Chivers, C. A. Edwards, A. M. Moore, & J. V. 

Redfern. (2016). Moving Towards Dynamic Ocean Management: How Well Do Modeled Ocean 

Products Predict Species Distributions? Remote Sensing, 8(2), 149. 

Bejder, L., A. Samuels, H. Whitehead, & N. Gales. (2006a). Interpreting short-term behavioural responses 

to disturbance within a longitudinal perspective. Animal Behaviour, 72, 1149–1158. 

Bejder, L., A. Samuels, H. Whitehead, N. Gales, J. Mann, R. Connor, M. Heithaus, J. Waston-Capps, C. 

Flaherty, & M. Krützen. (2006b). Decline in relative abundance of bottlenose dolphins exposed 

to long-term disturbance. Conservation Biology, 20(6), 1791–1798. 

Belcher, R. I., & T. E. Lee, Jr. (2002). Arctocephalus townsendi. Mammalian Species, 700, 1–5. 

Benjamins, S., V. Harnois, H. C. M. Smith, L. Johanning, L. Greenhill, C. Carter, & B. Wilson. (2014). 

Understanding the Potential for Marine Megafauna Entanglement Risk from Marine Renewable 

Energy Developments.

Benoit-Bird, K. J., W. W. L. Au, R. E. Brainard, & M. O. Lammers. (2001). Diel horizontal migration of the 

Hawaiian mesopelagic boundary community observed acoustically. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 217, 1–14. 

Benoit-Bird, K. J., & W. W. L. Au. (2003). Prey dynamics affect foraging by a pelagic predator (Stenella 

longirostris) over a range of spatial and temporal scales. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 

53, 364–373. 

Benoit-Bird, K. J. (2004). Prey caloric value and predator energy needs: foraging predictions for wild 

spinner dolphins. Marine Biology, 145(3). 

Benoit-Bird, K. J., & W. W. L. Au. (2004). Diel migration dynamics of an island-associated soundscattering layer. Deep-Sea Research I, 51, 707–719. 

Bergmann, M., L. Gutow, & M. Klages. (2015). Marine Anthropogenic Litter 

Bergström, L., L. Kautsky, T. Malm, R. Rosenberg, M. Wahlberg, N. Åstrand Capetillo, & D. Wilhelmsson. 

(2014). Effects of offshore wind farms on marine wildlife–a generalized impact assessment. 

Environmental Research Letters, 9(3), 034012. 

Berini, C. R., L. M. Kracker, & W. E. McFee. (2015). Modeling Pygmy Sperm Whale (Kogia breviceps) 

Strandings Along the Southeast Coast of the United States from 1992 to 2006 in Relation to 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-589

References

Environmental Factors (NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 203). Charleston, SC: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Berman-Kowalewski, M., F. M. D. Gulland, S. Wilkin, J. Calambokidis, B. Mate, J. Cordaro, D. Rotstein, J. 

St. Leger, P. Collins, K. Fahy, & S. Dover. (2010). Association between blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus) mortality and ship strikes along the California Coast. Aquatic Mammals, 36(1), 59–66. 

Bernaldo de Quiros, Y., O. Gonzalez-Diaz, M. Arbelo, E. Sierra, S. Sacchini, & A. Fernandex. (2012). 

Decompression vs. decomposition: distribution, amount, and gas composition of bubbles in 

stranded marine mammals. frontiers in Physiology, 3 Article 177, 19. 

Bernaldo de Quiros, Y., O. Gonzalez-Diaz, A. Mollerlokken, A. O. Brubakk, A. Hjelde, P. Saavedra, & A. 

Fernandez. (2013a). Differentiation at autopsy between in vivo gas embolism and putrefaction 

using gas composition analysis. Int J Legal Med, 127(2), 437–445. 

Bernaldo de Quiros, Y., J. S. Seewald, S. P. Sylva, B. Greer, M. Niemeyer, A. L. Bogomolni, & M. J. Moore. 

(2013b). Compositional discrimination of decompression and decomposition gas bubbles in 

bycaught seals and dolphins. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e83994. 

Bernard, H. J., & S. B. Reilly. (1999). Pilot whales, Globicephala Lesson, 1828. In S. H. Ridgway & R. 

Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 6, pp. 245–280). San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press.

Bernasconi, M., R. Patel, & L. Nøttestad. (2012). Behavioral observations of baleen whales in proximity 

of a modern fishing vessel. In A. N. Popper & A. Hawkins (Eds.), The Effects of Noise on Aquatic 

Life. Springer New York.

Berrow, S. D., & B. Holmes. (1999). Tour boats and dolphins: A note on quantifying the activities of 

whalewatching boats in the Shannon Estuary, Ireland. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management, 1(2), 199–204. 

Berta, A., J. L. Sumich, & K. M. Kovacs. (2006). Marine Mammals: Evolutionary Biology (2nd ed.). 

Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Besseling, E., E. M. Foekema, J. A. Van Franeker, M. F. Leopold, S. Kühn, E. L. Bravo Rebolledo, E. Heße, L. 

Mielke, J. IJzer, P. Kamminga, & A. A. Koelmans. (2015a). Microplastic in a macro filter feeder: 

humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 95(1), 248–252. 

Besseling, E., E. M. Foekema, J. A. Van Franeker, M. F. Leopold, S. Kuhn, E. L. B. Rebolledo, E. Hebe, L. 

Mielke, J. Ijzer, P. Kamminga, & A. A. Koelmans. (2015b). Microplastic in a macro filter feeder: 

humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 95(1), 48–52. 

Best, P. B. (1996). Evidence of migration by Bryde's whales from the offshore population in the 

southeast Atlantic. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 46, 315–322. 

Bester, M. N., J. W. H. Ferguson, & F. C. Jonker. (2002). Population densities of pack ice seals in the 

Lazarev Sea, Antarctica. Antarctic Science, 14(2), 123–127. 

Bettridge, S., C. S. Baker, J. Barlow, P. J. Clapham, M. Ford, D. Gouveia, D. K. Mattila, R. M. Pace, III, P. E. 

Rosel, G. K. Silber, & P. R. Wade. (2015a). Status Review of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) under the Endangered Species Act (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC540). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Bettridge, S., S. C. Baker, J. Barlow, P. J. Clapham, M. Ford, D. Gouveia, D. K. Mattila, I. Pace, R. M., P. E. 

Rosel, G. K. Silber, & W. P. R. (2015b). Status Review of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) Under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-590

References

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center.

Bjorge, A. (2002). How persistent are marine mammal habitats in an ocean of variability? In P. G. H. 

Evans & A. Raga (Eds.), Marine Mammals: Biology and Conservation (pp. 63–91). Kluwer 

Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Black, N. A. (1994). Behavior and ecology of Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) in 

Monterey Bay, California. (Master's). San Francisco State University. 

Black, N. A. (2009). Pacific white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obliquidens. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & 

J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 817–819). Academic 

Press.

Blackwell, S. B., J. W. Lawson, & M. T. Williams. (2004). Tolerance by ringed seals (Phoca hispida) to 

impact pipe-driving and construction sounds at an oil production island. The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 115(5 (Pt. 1)), 2346–2357. 

Blackwell, S. B., C. S. Nations, T. L. McDonald, C. R. Greene, A. M. Thode, M. Guerra, & A. M. Macrander. 

(2013). Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. 

Marine Mammal Science. 

Blackwell, S. B., C. S. Nations, T. L. McDonald, A. M. Thode, D. Mathias, K. H. Kim, C. R. Greene, Jr., & A. 

M. Macrander. (2015). Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates: evidence for 

two behavioral thresholds. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0125720. 

Bloodworth, B. E., & D. K. Odell. (2008). Kogia breviceps. Mammalian Species, 819, 1–12. 

Bloom, P., & M. Jager. (1994). The injury and subsequent healing of a serious propeller strike to a wild 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) resident in cold waters off the Northumberland coast of 

England. Aquatic Mammals, 20.2, 59–64. 

Blundell, G. M., & G. W. Pendleton. (2015). Factors affecting haul-out behavior of harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina) in tidewater glacier inlets in Alaska: can tourism vessels and seals coexist? PLoS ONE, 

10(5), e0125486. 

Bodkin, J. L., G. G. Esslinger, & D. H. Monson. (2004). Foraging Depths of Sea Otters and Implications to 

Coastal Marine Communities. Marine Mammal Science, 20(2), 305–321. 

Bond, N. A., M. F. Cronin, H. Freeland, & N. Mantua. (2015). Causes and impacts of the 2014 warm 

anomaly in the northeast Pacific. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(9), 3414–3420. 

Bonito, L. T., A. Hamdoun, & S. A. Sandin. (2016). Evaluation of the global impacts of mitigation on 

persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic pollutants in marine fish. PeerJ, 4, e1573. 

Bonney, J., & P. T. Leach. (2010). Slow Boat From China, Maritime News. Retrieved from 

http://www.joc.com/maritimenews/slowboatchina_20100201.html

Bowles, A. E., M. Smultea, B. Würsig, D. P. DeMaster, & D. Palka. (1994). Relative abundance and 

behavior of marine mammals exposed to transmissions from the Heard Island Feasibility Test. 

The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2469–2484. 

Boyd, I., D. Claridge, C. Clark, & B. Southall. (2008). BRS 2008 Preliminary Report. U.S. Navy NAVSEA PEO 

IWS 5, ONR, U.S. Navy Environmental Readiness Division, NOAA, SERDP.

Bradford, A., D. Weller, Y. Ivashchenko, A. Burdin, & R. Brownell, Jr. (2009). Anthropogenic Scarring of 

Western Gray Whales (Eschrichtius robustus). Marine Mammal Science, 25(1), 161–175. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-591

References

Bradford, A. L., K. A. Forney, E. M. Oleson, & J. Barlow. (2012). Line-transect Abundance Estimates of 

False Killer Whales (Pseudorca crassidens) in the Pelagic Region of the Hawaiian Exclusive 

Economic Zone and in the Insular Waters of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu, HI: 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

Bradford, A. L., K. A. Forney, E. A. Oleson, & J. Barlow. (2013). Line-Transect Abundance Estimates of 

Cetaceans in the Hawaiian EEZ. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

Bradford, A. L., & K. A. Forney. (2014). Injury Determinations for Cetaceans Observed Interacting with 

Hawaii and American Samoa Longline Fisheries During 2008-2012. National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum.

Bradford, A. L., K. A. Forney, E. M. Oleson, & J. Barlow. (2014). Accounting for subgroup structure in linetransect abundance estimates of false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) in Hawaiian waters. 

PLoS ONE, 9(2), e90464. 

Bradford, A. L., & E. Lyman. (2015). Injury Determinations for Humpback Whales and Other Cetaceans 

Reported to NOAA Response Networks in the Hawaiian Islands During 2007 – 2012. National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum.

Bradford, A. L., E. A. Oleson, R. W. Baird, C. H. Boggs, K. A. Forney, & N. C. Young. (2015). Revised Stock 

Boundaries for False Killer Whales (Psuedorca crassidens) in Hawaiian Waters (NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-47). Honolulu, HI: Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

Bradford, A. L., & K. A. Forney. (2016). Injury Determinations for Marine Mammals Observed Interacting 

with Hawaii and American Samoa Longline Fisheries During 2009–2013. NOAA.

Bradford, A. L., & K. A. Forney. (2017). Injury Determinations for Marine Mammals Observed Interacting 

with Hawaii and American Samoa Longline Fisheries During 2010–2014 (NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-62). Honolulu, HI: Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

Bradford, A. L., K. A. Forney, E. M. Oleson, & J. Barlow. (2017). Abundance estimates of cetaceans from a 

line-transect survey within the U.S. Hawaiian Islands Exclusive Economic Zone. Fishery Bulletin, 

115(2), 129–142. 

Bradshaw, C. J. A., K. Evans, & M. A. Hindell. (2006). Mass cetacean strandings–a plea for empiricism. 

Conservation Biology, 20(2), 584–586. 

Branch, T. A. (2007). Abundance of Antarctic blue whales south of 60°S from three complete circumpolar 

sets of surveys. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 9(3), 253–262. 

Brandt, M. J., A. Diederichs, K. Betke, & G. Nehls. (2011). Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving 

at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

421, 205–216. 

Branstetter, B. K., & J. J. Finneran. (2008). Comodulation masking release in bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1, 625–633. 

Branstetter, B. K., J. S. Trickey, K. Bakhtiari, A. Black, H. Aihara, & J. J. Finneran. (2013). Auditory masking 

patterns in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) with natural, anthropogenic, and 

synthesized noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(3), 1811–1818. 

Branstetter, B. K., J. Leger, St., D. Acton, J. Stewart, D. Houser, J. J. Finneran, & K. Jenkins. (2017). Killer 

Whale (Orcinus orca) behavioral audiograms. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 

141(4), 2387–2398. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-592

References

Bravo Rebolledo, E. L., J. A. Van Franeker, O. E. Jansen, & S. M. Brasseur. (2013). Plastic ingestion by 

harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in The Netherlands. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 67(1–2), 200–202. 

Briggs, C., S. M. Shjegstad, J. A. K. Silva, & M. H. Edwards. (2016). Distribution of chemical warfare agent, 

energetics, and metals in sediments at a deep-water discarded military munitions site. Deep Sea 

Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 63–69. 

Browne, M. A., P. Crump, S. J. Niven, E. Teuten, A. Tonkin, T. Galloway, & R. Thompson. (2011). 

Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: sources and sinks. Environmental Science 

& Technology, 45(21), 9175–9179. 

Brownell, R. L., Jr., W. A. Walker, & K. A. Forney. (1999). Pacific white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens Gill, 1865. In S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 

6: The second book of dolphins and the porpoises, pp. 57–84). Academic Press.

Brownell, R. L., Jr., P. J. Clapham, T. Miyashita, & T. Kasuya. (2001). Conservation status of North Pacific 

right whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, Special Issue 2, 269–286. 

Brownell, R. L., Jr., K. Ralls, S. Baumann-Pickering, & M. M. Poole. (2009a). Behavior of melon-headed 

whales, Peponocephala electra, near oceanic islands. Marine Mammal Science, 25(3), 639–658. 

Brownell, R. L., Jr., C.-J. Yao, C.-S. Lee, & M.-C. Wang. (2009b). Worldwide Review Of Pygmy Killer 

Whales, Feresa attenuate, Mass Strandings Reveals Taiwan Hot Spot (Paper 141).

Brownlow, A., A. J. Onoufriou, A. Bishop, N. Davison, & D. Thompson. (2016). Corkscrew seals: grey seal 

(Halichoerus grypus) infanticide and cannibalism may indicate the cause of spiral lacerations in 

seals. PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0156464. 

Brumm, H., & H. Slabbekoorn. (2005). Acoustic Communication in Noise. Advances in the Study of 

Behavior, 35. 

Bryant, P. J., C. M. Lafferty, & S. K. Lafferty. (1984). Reoccupation of Laguna Guerrero Negro, Baja 

California, Mexico, by Gray Whales. In M. L. Jones, S. L. Swartz & S. Leatherwood (Eds.), The Gray 

Whale: Eschrichtius robustus (pp. 375–387). Academic Press.

Bull, J. C., P. D. Jepson, R. K. Ssuna, R. Deaville, C. R. Allchin, R. J. Law, & A. Fenton. (2006). The 

relationship between polychlorinated biphenyls in blubber and levels of nematode infestations 

in harbour porpoises, Phocoena phocoena. Parasitology, 132(Pt 4), 565–573. 

Burkholder, J., D. Eggleston, H. Glasgow, C. Brownie, R. Reed, G. Janowitz, M. Posey, G. Mella, C. Kinder, 

R. Corbett, D. Toms, T. Alphin, N. Deamer, & J. Springer. (2004). Comparative impacts of two 

major hurricane seasons on the Neuse River and western Pamlico Sound ecosystems. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(25), 9291–9296. 

Burn, D. M., & A. M. Doroff. (2005). Decline in sea otter (Enhydra lutris) populations along the Alaska 

Peninsula, 1986–2001. Fishery Bulletin, 103(2), 270–279. 

Burns, J. J. (2008). Harbor seal and spotted seal Phoca vitulina and P. largha. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & 

J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (Second Edition) (pp. 533–542). 

Academic Press.

Cahoon, M. K., C. L. Littnan, K. Longenecker, & J. R. Carpenter. (2013). Dietary comparison of two 

Hawaiian monk seal populations: the role of diet as a driver of divergent population trends. 

Endangered Species Research, 20(2), 137–146. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-593

References

Calambokidis, J., G. H. Steiger, J. M. Straley, L. M. Herman, S. Cerchio, D. R. Salden, J. Urban R., J. K. 

Jacobsen, O. von Ziegesar, K. C. Balcomb, C. M. Gabriele, M. E. Dahlheim, S. Uchida, G. Ellis, Y. 

Miyamura, P. Ladron De Guevara, M. Yamaguchi, F. Sato, S. A. Mizroch, L. Schlender, K. 

Rasmussen, J. Barlow, & T. J. Quinn, II. (2001). Movements and population structure of 

humpback whales in the North Pacific. Marine Mammal Science, 17(4), 769–794. 

Calambokidis, J., J. D. Darling, V. Deecke, P. Gearin, M. Gosho, W. Megill, C. M. Tombach, D. Goley, C. 

Toropova, & B. Gisborne. (2002). Abundance, range and movements of a feeding aggregation of 

gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) from California to southeastern Alaska in 1998. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management, 4(3), 267–276. 

Calambokidis, J., & J. Barlow. (2004). Abundance of blue and humpback whales in the eastern North 

Pacific estimated by capture-recapture and line-transect methods. Marine Mammal Science, 

20(1), 63–85. 

Calambokidis, J., T. Chandler, E. Falcone, & A. Douglas. (2004). Research on Large Whales off California, 

Oregon, and Washington in 2003. La Jolla, CA: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Calambokidis, J., E. A. Falcone, T. J. Quinn, A. M. Burdin, P. J. Clapham, J. K. B. Ford, C. M. Gabriele, R. 

LeDuc, D. Mattila, L. Rojas-Bracho, J. M. Straley, B. L. Taylor, J. Urbán R., D. Weller, B. H. 

Witteveen, M. Yamaguchi, A. Bendlin, D. Camacho, K. Flynn, A. Havron, J. Huggins, & N. 

Maloney. (2008). SPLASH: Structure of Populations, Levels of Abundance and Status of

Humpback Whales in the North Pacific (Final report for Contract AB133F-03-RP-00078). Olympia, 

WA: Cascadia Research.

Calambokidis, J., J. Barlow, J. K. B. Ford, T. E. Chandler, & A. B. Douglas. (2009a). Insights into the 

population structure of blue whales in the Eastern North Pacific from recent sightings and 

photographic identification. Marine Mammal Science, 25(4), 816–832. 

Calambokidis, J., E. Falcone, A. Douglas, L. Schlender, & J. Huggins. (2009b). Photographic Identification 

of Humpback and Blue Whales off the U.S. West Coast: Results and Updated Abundance 

Estimates from 2008 Field Season. La Jolla, CA: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Calambokidis, J., E. M. Oleson, M. F. McKenna, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2009c, 7–10 December 2009). Blue 

whale behavior in shipping lanes and response to ships. Paper presented at the 2009 ONR 

Marine Mammal Program Review, Alexandria, VA.

Calambokidis, J., J. L. Laake, & A. Klimek. (2010). Abundance and Population Structure of Seasonal Gray 

Whales in the Pacific Northwest, 1998–2008 (Paper SC/62/BRG32 presented to the International 

Whaling Commission Scientific Committee).

Calambokidis, J. (2012). Summary of Ship-Strike Related Research on Blue Whales in 2011.

Calambokidis, J., & J. Barlow. (2013). Updated Abundance Estimates of Blue and Humpback Whales off 

the U.S. West Coast Incorporating Photo-Identifications from 2010 and 2011.

Calambokidis, J., G. H. Steiger, C. Curtice, J. Harrison, M. C. Ferguson, E. Becker, M. DeAngelis, & S. M. 

Van Parijs. (2015a). 4. Biologically Important Areas for selected cetaceans within U.S. waters –

West coast region. In S. M. Van Parijs, C. Curtice, & M. C. Ferguson (Eds.), Biologically Important 

Areas for Cetaceans within U.S. Waters, Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue) 41, 39–53.

Calambokidis, J., G. H. Steiger, C. Curtice, J. Harrison, M. C. Ferguson, E. Becker, M. DeAngelis, & S. M. 

van Parijs. (2015b). Biologically important areas for cetaceans within U.S. waters - west coast 

region. Aquatic Mammals, 41(1), 39–53. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-594

References

Caldwell, D. K., & M. C. Caldwell. (1989). Pygmy sperm whale, Kogia breviceps (de Blainville, 1838): 

Dwarf sperm whale Kogia simus Owen, 1866. In S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of 

Marine Mammals (Vol. 4, pp. 234–260). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Camargo, F. S., & C. Bellini. (2007). Report on the collision between a spinner dolphin and a boat in the 

Fernando de Noronha Archipelago, Western Equatorial Atlantic, Brazil. Biota Neotropica, 7(1), 

209–211. 

Campbell, G. S., D. W. Weller, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2010). SIO small boat based marine mammal surveys 

in Southern California: Report of Results for August 2009–July 2010: Annual Range Complex 

Monitoring Report for Hawaii and Southern California. Draft submission to NMFS 15 September 

2010. U.S. Department of the Navy.

Campbell, G. S., L. Thomas, K. Whitaker, A. B. Douglas, J. Calambokidis, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2014). Interannual and Seasonal Trends in Cetacean Distribution Density and Abundance off Southern 

California. Deep-Sea Research II, 112, 143–157. 

Campbell, G. S., L. Thomas, K. Whitaker, A. B. Douglas, J. Calambokidis, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2015). Interannual and seasonal trends in cetacean distribution, density and abundance off southern 

California. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 112, 143–157. 

Cañadas, A., R. Sagarminaga, & S. Garcia-Tiscar. (2002). Cetacean distribution related with depth and 

slope in the Mediterranean waters off southern Spain. Deep Sea Research I, 49, 2053–2073. 

Carrera, M. L., E. G. P. Favaro, & A. Souto. (2008). The response of marine tucuxis (Sotalia fluviatilis) 

towards tourist boats involves avoidance behaviour and a reduction in foraging. Animal Welfare, 

17, 117–123. 

Carretta, J. V., M. S. Lynn, & C. A. LeDuc. (1994). Right whale (Eubalaena Glacialis) sighting off San 

Clemente Island, California. Marine Mammal Science, 10(1), 101–105. 

Carretta, J. V., K. A. Forney, & J. L. Laake. (1998). Abundance of southern California coastal bottlenose 

dolphins estimated from tandem aerial surveys. Marine Mammal Science, 14(4), 655–675. 

Carretta, J. V., M. S. Lowry, C. E. Stinchcomb, M. S. Lynn, & R. E. Cosgrove. (2000). Distribution and 

abundance of marine mammals at San Clemente Island and surrounding offshore waters: Results 

from aerial and ground surveys in 1998 and 1999. La Jolla, CA: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center.

Carretta, J. V., J. Barlow, & L. Enriquez. (2008). Acousitc pingers eliminate beaked whale bycatch in a gill 

net fishery. Marine Mammal Science, 24(4), 2053–2073. 

Carretta, J. V., K. A. Forney, M. S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, D. Johnston, B. Hanson, R. L. Brownell, Jr., J. 

Robbins, D. Mattila, K. Ralls, M. M. Muto, D. Lynch, & L. Carswell. (2010). U.S. Pacific Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments: 2009 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-453). La Jolla, 

CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Carretta, J. V., & J. Barlow. (2011). Long-term effectiveness, failure rates, and "dinner bell" properties of 

acoustic pingers in a gillnet fishery. Marine Technology Society Journal, 45(5), 7–19. 

Carretta, J. V., K. A. Forney, E. Oleson, K. Martien, M. M. Muto, M. S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. 

Hanson, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, R. L. Brownell, J. Robbins, D. K. Mattila, K. Ralls, & M. C. Hill. 

(2011). U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2010 (NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SWFSC-476). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-595

References

Carretta, J. V., E. Oleson, D. W. Weller, A. R. Lang, K. A. Forney, J. Baker, B. Hanson, K. Martien, M. M. 

Muto, M. S. Lowry, J. Barlow, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, R. L. Brownell, Jr., D. K. Mattila, & M. C. Hill. 

(2013a). U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2012: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Memorandum.

Carretta, J. V., S. M. Wilkin, M. M. Muto, & K. Wilkinson. (2013b). Sources of Human-Related Injury and 

Mortality for U.S. Pacific West Coast Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2007–2011 (NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS). Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Carretta, J. V., E. Oleson, D. W. Weller, A. R. Lang, K. A. Forney, J. Baker, B. Hanson, K. Martien, M. M. 

Muto, A. J. Orr, H. Huber, M. S. Lowry, J. Barlow, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, R. L. Brownell, Jr., & D. K. 

Mattila. (2014a). U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessment (NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SWFSC-532). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Carretta, J. V., S. M. Wilkin, M. M. Muto, K. Wilkinson, & J. Rustin. (2014b). Sources of human-related 

injury and mortality for U.S. Pacific west coast marine mammal stock assessments, 2008–2012. 

(NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-533). Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Carretta, J. V., E. Oleson, D. W. Weller, A. R. Lang, K. A. Forney, J. Baker, M. M. Muto, B. Hanson, A. J. 

Orr, H. Huber, M. S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Moore, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, & R. L. Brownell. (2015). 

U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2014 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSWFSC-549). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Carretta, J. V., K. Danil, S. J. Chivers, D. W. Weller, D. S. Janiger, M. Berman-Kowalewski, K. M. 

Hernandez, J. T. Harvey, R. C. Dunkin, D. R. Casper, S. Stoudt, M. Flannery, K. Wilkinson, J. 

Huggins, & D. M. Lambourn. (2016a). Recovery rates of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 

carcasses estimated from stranding and survival rate data. Marine Mammal Science, 32(1), 349–

362. 

Carretta, J. V., M. M. Muto, S. Wilkin, J. Greenman, K. Wilkinson, M. DeAngelis, J. Viezbicke, D. Lawson, 

& J. Jannot. (2016b). Sources of Human-Related Injury and Mortality for U.S. Pacific West Coast 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2010–2014 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC554). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Carretta, J. V., J. E. Moore, & K. A. Forney. (2017a). Regression Tree and Ratio Estimates of Marine 

Mammal, Sea Turtle, and Seabird Bycatch in the California Drift Gillnet Fishery: 1990–2015. La 

Jolla, CA: Sothwest Fisheries Science Center.

Carretta, J. V., M. M. Muto, J. Greenman, K. Wilkinson, D. Lawson, J. Viezbicke, & J. Jannot. (2017b). 

Sources of Human-Related Injury and Mortality for U.S. Pacific West Coast Marine Mammal 

Stock Assessments, 2011–2015 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-579). La Jolla, CA: 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Carretta, J. V., E. M. Oleson, J. Baker, D. W. Weller, A. R. Lang, K. A. Forney, M. M. Muto, B. Hanson, A. J. 

Orr, H. Huber, M. S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. E. Moore, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, & R. L. Brownell, Jr. 

(2017c). U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2016 (NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SWFSC-561). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Cascadia Research. (2012). Beaked Whales in Hawaii. Retrieved from 

http://www.cascadiaresearch.org/hawaii/beakedwhales.htm

Cascadia Research Collective. (2010, 2 April 2010). Hawaii's False Killer Whales. Retrieved from 

http://www.cascadiaresearch.org/hawaii/falsekillerwhale.htm
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-596

References

Cascadia Research Collective. (2012, July 2). An Update on our June–July 2012 Kauai Project. Retrieved 

Cassoff, R. M., K. M. Moore, W. A. McLellan, S. G. Barco, D. S. Rotstein, & M. J. Moore. (2011). Lethal 

entanglement in baleen whales. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 96, 175–185. 

Castellote, M., C. W. Clark, & M. O. Lammers. (2012). Acoustic and behavioral changes by fin whales 

(Balaenoptera physalus) in responses to shipping and airgun noise. Biological Conservation, 147, 

115–122. 

Castellote, M., T. A. Mooney, L. Quakenbush, R. Hobbs, C. Goertz, & E. Gaglione. (2014). Baseline 

hearing abilities and variability in wild beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). The Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 217(Pt 10), 1682–1691. 

Cates, K., & A. Acevedo-Gutiérrez. (2017). Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina) Tolerance to Vessels Under 

Different Levels of Boat Traffic. Aquatic Mammals, 43(2), 193–200. 

CBS 8 News (Producer). (2017). Grey Whale Hanging Out Off La Jolla Cove. 

Cecchetti, A., K. A. Stockin, J. Gordon, & J. M. N. Azevedo. (2017). Short-term effects of tourism on the 

behaviour of common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) in the Azores. Journal of the Marine 

Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 1–10. 

Cerchio, S., S. Strindberg, T. Collins, C. Bennett, & H. Rosenbaum. (2014). Seismic surveys negatively 

affect humpback whale singing activity off northern Angola. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e86464. 

Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program. (1982). A Characterization of Marine Mammals and Turtles in 

the Mid and North Atlantic Areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. (Contract Number AA551-

CT8-48). Kingston, RI: University of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography.

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. (2015). Management: Ship Strikes. Retrieved from 

http://channelislands.noaa.gov/management/resource/ship_strikes.html

Charif, R. A., C. S. Oedekoven, A. Rahaman, B. J. Estabrook, L. Thomas, & A. N. Rice. (2015). Development 

of Statistical Methods for Assessing Changes in Whale Vocal Behavior in Response to MidFrequency Active Sonar. Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Fleet Forces Command. Submitted to 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, under Contract No. N62470-10-

3011, Task Order 39, issued to HDR Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia. 20 March 2015.

Chivers, S. J., R. W. Baird, D. J. McSweeney, D. L. Webster, N. M. Hedrick, & J. C. Salinas. (2007). Genetic 

variation and evidence for population structure in eastern North Pacific false killer whales 

(Pseudorca crassidens). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 85(7), 783–794. 

Christian, E. A., & J. B. Gaspin. (1974). Swimmer Safe Standards from Underwater Explosions. Navy 

Science Assistance Program Project No. PHP-11-73. White Oak, MD: Naval Ordnance Laboratory.

Christiansen, F., D. Lusseau, E. Stensland, & P. Berggren. (2010). Effects of tourist boats on the behaviour 

of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins off the south coast of Zanzibar. Endangered Species 

Research, 11, 91–99. 

Christiansen, F., M. Rasmussen, & D. Lusseau. (2013). Whale watching disrupts feeding activities of 

minke whales on a feeding ground. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 478, 239–251. 

Christiansen, F., M. Rasmussen, & D. Lusseau. (2014). Inferring energy expenditure from respiration 

rates in minke whales to measure the effects of whale watching boat interactions. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 459, 96–104. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-597

References

Christiansen, F., & D. Lusseau. (2015). Linking Behavior to Vital Rates to Measure the Effects of NonLethal Disturbance on Wildlife. Conservation Letters, 8(6), 424–431. 

Christiansen, F., A. M. Dujon, K. R. Sprogis, J. P. Y. Arnould, & L. Bejder. (2016a). Noninvasive unmanned 

aerial vehicle provides estimates of the energetic cost of reproduction in humpback whales. 

Ecosphere, 7(10), e01468. 

Christiansen, F., L. Rojano-Doñate, P. T. Madsen, & L. Bejder. (2016b). Noise Levels of Multi-Rotor 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles with Implications for Potential Underwater Impacts on Marine 

Mammals. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3. 

Clapham, P. J., & D. K. Mattila. (1990). Humpback whale songs as indicators of migration routes. Marine 

Mammal Science, 6(2), 155–160. 

Clapham, P. J., & J. G. Mead. (1999). Megaptera novaeangliae. Mammalian Species, 604, 1–9. 

Clapham, P. J. (2000). The humpback whale: seasonal feeding and breeding in a baleen whale. In J. 

Mann, R. C. Connor, P. L. Tyack & H. Whitehead (Eds.), Cetacean Societies: field studies of 

dolphins and whales (pp. 173–196). University of Chicago Press.

Claridge, D., D. Charlotte, & J. Durban. (2009, 7-10 December 2009). Abundance and movement patterns 

of Blainville’s beaked whales at the Atlantic undersea test and evaluation center (AUTEC). Paper 

presented at the 2009 ONR Marine Mammal Program Review, Alexandria, VA.

Clark, C. (2015). Potential Acoustic Impacts of Vessel Traffic from the Trans Mountain Expansion Project 

on Southern Resident Killer Whales. Prepared for: Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

Clark, C. W., & K. M. Fristrup. (2001). Baleen whale responses to low-frequency human-made 

underwater sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110(5), 2751. 

Clark, C. W., W. T. Ellison, B. L. Southall, L. Hatch, S. M. Van Parijs, A. Frankel, & D. Ponirakis. (2009). 

Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 395, 201–222. 

Clark, S. L., & J. W. Ward. (1943). The effects of rapid compression waves on animals submerged in 

water. Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics, 77, 403–412. 

Clarke, M. R. (1996). Cephalopods as prey. III. Cetaceans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 

of London, 351, 1053–1065. 

Committee on Taxonomy. (2016). List of Marine Mammal Species & Subspecies - Society for Marine 

Mammalogy. Retrieved from https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/listof-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/

Conn, P. B., & G. K. Silber. (2013). Vessel speed restrictions reduce risk of collision-related mortality for 

North Atlantic right whales. Ecosphere, 4(4). 

Cooke, J. G., D. W. Weller, A. L. Bradford, O. Sychenko, A. M. Burdin, A. R. Lang, & R. L. Brownell, Jr. 

(2015). Updated Population Assessment of the Sakhalin Gray Whale Aggregation based on the 

Russia-U.S. photoidentification study at Piltun, Sakhalin, 1994–2014. Paper presented at the 

Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel. PUBLIC retrieved from 

Costa, D. P. (1993). The relationship between reproductive and foraging energetics and the evolution of 

the Pinnipedia. Symposiums of the Zoological Society of London, 66, 293–314. 

Costa, D. P., D. E. Crocker, J. Gedamke, P. M. Webb, D. S. Houser, S. B. Blackwell, D. Waples, S. A. Hayes, 

& B. J. Le Boeuf. (2003). The effect of a low-frequency sound source (acoustic thermometry of 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-598

References

the ocean climate) on the diving behavior of juvenile northern elephant seals, Mirounga 

angustirostris. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 113(2), 1155–1165. 

Costa, D. P., & B. A. Block. (2009). Use of electronic tag data and associated analytical tools to identify 

and predict habitat utilization of marine predators (Marine Mammals & Biological Oceanography 

Annual Reports: FY09). Office of Naval Research.

Costa, D. P., L. A. Hückstädt, L. K. Schwarz, A. S. Friedlaender, B. R. Mate, A. N. Zerbini, A. Kennedy, & N. 

J. Gales. (2016a, 10-16 July 2016). Assessing the exposure of animals to acoustic disturbance: 

towards an understanding of the population consequences of disturbance. In Proceedings of 

Meetings on Acoustics. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on the Effects of 

Noise on Aquatic Life, Dublin, Ireland.

Costa, D. P., L. Schwartz, P. Robinson, R. S. Schick, P. A. Morris, R. Condit, D. E. Crocker, & A. M. 

Kilpatrick. (2016b). A bioenergetics approach to understanding the population consequences of 

disturbance: elephant seals as a model system The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II (pp. 116–

169). New York: Springer.

Costidis, A. M., & S. A. Rommel. (2016). The extracranial venous system in the heads of beaked whales, 

with implications on diving physiology and pathogenesis. Journal of morphology, 277(1), 34–64. 

Courbis, S., & G. Timmel. (2009). Effects of vessels and swimmers on behavior of Hawaiian spinner 

dolphins (Stenella longirostris) in Kealake‘akua, Honaunau, and Kauhako bays, Hawai‘i. Marine 

Mammal Science, 25(2), 430–440. 

Courbis, S., R. W. Baird, F. Cipriano, & D. Duffield. (2014). Multiple Populations of Pantropical Spotted 

Dolphins in Hawaiian Waters. Journal of Heredity, 105(5), 627–641. 

Cox, T. M., T. J. Ragen, A. J. Read, E. Vox, R. W. Baird, K. Balcomb, J. Barlow, J. Caldwell, T. Cranford, L. 

Crum, A. D'Amico, G. D'Spain, A. Fernandez, J. Finneran, R. Gentry, W. Gerth, F. Gulland, J. 

Hildebrand, D. Houser, T. Hullar, P. D. Jepson, D. Ketten, C. D. MacLeod, P. Miller, S. Moore, D. C. 

Mountain, D. Palka, P. Ponganis, S. Rommel, T. Rowles, B. Taylor, P. Tyack, D. Wartzok, R. 

Gisiner, J. Mead, & L. Benner. (2006). Understanding the impacts of anthropogenic sound on 

beaked whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 7(3), 177–187. 

Cozar, A., F. Echevarria, J. I. Gonzalez-Gordillo, X. Irigoien, B. Ubeda, S. Hernandez-Leon, A. T. Palma, S. 

Navarro, J. Garcia-de-Lomas, A. Ruiz, M. L. Fernandez-de-Puelles, & C. M. Duarte. (2014). Plastic 

debris in the open ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 111(28), 10239–10244. 

Craig, A. S., & L. M. Herman. (2000). Habitat preferences of female humpback whales, Megaptera 

novaeangliae, in the Hawaiian Islands are associated with reproductive status. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 193, 209–216. 

Croll, D. A., C. W. Clark, J. Calambokidis, W. T. Ellison, & B. R. Tershy. (2001). Effect of anthropogenic 

low-frequency noise on the foraging ecology of Balaenoptera whales. Animal Conservation, 4, 

13–27. 

Crum, L. A., & Y. Mao. (1996). Acoustically enhanced bubble growth at low frequencies and its 

implications for human diver and marine mammal safety. Acoustical Society of America, 99(5), 

2898–2907. 

Crum, L. A., M. R. Bailey, J. Guan, P. R. Hilmo, S. G. Kargl, & T. J. Matula. (2005). Monitoring bubble 

growth in supersaturated blood and tissue ex vivo and the relevance to marine mammal 

bioeffects. Acoustics Research Letters Online, 6(3), 214–220. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-599

References

Culik, B. M., S. Koschinski, N. Tregenza, & G. M. Ellis. (2001). Reactions of harbor porpoises Phocoena 

phocoena and herring Clupea harengus to acoustic alarms. Marine Ecological Progress Series, 

211, 255–260. 

Culik, B. M. (2004). Review of Small Cetaceans Distribution, Behaviour, Migration and Threats. United 

National Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Secretariate of the Convention on the 

Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals.

Cummings, W. C., & P. O. Thompson. (1971). Gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, avoid the underwater 

sounds of killer whales, Orcinus orca. Fishery Bulletin, 69(3), 525–530. 

Cummings, W. C. (1985). Bryde's whale, Balaenoptera edeni Anderson, 1878. In S. H. Ridgway & R. 

Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 3, pp. 137–154). San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press.

Cunningham, K. A., B. L. Southall, & C. Reichmuth. (2014). Auditory sensitivity of seals and sea lions in 

complex listening scenarios. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 136(6), 3410–3421. 

Cunningham, K. A., & C. Reichmuth. (2015). High-frequency hearing in seals and sea lions. Hearing 

Research, 331, 83–91. 

Cure, C., R. Antunes, F. Samarra, A. C. Alves, F. Visser, P. H. Kvadsheim, & P. J. Miller. (2012). Pilot whales 

attracted to killer whale sounds: acoustically-mediated interspecific interactions in cetaceans. 

PLoS ONE, 7(12), e52201. 

Curé, C., L. D. Sivle, F. Visser, P. J. Wensveen, S. Isojunno, C. M. Harris, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, & P. 

J. O. Miller. (2015). Predator sound playbacks reveal strong avoidance responses in a fight 

strategist baleen whale. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 526, 267–282. 

Curé, C., S. Isojunno, F. Visser, P. J. Wensveen, L. D. Sivle, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, & P. J. O. Miller. 

(2016). Biological significance of sperm whale responses to sonar: comparison with antipredator responses. Endangered Species Research, 31, 89–102. 

Curland, J. M. (1997). Effects of disturbance on sea otters (Enhydra lutris) near Monterey, California.

(Masters Theses). San Jose State University. (Paper 1431)

Currie, J. J., S. H. Stack, J. A. McCordic, & G. D. Kaufman. (2017). Quantifying the risk that marine debris 

poses to cetaceans in coastal waters of the 4-island region of Maui. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 

Curtin, S., S. Richards, & S. Westcott. (2009). Tourism and grey seals in South Devon: management 

strategies, voluntary controls and tourists' perceptions of disturbance. Current Issues in Tourism, 

12(1), 59–81. 

Czech-Damal, N. U., A. Liebschner, L. Miersch, G. Klauer, F. D. Hanke, C. Marshall, G. Dehnhardt, & W. 

Hanke. (2011). Electroreception in the Guiana dolphin (Sotalia guianensis). Proceedings of the 

Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 

D'Amico, A. (2013). Analysis of Monk Seal Behavior Relative to Navy Activities. San Diego, CA: SPAWAR 

Systems Center Pacific.

D'Vincent, C. G., R. M. Nilson, & R. E. Hanna. (1985). Vocalization and coordinated feeding behavior of 

the humpback whale in southeastern Alaska. Scientific Reports of the the Whales Research 

Institute, 36, 41–47. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-600

References

Dahlheim, M. E., & J. E. Heyning. (1999). Killer whale, Orcinus orca (Linnaeus, 1758). In S. H. Ridgway & 

R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 6, pp. 281–322). San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press.

Dahlheim, M. E., A. Schulman-Janiger, N. Black, R. Ternullo, D. Ellifrit, & K. C. Balcomb, III. (2008). Eastern 

temperate North Pacific offshore killer whales (Orcinus orca): Occurrence, movements, and 

insights into feeding ecology. Marine Mammal Science, 24(3), 719–729. 

Dähne, M., V. Peschko, A. Gilles, K. Lucke, S. Adler, K. Ronnenberg, & U. Siebert. (2014). Marine 

mammals and windfarms: effects of alpha ventus on harbour porpoises Ecological Research at 

the Offshore Windfarm alpha ventus (pp. 133–149). Springer.

Dalebout, M. L., J. G. Mead, C. S. Baker, A. N. Baker, & A. L. van Helden. (2002). A new species of beaked 

whale Mesoplodon perrini sp. n. (Cetacea: Ziphiidae) discovered through phylogenetic analyses 

of mitochondrial DNA sequences. Marine Mammal Science, 18(3), 577–608. 

Dalebout, M. L., G. J. B. Ross, C. S. Baker, R. C. Anderson, P. B. Best, V. G. Cockcroft, H. L. Hinsz, V. 

Peddemors, & R. L. Pitman. (2003). Appearance, distribution and genetic distinctiveness of 

Longman's beaked whale, Indopacetus pacificus. Marine Mammal Science, 19(3), 421–461. 

Dalebout, M. L., S. C. Baker, D. Steel, K. Thompson, K. M. Robertson, S. J. Chivers, W. F. Perrin, M. 

Goonatilake, C. A. R., J. G. Mead, C. W. Potter, L. Thompson, D. Jupiter, & T. K. Yamada. (2014). 

Resurrection of Mesoplodon hotaula Deraniyagala 1963: A new species of beaked whale in the 

tropical Indo-Pacific. Marine Mammal Science, 30(3), 1081–1108. 

Danil, K. (2006, Thursday, June 15, 2006). [Sea otter necropsy results].

Danil, K., & J. A. St. Ledger. (2011). Seabird and dolphin mortality associated with underwater 

detonation exercises. Marine Technology Society Journal, 45(6), 63–87. 

Danil, K., & J. A. St Leger. (2013). Seabird and Dolphin Mortality Associated with Underwater Detonation 

Exercises. Marine Technology Society Journal, 45(6), 89–95. 

Davis, R. W., T. M. Williams, & F. Awbrey. (1988). Sea Otter Oil Spill Avoidance Study. Minerals 

Management Service.

Davis, R. W., G. S. Fargion, N. May, T. D. Leming, M. Baumgartner, W. E. Evans, L. J. Hansen, & K. Mullin. 

(1998). Physical habitat of cetaceans along the continental slope in the north-central and 

western Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science, 14(3), 490–507. 

Davis, R. W., W. E. Evans, & B. Würsig, (Eds.). (2000). Cetaceans, sea turtles and seabirds in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and habitat associations. New Orleans, LA: Minerals 

Management Service.

Davis, R. W., N. Jaquet, D. Gendron, U. Markaida, G. Bazzino, & W. Gilly. (2007). Diving behavior of 

sperm whales in relation to behavior of a major prey species, the jumbo squid, in the Gulf of 

California, Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 333, 291–302. 

De Pierrepont, J. F., B. Dubois, S. Desormonts, M. B. Santos, & J. P. Robin. (2005). Stomach contents of 

English Channel cetaceans stranded on the coast of Normandy. Journal of the Marine Biological 

Association of the United Kingdom, 85, 1539–1546. 

De Silva, R., K. Grellier, G. Lye, N. McLean, & P. Thompson. (2014, 28 April - 02 May, 2014). Use of 

population viability analysis (PVA) to assess the potential for long term impacts from piling noise 

on marine mammal populations - a case study from the Scottish east coast. Paper presented at 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-601

References

the Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Environmental Interactions of Marine 

Renewable Energy Technologies (EIMR2014), Stornoway, Isle of Lewis, Outer Hebrides, Scotland.

Deakos, M. H., & M. F. Richlen. (2015). Vessel-Based Marine Mammal Survey on the Navy Range off 

Kauai in Support of Passive Acoustic Monitoring and Satellite-Tagging Efforts: 1–9 February 2014

(Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet 

under Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, CTO KB22). Honolulu, HI: HDR Inc.

Debich, A. J., S. Baumann-Pickering, A. Širović, J. A. Hildebrand, A. L. Alldredge, R. S. Gottlieb, S. Herbert, 

S. C. Johnson, L. K. Roche, B. Thayre, J. S. Trickey, & S. M. Wiggins. (2014). Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring for Marine Mammals in the Northwest Training Range Complex 2012–2013. La Jolla, 

CA: Marine Physical Laboratory Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California San 

Diego.

Debich, A. J., S. Baumann-Pickering, A. Sirovic, J. A. Hildebrand, A. L. Alldredge, R. S. Gottlieb, S. T. 

Herbert, S. C. Johnson, A. C. Rice, L. K. Roche, B. J. Thayre, J. S. Trickey, L. M. Varga, & S. M. 

Wiggins. (2015a). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine Mammals in the SOCAL Naval Training

Area Dec 2012–Jan 2014 (MPL Technical Memorandum #552). La Jolla, CA: Marine Physical 

Laboratory, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Debich, A. J., S. Baumann-Pickering, A. Širović, J. A. Hildebrand, S. T. Herbert, S. C. Johnson, A. C. Rice, J. 

S. Trickey, & S. M. Wiggins. (2015b). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine Mammals in the 

SOCAL Range Complex January–July 2014 (MPL Techincal Memorandum #554). La Jolla, CA: 

Marine Physical Laboratory Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California San 

Diego.

Deecke, V. B., P. J. B. Slater, & J. K. B. Ford. (2002). Selective habituation shapes acoustic predator 

recognition in harbour seals. Nature, 420(14 November), 171–173. 

Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. (2007). Observations of marine mammal behaviour in 

response of active sonar. United Kingdom: Ministry of Defence.

DeForges, J. P. W., M. Galbraith, N. Dangerfield, & P. S. Ross. (2014). Widespread distribution of 

microplastics in subsurface seawater in the NE Pacific Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 79, 94–

99. 

Defran, R. H., & D. W. Weller. (1999). Occurrence, distribution, site fidelity, and school size of bottlenose

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) off San Diego, California. Marine Mammal Science, 15(2), 366–380. 

Defran, R. H., M. Caldwell, E. Morteo, A. Lang, & M. Rice. (2015). Possible Stock Structure of Coastal 

Bottlenose Dolphins off Baja California and California Revealed by Photo-Identification Research

(Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences).

DeLong, R. L., & B. S. Stewart. (1991). Diving patterns of northern elephant seal bulls. Marine Mammal 

Science, 7(4), 369–384. 

Demarchi, M. W., M. Holst, D. Robichaud, M. Waters, & A. O. MacGillivray. (2012). Responses of Steller 

sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) to in-air blast noise from military explosions. Aquatic Mammals, 

38(3), 279. 

Deng, Z. D., B. L. Southall, T. J. Carlson, J. Xu, J. J. Martinez, M. A. Weiland, & J. M. Ingraham. (2014). 200 

kHz commercial sonar systems generate lower frequency side lobes audible to some marine 

mammals. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e95315. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-602

References

Dennison, S., M. J. Moore, A. Fahlman, K. Moore, S. Sharp, C. T. Harry, J. Hoppe, M. Niemeyer, B. Lentell, 

& R. S. Wells. (2011). Bubbles in live-stranded dolphins. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 

Biological Sciences, 10. 

Derraik, J. G. B. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 44, 842–852. 

DeRuiter, S. L., I. L. Boyd, D. E. Claridge, C. W. Clark, C. Gagon, B. L. Southall, & P. L. Tyack. (2013a). 

Delphinid whistle production and call matching during playback of simulated military sonar. 

Marine Mammal Science, 29(2), E46–59. 

DeRuiter, S. L., S. B. L., J. Calambokidis, W. M. X. Zimmer, D. Sadykova, E. A. Falcone, A. S. Friedlaender, J. 

E. Joseph, D. Moretti, G. S. Schorr, L. Thomas, & P. L. Tyack. (2013b). First direct measurements 

of behavioural responses by Cuvier’s beaked whales to mid-frequency active sonar. Biology 

Letters, 9, 201–223. 

DeRuiter, S. L., R. Langrock, T. Skirbutas, J. A. Goldbogen, J. Calambokidis, A. S. Friedlaender, & B. L. 

Southall. (2017). A multivariate mixed hidden Markov model for blue whale behaviour and

responses to sound exposure. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 11(1), 362–392. 

Desforges, J. P., C. Sonne, M. Levin, U. Siebert, S. De Guise, & R. Dietz. (2016). Immunotoxic effects of 

environmental pollutants in marine mammals. Environment international, 86, 126–139. 

Di Lorio, L., & C. W. Clark. (2010). Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication. 

Biology Letters, 6, 51–54. 

Dizon, A. E., W. F. Perrin, & P. A. Akin. (1994). Stocks of dolphins (Stenella spp. and Delphinus delphis) in 

the eastern tropical Pacific: A phylogeographic classification. NOAA.

Dohl, T. P., R. C. Guess, M. L. Duman, & R. C. Helm. (1983). Cetaceans of central and northern California, 

1980-1983: Status, abundance, and distribution.

Donahue, M. A., & W. L. Perryman. (2008). Pygmy killer whale, Feresa attenuata. In W. F. Perrin, B. 

Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 938–939). 

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Doney, S. C., M. Ruckelshaus, D. J. Emmett, J. P. Barry, F. Chan, C. A. English, H. M. Galindo, J. M. 

Grebmeier, A. B. Hollowed, N. Knowlton, J. Polovina, N. N. Rabalais, W. J. Sydeman, & L. D. 

Talley. (2012). Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science, 

4(1), 11–37. 

Donohue, M. J., & D. G. Foley. (2007). Remote sensing reveals links among the endangered Hawaiian 

monk seal, marine debris, and El Nino. Marine Mammal Science, 23(2), 468–473. 

Donovan, G. P. (1991). A review of IWC stock boundaries. Reports of the International Whaling 

Commission, Special Issue 13, 39–68. 

Doucette, G. J., A. D. Cembella, J. L. Martin, J. Michaud, T. V. N. Cole, & R. M. Rolland. (2006). Paralytic 

shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins in North Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, and their 

zooplankton prey in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 306, 303–313. 

Douglas, A. B., J. Calambokidis, S. Raverty, S. J. Jeffries, D. M. Lambourn, & S. A. Norman. (2008). 

Incidence of ship strikes of large whales in Washington State. Journal of the Marine Biological 

Association of the United Kingdom, 88(6), 1121–1132. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-603

References

Douglas, A. B., J. Calambokidis, L. M. Munger, M. S. Soldevilla, M. Ferguson, A. M. Havron, D. L. 

Camacho, G. S. Campbell, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2014a). Seasonal distribution and abundance of 

cetaceans off Southern California estimated from CalCOFI cruise data from 2004 to 2008. Fishery 

Bulletin, 112(2-3), 198–219. 

Douglas, A. B., J. Calambokidis, L. M. Munger, M. S. Soldevilla, M. C. Ferguson, A. M. Havron, D. L. 

Camacho, G. S. Campbell, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2014b). Seasonal distribution and abundance of 

cetaceans off Southern California estimated from CalCOFI cruise data from 2004 to 2008. Fishery 

Bulletin, 112(2–3), 198–220. 

Doyle, L. R., B. McCowan, S. F. Hanser, C. Chyba, T. Bucci, & E. J. Blue. (2008). Applicability of information 

theory to the quantification of responses to anthropogenic noise by southeast Alaskan 

humpback whales. Entropy, 10, 33–46. 

Dudzik, K. J., K. M. Baker, & D. W. Weller. (2006). Mark-Recapture Abundance Estimate of California 

Coastal Stock Bottlenose Dolphins: February 2004 to April 2005 (NOAA Administrative Report LJ06-02C). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Dunlop, R. A., D. H. Cato, & M. J. Noad. (2010). Your attention please: increasing ambient noise levels 

elictis a change in communication behaviour in humpback whales (Megoptera novaeangliae). 

Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277, 2521–2529. 

Dunlop, R. A., M. J. Noad, D. H. Cato, E. Kniest, P. J. Miller, J. N. Smith, & M. D. Stokes. (2013). 

Multivariate analysis of behavioural response experiments in humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae). Journal of Experimental Biology, 216(5), 759–770. 

Dunlop, R. A., D. H. Cato, & M. J. Noad. (2014). Evidence of a Lombard response in migrating humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 136(1), 430–

437. 

Dunlop, R. A., M. J. Noad, R. D. McCauley, E. Kniest, D. Paton, & D. H. Cato. (2015). The behavioural 

response of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to a 20 cubic inch air gun. Aquatic 

Mammals, 41(4), 412. 

Dunlop, R. A. (2016). The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, 

communication behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 111, 13–21. 

Dunlop, R. A., M. J. Noad, R. D. McCauley, E. Kniest, R. Slade, D. Paton, & D. H. Cato. (2016). Response of 

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to ramp-up of a small experimental air gun array. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 103(1–2), 72–83. 

Dunphy-Daly, M. M., M. R. Heithaus, & D. E. Claridge. (2008). Temporal variation in dwarf sperm whale 

(Kogia sima) habitat use and group size off Great Abaco Island, Bahamas. Marine Mammal 

Science, 24(1), 171–182. 

Durban, J., D. Weller, A. Lang, & W. Perryman. (2016). Estimating gray whale abundance from shorebased counts using a multilevel Bayesian model. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management, 9. 

Durban, J. W., H. Fearnbach, L. G. Barrett–Lennard, W. L. Perryman, & D. J. Leroi. (2015). 

Photogrammetry of killer whales using a small hexacopter launched at sea. Journal of 

Unmanned Vehicle Systems, 3(3), 131–135. 

Dyndo, M., D. M. Wisniewska, L. Rojano-Donate, & P. T. Madsen. (2015). Harbour porpoises react to low 

levels of high frequency vessel noise. Sci Rep, 5, 11083. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-604

References

Edds-Walton, P. L. (1997). Acoustic communication signals of mysticete whales. Bioacoustics: The 

International Journal of Animal Sound and its Recording, 8, 47–60. 

Edwards, H. H. (2013). Potential impacts of climate change on warmwater megafauna: the Florida 

manatee example (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Climatic Change, 121(4), 727–738. 

Edwards, M. H., S. M. Shjegstad, R. Wilkens, J. C. King, G. Carton, D. Bala, B. Bingham, M. C. Bissonnette, 

C. Briggs, N. S. Bruso, R. Camilli, M. Cremer, R. B. Davis, E. H. DeCarlo, C. DuVal, D. J. Fornari, I. 

Kaneakua-Pia, C. D. Kelley, S. Koide, C. L. Mahk, T. Kerby, G. J. Kurras, M. R. Rognstad, L. Sheild, J. 

Silva, B. Wellington, & M. Van Woerkom. (2016). The Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions 

Assessment. Deep-Sea Research II, 128, 4–13. 

Efroymson, R. A., W. H. Rose, & G. W. Suter, II. (2001). Ecological Risk Assessment Framework for Lowaltitude Overflights by Fixed-Wing and Rotary-Wing Military Aircraft. Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, ORNL/TM-2000/289; ES-5048.

Eisenhardt, E. (2014). Recent trends of vessel activities in proximity to cetaceans in the central Salish Sea.

Ellison, W. T., B. L. Southall, C. W. Clark, & A. S. Frankel. (2011). A new context-based approach to assess 

marine mammal behavioral responses to anthropogenic sounds. Conservation Biology, 26(1), 

21–28. 

Elorriaga-Verplancken, F. R., H. Rosales-Nanduca, & R. Robles-Hernández. (2016). Unprecedented 

Records of Guadalupe Fur Seals in La Paz Bay, Southern Gulf of California, Mexico, as a Possible 

Result of Warming Conditions in the Northeastern Pacific. Aquatic Mammals, 42(3), 261–267. 

Elvin, S. S., & C. T. Taggart. (2008). Right whales and vessels in Canadian waters. Marine Policy, 32, 379–

386. 

Engelhardt, R. (1983). Petroleum effects on marine mammals. Aquatic Toxicology, 4, 199–217. 

Environmental Sciences Group. (2005). Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges 

(CFMETR) Environmental Assessment Update 2005. Kingston, Ontario: Environmental Sciences 

Group, Royal Military College.

Erbe, C. (2002). Underwater noise of whale-watching boats and potential effects on killer whales 

(Orcinus Orca), based on an acoustic impact model. Marine Mammal Science, 18(2), 394–418. 

Erbe, C., A. MacGillivray, & R. Williams. (2012). Mapping cumulative noise from shipping to inform 

marine spatial planning. Acoustical Society of America, 132(5). 

Erbe, C., R. Williams, D. Sandilands, & E. Ashe. (2014). Identifying modeled ship noise hotspots for 

marine mammals of Canada's Pacific region. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e89820. 

Erbe, C., C. Reichmuth, K. Cunningham, K. Lucke, & R. Dooling. (2015). Communication masking in 

marine mammals: a review and research strategy. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1–24. 

Eriksson, C., & H. Burton. (2003). Origins and biological accumulation of small plastic particles in fur seals 

from Macquarie Island. Ambio, 32(6), 380–384. 

Ersts, P. J., & H. C. Rosenbaum. (2003). Habitat preference reflects social organization of humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) on a wintering ground. Journal of Zoology, 260(4), 337–345. 

Esperon Rodriguez, M., & J. P. Gallo Reynoso. (2012). Analysis of the re colonization of San Benito 

Archipelago by Guadalupe fur seals (Arctocephalus townsendi). Latin American Journal of 

Aquatic Research, 40(1), 213–223. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-605

References

Estes, J. A., J. L. Bodkin, & M. Ben-David. (2009). Otters, Marine. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 807–816). Academic Press.

Etnier, M. A. (2002). Occurrence of Guadalupe fur seals (Arctocephalus townsendi) on the Washington 

coast over the past 500 years. Marine Mammal Science, 18(2), 551–557. 

Evans, P. G. H., & L. A. Miller. (2003). Proceedings of the workshop on active sonar and cetaceans

(European cetacean society newsletter, No. 42–Special Issue). Las Palmas, Gran Canaria.

Evans, W. E. (1994). Common dolphin, white-bellied porpoise–Delphinus delphis Linnaeus, 1758. In S. H. 

Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals. Volume 5: The First Book of 

Dolphins (pp. 191–224). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Fahlman, A., A. Olszowka, B. Bostrom, & D. R. Jones. (2006). Deep diving mammals: Dive behavior and 

circulatory adjustments contribute to bends avoidance. Respiratory Physiology and 

Neurobiology, 153, 66–77. 

Fahlman, A., S. K. Hooker, A. Olszowka, B. L. Bostrom, & D. R. Jones. (2009). Estimating the effect of lung 

collapse and pulmonary shunt on gas exchange during breath-hold diving: the Scholander and 

Kooyman legacy. Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, 165(1), 28–39. 

Fahlman, A., S. H. Loring, S. P. Johnson, M. Haulena, A. W. Trites, V. A. Fravel, & W. G. Van Bonn. 

(2014a). Inflation and deflation pressure-volume loops in anesthetized pinnipeds confirms 

compliant chest and lungs. frontiers in Physiology, 5(433). 

Fahlman, A., P. L. Tyack, P. J. O. Miller, & P. H. Kvadsheim. (2014b). How man-made interference might 

cause gas bubble emboli in deep diving whales. frontiers in Physiology, 5(13), 1–6. 

Fahy, C. (2015, December 13-18, 2015). Guadalupe Fur Seal: Status Review. Paper presented at the 

Society for Marine Mammalogy 21st Biennial Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Fair, P. A., J. Adams, G. Mitchum, T. C. Hulsey, J. S. Reif, M. Houde, D. Muir, E. Wirth, D. Wetzel, E. 

Zolman, W. McFee, & G. D. Bossart. (2010). Contaminant blubber burdens in Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from two southeastern U.S. estuarine areas: concentrations and 

patterns of PCBs, pesticides, PBDEs, PFCs, and PAHs. The Science of the total environment, 

408(7), 1577–1597. 

Fair, P. A., A. M. Schaefer, T. A. Romano, G. D. Bossart, S. V. Lamb, & J. S. Reif. (2014). Stress response of 

wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) during capture–release health assessment studies. 

General and Comparative Endocrinology, 206, 203–212. 

Falcone, E. A., G. S. Schorr, A. B. Douglas, J. Calambokidis, E. Henderson, M. F. McKenna, J. Hildebrand, & 

D. Moretti. (2009). Sighting characteristics and photo-identification of Cuvier's beaked whales 

(Ziphius cavirostris) near San Clemente Island, California: A key area for beaked whales and the 

military? Marine Biology, 156, 2631–2640. 

Falcone, E. A., B. Diehl, A. Douglas, & J. Calambokids. (2011). Photo-Identification of Fin Whales 

(Balaeanoptera physalus) along the US West Coast, Baja California, and Canada. Olympia, WA: 

Cascadia Research Collective.

Falcone, E. A., & G. S. Schorr. (2011). Distribution and demographics of marine mammals in SOCAL 

through photo-indentification, genetics, and satellite telemetry: a summary of surveys conducted 

15 July 2010 - 24 June 20111. Monterey, CA: U.S. Navy Postgraduate School.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-606

References

Falcone, E. A., & G. S. Schorr. (2012). Distribution and demographics of marine mammals in SOCAL 

through photo-indentification, genetics, and satellite telemetry: a summary of surveys conducted 

1 July 2011 - 15 June 2012. Monterey, CA: U.S. Navy Postgraduate School.

Falcone, E. A., & G. S. Schorr. (2013). Distribution and demographics of marine mammals in SOCAL 

through photo-indentification, genetics, and satellite telemetry: a summary of surveys conducted 

1 July 2012–30 June 2013. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.

Falcone, E. A., & G. S. Schorr. (2014). Distribution and Demographics of Marine Mammals in SOCAL 

through Photo-Identification, Genetics, and Satellite Telemetry (Prepared for Chief of Naval 

Operations Energy and Environmental Readiness Division: NPS-OC-14-005CR). Monterey, CA: 

U.S. Navy Post Graduate School.

Falke, K. J., R. D. Hill, J. Qvist, R. C. Schneider, M. Guppy, G. C. Liggins, P. W. Hochachka, R. E. Elliott, & W. 

M. Zapol. (1985). Seal lungs collapse during free diving: evidence from arterial nitrogen tensions. 

Science, 229, 556–558. 

Farak, A. M., M. W. Richie, J. A. Rivers, & R. K. Uyeyama. (2011). Cruise Report, Marine Species 

Monitoring and Lookout Effectiveness Study Koa Kai, November 2010, Hawaii Range Complex. 

Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Fauquier, D. A., M. J. Kinsel, M. D. Dailey, G. E. Sutton, M. K. Stolen, R. S. Wells, & F. M. D. Gulland. 

(2009). Prevalence and pathology of lungworm infection in bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops 

truncatus, from southwest Florida. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 88, 85–90. 

Fay, R. R. (1988). Hearing in Vertebrates: A Psychophysics Databook. Winnetka, IL: Hill-Fay Associates.

Fay, R. R., & A. N. Popper. (1994). Comparative Hearing: Mammals. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Feldkamp, S. D., R. L. DeLong, & G. A. Antonelis. (1989). Diving patterns of California sea lions, Zalophus 

californianus. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 67(4), 872–883. 

Felix, F., & K. Van Waerebeek. (2005). Whale mortality from ship strikes in Ecuador and West Africa. 

Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals, 4(1), 55–60. 

Ferguson, M. C. (2005). Cetacean Population Density in the Eastern Pacific Ocean: Analyzing Patterns 

With Predictive Spatial Models. (Ph.D.). University of California, San Diego. 

Ferguson, M. C., J. Barlow, P. Feidler, S. B. Reilly, & T. Gerrodette. (2006a). Spatial models of delphinid 

(family Delphinidae) encouter rate and group size in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Ecological 

Modelling, 193, 645–662. 

Ferguson, M. C., J. Barlow, S. B. Reilly, & T. Gerrodette. (2006b). Predicting Cuvier's (Ziphius cavirostris) 

and Mesoplodon beaked whale population density from habitat characteristics in the eastern 

tropical Pacific Ocean. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 7(3), 287–299. 

Ferguson, M. C., C. Curtice, J. Harrison, & S. M. Van Parijs. (2015a). 1. Biologically important areas for 

cetaceans within U.S. waters – Overview and Rationale. In S. M. Van Parijs, C. Curtice, & M. C. 

Ferguson (Eds.), Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S. waters Aquatic Mammals 

(Special Issue) 41(1), 2–16. 

Ferguson, M. C., C. Curtice, J. Harrison, & S. M. van Parijs. (2015b). Biologically important areas for 

cetaceans within U.S. waters - overview and rationale. Aquatic Mammals, 41(1), 2–16. 

Fernandez, A. (2006). Beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) mass stranding on Almeria's coasts in southern 

Spain (Report of the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Canary Islands).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-607

References

Fernández, A., J. F. Edwards, F. Rodríguez, A. Espinosa de los Monteros, P. Herráez, P. Castro, J. R. Jaber, 

V. Martín, & M. Arbelo. (2005). "Gas and fat embolic syndrome" involving a mass stranding of 

beaked whales (family Ziphiidae) exposed to anthropogenic sonar signals. Journal of Veterinary 

Pathology, 42, 446–457. 

Ferrero, R. C., & W. A. Walker. (1996). Age, growth, and reproductive patterns of the Pacific white-sided 

dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) taken in high seas drift nets in the central North Pacific 

Ocean. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 74, 1673–1687. 

Ferrero, R. C., & W. A. Walker. (1999). Age, growth, and reproductive patterns of Dall's porpoise 

(Phocoenoides dalli) in the central north Pacific Ocean. Marine Mammal Science, 15(2). 

Fertl, D., A. Acevedo-Gutiérrez, & F. L. Darby. (1996). A report of killer whales (Orcinus orca) feeding on a 

carcharhinid shark in Costa Rica. Marine Mammal Science, 12(4), 606–611. 

Filadelfo, R., J. Mintz, E. Michlovich, A. D’Amico, & D. R. Ketten. (2009a). Correlating military sonar use 

with beaked whale mass strandings: What do the historical data show?. Aquatic Mammals, 

35(4), 435–444. 

Filadelfo, R., Y. K. Pinelis, S. Davis, R. Chase, J. Mintz, J. Wolfanger, P. L. Tyack, D. R. Ketten, & A. D'Amico. 

(2009b). Correlating Whale Strandings with Navy Exercises off Southern California. Aquatic 

Mammals, 35(4), 445–451. 

Finneran, J. J., C. E. Schlundt, D. A. Carder, J. A. Clark, J. A. Young, J. B. Gaspin, & S. H. Ridgway. (2000). 

Auditory and behavioral responses of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and a beluga 

whale (Delphinapterus leucas) to impulsive sounds resembling distant signatures of underwater 

explosions. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 108(1), 417–431. 

Finneran, J. J., D. A. Carder, & S. H. Ridgway. (2001). Temporary threshold shift (TTS) in bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to tonal signals. The Journal of Acoustical Society of 

America, 110(5), 2749(A). 

Finneran, J. J., C. E. Schlundt, R. Dear, D. A. Carder, & S. H. Ridgway. (2002). Temporary shift in masked 

hearing thresholds in odontocetes after exposure to single underwater impulses from a seismic 

watergun. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 111(6), 2929–2940. 

Finneran, J. J., D. A. Carder, R. Dear, T. Belting, & S. H. Ridgway. (2003a). Pure-tone audiograms and 

hearing loss in the white whale (Delphinapterus leucas). The Journal of Acoustical Society of 

America, 114, 2434(A). 

Finneran, J. J., R. Dear, D. A. Carder, & S. H. Ridgway. (2003b). Auditory and behavioral responses of 

California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) to single underwater impulses from an arc-gap 

transducer. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 114(3), 1667–1677. 

Finneran, J. J., & C. E. Schlundt. (2004). Effects of intense pure tones on the behavior of trained 

odontocetes. San Diego, CA: SSC San Diego.

Finneran, J. J., D. A. Carder, R. Dear, T. Belting, J. McBain, L. Dalton, & S. H. Ridgway. (2005a). Pure tone 

audiograms and possible aminoglycoside-induced hearing loss in belugas (Delphinapterus 

leucas). Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 117, 3936–3943. 

Finneran, J. J., D. A. Carder, C. E. Schlundt, & S. H. Ridgway. (2005b). Temporary threshold shift (TTS) in 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 118(4), 2696–2705. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-608

References

Finneran, J. J., & D. S. Houser. (2006). Comparison of in-air evoked potential and underwater behavioral 

hearing thresholds in four bottlenose dolphins (Turiops truncatus). Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America, 119(5), 3181–3192. 

Finneran, J. J., C. E. Schlundt, B. Branstetter, & R. L. Dear. (2007). Assessing temporary threshold shift in 

a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) using multiple simultaneous auditory evoked 

potentials. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 122(2), 1249–1264. 

Finneran, J. J., D. S. Houser, B. Mase-Guthrie, R. Y. Ewing, & R. G. Lingenfelser. (2009). Auditory evoked 

potentials in a stranded Gervais’ beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus). Journal of Acoustical 

Society of America, 126(1), 484–490. 

Finneran, J. J., D. A. Carder, C. E. Schlundt, & R. L. Dear. (2010a). Growth and recovery of temporary 

threshold shift at 3 kHz in bottlenose dolphins: Experimental data and mathematical models. 

The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 127(5), 3256–3266. 

Finneran, J. J., D. A. Carder, C. E. Schlundt, & R. L. Dear. (2010b). Temporary threshold shift in a 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to intermittent tones. The Journal of Acoustical 

Society of America, 127(5), 3267–3272. 

Finneran, J. J., & B. K. Branstetter. (2013). Effects of Noise on Sound Perception in Marine Mammals 

Animal Communication and Noise (Vol. 2, pp. 273–308). Springer Berlin Heidelb.

Finneran, J. J., & C. E. Schlundt. (2013). Effects of fatiguing tone frequency on temporary threshold shift 

in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 133(3), 

1819–1826. 

Finneran, J. J. (2015). Noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals: a review of temporary threshold 

shift studies from 1996 to 2015. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 138(3), 1702–

1726. 

Finneran, J. J., C. E. Schlundt, B. K. Branstetter, J. S. Trickey, V. Bowman, & K. Jenkins. (2015). Effects of 

multiple impulses from a seismic air gun on bottlenose dolphin hearing and behavior. The 

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 137(4), 1634–1646. 

Finneran, J. J., J. Mulsow, D. S. Houser, & R. F. Burkard. (2016). Place specificity of the click-evoked 

auditory brainstem response in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 140(4), 2593–2602. 

Fire, S. E., L. J. Flewelling, Z. Wang, J. Naar, M. S. Henry, R. H. Pierce, & R. S. Wells. (2008). Florida red 

tide and brevetoxins: Association and exposure in live resident bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A. Marine Mammal Science, 24(4), 831–844. 

Fish, J. F., & J. S. Vania. (1971). Killer whale, Orcinus orca, sounds repel white whales, Delphinapterus 

leucas. Fishery Bulletin, 69(3), 531–535. 

Fitch, R., J. Harrison, & J. Lewandowski. (2011). Marine Mammal and Sound Workshop July 13 and 14, 

2010: Report to the National Ocean Council Ocean Science and Technology Interagency Policy 

Committee. Washington, DC: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Department of the 

Navy (DON), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Fleming, A. H., C. T. Clark, J. Calambokidis, & J. Barlow. (2015). Humpback whale diets respond to 

variance in ocean climate and ecosystem conditions in the California Current. Global Change 

Biology. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-609

References

Foltz, K. M., R. W. Baird, G. M. Ylitalo, & B. A. Jensen. (2014). Cytochrome P4501A1 expression in 

blubber biopsies of endangered false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) and nine other 

odontocete species from Hawaii. Ecotoxicology, 23(9), 1607–1618. 

Foote, A. D., R. W. Osborne, & A. R. Hoelzel. (2004). Whale-call response to masking boat noise. Nature,

428, 910.

Ford, J. K. B., & G. M. Ellis. (1999). Transients: Mammal-Hunting Killer Whales of British Columbia, 

Washington, and Southeastern Alaska. Vancouver, BC, and Seattle, WA: UBC Press and 

University of Washington Press.

Ford, J. K. B., G. M. Ellis, D. R. Matkin, K. C. Balcomb, D. Briggs, & A. B. Morton. (2005). Killer whale 

attacks on minke whales: Prey capture and antipredator tactics. Marine Mammal Science, 21(4), 

603–618. 

Ford, J. K. B. (2008). Killer whale, Orcinus orca. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), 

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 650–657). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Ford, J. K. B., E. H. Stredulinsky, J. R. Towers, & G. M. Ellis. (2013). Information in Support of the 

Identification of Critical Habitat for Transient Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) off the West Coast of 

Canada DFO (Science Advisory Report 2013/025). Nanaimo, BC: Canadian Science Advisory 

Secretariat.

Ford, J. K. B., E. H. Stredulinsky, G. M. Ellis, J. W. Durban, & J. F. Pilkington. (2014). Offshore Killer Whales 

in Canadian Pacific Waters: Distribution, Seasonality, Foraging Ecology, Population Status and 

Potential for Recovery.

Forestell, P. H., & J. Urban R. (2007). Movement of a Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliaeI) 

Between the Revillagigedo and Hawaiian Archipelagos within a Winter Breeding Season. Latin 

American Journal of Aquatic Mammals, 6(1), 97–102. 

Forney, K. A., & J. Barlow. (1993). Preliminary winter abundance estimates for cetaceans along the 

California coast based on a 1991 aerial survey. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 

43, 407–415. 

Forney, K. A., J. Barlow, & J. V. Carretta. (1995). The abundance of cetaceans in California waters. Part II: 

Aerial surveys in winter and spring of 1991 and 1992. Fishery Bulletin, 93, 15–26. 

Forney, K. A., & J. Barlow. (1998). Seasonal patterns in the abundance and distribution of California 

cetaceans, 1991–1992. Marine Mammal Science, 14(3), 460–489. 

Forney, K. A., & P. R. Wade. (2006). Worldwide Distribution and Abundance of Killer Whales. In J. A. 

Estes, R. L. Brownell, Jr., D. P. DeMaster, D. F. Doak & T. M. Williams (Eds.), Whales, Whaling and 

Ocean Ecosystems (pp. 145–162). University of California Press.

Forney, K. A. (2007). Preliminary Estimates of Cetacean Abundance Along the U.S. West Coast and 

Within Four National Marine Sanctuaries During 2005. U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center.

Forney, K. A., R. W. Baird, & E. M. Oleson. (2010). Rationale for the 2010 Revision of Stock Boundaries for 

the Hawaii Insular and Pelagic Stocks of False Killer Whales, Pseudorca crassidens.

Forney, K. A., M. C. Ferguson, E. A. Becker, P. C. Fiedler, J. V. Redfern, J. Barlow, I. L. Vilchis, & L. T. 

Ballance. (2012). Habitat-based spatial models of cetacean density in the eastern Pacific Ocean. 

Endangered Species Research, 16(2), 113–133. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-610

References

Forney, K. A., E. A. Becker, D. G. Foley, J. Barlow, & E. M. Oleson. (2015). Habitat-based Models of 

Cetacean Density and Distribution in the Central North Pacific. Endangered Species Research, 27, 

1–20. 

Forney, K. A., B. L. Southall, E. Slooten, S. Dawson, A. J. Read, R. W. Baird, & R. L. Brownell, Jr. (2017). 

Nowhere to go: noise impact assessments for marine mammal populations with high site 

fidelity. Endangered Species Research, 32, 391–413. 

Frankel, A. S., & C. W. Clark. (2000). Behavioral responses of humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) to full-scale ATOC signals. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 108(4), 

1930–1937. 

Frasier, T. R., S. M. Koroscil, B. N. White, & J. D. Darling. (2011). Assessment of population substructure 

in relation to summer feeding ground use in the eastern North Pacific gray whale. Endangered 

Species Research, 14(1), 39–48. 

Friedlaender, A. S., E. L. Hazen, J. A. Goldbogen, A. K. Stimpert, J. Calambokidis, & B. L. Southall. (2016). 

Prey–mediated behavioral responses of feeding blue whales in controlled sound exposure 

experiments. Ecological Applications, 26(4), 1075–1085. 

Frisk, G. V. (2012). Noiseonomics: The relationship between ambient noise levels in the sea and global 

economic trends. Scientific Reports, 2(437). 

Fristrup, K. M., L. T. Hatch, & C. W. Clark. (2003). Variation in humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) song length in relation to low-frequency sound broadcasts. The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 113(6), 3411–3424. 

Fromm, D. M. (2009). Reconstruction of Acoustic Exposure on Orcas in Haro Strait (Acoustics).

Fujimori, L. (2002, January 18). Elephant seal visits Hawaii shores, Honolulu Star-Bulletin Hawaii News. 

Retrieved from http://starbulletin.com/2002/01/18/news/story7.html

Fulling, G. L., P. H. Thorson, & J. Rivers. (2011). Distribution and abundance estimates for cetaceans in 

the waters off Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Pacific Science, In 

Press, 46. 

Furin, C. G., F. A. von Hippel, B. Hagedorn, & T. M. O'Hara. (2013). Perchlorate trophic transfer increases 

tissue concentrations above ambient water exposure alone in a predatory fish. Journal of 

Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part A, 76(18), 1072–1084. 

Gailey, G., B. Wursig, & T. L. McDonald. (2007). Abundance, behavior, and movement patterns of 

western gray whales in relation to a 3-D seismic survey, Northeast Sakhalin Island, Russia. 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 134, 75–91. 

Gailey, G., O. Sychenko, T. McDonald, R. Racca, A. Rutenko, & K. Bröker. (2016). Behavioural responses 

of western gray whales to a 4-D seismic survey off northeastern Sakhalin Island, Russia. 

Endangered Species Research, 30, 53–71. 

Gallo-Reynoso, J. P., A. L. Figueroa-Carranza, & J. B. Le Boeuf. (2008). Foraging behavior of lactating 

Guadalupe fur seal females Avances en el Estudio de los Mamíferos de México (Publicaciones 

Especiales ed., Vol. III, pp. 595–614). A.C. Mexico D.F.: Asociación Mexicana de Mastozoologí.

Gannier, A. (2000). Distribution of cetaceans off the Society Islands (French Polynesia) as obtained from 

dedicated surveys. Aquatic Mammals, 26(2), 111–126. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-611

References

Gannier, A., & K. L. West. (2005). Distribution of the rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) around 

the Windward Islands, (French Polynesia). Pacific Science, 59, 17–24. 

Gannier, A., & E. Praca. (2007). SST fronts and the summer sperm whale distribution in the north-west 

Mediterranean Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK, 87(01), 187. 

Gannier, A., & G. Marty. (2015). Sperm whales ability to avoid approaching vessels is affected by sound 

reception in stratified waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 95(1), 283–288. 

Garrigue, C., M. Oremus, R. Dodémont, P. Bustamante, O. Kwiatek, G. Libeau, C. Lockyer, J. C. Vivier, & 

M. L. Dalebout. (2016). A mass stranding of seven Longman's beaked whales (Indopacetus 

pacificus) in New Caledonia, South Pacific. Marine Mammal Science. 

Gaskin, D. E. (1992). Status of the harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in Canada. Canadian FieldNaturalist, 106(1), 36–54. 

Gaspard, J. C., G. B. Bauer, R. L. Reep, K. Dziuk, A. Cardwell, L. Read, & D. A. Mann. (2012). Audiogram 

and auditory critical ratios of two Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 215(Pt 9), 1442–1447. 

Gassmann, M., S. M. Wiggins, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2015). Three-dimensional tracking of Cuvier’s beaked 

whales’ echolocation sounds using nested hydrophone arrays. Journal of the Acoustical Society 

of America, 138(4), 2483–2494. 

Gedamke, J., M. Ferguson, J. Harrison, L. Hatch, L. Henderson, M. B. Porter, B. L. Southall, & S. Van Parijs. 

(2016). Predicting Anthropogenic Noise Contributions to U.S. Waters. Adv Exp Med Biol, 875, 

341–347. 

Geijer, C. K. A., & A. J. Read. (2013). Mitigation of marine mammal bycatch in U.S. fisheries since 1994. 

Biological Conservation, 159, 54–60. 

Gende, S. M., A. N. Hendrix, K. R. Harris, B. Eichenlaub, J. Nielsen, & S. Pyare. (2011). A Bayesian 

approach for understanding the role of ship speed in whale-ship encounters. Ecological 

Applications, 21(6), 2232–2240. 

Gentry, R. L. (2009). Northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 788–791). Academic Press.

Geraci, J. R., J. Harwood, & V. J. Lounsbury. (1999). Marine Mammal Die-Offs Causes, Investigations, and 

Issues. In J. Twiss & R. Reeves (Eds.), Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals (pp. 

367–395). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Geraci, J. R., & V. J. Lounsbury. (2005). Marine Mammals Ashore: A Field Guide for Strandings (Second 

Edition). Baltimore, MD: National Aquarium in Baltimore.

Gerrodette, T., & T. Eguchi. (2011). Precautionary design of a marine protected area based on a habitat 

model. Endangered Species Research, 15, 159–166. 

Gervaise, C., Y. Simard, N. Roy, B. Kinda, & N. Menard. (2012). Shipping noise in whale habitat: 

characteristics, sources, budget, and impact on belugas in Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park 

hub. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 132(1), 76–89. 

Ghoul, A., & C. Reichmuth. (2014a). Hearing in sea otters (Enhydra lutris): audible frequencies 

determined from a controlled exposure approach. Aquatic Mammals, 40(3), 243–251. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-612

References

Ghoul, A., & C. Reichmuth. (2014b). Hearing in the sea otter (Enhydra lutris): auditory profiles for an 

amphibious marine carnivore. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol, 200(11), 

967–981. 

Gibble, C. M., & J. T. Harvey. (2015). Food habits of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) as an indicator 

of invasive species in San Francisco Bay, California. Marine Mammal Science, 31(3), 1014–1034. 

Gilbert, J. R., & N. Guldager. (1998). Status of Harbor and Gray Seal Populations in Northern New 

England. Woods Hole, MA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

Gill, A. B., I. Gloyne-Philips, J. Kimber, & P. Sigray. (2014). Marine Renewable Energy, Electromagnetic 

(EM) Fields and EM-Sensitive Animals. 61–79. 

Gilmartin, W. G., & J. Forcada. (2009). Monk seals Monachus monachus, M. tropicalis, and M. 

schauinslandi. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine 

Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 741–744). Academic Press.

Giorli, G., & W. W. L. Au. (2017). Spatio-temporal variation and seaonality of Odontocetes' foraging 

activity in the leeward side of the island of Hawaii. Deep-Sea Research I, 121, 202–209. 

Gjertz, I., & A. Børset. (1992). Pupping in the most northerly harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). Marine 

Mammal Science, 8(2), 103–109. 

Godard-Codding, C. A. J., R. Clark, M. C. Fossi, L. Marsili, S. Maltese, A. G. West, L. Valenzuela, V. 

Rowntree, I. Polyak, J. C. Cannon, K. Pinkerton, N. Rubio-Cisneros, S. L. Mesnick, S. B. Cox, I. Kerr, 

R. Payne, & J. J. Stegeman. (2011). Pacific Ocean–Wide Profile of CYP1A1 Expression, Stable 

Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Ratios, and Organic Contaminant Burden in Sperm Whale Skin 

Biopsies. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(3), 337–343. 

Goertner, J. F. (1982). Prediction of Underwater Explosion Safe Ranges for Sea Mammals. Dahlgren, VA: 

Naval Surface Weapons Center.

Goldbogen, J. A., J. Calambokidis, R. E. Shadwick, E. M. Oleson, M. A. McDonald, & J. A. Hildebrand. 

(2006). Kinematics of foraging dives and lunge-feeding in fin whales. The Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 209(Pt 7), 1231–1244. 

Goldbogen, J. A., B. L. Southall, S. L. DeRuiter, J. Calambokidis, A. S. Friedlaender, E. L. Hazen, E. A. 

Falcone, G. S. Schorr, A. Douglas, D. J. Moretti, C. Kyburg, M. F. McKenna, & P. L. Tyack. (2013). 

Blue whales respond to simulated mid-frequency military sonar. Proc Biol Sci, 280(1765), 

20130657. 

Goldbogen, J. A., E. L. Hazen, A. S. Friedlaender, J. Calambokidis, S. L. DeRuiter, A. K. Stimpert, B. L. 

Southall, & D. Costa. (2015). Prey density and distribution drive the three-dimensional foraging 

strategies of the largest filter feeder. Functional Ecology, 29(7), 951–961. 

Gong, Z., A. D. Jain, D. Tran, D. H. Yi, F. Wu, A. Zorn, P. Ratilal, & N. C. Makris. (2014). Ecosystem scale 

acoustic sensing reveals humpback whale behavior synchronous with herring spawning 

processes and re-evaluation finds no effect of sonar on humpback song occurrence in the Gulf of 

Maine in fall 2006. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e104733. 

Goodman-Lowe, G. D. (1998). Diet of the Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) from the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands during 1991–1994. Marine Biology, 132, 535–546. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-613

References

Gordon, J., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M. P. Simmonds, R. Swift, & D. Thompson. (2003). A review 

of the effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. Marine Technology Society Journal, 37(4), 

16–34. 

Gosho, M., P. Gearin, R. Jenkinson, J. Laake, L. Mazzuca, D. Kubiak, J. Calambokidis, W. Megill, B. 

Gisborne, D. Goley, C. Tombach, J. Darling, & V. Deecke. (2011). Movements and diet of gray 

whales (Eschrichtius robustus) off Kodiak Island, Alaska, 2002–2005 (Paper SC/M11/AWMP2 

presented to the International Whaling Commission AWMP workshop 28 March-1 April 2011).

Götz, T., & V. M. Janik. (2010). Aversiveness of sounds in phocid seals: Psycho-physiological factors, 

learning processes and motivation. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 213, 1536–1548. 

Götz, T., & V. M. Janik. (2011). Repeated elicitation of the acoustic startle reflex leads to sensation in 

subsequent avoidance behaviour and induces fear conditioning. BMC Neuroscience, 12(30), 13. 

Graham, I. M., E. Pirotta, N. D. Merchant, A. Farcas, T. R. Barton, B. Cheney, G. D. Hastie, & P. M. 

Thompson. (2017). Responses of bottlenose dolphins and harbor porpoises to impact and 

vibration piling noise during harbor construction. Ecosphere, 8(5), 1–16. 

Graham, S. E., & B. Saunders. (2015). Occurrence, Distribution, and Population Estimates of Marine 

Mammals near Silver Strand Training Complex and San Diego Bay, CA (Prepared for 

Commander, Pacific Fleet. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) 

Southwest, California, February 2015). San Diego, CA: SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific.

Greaves, F. C., R. H. Draeger, O. A. Brines, J. S. Shaver, & E. L. Corey. (1943). An experimental study of 

concussion. United States Naval Medical Bulletin, 41(1), 339–352. 

Green, D. M. (1994). Sound's effects on marine mammals need investigation. EOS, 75(27), 305–306. 

Green, D. M., H. A. DeFerrari, D. McFadden, J. S. Pearse, A. N. Popper, W. J. Richardson, S. H. Ridgway, & 

P. L. Tyack. (1994). Low-Frequency Sound and Marine Mammals: Current Knowledge and 

Research Needs. Washington, DC: Ocean Studies Board, Commission on Geosciences, 

Environment, and Resources, National Research Council.

Green, G. A., J. J. Brueggeman, R. A. Grotefendt, C. E. Bowlby, M. L. Bonnell, & K. C. Balcomb, III. (1992). 

Cetacean distribution and abundance off Oregon and Washington, 1989–1990. Los Angeles, CA: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service.

Gregory, P. R., & A. A. Rowden. (2001). Behaviour patterns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) 

relative to tidal state, time-of-day, and boat traffic in Cardigan Bay, West Wales. Aquatic 

Mammals, 27.2, 105–114. 

Griffiths, E. T., & J. Barlow. (2016). Cetacean acoustic detections from free-floating vertical hydrophone 

arrays in the southern California Current. JASA Express Letters, 140(5), EL399. 

Grigg, E. K., A. P. Klimley, S. G. Allen, D. E. Green, D. L. Elliott-Fisk, & H. Markowitz. (2009). Spatial and 

seasonal relationships between Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) and their prey, at 

multiple scales. Fishery Bulletin, 107(3), 359–372. 

Guan, S., B. L. Southall, J. F. Vignola, J. A. Judge, & D. Turo. (2017). Sonar Inter-Ping Noise Field 

Characterization During Cetacean Behavioral Response Studies off Southern California. 

Acoustical Physics, 63(2), 204–215. 

Guerra, M., S. M. Dawson, T. E. Brough, & W. J. Rayment. (2014). Effects of boats on the surface and 

acoustic behaviour of an endangered population of bottlenose dolphins. Endangered Species 

Research, 24(3), 221–236. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-614

References

Gulland, F. M. D., M. H. Perez-Cotes, J. Urban R., L. Rojas-Bracho, G. J. Ylitalo, J. Weir, S. A. Norman, M. 

M. Muto, D. J. Ruch, C. Kreuder, & T. Rowles. (2005). Eastern North Pacific Gray Whale 

(Eschrichtius robustus) Unusual Mortality Event, 1999-2000. NOAA.

Haelters, J., V. Dulière, L. Vigin, & S. Degraer. (2014). Towards a numerical model to simulate the 

observed displacement of harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena due to pile driving in Belgian 

waters. Hydrobiologia, 756(1), 105–116. 

Hain, J. H. W., S. L. Ellis, R. D. Kenney, P. J. Clapham, B. K. Gray, M. T. Weinrich, & I. G. Babb. (1995). 

Apparent bottom feeding by humpback whales on Stellwagen Bank. Marine Mammal Science, 

11(4), 464–479. 

Hall, A. J., K. Hugunin, R. Deaville, R. J. Law, C. R. Allchin, & P. D. Jepson. (2006). The risk of infection 

from polychlorinated biphenyl exposure in the harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena): A casecontrol approach. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(5), 704–711. 

Hamer, D. J., S. J. Childerhouse, & N. J. Gales. (2010). Mitigating operational interactions between 

odontocetes and the longline fishing industry: A preliminary global review of the problem and of 

potential solutions. Tasmania, Australia: International Whaling Commission.

Hamilton, T. A., J. V. Redfern, J. Barlow, L. T. Ballance, T. Gerrodette, R. S. Holt, K. A. Forney, & B. L. 

Taylor. (2009). Atlas of Cetacean Sightings for Southwest Fisheries Science Center Cetacean and 

Ecosystem Surveys: 1986–2005 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-440). La Jolla, CA: 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Hance, A. J., E. D. Robin, J. B. Halter, N. Lewiston, D. A. Robin, L. Cornell, M. Caligiuri, & J. Theodore. 

(1982). Hormonal changes and enforced diving in the harbor seal Phoca vitulina. II. Plasma 

catecholamines. American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative 

Physiology, 242(5), R528–R532. 

Hanlon, R. T., & J. B. Messenger. (1996). Cephalopod Behaviour. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University 

Press.

Hanni, K. D., D. J. Long, R. E. Jones, P. Pyle, & L. E. Morgan. (1997). Sightings and strandings of Guadalupe 

fur seals in central and northern California, 1988–1995. Journal of Mammalogy, 78(2), 684–690. 

Hansen, A. M., C. E. Bryan, K. West, & B. A. Jensen. (2016). Trace element concentrations in liver of 16 

species of cetaceans stranded on Pacific Islands from 1997 through 2013. Archives of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 70(1), 75–95. 

Hanson, M. T., & R. H. Defran. (1993). The behavior and feeding ecology of the Pacific coast bottlenose 

dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. Aquatic Mammals, 19(3), 127–142. 

Harcourt, R., V. Pirotta, G. Heller, V. Peddemors, & D. Slip. (2014). A whale alarm fails to deter migrating 

humpback whales: an empirical test. Endangered Species Research, 25(1), 35–42. 

Hardesty, B. D., & C. Wilcox. (2017). A risk framework for tackling marine debris. Royal Society of 

Chemistry, Analytical Methods(Paper), 8. 

Harris, C., & L. Thomas. (2015). Status and future of research on the behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to U.S. Navy sonar (CREEM Technical Report 2015-3). University of St Andrews.

Harris, C. M., D. Sadykova, S. L. DeRuiter, P. L. Tyack, P. J. O. Miller, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, & L. 

Thomas. (2015). Dose response severity functions for acoustic disturbance in cetaceans using 

recurrent event survival analysis. Ecosphere, 6(11), art236. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-615

References

Harwood, J., & S. L. King. (2014). The Sensitivity of UK Marine Mammal Populations to Marine 

Renewables Developments. Submitted to the Natural Environment Research Council 

(NERC)(unpublished).

Hastie, G. D., C. Donovan, T. Gotz, & V. M. Janik. (2014). Behavioral responses by grey seals (Halichoerus 

grypus) to high frequency sonar. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 79(1-2), 205–210. 

Hatch, L. T., & A. J. Wright. (2007). A brief review of anthropogenic sound in the oceans. International 

Journal of Comparative Psychology, 20, 121–133. 

Hatch, L. T., C. W. Clark, S. M. Van Parijs, A. S. Frankel, & D. W. Ponirakis. (2012). Quantifying loss of 

acoustic communication space for right whales in and around a U.S. National Marine Sanctuary. 

Conservation Biology, 26(6), 983–994. 

Hatfield, B. (2017). [Personal Communication to John Ugoretz (Point Mugu Sustainability Office) 

regarding sea otters rarely sighted within the Southern California Range Complex].

Hatfield, B. B., D. Marks, M. T. Tinker, K. Nolan, & J. Peirce. (1988). Attacks on Sea Otters by Killer 

whales. Marine Mammal Science, 14(4), 888–894. 

Hauksson, E., & V. Bogason. (1997). Comparative feeding of grey (Halichoerus grypus) and common seals 

(Phoca vitulina) in coastal waters of Iceland, with a note on the diet of hooded (Cystophora 

cristata) and harp seals (Phoca groenlandica). Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science, 22, 

125–135. 

Haviland-Howell, G., A. S. Frankel, C. M. Powell, A. Bocconcelli, R. L. Herman, & L. S. Sayigh. (2007). 

Recreational boating traffic: A chronic source of anthropogenic noise in the Wilmington, North 

Carolina Intracoastal Waterway. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 122(1), 151–160. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal Research Program. (2015). Posting regarding Hawaiian monk seal toxoplasmosis. 

Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/HMSRP/[11/23/2015 15:08:23]

HDR. (2011). Jacksonville (JAX) Southeast Anti-Submarine Warfare Integration Training Initiative 

(SEASWITI) Marine Species Monitoring Vessel Monitoring Surveys, Trip Report, 3-5 December 

2010. Prepared by HDR Environmental Operations & Construction, Inc. (HDR EOC) under 

Contract # N62470-10-D-3011.

HDR. (2012). Summary Report: Compilation of Visual Survey Effort and Sightings for Marine Species 

Monitoring in the Hawaii Range Complex, 2005–2012 (Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific 

Fleet, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific 

(NAVFAC), EV2 Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, 96860-3134, under contract 

#N62470-10-D-3011, issued to HDR, Inc.). San Diego, CA: HDR Inc.

Heath, C. B., & W. F. Perrin. (2009). California, Galapagos, and Japanese sea lions Zalophus californianus, 

Z. wollebaeki, and Z. japonicus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), 

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 170–176). Academic Press.

Heckler, V. T., B. M. Allen, & L. A. Jemison. (2015). Human-Caused Injury and Mortality of NMFSManaged Alaska Marine Mammal Stocks, 2009–2013. Alaska Fisheries Science Center.

Heenehan, H. L., J. A. Tyne, L. Bejder, S. M. Van Parijs, & D. W. Johnston. (2016). Passive acoustic 

monitoring of coastally associated Hawaiian spinner dolphins, Stenella longirostris, groundtruthed through visual surveys. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(1), 206. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-616

References

Heenehan, H. L., S. M. Van Parijs, L. Bejder, J. A. Tyne, & D. W. Johnston. (2017). Using acoustics to 

prioritize management decisions to protect coastal dolphins: A case study using Hawaiian 

spinner dolphins. Marine Policy, 75, 84–90. 

Heezen, B. C. (1957). Whales entangled in deep sea cables. Deep Sea Research, 4(2), 105–115. 

Heffner, R. S., & H. E. Heffner. (1982). Hearing in the elephant (Elephas maximus): absolute sensitivity, 

frequency discrimination, and sound localization. Journal of Comparative and Physiological 

Psychology, 96(6), 926–944. 

Heinis, F., & C. A. F. De Jong. (2015). Framework for assessing ecological and cumulative effects of 

offshore wind farms: Cumulative Effects of Impulsive Underwater Sound on Marine Mammals

(TNO Report R10335-A).

Heise, K. (1997). Life history and population parameters of Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens). Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 47, 817–826. 

Heithaus, M. R., & L. M. Dill. (2008). Feeding strategies and tactics. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 1100–1103). Academic Press.

Helble, T. A., E. E. Henderson, G. R. Ierley, & S. W. Martin. (2016). Swim track kinematics and calling 

behavior attributed to Byrde's whales on the Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America. 

Helker, V. T., M. M. Muto, K. Savage, S. Teerlink, L. A. Jemison, K. Wilkinson, & J. Jannot. (2017). HumanCaused Mortality and Injury of NMFS-Managed Alaska Marine Mammal Stocks, 2011–2015

(NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-354). Seattle, WA: Alaska Fisheries Science Center.

Henderson, E. E., J. A. Hildebrand, M. H. Smith, & E. A. Falcone. (2012). The behavioral context of 

common dolphin (Delphinus sp.) vocalizations. Marine Mammal Science, 28(3), 439–460. 

Henderson, E. E., K. A. Forney, J. P. Barlow, J. A. Hildebrand, A. B. Douglas, J. Calambokidis, & W. J. 

Sydeman. (2014a). Effects of fluctuations in sea-surface temperature on the occurrence of small 

cetaceans off Southern California. Fishery Bulletin, 112(2-3), 159–177. 

Henderson, E. E., M. H. Smith, M. Gassmann, S. M. Wiggins, A. B. Douglas, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2014b). 

Delphinid behavioral responses to incidental mid-frequency active sonar. The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 136(4), 2003–2014. 

Henderson, E. E., R. Manzano-Roth, S. W. Martin, & B. Matsuyama. (2015a). Behavioral Responses of 

Beaked Whales to Mid-Frequency Active Sonar on the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Hawaii. 

Paper presented at the Society for Marine Mammalogy 20th Biennial Conference, Dunedin, New 

Zealand. 

Henderson, E. E., R. A. Manzano-Roth, S. W. Martin, & B. Matsuyama. (2015b). Impacts of U.S. Navy 

training events on beaked whale foraging dives in Hawaiian waters: Update. San Diego, CA: 

SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific.

Henderson, E. E., S. W. Martin, R. Manzano-Roth, & B. M. Matsuyama. (2016). Occurrence and habitat 

use of foraging Blainville's beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) on a U.S. Navy range in 

Hawai'i. Aquatic Mammals, 42(4). 

Henkel, L. A., & J. T. Harvey. (2008). Abundance and distribution of marine mammals in nearshore 

waters of Monterey Bay, California. California Fish and Game, 94(1), 1–17. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-617

References

Herman, L. M., C. S. Baker, P. H. Forestell, & R. C. Antinoja. (1980). Right whale, Balaena glacialis,

sightings near Hawaii: A clue to the wintering grounds? Marine Ecology - Progress Series, 2, 271–

275. 

Hermannsen, L., K. Beedholm, J. Tougaard, & P. T. Madsen. (2014). High frequency components of ship 

noise in shallow water with a discussion of implications for harbor porpoises (Phocoena 

phocoena). The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 136(4), 1640–1653. 

Hewitt, R. P. (1985). Reaction of dolphins to a survey vessel: Effects on census data. Fishery Bulletin, 

83(2), 187–193. 

Heyning, J. E. (1989). Cuvier's beaked whale, Ziphius cavirostris G. Cuvier, 1823. In S. H. Ridgway & R. 

Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 4, pp. 289–308). San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press.

Heyning, J. E., & W. F. Perrin. (1994). Evidence for two species of common dolphins (Genus Delphinus) 

from the eastern north Pacific. Contributions in Science, 442, 1–35. 

Heyning, J. E., & J. G. Mead. (1996). Suction feeding in beaked whales: Morphological and observational 

evidence. Los Angeles County Museum Contributions in Science, 464, 1–12. 

Heyning, J. E., & J. G. Mead. (2009). Cuvier's beaked whale, Ziphius cavirostris. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig 

& J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 294–295). Academic 

Press.

Hickmott, L. S. (2005). Diving behaviour and foraging behaviour and foraging ecology of Blainville's and 

Cuvier's beaked whales in the Northern Bahamas. (Master of Research in Environmental Biology 

Master's thesis). University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UK.

Hidalgo-Ruz, V., L. Gutow, R. C. Thompson, & M. Thiel. (2012). Microplastics in the Marine Environment: 

A Review of the Methods Used for Identification and Quantification. Environmental Science & 

Technology, 46, 3060–3075. 

Hildebrand, J. (2005). Impacts of anthropogenic sound. In J. E. Reynolds, III, W. F. Perrin, R. R. Reeves, T. 

J. Ragen & S. Montgomery (Eds.), Marine Mammal Research: Conservation beyond Crisis (pp. 

101–123). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

Hildebrand, J. A. (2009). Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 395, 5–20. 

Hildebrand, J. A., S. Baumann-Pickering, & M. A. McDonald. (2009). Beaked Whale Presence, Habitat, 

and Sound Production in the North Pacific (Unpublished technical report on file).

Hildebrand, J. A., S. Baumann-Pickering, A. Sirovic, J. Buccowich, A. Debich, S. Johnson, S. Kerosky, L. 

Roche, A. S. Berga, & S. M. Wiggins. (2012). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine Mammals in 

the SOCAL Naval Training Area 2011-2012. Marine Physical Laboratory, Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography, University of California San Diego.

Hill, M., A. D. Ligon, M. H. Deakos, U. Adam, E. Norris, & E. M. Oleson. (2011). Cetacean Surveys of Guam 

and CNMI Waters: August–September, 2011 (MIRC Survey Report FY2011). Honolulu, HI: Pacific 

Islands Fisheries Science Center.

Hindell, M. A., & W. F. Perrin. (2009). Elephant seals, Mirounga angustirostris and M. leonina. In W. F. 

Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 

364–368). Academic Press.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-618

References

Hochachka, P. W., G. C. Liggins, G. P. Guyton, R. C. Schneider, K. S. Stanek, W. E. Hurford, R. K. Creasy, D. 

G. Zapol, & W. M. Zapol. (1995). Hormonal regulatory adjustments during voluntary diving in 

Weddell seals. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology B, 112, 361–375. 

Hodder, J., R. F. Brown, & C. Cziesla. (1998). The northern elephant seal in Oregon: A pupping range 

extension and onshore occurrence. Marine Mammal Science, 14(4), 873–881. 

Hoelzel, A. R., E. M. Dorsey, & J. Stern. (1989). The foraging specializations of individual minke whales. 

Animal Behaviour, 38, 786–794. 

Hoelzel, A. R. (1999). Impact of population bottlenecks on genetic variation and the importance of lifehistory; a case study of the northern elephant seal. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 68, 

23–29. 

Hoelzel, A. R., J. Hey, M. E. Dahlheim, C. Nicholson, V. Burkanov, & N. Black. (2007). Evolution of 

population structure in a highly social top predator, the killer whale. Molecular biology and 

evolution, 24(6), 1407–1415. 

Hoelzel, A. R. E. (2002). Marine Mammal Biology: An Evolutionary Approach: Blackwell Publishing.

Hofmeyr, G. J. G., M. N. Bester, S. P. Kirkman, C. Lydersen, & K. M. Kovacs. (2006). Entanglement of 

Antarctic fur seals at Bouvetoya, Southern Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52, 1077–1080. 

Holst, M., C. R. Greene, Jr., W. J. Richardson, T. L. McDonald, K. Bay, S. J. Schwartz, & G. Smith. (2011). 

Responses of Pinnipeds to Navy Missile Launches at San Nicolas Island, California. Aquatic 

Animals, 37(2), 139–150. 

Holt, M. M., D. P. Noren, V. Veirs, C. K. Emmons, & S. Veirs. (2008). Speaking up: Killer whales (Orcinus 

orca) increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise. The Journal of Acoustical Society 

of America, 125(1), EL27–EL32. 

Holt, M. M., D. P. Noren, & C. K. Emmons. (2011). Effects of noise levels and call types on the source 

levels of killer whale calls. J Acoust Soc Am, 130(5), 3100–3106. 

Holt, M. M., D. P. Noren, R. C. Dunkin, & T. M. Williams. (2015). Vocal performance affects metabolic 

rate in dolphins: implications for animals communicating in noisy environments. The Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 218(Pt 11), 1647–1654. 

Hooker, S. K., R. W. Baird, & A. Fahlman. (2009). Could beaked whales get the bends? Effect of diving 

behaviour and physiology on modelled gas exchange for three species: Ziphius cavirostris, 

Mesoplodon densirostris and Hyperoodon ampullatus. Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology.

Hooker, S. K., A. Fahlman, M. J. Moore, N. Aguilar de Soto, Y. Bernaldo de Quiros, A. O. Brubakk, D. P. 

Costa, A. M. Costidis, S. Dennison, K. J. Falke, A. Fernandez, M. Ferrigno, J. R. Fitz-Clarke, M. M. 

Garner, D. S. Houser, P. D. Jepson, D. R. Ketten, P. H. Kvadsheim, P. T. Madsen, N. W. Pollock, D. 

S. Rotstein, T. K. Rowles, S. E. Simmons, W. Van Bonn, P. K. Weathersby, M. J. Weise, T. M. 

William, & P. L. Tyack. (2012). Deadly diving? Physiological and behavioural management of 

decompression stress in diving mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society Bulletin, 279, 1041–

1050. 

Hoover-Miller, A., A. Bishop, J. Pewitt, S. Conlon, & C. Jezierski. (2013). Efficacy of Coluntary Mitigation 

in Reducing Harbor Seal Disturbance. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 77(4), 689–700. 

Hoover, A. A. (1988). Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina). In J. W. Lentfer (Ed.), Selected Marine Mammals of 

Alaska: Species Accounts with Research and Management Recommendations (pp. 125–157). 

Washington, DC: Marine Mammal Commission.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-619

References

Horwood, J. (2009). Sei whale, Balaenoptera borealis. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 1001–1003). San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press.

Horwood, J. W. (1987). The Sei Whale: Population Biology, Ecology, and Management. New York, NY: 

Croom Helm.

Hotchkin, C., & S. Parks. (2013). The Lombard effect and other noise-induced vocal modifications: insight 

from mammalian communication systems. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc, 88(4), 809–824. 

Houck, W. J., & T. A. Jefferson. (1999). Dall's Porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli (True, 1885). In S. H. Ridgway 

& R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals Vol 6: The second book of dolphins and 

porpoises (pp. 443–472). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Houser, D. S., R. Howard, & S. Ridgway. (2001). Can diving-induced tissue nitrogen supersaturation 

increase the chance of acoustically driven bubble growth in marine mammals? Journal of 

Theoretical Biology, 213, 183–195. 

Houser, D. S., L. A. Dankiewicz-Talmadge, T. K. Stockard, & P. J. Ponganis. (2009). Investigation of the 

potential for vascular bubble formation in a repetitively diving dolphin. The Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 213, 52–62. 

Houser, D. S., L. C. Yeates, & D. E. Crocker. (2011). Cold stress induces an adrenocortical response in 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 42(4), 565–571. 

Houser, D. S., S. W. Martin, & J. J. Finneran. (2013). Behavioral responses of California sea lions to midfrequency (3250-3450 Hz) sonar signals. Marine Environmental Researcgh, 92, 268–278. 

Houser, D. S., & J. Mulsow. (2016). Acoustics. In M. A. Castellini & J. A. E. Mellish (Eds.), Marine Mammal 

Physiology: Requisites for Ocean Living (pp. 245–268). CRC Press.

Huggins, J. L., S. A. Raverty, S. A. Norman, J. Calambokidis, J. K. Gaydos, D. A. Duffield, D. M. Lambourn, J. 

M. Rice, B. Hanson, K. Wilkinson, S. J. Jeffries, B. Norberg, & L. Barre. (2015). Increased harbor 

porpoise mortality in the Pacific Northwest, USA: understanding when higher levels may be 

normal. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 115(2), 93–102. 

Hui, C. A. (1985). Undersea topography and the comparative distribution of two pelagic cetaceans. 

Fishery Bulletin, 83(3), 472–475. 

Hullar, T. L., S. L. Fales, H. F. Hemond, P. Koutrakis, W. H. Schlesinger, R. R. Sobonya, J. M. Teal, & J. G. 

Watson. (1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff A Select Panel Report to the Undersecretary of 

Defense for Environmental Security. U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Research Laboratory.

Hurford, W. E., P. W. Hochachka, R. C. Schneider, G. P. Guyton, K. S. Stanek, D. G. Zapol, G. C. Liggins, & 

W. M. Zapol. (1996). Splenic contraction, catecholamine release, and blood volume 

redistribution during diving in the Weddell seal. Journal of Applied Physiology, 80(1), 298–306. 

Hwang, A., R. H. Defran, M. Bearzi, D. Maldini, C. A. Saylan, A. R. Lang, K. J. Dudzik, O. R. Guzon-Zatarain, 

D. L. Kelly, & D. W. Weller. (2014). Coastal Range and Movements of Common Bottlenose 

Dolphins off California and Baja California, Mexico. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy 

of Science, 113(1), 1–13. 

Illingworth and Rodkin. (2015). Underwater and airborne acoustic monitoring for the U.S. Navy Elevated 

Causeway (ELCAS) removal at the JEB Little Creek Naval Station: 10–11 September 2015.

Illingworth and Rodkin. (2016). Navy Pile Driving Report - in press.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-620

References

Ilyashenko, V., P. J. Chapham, & R. L. Brownell. (2013). Soviet catches of whales in the North Pacific: 

revised totals. Journal of Cetacean Resource Management, 13(1), 59–71. 

Ilyashenko, V., R. L. Brownell, & P. J. Chapham. (2014). Distribution of Soviet catches of sperm whales 

(Physeter macrocephalus) in the North Pacific. Endangered Species Research, 25, 249–263. 

Ilyashenko, V., & P. J. Chapham. (2014). Too Much Is Never Enough: The Cautionary Tale of Soviet Illegal 

Whaling. Marine Fisheries Review, 76(1-2), 21. 

Ilyashenko, V., & K. Zharikov. (2014). Aboriginal Harvest of Gray and Bowhead Whales in the Russian 

Federation In 2013 

Ilyashenko, V., P. J. Chapham, & R. L. Brownell. (2015). New data on Soviet blue whale catches in the 

eastern North Pacific in 1972. International Whaling Committee Scientific Committee.

Inger, R., M. J. Attrill, S. Bearhop, A. C. Broderick, W. James Grecian, D. J. Hodgson, C. Mills, E. Sheehan, 

S. C. Votier, M. J. Witt, & B. J. Godley. (2009). Marine renewable energy: potential benefits to 

biodiversity? An urgent call for research. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(6), 1145–1153. 

International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2012). Report of the 11th Meeting of the Western Gray 

Whale Advisory Panel. Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved 

International Whaling Commission. (2014). Report of the Workshop on the Rangewide Review of the 

Population Structure and Status of North Pacific Gray Whales. Paper presented at the 14th 

Meeting of the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel.

Isojunno, S., & P. J. O. Miller. (2015). Sperm whale response to tag boat presence: biologically informed 

hidden state models quantify lost feeding opportunities. Ecosphere, 6(1), 1–6. 

Isojunno, S., C. Curé, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. A. Lam, P. L. Tyack, P. Jacobus, P. J. Wensveen, & P. J. O. Miller. 

(2016). Sperm whales reduce foraging effort during exposure to 1–2 kHz sonar and killer whale 

sounds. Ecological Applications, 26(1), 77–93. 

Iverson, S., J. Piche, & W. Blanchard. (2011). Hawaiian Monk Seals and Their Prey: Assessing 

Characteristics of Prey Species Fatty Acid Signatures and Consequences for Estimating Monk Seal 

Diets Using Quantitative Fatty Acid Signature Analysis. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

Jacobsen, J. K., L. Massey, & F. Gulland. (2010). Fatal ingestion of floating net debris by two sperm 

whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(5), 765–767. 

Jahoda, M., C. L. Lafortuna, N. Biassoni, C. Almirante, A. Azzellino, S. Panigada, M. Zanardelli, & G. N. Di 

Sciara. (2003). Mediterranean fin whale's (Balaenoptera physalus) response to small vessels and 

biopsy sampling assessed through passive tracking and timing of respiration. Marine Mammal 

Science, 19(1), 96–110. 

Janik, V. M., & P. M. Thompson. (1996). Changes in surfacing patterns of bottlenose dolphins in response 

to boat traffic. Marine Mammal Science, 12(4), 597–602. 

Jansen, J. K., P. L. Boveng, S. P. Dahle, & J. L. Bengtson. (2010). Reaction of harbor seals to cruise ships. 

Journal of Wildlife Management, 74(6), 1186–1194. 

Jansen, J. K., G. M. Brady, J. M. Ver Hoef, & P. Boveng. (2015). Spatially Estimating Disturbance of Harbor 

Seals (Phoca vitulina). PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0129798. 

Jaquet, N., & H. Whitehead. (1996). Scale-dependent correlation of sperm whale distribution with 

environmental features and productiviity in the South Pacific. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

135, 1–9. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-621

References

Jaramillo-Legorreta, A. M., L. Rojas-Bracho, & T. Gerrodette. (1999). A new abundance estimate for 

vaquitas: First step for recovery. Marine Mammal Science, 15(4), 957–973. 

Jay, C. V., A. S. Fischbach, & A. A. Kochnev. (2012). Walrus areas of use in the Chukchi Sea during sparse 

sea ice cover. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 468, 1–13. 

Jefferson, T. A. (1991). Observations on the distribution and behavior of Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides 

dalli) in Monterey Bay, California. Aquatic Mammals, 17(1), 12–19. 

Jefferson, T. A., S. Leatherwood, & M. A. Webber. (1993). Marine mammals of the world: FAO species 

identification guide. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Jefferson, T. A., & S. Leatherwood. (1994). Lagenodelphis hosei. Mammalian Species, 470, 1–5. 

Jefferson, T. A., & S. K. Lynn. (1994). Marine mammal sightings in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, 

summer 1991. Caribbean Journal of Science, 30(1–2), 83–89. 

Jefferson, T. A., & B. E. Curry. (1996). Acoustic methods of reducing or eliminating marine mammalfishery interactions: do they work? Ocean & Coastal Management, 31(1), 41–70. 

Jefferson, T. A., & N. B. Barros. (1997). Peponocephala electra. Mammalian Species, 553, 1–6. 

Jefferson, T. A., & K. Van Waerebeek. (2002). The taxonomic status of the nominal dolphin species 

Delphinus tropicalis van Bree, 1971. Marine Mammal Science, 18(4), 787–818. 

Jefferson, T. A., D. Fertl, M. Michael, & T. D. Fagin. (2006). An unusual encounter with a mixed school of 

melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra) and rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) 

at Rota, Northern Mariana Islands. Micronesica, 38(2), 23–244. 

Jefferson, T. A., L. Karczmarski, K. Laidre, G. O’Corry-Crowe, R. R. Reeves, L. Rojas-Bracho, E. R. Secchi, E. 

Slooten, B. D. Smith, J. Y. Wang, & K. Zhou. (2008a). Delphinapterus leucas. International Union 

for Conservation of Nature 2010. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of 

Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/6335/0

Jefferson, T. A., M. A. Webber, & R. L. Pitman. (2008b). Marine Mammals of the World: A Comprehensive 

Guide to their Identification. London, UK: Elsevier.

Jefferson, T. A. (2009). Dall's porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 296–298). Academic Press.

Jefferson, T. A., M. A. Smultea, & C. A. Bacon. (2014). Southern California Bight marine mammal density 

and abundance from aerial surveys, 2008–2013. Journal of Marine Animals and Their Ecology, 

7(2), 14–30. 

Jefferson, T. A., M. A. Webber, & R. L. Pitman. (2015). Marine Mammals of the World: A Comprehensive 

Guide to Their Identification (2nd ed.): Academic Press.

Jensen, A. S., & G. K. Silber. (2003). Large Whale Ship Strike Database. Retrieved from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/overview/publicat.html

Jepson, P. D., M. Arbelo, R. Deaville, I. A. R. Patterson, P. Castro, J. R. Baker, E. Degollada, H. M. Ross, P. 

Herráez, A. M. Pocknell, F. Rodriguez, F. E. Howie, A. Espinosa, R. J. Reid, J. R. Jaber, V. Martin, A. 

A. Cunningham, & A. Fernandez. (2003). Gas-bubble lesions in stranded cetaceans: Was sonar 

responsible for a spate of whale deaths after an Atlantic military exercise? Nature, 425, 575–

576. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-622

References

Jepson, P. D., P. M. Bennett, R. Deaville, C. R. Allchin, J. R. Baker, & R. J. Law. (2005). Relationships 

between polychlorinated biphenyls and health status in harbor porpoises (Phocoena Phocoena) 

stranded in the United Kingdom. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24(1), 238–248. 

Jepson, P. D., & R. J. Law. (2016, 17 June 2016). Persistent pollutants, persistent threats; Polychlorinated 

biphenyls remain a major threat to marine apex predators such as orcas. Science, 352, 1388–

1389.

Johanos, T. C., A. L. Harting, T. A. Wurth, & J. D. Baker. (2014). Range-wide movement patterns of 

Hawaiian monk seals. Marine Mammal Science, 30(3), 1165–1174. 

Johnson, A., & A. Acevedo-Gutiérrez. (2007). Regulation compliance by vessels and disturbance of 

harbour seals (Phoca vitulina). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 85, 290–294. 

Johnson, C. S., M. W. McManus, & D. Skaar. (1989). Masked tonal hearing thresholds in the beluga 

whale. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85(6), 2651–2654. 

Johnston, D. W., M. E. Chapla, L. E. Williams, & D. K. Matthila. (2007). Identification of humpback whale 

Megaptera novaeangliae wintering habitat in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands using spatial 

habitat modeling. Endangered Species Research. 

Jones, E. L., G. D. Hastie, S. Smout, J. Onoufriou, N. D. Merchant, K. L. Brookes, & D. Thompson. (2017). 

Seals and shipping: quantifying population risk and individual exposure to vessel noise. Journal 

of Applied Ecology. 

Jones, M. L., & S. L. Swartz. (2009). Gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. 

M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 503–511). Academic Press.

Kajimura, H. (1984). Opportunistic Feeding of the Northern Fur Seal, Callorhinus ursinus, in the Eastern 

North Pacific Ocean and Eastern Bering Sea. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine Fisheries Service.

Kanda, N., M. Goto, H. Kato, M. V. McPhee, & L. A. Pastene. (2007). Population genetic structure of 

Bryde's whales (Balaenoptera brydei) at the inter-oceanic and trans-equatorial levels. 

Conservative Genetics, 8(4), 853–864. 

Karlsson, S., & A. C. Albertsson. (1998). Biodegradable Polymers and Environmental Interaction. Polymer 

Engineering and Science, 38(8), 1251–1253. 

Karpovich, S. A., J. P. Skinner, J. E. Mondragon, & G. M. Blundell. (2015). Combined physiological and 

behavioral observations to assess the influence of vessel encounters on harbor seals in glacial 

fjords of southeast Alaska. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 473, 110–120. 

Kastak, D., B. L. Southall, R. J. Schusterman, & C. R. Kastak. (2005). Underwater temporary threshold 

shift in pinnipeds: Effects of noise level and duration. The Journal of Acoustical Society of 

America, 118(5), 3154–3163. 

Kastak, D., C. Reichmuth, M. M. Holt, J. Mulsow, B. L. Southall, & R. J. Schusterman. (2007). Onset, 

growth, and recovery of in-air temporary threshold shift in a California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus). The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 122(5), 2916–2924. 

Kastelein, R., N. Jennings, W. Verboom, D. de Haan, & N. M. Schooneman. (2006). Differences in the 

response of a striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) and a harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena) to an acoustic alarm. Marine Environmental Research, 61, 363–378. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-623

References

Kastelein, R. A., D. de Haan, N. Vaughan, C. Staal, & N. M. Schooneman. (2001). The influence of three 

acoustic alarms on the behaviour of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in a floating pen. 

Marine Environmental Research, 52, 351–371. 

Kastelein, R. A., W. C. Verboom, M. Muijsers, N. V. Jennings, & S. van der Heul. (2005). Influence of 

acoustic emissions for underwater data transmission on the behaviour of harbour porpoises 

(Phocoena phocoena) in a floating pen. Marine Environmental Research, 59, 287–307. 

Kastelein, R. A., & P. J. Wensveen. (2008). Effect of two levels of masking noise on the hearing threshold 

of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) for a 4.0 kHz signal. Aquatic Mammals, 34(4), 420–

425. 

Kastelein, R. A., R. Gransier, L. Hoek, A. Macleod, & J. M. Terhune. (2012a). Hearing threshold shifts and 

recovery in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) after octave-band noise exposure at 4 kHz. The Journal 

of Acoustical Society of America, 132(4), 2745–2761. 

Kastelein, R. A., R. Gransier, L. Hoek, & J. Olthuis. (2012b). Temporary threshold shifts and recovery in a 

harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after octave-band noise at 4 kHz. The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 132(5), 3525–3537. 

Kastelein, R. A., R. Gransier, L. Hoek, & M. Rambags. (2013a). Hearing frequency thresholds of a harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) temporarily affected by a continuous 1.5 kHz tone. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 134(3), 2286–2292. 

Kastelein, R. A., D. van Heerden, R. Gransier, & L. Hoek. (2013b). Behavioral responses of a harbor 

porpoise (Phoceoena phocoena) to playbakcs of broadband pile driving sounds. Marine 

Environmental Research, 92, 206–214. 

Kastelein, R. A., L. Hoek, R. Gransier, C. A. F. de Jong, J. M. Terhune, & N. Jennings. (2014a). Hearing 

thresholds of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) for playbacks of seal scarer signals, and 

effects of the signals on behavior. Hydrobiologia, 756(1), 89–103. 

Kastelein, R. A., L. Hoek, R. Gransier, M. Rambags, & N. Claeys. (2014b). Effect of level, duration, and 

inter-pulse interval of 1-2 kHz sonar signal exposures on harbor porpoise hearing. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 136(1), 412-422. 

Kastelein, R. A., L. Hoek, R. Gransier, M. Rambags, & N. Claeys. (2014c). Effect of level, duration, and 

inter-pulse interval of 1–2 kHz sonar signal exposures on harbor porpoise hearing. Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 136(1), 412–422. 

Kastelein, R. A., J. Schop, R. Gransier, & L. Hoek. (2014d). Frequency of greatest temporary hearing 

threshold shift in harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) depends on the noise level. The 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136(3), 1410–1418. 

Kastelein, R. A., J. Schop, R. Gransier, N. Steen, & N. Jennings. (2014e). Effect of series of 1 to 2 kHz and 6 

to 7 kHz up-sweeps and down-sweeps on the behavior of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena). Aquatic Mammals, 40(3), 232–242. 

Kastelein, R. A., R. Gransier, M. A. T. Marijt, & L. Hoek. (2015a). Hearing frequency thresholds of harbor 

porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) temporarily affected by played back offshore pile driving 

sounds. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 137(2), 556–564. 

Kastelein, R. A., R. Gransier, J. Schop, & L. Hoek. (2015b). Effects of exposure to intermittent and 

continuous 6–7 kHz sonar sweeps on harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) hearing. The Journal 

of Acoustical Society of America, 137(4), 1623–1633. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-624

References

Kastelein, R. A., L. Helder-Hoek, R. Gransier, J. M. Terhune, N. Jennings, & C. A. F. de Jong. (2015c). 

Hearing thresholds of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) for playbacks of seal scarer signals, and 

effects of the signals on behavior. Hydrobiologia, 756(1), 75–88. 

Kastelein, R. A., L. Helder-Hoek, G. Janssens, R. Gransier, & T. Johansson. (2015d). Behavioral responses 

of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) to sonar signals in the 25-kHz range. Aquatic Mammals, 41(4), 

388–399. 

Kastelein, R. A., I. van den Belt, R. Gransier, & T. Johansson. (2015e). Behavioral responses of a harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) to 25.5- to 24.5-kHz sonar down-sweeps with and without side 

bands. Aquatic Mammals, 41(4), 400–411. 

Kastelein, R. A., I. van den Belt, L. Helder-Hoek, R. Gransier, & T. Johansson. (2015f). Behavioral 

responses of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) to 25-kHz FM sonar signals. Aquatic 

Mammals, 41(3), 311–326. 

Kastelein, R. A., J. Huybrechts, J. Covi, & L. Helder-Hoek. (2017). Behavioral responses of a harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) to sounds from an acoustic porpoise deterrent. Aquatic 

Mammals, 43(4). 

Kasuya, T., & T. Miyashita. (1997). Distribution of Baird's beaked whales off Japan. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission, 47, 963–968. 

Kasuya, T. (2009). Giant beaked whales, Berardius bairdii and B. arnuxii. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. 

M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 498–500). Amsterdam, 

Netherlands: Academic Press.

Kato, H., & W. F. Perrin. (2009). Bryde's whales, Balaenoptera edeni/brydei. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & 

J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 158–163). San Diego, 

CA: Academic Press.

Keck, N., O. Kwiatek, F. Dhermain, F. Dupraz, H. Boulet, C. Danes, C. Laprie, A. Perrin, J. Godenir, L. 

Micout, & G. Libeau. (2010). Resurgence of Morbillivirus infection in Mediterranean dolphins off 

the French coast. The Veterinary record, 166(21), 654–655. 

Keiper, C. A., D. G. Ainley, S. G. Allen, & J. T. Harvey. (2005). Marine mammal occurrence and ocean 

climate off central California, 1986 to 1994 and 1997 to 1999. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

289, 285–306. 

Keller, A. A., E. L. Fruh, M. M. Johnson, V. Simon, & C. McGourty. (2010). Distribution and abundance of 

anthropogenic marine debris along the shelf and slope of the U.S. West Coast. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin, 60(5), 692–700. 

Kelley, C., G. Carton, M. Tomlinson, & A. Gleason. (2016). Analysis of towed camera images to determine 

the effects of disposed mustard-filled bombs on the deep water benthic community off south 

Oahu. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 

Kemp, N. J. (1996). Habitat loss and degradation. In M. P. Simmonds & J. D. Hutchinson (Eds.), The 

Conservation of Whales and Dolphins (pp. 476). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Kendall-Bar, J. M., D. W. Weller, H. Fearnbach, S. Shane, G. S. Schorr, E. A. Falcone, J. Calambokidis, A. 

Schulman-Janiger, & J. Barlow. (2016). Movement and Occurrence Patterns of Short-Finned Pilot 

Whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) in the Eastern North Pacific. Aquatic Mammals, 42(3), 

300–305. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-625

References

Kerosky, S. M., A. Širović, L. K. Roche, S. Baumann-Pickering, S. M. Wiggins, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2012). 

Bryde's whale seasonal range expansion and increasing presence in the Southern California 

Bight from 2000 to 2010. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 65, 125–

132. 

Kerosky, S. M., S. Baumann-Pickering, A. Širović, J. S. Buccowich, A. J. Debich, Z. Gentes, R. S. Gottlieb, S. 

C. Johnson, L. K. Roche, B. Thayre, S. M. Wiggins, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2013). Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring for Marine Mammals in the Northwest Training Range Complex 2011–2012. La Jolla, 

CA: Marine Physical Laboratory Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California San 

Diego.

Ketten, D. R., J. Lien, & S. Todd. (1993). Blast injury in humpback whale ears: Evidence and implications 

The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 94(3), 1849–1850. 

Ketten, D. R. (1998). Marine Mammal Auditory Systems: A Summary of Audiometric and Anatomical 

Data and its Implications for Underwater Acoustic Impacts. (NOAA Technical memorandum 

NMFS-SWFSC-256). La Jolla, CA: Dolphin-Safe Research Program, Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center Retrieved from http://swfsc.nmfs.noaa.gov/prd/dsweb/PDFs/TM256.PDF.

Ketten, D. R. (2000). Cetacean Ears. In W. Au, A. N. Popper & R. R. Fay (Eds.), Hearing by Whales and 

Dolphins (1st ed., pp. 43–108). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

King, S. L., R. S. Schick, C. Donovan, C. G. Booth, M. Burgman, L. Thomas, & J. Harwood. (2015). An 

interim framework for assessing the population consequences of disturbance. Methods in 

Ecology and Evolution, 6(10), 1150–1158. 

Kirschvink, J. L., A. E. Dizon, & J. A. Westphal. (1986). Evidence from strandings for geomagnetic 

sensitivity in cetaceans. Journal of Experimental Biology, 120, 1–24. 

Kirschvink, J. L. (1990). Geomagnetic sensitivity in cetaceans: an update with live stranding records in the 

Unites States. In J. A. Thomas & R. A. Kastelein (Eds.), Sensory abilities of cetaceans: laboratory 

and field evidence (pp. 639–649).

Kishiro, T. (1996). Movements of marked Bryde's whales in the western North Pacific. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission, 46, 421–428. 

Kiyota, M., N. Baba, & M. Mouri. (1992). Occurrence of an elephant seal in Japan. Marine Mammal 

Science, 8(4), 433. 

Klimley, A. P., B. J. Le Boeuf, K. M. Cantara, J. E. Richert, S. F. Davis, S. Van Sommeran, & J. T. Kelly. 

(2001). The hunting strategy of white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) near a seal colony. 

Marine Biology, 138, 617–636. 

Klinck, H., S. L. Nieukirk, S. Fregosi, D. K. Mellinger, S. Lastuka, G. B. Shilling, & J. C. Luby. (2015). 

Cetacean Studies on the Hawaii Range Complex in December 2014–January 2015: Passive 

Acoustic Monitoring of Marine Mammals using Gliders. Final Report (Prepared for Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command Pacific under HDR Environmental, Operations and Construction, 

Inc. Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, CTO KB25). Honolulu, HI: HDR Inc.

Klinck, H., S. L. Nieukirk, S. Fregosi, K. Klinck, D. K. Mellinger, S. Lastuka, G. B. Shilling, & J. C. Luby. 

(2016). Cetacean Studies on the Kona Coast in March 2010: Passive Acoustic Monitoring of 

Marine Mammals Using Gliders–Results from an Engineering Test. Final Report (Prepared for 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific under HDR Environmental, Operations and 

Construction, Inc. Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, CTO KB25). Honolulu, HI: HDR Inc.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-626

References

Klinowska, M. (1985). Cetacean live stranding sites relative to geomagnetic topography. Aquatic 

Mammals, 1985(1), 27–32. 

Knowlton, A. R., J. Robbins, S. Landry, H. A. McKenna, S. D. Kraus, & B. T. Werner. (2015). Effects of 

fishing rope strength on the severity of large whale entanglements. Conservation biology : the 

journal of the Society for Conservation Biology. 

Koen-Alonso, M., S. N. Pedraza, A. C. M. Schiavini, R. N. P. Goodall, & E. A. Crespo. (1999). Stomach 

contents of false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) stranded on the coasts of the Strait of 

Magellan, Tierra Del Fuego. Marine Mammal Science, 15(3), 712–724. 

Koide, S., J. A. K. Silva, V. Dupra, & M. Edwards. (2016). Bioaccumulation of chemical warfare agents, 

energetic materials, and metals in deep-sea shrimp from discarded military munitions sites off 

Pearl Harbor. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 53–62. 

Kooyman, G. L., J. P. Schroeder, D. M. Denison, D. D. Hammond, J. J. Wright, & W. P. Bergman. (1972). 

Blood nitrogen tensions of seals during simulated deep dives. American Journal of Physiology, 

223(5), 1016–1020. 

Kooyman, G. L., D. H. Kerem, W. B. Campbell, & J. J. Wright. (1973). Pulmonary gas exchange in freely 

diving weddell seals, Leptonychotes weddelli. Respiration Physiology, 17, 283–290. 

Kooyman, G. L., & E. E. Sinnett. (1982). Pulmonary shunts in harbor seals and sea lions during simulated 

dives to depth. Physiological Zoology, 55(1), 105–111. 

Koski, W. R., J. W. Lawson, D. H. Thomson, & W. J. Richardson. (1998). Point Mugu Sea Range Marine 

Mammal Technical Report. San Diego, CA: Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division and 

Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

Koski, W. R., G. Gamage, A. R. Davis, T. Mathews, B. LeBlanc, & S. H. Ferguson. (2015). Evaluation of UAS 

for photographic re–identification of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus. Journal of 

Unmanned Vehicle Systems, 3(1), 22–29. 

Kozuck, A. (2003). Implications of historical changes in fixed fishing gear for large whale entanglements 

in the northwest Atlantic. (Master's thesis). Duke University, Chapel Hill, NC. 

Krahn, M. M., M. J. Ford, W. F. Perrin, P. R. Wade, R. P. Angliss, M. B. Hanson, B. L. Taylor, G. M. Ylitalo, 

M. E. Dahlheim, J. E. Stein, & R. S. Waples. (2004). 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer 

Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. Seattle, WA: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

Krahn, M. M., M. B. Hanson, R. W. Baird, R. H. Boyer, D. G. Burrows, C. K. Emmons, J. K. Ford, L. L. Jones, 

D. P. Noren, P. S. Ross, G. S. Schorr, & T. K. Collier. (2007). Persistent organic pollutants and 

stable isotopes in biopsy samples (2004/2006) from Southern Resident killer whales. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 54(12), 1903–1911. 

Krahn, M. M., M. B. Hanson, G. S. Schorr, C. K. Emmons, D. G. Burrows, J. L. Bolton, R. W. Baird, & G. M. 

Ylitalo. (2009). Effects of age, sex and reproductive status on persistent organic pollutant 

concentrations in "Southern Resident" killer whales. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58(10), 1522–

1529. 

Kremers, D., J. Lopez Marulanda, M. Hausberger, & A. Lemasson. (2014). Behavioural evidence of 

magnetoreception in dolphins: detection of experimental magnetic fields. Die 

Naturwissenschaften, 101(11), 907–911. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-627

References

Kruse, S. (1991). The interactions between killer whales and boats in Johnstone Strait, B.C. In K. Pryor & 

K. S. Norris (Eds.), Dolphin Societies: Discoveries and Puzzles (pp. 149–159). Berkeley and Los 

Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Kruse, S., D. K. Caldwell, & M. C. Caldwell. (1999). Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus (G. Cuvier, 1812). In 

S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 6, pp. 183–212). San 

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kryter, K. D., W. D. Ward, J. D. Miller, & D. H. Eldredge. (1965). Hazardous exposure to intermittent and 

steady-state noise. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 39(3), 451–464. 

Kuhn, C. E., & D. P. Costa. (2014). Interannual variation in the at-sea behavior of California sea lions 

(Zalophus californianus). Marine Mammal Science, 30(4), 1297–1319. 

Kuhn, C. E., R. R. Ream, J. T. Sterling, J. R. Thomason, & R. G. Towell. (2014). Spatial segregation and the 

influence of habitat on the foraging behavior of northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus). 

Canadian Journal of Zoology, 92(10), 861–873. 

Kuhn, S., E. L. B. Robolledo, & J. A. Van Franeker. (2015). Deleterious Effects of Litter on Marine Life. In 

M. Bergmann, L. Gutow & M. Klages (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter (pp. 75–116). Den Burg, 

Texel, The Netherlands: IMARES Wageningen UR.

Kujawa, S. G., & M. C. Liberman. (2009). Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after 

"temporary" noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci, 29(45), 14077–14085. 

Kuker, K. J., J. A. Thomson, & U. Tscherter. (2005). Novel surface feeding tactics of minke whales, 

Balaenoptera acutorostrata, in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence National Marine Park. Canadian 

Field-Naturalist, 119(2), 214–218. 

Kuningas, S., P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, & P. J. O. Miller. (2013). Killer whale presence in relation to 

naval sonar activity and prey abundance in northern Norway. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 

70(7), 1287–1293. 

Kuzhetsov, V. B. (1999). Vegetative responses of dolphin to changes in permanent magnetic field. 

Biofizika, 44(3), 496–502. 

Kvadsheim, P. H., E. M. Sevaldsen, L. P. Folkow, & A. S. Blix. (2010a). Behavioural and physiological 

responses of hooded seals (Cytophora cristata) to 1 to 7 kHz sonar signals. Aquatic Mammals, 

36(3), 239–247. 

Kvadsheim, P. H., E. M. Sevaldsen, D. Scheie, L. P. Folkow, & A. S. Blix. (2010b). Effects of naval sonar on 

seals. Norwegian Defense Research Establishment (FFI).

Kvadsheim, P. H., P. J. O. Miller, P. L. Tyack, L. D. Sivle, F. P. A. Lam, & A. Fahlman. (2012). Estimated 

tissue and blood N2 levels and risk of decompression sickness in deep-, intermediate-, and 

shallow-diving toothed whales during exposure to naval sonar. frontiers in Physiology, 3(Article 

125). 

Kvadsheim, P. H., S. DeRuiter, L. D. Sivle, J. Goldbogen, R. Roland-Hansen, P. J. O. Miller, F. A. Lam, J. 

Calambokidis, A. Friedlaender, F. Visser, P. L. Tyack, L. Kleivane, & B. Southall. (2017). Avoidance 

responses of minke whales to 1-4kHz naval sonar. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 

Kyhn, L. A., P. B. Jørgensen, J. Carstensen, N. I. Bech, J. Tougaard, T. Dabelsteen, & J. Teilmann. (2015). 

Pingers cause temporary habitat displacement in the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 526, 253–265. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-628

References

Laake, J. (2017). [Dr. Jeff Laake, Statistician, California Current Ecosystems Program at NOAA as pers 

comm with John Ugoretz, U.S. Navy, NAVAIR Sustainability Office, regarding 2016 surveys that 

found better growth and body condition for sea lions at both San Nicolas and San Miguel 

Islands].

Laggner, D. (2009). Blue whale (Baleanoptera musculus) ship strike threat assessment in the Santa 

Barbara Channel, California. (Master's Thesis). Evergreen State College. 

Laidre, K. L., H. Stern, K. M. Kovacs, L. Lowry, S. E. Moore, E. V. Regehr, S. H. Ferguson, O. Wiig, P. 

Boveng, R. P. Angliss, E. W. Born, D. Litovka, L. Quakenbush, C. Lydersen, D. Vongraven, & F. 

Ugarte. (2015). Arctic marine mammal population status, sea ice habitat loss, and conservation 

recommendations for the 21st century. Conserv Biol, 29(3), 724–737. 

Laist, D. W. (1997). Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a 

comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In J. M. Coe & D. B. 

Rogers (Eds.), Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts, and Solutions (pp. 99–140). New York, NY: 

Springer-Verlag.

Laist, D. W., A. R. Knowlton, J. G. Mead, A. S. Collet, & M. Podesta. (2001). Collisions between ships and 

whales. Marine Mammal Science, 17(1), 35–75. 

Lalas, C., & H. McConnell. (2016). Effects of seismic surveys on New Zealand fur seals during daylight 

hours: Do fur seals respond to obstacles rather than airgun noise? Marine Mammal Science, 

32(2), 643–663. 

Lamborne, D. M., S. J. Jeffries, K. Wilkinson, J. Huggins, J. Rice, D. Duffield, & S. A. Raverty. (2013). 2007–

2009 Pacific Northwest Guadalupe Fur Seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) Unusual Mortality Event 

(UME) Summary Report.

Lammers, M. O., A. A. Pack, & L. Davis. (2003). Historical evidence of whale/vessel collisions in Hawaiian 

waters (1975–Present).

Lammers, M. O. (2004). Occurence and behavior of Hawaiian spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) 

along Oahu's leeward and south shores. Aquatic Mammals, 30(2), 237–250. 

Lammers, M. O., P. I. Fisher-Pool, W. W. L. Au, C. G. Meyer, K. B. Wong, & R. E. Brainard. (2011). 

Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, song reveals wintering activity in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 423, 261–268. 

Lammers, M. O., A. A. Pack, E. G. Lyman, & L. Espiritu. (2013). Trends in collisions between vessels and 

North Pacific humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaiian waters (1975–2011). 

Journal of Cetacean Resource Management, 13(1). 

Lammers, M. O., L. M. Munger, J. N. Oswald, & T. M. Yack. (2015). Passive Acoustic Monitoring of 

Cetaceans in the Hawaii Range Complex Using Ecological Acoustic Recorders (EARs). Pearl 

Harbor, HI: U.S Navy Pacific Fleet.

Lander, M. E., T. R. Loughlin, M. G. Logsdon, G. R. VanBlaricom, & B. S. Fadely. (2010). Foraging effort of 

juvenile Steller sea lions, Eumetopias jubatus, with respect to heterogeneity of sea surface 

temperature. Endangered Species Research, 10, 145–158. 

Law, R. J. (2014). An overview of time trends in organic contaminant concentrations in marine 

mammals: going up or down? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 82(1–2), 7–10. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-629

References

Le Boeuf, B. J., & M. L. Bonnell. (1980). Pinnipeds of the California Islands: Abundance and distribution. 

In D. M. Power (Ed.), The California Islands: Proceedings of a Multidisciplinary Symposium (pp. 

475–493). Santa Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Le Boeuf, B. J., & R. M. Laws. (1994). Elephant seals: an introduction to the genus: University of California 

Press: Berkeley/Los Angeles, CA.

Le Boeuf, B. J., P. A. Morris, S. B. Blackwell, D. E. Crocker, & D. P. Costa. (1996). Diving behavior of 

juvenile northern elephant seals. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 74, 1632–1644. 

Le Boeuf, B. J., D. E. Crocker, D. P. Costa, S. B. Blackwell, P. M. Webb, & D. S. Houser. (2000). Foraging 

ecology of northern elephant seals. Ecological Monographs, 70(3), 353–382. 

Le Boeuf, B. J. (2002). Status of pinnipeds on Santa Catalina Island. Proceedings of the California 

Academy of Sciences, 53(2), 11–21. 

Leatherwood, J. S., W. F. Perrin, R. L. Garvie, & J. C. La Grange. (1973). Observations of Sharks Attacking 

Porpoises (Stenella spp. and Delphinus cf. D. delphis).

Leatherwood, S., F. T. Awbrey, & J. A. Thomas. (1982). Minke whale response to a transiting survey 

vessel. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 32, 795–802. 

Leatherwood, S., R. R. Reeves, A. E. Bowles, B. S. Stewart, & K. R. Goodrich. (1984). Distribution, seasonal 

movements and abundance of Pacific white-sided dolphins in the eastern North Pacific. 

Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute, 35, 129–157. 

Lefebrve, K. A., A. Robertson, E. R. Frame, K. M. Colegrove, S. Nance, K. A. Baugh, H. Wiedenhoft, & F. M. 

D. Gulland. (2010). Clinical signs and histopathology associated with domoic acid poisoning in 

northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) and comparison of toxin detection methods. Harmful 

Algae, 9, 374–383. 

Lefebvre, K. A., L. Quakenbush, E. Frame, K. B. Huntington, G. Sheffield, R. Stimmelmayr, A. Bryan, P. 

Kendrick, H. Ziel, T. Goldstein, J. A. Snyder, T. Gelatt, F. Gulland, B. Dickerson, & V. Gill. (2016). 

Prevalence of algal toxins in Alaskan marine mammals foraging in a changing arctic and subarctic 

environment. Harmful Algae, 55, 13–24. 

Lemonds, D. W., L. N. Kloepper, P. E. Nachtigall, W. W. Au, S. A. Vlachos, & B. K. Branstetter. (2011). A 

re-evaluation of auditory filter shape in delphinid odontocetes: evidence of constant-bandwidth 

filters. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(5), 3107–3114. 

Lesage, V., C. Barrette, M. C. S. Kingsley, & B. Sjare. (1999). The effect of vessel noise on the vocal 

behavior of belugas in the St. Lawrence River estuary, Canada. Marine Mammal Science, 15(1), 

65–84. 

Lesage, V., A. Omrane, T. Doniol-Valcroze, & A. Mosnier. (2017). Increased proximity of vessels reduces 

feeding opportunities of blue whales in the St. Lawrence Estuary, Canada. Endangered Species 

Research, 32, 351–361. 

Leslie, M. S., A. Batibasaga, D. S. Weber, D. Olson, & H. C. Rosenbaum. (2005). First record of Blainville's 

beaked whale, Mesoplodon densirostris, in Fiji. Pacific Conservation Biology, 11(4), 302–304. 

Li, S., T. Akamatsu, D. Wang, K. Wang, S. Dong, X. Zhao, Z. Wei, X. Zhang, B. Taylor, L. A. Barrett, S. T. 

Turvey, R. R. Reeves, B. S. Stewart, M. Richlen, & J. R. Brandon. (2008). Indirect evidence of boat 

avoidance behavior of Yangtze finless porpoises. Bioacoustics, 17, 174–176. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-630

References

Li, S., H. Wu, Y. Xu, C. Peng, L. Fang, M. Lin, L. Xing, & P. Zhang. (2015). Mid- to high-frequency noise 

from high-speed boats and its potential impacts on humpback dolphins. The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 138(2), 942–952. 

Lin, H. W., A. C. Furman, S. G. Kujawa, & M. C. Liberman. (2011). Primary neural degeneration in the 

guinea pig cochlea after reversible noise-induced threshold shift. Journal of the Association for 

Research in Otolaryngology. 

Lindstrom, U., & T. Haug. (2001). Feeding strategy and prey selectivity in common minke whales 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) foraging in the southern Barents Sea during early summer. Journal 

of Cetacean Research and Management, 3(3), 239–250. 

Lipsky, J. D. (2009). Right whale dolphins, Lissodelphis borealis and L. peronii. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & 

J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 958–962). Amsterdam, 

Netherlands: Academic Press.

Littnan, C. L. (2011). Habitat Use and Behavioral Monitoring of Hawaiian Monk Seals in Proximity to the 

Navy Hawaii Range Complex.

Loughlin, T. R., & M. A. Perez. (1985). Mesoplodon stejengeri. Mammalian Species, 250, 1–6 

Lowry, L. F., D. W. Laist, W. G. Gilmartin, & G. A. Antonelis. (2011). Recovery of the Hawaiian monk seal 

(Monachus schauinslandi): a review of conservation efforts, 1972 to 2010, and thoughts for the 

future. Aquatic Mammals, 37(3), 397–419. 

Lowry, M. S., P. Boveng, R. J. DeLong, C. W. Oliver, B. S. Stewart, H. DeAnda, & J. Barlow. (1992). Status 

of the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus californianus) population in 1992. National 

Marine Fisheries Service.

Lowry, M. S., & K. A. Forney. (2005). Abundance and distribution of California sea lions (Zalophus 

californianus) in central and northern California during 1998 and summer 1999. Fishery Bulletin, 

103(2), 331–343. 

Lowry, M. S., J. V. Carretta, & K. A. Forney. (2008). Pacific harbor seal census in California during MayJuly 2002 and 2004. California Fish and Game, 94(4), 180–193. 

Lowry, M. S., R. Condit, B. Hatfield, S. G. Allen, R. Berger, P. A. Morris, B. J. Le Boeuf, & J. Reiter. (2014). 

Abundance, distribution, and population growth of the northern elephant seal (Mirounga 

angustirostris) in the United States from 1991 to 2010. Aquatic Mammals, 40(1), 20–31. 

Lowry, M. S., S. E. Nehasil, & E. M. Jaime. (2017). Distribution of California Sea Lions, Northern Elephant 

Seals, Pacific Harbor Seals, and Steller Sea Lions at the Channel Islands During July 2011–2015

(NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-578). Springfield, VA: Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center.

Lucke, K., U. Siebert, P. A. Lepper, & M. A. Blanchet. (2009). Temporary shift in masked hearing 

thresholds in a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli. 

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 125(6), 4060–4070. 

Luís, A. R., M. N. Couchinho, & M. E. dos Santos. (2014). Changes in the acoustic behavior of resident 

bottlenose dolphins near operating vessels. Marine Mammal Science, 30(4), 1417–1426. 

Luksenburg, J. A., & E. C. M. Parsons. (2009). The effects of aircraft on cetaceans: implications for aerial 

whalewatching. Paper presented at the 61st Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, 

Madeira, Portugal. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-631

References

Lusseau, D. (2004). The hidden cost of tourism: Detecting long-term effects of tourism using behavioral 

information. Ecology and Society, 9(1), 2. 

Lusseau, D. (2006). The short-term behavioral reactions of bottlenose dolphins to interactions with 

boats in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science, 22(4), 802–818. 

Lusseau, D., & L. Bejder. (2007). The Long-term Consequences of Short-term Responses to Disturbance 

Experiences from Whalewatching Impact Assessment. International Journal of Comparative 

Psychology, 20, 228–236. 

Lusseau, D., D. E. Bain, R. Williams, & J. C. Smith. (2009). Vessel traffic disrupts the foraging behavior of 

southern resident killer whales, Orcinus orca. Endangered Species Research, 6, 211–221. 

Lyamin, O. I., S. M. Korneva, V. V. Rozhnov, & L. M. Mukhametov. (2011). Cardiorespiratory changes in 

beluga in response to acoustic noise. Doklady Biological Sciences, 440(5), 704–707. 

MacLeod, C. D., M. B. Santos, & G. J. Pierce. (2003). Review of data on diets of beaked whales: evidence 

of niche separation and geographic segregation. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of 

the United Kingdom, 83, 651–665. 

MacLeod, C. D., N. Hauser, & H. Peckham. (2004). Diversity, relative density and structure of the 

cetacean community in summer months east of Great Abaco, Bahamas. Journal of the Marine 

Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 84, 469–474. 

MacLeod, C. D. (2005). Niche partitioning, distribution and competition in North Atlantic beaked whales.

(Doctoral dissertation). University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. 

MacLeod, C. D., & A. D'Amico. (2006). A review of beaked whale behaviour and ecology in relation to 

assessing and mitigating impacts of anthropogenic noise. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management, 7(3), 211–222. 

MacLeod, C. D., & G. Mitchell. (2006). Key areas for beaked whales worldwide. Journal of Cetacean 

Research and Management, 7(3), 309–322. 

MacLeod, C. D., W. F. Perrin, R. Pitman, J. Barlow, L. Ballance, A. D'Amico, T. Gerrodette, G. Joyce, K. D. 

Mullin, D. L. Palka, & G. T. Waring. (2006). Known and inferred distributions of beaked whale 

species (Ziphiidae: Cetacea). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 7(3), 271–286. 

Madsen, P. T., D. A. Carder, K. Bedholm, & S. H. Ridgway. (2005). Porpoise clicks from a sperm whale 

nose – convergent evolution of 130 kHz pulses in toothed whale sonars? Bioacoustics, 15, 195–

206. 

Madsen, P. T., M. Johnson, P. J. O. Miller, N. A. Soto, J. Lynch, & P. Tyack. (2006). Quantitative measures 

of air-gun pulses recorded on sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) using acoustic tags during 

controlled exposure experiments. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 120(4), 2366–

2379. 

Magalhães, S., R. Prieto, M. A. Silva, J. Gonçalves, M. Afonso-Dias, & R. S. Santos. (2002). Short-term 

reactions of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) to whale-watching vessels in the Azores. 

Aquatic Mammals, 28(3), 267–274. 

Mahaffy, S. D., R. W. Baird, D. J. McSweeney, D. L. Webster, & G. S. Schorr. (2015). High site fidelity, 

strong associations, and long-term bonds: Short-finned pilot whales off the island of Hawai‘i. 

Marine Mammal Science, 31(4), 1427–1451. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-632

References

Maldini, D. (2003). Abundance and distribution patterns of Hawaiian odontocetes: Focus on Oahu. (Ph. 

D. Ph.D. dissertation). University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI. 

Maldini, D., L. Mazzuca, & S. Atkinson. (2005). Odontocete stranding patterns in the main Hawaiian 

islands (1937–2002): How do they compare with live animal surveys? Pacific Science, 59(1), 55–

67. 

Malme, C. I., B. Würsig, J. E. Bird, & P. Tyack. (1986). Behavioral responses of gray whales to industrial 

noise: Feeding observations and predictive modelling (Outer Continental Shelf Environmental 

Assessment Program, Final Report of Principal Investigators MMS 88-0048). Anchorage, AK: Bolt 

Beranek, & Newman, Inc.

Malme, C. I., B. Würsig, J. E. Bird, & P. Tyack. (1988). Observations of feeding gray whale responses to 

controlled industrial noise exposure. In W. M. Sackinger, M. O. Jeffries, J. L. Imm & S. D. Tracey 

(Eds.), Port and Ocean Engineering Under Artic Conditions (Vol. 2, pp. 55–73). Fairbanks, AK: 

Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska.

Maloni, M., J. A. Paul, & D. M. Gligor. (2013). Slow steaming impacts on ocean carriers and shippers. 

Maritime Economics & Logistics, 15(2), 151–171. 

Manci, K. M., D. N. Gladwin, R. Villella, & M. G. Cavendish. (1988). Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic 

Booms on Domestic Animals and Wildlife: A Literature Synthesis. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center.

Mangels, K. F., & T. Gerrodette. (1994). Report of Cetacean Sightings During a Marine Mammal Survey in 

the Eastern Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of California Aboard the NOAA Ships Mcarthur and David 

Starr Jordan, July 28–November 6, 1993. (NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-211). Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center.

Maniscalco, J. M., K. Wynne, K. W. Pitcher, M. B. Hanson, S. R. Melin, & S. Atkinson. (2004). The 

occurrence of California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) in Alaska. Aquatic Mammals, 30(3), 

427–433. 

Manzano-Roth, R., E. E. Henderson, S. W. Martin, C. Martin, & B. M. Matsuyama. (2016). Impacts of U.S. 

Navy Training Events on Blainville's Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) Foraging Dives in 

Hawaiian Waters. Aquatic Mammals, 42(4), 507–518. 

Manzano-Roth, R. A., E. A. Henderson, S. W. Martin, & B. Matsuyama. (2013). Impacts of a U.S. Navy 

training event on beaked whale dives in Hawaiian waters. Pearl Harbor, HI: U.S. Navy Pacific 

Fleet.

Maravilla-Chavez, M. O., & M. S. Lowry. (1999). Incipient breeding colony of Guadalupe fur seals at Isla 

Benito del Este, Baja California, Mexico. Marine Mammal Science, 15(1), 239–241. 

Marcoux, M., H. Whitehead, & L. Rendell. (2007). Sperm whale feeding variations by location, year, 

social group and clan: Evidence from stable isotopes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 333, 309–

314. 

Marine Mammal Center (Producer). (2012). Golden Missy Goes Home (but not back to Hawaii)! [News 

release issued on August 29, 2012] Retrieved from 

http://www.marinemammalcenter.org/about-us/News-Room/2012-news-archives/goldenmissy.html

Marine Mammal Commission. (2002). Hawaiian monk seal, (Monachus schauinslandi) (Species of Special 

Concern, Annual Report to Congress, 2001). Bethesda, MD: Marine Mammal Commission.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-633

References

Marine Mammal Commission. (2003). Workshop on the management of Hawaiian monk seals on 

beaches in the main Hawaiian Islands.

Marine Mammal Commission. (2010). The Marine Mammal Commission Annual Report to Congress 

2009. Bethesda, MD.

Marsh, H. E. (1989). Mass stranding of dugongs by a tropical cyclone in Northern Australia. Marine 

Mammal Science, 5(1), 78–84. 

Marshall, J. (2008). [Jenny Marshall Range Sustainment Coordinator, FACSFAC San Diego, January 2008 

with Conrad Erkelens on the subject of SST UNDET measurements].

Martien, K. K., R. W. Baird, N. M. Hedrick, A. M. Gorgone, J. L. Thieleking, D. J. McSweeney, K. M. 

Robertson, & D. L. Webster. (2012). Population structure of island-associated dolphins: Evidence 

from mitochondrial and microsatellite markers for common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) around the main Hawaiian Islands. Marine Mammal Science, 28(3), E208–E232. 

Martin, C. R., S. W. Martin, E. E. Henderson, T. A. Helble, R. A. Manzano-Roth, & B. M. Matsuyama. 

(2016). SSC Pacific FY15 annual report on PMRF Marine Mammal Monitoring (Submitted in 

Support of the U.S. Navy's 2015 Annual Marine Species Monitoring Report for the Pacific). San 

Diego, CA: National Marine Mammal Foundation.

Martin, C. R., S. W. Martin, E. E. Henderson, T. A. Helble, R. A. Manzano-Roth, B. M. Matsuyama, & G. C. 

Alongi. (2017). SSC Pacific FY16 annual report on PMRF Marine Mammal Monitoring. Final 

Report. San Diego, CA: National Marine Mammal Foundation and Space and Naval Warfare 

Systems Center Pacific.

Martin, S. W., T. Helble, C. R. Martin, E. E. Henderson, B. Matsuyama, & R. Manzano-Roth. (2015a). 

Information on baleen whales derived from localized calling individuals at the Pacific Missile 

Range Facility, Hawaii. Paper presented at the 7th International Workshop on Detection, 

Classification, Localization, and Density Estimation of Marine Mammals using Passive Acoustics, 

La Jolla, CA. 

Martin, S. W., C. R. Martin, B. M. Matsuyama, & E. E. Henderson. (2015b). Minke whales (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata) respond to navy training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(5), 

2533–2541. 

Masaki, Y. (1976). Biological studies on the North Pacific sei whale. Bulletin of the Far Seas Fisheries 

Research Laboratory, 14, 1–104 

Masaki, Y. (1977). The separation of the stock units of sei whales in the North Pacific. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 1, 71–79. 

Mate, B., B. Lagerquist, & L. Irvine. (2010). Feeding habitats, migration, and winter reproductive range 

movements derived from satellite-monitored radio tags on eastern North Pacific gray whales

(Paper SC/62/BRG21 presented to the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee).

Mate, B. (2013). Final Report: Offshore Gray Whale Satellite Tagging in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Navy 

Pacific Fleet.

Mate, B., A. Bradford, G. Tsidulko, & V. Ilyashenko. (2013). Late-Feeding Season Movements of a 

Western North Pacific Gray Whale off Sakhalin Island, Russia and Subsequent Migration into the 

Eastern North Pacific (Paper SC/63/BRG23 presented to the International Whaling Commission 

Scientific Committee).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-634

References

Mate, B., D. M. Palacios, L. M. Irvine, B. Lagerquist, T. Follett, M. Winsor, & C. Hayslip. (2015a). Baleen 

(Blue & Fin) Whale Tagging in Southern California in Support of Marine Mammal Monitoring 

Across Multiple Navy Training Areas (SOCAL, NWTRC, GOA). U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

Mate, B. R., R. Gisiner, & J. Mobley. (1997). Local and migratory movements of Hawaiian humpback 

whales tracked by satellite telemetry. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76, 863–868. 

Mate, B. R., & J. Urban-Ramirez. (2003). A note on the route and speed of a gray whale on its northern 

migration from Mexico to central California, tracked by satellite-monitored radio tag. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management, 5(2), 155–157. 

Mate, B. R., V. Y. Ilyashenko, A. L. Bradford, V. V. Vertyankin, G. A. Tsidulko, V. V. Rozhnov, & L. M. 

Irvine. (2015b). Critically endangered western gray whales migrate to the eastern North Pacific. 

Biology Letters, 11(4), 1–4. 

Mate, B. R., D. M. Palacios, L. M. Irvine, B. A. Lagerquist, T. Follett, M. H. Winsor, & C. Hayslip. (2015c). 

Baleen (Blue & Fin) Whale Tagging in Southern California in Support of Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Across Multiple Navy Training Areas (SOCAL, NWTRC, GOA); Final Report (Prepared 

for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet under 

Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, Task Orders JP03 and KB27 issued to HDR, Inc.). Honolulu, HI: 

HDR, Inc.

Mate, B. R., D. M. Palacios, C. S. Baker, B. A. Lagerquist, L. M. Irvine, T. Follett, D. Steel, C. Hayslip, & M. 

H. Winsor. (2016). Baleen (Blue and Fin) Whale Tagging in Southern California in Support of 

Marine Mammal Monitoring Across Multiple Navy Training Areas. Preliminary Summary

(Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet 

under Contract Nos. N62470-10-D-3011 (KB29) and N62470-15-D-8006 (KB01) issued to HDR, 

Inc.). San Diego, CA: HDR Inc.

Mate, B. R., D. M. Palacios, C. S. Baker, B. A. Lagerquist, L. M. Irvine, T. Follett, D. Steel, C. Hayslip, & M. 

H. Winsor. (2017). Preliminary Report: Baleen Whale Tagging in Support of Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Across Multiple Navy Training Areas (Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command Pacific, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii under Contract No. N62470-15-8006 (FZN1) issued to 

HDR, Inc.). San Diego, CA: Oregon State University Marine Mammal Institute.

Mather, J. (2004). Cephalopod Skin Displays: From Concealment to Communication. In D. Kimbrough 

Oller and Ulrike Griebel (Ed.), The Evolution of Communication Systems: A Comparative 

Approach. Cambridge, MA: The Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology and the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology.

Matkin, C. O., E. L. Saulitis, G. M. Ellis, P. Olesiuk, & S. D. Rice. (2008). Ongoing population-level impacts 

on killer whales, Orcinus orca, following the 'Exxon Valdez' oil spill in Prince William Sound, 

Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 356, 269–281. 

Matsuoka, K., T. Hakamada, & T. Miyashita. (2014). Recent sightings of the North Pacific Right 

(Eubalaena japonica) whales in the western North Pacific based on JARPN and JARPN II surveys 

(1994 to 2013). Scientific Committee.

Mattson, M. C., J. A. Thomas, & D. St. Aubin. (2005). Effects of boat activity on the behavior of 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in waters surrounding Hilton Head Island, South 

Carolina. Aquatic Mammals, 31(1), 133–140. 

May-Collado, L. J., & D. Wartzok. (2008). A comparison of bottlenose dolphin whistles in the Atlantic 

Ocean: Factors promoting whistle variation. Journal of Mammalogy, 89(5), 1229–1240. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-635

References

McAlpine, D. F. (2009). Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales, Kogia breviceps and K. sima. In W. F. Perrin, B. 

Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 936–938). 

Academic Press.

McCarthy, E., D. Moretti, L. Thomas, N. DiMarzio, R. Morrissey, S. Jarvis, J. Ward, A. Izzi, & A. Dilley. 

(2011). Changes in spatial and temporal distribution and vocal behavior of Blainville's beaked 

whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) during multiship exercises with mid-frequency sonar. Marine 

Mammal Science, 27(3), E206–E226. 

McCauley, R. D., M. N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K. A. McCabe, & J. Murdoch. (1998). The response of humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: Preliminary results of 

observations about a working seismic vessel and experimental exposures. APPEA Journal, 692–

706. 

McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, A. J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M. N. Jenner, J. D. Penrose, R. I. T. Prince, A. Adhitya, 

J. Murdoch, & K. McCabe. (2000). Marine seismic surveys–A study of environmental 

implications. Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Association Journal, 692–708. 

McCracken, M. L., & K. A. Forney. (2010). Preliminary Assessment of Incidental Interactions with Marine 

Mammals in the Hawaii Longline Deep and Shallow Set Fisheries. National Marine Fisheries 

Service.

McDonald, B. I., & P. J. Ponganis. (2012). Lung collapse in the diving sea lion: hold the nitrogen and save 

the oxygen. Biology Letters, 8, 1047–1049. 

McDonald, M. A., J. A. Hildebrand, & S. C. Webb. (1995). Blue and fin whales observed on a seafloor 

array in the Northeast Pacific. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 98(2), 712–721. 

McDonald, M. A., J. A. Hildebrand, S. M. Wiggins, & D. Ross. (2008). A 50 Year comparison of ambient 

ocean noise near San Clemente Island: A bathymetrically complex coastal region off Southern 

California. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 1985–1992. 

McDonald, M. A., J. A. Hildebrand, S. M. Wiggins, D. W. Johnston, & J. J. Polovina. (2009). An acoustic 

survey of beaked whales at Cross Seamount near Hawaii. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America, 125(2), 624–627. 

McKenna, M. F., D. Ross, S. M. Wiggins, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2012). Underwater radiated noise from 

modern commercial ships. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 131(1), 92–103. 

McSweeney, D. J., R. W. Baird, & S. D. Mahaffy. (2007). Site fidelity, associations, and movements of 

Cuvier's (Ziphius Cavirostris) and Blainville's (Mesoplodon Densirostris) beaked whales off the 

island of Hawaii. Marine Mammal Science, 23(3), 666–687. 

McSweeney, D. J., R. W. Baird, S. D. Mahaffy, D. L. Webster, & G. S. Schorr. (2009). Site fidelity and 

association patterns of a rare species: Pygmy killer whales (Feresa attenuata) in the main 

Hawaiian Islands. Marine Mammal Science, 25(3), 557–572. 

Mead, J. G. (1981). First records of Mesoplodon hectori (Ziphiidae) from the Northern Hemisphere and a 

description of the adult male. Journal of Mammalogy, 62(2), 430–432. 

Mead, J. G., W. A. Walker, & W. J. Houck. (1982). Biological observations on Mesoplodon carlhubbsi

(Cetacea: Ziphiidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 344, 1–25 

Mead, J. G., & A. N. Baker. (1987). Notes on the rare beaked whale, Mesoplodon hectori (Gray). Journal 

of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 17(3), 303–312. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-636

References

Mead, J. G. (1989). Beaked whales of the genus Mesoplodon. In S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), 

Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 4, pp. 349–430). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Mead, J. G., & C. W. Potter. (1995). Recognizing two populations of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus) off the Atlantic Coast of North America: Morphologic and ecologic considerations. IBI 

Reports, 5, 31–44. 

Meissner, A. M., F. Christiansen, E. Martinez, M. D. Pawley, M. B. Orams, & K. A. Stockin. (2015). 

Behavioural effects of tourism on oceanic common dolphins, Delphinus sp., in New Zealand: the 

effects of Markov analysis variations and current tour operator compliance with regulations. 

PLoS ONE, 10(1), e0116962. 

Melcón, M. L., A. J. Cummins, S. M. Kerosky, L. K. Roche, S. M. Wiggins, & H. J. A. (2012). Blue whales 

respond to anthropogenic noise. PLoS ONE, 7(2). 

Melin, S. (2015). [Movements of lactating adult female sea lions tagged with satellite transmitters from 

San Clemente Island].

Melin, S. R., & R. L. DeLong. (1999). Observations of a Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) 

female and pup at San Miguel Island, California. Marine Mammal Science, 15(3), 885–887. 

Melin, S. R., & R. L. DeLong. (2000). At-sea distribution and diving behavior of California sea lion females 

from San Miguel Island, California (Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium). U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service.

Melin, S. R., R. R. Ream, & T. K. Zeppelin. (2006). Report of the Alaska Region and Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center Northern Fur Seal Tagging and Census Workshop: 6-9 September 2005. Seattle, 

WA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center.

Melin, S. R., R. L. DeLong, & D. B. Siniff. (2008). The effects of El Niño on the foraging behavior of 

lactating California sea lions (Zalophus californianus californianus) during the nonbreeding 

season. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 86(3), 192–206. 

Melin, S. R., J. T. Sterling, R. R. Ream, R. G. Towell, T. Zeppelin, A. J. Orr, B. Dickerson, N. Pelland, & C. E. 

Kuhn. (2012). A Tale of Two Stocks: Studies of Northern Fur Seals Breeding at the Northern and 

Southern Extent of the Range. (0008-4301; 1480-3283). Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC).

Mesnick, S. L., B. L. Taylor, F. I. Archer, K. K. Martien, S. E. Trevino, B. L. Hancock-Hanser, S. C. M. 

Medina, V. L. Pease, K. M. Robertson, J. M. Straley, R. W. Baird, J. Calambokidis, G. S. Schorr, P. 

Wade, V. Burkanov, C. R. Lunsford, L. Rendell, & P. A. Morin. (2011). Sperm whale population 

structure in the eastern and central North Pacific inferred by the use of single-nucleotide 

polymorphisms, microsatellites and mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Ecology Resources, 11 

(Supplement 1), 278–298. 

Michel, J., H. Dunagan, C. Boring, E. Healy, W. Evans, J. M. Dean, A. McGillis, & J. Hain. (2007). 

Worldwide synthesis and analysis of existing information regarding environmental effects of 

alternative energy uses on the outer continental shelf. US Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Herndon, VA, MMS OCS Report, 38, 254. 

Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A. (1998). Zoogeography of cetaceans off Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

Caribbean Journal of Science, 34(3–4), 173–190. 

Miksis-Olds, J. L., & S. M. Nichols. (2015). Is low frequency ocean sound increasing globally? Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 139(1), 501–511. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-637

References

Miksis, J. L., R. C. Connor, M. D. Grund, D. P. Nowacek, A. R. Solow, & P. L. Tyack. (2001). Cardiac 

responses to acoustic playback experiments in the captive bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115(3), 227–232. 

Miller, J. D., C. S. Watson, & W. P. Covell. (1963). Deafening effects of noise on the cat. Acta OtoLaryngologica, Supplement 176, 1–88. 

Miller, K. W., & V. B. Scheffer. (1986). False killer whale. In D. Haley (Ed.), Marine Mammals of the 

Eastern North Pacific and Arctic Waters (pp. 148–151). Pacific Search Press.

Miller, L. J., A. D. Mackey, T. Hoffland, & S. A. Kuczaj, II. (2010). Potential effects of a major hurricane on 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops trncatus) reproduction in the Mississippi Sound. Marine 

Mammal Science, 26(3), 707–715. 

Miller, P., R. Antunes, A. C. Alves, P. Wensveen, P. Kvadsheim, L. Kleivane, N. Nordlund, F.-P. Lam, S. van 

IJsselmuide, F. Visser, & P. Tyack. (2011). The 3S experiments: studying the behavioural effects of 

naval sonar on killer whales (Orcinus orca), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and longfinned pilot whales (Globicephala melas) in Norwegian waters (Scottish Oceans Inst. Tech. Rept., 

SOI-2011-001).

Miller, P. J., R. N. Antunes, P. J. Wensveen, F. I. Samarra, A. C. Alves, P. L. Tyack, P. H. Kvadsheim, L. 

Kleivane, F. P. Lam, M. A. Ainslie, & L. Thomas. (2014). Dose-response relationships for the onset 

of avoidance of sonar by free-ranging killer whales. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 

135(2), 975–993. 

Miller, P. J., P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. Lam, P. L. Tyack, C. Cure, S. L. DeRuiter, L. Kleivane, L. D. Sivle, I. S. P. 

van, F. Visser, P. J. Wensveen, A. M. von Benda-Beckmann, L. M. Martin Lopez, T. Narazaki, & S. 

K. Hooker. (2015). First indications that northern bottlenose whales are sensitive to behavioural 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise. Royal Society Open Science, 2(6), 140484. 

Miller, P. J. O., N. Biassoni, A. Samuels, & P. L. Tyack. (2000). Whale songs lengthen in response to sonar. 

Nature, 405(6789), 903. 

Miller, P. J. O., M. P. Johnson, P. T. Madsen, N. Biassoni, M. Quero, & P. L. Tyack. (2009). Using at-sea 

experiments to study the effects of airguns on the foraging behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Deep Sea Research I, 56(7), 1168–1181. 

Miller, P. J. O., P. H. Kvadsheim, F.-P. A. Lam, P. J. Wensveen, R. Antunes, A. C. Alves, F. Visser, L. 

Kleivane, P. L. Tyack, & L. D. Sivle. (2012). The severity of behavioral changes observed during 

experimental exposures of killer (Orcinus orca), long-finned pilot (Globicephala melas), and 

sperm (Physeter macrocephalus) whales to naval sonar. Aquatic Mammals, 38(4), 362–401. 

Mintz, J. D. (2012). Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii-Southern California and Atlantic Fleet Testing and 

Training Study Areas. (CRM D0026186.A2/Final). Center for Naval Analysis.

Mitchell, E. (1968). Northeast Pacific stranding distribution and seasonality of Cuvier's beaked whale, 

Ziphius cavirostris. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 46, 265–279. 

Miyashita, T., T. Kishiro, N. Higashi, F. Sato, K. Mori, & H. Kato. (1996). Winter distribution of cetaceans 

in the western North Pacific inferred from sighting cruises 1993–1995. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission, 46, 437–442. 

Miyazaki, N., & S. Wada. (1978). Fraser's dolphin, Lagenodelphis hosei, in the western North Pacific.

Scientific Reports of the Whales Research Institute, 30, 231–244. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-638

References

Miyazaki, N., & W. F. Perrin. (1994). Rough-toothed dolphin, Steno bredanensis (Lesson, 1828). In S. H. 

Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 5, pp. 1–21). San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press.

Mizroch, S. A., D. W. Rice, D. Zwiefelhofer, J. Waite, & W. L. Perryman. (2009). Distribution and 

movements of fin whales in the North Pacific Ocean. Mammal Review, 39(3), 193–227. 

Moberg, G. P., & J. A. Mench. (2000). The Biology of Animal Stress; Basic Principles and Implications for 

Animal Welfare. London, UK: CAB International.

Mobley, J. R., M. Smultea, T. Norris, & D. Weller. (1996). Fin whale sighting north of Kauai, Hawaii. 

Pacific Science, 50(2), 230–233. 

Mobley, J. R., G. B. Bauer, & L. M. Herman. (1999). Changes over a ten-year interval in the distribution 

and relative abundance of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) wintering in Hawaiian 

waters. Aquatic Mammals, 25(2), 63–72. 

Mobley, J. R., S. S. Spitz, K. A. Forney, R. Grotefendt, & P. H. Forestell. (2000). Distribution and 

Abundance of Odontocete Species in Hawaiian Waters: Preliminary Results of 1993–98 Aerial 

Surveys. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Mobley, J. R., L. Mazzuca, A. S. Craig, M. W. Newcomer, & S. S. Spitz. (2001a). Killer whales (Orcinus orca) 

sighted west of Niihau, Hawaii. Pacific Science, 55(3), 301–303. 

Mobley, J. R., S. Spitz, & R. Grotefendt. (2001b). Abundance of Humpback Whales in Hawaiian Waters: 

Results of 1993–2000 Aerial Surveys. Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii.

Mobley, J. R. (2004). Results of Marine Mammal Surveys on U.S. Navy Underwater Ranges in Hawaii and 

Bahamas.

Mobley, J. R. (2005). Assessing responses of humpback whales to North Pacific Acoustic Laboratory 

(NPAL) transmissions: Results of 2001–2003 aerial surveys north of Kauai. The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 117, 1666–1773. 

Mobley, J. R., M. A. Smultea, & K. Lomac-MacNair. (2009). Aerial Survey Monitoring for Marine 

Mammals and Sea Turtles in Conjunction with US Navy Training Events in the Hawaiian Range 

Complex (HRC) June 17–25, 2009 Final Field Report. Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet. 

Submitted by Marine Mammal Research Consultants, Honolulu, HI, and Smultea Environmental 

Sciences, LLC., Issaquah, WA. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific, EV2 

Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI, under Contract No. 28H-1087365 issued by California 

Institute of Technology (CalTech) via Scripps Institution of Oceanography of the University of 

California San Diego.

Mobley, J. R., & A. Milette. (2010). Aerial Survey Monitoring for Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in the 

Hawaiian Range Complex in Conjunction with a Navy Training Event, SCC February 16–21, 2010, 

Final Field Report. Prepared for Commander, Pacific Fleet Environmental. Submitted to Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (NAVFAC), EV2 Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI, 

96860-3134, under Contract No. N62742-10-P-1803. Submitted by Marine Mammal Research 

Consultants (MMRC), Honolulu, HI, Sept. 8, 2010.

Mobley, J. R. (2011). Aerial Survey Monitoring for Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in the Hawaii Range 

Complex in Conjunction with Two Navy Training Events. SCC and USWEX February 16–March 5, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-639

References

2011. Final Field Report. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (NAVFAC), 

EV2 Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI, 96860-3134, under Contract # N6247010D3011, 

CTO KB07. Submitted by HDR Inc., San Diego.

Mobley, J. R., & A. F. Pacini. (2012). Aerial Survey Monitoring for Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in the 

Hawaii Range Complex in Conjunction with a Navy Training Event, SCC February 15–25, 2010, 

Final Field Report. Prepared for Commander, Pacific Fleet Environmental. Submitted to Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (NAVFAC), EV2 Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI, 

96860-3134, under Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011. Submitted by HDR Inc, Honolulu, HI, July 

25, 2012.

Mobley, J. R., M. A. Smultea, C. E. Bacon, & A. S. Frankel. (2012). Preliminary Report: Aerial Survey 

Monitoring for Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in the Hawaii Range Complex--Summary of 

Focal Follow Analysis for 2008–2012 SCC Events: Preliminary Report. Prepared for Commander, 

U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

Pacific (NAVFAC), EV2 Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860-3134, under 

Contract # N62470-10-D-3011, 11 June 2013, issued to HDR Inc., San Diego, California 92123. 11 

June 2013.

Mobley, J. R., & A. F. Pacini. (2013). Aerial Survey Monitoring for Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in the 

Hawaii Range Complex in Conjunction with a Navy Training Event, SCC February 19-21 and 

August 12-13, 2013, Final Field Report. U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

Mobley, J. R., & M. H. Deakos. (2015). Aerial Shoreline Surveys for Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in 

the Hawaii Range Complex, Conducted after Navy Training Events. Koa Kai Surveys: 31 January 

and 5 February 2014. RIMPAC Surveys: 1 and 4–6 July 2014 (Prepared for Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command Pacific for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet under Contract No. N62470-10-

D-3011, CTO KB26, issued to HDR, Inc.). Pearl Harbor, HI: HDR Inc.

Mobley, J. R., M. H. Deakos, S. W. Martin, & R. Manzano-Roth. (2015). Aerial Survey Monitoring for 

Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in the Hawaii Range Complex in Conjunction with a Navy 

Training Event: SCC 18–20 February 2014, Final Report (Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command Pacific for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet under Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, CTO 

KB26, issued to HDR, Inc.). Honolulu, HI: HDR Inc.

Møller, A. R. (2013). Hearing: Anatomy, Physiology, and Disorders of the Auditory System. San Diego, CA: 

Plural Publishing.

Monnahan, C. (2013). Population Trends of the Eastern North Pacific Blue Whale. University of 

Washington. 

Monnahan, C. C., T. A. Branch, K. M. Stafford, Y. V. Ivashchenko, & E. M. Oleson. (2014). Estimating 

historical eastern North Pacific blue whale catches using spatial calling patterns. PLoS ONE, 9(6), 

e98974. 

Monnahan, C. C., T. A. Branch, & A. E. Punt. (2015). Do ship strikes threaten the recovery of endangered 

eastern North Pacific blue whales? Marine Mammal Science, 31(1), 279–297. 

Montie, E. W., C. A. Manire, & D. A. Mann. (2011). Live CT imaging of sound reception anatomy and 

hearing measurements in the pygmy killer whale, Feresa attenuata. Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 214, 945–955. 

Moon, H. B., K. Kannan, M. Choi, J. Yu, H. G. Choi, Y. R. An, S. G. Choi, J. Y. Park, & Z. G. Kim. (2010). 

Chlorinated and brominated contaminants including PCBs and PBDEs in minke whales and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-640

References

common dolphins from Korean coastal waters. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 179(1–3), 735–

741. 

Mooney, T. A., P. E. Nachtigall, M. Breese, S. Vlachos, & W. W. L. Au. (2009a). Predicting temporary 

threshold shifts in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): The effects of noise level and 

duration. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 125(3), 1816–1826. 

Mooney, T. A., P. E. Nachtigall, & S. Vlachos. (2009b). Sonar-induced temporary hearing loss in dolphins. 

Biology Letters, 5(4), 565–567. 

Mooney, T. A., M. Yamato, & B. K. Branstetter. (2012). Hearing in Cetaceans: From Natural History to 

Experimental Biology. Advances in Marine Biology, 63, 197–246. 

Moore, J. C. (1972). More skull characters of the beaked whale, Indopacetus pacificus, and comparative 

measurements of austral relatives. Fieldiana Zoology, 62(1), 1–19. 

Moore, J. C. (2008). Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly increasing, long-term 

threat. Environmental Research, 108(2), 131–139. 

Moore, J. E., & J. Barlow. (2011). Bayesian state-space model of fin whale abundance trends from a 

1991–2008 time series of line-transect surveys in the California Current. Journal of Applied 

Ecology, 1–11. 

Moore, J. E., & J. P. Barlow. (2013). Declining abundance of beaked whales (Family Ziphiidae) in the 

California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e52770. 

Moore, J. E., & J. P. Barlow. (2014). Improved abundance and trend estimates for sperm whales in the 

eastern North Pacific from Bayesian hierarchical modeling. Endangered Species Research, 25(2), 

141–150. 

Moore, M. J., & G. A. Early. (2004). Cumulative sperm whale bone damage and the bends. Science, 306, 

2215. 

Moore, M. J., A. L. Bogomolni, S. E. Dennison, G. Early, M. M. Garner, B. A. Hayward, B. J. Lentell, & D. S. 

Rotstein. (2009). Gas bubbles in seals, dolphins, and porpoises entangled and drowned at depth 

in gillnets. Veterinary Pathology, 46, 536–547. 

Moore, M. J., J. van der Hoop, S. G. Barco, A. M. Costidis, F. M. Gulland, P. D. Jepson, K. T. Moore, S. 

Raverty, & W. A. McLellan. (2013). Criteria and case definitions for serious injury and death of 

pinnipeds and cetaceans caused by anthropogenic trauma. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 

103(3), 229–264. 

Morejohn, G. V. (1979). The Natural History of Dall's Porpoise in the North Pacific Ocean (pp. 45–83).

Moreland, E. E., M. F. Cameron, R. P. Angliss, & P. L. Boveng. (2015). Evaluation of a ship–based 

unoccupied aircraft system (UAS) for surveys of spotted and ribbon seals in the Bering Sea pack 

ice. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems, 3(3), 114–122. 

Moretti, D., N. DiMarzio, R. Morrissey, E. McCarthy, & S. Jarvis. (2009, 7–10 December ). An 

opportunistic study of the effect of sonar on marine mammals, marine mammal monitoring on 

navy ranges (M3R). Paper presented at the 2009 ONR Marine Mammal Program Review, 

Alexandria, VA.

Moretti, D., L. Thomas, T. Marques, J. Harwood, A. Dilley, B. Neales, J. Shaffer, E. McCarthy, L. New, S. 

Jarvis, & R. Morrissey. (2014). A risk function for behavioral disruption of Blainville's beaked 

whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) from mid-frequency active sonar. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e85064. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-641

References

Moretti, D. (2016). Marine Mammal Monitoring on Navy Ranges (M3R) Passive Acoustic Monitoring of 

Abundance on the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMFR) and southern California Offshore Range 

(SCORE) (Submitted in Support of the U.S. Navy's 2015 Annual Marine Species Monitoring 

Report for the Pacific). Newport, RI: Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

Moretti, D. J., & R. W. Baird. (2015). Marine Mammal Monitoring on Navy Ranges (M3R), An 

Opportunistic Study of the Effect of Sonar on Marine Mammals on the Pacific Missile Range 

Facility (PMRF): FY14 Summary.

Morton, A. (2000). Occurrence, photo-identification and prey of Pacific white-sided dolphins 

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) in the Broughton Archipelago, Canada 1984–1998. Marine 

Mammal Science, 16(1), 80–93. 

Muir, J. E., L. Ainsworth, R. Joy, R. Racca, Y. Bychkov, G. Gailey, V. Vladimirov, S. Starodymov, & K. 

Bröker. (2015). Distance from shore as an indicator of disturbance of gray whales during a 

seismic survey off Sakhalin Island, Russia. Endangered Species Research, 29(2), 161–178. 

Muir, J. E., L. Ainsworth, R. Racca, Y. Bychkov, G. Gailey, V. Vladimirov, S. Starodymov, & K. Bröker. 

(2016). Gray whale densities during a seismic survey off Sakhalin Island, Russia. Endangered 

Species Research, 29(3), 211–227. 

Mulsow, J., & C. Reichmuth. (2010). Psychophysical and electrophysiological aerial audiograms of a 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127(4), 2692–

2701. 

Mulsow, J. L., J. J. Finneran, & D. S. Houser. (2011). California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) aerial 

hearing sensitivity measured using auditory steady-state response and psychophysical methods. 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(4), 2298–2306. 

Munger, L. M., M. O. Lammers, & W. W. L. Au. (2014). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Cetaceans within 

the Marianas Islands Range Complex (MIRC). Preliminary Report. Prepared for U.S. Pacific Fleet. 

Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Pacific, Honolulu, Hawaii under 

Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, Task Orders KB14 and KB 17, issued to HDR Inc., Honolulu, 

Hawaii. Prepared by Oceanwide Science Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii and Hawaii Institute of 

Marine Biology, Kaneohe, Hawaii. 10 February 2014.

Munger, L. M., M. O. Lammers, J. N. Oswald, T. M. Yack, & W. W. L. Au. (2015). Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring of Cetaceans within the Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC) Using Ecological 

Acoustic Recorders (EARs). Final Report. Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, 

Environmental Readiness Division, Pearl Harbor, HI. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command Pacific, EV2 Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI under Contract No. N62470-10-

D-3011 Task Orders KB14 and KB22 issued to HDR Inc., Honolulu, HI. 29 September.

Murase, H., T. Tamura, S. Otani, & S. Nishiwaki. (2015). Satellite tracking of Bryde’s whales Balaenoptera 

edeni in the offshore western North Pacific in summer 2006 and 2008. Fisheries Science, 82(1), 

35–45. 

Mussi, B., A. Miragliuolo, T. De Pippo, M. C. Gambi, & D. Chiota. (2004). The submarine canyon of Cuma 

(southern Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy), a cetacean key area to protect. European Research on 

Cetaceans, 15, 178–179. 

Muto, M. M., & R. P. Angliss. (2016). Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2015. Seattle, WA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-642

References

Muto, M. M., V. T. Helker, R. P. Angliss, B. A. Allen, P. L. Boveng, J. M. Breiwick, M. F. Cameron, P. J. 

Clapham, S. P. Dahle, M. E. Dahlheim, B. S. Fadely, M. C. Ferguson, L. W. Fritz, R. C. Hobbs, Y. V. 

Ivashchenko, A. S. Kennedy, J. M. London, S. A. Mizroch, R. R. Ream, E. L. Richmond, K. E. W. 

Shelden, R. G. Towell, P. R. Wade, J. M. Waite, & A. R. Zerbini. (2017). Alaska Marine Mammal 

Stock Assessments, 2016 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-323). Seattle, WA: 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory.

Nabe-Nielsen, J., R. M. Sibly, J. Tougaard, J. Teilmann, & S. Sveegaard. (2014). Effects of noise and bycatch on a Danish harbour porpoise population. Ecological Modelling, 272, 242–251. 

Nachtigall, P. E., D. W. Lemonds, & H. L. Roitblat. (2000). Psychoacoustic Studies of Dolphin and Whale 

Hearing Hearing by Whales and Dolphins (pp. 330–363). Springer.

Nachtigall, P. E., J. L. Pawloski, & W. W. L. Au. (2003). Temporary threshold shifts and recovery following 

noise exposure in the Atlantic bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 113(6), 3425–3429. 

Nachtigall, P. E., A. Y. Supin, J. Pawloski, & W. W. L. Au. (2004). Temporary threshold shifts after noise 

exposure in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) measured using evoked auditory 

potentials. Marine Mammal Science, 20(4), 673–687. 

Nachtigall, P. E., A. Y. Supin, M. Amundin, B. Roken, T. Møller, T. A. Mooney, K. A. Taylor, & M. Yuen. 

(2007). Polar bear, Ursus maritimus, hearing measured with auditory evoked potentials. The 

Journal of Experimental Biology, 210(7), 1116–1122. 

Nachtigall, P. E., T. A. Mooney, K. A. Taylor, L. A. Miller, M. H. Rasmussen, T. Akamatsu, J. Teilmann, M. 

Linnenschmidt, & G. A. Vikingsson. (2008). Shipboard Measurements of the Hearing of the 

White-Beaked Dolphin, Lagenorhynchus albirostris. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 211, 

642–647. 

Nagorsen, D. W., & G. E. Stewart. (1983). A dwarf sperm whale (Kogia simus) from the Pacific coast of 

Canada. Journal of Mammalogy, 64(3), 505–506. 

National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Approaches to Understanding the 

Cumulative Effects of Stressors on Marine Mammals. Washington, DC: The National Academies 

Press Series.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (1976). Hawaiian Monk Seal Final Regulations.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2005). Assessment of Acoustic Exposures on Marine Mammals in 

Conjunction with USS Shoup Active Sonar Transmissions in the Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca and 

Haro Strait, Washington, 5 May 2003. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected 

Resources,.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2006). Notice of Availability of New Criteria for Designation of 

Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs). Federal Register, 71 FR 75234. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2007a). Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2007b). Conservation Plan for the Eastern Pacific Stock of Northern 

Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus). Juneau, AK: NMFS Protected Resources Division, Alaska Region.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2007c). Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus 

schauinslandi). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service Retrieved from 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/hawaiianmonkseal.htm.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-643

References

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2007d). Report to Congress on the Impact of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, 

and Wilman on Commercial and Recreational Fisheries Habitat of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Texas. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2007e). Biological Opinion on the U.S. Navy's Proposed Undersea 

Warfare Training Exercises in the Hawaii Range Complex from January 2007 Through January 

2009. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2008a). Marine Mammal Response Network Activity Update 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2008b). Compliance Guide for Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule 

(50 C.F.R. 224.105). (OMB Control #0648-0580). National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/shipstrike/compliance_guide.pdf.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2009a). Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus): 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service Office of 

Protected Resources.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2009b). Endangered and Threatened Species: 12–Month Finding for a 

Petition to Revise Critical Habitat for Hawaiian Monk Seal.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010a). Marine Mammal Response Network Activity Update #14.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010b). Hawaiian Monk Seal Population and Location. Retrieved 

from http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/PRD/Hawaiian%20monk%20seal/Fact%20Sheets/HMSpopulationMAY2010.pdf).

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010c). Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement on Implementing Recovery Actions for Hawaiian Monk Seals.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010d). Hawaiian Monk Seal Top Threats. Retrieved from 

http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/PRD/Hawaiian%20monk%20seal/Fact%20Sheets/HMStop_threats.MAY2010.pdf.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010e). Marine Mammal Response Network Activity Update #15.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2011a). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed 

Rulemaking To Revise Critical Habitat for Hawaiian Monk Seals. Federal Register.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2011b). Final Recovery Plan for the Sei Whale (Balaenoptera 

borealis). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2011c). Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery; 2009–2010 Program Update 

and Accomplishments Report.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2011d). Pacific Science Center Stranding Data. Excel file containing 

stranding from the Hawaiian Islands, manuscript on file.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2011e). A Decade of Support to Save and Conserve Stranded Marine 

Mammals. Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2011f). Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program 

(MMHSRP). Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-644

References

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2011g). Southwest Region (NMFS SWR) Stranding Database. Excel file 

containing stranding from Southwest Region provided to Navy. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2012a). National Marine Fisheries Service Policy Directive PD 02-038: 

Process for Distinguishing Serious from Non-Serious Injury of Marine Mammals. Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/directives/.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2012b). Melon-headed Whale (Peponocephala electra): National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2014a). Reinitiated Biological Opinion on Navy activities on the 

Northwest Training Range Complex and NMFS’s Issuance of an MMPA Letter of Authorization.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2014b). Biological Opinion and Conference Report on U.S. Navy 

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015a). Hawaii Stranding Spreadsheet for 2010–2014. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015b). Unpublished SOCAL Stranding Data for the period up to 2015, 

provided to Chip Johnson at U.S. Navy. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015c). Reinitiated Biological Opinion and Conference Report on U.S. 

Navy Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015d). Environmental Changes Stress West Coast Sea Lions. 

Retrieved from Https://swfsc.noaa.gov/news.aspx?ParentMenuId=147&id=20126[03/25/2015 

10:31:38]

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015e). Stranding Data for Hawaii through 2015. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015f). Guadalupe Fur Seal Unusual Mortality Event in California. 

Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/guadalupefurseals2015.html

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016a). Unpublished SOCAL Stranding Data through May 2016, 

provided to Chip Johnson at U.S. Navy. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016b). Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for Nine Distinct Population 

Segments of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) DRAFT. Silver Spring, MD.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016c). Guidelines for Preparing Stock Assessment Reports Pursuant 

to Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (National Marine Fisheries Service 

Instruction 02-204-01).

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016d). Protective Regulations for Hawaiian Spinner Dolphins Under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Federal Register, 81(164), 57854–57876. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016e). FAQs: Whale, Dolphin, Seal, and Sea Lion (Marine Mammal) 

Strandings. Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/faq.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016f). Enhancing Protections for Hawaiian Spinner Dolphins to 

Prevent Disturbance; Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Regulatory Impact Review.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016g). Stranding Spreadsheet for San Diego County, 1983–2015. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016h). Endangered and Threatened Species; Identification of 14 

Distinct Population Segments of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) and Revision 

of Species-Wide Listing. Federal Register, 81(174), 62260–62320. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-645

References

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016i). San Diego and other county cetacean and pinniped stranding 

data 2010–2014. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016j). Main Hawaiian Islands Monk Seal Management Plan. 

Honolulu, HI: National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Region.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1985). Threatened Fish and Wildlife; Guadalupe Fur 

Seal Final Rule.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2002). Report of the Workshop on Acoustic 

Resonance as a Source of Tissue Trauma in Cetaceans. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2010). National Marine Fisheries Service's Final 

Biological Opinion for the Proposed Issuance of a United States Coast Guard Permit to the St. 

George Reef Lighthouse Preservation Society to Maintain the St. George Reef Lighthouse as a 

Private Aid to Navigation and its Effect on the Federally Threatened Eastern Distinct Population 

Segment of Steller Sea Lion and Designated Critical Habitat. National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2012). Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Commercial Fishing Operations; False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan; Final Rule. Federal 

Register.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2013). Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Study Area; Final Rule. Federal Register.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2014a). Southern Resident Killer Whales: 10 Years of 

Research & Conservation.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2014b). Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Missile Launches From San Nicolas Island, California. Federal 

Register.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2015a). Endangered and Threatened Species: Final 

Rulemaking To Revise Critical Habitat for Hawaiian Monk Seals; Final Rule. Federal Register.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2015b). Marine Mammal Non-Lethal Deterrents: 

Summary of the Technical Expert Workshop on Marine Mammal Non-Lethal Deterrents, 10-12 

February 2015, Seattle, Washington (NOAA Technical Memorandum). United States Department 

of Commerce; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; National Marine Fisheries 

Service.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2015c). Vaccination of Hawaiian Monk Seals. 

Honolulu, HI: National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2015d). Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Pier Maintenance Project. Federal 

Register.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2015e). Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Northwest Training and 

Testing Study Area; Final Rule. Federal Register.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-646

References

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016a, February 2016). Testing Detects Algal Toxins 

in Alaska Marine Mammals. Retrieved from 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/news/features/algal_blooms_in_arctic_waters/index.cfm

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016b). 2015–2016 Guadalupe Fur Seal Unusual 

Mortality Event in California. Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/guadalupefurseals2015.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016c). 2013–2016 California Sea Lion Unusual 

Mortality Event in California. Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/californiasealions2013.htm

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2017a). Main Hawaiian Islands Insular False Killer 

Whale Recovery Planning Workshop: Workshop Summary. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Islands Regional 

Office.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2017b). 2015–2017 Guadalupe Fur Seal Unusual 

Mortality Event in California. Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/guadalupefurseals2015.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2011). Derelict Fishing Gear 

Mapping and Removal in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Retrieved from 

http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/projects/main_hawaiian.html#scope[4/6/2011 2:24:44 PM]

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2014a). Report on the

Occurrence of Health Effects of Anthropogenic Debris Ingested by Marine Organisms. Silver 

Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2014b). Report on the 

Entanglement of Marine Species in Marine Debris with an Emphasis on Species in the United 

States. Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration. (2017). 2016 West Coast Entanglement Summary. 

National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Research Council. (2003). Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2005). Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise. Washington, DC: 

National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2006). Dynamic Changes in Marine Ecosystems: Fishing, Food Webs, and 

Future Options, Committee on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing: Phase II–Assessments of the Extent 

of Change and the Implications for Policy. National Research Council.

Nedwell, J. R., B. Edwards, A. W. H. Turnpenny, & J. Gordon. (2004). Fish and marine mammal 

audiograms: A summary of available information (Subacoustech Report ref: 534R0214). 

Hamphire, UK.

Neilson, J. L., J. M. Straley, C. M. Gabriele, & S. Hills. (2009). Non-lethal entanglement of humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in fishing gear in northern Southeast Alaska. Journal of 

Biogeography, 36, 452–464. 

Neilson, J. L., C. M. Gabriele, A. S. Jensen, K. Jackson, & J. M. Straley. (2012). Summary of Reported 

Whale-Vessel Collisions in Alaskan Waters. Journal of Marine Biology, 2012, 1–18. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-647

References

Nemoto, T., & A. Kawamura. (1977). Characteristics of food habits and distribution of baleen whales 

with special reference to the abundance of North Pacific sei and Bryde's whales. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 1, 80–87. 

New, L. F., J. Harwood, L. Thomas, C. Donovan, J. S. Clark, G. Hastie, P. M. Thompson, B. Cheney, L. ScottHayward, D. Lusseau, & D. Costa. (2013a). Modelling the biological significance of behavioural 

change in coastal bottlenose dolphins in response to disturbance. Functional Ecology, 27(2), 

314–322. 

New, L. F., D. J. Morretti, S. K. Hooker, D. P. Costa, & S. E. Simmons. (2013b). Using Energetic Models to 

Investigate the Survival and Reproduction of Beaked Whales (family Ziphiidae). PLosOne, 8(7), 

e68725. 

New, L. F., J. S. Clark, D. P. Costa, E. Fleishman, M. A. Hindell, T. Klanjšček, D. Lusseau, S. Kraus, C. R. 

McMahon, P. W. Robinson, R. S. Schick, L. K. Schwarz, S. E. Simmons, L. Thomas, P. Tyack, & J. 

Harwood. (2014). Using short-term measures of behaviour to estimate long-term fitness of 

southern elephant seals. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 496, 99–108. 

Newell, C. L., & T. J. Cowles. (2006). Unusual gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus, feeding in the summer of 

2005 off the central Oregon Coast. Geophysical Research Letters, 33(22). 

Ng, S. L., & S. Leung. (2003). Behavioral response of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis) to 

vessel traffic. Marine Environmental Research, 56(5), 555–567. 

Nieukirk, S. L., D. K. Mellinger, S. E. Moore, K. Klinck, R. P. Dziak, & J. Goslin. (2012). Sounds from airguns 

and fin whales recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean, 1999–2009. The Journal of Acoustical Society 

of America, 131(2), 1102–1112. 

Noren, D. P., A. H. Johnson, D. Rehder, & A. Larson. (2009). Close approaches by vessels elicit surface 

active behaviors by southern resident killer whales. Endangered Species Research, 8(3), 179–

192. 

Normandeau Associates, Inc., & APEM, Ltd. (2013a). Aerial Survey of Seabirds and Marine Mammals at 

Ka`ula Island, Hawaii–Spring 2013 (GSA # GS-10F-0319M). Gainesville, FL: U.S. Navy 

Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Environmental Readiness.

Normandeau Associates, Inc., & APEM, Ltd. (2013b). Aerial Survey of Seabirds and Marine Mammals at 

Ka`ula Island, Hawaii–August 2013 (GSA #GS-10F-0319M). Gainesville, FL: U.S. Navy 

Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Environmental Readiness.

Normandeau Associates, Inc., & APEM, Ltd. (2014). Aerial Survey of Seabirds and Marine Mammals at 

Ka`ula Island, Hawaii–January 2014 (GSA # GS-10F-0319M). Gainesville, FL: U.S. Navy 

Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Environemtnal Readiness.

Normandeau Associates, Inc., & APEM, Ltd. (2015a). Aerial Survey of Seabirds and Marine Mammals at 

Ka`ula Island, Hawaii–January 2015 (GSA #GS-10F-0319M). Gainesville, FL: U.S. Navy 

Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Environmental Readiness.

Normandeau Associates, Inc., & APEM, Ltd. (2015b). Aerial Survey of Seabirds and Marine Mammals at 

Ka`ula Island, Hawaii–July 2015 (GSA #GS-10F-0319M). Gainesville, FL: U.S. Navy Commander, 

U.S. Pacific Fleet Environmental Readiness.

Normandeau Associates, Inc., & APEM, Ltd. (2016). Aerial Survey of Seabirds and Marine Mammals at 

Ka`ula Island, Hawaii–March 2016 (GSA #GS-10F-0319M). Gainesville, FL: U.S. Navy 

Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Environmental Readiness.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-648

References

Normandeau, E., T. Tricas, & A. Gill. (2011). Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on 

Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific Outer Continental 

Shelf Region.

Norris, K. S., & J. H. Prescott. (1961). Observations on Pacific cetaceans of Californian and Mexican 

waters. University of California Publications in Zoology, 63(4), 291–402. 

Norris, K. S., & T. P. Dohl. (1980). Behavior of the Hawaiian spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris. Fishery 

Bulletin, 77(4), 821–849. 

Norris, K. S., B. Wursig, R. S. Wells, & M. Würsig. (1994). The Hawaiian Spinner Dolphin (pp. 408). 

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Norris, T., G. DeRango, R. DiGiovanni, & C. Field. (2015). Distribution of and threats to Guadalupe fur 

seals off the California coast. San Francisco, CA: Society of Marine Mammalogy.

Norris, T. F., M. McDonald, & J. Barlow. (1999). Acoustic detections of singing humpback whales 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) in the eastern North Pacific during their northbound migration. The 

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 106(1), 506–514. 

Norris, T. F., M. A. Smultea, S. Rankin, C. Loftus, C. Oedekoven, J. L. Hayes, E. Silva, & A. M. Zoidis. (2005). 

A Preliminary Acoustic-Visual Survey of Cetaceans in Deep Waters around Ni’ihau, Kaua’i, and 

portions of O’ahu, Hawai’i from Aboard the R/V Dariabar. Bar Harbor, ME.

Norris, T. F., J. N. Oswald, T. M. Yack, & E. L. Ferguson. (2012). An Analysis of Marine Acoustic Recording 

Unit (MARU) Data Collected off Jacksonville, Florida in Fall 2009 and Winter 2009–2010. Final 

Report. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, 

under Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, Task Order 021, issued to HDR Inc., Norfolk, Virginia. 

Prepared by Bio-Waves Inc., Encinitas, California. 21 November 2012. Revised January 2014.

Northridge, S. (2008). Fishing industry, effects of. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), 

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 443–447). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Nowacek, D. P., M. P. Johnson, & P. L. Tyack. (2004a). North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) 

ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 271(B), 

227–231. 

Nowacek, D. P., L. H. Thorne, D. W. Johnston, & P. L. Tyack. (2007). Responses of cetaceans to 

anthropogenic noise. Mammal Review, 37(2), 81–115. 

Nowacek, D. P., C. W. Clark, D. Mann, P. J. O. Miller, H. C. Rosenbaum, J. S. Golden, M. Jasny, J. Kraska, & 

B. L. Southall. (2015). Marine seismic surveys and ocean noise: time for coordinated and prudent 

planning. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(7), 378–386. 

Nowacek, D. P., F. Christiansen, L. Bejder, J. A. Goldbogen, & A. S. Friedlaender. (2016). Studying 

cetacean behaviour: new technological approaches and conservation applications. Animal 

Behaviour, 1–10. 

Nowacek, S. M., R. S. Wells, E. C. G. Owen, T. R. Speakman, R. O. Flamm, & D. P. Nowacek. (2004b). 

Florida manatees, Trichechus manatus latirostris, respond to approaching vessels. Biological 

Conservation, 119, 517–523. 

Oakley, J. A., A. T. Williams, & T. Thomas. (2017). Reactions of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) to 

vessel traffic in the coastal waters of South West Wales, UK. Ocean & Coastal Management, 

138, 158–169. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-649

References

Ocean Alliance. (2010). The Voyage of the Odyssey: Executive Summary.

Odell, D. K., & K. M. McClune. (1999). False killer whale–Pseudorca crassidens (Owen, 1846). In S. H. 

Ridgway & S. R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals, vol. 6: The Second Book of 

Dolphins and the Porpoises (Vol. 6, pp. 213–244). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Office of the Surgeon General. (1991). Conventional Warfare Ballistic, Blast, and Burn Injuries. In R. 

Zajitchuk, Col. (Ed.), U.S.A. Textbook of Military Medicine. Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon 

General.

Ohizumi, H. (2002). Dietary studies of toothed whales: A review of technical issues and new topics. 

Fisheries Science, 68(Supplement 1), 264–267. 

Ohizumi, H., T. Matsuishi, & H. Kishino. (2002). Winter sightings of humpback and Bryde's whales in 

tropical waters of the western and central North Pacific. Aquatic Mammals, 28(1), 73–77. 

Ohizumi, H., T. Isoda, T. Kishiro, & H. Kato. (2003). Feeding habits of Baird's beaked whale, Berardius 

bairdii, in the western North Pacific and Sea of Okhotsk off Japan. Fisheries Science, 69, 11–20. 

Oleson, E. M., C. H. Boggs, K. A. Forney, M. B. Hanson, D. R. Kobayashi, B. L. Taylor, P. R. Wade, & G. M. 

Ylitalo. (2010). Status Review of Hawaiian Insular False Killer Whales (Pseudorca crassidens) 

under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Department of Commerce.

Oleson, E. M., R. W. Baird, K. K. Martien, & B. L. Taylor. (2013). Island-associated stocks of odontocetes in 

the main Hawaiian Islands: A synthesis of available information to facilitate evaluation of stock 

structure (PIFSC Working Paper WP-13-003). Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

Oleson, E. M., S. Baumann-Pickering, A. Širović, K. P. Merkens, L. M. Munger, J. S. Trickey, & P. FisherPool. (2015). Analysis of long-term acoustic datasets for baleen whales and beaked whales 

within the Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC) for 2010 to 2013 (PIFSC Data Report DR-15-

002).

Olsen, E., W. P. Budgell, E. Head, L. Kleivane, L. Nøttestad, P. Prieto, M. A. Silva, H. Skov, G. A. Víkingsson, 

G. Waring, & N. Øien. (2009). First satellite-tracked long-distance movement of a sei whale 

(Balaenoptera borealis) in the North Atlantic. Aquatic Mammals, 35(3), 313–318. 

Olson, J. K. (2013). The effect of human exposure on the anti–predatory response of harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina). 

Olson, P. A. (2009). Pilot whales, Globicephala melas and G. macrorhynchus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & 

J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 898–903). San Diego, 

CA: Academic Press.

Oregon State University. (2017). Southern and Central California 2016 Whale Approach Summary from 

Bruce Mate regarding body condition of blue and fin whales off Southern and Central California.

Orr, A. J., G. R. VanBlaricom, R. L. DeLong, V. H. Cruz-Escalona, & S. D. Newsome. (2011). Intraspecific 

comparison of diet of California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) assessed using fecal and stable 

isotope analyses. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 89(2), 109–122. 

Orr, A. J., S. D. Newsome, J. L. Laake, G. R. VanBlaricom, & R. L. DeLong. (2012). Ontogenetic dietary 

information of the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) assessed using stable isotope 

analysis. Marine Mammal Science, 28(4), 714–732. 

Ostman-Lind, J., A. D. Driscoll-Lind, & S. H. Rickards. (2004). Delphinid Abundance, Distribution and 

Habitat Use Off the Western Coast of the Island of Hawaii. (Southwest Fisheries Science Center 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-650

References

Administrative Report LJ-04-02C). La Jolla, CA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center.

Oswald, J. N., J. Barlow, & T. F. Norris. (2003). Acoustic identification of nine delphinid species in the 

eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Marine Mammal Science, 19(1), 20–37. 

Owen, M. A., & A. E. Bowles. (2011). In-air auditory psychophysics and the management of a threatened 

carnivore, the polar bear (Ursus maritimus). International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 

24, 244–254. 

Pablo-Rodriguez, N., D. Aurioles-Gamboa, & J. L. Montero-Munoz. (2015). Niche overlap and habitat use 

at distinct temporal scales among the California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) and 

Guadalupe fur seals (Arctocephalus philippii townsendi). Marine Mammal Science, 24. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council. (2014). Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the 

California, Oregon and Washington Groundfish Fishery. Portland, OR: Pacific Fishery Managment 

Council.

Page, B., J. McKenzie, R. McIntosh, A. Baylis, A. Morrissey, N. Calvert, T. Haase, M. Berros, D. Dowie, P. 

D. Shaughnessy, & S. D. Goldsworthy. (2004). Entanglement of Australian sea lions and New 

Zealand fur seals in lost fishing gear and other marine debris before and after government and 

industry attempts to reduce the problem. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 49(1-2), 33–42. 

Palka, D. L., & P. S. Hammond. (2001). Accounting for responsive movement in line transect estimates of 

abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58, 777–787. 

Panigada, S., M. Zanardelli, M. Mackenzie, C. Donovan, F. Melin, & P. S. Hammond. (2008). Modelling 

habitat preferences for fin whales and striped dolphins in the Pelagos Sanctuary (Western 

Mediterranean Sea) with physiographic and remote sensing variables. Remote Sensing of 

Environment, 112(8), 3400–3412. 

Paniz-Mondolfi, A. E., & L. Sander-Hoffmann. (2009). Lobomycosis in inshore and estuarine dolphins. 

Emerg Infect Dis, 15(4), 672–673. 

Papale, E., M. Gamba, M. Perez-Gil, V. M. Martin, & C. Giacoma. (2015). Dolphins adjust species-specific 

frequency parameters to compensate for increasing background noise. PLoS ONE, 10(4), 

e0121711. 

Parks, S. E., C. W. Clark, & P. L. Tyack. (2007). Short- and long-term changes in right whale calling 

behavior: The potential effects of noise on acoustic communication. The Journal of Acoustical 

Society of America, 122(6), 3725–3731. 

Parks, S. E. (2009, 7–10 December ). Assessment of acoustic adaptations for noise compensation in

marine mammals. Paper presented at the 2009 ONR Marine Mammal Program Review, 

Alexandria, VA.

Parks, S. E., M. Johnson, D. Nowacek, & P. L. Tyack. (2011). Individual right whales call louder in 

increased environmental noise. Biology Letters, 7, 33–35. 

Parrish, F. A., M. P. Craig, T. J. Ragen, G. J. Marshall, & B. M. Buhleier. (2000). Identifying diurnal foraging 

habitat of endangered Hawaiian monk seals using a seal-mounted video camera. Marine 

Mammal Science, 16(2), 392–412. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-651

References

Parrish, F. A., G. J. Marshall, B. Buhleier, & G. A. Antonelis. (2008). Foraging interaction between monk 

seals and large predatory fish in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Endangered Species 

Research, 4, 299–308. 

Pascual, C. (2015). False killer whale in Hawaii died of natural causes, KITV Channel 4. Retrieved from 

http://www.kitv.com/story/30545423/false-killer-whale-died-of-natural-causes[11/18/2015

08:26:08]

Patenaude, N. J., W. J. Richardson, M. A. Smultea, W. R. Koski, G. W. Miller, B. Würsig, & C. R. Greene, Jr. 

(2002). Aircraft sound and disturbance to bowhead and beluga whales during spring migration in 

the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Marine Mammal Science, 18(2), 309–335. 

Payne, P. M., & D. W. Heinemann. (1993). The distribution of pilot whales (Globicephala spp.) in 

shelf/shelf edge and slope waters of the northeastern United States, 1978–1988. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission, 14, 51–68. 

Pepper, C. B., M. A. Nascarella, & R. J. Kendall. (2003). A review of the effects of aircraft noise on wildlife 

and humans, current control mechanisms, and the need for further study. Environmental 

Management, 32(4), 418–432. 

Perkins, J. S., & G. W. Miller. (1983). Mass stranding of Steno bredanensis in Belize. Biotropica, 15(3), 

235–236. 

Perrin, W. (2009). List of Marine Mammal Species and Subspecies. Retrieved from 

https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-of-marine-mammal-speciessubspecies/

Perrin, W. F., P. B. Best, W. H. Dawbin, K. C. Balcomb, R. Gambell, & G. J. B. Ross. (1973). Rediscovery of 

Fraser's dolphin, Lagenodelphis hosei. Nature, 241, 345–350. 

Perrin, W. F. (1976). First record of the melon-headed whale, Peponocephala electra, in the eastern 

Pacific, with a summary of world distribution. Fishery Bulletin, 74(2), 457–458. 

Perrin, W. F., & J. W. Gilpatrick, Jr. (1994). Spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris (Gray, 1828). In S. H. 

Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals, Volume 5: The first book of 

dolphins (Vol. 5, pp. 99–128). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Perrin, W. F., & A. A. Hohn. (1994). Pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata. In S. H. Ridgway & R. 

Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 5, pp. 71–98). San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press.

Perrin, W. F., S. Leatherwood, & A. Collet. (1994a). Fraser's dolphin, Lagenodelphis hosei Fraser, 1956. In 

S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 5: The first book of 

dolphins, pp. 225–240). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Perrin, W. F., C. E. Wilson, & F. I. Archer, II. (1994b). Striped dolphin–Stenella coeruleoalba (Meyen, 

1833). In S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals Volume 5: The First 

Book of Dolphins (Vol. 5, pp. 129–159). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Perrin, W. F. (2001). Stenella attenuata. Mammalian Species, 683, 1–8. 

Perrin, W. F., & J. R. Geraci. (2002). Stranding. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), 

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (pp. 1192–1197). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-652

References

Perrin, W. F. (2008a). Common dolphins, Delphinus delphis and D. capensis. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & 

J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 255–259). Academic 

Press.

Perrin, W. F. (2008b). Spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 1100–1103). Academic Press.

Perrin, W. F. (2008c). Pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. 

M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 819–821). Academic Press.

Perrin, W. F., C. S. Baker, A. Berta, D. J. Boness, R. L. Brownell, Jr., M. L. Dalebout, D. P. Domning, R. M. 

Hamner, T. A. Jefferson, J. G. Mead, D. W. Rice, P. E. Rosel, J. Y. Wang, & T. Yamada. (2009a). 

Marine Mammal Species and Subspecies. Retrieved from 

http://www.marinemammalscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420

&Itemid=280

Perrin, W. F., B. Würsig, & J. G. M. E. Thewissen. (2009b). Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed.). 

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Perry, S. L., D. P. DeMaster, & G. K. Silber. (1999). The great whales: History and status of six species 

listed as Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Marine Fisheries Review, 

61(1), 1–74. 

Perryman, W. L., & T. C. Foster. (1980). Preliminary Report on Predation by Small Whales, Mainly the 

False Killer Whale, Pseudorca crassidens, on Dolphins (Stenella spp. and Delphinus delphis) in the 

Eastern Tropical Pacific. (LJ-80-05). La Jolla, CA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center.

Perryman, W. L., D. W. K. Au, S. Leatherwood, & T. A. Jefferson. (1994). Melon-headed whale, 

Peponocephala electra Gray, 1846. In S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine 

Mammals (Vol. 5: The first book of dolphins, pp. 363–386). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Perryman, W. L. (2008). Melon-headed whale, Peponocephala electra. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. 

M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 719–721). Academic Press.

Peterson, S. H., J. L. Hassrick, A. Lafontaine, J. P. Thome, D. E. Crocker, C. Debier, & D. P. Costa. (2014). 

Effects of age, adipose percent, and reproduction on PCB concentrations and profiles in an 

extreme fasting North Pacific marine mammal. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e96191. 

Peterson, S. H., J. T. Ackerman, & D. P. Costa. (2015). Marine foraging ecology influences mercury 

bioaccumulation in deep-diving nothern elephant seals. Proceedings of the Royal Society 

Biological Sciences, 282(20150710), 10. 

PHYSORG. (2017). Biologist: Orca attacks on gray whales up in California bay. Retrieved from 

https://phys.org/news/2017-04-biologist-orca-gray-whales-california.html

Piantadosi, C. A., & E. D. Thalmann. (2004). Whales, sonar and decompression sickness. Nature, 1. 

Pierce, G. J., M. B. Santos, C. Smeenk, A. Saveliev, & A. F. Zuur. (2007). Historical trends in the incidence 

of strandings of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) on North Sea coasts: An association 

with positive temperature anomalies. Fisheries Research, 87(2–3), 219–228. 

Pine, M. K., A. G. Jeffs, D. Wang, & C. A. Radford. (2016). The potential for vessel noise to mask 

biologically important sounds within ecologically significant embayments. Ocean & Coastal 

Management, 127, 63–73. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-653

References

Pirotta, E., R. Milor, N. Quick, D. Moretti, N. Di Marzio, P. Tyack, I. Boyd, & G. Hastie. (2012). Vessel noise 

affects beaked whale behavior: Results of a dedicated acoustic response study. PLoS ONE, 7(8), 

e42535. 

Pirotta, E., K. L. Brookes, I. M. Graham, & P. M. Thompson. (2014). Variation in harbour porpoise activity 

in response to seismic survey noise. Biology Letters, 10(5), 20131090. 

Pirotta, E., J. Harwood, P. M. Thompson, L. New, B. Cheney, M. Arso, P. S. Hammond, C. Donovan, & D. 

Lusseau. (2015a). Predicting the effects of human developments on individual dolphins to 

understand potential long-term population consequences. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 

Biological Sciences, 282(1818), 20152109. 

Pirotta, E., N. D. Merchant, P. M. Thompson, T. R. Barton, & D. Lusseau. (2015b). Quantifying the effect 

of boat disturbance on bottlenose dolphin foraging activity. Biological Conservation, 181, 82–89. 

Piscitelli, M. A., W. A. McLellan, A. S. Rommel, J. E. Blum, S. G. Barco, & D. A. Pabst. (2010). Lung size and 

thoracic morphology in shallow and deep-diving cetaceans. Journal of morphology, 271, 654–

673. 

Pitman, R. (2008). Mesoplodont whales (Mesoplodon spp.). In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 721–726). Amsterdam, 

Netherlands: Academic Press.

Pitman, R. L., D. W. K. Au, M. D. Scott, & J. M. Cotton. (1988). Observations of Beaked Whales (Ziphiidae) 

from the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. International Whaling Commission.

Pitman, R. L., & L. T. Ballance. (1992). Parkinson's petrel distribution and foraging ecology in the eastern 

Pacific: Aspects of an exclusive feeding relationship with dolphins. The Condor, 94, 825–835. 

Pitman, R. L., & M. S. Lynn. (2001). Biological observations of an unidentified mesoplodont whale in the 

eastern tropical Pacific and probable identity: Mesoplodon peruvianus. Marine Mammal Science, 

17(3), 648–657. 

Pitman, R. L., & C. Stinchcomb. (2002). Rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) as predators of 

mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus). Pacific Science, 56(4), 447–450. 

Pitman, R. L., H. Fearnbach, R. LeDuc, J. W. Gilpatrick, Jr., J. K. B. Ford, & L. T. Ballance. (2007). Killer 

whales preying on a blue whale calf on the Costa Rica Dome: Genetics, morphometrics, 

vocalisations and composition of the group. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 

9(2), 151–157. 

Polacheck, T., & L. Thorpe. (1990). The swimming direction of harbor porpoise in relationship to a survey 

vessel. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 40, 463–470. 

Poloczanska, E. S., M. T. Burrows, C. J. Brown, J. G. Molinos, B. S. Halpern, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, C. V. 

Kappel, P. J. Moore, A. J. Richardson, D. S. Schoeman, & W. J. Sydeman. (2016). Responses of 

Marine Organisms to Climate Change across Oceans. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3(62), 1–21. 

Pomeroy, P., L. O'Connor, & P. Davies. (2015). Assessing use of and reaction to unmanned aerial systems 

in gray and harbor seals during breeding and molt in the UK1. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle 

Systems, 3(3), 102–113. 

Popov, V. V., A. Y. Supin, D. Wang, K. Wang, L. Dong, & S. Wang. (2011). Noise-induced temporary 

threshold shift and recovery in Yangtze finless porpoises, Neophocaena phocaenoides 

asiaeorientalis. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 130(1), 574–584. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-654

References

Popov, V. V., A. Y. Supin, V. V. Rozhnov, D. I. Nechaev, E. V. Sysuyeva, V. O. Klishin, M. G. Pletenko, & M. 

B. Tarakanov. (2013). Hearing threshold shifts and recovery after noise exposure in beluga 

whales, Delphinapterus leucas. Journal of Experimental Biology, 216(9), 1587–1596. 

Popov, V. V., A. Y. Supin, V. V. Rozhnov, D. I. Nechaev, & E. V. Sysueva. (2014). The limits of applicability 

of the sound exposure level (SEL) metric to temporal threshold shifts (TTS) in beluga whales, 

Delphinapterus leucas. Journal of Experimental Biology, 217(Pt 10), 1804–1810. 

Potter, J. R., M. Thillet, C. Douglas, M. A. Chitre, Z. Doborzynski, & P. J. Seekings. (2007). Visual and 

passive acoustic marine mammal observations and high-frequency seismic source characteristics 

recorded during a seismic survey. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 32(2), 469–483. 

Prescott, R. (1982). Harbor seals: Mysterious lords of the winter beach. Cape Cod Life, 3(4), 24–29. 

Pyle, P., D. J. Long, J. Schonewald, R. E. Jones, & J. Roletto. (2001). Historical and recent colonization of 

the South Farallon Islands, California, by northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus). Marine 

Mammal Science, 17(2), 397–402. 

Quick, N., L. Scott-Hayward, D. Sadykova, D. Nowacek, & A. Read. (2017). Effects of a scientific echo 

sounder on the behavior of short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus). Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 74(5), 716–726. 

Ragen, T. J., G. A. Antonelis, & M. Kiyota. (1995). Early migration of northern fur seal pups from St. Paul 

Island, Alaska. Journal of Mammalogy, 76(4), 1137–1148. 

Ramp, C., J. Delarue, P. J. Palsboll, R. Sears, & P. S. Hammond. (2015). Adapting to a warmer ocean–

seasonal shift of baleen whale movements over three decades. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0121374. 

Rankin, S., & J. Barlow. (2005). Source of the North Pacific “boing” sound attributed to minke whales. 

The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 118(5), 3346. 

Rankin, S., & J. Barlow. (2007). Sounds recorded in the presence of Blainville's beaked whales, 

Mesoplodon densirostris, near Hawaii. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 122(1), 42–

45. 

Rankin, S., T. F. Norris, M. A. Smultea, C. Oedekoven, A. M. Zoidis, E. Silva, & J. Rivers. (2007). A visual 

sighting and acoustic detections of minke whales, Balaenoptera acutorostrata (Cetacea: 

Balaenopteridae), in nearshore Hawaiian waters. Pacific Science, 61, 395–398. 

Read, A. J., P. Drinker, & S. Northridge. (2006). Bycatch of marine mammals in U.S. and global fisheries. 

Conservation Biology, 20(1), 163–169. 

Read, A. J. (2008). The looming crisis: Interactions between marine mammals and fisheries. Journal of 

Mammalogy, 89(3), 541–548. 

Read, A. J., S. Barco, J. Bell, D. L. Borchers, M. L. Burt, E. W. Cummings, J. Dunn, E. M. Fougeres, L. Hazen, 

& L. E. W. Hodge. (2014). Occurrence, distribution and abundance of cetaceans in Onslow Bay, 

North Carolina, USA. Journal of Cetacean Research Management, 14, 23–35. 

Ream, R. R., J. T. Sterling, & T. R. Loughlin. (2005). Oceanographic features related to northern fur seal 

migratory movements. Deep-Sea Research II, 52, 823–843. 

Redfern, J. V., M. F. McKenna, T. J. Moore, J. Calambokidis, M. L. Deangelis, E. A. Becker, J. Barlow, K. A. 

Forney, P. C. Fiedler, & S. J. Chivers. (2013). Assessing the risk of ships striking large whales in 

marine spatial planning. Conservation Biology, 27(2), 292–302. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-655

References

Redfern, J. V., L. T. Hatch, C. Caldow, M. L. DeAngelis, J. Gedamke, S. Hastings, L. Henderson, M. F. 

McKenna, T. J. Moore, & M. B. Porter. (2017). Assessing the risk of chronic shipping noise to 

baleen whales off Southern California, USA. Endangered Species Research, 32, 153–167. 

Reeves, R. R., B. S. Stewart, & S. Leatherwood. (1992). The Sierra Club Handbook of Seals and Sirenians. 

San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.

Reeves, R. R., G. K. Silber, & P. M. Payne. (1998). Draft Recovery Plan for the Fin Whale Balaenoptera 

physalus and Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis. Silver Spring, MD.

Reeves, R. R., T. D. Smith, R. L. Webb, J. Robbins, & P. J. Clapham. (2002a). Humpback and fin whaling in 

the Gulf of Maine from 1800 to 1918. Marine Fisheries Review, 64(1), 1–12. 

Reeves, R. R., B. S. Stewart, P. J. Clapham, & J. A. Powell. (2002b). National Audubon Society Guide to 

Marine Mammals of the World. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Reeves, R. R., B. D. Smith, E. A. Crespo, & G. Notarbartolo di Sciara. (2003). Dolphins, Whales and 

Porpoises: 2002–2010 Conservation Action Plan for the World's Cetaceans. Gland, Switzerland 

and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.

Reeves, R. R., S. Leatherwood, & R. W. Baird. (2009). Evidence of a possible decline since 1989 in false 

killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) around the main Hawaiian islands. Pacific Science, 63(2), 

253–261. 

Reeves, R. R., & T. D. Smith. (2010). Commercial Whaling, Especially for Gray Whales, Eschrichtius 

robustus, and Humpback Whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, at California and Baja California 

Shore Stations in the 19th Century (1854–1899). Marine Fisheries Review, 72(1), 1–25. 

Reeves, R. R., K. McClellan, & T. B. Werner. (2013). Marine mammal bycatch in gillnet and other 

entangling net fisheries, 1990 to 2011. Endangered Species Research, 20(1), 71–97. 

Reichmuth, C., M. M. Holt, J. Mulsow, J. M. Sills, & B. L. Southall. (2013). Comparative assessment of 

amphibious hearing in pinnipeds. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol, 

199(6), 491–507. 

Reidman, M. L. (1983). Studies of the Effects of Experimentally Produced Noise Associated with Oil and 

Gas Exploration and Development on Sea Otters in California. Santa Cruz, CA: California Univ., 

Santa Cruz (USA). Center for Coastal Marine Studies; Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, 

AK (USA). Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office.

Reilly, S. B. (1990). Seasonal changes in distribution and habitat differences among dolphins in the 

eastern tropical Pacific. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 66, 1–11. 

Reilly, S. B., J. L. Bannister, P. B. Best, M. Brown, R. L. Brownell, Jr., D. S. Butterworth, P. J. Clapham, J. 

Cooke, G. P. Donovan, J. Urbán, & A. N. Zerbini. (2008). Eubalaena japonica. IUCN 2012. IUCN 

Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. Retrieved from www.iucnredlist.org

Reyes, J. C., J. G. Mead, & K. Van Waerebeek. (1991). A new species of beaked whale, Mesoplodon 

peruvianus sp. n. (Cetacea: Ziphiidae), from Peru. Marine Mammal Science, 7(1), 1–24. 

Reynolds, J. E., III, & S. A. Rommel. (1999). Biology of Marine Mammals. Washington, DC: Smithsonian 

Institution Press.

Rice, A. C., S. Baumann-Pickering, A. Širović, J. A. Hildebrand, A. M. Brewer, A. J. Debich, S. T. Herbert, B. 

J. Thayre, J. S. Trickey, & S. M. Wiggins. (2015). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-656

References

Mammals in the Gulf of Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities Area 2014–2015. (W9126G-14-2-

0040).

Rice, D. W., & A. A. Wolman. (1971). The Life History and Ecology of the Gray Whale (Vol. 3). Lawrence, 

KS: The American Society of Mammologists.

Rice, D. W. (1977). Synopsis of biological data on the sei whale and Bryde's whale in the eastern North 

Pacific. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 1, 92–97. 

Rice, D. W. (1989). Sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus Linnaeus, 1758. In S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison 

(Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals, Volume 4: River dolphins and the larger toothed whales

(Vol. 4, pp. 177–234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rice, D. W. (1998). Marine mammals of the world: Systematics and distribution (Society for Marine 

Mammalogy Special Publication). Lawrence, KS: Society for Marine Mammology.

Richardson, W. J., M. A. Fraker, B. Würsig, & R. S. Wells. (1985). Behaviour of bowhead whales (Balaena 

mysticetus) summering in the Beaufort Sea: Reactions to industrial activities. Biological 

Conservation, 32, 195–230. 

Richardson, W. J., C. R. Greene, Jr., J. S. Hanna, W. R. Koski, G. W. Miller, N. J. Patenaude, & M. A. 

Smultea. (1995a). Acoustic effects of oil production activities on bowhead and white whales 

visible during spring migration near Pt. Barrow, Alaska–1991 and 1994 Phases: Sound 

propagation and whale responses to playbacks of icebreaker noise. Ontario, Canada: U.S. 

Minerals Management Service, Procurement Operations.

Richardson, W. J., C. R. Greene, Jr., C. I. Malme, & D. H. Thomson. (1995b). Marine Mammals and Noise. 

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Richardson, W. J., G. W. Miller, & C. R. Greene. (1999). Displacement of migrating bowhead whales by 

sounds from seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America, 106(4), 2281. 

Richie, M. W., R. K. Uyeyama, & J. Fujimoto. (2012). Final Report Ka‘ula Island ship-based marine 

mammal survey, July 6, 2012 Hawaii Range Complex Field Report. Pearl Harbor, HI.

Richie, M. W., R. K. Uyeyama, J. M. Aschettino, & M. A. Fagan. (2016). Marine Species Surveys of Pearl 

Harbor, Nov 2013–Nov 2015, and Historical Occurrence of Marine Species in Pearl Harbor

(Submitted to: NAVFAC Hawaii for Commander, Navy Installation Command, Joint Base Pearl 

Harbor Hickam). Pearl Harbor, HI: NAVFAC Pacific.

Richmond, D. R., J. T. Yelverton, & E. R. Fletcher. (1973). Far-field underwater-blast injuries produced by 

small charges. Washington, DC: Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 

Defense Nuclear Agency.

Richter, C., S. M. Dawson, & E. Slooten. (2003). Sperm whale watching off Kaikoura, New Zealand: 

Effects of current activities on surfacing and vocalisation patterns. Science for Conservation, 219, 

78. 

Richter, C., S. Dawson, & E. Slooten. (2006). Impacts of commercial whale watching on male sperm 

whales at Kaikoura, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science, 22(1), 46–63. 

Ridgway, S. H. (1972). Homeostasis in the Aquatic Environment. In S. H. Ridgway (Ed.), Mammals of the 

Sea: Biology and Medicine (pp. 590–747). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-657

References

Ridgway, S. H., & R. Howard. (1979). Dolphin lung collapse and intramuscular circulation during free 

diving: Evidence from nitrogen washout. Science, 206, 1182–1183. 

Ridgway, S. H., D. A. Carder, R. R. Smith, T. Kamolnick, C. E. Schlundt, & W. R. Elsberry. (1997). Behavioral 

Responses and Temporary Shift in Masked Hearing Threshold of Bottlenose Dolphins, Tursiops 

truncatus, to 1-second Tones of 141 to 201 dB re 1 μPa. (Technical Report 1751, Revision 1). San 

Diego, CA: U.S. Department of Navy, Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, 

RDT&E Division.

Riedman, M. L., & J. A. Estes. (1990). The Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris): Behavior, Ecology, and Natural 

History. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Risch, D., P. J. Corkeron, W. T. Ellison, & S. M. Van Parijs. (2012). Changes in humpback whale song 

occurrence in response to an acoustic source 200 km away. PLoS ONE, 7(1), e29741. 

Risch, D., P. J. Corkeron, W. T. Ellison, & S. M. Van Parijs. (2014). Formal comment to Gong et al.: 

Ecosystem scale acoustic sensing reveals humpback whale behavior synchronous with herring 

spawning processes and re-evaluation finds no effect of sonar on humpback song occurrence in 

the Gulf of Maine in fall 2006. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e109225. 

Ritchie, E. I. (2016, April 18, 2016). False killer whales spotted in feeding frenzy off Dana Point Coast–

rare for this area. 

Ritter, F. (2002). Behavioural observations of rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) off La 

Gomera, Canary Islands (1995–2000), with special reference to their interactions with humans. 

Aquatic Mammals, 28(1), 46–59. 

Ritter, F. (2012). Collisions of sailing vessels with cetaceans worldwide: First insights into a seemingly 

growing problem (SC/61/BC 1). Berlin, Germany.

Robertson, F. C. (2014). Effects of Seismic Operations on Bowhead Whale Behavior: Implications for 

Distribution and Abundance Assessments. (Doctor of Philosophy). The University of British 

Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 

Robinson, P. W., D. P. Costa, D. E. Crocker, J. P. Gallo-Reynoso, C. D. Champagne, M. A. Fowler, C. 

Goetsch, K. T. Goetz, J. L. Hassrick, L. A. Huckstadt, C. E. Kuhn, J. L. Maresh, S. M. Maxwell, B. I. 

McDonald, S. H. Peterson, S. E. Simmons, N. M. Teutschel, S. Villegas-Amtmann, & K. Yoda. 

(2012). Foraging behavior and success of a mesopelagic predator in the northeast Pacific Ocean: 

Insights from a data-rich species, the northern elephant seal. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e36728.

Robson, B. W., M. E. Goebel, J. D. Baker, R. R. Ream, T. R. Loughlin, R. C. Francis, G. A. Antonelis, & D. P. 

Costa. (2004). Separation of foraging habitat among breeding sites of a colonial marine 

predator, the northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 82(1), 20–29. 

Rocha, R. C., P. J. Clapham, Jr., & Y. V. Ivashchenko. (2014). Emptying the Oceans: A Summary of 

Industrial Whaling Catches in the 20th Century. Marine Fisheries Review, 76(4), 37–48. 

Rogers, K. S. (2016, 10-12-2016). Feral Cats are a Serious Threat to Hawaii’s Endangered Birds, Monk 

Seals and Dolphins. Honolulu Magazine.

Rolland, R. M., S. E. Parks, K. E. Hunt, M. Castellote, P. J. Corkeron, D. P. Nowacek, S. K. Wasser, & S. D. 

Kraus. (2012). Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proc Biol Sci, 279(1737), 

2363–2368. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-658

References

Roman, J., I. Altman, M. M. Dunphy-Daly, C. Campbell, M. Jasny, & A. J. Read. (2013). The Marine 

Mammal Protection Act at 40: status, recovery, and future of U.S. marine mammals. Annals of 

the New York Academy of Sciences, 1286, 29–49. 

Romano, T. A., M. J. Keogh, C. Kelly, P. Feng, L. Berk, C. E. Schlundt, D. A. Carder, & J. J. Finneran. (2004). 

Anthropogenic sound and marine mammal health: Measures of the nervous and immune 

systems before and after intense sound exposures. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, 61, 1124–1134. 

Ronald, K., & B. L. Gots. (2003). Seals: Phocidae, Otariidae, and Odobenidae. In G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. 

Thompson & J. A. Chapman (Eds.), Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and 

Conservation (2nd ed., pp. 789–854). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Rosel, P. E., & H. Watts. (2008). Hurricane impacts on bottlenose dolphins in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Science, 25(1), 88–94. 

Rosen, G., & G. R. Lotufo. (2010). Fate and effects of composition B in multispecies marine exposures. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 9999(12), 1–8. 

Rosen, Y. (2015). More dead whales found in southern Alaska waters, Alaska Dispatch News. Retrieved 

from http://www.adn.com/article/20150710/more-whales-found-dead-southern-alaskawaters[8/17/2015 14:38:21]

Rosowski, J. J. (1994). Outer and Middle Ears. In R. R. Fay & A. N. Popper (Eds.), Comparative Hearing: 

Mammals (pp. 172–247). Springer-Verlag.

Ross, G. J. B., & A. J. Bass. (1971). Shark attack on an ailing dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba (Meyen). South 

African Journal of Science, 67, 413–414. 

Ross, G. J. B., & S. Leatherwood. (1994). Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata Gray, 1874. In S. H. 

Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 5: The first book of dolphins, 

pp. 387–404). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rowntree, V., J. Darling, G. Silber, & M. Ferrari. (1980). Rare sighting of a right whale (Eubalaena 

glacialis) in Hawaii. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 58, 4. 

Rugh, D., J. Breiwick, M. Muto, R. Hobbs, K. Shelden, C. D'Vincent, I. M. Laursen, S. Reif, S. Maher, & S. 

Nilson. (2008). Report of the 2006–2007 Census of the Eastern North Pacific Stock of Gray 

Whales. (AFSC Processed Report 2008-03). Seattle, WA: NOAA, NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center.

Rugh, D. J., R. C. Hobbs, J. A. Lerczak, & J. M. Breiwick. (2005). Estimates of abundance of the eastern 

North Pacific stock of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) 1997–2002. Journal of Cetacean 

Research and Management, 7(1), 1–12. 

Sadove, S. S., & S. J. Morreale. (1989). Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Encounters with Marine Debris in 

the New York Bight and the Northeast Atlantic. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 

Second International Conference on Marine Debris, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Saez, L., D. Lawson, M. DeAngelis, S. Wilkin, E. Petras, & C. Fahy. (2012). Co-occurrence of Large Whales 

and Fixed Commercial Fishing Gear: California, Oregon, and Washington (Poster). Paper 

presented at the Southern California Marine Mammal Workshop, Newport Beach, CA. 

Saez, L., D. Lawson, M. DeAngelis, E. Petras, S. Wilkin, & C. Fahy. (2013). Understanding the cooccurrence of large whales and commercial fixed gear fisheries off the west coast of the United 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-659

References

States. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Regional Office, Protected Resources 

Division.

Sairanen, E. E. (2014a). Weather and Ship Induced Sounds and the Effect of Shipping on Harbor Porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena) Activity. (Master's Thesis in Aquatic Sciences). University of Helsinki, 

Helsinki, Finland. 

Sairanen, E. E. (2014b). Baltic Sea underwater soundscape: Weather and ship induced sounds and the 

effect of shipping on harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoenaI) activity. (Master of Science). 

University of Helsinki. 

Salden, D. R. (1989, 7–11 December). An observation of apparent feeding by a sub-adult humpback 

whale off Maui, Hawaii. Paper presented at the Eighth Biennial Conference on the Biology of 

Marine Mammals, Pacific Grove, CA.

Salden, D. R., L. M. Herman, M. Yamaguchi, & F. Sato. (1999). Multiple visits of individual humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) between the Hawaiian and Japanese winter grounds. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77, 504–508. 

Salden, D. R., & J. Mickelsen. (1999). Rare sighting of a North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in 

Hawaii. Pacific Science, 53(4), 341–345. 

Salvadeo, C. J., D. Lluch-Belda, A. Gómez-Gallardo, J. Urbán-Ramírez, & C. D. MacLeod. (2010). Climate 

change and a poleward shift in the distribution of the Pacific white-sided dolphin in the 

northeastern Pacific. Endangered Species Research, 11, 13–19. 

Salvadeo, C. J., A. Gomez-Gallardo U., M. Najera-Caballero, J. Urban-Ramirez, & D. Lluch-Belda. (2015). 

The Effect of Climate Variability on Gray Whales (Eschrichtius robustus) within Their Wintering 

Areas. PLoS ONE, 10(8), 1–17. 

Sanino, G. P., J. L. Yanez, & K. Van Waerebeek. (2007). A first confirmed specimen record in Chile, and 

sightings attributed to the lesser beaked whale, Mesoplodon peruvianus Reyes, Mead and Van 

Waerebeek, 1991. Boletin del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Chile, 56, 89–96. 

Santos, M. B., G. J. Pierce, J. Herman, A. López, A. Guerra, E. Mente, & M. R. Clarke. (2001). Feeding 

ecology of Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris): A review with new information on the 

diet of this species. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 81, 687–

694. 

Santos, M. B., V. Martin, M. Arbelo, A. Fernandez, & G. J. Pierce. (2007). Insights into the diet of beaked 

whales from the atypical mass strandings in the Canary Islands in September 2002. Journal of 

the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 87, 243–251. 

Saunders, K. J., P. R. White, & T. G. Leighton. (2008). Models for predicting Nitrogen tensions and 

decompression sickness risk in diving beaked whales. Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics, 

30(5). 

Savage, K., D. Fauquier, S. Raverty, K. B. Huntington, J. Moran, M. Migura, P. Cottrell, K. Wynne, B. 

Witteveen, & F. Van Dolah. (2017). Abstract: “2015 Gulf of Alaska Large Whale Unusual 

Mortality Event”. Paper presented at the Kodiak Area Marine Science Symposium, Kodiak 

Harbor Convention Center Kodiak, AK. https://seagrant.uaf.edu/events/2017/kamss/kamssprog2017.pdf

Scammon, C. M. (1874). Marine Mammals of the North-western Coast of North America Together with 

an account of the American Whale-Fishery (pp. 424). Retrieved from 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-660

References

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=CLViAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader

&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP6 

Scarpaci, C., S. W. Bigger, P. J. Corkeron, & D. Nugegoda. (2000). Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) increase whistling in the presence of 'swim-with-dolphin' tour operations. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management, 2(3), 183–185. 

Schakner, Z. A., & D. T. Blumstein. (2013). Behavioral biology of marine mammal deterrents: a review 

and prospectus. Biological Conservation, 167, 380–389. 

Scheifele, P. M., S. Andrew, R. A. Cooper, M. Darre, R. E. Musiek, & L. Max. (2005). Indication of a 

Lombard vocal response in the St. Lawrence River beluga. The Journal of Acoustical Society of 

America, 117(3), 1486–1492. 

Schlundt, C. E., J. J. Finneran, D. A. Carder, & S. H. Ridgway. (2000). Temporary shift in masked hearing 

thresholds of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and white whales, Delphinapterus leucas, 

after exposure to intense tones. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 107(6), 3496–

3508. 

Schlundt, C. E., R. L. Dear, L. Green, D. S. Houser, & J. J. Finneran. (2007). Simultaneously measured 

behavioral and electrophysiological hearing thresholds in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(1), 615–622. 

Schmelzer, I. (2000). Seals and seascapes: Covariation in Hawaiian monk seal subpopulations and the 

oceanic landscape of the Hawaiian Archipelago. Journal of Biogeography, 27, 901–914. 

Schneider, D. C., & P. M. Payne. (1983). Factors affecting haul-out of harbor seals at a site in 

southeastern Massachusetts. Journal of Mammalogy, 64(3), 518–520. 

Schorr, G. S., E. A. Falcone, D. J. Moretti, & R. D. Andrews. (2014). First long-term behavioral records 

from Cuvier's beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris) reveal record-breaking dives. PLoS ONE, 9(3), 

e92633. 

Schorr, G. S., E. A. Falcone, & B. K. Rone. (2017). Distribution and demographics of Cuvier's beaked 

whales and fin whales in the Southern California Bight (Annual report for on-water surveys 

conducted in conjunction with Marine Mammal Monitoring on Navy Ranges (M3R)). Seabeck, 

WA: Marine Ecology and Telemetry Research.

Schultz, J. K., J. D. Baker, R. J. Toonen, A. L. Harting, & B. W. Bowen. (2011). Range-wide genetic 

connectivity of the Hawaiian monk seal and implications for translocation. Conserv Biol, 25(1), 

124–132. 

Seagars, D. J. (1984). The Guadalupe Fur Seal: A Status Review. Terminal Island, CA: National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Southwest Region.

Sears, R., & W. F. Perrin. (2008). Blue whale. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), 

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 120–124). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Sekiguchi, K., N. T. W. Klages, & P. B. Best. (1992). Comparative analysis of the diets of smaller 

odontocete cetaceans along the coast of southern Africa. South African Journal of Marine 

Science, 12, 843–861. 

Serrano, L., C. A. Simeone, K. M. Colegrove, P. J. Duignan, T. Goldstein, & F. M. D. Gulland. (2017). 

Cetacean Morbillivirus in Odontocetes Stranded Along the Central California Coast, 2000–2015. 

Journal of Wildife Diseases, 53(2). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-661

References

Shallenberger, E. W. (1981). The Status of Hawaiian Cetaceans. Kailua, HI: Manta Corporation.

Shane, S. H., R. S. Wells, & B. Würsig. (1986). Ecology, behavior and social organization of the bottlenose 

dolphin: A review. Marine Mammal Science, 2(1), 34–63. 

Shane, S. H. (1990). Comparison of bottlenose dolphin behavior in Texas and Florida, with a critique of 

methods for studying dolphin behavior. In S. Leatherwood & R. R. Reeves (Eds.), The Bottlenose 

Dolphin (pp. 541–558). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Shane, S. H. (1995). Relationship between pilot whales and Risso's dolphins at Santa Catalina Island, 

California, U.S.A. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 123, 5–11. 

Shelden, K. E. W., S. E. Moore, J. M. Waite, P. R. Wade, & D. J. Rugh. (2005). Historic and current habitat 

use by North Pacific right whales Eubalaena japonica in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. 

Mammal Review, 35(2), 129–155. 

Shimek, S. J. (1977). The underwater foraging habits of the sea otter, Enhydra lutris. California Fish and 

Game Bulletin, 63(2), 120–122. 

Shirasago-Germán, B., E. L. Pérez-Lezama, E. A. Chávez, & R. García-Morales. (2015). Influence of El 

Niño-Southern Oscillation on the population structure of a sea lion breeding colony in the Gulf 

of California. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 154, 69–76. 

Silber, G. K., J. Slutsky, & S. Bettridge. (2010). Hydrodynamics of a ship/whale collision. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 391, 10–19. 

Sills, J. M., B. L. Southall, & C. Reichmuth. (2017). The influence of temporally varying noise from seismic 

air guns on the detection of underwater sounds by seals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America, 141(2), 996–1008. 

Silva, T. L., T. A. Mooney, L. S. Sayigh, P. L. Tyack, R. W. Baird, & J. N. Oswald. (2016). Whistle 

characteristics and daytime dive behavior in pantropical spotted dolphins (Stenella attenuata) in 

Hawai‘i measured using digital acoustic recording tags (DTAGs). Journal of the Acoustical Society 

of America, 140(1), 421–429. 

Simeone, C. A., F. M. Gulland, T. Norris, & T. K. Rowles. (2015). A systematic review of changes in marine 

mammal health in north America, 1972–2012: The need for a novel integrated approach. PLoS 

ONE, 10(11), e0142105. 

Simmonds, M. P., & W. J. Eliott. (2009). Climate change and cetaceans: Concerns and recent 

developments. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 89(1), 203–

210. 

Simmons, S. E., D. E. Crocker, R. M. Kudela, & D. P. Costa. (2007). Linking foraging behaviour of the 

northern elephant seal with oceanography and bathymetry at mesoscales. Marine Ecological 

Progress Series, 346, 265–275. 

Simmons, S. E., D. E. Crocker, J. L. Hassrick, C. E. Kuhn, P. W. Robinson, Y. Tremblay, & D. P. Costa. 

(2010). Climate-scale hydrographic features related to foraging success in a capital breeder, the 

northern elephant seal, Mirounga angustirostris. Endangered Species Research, 10, 233–243. 

Siqueira, J. D., T. Ng, M. Miller, L. Li, X. Deng, E. Dodd, F. Batac, & E. Delwart. (2017). Endemic Infection 

of Stranded Southern Sea (Enhydra lutris nereis) with novel parvovirus, polyomavirus, and 

adenovirus. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 53(3), 1–11. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-662

References

Sirovic, A., J. A. Hildebrand, S. M. Wiggins, M. A. McDonald, S. E. Moore, & D. Thiele. (2004). Seasonality 

of blue and fin whale calls and the influence of sea ice in the Western Antarctic Peninsula. Deep 

Sea Research II, 51(17–19), 2327–2344. 

Širović, A., J. A. Hildebrand, & S. M. Wiggins. (2007). Blue and fin whale call source levels and 

propagation range in the Southern Ocean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(2), 

1208–1215. 

Širović, A., S. C. Johnson, L. K. Roche, L. M. Varga, S. M. Wiggins, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2015a). North

Pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica) recorded in the northeastern Pacific Ocean in 2013. 

Marine Mammal Science, 31(2), 800–807. 

Širović, A., A. Rice, E. Chou, J. Hildebrand, S. Wiggins, & M. A. Roch. (2015b). Seven years of blue and fin 

whale call abundance in the Southern California Bight. Endangered Species Research, 28, 61–76. 

Širović, A., S. Baumann-Pickering, J. A. Hildebrand, A. J. Debich, S. T. Herbert, A. Meyer-Löbbecke, A. 

Rice, B. Thayre, J. S. Trickey, S. M. Wiggins, & M. A. Roch. (2016). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for 

Marine Mammals in the SOCAL Range Complex July 2014–May 2015 (MPL Technical 

Memorandum #607). La Jolla, CA: Marine Physical Laboratory, Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography, University of California; Department of Computer Science, San Diego State 

University.

Sivle, L. D., P. H. Kvadsheim, A. Fahlman, F. P. Lam, P. L. Tyack, & P. J. Miller. (2012). Changes in dive 

behavior during naval sonar exposure in killer whales, long-finned pilot whales, and sperm 

whales. Frontiers in Physiolology, 3, 400. 

Sivle, L. D., P. H. Kvadsheim, C. Curé, S. Isojunno, P. J. Wensveen, F. A. Lam, F. Visser, L. Kleivane, P. L. 

Tyack, C. M. Harris, & P. J. O. Miller. (2015). Severity of expert-identified behavioural responses 

of humpback whale, minke whale, and northern bottlenose whale to naval sonar. Aquatic 

Mammals, 41(4), 469–502. 

Sivle, L. D., P. J. Wensveen, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, F. Visser, C. Curé, C. M. Harris, P. L. Tyack, & P. 

J. O. Miller. (2016). Naval sonar disrupts foraging in humpback whales. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 562, 211–220. 

Smith, B. D., G. Braulik, S. Strindberg, R. Mansur, M. A. A. Diyan, & B. Ahmed. (2009). Habitat selection of 

freshwater-dependent cetaceans and the potential effects of declining freshwater flows and 

sea-level rise in waterways of the Sundarbans mangrove forest, Bangladesh. Aquatic 

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 19(2), 209–225. 

Smith, C. E., B. J. Hurley, C. N. Toms, A. D. Mackey, M. Solangi, & S. A. Kuczaj Ii. (2013). Hurricane 

impacts on the foraging patterns of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in Mississippi Sound. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 487, 231–244. 

Smith, C. E., S. T. Sykora–Bodie, B. Bloodworth, S. M. Pack, T. R. Spradlin, & N. R. LeBoeuf. (2016). 

Assessment of known impacts of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) on marine mammals: data 

gaps and recommendations for researchers in the United States. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle 

Systems, 4(1), 31–44. 

Smith, J. N., A. W. Goldizen, R. A. Dunlop, & M. J. Noad. (2008). Songs of male humpback whales, 

Megaptera novaeangliae, are involved in intersexual interactions. Animal Behaviour, 76, 467–

477. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-663

References

Smith, R. C., P. Dustan, D. Au, K. S. Baker, & E. A. Dunlap. (1986). Distribution of cetaceans and seasurface chlorophyll concentrations in the California Current. Marine Biology, 91, 385–402. 

Smith, S. H., & D. E. Marx, Jr. (2016). De-facto marine protection from a Navy bombing range: Farallon 

De Medinilla, Mariana Archipelago, 1997 to 2012. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 102(1), 187–198. 

Smultea, M. (2012). Short Note: Bryde’s Whale (Balaenoptera brydei/edeni) Sightings in the Southern 

California Bight. Aquatic Mammals, 38(1), 92–97. 

Smultea, M. A. (1994). Segregation by humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) cows with a calf in 

coastal habitat near the island of Hawaii. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 72, 805–811. 

Smultea, M. A., J. L. Hopkins, & A. M. Zoidis. (2007). Marine Mammal Visual Survey in and near the 

Alenuihaha Channel and the Island of Hawai’i: Monitoring in Support of Navy Training Exercises 

in the Hawai’i Range Complex, January 27–February 2, 2007. Oakland, CA.

Smultea, M. A., J. L. Hopkins, & A. M. Zoidis. (2008). Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Monitoring Survey 

in Support of Navy Training Exercises in the Hawai’i Range Complex November 11–17, 2007. 

Oakland, CA.

Smultea, M. A., & J. R. Mobley, Jr. (2009). Aerial Survey Monitoring of Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles 

in conjunction with SCC OPS Navy Exercises off Kauai, 18–21 August 2008, Final Report, May 

2009. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (NAVFAC), EV2 Environmental 

Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI. Prepared by Marine Mammal Research Consultants, Honolulu, HI, 

and Smultea Environmental Sciences, LLC., Issaquah, WA, under Contract No. N62742-08-P1942.

Smultea, M. A., J. R. Mobley, Jr., & K. Lomac-MacNair. (2009). Aerial Survey Monitoring for Marine 

Mammals and Sea Turtles in the Hawaii Range Complex in Conjunction with a Navy Training 

Event, SSC OPS February 15–19, 2009, Final Field Report. Prepared for Commander, Pacific Fleet. 

Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (NAVFAC), EV2 Environmental 

Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI, 96860-3134, under Contract No. N62742-09-P-1956. Submitted by 

Marine Mammal Research Consultants (MMRC), Honolulu, HI, and Smultea Environmental 

Sciences, LLC. (SES), Issaquah, WA, August 2009.

Smultea, M. A., T. A. Jefferson, & A. M. Zoidis. (2010). Rare sightings of a Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera 

edeni) and Sei whales (B. borealis) (Cetacea: Balaenopteridae) northeast of Oahu, Hawaii. Pacific 

Science, 64(3), 449–457. 

Smultea, M. A., C. E. Bacon, & J. S. D. Black. (2011). Aerial Survey Marine Mammal Monitoring off 

Southern California in Conjunction with US Navy Major Training Events (MTE), July 27- August 3 

and September 23–28, 2010–Final Report, June 2011. Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific 

Fleet, Pearl Harbor, HI. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (NAVFAC), 

EV2 Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI, 96860 3134, under Contract No. N00244-10-C0021 issued to University of California, San Diego, 7835 Trade St., San Diego, CA 92121. 

Submitted by Smultea Environmental Sciences (SES), Issaquah, WA, 98027, www.smultea.com,

under Purchase Order No. 10309963.

Smultea, M. A., C. E. Bacon, T. F. Norris, & D. Steckler. (2012a). Aerial Surveys Conducted in the SOCAL 

OPAREA From 1 August 2011–31 July 2012. Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pearl 

Harbor, HI. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest (NAVFAC SW), EV5 

Environmental, San Diego, 92132 under Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011 issued to HDR, Inc., San 

Diego, CA. Submitted August 2012.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-664

References

Smultea, M. A., A. B. Douglas, C. E. Bacon, T. A. Jefferson, & L. Mazzuca. (2012b). Bryde's whale 

(Balaenoptera brydei/edeni) sightings in the southern California bight. Aquatic Mammals, 38(1), 

92–97. 

Smultea, M. A., K. Bacon, B. Wursig, & K. Lomac-McNair. (2014). Behaviors of Southern California 

Cetaceans: Observations from a Small Aircraft 2008–2013. Paper presented at the Southern 

California Academy of Sciences 107th Annual Meeting, California State University, Santa Monica, 

CA. 

Smultea, M. A., & T. Jefferson. (2014). Changes in Relative Occurrence of Cetaceans in the Southern 

California Bight: A Comparison of Recent Aerial Survey Results with Historical Data Sources. 

Aquatic Mammals, 40(1), 32–43. 

Soldevilla, M. S. (2008). Risso's and Pacific white-sided dolphins in the southern California Bight: Using 

echolocation clicks to study dolphin ecology. (Ph.D. dissertation). University of California, San 

Diego. 

Soldevilla, M. S., E. E. Henderson, G. S. Campbell, S. M. Wiggins, J. A. Hildebrand, & M. A. Roch. (2008). 

Classification of Risso's and Pacific white-sided dolphins using spectral properties of 

echolocation clicks. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 124(1), 609–624. 

Soloway, A. G., & P. H. Dahl. (2015). Noise Source Level and Propagation Measurement of Underwater 

Detonation Training at the Silver Strand Training Complex, Naval Base Coronado, Coronado, CA. 

Final Report (Prepared for Commander, Pacific Fleet. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command Southwest). San Diego, CA: HDR Inc.

Sousa-Lima, R. S., & C. W. Clark. (2008). Modeling the effect of boat traffic on the fluctuation of 

humpback whale singing activity in the Abrolhos National Marine Park, Brazil. Canadian 

Acoustics, 36(1), 174–181. 

Southall, B., J. Calambokidis, P. Tyack, D. Moretti, J. Hildebrand, C. Kyburg, R. Carson, A. Friedlaender, E. 

Falcone, G. Schorr, A. Douglas, S. DeRuiter, J. Goldbogen, & J. Barlow. (2011). Biological and 

Behavioral Response Studies of Marine Mammals in Southern California, 2010 (“SOCAL-10”). 

Pearl Harbor, HI: U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

Southall, B., J. Calambokidis, P. Tyack, D. Moretti, A. Friedlaender, S. DeRuiter, J. Goldbogen, E. Falcone, 

G. Schorr, A. Douglas, A. Stimpert, J. Hildebrand, C. Kyburg, R. Carlson, T. Yack, & J. Barlow. 

(2012). Biological and Behavioral Response Studies of Marine Mammals in Southern California, 

2011 ("SOCAL-11") Final Project Report (SOCAL-11 Project Report).

Southall, B., J. Calambokidis, J. Barlow, D. Moretti, A. Friedlaender, A. Stimpert, A. Douglas, K. Southall, 

S. Arranz, S. DeRuiter, E. Hazen, J. Goldbogen, E. Falcone, & G. Schorr. (2013). Biological and 

Behavioral Response Studies of Marine Mammals in Southern California, 2012 (“SOCAL-12”). 

Southall, B., J. Calambokidis, J. Barlow, D. Moretti, A. Friedlaender, A. Stimpert, A. Douglas, K. Southall, 

P. Arranz, S. DeRuiter, J. Goldbogen, E. Falcone, & G. Schorr. (2014). Biological and Behavioral 

Response Studies of Marine Mammals in Southern California, 2013 (“SOCAL-13”). Pearl Harbor, 

HI: U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

Southall, B., J. Calambokidis, D. Moretti, A. Stimpert, A. Douglas, J. Barlow, R. W. Rankin, K. Southall, A. 

Friedlaender, E. Hazen, J. Goldbogen, E. Falcone, G. Schorr, G. Gailey, & A. Allen. (2015). 

Biological and Behavioral Response Studies of Marine Mammals in Southern California, 2014 

(“SOCAL-14”) (SOCAL-14 Project Report). Pearl Harbor, HI: U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-665

References

Southall, B. L., R. J. Schusterman, & D. Kastak. (2000). Masking in three pinnipeds: Underwater, lowfrequency critical ratios. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 108(3), 1322–1326. 

Southall, B. L., R. J. Schusterman, & D. Kastak. (2003). Auditory masking in three pinnipeds: Aerial critical 

ratios and direct critical bandwidth measurements. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 

114(3), 1660–1666. 

Southall, B. L., R. Braun, F. M. D. Gulland, A. D. Heard, R. W. Baird, S. M. Wilkin, & T. K. Rowles. (2006). 

Hawaiian Melon-headed Whales (Peponacephala electra) Mass Stranding Event of July 3–4, 

2004 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-31).

Southall, B. L., A. E. Bowles, W. T. Ellison, J. J. Finneran, R. L. Gentry, C. R. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak, D. R. 

Ketten, J. H. Miller, P. E. Nachtigall, W. J. Richardson, J. A. Thomas, & P. L. Tyack. (2007). Marine 

mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33(4), 

411–521. 

Southall, B. L., P. L. Tyack, D. Moretti, C. Clark, D. Claridge, & I. Boyd. (2009). Behavioral responses of 

beaked whales and other cetaceans to controlled exposures of simulated sonar and other 

sounds. Paper presented at the 18th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 

Quebec City, Canada. 

Southall, B. L., D. P. Nowacek, P. J. O. Miller, & P. L. Tyack. (2016). Experimental field studies to measure 

behavioral responses of cetaceans to sonar. Endangered Species Research, 31, 293–315. 

Spargo, B. J. (2007, June 1, 2007). [Chaff end cap and piston bouyancy].

Spiesberger, J. L., & K. M. Fristrup. (1990). Passive localization of calling animals and sensing of their 

acoustic environment using acoustic tomography. The American Naturalist, 135(1), 107–153. 

St. Aubin, D. J., & J. R. Geraci. (1989). Adaptive changes in hematologic and plasma chemical 

constituents in captive beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences, 46, 796–803. 

St. Aubin, D. J., S. H. Ridgway, R. S. Wells, & H. Rhinehart. (1996). Dolphin thyroid and adrenal hormones: 

Circulating levels in wild and semidomesticated Tursiops truncatus, and influence of sex, age, 

and season. Marine Mammal Science, 12(1), 1–13. 

St. Aubin, D. J., & L. A. Dierauf. (2001). Stress and Marine Mammals. In L. A. Dierauf & F. M. D. Gulland 

(Eds.), Marine Mammal Medicine (2nd ed., pp. 253–269). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Stafford, K. M., S. L. Nieukirk, & G. G. Fox. (2001). Geographic and seasonal variation of blue whale calls 

in the North Pacific. Journal of Cetacean Research Management, 3(1), 65–76. 

Stafford, K. M., D. R. Bohnenstiehl, M. Tolstoy, E. Chapp, D. K. Mellinger, & S. E. Moore. (2004). 

Antarctic-type blue whale calls recorded at low latitudes in the Indian and eastern Pacific 

Oceans. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 51(10), 1337–1346. 

Stamation, K. A., D. B. Croft, P. D. Shaughnessy, K. A. Waples, & S. V. Briggs. (2009). Behavioral responses 

of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to whale-watching vessels on the southeastern 

coast of Australia. Marine Mammal Science, 26(1), 98–122. 

Stamper, M. A., B. R. Whitaker, & T. D. Schofield. (2006). Case study: Morbidity in a pygmy sperm whale 

Kogia breviceps due to ocean-bourne plastic. Marine Mammal Science, 22(3), 719–722. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-666

References

State of Hawaii. (2015). Friends of the Future to help Lapakahi State Park. Retrieved from 

http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2015/10/21/friends-of-the-future-to-help-lapakahi-statepark/

Steckenreuter, A., R. Harcourt, & L. Moller. (2011). Distance does matter: close approaches by boats 

impede feeding and resting behaviour of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins. Wildlife Research, 

38(6), 455–463. 

Steiger, G. H., J. Calambokidis, J. M. Straley, L. M. Herman, S. Cerchio, D. R. Salden, J. Urban-R, J. K. 

Jacobsen, O. von Ziegesar, K. C. Balcomb, C. M. Gabriele, M. E. Dahlheim, S. Uchida, J. K. B. Ford, 

P. Ladron de Guevara-P., M. Yamaguchi, & J. Barlow. (2008). Geographic variation in killer whale 

attacks on humpback whales in the North Pacific: Implications for predation pressure. 

Endangered Species Research, 4, 247–256. 

Sterling, J. T., & R. R. Ream. (2004). At-sea behavior of juvenile male northern fur seals (Callorhinus 

ursinus). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 82(10), 1621–1637. 

Sterling, J. T., A. M. Springer, S. J. Iverson, S. P. Johnson, N. A. Pelland, D. S. Johnson, M. A. Lea, & N. A. 

Bond. (2014). The sun, moon, wind, and biological imperative-shaping contrasting wintertime 

migration and foraging strategies of adult male and female northern fur seals (Callorhinus 

ursinus). PLoS ONE, 9(4), e93068. 

Stevens, P. W., D. A. Blewett, & J. P. Casey. (2006). Short-term effects of a low dissolved oxygen event on 

estuarine fish assemblages following passage of Hurricane Charley. Estuaries and Coasts, 29(6A), 

997–1003. 

Stewart, B. (1981). The Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) on San Nicolas Island, California. 

Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, 80(3), 134–136. 

Stewart, B. S., & H. R. Huber. (1993). Mirounga angustirostris. Mammalian Species, 449, 1–10. 

Stewart, B. S., P. K. Yochem, R. L. DeLong, & G. A. Antonelis. (1993). Trends in abundance and status of 

pinnipeds on the Southern California Channel Islands. In F. G. Hochberg (Ed.), Third California 

Islands Symposium: Recent Advances in Research on the California Islands (pp. 501–516). Santa 

Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Stewart, B. S., & R. L. DeLong. (1994). Postbreeding foraging migrations of northern elephant seals. In B. 

J. Le Boeuf & R. M. Laws (Eds.), Elephant Seals: Population Ecology, Behavior, and Physiology

(pp. 290–309). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Stewart, B. S., P. K. Yochem, H. R. Huber, R. L. DeLong, R. J. Jameson, W. J. Sydeman, S. G. Allen, & B. J. 

Le Boeuf. (1994). History and present status of the northern elephant seal population. In B. J. Le 

Boeuf & R. M. Laws (Eds.), Elephant Seals: Population Ecology, Behavior, and Physiology (pp. 29–

48). University of California Press.

Stewart, B. S., & R. L. DeLong. (1995). Double migrations of the northern elephant seal, Mirounga 

angustirostris. Journal of Mammalogy, 76(1), 196–205. 

Stewart, B. S. (1997). Ontogeny of differential migration and sexual segregation in northern elephant 

seals. Journal of Mammalogy, 78(4), 1101–1116. 

Stewart, B. S., G. A. Antonelis, J. D. Baker, & P. K. Yochem. (2006). Foraging biogeography of Hawaiian 

monk seals in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin, 543, 131–146. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-667

References

Stimpert, A. K., D. N. Wiley, W. W. Au, M. P. Johnson, & R. Arsenault. (2007). 'Megapclicks': acoustic click 

trains and buzzes produced during night-time foraging of humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae). Biology Letters, 3(5), 467–470. 

Stimpert, A. K., S. L. DeRuiter, B. L. Southall, D. J. Moretti, E. A. Falcone, J. A. Goldbogen, A. Friedlaender, 

G. S. Schorr, & J. Calambokidis. (2014). Acoustic and foraging behavior of a Baird's beaked 

whale, Berardius bairdii, exposed to simulated sonar. Scientific Reports, 4, 7031. 

Stockin, K. A., D. Lusseau, V. Binedell, N. Wiseman, & M. B. Orams. (2008). Tourism affects the 

behavioural budget of the common dolphin Delphinus sp. in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 355, 287–295. 

Sumich, J. L. (1984). Gray whales along the Oregon coast in summer, 1977–1980. Murrelet, 65(2), 33–40. 

Sumich, J. L., & I. T. Show. (2011). Offshore migratory corridors and aerial photogrammetric body length 

comparisons of southbound gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, in the Southern California Bight, 

1988–1990. Marine Fisheries Review, 73(1), 28–34. 

Summers, D. J. (2017). Algal Toxins found in Alaska marine mammals for first time. Alaska Journal of 

Commerce(3), 3. 

Supin, A. Y., V. V. Popov, & A. M. Mass. (2001). The Sensory Physiology of Aquatic Mammals. Boston, 

MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Suryan, R. M., & J. T. Harvey. (1998). Tracking harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) to determine dive 

behavior, foraging activity, and haul-out site use. Marine Mammal Science, 14(2), 361–372. 

Swartz, S. L., B. L. Taylor, & D. J. Rugh. (2006). Gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus, population and stock 

identity. Mammal Review, 36(1), 66–84. 

Sweeney, K. L., V. T. Helker, W. L. Perryman, D. J. LeRoi, L. W. Fritz, T. S. Gelatt, & R. P. Angliss. (2015). 

Flying beneath the clouds at the edge of the world: using a hexacopter to supplement 

abundance surveys of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in Alaska. Journal of Unmanned 

Vehicle Systems, 4(1), 70–81. 

Swisdak, M. M., Jr., & P. E. Montaro. (1992). Airblast and fragmentation hazards produced by 

underwater explosions. Silver Springs, MD: Naval Surface Warfare Center.

Swope, B., & J. McDonald. (2013). Copper-Based Torpedo Guidance Wire: Applications and 

Environmental Considerations. San Diego, CA.

Sydeman, W. J., & S. G. Allen. (1999). Pinniped population dynamics in central California: Correlations 

with sea surface temperature and upwelling indices. Marine Mammal Science, 15(2), 446–461. 

Tarpley, R. J., & S. Marwitz. (1993). Plastic debris ingestion by cetaceans along the Texas coast: two case 

reports. Aquatic Mammals, 19(2), 93–98. 

Teilmann, J., J. Tougaard, L. A. Miller, T. Kirketerp, K. Hansen, & S. Brando. (2006). Reactions of captive 

harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) to pinger-like sounds. Marine Mammal Science, 22(2), 

240–260. 

Tennessen, J. B., & S. E. Parks. (2016). Acoustic propagation modeling indicates vocal compensation in 

noise improves communication range for North Atlantic right whales. Endangered Species 

Research, 30, 225–237. 

Terhune, J. M., & W. C. Verboom. (1999). Right whales and ship noises. Marine Mammal Science, 15(1), 

256–258. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-668

References

Thomas, J., P. Moore, R. Withrow, & M. Stoermer. (1990a). Underwater audiogram of a Hawaiian monk 

seal (Monachus schauinslandi). Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 87(1), 417–420. 

Thomas, J. A., R. A. Kastelein, & F. T. Awbrey. (1990b). Behavior and blood catecholamines of captive 

belugas during playbacks of noise from an oil drilling platform. Zoo Biology, 9(5), 393–402. 

Thomas, K., J. T. Harvey, T. Goldstein, J. Barakos, & F. Gulland. (2009). Movement, dive behavior, and 

survival of California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) posttreatment for domoic acid toxicosis. 

Marine Mammal Science, 26(1), 36–52. 

Thompson, D., M. Sjoberg, M. E. Bryant, P. Lovell, & A. Bjorge. (1998). Behavioral and physiological 

responses of harbour (Phoca vitulina) and grey (Halichoerus grypus) seals to seismic surveys

(Report to European Commission of BROMMAD Project. MAS2 C7940098.).

Thompson, P. M., D. Lusseau, T. Barton, D. Simmons, J. Rusin, & H. Bailey. (2010). Assessing the 

responses of coastal cetaceans to the construction of offshore wind turbines. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin, 60(8), 1200–1208. 

Thompson, P. M., K. L. Brookes, I. M. Graham, T. R. Barton, K. Needham, G. Bradbury, & N. D. Merchant. 

(2013). Short-term disturbance by a commercial two-dimensional seismic survey does not lead 

to long-term displacement of harbour porpoises. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 280(1771), 

20132001. 

Thompson, R. C., Y. Olsen, R. P. Mitchell, A. Davis, S. J. Rowland, A. W. G. John, D. McGonigle, & A. E. 

Russell. (2004). Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science, New Series, 304(5672), 838. 

Tinker, M. T., J. A. Estes, K. Ralls, T. M. Williams, D. Jessup, & D. P. Costa. (2006). Population dynamics 

and biology of the California sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) at the southern end of its range, 

final technical summary, Final Study Report. Minerals Management Service.

Tinker, M. T., D. P. Costa, J. A. Estes, & N. Wieringa. (2007). Individual dietary specialization and dive 

behaviour in the California sea otter: Using archival time–depth data to detect alternative 

foraging strategies. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 54(3-4), 330–

342. 

Tinker, M. T., & B. B. Hatfield. (2016). California Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) Census Results, Spring 

2016.

Tinker, M. T., B. B. Hatfield, M. D. Harris, & J. A. Ames. (2016). Dramatic increase in sea otter mortality

from white sharks in California. Marine Mammal Science, 32(1), 309–326. 

Tixier, P., N. Gasco, G. Duhamel, & C. Guinet. (2014). Habituation to an acoustic harassment device 

(AHD) by killer whales depredating demersal longlines. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72(5), 

1673–1681. 

Todd, S., P. Stevick, J. Lien, F. Marques, & D. Ketten. (1996). Behavioural effects of exposure to 

underwater explosions in humpback whales (Megaptera novaeanlgiae). Canadian Journal of 

Zoology, 74, 1661–1672. 

Tomich, P. Q. (1986). Mammals in Hawaii (2nd ed.). Honolulu, HI: Bishop Museum Press.

Torres de la Riva, G., C. K. Johnson, F. M. D. Gulland, G. W. Langlois, J. E. Heyning, T. K. Rowles, & J. A. K. 

Mazet. (2009). Association of an unusual marine mammal mortality event with Pseudo-nitzschia

spp. blooms along the southern California coastline. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 45(1), 109–121. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-669

References

Tougaard, J., J. Carstensen, J. Teilmann, N. I. Bech, H. Skov, & O. D. Henriksen. (2005). Effects of the 

Nysted Offshore wind farm on harbour porpoises (Annual Status Report for the T-POD 

Monitoring Program).

Tougaard, J., J. Carstensen, J. Teilmann, H. Skov, & P. Rasmussen. (2009). Pile driving zone of 

responsiveness extends beyond 20 km for harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena (L.)). Journal of

the Acoustical Society of America, 126(1), 11. 

Trickey, J. S., B. K. Branstetter, & J. J. Finneran. (2010). Auditory masking of a 10 kHz tone with 

environmental, comodulated, and Gaussian noise in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(6), 3799–3804. 

Trickey, J. S., S. Baumann-Pickering, A. Širović, J. A. Hildebrand, A. M. Brewer, A. J. Debich, S. Herbert, A. 

C. Rice, B. Thayre, & S. M. Wiggins. (2015). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine Mammals in

the Northwest Training Range Complex July 2013–April 2014. La Jolla, CA: Marine Physical 

Laboratory Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California San Diego.

Trites, A. W., & D. E. Bain. (2000). Short- and long-term effects of whale watching on killer whales 

(Orcinus orca) in British Columbia. Adelaide, AU: International Whaling Commission,.

Twiss, J. R., Jr., & R. R. Reeves. (1999). Conservation and managment of marine mammals. Washington, 

DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Tyack, P. L., M. Johnson, N. A. Soto, A. Sturlese, & P. T. Madsen. (2006). Extreme diving of beaked 

whales. Journal of Experimental Biology, 209(21), 4238–4253. 

Tyack, P. L. (2009). Human-generated sound and marine mammals. Physics Today, 39–44. 

Tyack, P. L., W. M. X. Zimmer, D. Moretti, B. L. Southall, D. E. Claridge, J. W. Durban, C. W. Clark, A. 

D'Amico, N. DiMarzio, S. Jarvis, E. McCarthy, R. Morrissey, J. Ward, & I. L. Boyd. (2011). Beaked 

whales respond to simulated and actual Navy sonar. PLoS ONE, 6(3), 15. 

Tyne, J. A., K. H. Pollock, D. W. Johnston, & L. Bejder. (2014). Abundance and survival rates of the Hawaii 

Island associated spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) stock. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e86132. 

Tyne, J. A. (2015). A scientific foundation for informed management decisions: Quantifying the 

abundance, important habitat and cumulative exposure of the Hawaii Island spinner dolphin 

(Stenella longirostris) stock to human activities. (Doctor of Philosophy). Murdoch University. 

Tyne, J. A., D. W. Johnston, R. Rankin, N. R. Loneragan, L. Bejder, & A. Punt. (2015). The importance of 

spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) resting habitat: implications for management. Journal of 

Applied Ecology, 52(3), 621–630. 

Tyne, J. A., D. W. Johnston, F. Christiansen, & L. Bejder. (2017). Temporally and spatially partitioned 

behaviours of spinner dolphins: implications for resilience to human disturbance. Royal Society 

Open Science, 4(1), 160626. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, & U.S. Department of the Navy. (2001). Joint Interim Report Bahamas 

Marine Mammal Stranding Event of 15–16 March 2000. Washington, DC: Department of 

Commerce.

U.S. Department of the Air Force. (1997). Environmental effects of self-protection chaff and flares. 

Langley Air Force Base, VA: U.S. Department of the Air Force.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-670

References

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2002). Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement Point Mugu Sea Range. Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare 

Center Weapons Division.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2003). Report on the Results of the Inquiry into Allegations of Marine 

Mammal Impacts Surrounding the Use of Active Sonar by USS SHOUP (DDG 86) in the Haro Strait 

on or about 5 May 2003.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2006). Rim of the Pacific Exercise After Action Report: Analysis of 

Effectiveness of Mitigation and Monitoring Measures as Required Under the Marine Mammals 

Protection Act (MMPA) Incidental Harassment Authorization and the National Defense 

Exemption from the Requirements of the MMPA for Mid-Frequency Active Sonar Mitigation 

Measures.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2009). Swimmer Interdiction Security System (SISS) Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011a). Marine Species Monitoring for the U.S. Navy's Virginia Capes, 

Cherry Point and Jacksonville Range Complexes; Annual Report for 2010. Department of the 

Navy, United States Fleet Forces Command.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011b). Marine Species Monitoring for the U.S. Navy's Hawaii Range 

Complex and the Southern California Range Complex, 2011 Annual Report. U.S. Navy Pacific 

Fleet.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011c). Marine Species Monitoring, Information on Sightings Recorded by 

U.S. Navy MMOs on Vessels during Sonar Test Events in the Naval Surface Warfare Center 

Panama City Division (NSWC PCD). Submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

Protected Resources. Department of the Navy, United States Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, 

VA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013a). Comprehensive Exercise and Marine Species Monitoring Report 

For the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST) and Virginia Capes, Cherry Point, 

Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes 2009–2012. Department of the Navy, United 

States Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, Virginia.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013b). Water Range Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment, 

Potomac River Test Range Complex. Dahlgren, VA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013c). Final Environmental Assessment Naval Base Point Loma Fuel Pier 

Replacement and Dredging (P-151/DESC1306).

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013d). Comprehensive Exercise and Marine Species Monitoring Report 

for the U.S. Navy's Hawaii Range Complex 2009–2012. U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2014a). Marine Species Monitoring Report for the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic 

Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST) and Virginia Capes, Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of 

Mexico Range Complexes - Annual Report 2013. Department of the Navy, United States Fleet 

Forces Command, Norfolk, VA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2014b). Unclassified Annual Range Complex Exercise Report, 2 August 

2012 to 25 November 2013, for the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST) Study 

Area. Prepared for and submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-671

References

Resources. Prepared by the U.S. Department of the Navy in accordance with the Letter of 

Authorization under the MMPA and ITS authorization under the ESA dated 1 February 2012.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2015a). Unclassified 2014 Annual Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

(AFTT) Exercise and Testing Report 14 November 2013 to 13 November 2014. Prepared for and 

submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Prepared by the 

U.S. Department of the Navy in accordance with the Letter of Authorization under the MMPA 

and ITS authorization under the ESA dated 14 November 2013.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2015b). Monitoring Report for Fuel Pier Replacement Project (P-151) 

Naval Base Point Loma, San Diego, CA 8 October 2014 to 30 April 2015. San Diego, CA: Tierra 

Data Inc.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2015c). Northwest Training and Testing Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement, Final, Section 3.4 Marine Mammals.

Pearl Harbor, HI: U.S. Pacific Fleet.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017a). Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Effects Analysis (Phase III). Space and Naval Warfare System Command, Pacific.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017b). U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Database Phase III for the 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area (NAVFAC Atlantic Technical Report). Norfolk, VA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017c). U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Database Phase III for the 

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (NAVFAC Pacific Technical Report). 

Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017d). Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive 

Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. Space and Naval Warfare System Command, 

Pacific and Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017e). Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea 

Turtles: Methods and Analytical Approach for Navy Training and Testing (Technical Report 

prepared by Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific). San Diego, CA: Naval Undersea 

Warfare Center, Division Newport.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017f). Dive Distribution and Group Size Parameters for Marine Species 

Occurring in Navy Training and Testing Areas in the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans

(Technical Report prepared by Naval Undersea Warfare Center). Newport, RI: Naval Undersea 

Warfare Center Division.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2003). Final Revised Recovery Plan for the Southern Sea Otter (Enhydra 

lutris nereis). Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012a). Final Supplemental EIS on the Translocation of Southern Sea 

Otters–Volume 2. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012b). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Termination of 

the Southern Sea Otter Translocation Program; Final Rule. Federal Register.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012c). Final Supplemental EIS on the Translocation of Southern Sea 

Otters–Volume 1. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2015). Southern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris nereis), 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. Ventura, CA: Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-672

References

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2016). Southern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris nereis). Ventura, CA.

U.S. Geological Survey. (2014). Sea Otters Swimming Towards Recovery. Retrieved from 

http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/slowly-swimming-towards-recoverycalifornias-sea-otter-numbers-holding-steady/

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program & SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific. (2017). Marine Mammal 

Strandings Associated with U.S. Navy Sonar Activities. SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific.

University of Hawaii. (2010). Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions Assessment, Final Investigation Report 

HI-05, South of Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii. University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Urban-Ramirez, J., & D. Aurioles-Gamboa. (1992). First record of the pygmy beaked whale, Mesoplodon 

peruvianus in the North Pacific. Marine Mammal Science, 8(4), 420–425. 

Urban-Ramirez, J., L. Rojas-Bracho, H. Perez-Cortes, A. Gomez-Gallardo, S. L. Swartz, S. Ludwig, & R. L. 

Brownell, Jr. (2003). A review of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) on their wintering grounds 

in Mexican waters. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 5(3), 281–295. 

Urick, R. J. (1983). Principles of Underwater Sound, Principles of Underwater Sound for Engineers (3rd 

ed.). Los Altos Hills, CA: Peninsula Publishing.

Urrutia, Y. S., & G. H. Dziendzielewski. (2012). Diagnóstico de la vulnerabilidad de las cuatro especies de 

pinnípedos (lobo marino, lobo fino, foca de Puerto y elefante marino) en México, frente al 

cambio climático global. Documento de el Fondo Sectorial SEMARNAT-CONACYT (FONSECSEMARNAT).

Uyeyama, R. K., M. A. Fagan, & L. H. Shannon. (2012). Cruise Report Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle 

Observer UNDET Monitoring Hawaii Range Complex: 19 & 26 October and 2 November 2011. 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific.

van Beest, F. M., L. Kindt-Larsen, F. Bastardie, V. Bartolino, & J. Nabe-Nielsen. (2017). Predicting the 

population-level impact of mitigating harbor porpoise bycatch with pingers and time-area 

fishing closures. Ecosphere, 8(4), e01785. 

Van der Hoop, J. M., A. S. M. Vanderlaan, & C. T. Taggart. (2012). Absolute probability estimates of lethal 

vessel strikes to North Atlantic right whales in Roseway Basin, Scotian Shelf. Ecological 

Applications, 22(7), 2021–2033. 

Van der Hoop, J. M., M. J. Moore, S. G. Barco, T. V. Cole, P. Y. Daoust, A. G. Henry, D. F. McAlpine, W. A. 

McLellan, T. Wimmer, & A. R. Solow. (2013). Assessment of management to mitigate 

anthropogenic effects on large whales. Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for 

Conservation Biology, 27(1), 121–133. 

Van der Hoop, J. M., A. S. M. Vanderlaan, T. V. N. Cole, A. G. Henry, L. Hall, B. Mase-Guthrie, T. Wimmer, 

& M. J. Moore. (2015). Vessel Strikes to Large Whales Before and After the 2008 Ship Strike 

Rule. Conservation Letters, 8(1), 24–32. 

Van Parijs, S. M. (2015). Letter of Introduction to the Biologically Important Areas Issue. In S. M. Van 

Parijs, C. Curtice, & M. C. Ferguson (Eds.), Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S. 

waters, Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue) 41(1), 1. 

Van Parijs, S. M., C. Curtice, & M. C. Ferguson, (Eds.). (2015). Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans 

within U.S. waters. Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue), 41(1), 128. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-673

References

Van Waerebeek, K., F. Felix, B. Haase, D. M. Palacios, D. M. Mora-Pinto, & M. Munoz-Hincapie. (1998). 

Inshore records of the striped dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba, from the Pacific coast of South 

America. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 48, 525–532. 

Van Waerebeek, K., A. N. Baker, F. Felix, J. Gedamke, M. Iñiguez, G. P. Sanino, E. Secchi, D. Sutaria, A. 

van Helden, & Y. Wang. (2007). Vessel collisions with small cetaceans worldwide and with large 

whales in the southern hemisphere, an initial assessment. Latin American Journal of Aquatic 

Mammals, 6(1), 43–69. 

Vanderlaan, M. S. A., & T. C. Taggart. (2007). Vessel collisions with whales: the probability of lethal injury 

nased on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science, 23(1), 144–156. 

Veirs, S., V. Veirs, & J. Wood. (2015a). Ship noise in an urban estuary extends to frequencies used for 

echolocation by endangered killer whales. PeerJ. 

Veirs, S., V. Veirs, & J. D. Wood. (2015b). Ship noise in an urban estuary extends to frequencies used for 

echolocation by endangered killer whales. PeerJ PrePrints, e1216. 

Vilela, R., U. Pena, R. Esteban, & R. Koemans. (2016). Bayesian spatial modeling of cetacean sightings 

during a seismic acquisition survey. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 109(1), 512–520. 

Villadsgaard, A., M. Wahlberg, & J. Tougaard. (2007). Echolocation signals of wild harbour porpoises, 

Phocoena phocoena. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2010, 56–64. 

Visser, F., C. Cure, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. Lam, P. L. Tyack, & P. J. Miller. (2016). Disturbance-specific 

social responses in long-finned pilot whales, Globicephala melas. Scientific Reports, 6, 28641. 

Visser, I. N., & D. Fertl. (2000). Stranding, resighting, and boat strike of a killer whale (Orcinus orca) off 

New Zealand. Aquatic Mammals, 26.3, 232–240. 

Von Benda-Beckmann, A. M., P. J. Wensveen, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. Lam, P. J. Miller, P. L. Tyack, & M. A. 

Ainslie. (2014). Modeling effectiveness of gradual increases in source level to mitigate effects of 

sonar on marine mammals. Conservation Biology, 28(1), 119–128. 

von Benda-Beckmann, A. M., P. J. Wensveen, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, P. J. Miller, P. L. Tyack, & M. 

A. Ainslie. (2016). Assessing the Effectiveness of Ramp-Up During Sonar Operations Using 

Exposure Models The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II (pp. 1197–1203). New York, NY: Springer.

Wade, P. R., & T. Gerrodette. (1993). Estimates of cetacean abundance and distribution in the eastern 

tropical Pacific. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 43, 477–493. 

Wade, P. R., J. M. Ver Hoef, & D. P. DeMaster. (2009). Mammal-eating killer whales and their prey-trend 

data for pinnipeds and sea otters in the North Pacific Ocean do not support the sequential 

megafaunal collapse hypothesis. Marine Mammal Science, 25(3), 737–747. 

Wade, P. R., A. Kennedy, R. LeDuc, J. Barlow, J. Carretta, K. Shelden, W. Perryman, R. Pitman, K. 

Robertson, B. Rone, J. C. Salinas, A. Zerbini, R. L. Brownell, Jr., & P. J. Clapham. (2010). The 

world's smallest whale population? Biology Letters, 7(1), 83–85. 

Wade, P. R., A. De Robertis, K. R. Hough, R. Booth, A. Kennedy, R. G. LeDuc, L. Munger, J. Napp, K. E. W. 

Shelden, S. Rankin, O. Vasquez, & C. Wilson. (2011). Rare detections of North Pacific right 

whales in the Gulf of Alaska, with observations of their potential prey. Endangered Species 

Research, 13(2), 99–109. 

Wade, P. R., T. J. Quinn, II, J. Barlow, C. S. Baker, A. M. Burdin, J. Calambokidis, P. J. Clapham, E. A. 

Falcone, J. K. B. Ford, C. M. Gabriele, D. K. Mattila, L. Rojas-Bracho, J. M. Straley, & B. Taylor. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-674

References

(2016). Estimates of abundance and migratory destination for North Pacific humpback whales in 

both summer feeding areas and winter mating and calving areas (Paper SC/66b/IA/21 presented 

to the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee).

Walker, M. M., J. L. Kirschvink, G. Ahmed, & A. E. Diction. (1992). Evidence that fin whales respond to

the geomagnetic field during migration. Journal of Experimental Biology, 171, 67–78. 

Walker, R. J., E. O. Keith, A. E. Yankovsky, & D. K. Odell. (2005). Environmental correlates of cetacean 

mass stranding sites in Florida. Marine Mammal Science, 21(2), 327–335. 

Walker, W. A., & J. M. Coe. (1990). Survey of Marine Debris Ingestion by Odontocete Cetaceans. (NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154). U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Walker, W. A., & M. B. Hanson. (1999). Biological observations on Stejneger's beaked whale, 

Mesoplodon stejnegeri, from strandings on Adak Island, Alaska. Marine Mammal Science, 15(4), 

1314–1329. 

Walker, W. A., J. G. Mead, & R. L. Brownell, Jr. (2002). Diets of Baird’s beaked whales Berardius bairdii, in 

the southern Sea of Okhotsk and off the Pacific Coast of Honshu, Japan. Marine Mammal 

Science, 18(4), 902–919. 

Wang, J. Y., S. C. Yang, & H. C. Liao. (2001). Species composition, distribution and relative abundance of 

cetaceans in the waters of southern Taiwan: Implications for conservation and eco-tourism. 

Journal of the National Parks of Taiwan, 11(2), 136–158. 

Wang, J. Y., & S. C. Yang. (2006). Unusual cetacean stranding events of Taiwan in 2004 and 2005. Journal 

of Cetacean Research and Management, 8(3), 283–292. 

Wang, Z., Y. Wu, G. Duan, H. Cao, J. Liu, K. Wang, & D. Wang. (2014). Assessing the underwater acoustics 

of the world's largest vibration hammer (OCTA-KONG) and its potential effects on the IndoPacific humpbacked dolphin (Sousa chinensis). PLoS ONE, 9(10), e110590. 

Ward, D. W. (1960). Recovery from high values of temporary threshold shift. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America, 32(4), 497–500. 

Ward, E. J., H. Chirakkal, M. Gonzalez-Suarez, D. Aurioles-Gamboa, E. E. Holmes, & L. Gerber. (2010). 

Inferring spatial structure from time-series data: using multivariate state-space models to detect 

metapopulation structure of California sea lions in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Journal of 

Applied Ecology, 47, 47–56. 

Ward, W. D., A. Glorig, & D. L. Sklar. (1958). Dependence of temporary threshold shift at 4 kc on 

intensity and time. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 30(10), 944–954. 

Ward, W. D., A. Glorig, & D. L. Sklar. (1959). Relation between recovery from temporary threshold shift 

and duration of exposure. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 31(5), 600–602. 

Ware, C., D. N. Wiley, A. S. Friedlaender, M. Weinrich, E. L. Hazen, A. Bocconcelli, S. E. Parks, A. K. 

Stimpert, M. A. Thompson, & K. Abernathy. (2013). Bottom side-roll feeding by humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the southern Gulf of Marine, U.S.A. Marine Mammal 

Science. 

Waring, G. T., T. Hamazaki, D. Sheehan, G. Wood, & S. Baker. (2001). Characterization of beaked whale 

(Ziphiidae) and sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) summer habitat in shelf-edge and 

deeper waters off the northeast U.S. Marine Mammal Science, 17(4), 703–717. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-675

References

Wartzok, D., & D. R. Ketten. (1999). Marine Mammal Sensory Systems. In J. E. Reynolds, III & S. A. 

Rommel (Eds.), Biology of Marine Mammals (pp. 117–175). Washington, DC: Smithsonian 

Institution Press.

Wartzok, D., A. N. Popper, J. Gordon, & J. Merrill. (2003). Factors affecting the responses of marine 

mammals to acoustic disturbance. Marine Technology Society Journal, 37(4), 6–15. 

Watkins, W. A., & W. E. Schevill. (1975). Sperm whales (Physeter catodon) react to pingers. Deep-Sea 

Research, 22, 123–129. 

Watkins, W. A. (1981). Reaction of three species of whales Balaenoptera physalus, Megaptera 

novaeangliae, and Balaenoptera edeni to implanted radio tags. Deep-Sea Research, 28A(6), 589–

599. 

Watkins, W. A., K. E. Moore, & P. Tyack. (1985). Sperm whale acoustic behavior in the southeast 

Caribbean. Cetology, 49, 1–15. 

Watkins, W. A. (1986). Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Marine Mammal 

Science, 2(4), 251–262. 

Watkins, W. A., M. A. Daher, N. A. DiMarzio, A. Samuels, D. Wartzok, K. M. Fristrup, D. P. Gannon, P. W. 

Howey, & R. R. Maiefski. (1999). Sperm whale surface activity from tracking by radio and 

satellite tags. Marine Mammal Science, 15(4), 1158–1180. 

Watters, D. L., M. M. Yoklavich, M. S. Love, & D. M. Schroeder. (2010). Assessing marine debris in deep 

seafloor habitats off California. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60, 131–138. 

Watwood, S., M. Fagan, A. D'Amico, & T. Jefferson. (2012). Cruise Report, Marine Species Monitoring 

and Lookout Effectiveness Study, Koa Kai, November 2011, Hawaii Range Complex. Prepared for 

Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Weaver, A. (2015). Sex difference in bottlenose dolphin sightings during a long-term bridge construction 

project. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 2(1), 1–13. 

Webster, D. L., R. W. Baird, B. K. Rone, & D. B. Anderson. (2015). Rough-toothed dolphins on a Navy 

range in Hawaii: using LIMPET satellite-tag data to assess movements, habitat use, and overlap 

with Navy activities. Paper presented at the Poster presented at the 21st Biennial Conference on 

the Biology of Marine Mammals, San Francisco, CA. 

http://www.cascadiaresearch.org/Hawaii/Websteretal_2015_SMM.pdf

Weir, C. R. (2008). Overt responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whales 

(Physeter macrocephalus), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) to seismic 

exploration off Angola. Aquatic Mammals, 34(1), 71–83. 

Weise, M. J., D. P. Costa, & R. M. Kudela. (2006). Movement and diving behavior of male California sea 

lion (Zalophus californianus) during anomalous oceanographic conditions of 2005 compared to 

those of 2004. Geophysical Research Letters, 33(22). 

Weise, M. J., J. T. Harvey, & D. P. Costa. (2010). The role of body size in individual-based foraging 

strategies of a top marine predator. Ecology, 91(4), 1004–1015. 

Weiss, E. W., & R. P. Morrill. (2014). Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary Annual Management Report 

2013 (Special Areas Management Report). Anchorage, AK: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-676

References

Wellard, R., K. Lightbody, L. Fouda, M. Blewitt, D. Riggs, & C. Erbe. (2016). Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) 

Predation on Beaked Whales (Mesoplodon spp.) in the Bremer Sub-Basin, Western Australia. 

PLoS ONE, 11(12). 

Weller, D. W., B. Würsig, H. Whitehead, J. C. Norris, S. K. Lynn, R. W. Davis, N. Clauss, & P. Brown. (1996). 

Observations of an interaction between sperm whales and short-finned pilot whales in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science, 12(4), 588–593. 

Weller, D. W., A. M. Burdin, B. Würsig, B. L. Taylor, & R. L. Brownell, Jr. (2002). The western gray whale: 

a review of past exploitation, current status and potential threats. Journal of Cetacean Research 

and Management, 4(1), 7–12. 

Weller, D. W. (2008). Predation on marine mammals. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 923–931). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Weller, D. W., A. Klimek, A. L. Bradford, J. Calambokidis, A. R. Lang, B. Gisborne, A. M. Burdin, W. 

Szaniszlo, J. Urban, A. Gomex-Gallardo Unzueta, S. Swartz, & R. L. Brownell Jr. (2012a). 

Movements of gray whales between the western and eastern North Pacific. Endangered Species 

Research, 18, 193–199. 

Weller, D. W., A. Klimek, A. L. Bradford, J. Calambokidis, A. R. Lang, B. Gisborne, A. M. Burdin, W. 

Szaniszlo, J. Urbán, A. Gomez-Gallardo Unzueta, S. Swartz, & R. L. Brownell. (2012b). Movements 

of gray whales between the western and eastern North Pacific. Endangered Species Research, 

18(3), 193–199. 

Weller, D. W., S. Bettridge, R. L. Brownell, J. L. Laake, M. J. Moore, P. E. Rosel, B. L. Taylor, & P. R. Wade. 

(2013). Report of the National Marine Fisheries Service Gray Whale Stock Identification 

Workshop (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-507). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center.

Wells, R. S., & M. D. Scott. (1997). Seasonal incidence of boat strikes on bottlenose dolphins near 

Sarasota, Florida. Marine Mammal Science, 13(3), 475–480. 

Wells, R. S., & M. D. Scott. (1999). Bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821). In S. H. 

Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals, Volume 6: The Second Book of 

Dolphins and the Porpoises (pp. 137–182). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wells, R. S., J. B. Allen, S. Hofmann, K. Bassos-Hull, D. A. Fauquier, N. B. Barros, R. E. DeLynn, G. Sutton, 

V. Socha, & M. D. Scott. (2008). Consequences of injuries on survival and reproduction of 

common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) along the west coast of Florida. Marine 

Mammal Science, 24(4), 774–794. 

Wells, R. S., & M. D. Scott. (2008). Common bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. In W. F. Perrin, W. B. 

& J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 249–255). Academic 

Press.

Wells, R. S., C. A. Manire, L. Byrd, D. R. Smith, J. G. Gannon, D. Fauqiuer, & K. D. Mullin. (2009). 

Movements and dive patterns of a rehabilitated Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus, in the Gulf of 

Mexico and Atlantic ocean. Marine Mammal Science, 25(2), 420–429. 

Wensveen, P. J., A. M. von Benda-Beckmann, M. A. Ainslie, F. P. Lam, P. H. Kvadsheim, P. L. Tyack, & P. J. 

Miller. (2015). How effectively do horizontal and vertical response strategies of long-finned pilot 

whales reduce sound exposure from naval sonar? Marine Environmental Research, 106, 68–81. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-677

References

Werth, A. J. (2006a). Mandibular and dental variation and the evolution of suction feeding in 

Odontoceti. Journal of Mammalogy, 87(3), 579–588. 

Werth, A. J. (2006b). Odontocete suction feeding: Experimental analysis of water flow and head shape. 

Journal of morphology, 267(12), 1415–1428. 

West, K. (2016). Necropsy Findings, Stomach Contents and Hook Ingestion in IFKW's. University of 

Hawaii, Hawaii Pacific University.

West, K. L., W. A. Walker, R. W. Baird, W. White, G. Levine, E. Brown, & D. Schofield. (2009). Diet of 

pygmy sperm whales (Kogia breviceps) in the Hawiian Archipelago. Marine Mammal Science, 

25(4), 931–943. 

West, K. L., S. Sanchez, D. Rotstein, K. M. Robertson, S. Dennison, G. Levine, N. Davis, D. Schofield, C. W. 

Potter, & B. Jensen. (2012). A Longman's beaked whale (Indopacetus pacificus) strands in Maui, 

Hawaii, with first case of morbillivirus in the central Pacific. Marine Mammal Science. 

West, K. L., G. Levine, J. Jacob, B. Jensen, S. Sanchez, K. Colegrove, & D. Rotstein. (2015). Coinfection and 

Vertical Transmission of Brucella and Morbillivirus in a Neonatal Sperm Whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus) in Hawaii, USA. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 51(1), 227–232. 

West, K. L., W. A. Walker, R. W. Baird, J. G. Mead, & P. W. Collins. (2017). Diet of Cuvier's beaked whales 

Ziphius cavirostris from the North Pacific and a comparison with their diet world-wide. Marine 

Ecological Progress Series, 574, 227–242. 

Whitehead, H., & L. Weilgart. (2000). The sperm whale; Social females and roving males. In J. Mann, R. 

C. Connor, P. L. Tyack & H. Whitehead (Eds.), Cetacean Societies; Field Studies of Dolphins and 

Whales (pp. 154–172). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Whitehead, H. (2003). Sperm Whales Social Evolution in the Ocean. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago 

Press.

Whitehead, H., A. Coakes, N. Jaquet, & S. Lusseau. (2008). Movements of sperm whales in the tropical 

Pacific. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 361, 291–300. 

Whitehead, H. (2009). Sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 1091–1097). Academic Press.

Wiley, D. N., C. A. Mayo, E. M. Maloney, & M. J. Moore. (2016). Vessel strike mitigation lessons from 

direct observations involving two collisions between noncommercial vessels and North Atlantic 

right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Marine Mammal Science, 32(4), 1501–1509. 

Wilkin, S. M. (2003). Nocturnal foraging ecology and activity budget of the sea otter (Enhydra lutris) in 

Elkhorn Slough, California. (Master's thesis). San Francisco State University. 

Williams, R., D. E. Bain, J. K. B. Ford, & A. W. Trites. (2002a). Behavioural responses of male killer whales 

to a 'leapfrogging' vessel. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 4(3), 305–310. 

Williams, R., A. W. Trites, & D. E. Bain. (2002b). Behavioural responses of killer whales (Orcinus orca) to 

whale-watching boats: Opportunistic observations and experimental approaches. Journal of 

Zoology, London, 256, 255–270. 

Williams, R., D. Lusseau, & P. S. Hammond. (2006). Estimating relative energetic costs of human 

disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca). Biological Conservation, 133, 301–311. 

Williams, R., & L. Thomas. (2007). Distribution and abundance of marine mamals in the coastal waters of 

British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 9(1), 15–28. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-678

References

Williams, R., D. E. Bain, J. C. Smith, & D. Lusseau. (2009). Effects of vessels on behaviour patterns of 

individual southern resident killer whales, Orcinus orca. Endangered Species Research, 6, 199–

209. 

Williams, R., E. Ashe, & P. D. O'Hara. (2011). Marine mammals and debris in coastal waters of British 

Columbia, Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62, 1303–1316. 

Williams, R., E. Ashe, L. Blight, M. Jasny, & L. Nowlan. (2014a). Marine mammals and ocean noise: future 

directions and information needs with respect to science, policy and law in Canada. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 86(1-2), 29–38. 

Williams, R., C. W. Clark, D. Ponirakis, & E. Ashe. (2014b). Acoustic quality of critical habitats for three 

threatened whale populations. Animal Conservation, 17(2), 174–185. 

Williams, R., C. Erbe, E. Ashe, A. Beerman, & J. Smith. (2014c). Severity of killer whale behavioral 

responses to ship noise: a dose-response study. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 79(1-2), 254–260. 

Williams, T. M., T. L. Kendall, B. P. Richter, C. R. Ribeiro-French, J. S. John, K. L. Odell, B. A. Losch, D. A. 

Feuerbach, & M. A. Stamper. (2017). Swimming and diving energetics in dolphins: a stroke-bystroke analysis for predicting the cost of flight responses in wild odontocetes. Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 220(6), 1135–1145. 

Williamson, M. J., A. S. Kavanagh, M. J. Noad, E. Kniest, & R. A. Dunlop. (2016). The effect of close 

approaches for tagging activities by small research vessels on the behavior of humpback whales 

(Megaptera novaeangliae). Marine Mammal Science. 

Wilson, K., A. D'Amico, & C. Littnan. (2012). Habitat Use and Behavioral Monitoring of Hawaiian Monk 

Seals in Proximity to the Navy Hawaii Range Complex. U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Wilson, S. C. (1978). Social Organization and Behavior of Harbor Seals, Phoca vitulina concolor, in Maine.

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Worthy, G. A. J., P. A. Morris, D. P. Costa, & B. J. Le Boeuf. (1992). Molt energetics of the northern 

elephant seal. Journal of Zoology, 227, 257–265. 

Würsig, B., S. K. Lynn, T. A. Jefferson, & K. D. Mullin. (1998). Behaviour of cetaceans in the northern Gulf 

of Mexico relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquatic Mammals, 24(1), 41–50. 

Würsig, B., T. A. Jefferson, & D. J. Schmidly. (2000). The marine mammals of the Gulf of Mexico: Texas 

A&M University Press.

Würsig, B., & W. J. Richardson. (2008). Noise, effects of. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 765–773). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Yamada, T. (1998). Stejneger's beaked whale, Mesoplodon stejnegeri, True 1885. In Japan Fisheries 

Agency (Ed.), Redbook Data on Aquatic Flora and Fauna, Part III. Aquatic Mammals (pp. 53–59). 

Japan Fisheries Resource Conservation Association.

Yang, W.-C., L.-S. Chou, P. D. Jepson, R. L. Brownell, Jr., D. Cowan, P.-H. Chang, H.-I. Chiou, C.-J. Yao, T. K. 

Yamada, J.-T. Chiu, P.-J. Wang, & A. Fernández. (2008). Unusual cetacean mortality event in 

Taiwan, possibly linked to naval activities. Veterinary Record, 162, 184–186. 

Yazvenko, S. B., T. L. McDonald, S. A. Blokhin, S. R. Johnson, H. R. Melton, M. W. Newcomer, R. Nielson, 

& P. W. Wainwright. (2007). Feeding of western gray whales during a seismic survey near 

Sakhalin Island, Russia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 134(1–3), 93–106. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-679

References

Yeates, L. C., T. M. Williams, & T. L. Fink. (2007). Diving and foraging energetics of the smallest marine 

mammal, the sea otter (Enhydra lutris). Journal of Experimental Biology, 210(Pt 11), 1960–1970. 

Yelverton, J. T., D. R. Richmond, E. R. Fletcher, & R. K. Jones. (1973). Safe distances from underwater 

explosions for mammals and birds. Albuquerque, NM: Lovelace Foundation for Medical 

Education and Research.

Ylitalo, G. M., J. E. Stein, T. Hom, L. L. Johnson, K. L. Tilbury, A. J. Hall, T. Rowles, D. Greig, L. J. 

Lowenstine, & F. M. D. Gulland. (2005). The role of organochlorines in cancer-associated 

mortality in California sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50, 30–39. 

Ylitalo, G. M., R. W. Baird, G. K. Yanagida, D. L. Webster, S. J. Chivers, J. L. Bolton, G. S. Schorr, & D. J. 

McSweeney. (2009). High levels of persistent organic pollutants measured in blubber of islandassociated false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) around the main Hawaiian Islands. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 58, 1922–1952. 

Young, C., S. M. Gende, & J. T. Harvey. (2014). Effects of Vessels on Harbor Seals in Glacier Bay National 

Park. Tourism in Marine Environments, 10(1), 5–20. 

Yuen, M. M. L., P. E. Nachtigall, M. Breese, & A. Y. Supin. (2005). Behavioral and auditory evoked 

potential audiograms of a false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens). The Journal of Acoustical 

Society of America, 118(4), 2688–2695. 

Zagzebski, K. A., F. M. D. Gulland, M. Haulena, M. E. Lander, D. J. Greig, L. J. Gage, B. M. Hanson, P. K. 

Yochem, & B. S. Stewart. (2006). Twenty-five years of rehabilitation of odontocetes stranded in 

central and northern California, 1977 to 2002. Aquatic Mammals, 32(3), 334–345. 

Zavala-Gonzalez, A., & E. Mellink. (2000). Historical exploitation of the California sea lion, Zalophus 

californianus, in Mexico. Marine Fisheries Review, 62(1), 35–40. 

Zerbini, A. N., P. J. Clapham, & M. P. Heide-Jørgensen. (2010). Migration, wintering destinations and 

habitat use of North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica) (North Pacific Research Board: 

Project 720-Final Report). Seattle, WA: National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Greenland 

Institute of Natural Resources.

Zerbini, A. N., M. F. Baumgartner, A. S. Kennedy, B. K. Rone, P. R. Wade, & P. J. Clapham. (2015). Space 

use patterns of the endangered North Pacific right whale Eubalaena japonica in the Bering Sea. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 532, 269–281. 

Zimmer, W. M. X., & P. L. Tyack. (2007). Repetitive shallow dives pose decompression risk in deep-diving 

beaked whales. Marine Mammal Science, 23(4), 888–925. 

Zoeger, J., J. R. Dunn, & M. Fuller. (1981). Magnetic material in the head of the common pacific dolphin. 

Science, 213(4510), 892–894. 

Zoidis, A. M., M. A. Smultea, A. S. Frankel, J. L. Hopkins, A. Day, A. S. McFarland, A. Whitt, & D. Fertle. 

(2008). Vocalizations produced by humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) calves recorded 

in Hawaii. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(3), 1737–1746. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.7-680

References

This page intentionally left blank.
3.8 Reptiles

Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.8 Reptiles..................................................................................................................3.8-1

3.8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................3.8-3

3.8.2 Affected Environment.........................................................................................3.8-3

3.8.2.1 General Background...............................................................................3.8-3

3.8.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species...............................................3.8-11

3.8.2.3 Species Not Listed under the Endangered Species Act........................3.8-24

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.8-25

3.8.3.1 Acoustic Stressors................................................................................3.8-26

3.8.3.2 Explosive Stressors...............................................................................3.8-52

3.8.3.3 Energy Stressors...................................................................................3.8-72

3.8.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ...........................................3.8-77

3.8.3.5 Entanglement Stressors.......................................................................3.8-87

3.8.3.6 Ingestion Stressors...............................................................................3.8-97

3.8.3.7 Secondary Stressors...........................................................................3.8-105

3.8.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Reptiles.....................................................3.8-109

3.8.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1....................3.8-109

3.8.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2....................3.8-111

3.8.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action Alternative3.8-111

3.8.4.4 Endangered Species Act Determinations...........................................3.8-112

List of Figures

Figure 3.8-1: Dive Depth and Duration Summaries for Sea Turtle Species............................................3.8-5

Figure 3.8-2: Generalized Dive Profiles and Activities Described for Sea Turtles...................................3.8-6

Figure 3.8-3: Composite Underwater Audiogram for Sea Turtles..........................................................3.8-7

Figure 3.8-4: Auditory Weighting Function for Sea Turtles..................................................................3.8-31

Figure 3.8-5: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Sonar and Other Transducers................................3.8-32

Figure 3.8-6: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Impulsive Sounds...................................................3.8-38

Figure 3.8-7: Auditory Weighting Functions for Sea Turtles.................................................................3.8-60

Figure 3.8-8: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Impulsive Sounds...................................................3.8-61
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.8-9: Green Sea Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing. ..........................................................................................................3.8-69

Figure 3.8-10: Green Sea Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of Explosions 

During Training and Testing ...........................................................................................................3.8-71

List of Tables

Table 3.8-1: Current Regulatory Status and Presence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Sea Reptiles in 

the Study Area................................................................................................................................3.8-11

Table 3.8-2: TTS and PTS peak pressure thresholds for sea turtles exposed to impulsive sounds......3.8-39

Table 3.8-3: Ranges to Permanent Threshold Shift and Temporary Threshold Shift for Sea Turtles 

Exposed to 10 Air Gun Firings.........................................................................................................3.8-39

Table 3.8-4: Ranges to TTS and PTS for Sea Turtles Exposed to Impact Pile Driving............................3.8-42

Table 3.8-5: Criteria to Quantitatively Assess Non-Auditory Injury due to Underwater Explosions....3.8-59

Table 3.8-6: TTS and PTS Peak Pressure Thresholds Derived for Sea Turtles Exposed to Impulsive Sounds

........................................................................................................................................................3.8-61

Table 3.8-7: SEL Based Ranges to TTS and PTS for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives.........................3.8-62

Table 3.8-8: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to TTS and PTS for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives .......3.8-64

Table 3.8-9 Ranges to Mortality for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives...............................................3.8-65

Table 3.8-10: Ranges to Injury for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives..................................................3.8-65
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-1

3.8 Reptiles

3.8 REPTILES

SYNOPSIS

The United States Department of the Navy (Navy) considered all potential stressors that reptiles 

could potentially be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following conclusions have been 

reached for the Preferred Alternative:

• Acoustics: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose reptiles to 

multiple acoustic stressors including sonars, other transducers, air guns, pile driving, and 

vessel, aircraft, and weapons noise. Reptiles could be affected by only a limited portion of 

acoustic stressors because reptiles have limited hearing abilities. Exposures to soundproducing activities present risks that could range from hearing loss, auditory masking, 

physiological stress, or changes in behavior; however, no injurious impacts are predicted due 

to exposure to any acoustic stressor. Because the number of sea turtles potentially impacted 

by sound-producing activities is small, population level effects are unlikely. Sea snakes 

considered in this analysis rarely occur in the Study Area and few, if any, impacts are 

anticipated from acoustic stressors.

• Explosives: Explosions in the water or near the water’s surface present a risk to reptiles 

located in close proximity to the explosion, because the shock waves produced by explosives 

can cause injury or result in the death; however, no sea turtle mortalities are predicted. If a 

sea turtle is farther from an explosion, the intense, impulsive, broadband sounds introduced 

into the marine environment may cause hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress, 

or changes in behavior. Because the number of sea turtles potentially impacted by explosives 

is small, population level effects are unlikely. Sea snakes considered in this analysis rarely 

occur in the Study Area, and few, if any, impacts are anticipated from explosives.

• Energy: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose sea turtles to 

multiple energy stressors. Based on the relatively weak strength of the electromagnetic field 

created by Navy activities, impacts on sea turtles migrating behaviors and navigational 

patterns are not anticipated. Potential impacts from high-energy lasers would only result for 

sea turtles directly struck by the laser beam. Statistical probability analyses demonstrate 

with a high level of certainty that no sea turtles would be struck by a high-energy laser. Sea 

snakes considered in this analysis rarely occur in the Study Area and few, if any, impacts are 

anticipated from energy stressors. Energy stressors associated with Navy training and testing 

activities are temporary and localized in nature, and based on patchy distribution of animals, 

no impacts on individual reptile or reptile populations are anticipated.

• Physical Disturbance and Strike: Vessels, in-water devices, and seafloor devices present a risk 

for collision with sea turtles, particularly in coastal areas where densities are higher. Strike 

potential by expended materials is statistically small. Because of the low numbers of sea 

turtles potentially impacted by activities that may potentially cause a physical disturbance 

and strike, population level effects are unlikely. Sea snakes considered in this analysis rarely 

occur in the Study Area and few, if any, impacts are anticipated from physical disturbance 

and strike stressors. 

Continued on the next page...
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-2

3.8 Reptiles

Continued from the previous page...

• Entanglement: Sea turtles could be exposed to multiple entanglement stressors associated 

with Navy training and testing activities. The potential for impacts is dependent on the 

physical properties of the expended materials and the likelihood that a sea turtle would 

encounter a potential entanglement stressor and then become entangled in it. Physical 

characteristics of wires and cables, decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymers 

combined with the sparse distribution of these items throughout the Study Area indicates a 

very low potential for sea turtles to encounter and become entangled in them. Long-term 

impacts on individual sea turtles and sea turtle populations from entanglement stressors 

associated with Navy training and testing activities are not anticipated. Sea snakes 

considered in this analysis rarely occur in the Study Area and few, if any, impacts are 

anticipated from entanglement stressors.

• Ingestion: Navy training and testing activities have the potential to expose sea turtles to 

multiple ingestion stressors and associated impacts. The likelihood and magnitude of impacts 

depends on the physical properties of the military expended items, the feeding behaviors of 

sea turtles that occur in the Study Area, and the likelihood that a sea turtle would encounter 

and incidentally ingest the items. Adverse impacts from ingestion of military expended 

materials would be limited to the unlikely event that a sea turtle would be harmed by 

ingesting an item that becomes embedded in tissue or is too large to be passed through the 

digestive system. The likelihood that a sea turtle would encounter and subsequently ingest a 

military expended item associated with Navy training and testing activities is considered low. 

Long-term consequences to sea turtle populations from ingestion stressors associated with 

Navy training and testing activities are not anticipated. Sea snakes considered in this analysis 

rarely occur in the Study Area and few, if any, impacts are anticipated from 

ingestion stressors.

• Secondary: Sea turtles could be exposed to multiple secondary stressors (indirect stressors to 

habitat or prey) associated with Navy training and testing activities in the Study Area. Inwater explosions have the potential to injure or kill prey species that sea turtles feed on 

within a small area affected by the blast; however, impacts would not substantially impact 

prey availability for sea turtles. Explosion byproducts and unexploded munitions would have 

no meaningful effect on water or sediment quality; therefore, they are not considered to be 

secondary stressors for sea turtles. Metals are introduced into the water and sediments from 

multiple types of military expended materials. Available research indicates metal 

contamination is very localized and that bioaccumulation resulting from munitions would not 

occur. Several Navy training and testing activities introduce chemicals into the marine 

environment that are potentially harmful in concentration in the water column or in 

resuspended sediments; however, through rapid dilution, toxic concentrations are unlikely to 

be encountered by sea turtles. Furthermore, bioconcentration or bioaccumulation of 

chemicals introduced by Navy activities to levels that would significantly alter water quality 

and degrade sea turtle habitat has not been documented. Secondary stressors from Navy 

training and testing activities in the Study Area are not expected to have short-term impacts 

on individual sea turtles or long-term impacts on sea turtle populations. Sea snakes 

considered in this analysis rarely occur in the Study Area and few, if any, impacts are 

anticipated from secondary stressors.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-3

3.8 Reptiles

3.8.1 INTRODUCTION

This section provides a brief introduction to reptiles that occur within the boundaries of the Study Area 

and whose distribution may overlap with stressors associated with the Proposed Action. The National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) share 

jurisdictional responsibility for sea turtles under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). USFWS has 

responsibility in the terrestrial environment (e.g., nesting beaches), while NMFS has responsibility in the 

marine environment. Sea snakes are not listed under the ESA; therefore, there are no regulatory 

agencies that manage this species for conservation purposes. 

Sea turtles considered in this analysis are found in coastal waters and on nesting beaches of the 

Hawaiian Islands, coastal waters of California, and in open ocean areas. These species include green sea 

turtles (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), olive ridley sea turtle 

(Lepidochelys olivii), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta 

caretta). Yellow-bellied sea snakes (Pelamis platura) passively drift in pelagic environments, and some of 

the pelagic currents that may carry sea snakes are within offshore waters of Hawaii. This species is 

believed to be extralimital in California (known from dead individuals washed ashore). Each species is 

discussed further in Section 3.8.2 (Affected Environment).

3.8.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.8.2.1 General Background

All reptiles are ectotherms, commonly referred to as “cold-blooded” animals that have adopted 

different strategies to use external sources of heat to regulate body temperature. Sea turtles are highly 

migratory, long-lived reptiles that occur throughout the open-ocean and coastal regions of the Study 

Area. Generally, sea turtles are distributed throughout tropical to subtropical latitudes, with some 

species extending into temperate seasonal foraging grounds. In general, sea turtles spend most of their 

time at sea, with female turtles returning to land to nest. Habitat and distribution vary depending on 

species and life stages and is discussed further in the species profiles and summarized in the 

following sections.

Sea snakes, also known as coral reef snakes, form a subfamily of venomous snakes closely related to the 

cobra and other terrestrial venomous snakes of Australia (Heatwole, 1999). Most species of sea snakes 

are adapted to a fully aquatic life, with few records on land (Udyawer et al., 2013). Only the yellowbellied sea snake is thought to occur within the HSTT Study Area. Because of this species’ passive drifting 

ecology, yellow-bellied sea snake sightings are reported in nearshore waters of Hawaii and California 

where they do not maintain resident breeding populations. Sightings are thought to be associated with 

the latest El Nino conditions and oceanic temperature warming trends and are discussed in more detail 

in Section 3.8.2.3.1 (Yellow-bellied Sea Snake).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-4

3.8 Reptiles

Additional species profiles and information on the biology, life history, species distribution, and 

conservation of reptile species can also be found on the following organizations:

• NMFS Office of Protected Resources (includes sea turtle species distribution maps),

• USFWS Ecological Services Field Office and Region Offices (for sea turtle nesting habitat and 

general locations of nesting beaches),

• Ocean Biogeographic Information System-Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate 

Populations (known as OBIS-SEAMAP) species profiles,

• International Union for Conservation of Nature, Marine Turtle Specialist Group, and

• State resource agencies (specifically, Hawaii Division of Land and Natural Resources [DLNR]).

Detailed information about threats to these species and life history information can be found in the ESA 

listing documentation and their recovery plans (44 Federal Register 75074; 52 Federal Register 21059; 

72 Federal Register 13027; (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999).

3.8.2.1.1 Group Size

Sea turtles are generally solitary animals, but tend to group during migrations and mating. Because they 

do not show territoriality, foraging areas often overlap. New hatchlings, which often emerge from 

nesting beaches in groups, are solitary until they are sexually mature (Bolten, 2003; Bowen et al., 2004; 

James et al., 2005a; Schroeder et al., 2003). In pelagic waters, yellow-bellied sea snakes can be found in 

large groups, often associated with marine debris. Breeding areas are believed to be closer to shore 

within warmer waters outside of the Study Area (Brischoux et al., 2016). 

3.8.2.1.2 Habitat Use

Sea turtles are dependent on beaches for nesting habitat, in locations that have sand deposits that are 

not inundated with tides or storm events prior to hatching. In the water, sea turtle habitat use is 

dependent on species and corresponds to dive behavior because of foraging and migration strategies, as 

well as behavior state (e.g., diving deep at night for resting purposes) (Rieth et al., 2011). Yellow-bellied 

sea snakes are born live (ovoviviparous), where young may be born in warm water tidal pools or in the 

tropical warm open ocean waters (Brischoux et al., 2016). Wide ranging in pelagic habitats, the yellow 

bellied sea snake depends on warm ocean currents as they move and hunt throughout the warm water 

pelagic environment.

3.8.2.1.3 Dive Behavior

Sea turtle dive depth and duration varies by species, the age of the animal, the location of the animal, 

and the activity (e.g., foraging, resting, and migrating). Dive durations are often a function of turtle size, 

with larger turtles being capable of diving to greater depths and for longer periods. The diving behavior 

of a particular species or individual has implications for mitigation, monitoring, and developing sound 

conservation strategies. In addition, their relative distribution through the water column is an important 

consideration when conducting acoustic exposure analyses. Methods of collecting dive behavior data 

over the years has varied in study design, configuration of electronic tags, parameters collected in the 

field, and data analyses. Hochscheid (2014) collected data from 57 studies published between 1986 and 

2013, which summarized depths and durations of dives of datasets including an overall total of 538 sea 

turtles. Figure 3.8-1 presents the ranges of maximum dive depths for each sea turtle species found in 

the Study Area.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-5

3.8 Reptiles

Sources: Hochscheid (2014); Sakamoto et al. (1993); (Rice & Balazs, 2008) ; Gitschlag (1996); Salmon et al. (2004b)

Figure 3.8-1: Dive Depth and Duration Summaries for Sea Turtle Species

Hochscheid (2014) also collected information on generalized dive profiles, with correlations to specific 

activities. Generalized dive profiles compiled from 11 different studies by Hochscheid (2014) show eight 

distinct profiles tied to specific activities. These profiles and activities are shown in Figure 3.8-2.

Little is known about yellow-bellied sea snake diving behavior. Yellow-bellied sea snakes likely forage 

only in pelagic environments, and are believed to forage on the surface to a depth of 10 meters (m)

(Brischoux et al., 2016). Cook et al. (2015) implanted temperature-depth loggers on three other sea 

snake species in New Caledonia. Logging 1,850 dives, nearly all dives were less than 30 m deep, with an 

average dive depth of approximately 11 m. A maximum dive duration was approximately 124 minutes.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Green turtle

Max dive duration: 307 min

Hawksbill turtle

Max dive duration: 138 min

Olive Ridley turtle

Max dive duration 200 min

Loggerhead turtle

Max dive duration: 614 min

Leatherback turtle

Max dive duration: 86.5 min

Range of Recorded Maximum Depths by Species (meters)
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-6

3.8 Reptiles

Sources: Hochscheid (2014); Rice and Balazs (2008), Sakamoto et al. (1993), Houghton et al. (2003), Fossette et al. (2007), 

Salmon et al. (2004b), Hays et al. (2004); Southwood et al. (1999).

Notes: Profiles A-H, as reported in the literature and compiled by Hochscheid (2014). The depth and time arrows 

indicate the axis variables, but the figure does not represent true proportions of depths and durations for the 

various profiles. In other words, the depths can vary greatly, but behavioral activity seems to dictate the shape of 

the profile. Profiles G and H have only been described for shallow dives (less than 5 m).

Figure 3.8-2: Generalized Dive Profiles and Activities Described for Sea Turtles

3.8.2.1.4 Hearing and Vocalization

3.8.2.1.4.1 Sea Turtles

Sea turtle ears are adapted for hearing underwater and in air, with auditory structures that may receive 

sound via bone conduction (Lenhardt et al., 1985), via resonance of the middle ear cavity (Willis et al., 

2013), or via standard tympanic middle ear path (Hetherington, 2008). Studies of hearing ability show 

that sea turtles’ ranges of in-water hearing detection generally lie between 50 and 1600 hertz (Hz), with 

maximum sensitivity between 100 and 400 Hz, and that hearing sensitivity drops off rapidly at higher 

frequencies. Sea turtles are also limited to low frequency hearing in-air, with hearing detection in 

juveniles possible between 50 to 800 Hz, with a maximum hearing sensitivity around 300 to 400 Hz 

(Bartol & Ketten, 2006; Piniak et al., 2016). Hearing abilities have primarily been studied with sub-adult, 

juvenile, and hatchling subjects in four sea turtle species, including green (Bartol & Ketten, 2006; Ketten 

& Moein-Bartol, 2006; Piniak et al., 2016; Ridgway et al., 1969; Yudhana et al., 2010), olive ridley (Bartol 

& Ketten, 2006), loggerhead (Bartol et al., 1999; Lavender et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2012), and 

leatherback (Dow Piniak et al., 2012). Only one study examined the auditory capabilities of an adult sea 

turtle (Martin et al., 2012); the hearing range of the adult loggerhead sea turtle was similar to other 

measurements of juvenile and hatchling sea turtle hearing ranges. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-7

3.8 Reptiles

Using existing data on sea turtle hearing sensitivity, the U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) developed a 

composite sea turtle audiogram for underwater hearing (Figure 3.8-3), as described in the technical 

report Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2017c).

Source: U.S. Department of the Navy (2017c)

Notes: dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal, kHz = kilohertz

Figure 3.8-3: Composite Underwater Audiogram for Sea Turtles

The role of underwater hearing in sea turtles is unclear. Sea turtles may use acoustic signals from their 

environment as guideposts during migration and as cues to identify their natal beaches (Lenhardt et al., 

1983). However, they may rely more on other senses, such as vision and magnetic orientation, to 

interact with their environment (Avens & Lohmann, 2003; Narazaki et al., 2013). 

Sea turtles are not known to vocalize underwater. Some sounds have been recorded during nesting 

activities ashore, including belch-like sounds and sighs (Mrosovsky, 1972), exhale/inhales, gular pumps, 

and grunts (Cook & Forrest, 2005) by nesting female leatherback sea turtles and low-frequency pulsed 

and harmonic sounds by leatherback embryos in eggs and hatchlings (Ferrara et al., 2014).

3.8.2.1.4.2 Sea Snakes

Currently no studies have been conducted on sea snake hearing. However, hearing has been researched 

in land borne snakes and it is suspected that sea snakes have similar hearing anatomy. All land borne 

snakes lack external and middle ear structures but retain a single ear bone, the columella auris (Hartline, 

1971), which interacts with the inner ear. In snakes, the columella auris is connected to the lower jaw 

bone (Christensen et al., 2012; Hartline, 1971). Therefore, since the lower jaw bone directly conducts 

substrate vibrations, snakes have an acute sensitivity to substrate vibrations (Hartline, 1971). Based on 

hearing abilities in land borne snakes (Christensen et al., 2012; Hartline, 1971), it is suspected that sea 

snakes have a very limited hearing range and may use other senses for interacting with their 

environment. For example, turtle-headed sea snakes (Emydocephalus annulatus) rely primarily on scent 

for chemical cueing of prey (Shine et al., 2004a).

Land borne snakes have been shown to have highest in-air hearing sensitivity below 400 Hz (Christensen 

et al., 2012; Hartline, 1971). Given land borne snakes hear sound-induced vibrations conducted by their 

body (Christensen et al., 2012), their in-water hearing sensitivity is likely similar to in-air sensitivities. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-8

3.8 Reptiles

Since sea snakes are suspected to have hearing anatomy similar to land borne snakes, sea snakes are 

suspected to have highest in-water hearing sensitivity from 80 to 160 Hz. At present, no information has 

been found indicating that sea snakes vocalize.

3.8.2.1.5 General Threats

3.8.2.1.5.1 Water Quality

Water quality in sea turtle habitats can be affected by a wide range of activities. The potential for energy 

exploration and extraction activities to degrade nearshore and off-shore habitats are discussed in 

Section 3.8.2.1.5.2 (Commercial Industries). Marine debris in sea turtle habitats is discussed in Section 

3.8.2.1.5.6 (Marine Debris). Chemical pollution and impacts on water quality is also of great concern, 

although its effects on reptiles are just starting to be understood in marine organisms (Aguilar de Soto et 

al., 2008; Jepson et al., 2016; Law et al., 2014; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2011, 2014; Ortmann 

et al., 2012; Peterson et al., 2015). Oil and other chemical spills are a specific type of ocean 

contamination that can have damaging effects on some sea turtle and other marine reptile species 

directly through exposure to oil or chemicals and indirectly due to pollutants’ impacts on prey and 

habitat quality. Ingested plastics, discussed in more detail in Section 3.8.2.1.5.6 (Marine Debris), can also 

release toxins, such as bisphenol-A (commonly known as “BPA”) and phthalates, and organisms may 

absorb heavy metals from the ocean and release those into tissues (Fukuoka et al., 2016; Teuten et al., 

2007). Life stage, geographic location relative to concentrations of pollutants, and feeding preference 

affects the severity of impacts on reptiles associated with chemical pollution in the marine environment.

Within the Study Area, sea snakes are primarily pelagic, and only occur close to shore in more tropical 

environments outside of the Study Area. In these locations, sea snakes are likely more susceptible to 

water quality degradation, which may decrease prey availability. 

3.8.2.1.5.2 Commercial Industries

One comprehensive study estimates that worldwide, 447,000 sea turtles are killed each year from 

bycatch in commercial fisheries around the world (Wallace et al., 2010). Lewison et al. (2014) compared

bycatch using three different gear types (longline, gillnet, and trawling nets) for sea turtles, marine 

mammals, and seabirds. Sea turtles were most susceptible to bycatch, with the Mediterranean and 

waters off the Atlantic coast of South America as the two fisheries reporting the highest number of sea 

turtle mortalities (primarily through trawling) (Lewison et al., 2014). In U.S. fisheries, Finkbeiner et al. 

(2011) estimate that bycatch resulted in 71,000 sea turtle deaths per year prior to effective regulations 

that protect sea turtles (e.g., regulations adopted since the mid-1990s in different U.S. fisheries for 

turtle exclusion devices). Current mortality estimates are 94 percent lower (4,600 deaths) than preregulation estimates (Finkbeiner et al., 2011). In the Hawaiian longline fishery, McCracken (2014)

estimated incidental interactions of sea turtles and longline fishing operations for 2013. Based on 

reporting data and distributions, an estimated 71 sea turtle interactions (defined as an event where a 

sea turtle is hooked or entangled by fishing gear) occurred in 2013 (McCracken, 2014).

Large-scale commercial exploitation also contributes to global decline in marine turtle populations. 

Currently, 42 countries and territories allow direct take of turtles and collectively take in excess of 

42,000 turtles per year, the majority of which (greater than 80 percent) are green sea turtles (Humber et 

al., 2014). Illegal fishing for turtles and nest harvesting also continues to be a major cause of sea turtle 

mortality, both in countries that allow sea turtle take and in countries that outlaw the practice (Lam et 

al., 2012; Maison et al., 2010). For example, Humber et al. (2014) estimated that in Mexico 65,000 sea 

turtles have been illegally harvested since 2000. The authors, however, noted a downward trend of legal 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-9

3.8 Reptiles

and illegal direct takes of sea turtles over the past three decades—citing a greater than 40 percent 

decline in green sea turtle take since the 1980s, a greater than 60 percent decline in hawksbill and 

leatherback take, and a greater than 30 percent decline in loggerhead take (Humber et al., 2014).

Boat strike has been identified as one of the important mortality factors in several nearshore turtle 

habitats worldwide. Precise data are lacking for sea turtle mortalities directly caused by ship strikes; 

however, live and dead turtles are often found with deep cuts and fractures indicative of collision with a 

boat hull or propeller (Hazel et al., 2007a; Lutcavage et al., 1997a). For example, scientists in Hawaii 

reported that 2.5 percent of green sea turtles found dead on the beaches between 1982 and 2003 had 

been killed by boat strike (Chaloupka et al., 2008), and in the Canary Islands, 23 percent of stranded sea 

turtles showed lesions from boat strikes or fishing gear (Oros et al., 2005). Denkinger et al. (2013)

reports that boat strikes in the Galapagos Islands were most frequent at foraging sites close to a 

commercial and tourism port.

Onshore development can lead to nesting habitat loss or habitat degradation. Construction activities can 

facilitate erosion or inhibit natural sediment deposition to form beaches. Once facilities are operational, 

artificial lighting, noise, and other stressors can degrade nesting habitats (National Marine Fisheries 

Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011; Seminoff et al., 2015a). Two utility-grade offshore wind 

projects are in the early planning stages for Hawaii (Smith et al., 2015). Projects generating electricity in 

offshore areas may also use wave generation technologies. While no projects are planned for West 

Coast states, waters off of Oregon and Washington have the most potential for wave generation, with a 

targeted installed capacity of 500 megawatts by 2025 (Parkinson et al., 2015). These early individual 

projects will not likely harm sea turtles or disrupt behaviors because of their northern location, but an 

increasing trend in offshore energy development may present a cumulative threat to sea turtles in 

nearshore environments with higher sea turtle concentrations. The anticipated increase in renewable 

energy development in coastal waters and deeper sites on the continental shelf will require increased 

vessel traffic, seismic surveys, and possibly pile driving activities for the turbine footings (Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 2011), all of which may potentially stress sea turtles and their habitats.

The main threat to sea snakes globally is fisheries bycatch. Milton (2001) determined that the impact is 

relatively low, with prawn fisheries presenting the highest risk to sea snakes.

3.8.2.1.5.3 Disease and Parasites

Fibropapillomatosis is a disease of sea turtles that results in the production of tumors, both external and 

internal, that are considered benign, but may obstruct crucial functions, such as swimming, feeding, 

sight, and buoyancy, and can lead to death (Balazs, 1986; National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 1991; Patrício et al., 2016; Work & Balazs, 2013a). The disease was first noticed in 

1928, and was not observed again until the 1970s (McCorkle, 2016). The disease shows the highest 

prevalence among green sea turtles (Patrício et al., 2016), with rapid spread of the disease through the 

1980s, becoming an endemic in both Florida and Hawaii in green sea turtle populations (McCorkle, 

2016; Work & Balazs, 2013b). By 1995 the concentration of disease in the population reached its climax 

and has showed a decline in prevalence since (Patrício et al., 2016). 

Edmonds et al. (2016) lists 16 parasites known to occur in sea turtles, with the most common and 

significant (in terms of impacts on health) being blood flukes and flatworms (Watson et al., 2017). Some 

of the common external parasites found on sea turtles include leeches and a number of different species 

that reside on the shell called epibiota (Suzuki et al., 2014). Leeches are usually seen around where the 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-10

3.8 Reptiles

flippers attach to the rest of the body. Parasitic isopods (e.g., sea lice) can attach themselves to sea 

turtle soft tissue on the outside and within the mouth (Júnior et al., 2015).

There is no available information regarding disease of sea snakes and parasites that infect internal 

organs or external surfaces of sea snakes.

3.8.2.1.5.4 Invasive Species

Invasive species have been shown to have both harmful and beneficial impacts on sea turtles. Impacts 

on sea turtles associated with invasive species primarily concern nest predation and prey base. Nests 

and eggs in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are at low risk of predation, but eggs deposited on 

beaches in the main Hawaiian Islands may be consumed by a variety of introduced species (e.g., 

mongooses, rats, feral dogs and cats, pigs, ants). In foraging grounds, sea turtles have been shown to 

adapt their foraging preferences for invasive seagrass and algae. Becking et al. (2014) showed green sea 

turtle foraging behavior shift to consumption of Halophila stipulacea, a rapidly spreading seagrass in the 

Caribbean. In Hawaii, green sea turtles in Kaneohe Bay have modified their diets over several decades to 

include seven non-native species (Acanthophora spicifera, Hypnea musciformis, Gracilaria salicornia, 

Eucheuma denticulatum, Gracilaria tikvahiae, Kappaphycus striatum, and Kappaphycus alvarezii), with 

non-native algae accounting for over 60 percent of sea turtle diet (Russell & Balazs, 2015).

There is no information available on the potential impact of invasive species on sea snakes.

3.8.2.1.5.5 Climate Change

Sea turtles are particularly susceptible to climate change effects because their life history, physiology, 

and behavior are extremely sensitive to environmental temperatures (Fuentes et al., 2013a). Climate 

change models predict sea level rise and increased intensity of storms and hurricanes in tropical sea 

turtle nesting areas (Patino-Martinez et al., 2014). These factors could significantly increase beach 

inundation and erosion, thus affecting water content of sea turtle nesting beaches and potentially 

inundating nests (Pike et al., 2015). Climate change may negatively impact turtles in multiple ways and 

at all life stages. These impacts may include the potential loss of nesting beaches due to sea level rise 

and increasingly intense storm surge (Patino-Martinez et al., 2014), feminization of turtle populations 

from elevated nest temperatures (and skewing populations to more females to males unless nesting 

shifts to northward cooler beaches) (Reneker & Kamel, 2016), and decreased reproductive success 

(Clark & Gobler, 2016; Hawkes et al., 2006; Laloë et al., 2016; Pike, 2014b), shifts in reproductive 

periodicity and latitudinal ranges (Birney et al., 2015; Pike, 2014a), disruption of hatchling dispersal and 

migration, and indirect effects to food availability (Witt et al., 2010). 

Adaption strategies to protect coastal infrastructure are an anticipated response to rising sea levels. 

These activities may include shoreline stabilization projects and infrastructure hardening, which could 

contribute to the loss of nesting habitat. Shoreline stabilization may hold in place beach sediments in a 

specific location; however, the disruption of onshore currents can reduce the beach replenishment of 

sediments further away (Boyer et al., 1999; Fish et al., 2008).

Climate change may increase the likelihood of sea snakes moving into locations outside of their normal 

range. Although recent sightings of sea snakes appear to be correlated with El Niño events, it is 

reasonable to assume that warming oceanic trends may facilitate range expansion Brischoux et 

al. (2016).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-11

3.8 Reptiles

3.8.2.1.5.6 Marine Debris

Ingestion of marine debris can cause mortality or injury to sea turtles. The United Nations Environment 

Program estimates that approximately 6.4 million tons of anthropogenic debris enters the marine 

environment every year (United Nations Environmental Program, 2005). This estimate, however, does 

not account for cataclysmic events, such as the 2011 Japanese tsunami estimated to have generated 1.5 

million tons of floating debris (Murray et al., 2015). Plastic is the primary type of debris found in marine 

and coastal environments, and plastics are the most common type of marine debris ingested by sea 

turtles (Schuyler et al., 2014b). Sea turtles can mistake debris for prey; one study found 37 percent of 

dead leatherback sea turtles to have ingested various types of plastic (Mrosovsky et al., 2009), and 

Narazaki et al. (2013) noted an observation of a loggerhead exhibiting hunting behavior on approach to 

a plastic bag, possibly mistaking the bag for a jelly fish. Even small amounts of plastic ingestion can cause 

an obstruction in a sea turtle’s digestive track and mortality (Bjorndal et al., 1994; Bjorndal, 1997b), and 

hatchlings are at risk for ingesting small plastic fragments. Ingested plastics can also release toxins, such 

as bisphenol-A (commonly known as “BPA”) and phthalates, or absorb heavy metals from the ocean and 

release those into tissues (Fukuoka et al., 2016; Teuten et al., 2007). Life stage and feeding preference 

affects the likelihood of ingestion. Sea turtles living in oceanic or coastal environments and feeding in 

the open ocean or on the seafloor may encounter different types and densities of debris, and may 

therefore have different probabilities of ingesting debris. In 2014, Schuyler et al. (2014b) reviewed 37 

studies of debris ingestion by sea turtles, showing that young oceanic sea turtles are more likely to 

ingest debris (particularly plastic), and that green and loggerhead sea turtles were significantly more 

likely to ingest debris than other sea turtle species.

Within the Study Area, sea snakes are primarily pelagic, with fish as their primary diet. Further, sea 

snakes rely on visual cues from fish during hunting activities. With fish as their primary dietary 

component, mistaking marine debris for a prey item is not likely.

3.8.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species

As shown in Table 3.8-1, there are five species of reptiles listed as Endangered or Threatened under the 

ESA in the Study Area. Life history descriptions of these species are provided in more detail in the 

following sections.

Table 3.8-1: Current Regulatory Status and Presence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Sea 

Reptiles in the Study Area

Species Name and Regulatory Status Presence in Study Area

Common Name Scientific 

Name

Endangered 

Species Act 

Status

Open Ocean Large Marine 

Ecosystem

Inland Waters

Family Cheloniidae (hard-shelled sea turtles)

Green Sea Turtle

(East Pacific distinct 

population segment, 

Central North Pacific 

distinct population 

segment)

Chelonia 

mydas Threatened 1 Yes

California Current, 

Insular PacificHawaiian

San Diego Bay, 

San Pedro 

Channel, Pearl 

Harbor, 

Kaneohe Bay 5
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-12

3.8 Reptiles

Table 3.8-1: Current Regulatory Status and Presence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Sea 

Reptiles in the Study Area (continued)

Species Name and Regulatory Status Presence in Study Area

Common Name Scientific 

Name

Endangered 

Species Act 

Status

Open Ocean Large Marine 

Ecosystem

Inland Waters

Hawksbill Sea Turtle

Eretmoche

lys 

imbricata

Endangered2 Yes

California Current, 

Insular PacificHawaiian

Pearl Harbor, 

Kaneohe Bay 5

Olive Ridley Sea 

Turtle

Lepidochel

ys olivacea

Threatened, 

Endangered4 Yes

California Current, 

Insular PacificHawaiian

Pearl Harbor, 

Kaneohe Bay 5

Loggerhead Sea

Turtle

(North Pacific distinct

population segment)

Caretta

caretta Endangered3 Yes

California Current, 

Insular PacificHawaiianNo

Family Dermochelyidae (leatherback sea turtle)

Leatherback Sea

Turtle

Dermochel

ys coriacea Endangered Yes

California Current, 

Insular PacificHawaiianNo

1 On April 6, 2016, NMFS and USFWS listed the Central West Pacific, Central South Pacific, and Mediterranean 

distinct population segments as endangered, while listing the other eight distinct population segments (Central 

North Pacific, East Indian-West Pacific, East Pacific, North Atlantic, North Indian, South Atlantic, Southwest 

Indian, and Southwest Pacific) as threatened. The HSTT Study Area shares portions of the geographic extents 

identified for the Central North Pacific and East Pacific distinct population segments.

2 Research suggests that green and hawksbill sea turtles may be present in the Study Area in all life stages 

(National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007b, 2007c).

3 The only distinct population segment of loggerheads that occurs in the Study Area—the North Pacific Ocean 

distinct population segment—is listed as Endangered.

4 NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only consider the breeding populations of Mexico’s Pacific coast as 

Endangered. Other populations found in east India, Indo-Western Pacific, and Atlantic are listed as Threatened.

5Indicates nesting activity within the Study Area portion. Only green sea turtles and hawksbill sea turtles are 

known to nest regularly in the Study Area. 

3.8.2.2.1 Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas)

3.8.2.2.1.1 Status and Management

The green sea turtle was first listed under the ESA in 1978. In 2016, NMFS and USFWS reclassified the 

species into 11 “distinct population segments,” which maintains federal protections while providing a 

more tailored approach for managers to address specific threats facing different populations (see the 

NMFS and USFWS Final Rule published on April 6, 2016). The geographic areas that include these distinct 

population segments are: (1) North Atlantic Ocean, (2) Mediterranean Sea, (3) South Atlantic Ocean, 

(4) Southwest Indian Ocean, (5) North Indian Ocean, (6) East Indian Ocean – West Pacific Ocean, 

(7) Central West Pacific Ocean, (8) Southwest Pacific Ocean, (9) Central South Pacific Ocean, (10) Central 

North Pacific Ocean, and (11) East Pacific Ocean. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-13

3.8 Reptiles

Only the Central North Pacific and East Pacific Ocean distinct population segments occur within the 

Study Area is within the Study Area. These segments are listed as threatened under the ESA. Only these 

distinct population segments are discussed further in the document; however, it should be noted, 

however, that minimal mixing may occur (gene flow) with other population segments (Seminoff et 

al., 2015a).

There is no critical habitat designated for the green sea turtle in the Study Area.

3.8.2.2.1.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The green sea turtle is distributed worldwide across tropical and subtropical coastal waters generally 

between 45 degrees (°) north and 40° south. After emerging from the nest, green sea turtle hatchlings 

swim to offshore areas where they float passively in major current systems; however, laboratory and 

modeling studies suggest that dispersal trajectories might also be shaped by active swimming (Putman 

& Mansfield, 2015). Post-hatchling green sea turtles forage and develop in floating algal mats habitats of 

the open ocean. At the juvenile stage (estimated at five to six years), they leave the open-ocean habitat 

and retreat to protected lagoons and open coastal areas that are rich in seagrass or marine algae 

(Bresette et al., 2006), where they will spend most of their lives (Bjorndal & Bolten, 1988). The optimal 

developmental habitats for late juveniles and foraging habitats for adults are warm shallow waters (3–5 

m), with abundant submerged aquatic vegetation and close to nearshore reefs or rocky areas (HollowayAdkins, 2006; Seminoff et al., 2002). Climate change and ocean warming trends may impact the habitat 

and range of this species over time (Fuentes et al., 2013b). These impacts apply to all sea turtle species 

and are discussed in Section 3.8.2.1.5.5 (Climate Change).

Green sea turtles nest on beaches within the Hawaii portion of the Study Area, while they feed and 

migrate throughout all waters of the Study Area. Green sea turtles likely to occur in the Study Area come 

from eastern Pacific Ocean and Hawaiian nesting populations. There are very few reports of turtles from 

southern Pacific Ocean populations occurring in the northern Pacific Ocean (Limpus et al., 2009; 

Seminoff et al., 2015a).

Migratory routes within the open ocean are unknown. The main source of information on distribution in 

the Study Area comes from catches in U.S. fisheries. About 57 percent of green sea turtles (primarily 

adults) captured in longline fisheries in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre and North Pacific Transition 

Zone come from the Eastern Pacific distinct population segment, while 43 percent are from the North 

Central Pacific distinct population segment. These findings suggest that green sea turtles found on the 

high seas of the western and central Pacific Ocean are from these two populations. Though few 

observations of green sea turtles in the offshore waters along the U.S. Pacific coast have been verified, 

their occurrence within the nearshore waters from Baja California to Alaska indicates a presence in 

waters off of California (Stinson, 1984), including San Diego Bay (Turner-Tomaszewicz & Seminoff, 2012; 

U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013a).

The green sea turtle is the most common sea turtle species in the Hawaii region of the Study Area, 

occurring in the coastal waters of the main Hawaiian Islands throughout the year and commonly 

migrating seasonally to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to reproduce (Balazs & Chaloupka, 2006; 

Lotufo et al., 2013; Seminoff et al., 2015b). Green sea turtles are found in inshore waters around all of 

the main Hawaiian Islands and Nihoa Island, where reefs, their preferred habitats for feeding and 

resting, are most abundant. They are also common in an oceanic zone surrounding the Hawaiian Islands. 

This area is frequently inhabited by adults migrating to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to reproduce 

during the summer and by ocean-dwelling individuals that have yet to settle into coastal feeding 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-14

3.8 Reptiles

grounds of the main Hawaiian Islands (Lotufo et al., 2013). Farther offshore, green sea turtles occur in 

much lower numbers and densities (Seminoff et al., 2015b).

Green sea turtles have been sighted in Pearl Harbor, but do not nest in the harbor; they are routinely 

seen in the outer reaches of the entrance channel. The number of resident turtles at the entrance 

channel is estimated at 30 to 40, with the largest number occurring at Tripod Reef and the Outfall 

Extension Pipe. They are also found beneath the outfall pipe of the Fort Kamehameha wastewater 

treatment plant, at depths of approximately 20 m. Green sea turtles are also regularly seen in West Loch

(Hanser et al., In Prep.). In the spring of 2010, two green sea turtles nested at Pacific Missile Range 

Facility for the first time in more than a decade. The number of nests observed at this location has 

increased over the years with six successful nests producing 468 hatchlings (Hanser et al., In Prep.). 

Green sea turtles are also common at all three landing beaches of U.S. Marine Corps Base Hawaii in 

Kaneohe Bay, where they forage in the shallow water seagrass beds (Marine Corps Base Hawaii, 2011; 

Martínez-Abraín, 2008), with successful the first known successful hatching occurring in August 2010 

(Marine Corps Base Hawaii, 2011).

The Navy conducts aerial surveys for sea turtles in Hawaii annually as a requirement under a Letter of 

Authorization (for compliance with the Marine Mammals Protection Act [MMPA]) for at-sea training in 

the Hawaii Range Complex Hawaii Range Complex. Sea turtles are observed and recorded 

opportunistically while surveying for marine mammals. Turtles can be spotted from a plane or helicopter 

during surveys. Based on these methods, sea turtle densities were calculated for each island that was 

surveyed. To account for sea turtles that were not at the surface during surveys (Buckland et al., 2001), a 

conservative estimate of 10 percent of turtles in the area were observed. Ninety percent were assumed 

to be present but not observable during the survey. Based on this analysis, year-round density values 

within the Hawaii Range Complex for green sea turtles were estimated to be highest around Oahu 

(1.1252 turtles/square kilometers [km2

]), with relatively lower densities in deeper waters beyond the 

100 m isobaths (0.00429 turtles/km2

).

The green sea turtle is not known to nest anywhere on the U.S. West Coast, but ranges widely in 

nearshore waters as far as British Columbia (National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2007b) with high concentrations in the subtropical coastal waters of southern Baja California, 

Mexico, and Central America (Chaloupka et al., 2004).

San Diego Bay is home to a resident population of green sea turtles (MacDonald et al., 2012; MacDonald 

et al., 2013; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b). A 20-year monitoring program of these turtles 

indicates an annual abundance between 16 and 61 turtles (Eguchi et al., 2010). Eelgrass beds and 

marine algae are particularly abundant in the southern half of the bay, and green sea turtles are 

frequently observed foraging on these items (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013a). Until December 

2010, the southern part of San Diego Bay was warmed by the effluent from the Duke Energy power 

plant, a fossil fuel power generation facility in operation since 1960. Both before and after closure of the 

power plant, turtles were distributed in significantly warmer waters than surrounding environments 

during winter months (December–February). Turtles in winter were rarely detected in water 

temperatures lower than 14.5 °C (Crear et al., 2016; Rosen & Lotufo, 2005). After the closing of the 

plant, home ranges increased slightly within south San Diego Bay, with some additional short-term 

utilization or transit through other areas of the bay (Bredvik et al., 2016). However, the core habitat for 

most green sea turtles has consistently remained in south San Diego Bay (Bredvik et al., 2016). Two of 

six green sea turtles tagged in 2015 with satellite tracking tags migrated out of San Diego Bay did leave 

the bay at some point during the tag lifespan. In November 2015, a male green sea turtle migrated to 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-15

3.8 Reptiles

the Revillagigedo Island Archipelago off Mexico (Bredvik et al., 2016). In December 2015 a female green 

sea turtle traveled from south San Diego Bay to outside of the Bay, headed north along Point Loma, 

turned south to just past the U.S.-Mexico border, and then returned to San Diego Bay. The remaining 

tagged turtles remained in the south San Diego Bay core area. Another green sea turtle population 

resides in the San Gabriel River, which empties into the Pacific Ocean south of Long Beach, California, 

although less is known about this population (Crear et al., 2016; Eguchi et al., 2010).

Ocean waters off Southern California and northern Baja California are also designated as areas of 

occurrence because of the presence of rocky ridges and channels and floating kelp habitats suitable for 

green sea turtle foraging and resting (Stinson, 1984); however, these waters are often at temperatures 

below the thermal preferences of this primarily tropical species and turtles found in these waters are 

likely transiting.

3.8.2.2.1.3 Population Trends

The Central North Pacific distinct population segment has seen an estimated 4.8 percent annual increase 

in nesting activity over the last 40 years (Seminoff et al., 2015b). In-water abundance trends appear to 

also be increasing. A significant increase in catch per unit effort of green sea turtles was seen from 1982 

to 1999 during bull-pen fishing conducted at Pala’au, Moloka’I, with anecdotal indications of increased 

abundance with more green sea turtle basking activity observed in the main Hawaiian Islands (Balazs & 

Chaloupka, 2006).

The East Pacific distinct population segment also shows an increasing population trend. This observed 

increase may have resulted from the onset of nesting beach protection in 1979—as is suggested by the 

similarity in timing between the onset of beach conservation and the age to maturity for green sea 

turtles along Pacific nesting beaches of Mexico (Seminoff et al., 2015b).

3.8.2.2.1.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

The green sea turtle is the only species of sea turtle that, as an adult, primarily consumes plants and 

other types of vegetation (Mortimer, 1995; Nagaoka et al., 2012). While primarily herbivorous, a green 

sea turtle’s diet changes substantially throughout its life. Very young green sea turtles are omnivorous 

(Bjorndal, 1997a). Salmon et al. (2004a) reported that post-hatchling green sea turtles were found to 

feed near the surface on seagrasses or at shallow depths on comb jellies and unidentified gelatinous 

eggs off the coast of southeastern Florida. Nagaoka et al. (2012) analyzed 50 incidentally caught juvenile 

green sea turtles in Brazil and determined that juveniles consumed an omnivorous diet, including 

terrestrial plants (floating in the water), algae, invertebrates, and seagrass. Sampson and Giraldo (2014)

observed opportunistic foraging of tunicates (a type of filter-feeding marine invertebrate) by green sea 

turtles in the eastern tropical Pacific. Pelagic juveniles smaller than 8–10 inches (in.) in length eat 

worms, young crustaceans, aquatic insects, grasses, and algae (Bjorndal, 1997a). After settling in coastal 

juvenile developmental habitat at 8–10 in. in length, they eat mostly mangrove leaves, seagrass and 

algae (Balazs et al., 1994; Nagaoka et al., 2012). Research indicates that green sea turtles in the openocean environment, and even in coastal waters, also consume jellyfish, sponges, and sea pens (Godley 

et al., 1998; Hatase et al., 2006; Heithaus et al., 2002; National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2007d; Parker & Balazs, 2008; Russell et al., 2011). Fukuoka et al. (2016) also noted that 

juvenile green sea turtles were at higher risk to marine debris ingestion, likely due to the resemblance of 

small pieces of debris to omnivorous dietary items. 

The loss of eggs to land-based predators such as mammals, snakes, crabs, and ants occurs on some 

nesting beaches. As with other sea turtles, hatchlings may be preyed on by birds and fish. Sharks are the 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-16

3.8 Reptiles

primary nonhuman predators of juvenile and adult green sea turtles at sea (National Marine Fisheries 

Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991; Seminoff et al., 2015a).

3.8.2.2.1.5 Species-Specific Threats

In addition to the general threats described previously in Section 3.8.2.1.5 (General Threats), damage to 

seagrass beds and declines in seagrass distribution can reduce foraging habitat for green sea turtles 

(National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991; Seminoff et al., 2015a; 

Williams, 1988). Green sea turtles are susceptible to the disease fibropapillomatosis, which causes 

tumor-like growths (fibropapillomas) resulting in reduced vision, disorientation, blindness, physical 

obstruction to swimming and feeding, increased susceptibility to parasites, and increased susceptibility 

to entanglement (Balazs, 1986; National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991; 

Patrício et al., 2016; Work & Balazs, 2013a). Some populations (e.g., the Florida population) have begun 

to show resistance to the disease, but it remains an issue for others, such as Pacific populations, and 

Hawaii’s green sea turtles in particular (Chaloupka et al., 2009; Seminoff et al., 2015a).

3.8.2.2.2 Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)

3.8.2.2.2.1 Status and Management

The hawksbill sea turtle is listed as endangered under the ESA (35 Federal Register 8491). While the 

current listing as a single global population remains valid, data may support separating populations at 

least by ocean basin under the distinct population segment policy (National Marine Fisheries Service & 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013a). The most recent status review document was released in 2013 by 

the NMFS and USFWS (National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013a).

There is no critical habitat designated for hawksbill sea turtles in the Study Area.

3.8.2.2.2.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The hawksbill is the most tropical of the world’s sea turtles, rarely occurring above 35° N or below 30°

south (Witzell, 1983b). While hawksbills are known to occasionally migrate long distances in the open 

ocean, they are primarily found in coastal habitats and use nearshore areas more exclusively than other 

sea turtles. Hatchlings in the north Pacific may show different habitat and range preferences than 

hawksbill hatchlings in other regions, where the general progression is hatchling preference in open 

ocean environments and later juvenile-phase movements to coastal habitats. Van Houtan et al. (2016)

suggest that hatchlings within the HSTT Study Area may move to coastal habitats and nearshore foraging 

grounds more quickly. 

Less is known about the hawksbill’s oceanic stage, but it is thought that neonates live in the oceanic 

zone where water depths are greater than 200 m. Distribution in the oceanic zone may be influenced by 

surface gyres (Leon & Bjorndal, 2002; National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2013a).

Juveniles and adults share the same foraging areas, including tropical nearshore waters associated with 

coral reefs, hard bottoms, or estuaries with mangroves (Musick & Limpus, 1997). In nearshore habitats, 

resting areas for late juvenile and adult hawksbills are typically in deeper waters, such as sandy bottoms 

at the base of a reef flat (Houghton et al., 2003). As they mature into adults, hawksbills move to deeper 

habitats and may forage to depths greater than 90 m. During this stage, hawksbills are seldom found in 

waters beyond the continental or insular shelf unless they are in transit between distant foraging and 

nesting grounds (Renaud et al., 1996). Ledges and caves of coral reefs provide shelter for resting 

hawksbills during both day and night, where an individual often inhabits the same resting spot. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-17

3.8 Reptiles

Hawksbills are also found around rocky outcrops and high-energy shoals, where sponges are abundant, 

and in mangrove-fringed bays and estuaries. Female hawksbills return to their natal beach every two to 

three years to nest at night, every 14 to 16 days during the nesting season.

3.8.2.2.2.3 Population Trends

Within the 24 sites in the entire Pacific assessed by Mortimer and Donnelly (2008), 21 sites showed 

decreasing historic trends. Based on available data in Hawaii for the number of annual nesting females 

(from 1989 to 2002), the hawksbill nesting trend appears to be decreasing, with a possible recent 

increase in the past five years (Van Houtan et al., 2016). Less than 20 hawksbills are believed to nest on 

Hawaiian beaches (Van Houtan et al., 2016). Hawksbills in the eastern Pacific Ocean are probably the 

most endangered sea turtle population in the world (Gaos & Yañez, 2008; National Marine Fisheries 

Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013a).A lack of nesting beach surveys for hawksbill sea turtles 

in the Pacific Ocean and the poorly understood nature of this species’ nesting have made it difficult for 

scientists to assess the population status of hawksbills in the Pacific (National Marine Fisheries Service & 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013a; Seminoff et al., 2003). The largest of these regional populations is 

in the South Pacific Ocean, where 6,000–8,000 hawksbills nest off the Great Barrier Reef (Limpus, 1992).

3.8.2.2.2.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Hawksbill sea turtles have a varying diet and feeding habitat preference throughout different lifestages. 

Post-hatchling hawksbills feed on algae in floating habitats (e.g., Sargassum) in the open ocean (Plotkin 

& Amos, 1998; Van Houtan et al., 2016). During the later juvenile stage, hawksbills are considered 

omnivorous, feeding on sponges, sea squirts, algae, molluscs, crustaceans, jellyfish, and other aquatic 

invertebrates (Bjorndal, 1997a). Older juveniles and adults are more specialized, feeding primarily on 

sponges, which compose as much as 95 percent of their diet in some locations (Meylan, 1988; Witzell, 

1983a). As adults, Hawksbill sea turtles fill a unique ecological niche in marine and coastal ecosystems, 

supporting the natural functions of coral reefs by keeping sponge populations in check, which may 

otherwise compete for space with reef-building corals (Hill, 1998; Leon & Bjorndal, 2002). 

The loss of hawksbill eggs to predators such as feral pigs, mongoose, rats, snakes, crabs, and ants is a 

severe problem on some nesting beaches. As with other sea turtles, hatchlings may be preyed on by 

birds and fish. Sharks are the primary nonhuman predators of juvenile and adult hawksbills at sea (Hill et 

al., 2017; National Ocean Service, 2016).

3.8.2.2.2.5 Species-Specific Threats

In addition to the general threats described in Section 3.8.2.1.5 (General Threats), the greatest threat to 

hawksbills is harvest for commercial and subsistence use (Van Houtan et al., 2016). Direct harvest of 

eggs and nesting adult females from beaches, as well as direct hunting of turtles in foraging areas, 

continues in many countries. International trade of tortoise shells is thought to be the most important 

factor endangering the species worldwide. The second-most significant threat to hawksbill sea turtles is 

loss of nesting habitat caused by the expansion of human populations in coastal areas of the world, as 

well as the increased destruction or modification of coastal ecosystems to support tourism (National 

Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a). Coastal pollution as a result of 

increased development degrades water quality, particularly coral reefs, which are primary foraging 

areas for hawksbills. Due to their preference for nearshore areas, hawksbills are particularly susceptible 

to nearshore fisheries gear such as drift nets, entanglement in gill nets, and capture on fish hooks of 

fishermen (National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993, 2013a). Hawksbills in 

the North Pacific may occupy a variety of ecosystems, including coastal pelagic waters and shallow reefs 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-18

3.8 Reptiles

in remote atolls, and therefore be exposed to threats specific to these environments (Van Houtan et 

al., 2016).

3.8.2.2.3 Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea)

3.8.2.2.3.1 Status and Management

Olive ridley sea turtles that nest along the Pacific coast of Mexico are listed as endangered under the 

ESA, while all other populations are listed under the ESA as threatened (43 Federal Register 32800). 

Based on genetic data, the worldwide olive ridley population is composed of four main lineages: east 

India, Indo-Western Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Pacific Ocean (National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014; Shankar et al., 2004). Most olive ridley sea turtles found in Hawaiian 

waters are of the eastern Pacific Ocean lineage, with about a third from the Indo-Western Pacific 

lineage. Off of California, olive ridleys are thought to be within the eastern Pacific Ocean lineage 

(National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014). There is no critical habitat 

designated for this species in the Study Area.

3.8.2.2.3.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The olive ridley has a circumtropical distribution, occurring in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans 

(National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014). In the eastern Pacific, olive 

ridleys typically occur in tropical and subtropical waters, as far south as Peru and as far north as 

California, but occasionally have been documented as far north as Alaska. Key arribada beaches include 

La Flor in Nicaragua, Nancite and Ostinal in Costa Rica, La Marinera and Isla Cañas in Panama, 

Gahirmatha, Rushikulya, and Devi River in India, and Eilanti in Suriname. Arribada is the common term 

for large concentrations of nesting activity.

Studies from different populations of olive ridley sea turtles show a strong preference for neretic areas 

(shallow part of the sea near a coast and overlying the continental shelf) (Plot et al., 2015; Polovina et 

al., 2004; Rees et al., 2016); however, deep water foraging has been documented in the north Pacific,

where prey items are scattered and less predictable and migrate widely from nesting locations (Polovina 

et al., 2004). Comparing olive ridley habitat use in different regions, Plot et al. (2015) suggest that the 

differing migration patterns observed (i.e., oceanic migrations versus neritic movements) may be 

attributed to specific environmental conditions of the areas in close proximity to nesting sites.

Olive ridley sea turtles can dive and feed at considerable depths from 80 to 300 m (Chambault et al., 

2016; Montero et al., 2016), although only about 10 percent of their foraging time is spent at depths 

greater than 100 m (Polovina et al., 2002). In the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, at least 25 percent of 

their total dive time is spent between 20 and 100 m (Parker et al., 2003). While olive ridley sea turtles 

are known to forage to great depths, Polovina et al. (2002) found that most dives (approximately 

70 percent) were no deeper than 15 m.

Rare instances of nesting occurs in the Hawaiian Islands, with the first olive ridley nest documented in 

1985 at Paia, Maui. A second nest was recorded in Hilo, Hawaii, in 2002, and a third olive ridley nest was 

recorded at Marine Corps Base Hawaii in Kaneohe Bay in 2009 (Marine Corps Base Hawaii, 2011).

3.8.2.2.3.3 Population Trends

The olive ridley is the most abundant sea turtle in the world, with the most recent at-sea estimates of 

density and abundance providing a population range of 1.15–1.62 million olive ridley sea turtles 

(National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014). Although this is a dramatic 

decrease over the past 50 years, where the population from the five Mexican Pacific Ocean beaches was 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-19

3.8 Reptiles

previously estimated at 10 million adults, short-term population trends appear to be increasing overall. 

The number of olive ridley sea turtles occurring in U.S. territorial waters is believed to be small (National 

Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998c, 2014). At-sea abundance surveys 

conducted along the Mexican and Central American coasts between 1992 and 2006 provided an 

estimate of 1.39 million turtles in the region, which was consistent with the increases seen on the 

eastern Pacific Ocean nesting beaches between 1997 and 2006.

3.8.2.2.3.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Olive ridley sea turtles are primarily carnivorous. They consume a variety of prey in the water column 

and on the seafloor, including snails, clams, tunicates, fish, fish eggs, crabs, oysters, sea urchins, shrimp, 

and jellyfish (Polovina et al., 2004). Olive ridleys are subject to predation by the same predators as other 

sea turtles, such as sharks on adult olive ridleys, fish and sharks on hatchlings, and various land 

predators on hatchlings (e.g., ants, crabs, birds, and mammals) (National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998c).

3.8.2.2.3.5 Species-Specific Threats

Besides the array of threats to sea turtles in general, most of the species-specific threats for olive ridleys 

in the east Pacific coast population are associated with nesting habitats along the eastern Pacific coast. 

Lutcavage et al. (1997b) note that impacts on nesting habitats for olive ridley sea turtles include 

construction of buildings and pilings, beach armoring and nourishment, and sand extraction. These 

activities have increased in many parts of the olive ridley’s range and pose threats to major nesting sites 

in Central America (National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014).

3.8.2.2.4 Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta)

3.8.2.2.4.1 Status and Management

In 2009, a status review conducted for the loggerhead (the first turtle species subjected to a complete 

stock analysis) identified nine distinct population segments within the global population (Conant et al., 

2009). In a September 2011 rulemaking, the NMFS and USFWS listed five of these distinct population 

segments as endangered and kept four as threatened under the ESA, effective as of October 24, 2011

(76 Federal Register 58868). The North Pacific Ocean, South Pacific Ocean, North Indian Ocean, 

Northeast Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea distinct population segments of the loggerhead sea 

turtle are classified as endangered under the ESA, and the Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean, Southwest 

Indian Ocean, Northwest Atlantic Ocean, and South Atlantic Ocean distinct population segments are 

classified as threatened. Only the North Pacific Ocean distinct population segment occurs within the 

Study Area; however, mixing is known to occur between other populations in the Pacific and Indian 

Oceans, enabling a limited amount of gene flow with other distinct population segments (National 

Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009).

There is no critical habitat designated for loggerhead sea turtles within the Study Area.

3.8.2.2.4.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Loggerhead sea turtles occur in U.S. waters in habitats ranging from coastal estuaries to waters far 

beyond the continental shelf (Dodd, 1988a). Loggerheads typically nest on beaches close to reef 

formations and in close proximity to warm currents (Dodd, 1988a), preferring beaches facing the ocean 

or along narrow bays (National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a; Rice et 

al., 1984). Most of the loggerheads observed in the eastern North Pacific Ocean are believed to come 

from beaches in Japan where the nesting season is late May to August. Aschettino et al. (2015) found 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-20

3.8 Reptiles

that most loggerheads that use the Southern California Bight are more similar, using stable isotope 

analysis, to loggerheads in the Central North Pacific, as opposed to loggerheads that nest in Baja. 

Migratory routes can be coastal or can involve crossing deep ocean waters (Schroeder et al., 2003). The 

species can be found hundreds of kilometers out to sea, as well as in inshore areas, such as bays, 

lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large rivers. Coral reefs, rocky areas, and 

shipwrecks are often used as feeding areas. The nearshore zone provides crucial foraging habitat, as well 

as habitat during nesting season and overwintering habitat.

Pacific Ocean loggerheads appear to use the entire North Pacific Ocean during development. There is 

substantial evidence that the North Pacific Ocean stock makes two transoceanic crossings. The first 

crossing (west to east) is made immediately after they hatch from the nesting beach in Japan, while the 

second (east to west) is made when they reach either the late juvenile or adult life stage at the foraging 

grounds in Mexico. Offshore, juvenile loggerheads forage in or migrate through the North Pacific 

Subtropical Gyre as they move between North American developmental habitats and nesting beaches in 

Japan. The highest densities of loggerheads can be found just north of Hawaii in the North Pacific 

Transition Zone (Polovina et al., 2000).

The North Pacific Transition Zone is defined by convergence zones of high productivity that stretch 

across the entire northern Pacific Ocean from Japan to California (Polovina et al., 2001). Within this gyre, 

the Kuroshio Extension Bifurcation Region is an important habitat for juvenile loggerheads (Polovina et 

al., 2006). These turtles, whose oceanic phase lasts a decade or more, have been tracked swimming 

against the prevailing current, apparently to remain in the areas of highest productivity. Juvenile 

loggerheads originating from nesting beaches in Japan migrate through the North Pacific Transition Zone

en route to important foraging habitats in Baja California, and are likely to be found in the Transit 

Corridor of the Study Area (Bowen et al., 1995). Seminoff et al. (2014) report that waters off of the 

southern Baja Peninsula support a high abundance of loggerheads that originate from the Japanese 

nesting grounds.

The loggerhead sea turtle is known to occur at sea in the Southern California portion of the Study Area, 

but does not nest on Southern California beaches. Loggerhead sea turtles primarily occupy areas where 

the sea surface temperature is between 59 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and 77°F (15 degrees Celsius [°C] and 

25°C). In waters off of the U.S. West Coast, most records of loggerhead sightings, stranding events, and 

incidental bycatch have been of juveniles documented from the nearshore waters of Southern 

California. In general, sea turtle sightings increase during the summer, peaking from July to September 

off Southern California and southwestern Baja California.

During El Niño events, foraging loggerheads from Mexican waters may expand their range north into 

Southern California waters. For this reason, U.S. Pacific Ocean waters east of 120° W longitude are 

closed to the large mesh drift gillnet fishery targeting swordfish and thresher shark during June, July and 

August during a forecast or occurring El Niño event. These waters are considered an area of occurrence 

during the warm-water period. Allen et al. (2013) conducted stable isotope analysis on loggerheads in 

both the Southern California Bight and Central North Pacific loggerheads and noted strong genetic 

kinship among these population segments. Loggerheads are generally not found in waters colder than 

60.8°F (16°C), so the area north of the 60.8°F (16°C) isotherm is depicted as an area of rare occurrence.

The loggerhead embarks on transoceanic migrations and has been reported as far north as Alaska and as 

far south as Chile. Loggerheads foraging in and around Baja California originate from breeding areas in 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-21

3.8 Reptiles

Japan (Conant et al., 2009), while Australian stocks appear to migrate to foraging grounds off the coasts 

of Peru and Chile (Alfaro-Shigueto et al., 2004).

3.8.2.2.4.3 Population Trends

No loggerhead nesting occurs within the Study Area. The largest nesting aggregation in the Pacific Ocean 

occurs in southern Japan, where fewer than 1,000 females breed annually (Kamezaki et al., 2003). 

Despite historic long-term declines from Japan nesting beaches (50 to 90 percent), nesting populations 

in Japan have gradually increased since 2000 (National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2007a). Seminoff et al. (2014) carried out aerial surveys for loggerhead sea turtles along the 

Pacific Coast of the Baja California Peninsula, Mexico, confirming that the area is an important foraging 

habitat for North Pacific distinct population segment loggerheads. Additional aerial surveys conducted 

by NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center in the Southern California Bight resulted in 215 loggerhead 

sea turtle sightings over the course of one month in the fall of 2015 (Eguchi, 2015).

3.8.2.2.4.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Loggerhead sea turtles are primarily carnivorous in both open ocean and nearshore habitats, although 

they also consume some algae (Bjorndal, 1997b), Diet varies by age class (Godley et al., 1998) and by 

specializing in specific prey groups dependent on location (Besseling et al., 2015; Biggs et al., 2000). For 

post hatchlings that tend to be grouped in masses of Sargassum and other floating habitats, various diet 

analyses of gut contents show parts of Sargassum, zooplankton, jellyfish, larval shrimp and crabs, and 

gastropods (Browlow et al., 2016; Burkholder et al., 2004; Carr & Meylan, 1980; Richardson & 

McGillivary, 1991). Both juveniles and adults forage in coastal habitats, where they feed primarily on the 

bottom, although they also capture prey throughout the water column (Bjorndal, 2003). Adult 

loggerheads feed on a variety of bottom-dwelling animals, such as crabs, shrimp, sea urchins, sponges, 

and fish. They have powerful jaws that enable them to feed on hard-shelled prey, such as whelks and 

conch. During migration through the open sea, they eat jellyfish, molluscs, flying fish, and squid 

(Besseling et al., 2015; Rice et al., 1984).

Common predators of eggs and hatchlings on nesting beaches are ghost crabs, raccoons, feral pigs, 

foxes, coyotes, armadillos, and fire ants (Campbell, 2016; Dodd, 1988b; Engeman et al., 2016). Eriksson 

and Burton (2003) has shown that management interventions for feral pigs and raccoons can 

significantly increase nest success in Florida, one of the main nesting concentrations of loggerheads. 

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2009) documented an apparently rare 

instance of a jaguar (Panthera onca) a loggerhead sea turtle at Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica, in 

2014. In the water, hatchlings are susceptible to predation by birds and fish. Sharks are the primary 

predator of juvenile and adult loggerhead sea turtles (Fergusson et al., 2000).

3.8.2.2.4.5 Species-Specific Threats

Loggerheads that occur within the Study Area primarily originate from nesting grounds in Japan and use 

the North Pacific as migration and foraging grounds. Therefore, species-specific threats are limited to 

this geographic area. A primary threat to North Pacific loggerheads is the high degree of juvenile and 

adult mortality off the Baja California Peninsula. As discussed previously, this location is considered a 

biological hotspot for loggerheads in a location where bycatch and human consumption present 

significant threats (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2011, 2016b). Mortality associated with shrimp trawls 

has been a substantial threat to juvenile loggerheads because these trawls operate in the nearshore 

habitats commonly used by this species. Although shrimping nets have been modified with turtle 

excluder devices to allow sea turtles to escape, the overall effectiveness of these devices has been 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-22

3.8 Reptiles

difficult to assess (Bugoni et al., 2008; Ellis, 2016). Shrimp trawl fisheries account for the highest number 

of loggerhead sea turtle fishery mortalities; however, loggerheads are also captured and killed in trawls, 

traps and pots, longlines, and dredges. (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2011)

3.8.2.2.5 Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)

3.8.2.2.5.1 Status and Management

The leatherback sea turtle is listed as a single population and is classified as endangered under the ESA 

(35 Federal Register 8491). Although USFWS and NMFS believe the current listing is valid, preliminary 

information indicates an analysis and review of the species should be conducted under the distinct 

population segment policy (National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013b). 

Recent information on population structure (through genetic studies) and distribution (through 

telemetry, tagging, and genetic studies) have led to an increased understanding and refinement of the 

global stock structure (Clark et al., 2010). 

In 2012, NMFS designated critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle in California (from Point Arena to 

Point Vincente) and from Cape Flattery, Washington, to Winchester Bay, Oregon, out to the 2,000 mile

depth contour (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012). This critical habitat designation is north of the 

Study Area.

3.8.2.2.5.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The leatherback sea turtle is distributed worldwide in tropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic, 

Pacific, and Indian Oceans. Pacific leatherbacks are split into western and eastern Pacific subpopulations 

based on their distribution and biological and genetic characteristics. Eastern Pacific leatherbacks nest 

along the Pacific coast of the Americas, primarily in Mexico and Costa Rica, and forage throughout 

coastal and pelagic habitats of the eastern tropical Pacific. Western Pacific leatherbacks nest in the IndoPacific, primarily in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. A proportion of this 

population migrates north through the waters of Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Japan, and across 

the Pacific past Hawaii to feeding areas off the Pacific coast of North America. Another segment of the 

western subpopulation migrates into the southern hemisphere through the Coral Sea, into waters of the 

western South Pacific Ocean (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016). The Western Pacific leatherback 

group is the primary stock that occurs within the Study Area.

Leatherback sea turtles are regularly sighted by fishermen in offshore waters surrounding the Hawaiian 

Islands, generally beyond the 3,800 foot (ft.) depth contour, and especially at the southeastern end of 

the island chain and off the northern coast of Oahu. Leatherbacks encountered in these waters, 

including those caught accidentally in fishing operations, may be migrating through waters surrounding 

Hawaii (National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998b). Sightings and 

reported interactions with the Hawaii longline fishery commonly occur around seamount habitats above 

the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (from 35°N to 45°N and 175°W to 180°W) (Skillman & Balazs, 1992; 

Skillman & Kleiber, 1998).

The leatherback sea turtle occurs in offshore areas surrounding the Hawaiian Islands beyond the 100 m

isobath. Leatherbacks rarely occur inshore of this isobath. Incidental captures of leatherbacks have also 

occurred at several offshore locations around the main Hawaiian Islands (McCracken, 2000). Although 

leatherback bycatches are common off the island chain, leatherback-stranding events on Hawaiian 

beaches are uncommon. Since 1982, only five leatherbacks strandings have been reported in the 

Hawaiian Islands. Aerial and shipboard surveys in nearshore Hawaiian waters also suggest that 

nearshore occurrences are extremely rare (National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-23

3.8 Reptiles

Service, 2013b). Leatherbacks were not sighted during any of the NMFS shipboard surveys; their deep 

diving capabilities and long submergence times reduce the probability that observers could spot them 

during marine surveys. One leatherback sea turtle was observed along the Hawaiian shoreline during 

monitoring surveys in 2006 (National Marine Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013b).

Leatherback sea turtles are regularly seen off the western coast of the United States, with the greatest 

densities found in waters off of central California. Off central California, sea surface temperatures are 

highest during the summer and fall. These warmer temperatures and other oceanographic conditions

create favorable habitat for leatherback sea turtle prey (jellyfish). There is some evidence that they 

follow the 61°F (16°C) isotherm into Monterey Bay, and the length of their stay apparently depends on 

prey availability. Satellite telemetry studies link leatherback sea turtles off the U.S. West Coast to one of 

the two largest remaining Pacific Ocean breeding populations in Jamursba Medi, Indonesia. Thus, 

nearshore waters off central California represent an important foraging region for the critically 

endangered Pacific Ocean leatherback sea turtle. There were 96 sightings of leatherbacks within 

50 kilometers of Monterey Bay from 1986 to 1991, mostly by recreational boaters (Starbird et al., 1993). 

3.8.2.2.5.3 Population Trends

Most stocks in the Pacific Ocean are faring poorly, where nesting populations have declined more than 

80 percent since the 1980s, and because the threats to these subpopulations have not ceased, the 

International Union for Conservation of Nature has predicted a decline of 96 percent for the western 

Pacific subpopulation and a decline of nearly 100 percent for the eastern Pacific subpopulation by 2040

(Clark et al., 2010; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016; Sarti-Martinez et al., 1996). In contrast, 

western Atlantic and South African populations are generally stable or increasing. Causes for this decline 

include the intensive egg harvest in Pacific leatherback rookeries Chaloupka et al. (2004) and high levels 

of mortality through the 1980s associated with bycatch in Pacific gill net fisheries (Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada, 2016a; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2015). primarily in the high seas 

driftnet fishery, which is now banned (Chaloupka et al., 2004).

3.8.2.2.5.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Leatherbacks lack the crushing chewing plates characteristic of hard-shelled sea turtles that feed on 

hard-bodied prey. Instead, they have pointed tooth-like cusps and sharp-edged jaws that are adapted 

for a diet of soft-bodied open-ocean prey such as jellyfish and salps. Leatherback sea turtles feed 

throughout the water column (Davenport, 1988; Eckert et al., 1989; Eisenberg & Frazier, 1983; Grant & 

Ferrell, 1993; James et al., 2005b; Salmon et al., 2004a). Leatherback prey is predominantly jellyfish (Aki 

et al., 1994; Bjorndal, 1997a; James & Herman, 2001; Salmon et al., 2004a). Engelhaupt et al. (2016)

conducted gastrointestinal analysis on two leatherbacks southeast of Hawaii and found 94 percent of 

stomach contents to be comprised of salps, the remaining portion were unidentifiable invertebrates.

Predators of leatherback nests are common to other sea turtle species (e.g., terrestrial mammals and 

invertebrates). Fais et al. (2015) found that nesting female leatherbacks expend a significant amount of 

time and energy, despite increased risk of direct predation while on land, to obscure nests. After laying 

nests and covering with sand, the female’s return to the ocean is not linear, and is likely an attempt at 

decoy behavior as a further measure to protect the clutch. In the water, hatchlings are susceptible to 

predation by birds and fish. Sharks are the primary predator of juvenile and adult loggerhead sea turtles

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-24

3.8 Reptiles

3.8.2.2.5.5 Species-Specific Threats

In addition to the general threats to sea turtles described previously, bycatch in commercial fisheries is a 

particular threat to leatherback sea turtles. Incidental capture in longline and coastal gillnet fisheries has 

caused a substantial number of leatherback sea turtle deaths, likely because leatherback sea turtles dive 

to depths targeted by longline fishermen and are less maneuverable than other sea turtle species. 

Natural factors, including the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean and the tsunami that affected Japan in 

2011, may have impacted leatherback nesting beach habitat through encroachment, erosion, or 

increased inundation with debris in leatherback foraging habitats and migratory routes (National Marine 

Fisheries Service & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013b). Eckert (1997) attributed the decline in the 

Mexican population of leatherbacks to the growth of the longline and coastal gillnet fisheries in the 

Pacific. Leatherbacks from this population migrate to the north Pacific and southeastern Pacific where 

these fisheries operate. Lastly, climate change may impact leatherbacks their distribution is so closely 

associated with jellyfish aggregations (which are affected by changing ocean temperatures and 

dynamics) (Pike, 2014b). 

3.8.2.3 Species Not Listed under the Endangered Species Act

The only marine reptile species in the Study Area not listed under the ESA is the yellow-bellied sea 

snake. This species is described in more detail in the following subsections.

3.8.2.3.1 Yellow-bellied Sea Snake (Pelamis platura)

3.8.2.3.1.1 Status and Management

This species is not managed under any international or U.S. regulatory framework. 

3.8.2.3.1.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The species is the most pelagic of all sea snakes, occurring in the open ocean well away from coasts and 

reefs. However, a small number of sea snakes wash ashore, are observed in coastal waters, or occur in 

inter-tidal habitats (Murphy, 2012). In the open ocean, yellow-bellied sea snakes often occur in large 

numbers associated with long lines of debris. These aggregations are associated with sea caves, nesting 

sites, or near drift lines in the open ocean. In some areas, such as the Gulf of Panama in the eastern 

Pacific Ocean, the aggregations can vary in width from 1 to 300 m and include up to 1,000 individuals

(Brischoux et al., 2016; Cook et al., 2015).

The yellow-bellied sea snake is the most widely distributed species of marine sea snake, ranging from 

the Cape of Good Hope westward across the Indo-Pacific to the western coastline of Central America

(Brischoux et al., 2016; Cook et al., 2015; Lillywhite et al., 2015). Because this sea snake species exhibits 

a passive drifting ecology, the yellow-bellied sea snake may be carried into regions where it does not 

maintain a resident breeding population (e.g., California, Hawaii, New Zealand, Tasmania, the Sea of 

Japan, and the Galapagos) (Lillywhite et al., 2015; Udyawer et al., 2013).

The strong El Niño conditions that developed throughout the Pacific in 2015 and are projected to 

continue through 2016 are causing changes in sea levels and living marine resources distributions 

(Milstein, 2015). Coupled with oceanic temperature warming trends, these factors are thought to 

facilitate sea snake occurrence in coastal waters of California.

3.8.2.3.1.3 Population Trends

Lillywhite et al. (2015) suspected that the pan-oceanic population of yellow-bellied sea snakes is 

exceptionally large compared to other snakes because of this species’ wide range and aggregations 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-25

3.8 Reptiles

number in the thousands at various locations. Estimating population size for this species is difficult, as 

the range is very broad over several oceans. This species, however, is fairly common throughout its 

known range. In addition, the distribution pattern of the yellow-bellied sea snake is very clumped. Visual 

surveys from boats are probably the most suitable technique for estimating population size when they 

occur in large aggregations associated with marine debris or from opportunistic sightings on boats or 

when they wash ashore (Brischoux et al., 2016; Lillywhite et al., 2014b).

3.8.2.3.1.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Yellow-bellied sea snakes are believed to prey exclusively on fish, primarily in pelagic environments

(Cook et al., 2015; Lillywhite et al., 2014a). As stated in Section 3.8.2.1.3 (Dive Behavior), yellow-bellied 

sea snakes likely make shallow dives (with average depths of approximately 11 m). Cook et al. (2015)

implanted temperature-depth loggers on three other sea snake species in New Caledonia. Logging 1,850 

dives, nearly all dives were less than 30 m deep. A maximum dive duration was approximately 

124 minutes.

3.8.2.3.1.5 Species-Specific Threats

Squid trawlers may be a source of bycatch, but is this is thought to be a minor threat because of this 

species’ preference for open pelagic habitats (Brischoux et al., 2016). Marine debris may also be a minor 

threat to this species. Udyawer et al. (2013) reported the entrapment of a sea snake (Hydrophis elegans) 

with a ceramic washer encircling its body. The authors of this study report that a post-mortem 

examination determined that the snake was malnourished because of the constriction.

3.8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section evaluates how, and to what degree, the activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions) potentially impact reptiles 

known to occur within the Study Area. Tables 2.6-1 through 2.6-5 present the baseline and proposed 

typical training and testing activity locations for each alternative (including number of events). General 

characteristics of all U.S. Department of the Navy (Navy) stressors were introduced in Section 3.0.3.3 

(Identifying Stressors for Analysis), and living resource’' general susceptibilities to stressors were 

introduced in Section 3.0.3.6 (Biological Resource Methods). The stressors vary in intensity, frequency, 

duration, and location within the Study Area. The stressors analyzed for reptiles are:

• Acoustic (sonar and other transducers; air guns; pile driving; vessel noise; aircraft noise; and 

weapons noise)

• Explosive 

• Energy (electromagnetic devices, high-energy lasers, radar)

• Physical disturbance and strikes (vessels and in-water devices; military expended materials; 

seafloor devices; pile driving)

• Entanglement (wires and cables; decelerators/parachutes; biodegradable polymers) 

• Ingestion (military expended materials – munitions; military expended materials other than 

munitions)

• Secondary stressors (impacts on habitat; impacts on prey availability)

The analysis includes consideration of the mitigation that the Navy will implement to avoid potential 

impacts on sea turtles from acoustic, explosive, and physical disturbance and strike stressors. Mitigation 

will be coordinated with NMFS and the USFWS through the consultation process. Details of the Navy’s 

mitigation are provided in Chapter 5 (Mitigation).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-26

3.8 Reptiles

3.8.3.1 Acoustic Stressors

The below analysis of effects to reptiles follows the concepts outlined in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual 

Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities). This section begins with a 

summary of relevant data regarding acoustic impacts on reptiles in Section 3.8.3.1.1 (Background). This 

is followed by an analysis of impacts on reptiles due to specific Navy acoustic stressors (sonar and other 

transducers; air guns; pile driving; vessel noise; aircraft noise; weapons noise). Additional explanations 

of the acoustic terms and sound energy concepts used in this section are found in Appendix D (Acoustic 

and Explosive Concepts).

3.8.3.1.1 Background

The sections below include a survey and synthesis of best-available-science published in peer-reviewed 

journals, technical reports, and other scientific sources pertinent to impacts on reptiles potentially 

resulting from Navy training and testing activities. Reptiles could be exposed to a range of impacts

depending on the sound source and context of the exposure. The impacts of exposure to soundproducing activities could include auditory or non-auditory trauma, hearing loss resulting in temporary 

or permanent hearing threshold shift, auditory masking, physiological stress, or changes in behavior.

3.8.3.1.1.1 Injury

The high peak pressures close to some non-explosive impulsive underwater sound sources, such as air 

guns and impact pile driving, may be injurious, although there are no reported instances of injury to 

reptiles caused by these sources. A Working Group organized under the American National Standards 

Institute-Accredited Standards Committee S3, Subcommittee 1, Animal Bioacoustics, developed sound 

exposure guidelines for fish and sea turtles (Popper et al., 2014), hereafter referred to as the ANSI 

Sound Exposure Guidelines. Lacking any data on non-auditory sea turtle injuries due to non-explosive 

impulsive sounds, such as pile driving and air guns, the working group conservatively recommended that 

non-auditory injury could be analyzed using data from fish. The data show that fish would be resilient to 

injury to the non-explosive impulsive sound sources analyzed in this EIS/OEIS. Therefore, it is assumed 

that sea turtles and sea snakes would be as well. Additionally, sea turtle shells may protect against nonauditory injury due to exposures to high peak pressures (Popper et al., 2014).

Lacking any data on non-auditory sea turtle injuries due to sonars, the working group also estimated the 

risk to sea turtles from low-frequency sonar to be low and mid-frequency sonar to be non-existent. It is 

assumed that this would be the case for sea snakes as well.

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and 

Explosive Activities, specifically Section 3.0.3.6.1.1, Injury), mechanisms for non-auditory injury due to 

acoustic exposure have been hypothesized for diving breath-hold animals. Acoustically induced bubble 

formation, rectified diffusion, and acoustic resonance of air cavities are considered for their applicability 

to pathologies observed in marine mammals stranded coincident with sonar exposures and found to not 

be likely causal mechanisms (Section 3.7.2.1.1.1, Injury). Those findings are considered to hold for diving 

reptiles as well. 

Nitrogen decompression due to modifications to dive behavior has never been observed in sea turtles. 

Sea turtles are thought to deal with nitrogen loads in their blood and other tissues, caused by gas 

exchange from the lungs under conditions of high ambient pressure during diving, through anatomical, 

behavioral, and physiological adaptations (Lutcavage & Lutz, 1997). Although diving sea turtles 

experience gas supersaturation, gas embolism has only been observed in sea turtles bycaught in 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-27

3.8 Reptiles

fisheries (Garcia-Parraga et al., 2014). Therefore, nitrogen decompression due to changes in diving 

behavior is not considered a potential consequence to diving reptiles.

3.8.3.1.1.2 Hearing Loss

Exposure to intense sound may result in hearing loss, typically quantified as threshold shift, which 

persists after cessation of the noise exposure. Threshold shift is a loss of hearing sensitivity at an 

affected frequency of hearing. This noise-induced hearing loss may manifest as temporary threshold 

shift (TTS), if hearing thresholds recover over time, or permanent threshold shift (PTS), if hearing 

thresholds do not recover fully pre-exposure thresholds. Because studies on inducing threshold shift in 

reptiles are very limited (e.g., alligator lizards: Dew et al., 1993; Henry & Mulroy, 1995), are not 

sufficient to estimate TTS and PTS onset thresholds, and have not been conducted on any of the reptiles 

present in the Study Area, auditory threshold shift in reptiles is considered to be consistent with general 

knowledge about noise-induced hearing loss described in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing 

Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities (Section 3.0.3.6.1). 

Because there are no data on auditory effects on sea turtles, the ANSI Sound Exposure Guidelines 

(Popper et al., 2014) do not include numeric sound exposure thresholds for auditory effects on sea 

turtles. Rather, the guidelines qualitatively estimate that sea turtles are less likely to incur TTS or PTS 

with increasing distance from various sound sources. The guidelines also suggest that data from fishes 

may be more relevant than data from marine mammals when estimating impacts on sea turtles, 

because, in general, fish hearing range is more similar to the limited hearing range of sea turtles. As 

shown in Section 3.8.2.1.4.1 (Hearing and Vocalization – Sea Turtles), sea turtle hearing is most sensitive 

around 100 to 400 Hz in-water, is limited over 1 kHz, and is much less sensitive than that of any marine 

mammal. Therefore, sound exposures from most mid-frequency and all high-frequency sound sources 

are not anticipated to affect sea turtle hearing, and sea turtles are likely only susceptible to auditory 

impacts when exposed to very high levels of sound within their limited hearing range.

Sea snake hearing is also suspected to be limited to very low frequencies (below 1 kHz). It is assumed 

that sea snake susceptibility to auditory impacts would be similar to that of sea turtles.

3.8.3.1.1.3 Physiological Stress

A stress response is a suite of physiological changes that are meant to help an organism mitigate the 

impact of a stressor. If the magnitude and duration of the stress response is too great or too long, then it 

can have negative consequences to the animal (e.g., decreased immune function, decreased 

reproduction). Physiological stress is typically analyzed by measuring stress hormones, other 

biochemical markers, or vital signs. Physiological stress has been measured for sea turtles during nesting 

(Flower et al., 2015; Valverde et al., 1999), capture and handling (Flower et al., 2015; Gregory & Schmid, 

2001), and when caught in entanglement nets (Hoopes et al., 2000; Snoddy et al., 2009) and trawls 

(Stabenau et al., 1991). However, the stress caused by acoustic exposure has not been studied for 

reptiles. Therefore, the stress response in reptiles in the Study Area due to acoustic exposures is 

considered to be consistent with general knowledge about physiological stress responses described in 

Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities).

Marine animals naturally experience stressors within their environment and as part of their life histories. 

Changing weather and ocean conditions, exposure to diseases and naturally occurring toxins, lack of 

prey availability, social interactions with members of the same species, nesting, and interactions with 

predators all contribute to stress. Anthropogenic sound-producing activities have the potential to 

provide additional stressors beyond those that naturally occur. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-28

3.8 Reptiles

Due to the limited information about acoustically induced stress responses, the Navy conservatively 

assumes in its effects analysis that any physiological response (e.g., hearing loss or injury) or significant 

behavioral response is also associated with a stress response.

3.8.3.1.1.4 Masking

As described in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and 

Explosive Activities ), auditory masking occurs when one sound, distinguished as the “noise,” interferes 

with the detection or recognition of another sound or limits the distance over which other biologically 

relevant sounds, including those produced by prey, predators, or conspecifics, can be detected. Masking 

only occurs when the sound source is operating; therefore, direct masking effects stop immediately 

upon cessation of the sound-producing activity. Any unwanted sound above ambient noise and within 

an animal’s hearing range may potentially cause masking. 

Compared to other marine animals, such as marine mammals, that are highly adapted to use sound in 

the marine environment, marine reptile hearing is limited to lower frequencies and is less sensitive. 

Because marine reptiles likely use their hearing to detect broadband low frequency sounds in their 

environment, the potential for masking would be limited to certain sound exposures. Only continuous 

human-generated sounds that have a significant low-frequency component, are not of brief duration, 

and are of sufficient received level would create a meaningful masking situation (e.g., vibratory pile 

extraction or proximate vessel noise). Other intermittent, short-duration sound sources with lowfrequency components (e.g., air guns or low-frequency sonars) would have more limited potential for 

masking, depending on how frequently the sound occurs.

There is evidence that reptiles may rely primarily on senses other than hearing for interacting with their 

environment, such as vision (Narazaki et al., 2013), magnetic orientation (Avens & Lohmann, 2003; 

Putman et al., 2015a), and scent (Shine et al., 2004b). Any effect of masking may be mediated by 

reliance on other environmental inputs.

3.8.3.1.1.5 Behavioral Reactions

Behavioral responses fall into two major categories: alterations in natural behavior patterns and 

avoidance. These types of reactions are not mutually exclusive and reactions may be combinations of 

behaviors or a sequence of behaviors. As described in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for 

Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities), the response of a reptile to an anthropogenic 

sound would likely depend on the frequency, duration, temporal pattern, and amplitude of the sound as 

well as the animal’s prior experience with the sound and the context in which the sound is encountered 

(i.e., what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure). Distance from the sound source and whether 

it is perceived as approaching or moving away may also affect the way a reptile responds to a sound.

Reptiles may detect sources below 2 kHz but have limited hearing ability above 1 kHz. They likely detect 

most broadband sources (including air guns, pile driving, and vessel noise) and low-frequency sonars, so 

they may respond to these sources. Because auditory abilities are poor above 1 kHz, detection and 

consequent reaction to any mid-frequency source is unlikely. 

In the ANSI Sound Exposure Guidelines (Popper et al., 2014), qualitative risk factors were developed to 

assess the potential for sea turtles to respond to various underwater sound sources. The guidelines state

that there is a low likelihood that sea turtles would respond within tens of meters of low-frequency 

sonars, and that it is highly unlikely that sea turtles would respond to mid-frequency sources. The risk 

that sea turtles would respond to other broadband sources, such as shipping, air guns, and pile driving, 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-29

3.8 Reptiles

is considered high within tens of meters of the sound source, but moderate to low at farther distances. 

For this analysis, it is assumed that these guidelines would also apply to sea snakes.

Behavioral Reactions to Impulsive Sound Sources 

There are limited studies of reptile responses to sounds from impulsive sound sources, and all data 

come from seismic air gun exposures to sea turtles. These exposures consist of multiple air gun shots, 

either in close proximity or over long durations, so it is likely that observed responses may over-estimate 

responses to single or short-duration impulsive exposures. Studies of responses to air guns are used to 

inform reptile responses to other impulsive sounds (impact pile driving and some weapons noise).

O’Hara and Wilcox (1990) attempted to create a sound barrier at the end of a canal using seismic air 

guns. They reported that loggerhead sea turtles kept in a 300 m by 45 m enclosure in a 10 m deep canal 

maintained a minimum standoff range of 30 m from air guns fired simultaneously at intervals of 

15 seconds with strongest sound components within the 25–1,000 Hz frequency range. McCauley et al. 

(2000b) estimated that the received SPL at which turtles avoided sound in the O’Hara and Wilcox (1990)

experiment was 175–176 dB re 1 μPa.

Bartol et al. (1995) investigated the use of air guns to repel juvenile loggerhead sea turtles from hopper 

dredges. Sound frequencies of the air guns ranged from 100 to 1,000 Hz at three source SPLs: 175, 177, 

and 179 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. The turtles avoided the air guns during the initial exposures (mean range of 

24 m), but additional exposures on the same day and several days afterward did not elicit avoidance 

behavior that was statistically significant. They concluded that this was likely due to habituation.

McCauley et al. (2000b) exposed a caged green and a caged loggerhead sea turtle to an approachingdeparting single air gun to gauge behavioral responses. The trials showed that above a received SPL of 

166 dB re 1 μPa, the turtles noticeably increased their swimming activity compared to nonoperational 

periods, with swimming time increasing as air gun SPLs increased during approach. Above 175 dB re 

1 μPa, behavior became more erratic, possibly indicating the turtles were in an agitated state. The 

authors noted that the point at which the turtles showed more erratic behavior and exhibited possible 

agitation would be expected to approximate the point at which active avoidance to air guns would occur 

for unrestrained sea turtles.

No obvious avoidance reactions by free-ranging sea turtles, such as swimming away, were observed 

during a multi-month seismic survey using air gun arrays, although fewer sea turtles were observed 

when the seismic air guns were active than when they were inactive (Weir, 2007). The author noted that 

sea state and the time of day affected both air gun operations and sea turtle surface basking behavior, 

making it difficult to draw conclusions from the data. However, DeRuiter and Doukara (2012) noted 

several possible startle or avoidance reactions to a seismic air gun array in the Mediterranean by 

loggerhead sea turtles that had been motionlessly basking at the water surface.

Behavioral Reactions to Sonar and Other Transducers

Studies of reptile responses to non-impulsive sounds are very limited. All data are from studies with sea 

turtles. Lenhardt (1994) used very low frequency vibrations (< 100 Hz) coupled to a shallow tank to elicit 

swimming behavior responses by two loggerhead sea turtles. Watwood et al. (2016) tagged green sea 

turtles with acoustic transponders and monitored them using acoustic telemetry arrays in Port 

Canaveral, FL. Sea turtles were monitored before, during, and after a routine pier-side submarine sonar 

test that utilized typical source levels, signals, and duty cycle. No significant long-term displacement was 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-30

3.8 Reptiles

exhibited by the sea turtles in this study. The authors note that Port Canaveral is an urban marine 

habitat and that resident sea turtles may be less likely to respond than naïve populations.

3.8.3.1.1.6 Long Term Consequences

For the reptiles present in the Study Area, long-term consequences to individuals and populations due 

to acoustic exposures have not been studied. Therefore, long term consequences to reptiles due to 

acoustic exposures are considered following Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing 

Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities).

The long-term consequences due to individual behavioral reactions and short-term instances of 

physiological stress are especially difficult to predict because individual experience over time can create 

complex contingencies. It is more likely that any long-term consequences to an individual would be a 

result of costs accumulated over a season, year, or life stage due to multiple behavioral or stress 

responses resulting from exposures to multiple stressors over significant periods of time. Conversely, 

some reptiles may habituate to or become tolerant of repeated acoustic exposures over time, learning 

to ignore a stimulus that in the past did not accompany any overt threat. For example, loggerhead sea 

turtles exposed to air guns with a source SPL of 179 dB re 1 μPa initially exhibited avoidance reactions. 

However, they may have habituated to the sound source after multiple exposures since a habituation 

behavior was retained when exposures were separated by several days (Moein Bartol et al., 1995). More 

research is needed to better understand the long-term consequences of human-made noise on reptiles, 

although intermittent exposures are assumed to be less likely to have lasting consequences. 

3.8.3.1.2 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers

Sonar and other transducers emit sound waves into the water to detect objects, safely navigate, and 

communicate. Use of sonar and other transducers would typically be transient and temporary. General 

categories of sonar systems are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors); only those sources 

within the hearing range of reptiles (<2 kHz) in the Study Area are considered. 

Impacts on sea turtles due to sonars and other transducers are considered throughout the Study Area. 

Impacts on sea snakes in the Southern California portion of the Study Area are not considered because 

their presence is extralimital; however, impacts are considered on sea snakes that may be present in the 

Hawaii Range Complex and the transit corridor.

3.8.3.1.2.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers

Potential impacts considered are hearing loss due to threshold shift (permanent or temporary), masking 

of other biologically relevant sounds, physiological stress, and changes in behavior. To estimate the 

potential for hearing loss, the Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number of 

instances that sea turtles could be affected by sonar and other transducers used during Navy training 

and testing activities. The quantitative analysis for sea turtles takes into account:

• criteria and thresholds used to predict impacts from sonar and other transducers 

• sea turtle spatial density 

• the Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model 

A summary of the quantitative analysis is provided below. A detailed explanation of this analysis is in the 

technical report Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts on Marine 

Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-31

3.8 Reptiles

Criteria and Thresholds Used to Predict Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers

Auditory Weighting Functions

Animals are not equally sensitive to noise at all frequencies. To capture the frequency-dependent nature 

of the effects of noise, auditory weighting functions are used. Auditory weighting functions are 

mathematical functions that adjust received sound levels to emphasize ranges of best hearing and deemphasize ranges with less or no auditory sensitivity. The adjusted received sound level is referred to as 

a weighted received sound level.

The auditory weighting function for sea turtles is shown in Figure 3.8-4. The derivation of this weighting 

function is described in the technical report Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Effects Analysis (Phase III) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017c). The frequencies around the top portion 

of the function, where the amplitude is closest to zero, are emphasized, while the frequencies below 

and above this range (where amplitude declines) are de-emphasized, when summing acoustic energy 

received by a sea turtle.

Source: U.S. Department of the Navy (2017c)

Notes: dB = decibels, kHz = kilohertz

Figure 3.8-4: Auditory Weighting Function for Sea Turtles

Hearing Loss from Sonar and Other Transducers

No studies of hearing loss have been conducted on sea turtles. Therefore, sea turtle susceptibility to 

hearing loss due to an acoustic exposure is evaluated using knowledge about sea turtle hearing abilities 

in combination with non-impulsive auditory effect data from other species (marine mammals and fish). 

This yields sea turtle exposure functions, shown in Figure 3.8-5, which are mathematical functions that 

relate the SELs for onset of TTS or PTS to the frequency of the sonar sound exposure. The derivation of 

the sea turtle exposure functions are provided in the technical report Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. 

Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017c).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-32

3.8 Reptiles

Figure 3.8-5: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Sonar and Other Transducers

Source: (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017c)

Notes: dB re 1 μPa2

s: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal second squared, kHz = kilohertz. The solid black curve is 

the exposure function for TTS and the dashed black curve is the exposure function for PTS onset. Small dashed 

lines and asterisks indicate the SEL thresholds at the most sensitive frequency for TTS (200 dB) and PTS 

(220 dB).

Sea Turtle Density

A quantitative analysis of impacts on a species requires data on their abundance and distribution in the 

potentially impacted area. The most appropriate metric for this type of analysis is density, which is the 

number of animals present per unit area. To characterize the marine species density for large areas such 

as the Study Area, the Navy compiled data from several sources. The Navy developed a protocol to 

select the best available data sources based on species, area, time (season), and type of density model. 

The resulting Geographic Information System database called the Navy Marine Species Density Database

includes seasonal density values for sea turtle species present within the Study Area (U.S. Department of 

Navy 2016). 

For the Hawaii Range Complex and transit corridor portions of the Study Area, a sea turtle guild density 

was developed based on observations of sea turtles for which species identification was not possible. 

The sea turtle guild is comprised of green, hawksbill, loggerhead, olive ridley, and leatherback sea 

turtles. Quantified impacts on the sea turtle guild were apportioned to individual turtle species in 

nearshore and offshore areas based on presence, fisheries interactions, and nesting data. 

The Navy Acoustic Effects Model

The Navy Acoustic Effects Model calculates sound energy propagation from sonars and other 

transducers (as well as air guns and explosives) during naval activities and the sound received by animat 

dosimeters. Animat dosimeters are virtual representations of sea turtles distributed in the area around 

the modeled naval activity, and each records its individual sound ‘dose.’ The model bases the 

distribution of animats over the Study Area on the density values in the Navy Marine Species Density 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-33

3.8 Reptiles

Database and distributes animats in the water column proportional to the known time that species 

spend at varying depths.

The model accounts for environmental variability of sound propagation in both distance and depth, as 

well as boundary interactions, when computing the received sound level on the animats. The model 

conducts a statistical analysis based on multiple model runs to compute the estimated effects on 

animals. The number of animats that exceed the thresholds for effects is tallied to provide an estimate 

of the number of sea turtles that could be affected.

Assumptions in the Navy model intentionally err on the side of overestimation when there are 

unknowns. Naval activities are modeled as though they would occur regardless of proximity to sea 

turtles (i.e., mitigation is not modeled) and without any avoidance of the activity by sea turtles; 

however, observation of sea turtles within mitigation zones and sea turtle avoidance reactions may 

reduce exposures resulting in TTS and PTS from those predicted by the quantitative analysis. 

The model estimates the impacts caused by individual training and testing events. During any individual 

modeled event, impacts on individual animats are considered over 24-hour periods. The animats do not 

represent actual animals, but rather allow for a statistical analysis of the number of instances that sea 

turtles may be exposed to sound levels resulting in an effect. Therefore, the model estimates the 

number of instances in which an effect threshold was exceeded over the course of a year, but does not 

estimate the number of individual sea turtles that may be impacted over a year (i.e., some sea turtles 

could be impacted several times, while others would not experience any impact). 

3.8.3.1.2.2 Impact Ranges for Sonar and Other Transducers

Because sea turtle hearing range is limited to a narrow range of frequencies and thresholds for auditory 

impacts are relatively high, there are few sonar sources that could result in exposures exceeding the sea 

turtle TTS and PTS thresholds. For a limited number of powerful sources in sea turtle hearing range, the 

ranges to auditory effects could be up to a few tens of meters.

3.8.3.1.2.3 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

General categories and characteristics of sonar systems and the number of hours these sonars would be 

operated during training under Alternative 1 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). In 

addition, a portion of Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise–Ship unit-level training activities would 

be conducted using synthetic means (e.g., simulators) or in conjunction with other training exercises. 

Activities using sonars and other transducers would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description 

of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions).

Under Alternative 1, the number of Major Training Exercises, Integrated/Coordinated Training activities, 

Civilian Port Defense activities, and Sinking Exercises would fluctuate annually. In addition, a portion of 

training requirements would be met synthetically. Training activities using sonar and other transducers 

could occur throughout the Study Area, but use of sources within reptile hearing range would be greater 

in the Southern California portion of the Study Area compared to the Hawaii Range complex or the 

transit corridor. However, sea turtle presence in the Southern California portion of the Study Area is 

limited in off-shore areas where most Anti-Submarine Warfare activities are conducted.

The quantitative analysis predicts that no sea turtles of any species are likely to be exposed to the high 

received levels of sound from sonars or other transducers that could cause TTS or PTS during a 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-34

3.8 Reptiles

maximum year of training activities under Alternative 1. Only a limited number of sonar and other 

transducers with frequencies within the range of reptile hearing (< 2 kHz) and high source levels have 

the potential to cause TTS and PTS. Any impact to hearing could reduce the distance over which a reptile 

detects environmental cues, such as the sound of waves or the presence of a vessel or predator. 

Implementation of mitigation may further reduce the already low risk of auditory impacts on sea turtles. 

Depending on the sonar source, mitigation includes powering down the sonar or ceasing active sonar 

transmission if a sea turtle is observed in the mitigation zone, as discussed in Section 5.3.2 

(Acoustic Stressors). 

A reptile could respond to sounds detected within their limited hearing range. However, based on the 

limited data available regarding sea turtle behavioral reactions to sonar, sea turtles are unlikely to 

respond to exposures from sonar. The few studies of sea turtle reactions to sounds, discussed in Section

3.8.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions), suggest that a behavioral response could consist of temporary 

avoidance, increased swim speed, or changes in depth, or that there may be no observable response. 

Use of sonar and other transducers would typically be transient and temporary. There is no evidence to 

suggest that any behavioral response would persist after a sound exposure. It is assumed that a stress 

response could accompany any behavioral response.

Although masking of biologically relevant sounds by the limited number of sonars and other transducers 

operated in sea turtle hearing range is possible, this may only occur in certain circumstances. Sea turtles 

most likely use sound to detect nearby broadband, continuous environmental sounds, such as the 

sounds of waves crashing on the beach. The use characteristics of most sonars, including limited band 

width, beam directionality, limited beam width, relatively low source levels, low duty cycle, and limited 

duration of use, would both greatly limit the potential for a sea turtle to detect these sources and limit 

the potential for masking of broadband, continuous environmental sounds. In addition, broadband 

sources within sea turtle hearing range, such as countermeasures used during anti-submarine warfare, 

would typically be used in off-shore areas, not in near-shore areas where detection of beaches or 

concentrated vessel traffic is relevant.

Sea snakes, the only other reptile potentially present in the Study Area, likely have hearing that is similar 

to sea turtles. It is reasonable to assume that sea snakes use their hearing similarly to sea turtles and 

that any impacts on sea snakes would be similar to impacts on sea turtles. 

Because impacts on individual sea turtles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term 

consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any sea 

turtle populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

General categories and characteristics of sonar systems and the number of hours these sonars would be 

operated during testing under Alternative 1 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors).

Activities using sonars and other transducers would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description 

of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-35

3.8 Reptiles

Under Alternative 1, the number of testing activities would fluctuate annually. Testing activities using 

sonar and other transducers could occur throughout the Study Area, but use of sources within reptile 

hearing range would be greater in the Southern California portion of the Study Area compared to the 

Hawaii Range complex or the transit corridor. However, sea turtle presence in the Southern California 

portion of the Study Area is limited in off-shore areas where most testing activities are conducted.

The quantitative analysis predicts that no sea turtles of any species are likely to be exposed to the high 

received levels of sound from sonars or other transducers that could cause TTS or PTS during a 

maximum year of testing activities under Alternative 1. Only a limited number of sonars and other 

transducers with frequencies within the range of sea turtles hearing (< 2 kHz) and high source levels 

have the potential to cause TTS and PTS. Any impact to hearing could reduce the distance over which a 

reptile detects environmental cues, such as the sound of waves or the presence of a vessel or predator. 

Implementation of mitigation may further reduce the already low risk of auditory impacts on sea turtles. 

Depending on the sonar source, mitigation includes powering down the sonar or ceasing active sonar 

transmission if a sea turtle is observed in the mitigation zone, as discussed in Section 5.3.2 

(Acoustic Stressors). 

A reptile could respond to sounds detected within their limited hearing range. However, based on the 

limited data available regarding sea turtle behavioral reactions to sonar, sea turtles are unlikely to 

respond to exposures from sonar. The few studies of sea turtle reactions to sounds, discussed in Section

3.8.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions), suggest that a behavioral response could consist of temporary 

avoidance, increased swim speed, or changes in depth, or that there may be no observable response. 

Use of sonar and other transducers would typically be transient and temporary. There is no evidence to 

suggest that any behavioral response would persist after a sound exposure. It is assumed that a stress 

response could accompany any behavioral responses.

Although masking of biologically relevant sounds by the limited number of sonars and other transducers 

operated in sea turtle hearing range is possible, this may only occur in certain circumstances. Sea turtles 

most likely use sound to detect nearby broadband, continuous environmental sounds, such as the 

sounds of waves crashing on the beach. The use characteristics of most sonars, including limited band 

width, beam directionality, limited beam width, relatively low source levels, low duty cycle, and limited 

duration of use, would both greatly limit the potential for a sea turtle to detect these sources and limit 

the potential for masking of broadband, continuous environmental sounds. In addition, broadband 

sources within sea turtle hearing range, such as countermeasures used during anti-submarine warfare, 

would typically be used in off-shore areas, not in nearshore areas where detection of beaches or 

concentrated vessel traffic is relevant.

Because impacts on individual sea turtles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term 

consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any sea 

turtle populations.

Sea snakes, the only other reptile potentially present in the Study Area, likely have hearing that is similar 

to sea turtles. It is reasonable to assume that sea snakes use their hearing similarly to sea turtles and 

that any impacts on sea snakes would be similar to impacts on sea turtles. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-36

3.8 Reptiles

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.8.3.1.2.4 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

General categories and characteristics of sonar systems and the number of hours these sonars would be 

operated during training under Alternative 2 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). In 

addition, all unit level Anti-Submarine Warfare Tracking Exercise –Ship activities would be completed 

through individual events conducted at sea, rather than through leveraging other anti-submarine 

warfare training exercises or the use of synthetic means (e.g., simulators). Activities using sonars and 

other transducers would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions).

Under Alternative 2, the maximum number of training activities could occur every year, except the 

number of some Major Training Exercises and Integrated/Coordinated Training activities would fluctuate 

annually. In addition, all unit level training requirements would be completed at sea rather than 

synthetically. This would result in an increase of sonar use compared to Alternative 1, including sources 

within reptile hearing range. Training activities using sonar and other transducers could occur 

throughout the Study Area, but use of sources within reptile hearing range would be greater in the 

Southern California portion of the Study Area compared to the Hawaii Range complex or the transit 

corridor. However, sea turtle presence in the Southern California portion of the Study Area is limited in 

off-shore areas where most Anti-Submarine Warfare activities are conducted.

Although there would be an increase in sonar use compared to Alternative 1, the potential for and type 

of impacts on reptiles would be the similar. This is because reptiles are capable of detecting only a 

limited number of sonars due to their limited hearing range. Similarly, the quantitative analysis predicts 

that no sea turtles of any species are likely to be exposed to the high received levels of sound from 

sonars or other transducers that could cause TTS or PTS during a maximum year of training activities 

under Alternative 2. Implementation of mitigation may further reduce the already low risk of auditory 

impacts on sea turtles. Depending on the sonar source, mitigation includes powering down the sonar or 

ceasing active sonar transmission if a sea turtle is observed in the mitigation zone, as discussed in 

Section 5.3.2 (Acoustic Stressors). 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

General categories and characteristics of sonar systems and the number of hours these sonars would be 

operated during training under Alternative 2 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors).

Activities using sonars and other transducers would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description 

of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions).

Under Alternative 2, the maximum number of nearly all testing activities would occur every year. This 

would result in an increase of sonar use compared to Alternative 1, including sources within reptile 

hearing range. Testing activities using sonar and other transducers could occur throughout the Study

Area, but use of sources within reptile hearing range would be greater in the Southern California portion 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-37

3.8 Reptiles

of the Study Area compared to the Hawaii Range complex or the transit corridor. However, sea turtle 

presence in the Southern California portion of the Study Area is limited in off-shore areas where most 

testing activities are conducted. 

Although there would be a minor increase in sonar use compared to Alternative 1, the potential for and 

type of impacts on reptiles would be the same. Similarly, the quantitative analysis predicts that no sea 

turtles of any species are likely to be exposed to the high received levels of sound from sonars or other 

transducers that could cause TTS or PTS during a maximum year of testing activities under Alternative 2. 

Implementation of mitigation may further reduce the already low risk of auditory impacts on sea turtles. 

Depending on the sonar source, mitigation includes powering down the sonar or ceasing active sonar 

transmission if a sea turtle is observed in the mitigation zone, as discussed in Section 5.3.2 

(Acoustic Stressors).

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g. sonar and other transducers) would not 

be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and 

testing activities.

3.8.3.1.3 Impacts from Air Guns

Air guns use bursts of pressurized air to create broadband, impulsive sounds. Any use of air guns would 

typically be transient and temporary. Section 3.0.3.3.1.2 (Air Guns) provides additional details on the use 

and acoustic characteristics of the small air guns used in these activities. 

3.8.3.1.3.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Air Guns

Potential impacts considered are hearing loss due to threshold shift (permanent or temporary), masking 

of other biologically relevant sounds, physiological stress, and changes in behavior. To estimate the 

potential for hearing loss or behavioral changes, the Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate 

the number of instances that sea turtles could be affected by air guns used during Navy activities. The 

quantitative analysis takes into account:

• criteria and thresholds used to predict impacts from air guns (see below)

• sea turtle spatial density as described above in Section 3.8.3.1.2.1 (Methods for Analyzing 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers – Sea Turtle Density)

• the Navy Acoustic Effects Model as described above in Section 3.8.3.1.2.1 (Methods for 

Analyzing Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers – The Navy Acoustic Effects Model) 

A summary of the quantitative analysis is provided below. A detailed explanation of this analysis is in the 

technical report Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine 

Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-38

3.8 Reptiles

Criteria and Thresholds used to Predict Impacts on Sea Turtles from Air Guns

Auditory Weighting Functions

Animals are not equally sensitive to noise at all frequencies. To capture the frequency-dependent nature 

of the effects of noise, auditory weighting functions are used. The auditory weighting function for sea 

turtles presented above in Section 3.8.3.1.2.1 (Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Sonar and Other 

Transducers) is also used in the quantitative assessment of auditory impacts due to air guns.

Hearing Loss from Air Guns

No studies of hearing loss have been conducted on sea turtles. Therefore, sea turtle susceptibility to 

hearing loss due to an air gun exposure is evaluated using knowledge about sea turtle hearing abilities in 

combination with auditory effect data from other species (marine mammals and fish). This yields sea 

turtle exposure functions, shown in Table 3.8-6, which are mathematical functions that relate the SELs 

for onset of TTS or PTS to the frequency of the underwater impulsive sound exposure. The derivation of 

the sea turtle impulsive exposure functions are provided in the technical report Criteria and Thresholds 

for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017c).

Notes: 1. kHz = kilohertz, SEL = Sound Exposure Level, dB re 1 μPa2s = decibels referenced to 1 micropascal squared 

second. 2. The solid black curve is the exposure function for TTS onset and the dashed black curve is the exposure 

function for PTS onset. 3. Small dashed lines and asterisks indicate the SEL thresholds and most sensitive frequency 

for TTS and PTS.

Figure 3.8-6: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Impulsive Sounds

For impulsive sounds, hearing loss in other species has also been observed to be related to the 

unweighted peak pressure of a received sound. Because this data does not exist for sea turtles, 

unweighted peak pressure thresholds for TTS and PTS were developed by applying relationships 

observed between impulsive peak pressure TTS thresholds and auditory sensitivity in marine mammals 

to sea turtles. This results in dual-metric hearing loss criteria for sea turtles for impulsive sound 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-39

3.8 Reptiles

exposure: the SEL-based exposure functions in Figure 3.8-6 and the peak pressure thresholds in Table 

3.8-2. The derivation of the sea turtle impulsive peak pressure TTS and PTS thresholds are provided in 

the technical report Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase 

III) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017c).

Table 3.8-2: TTS and PTS peak pressure thresholds for sea turtles exposed to impulsive sounds

Auditory 

Effect

Unweighted Peak Pressure 

Threshold

TTS 226 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak

PTS 232 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak

Notes: dB re 1 μPa = decibels referenced to 1 

micropascal, PTS = permanent threshold shift, 

TTS = temporary threshold shift, SPL = sound 

pressure level

3.8.3.1.3.2 Impact Ranges for Air Guns

Ranges to the onset of TTS or PTS for the air guns used in Navy activities are shown in Table 3.8-3. These 

ranges are based on the SEL metric for TTS and PTS for 10 firings of an air gun. Ranges based on the peak 

pressure metric for TTS and PTS for 10 firings of an air gun yields zero meters.

Table 3.8-3: Ranges to Permanent Threshold Shift and Temporary Threshold Shift for Sea 

Turtles Exposed to 10 Air Gun Firings 

Range (m)

Onset TTS Onset PTS

10 1

3.8.3.1.3.3 Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Training activities under Alternative 1 do not use air guns.

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 1, small air guns (12–60 cubic inches) would typically be fired at off-shore locations in 

the Hawaii and Southern California Range Complexes. 

These small air guns lack large pressures that could cause non-auditory injuries. In fact, the broadband 

impulsive sounds produced by these small air guns could only cause TTS and PTS for sea turtles within a 

short distance. This is confirmed by the quantitative analysis, which estimates no TTS or PTS to sea 

turtles due to testing of air guns.

Based on the few studies of sea turtle reactions to air guns, any behavioral reactions to air gun firings 

may be to increase swim speed or avoid the air gun. McCauley et al. (2000a) estimated that sea turtles 

would begin to exhibit avoidance behavior when the received level of air gun firings was around 175 dB 

re 1 μPa, based on several studies of sea turtle exposures to air guns. For the air guns used in Navy 

testing, the range to 175 dB re 1 μPa would be about 100-200 m. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-40

3.8 Reptiles

Sea turtles most likely use sound to detect nearby broadband, continuous environmental sounds, such 

as the sounds of waves crashing on the beach. Due to the low duration of an individual air gun shot, 

approximately 0.1 second, and the low duty cycle of sequential shots, the potential for masking from 

these small air guns would be low. Additionally, the use of small air guns in off-shore waters would not 

interfere with detection of sounds in shore environments.

Sea snakes, the only other reptile potentially present in the Study Area, likely have hearing that is similar 

to sea turtles. It is reasonable to assume that sea snakes use their hearing similarly to sea turtles and 

that any impacts on sea snakes would be similar to impacts on sea turtles. 

Because impacts on individual sea turtles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term 

consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any sea 

turtle populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of air guns during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would 

have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.

3.8.3.1.3.4 Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Training activities under Alternative 2 do not use air guns.

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The number and locations of air gun testing activities planned under Alternative 2 are identical to those 

planned under Alternative 1; therefore, the estimated impacts would be identical. Because impacts on 

individual sea turtles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to 

individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any sea turtle populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of air guns during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would 

have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles.

3.8.3.1.3.5 Impacts from Air Guns Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g. air guns) would not be introduced into 

the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either 

remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.8.3.1.4 Impacts from Pile Driving

Sea turtles could be exposed to sounds from impact pile driving and vibratory pile extraction during the 

construction and removal phases of the Elevated Causeway System. This training activity involves the 

use of an impact hammer to drive 24-inch steel piles into the sediment to support an elevated causeway 

to the shore and a vibratory hammer to later remove the piles that support the causeway structure. 

Impact pile driving operations to install the piles would last about 20 days, and extraction of the piles at 

the end of the exercise takes approximately 10 days. Section 3.0.3.3.1.3 (Pile Driving) provides additional 

details on pile driving activities and the noise levels measured from a prior elevated causeway 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-41

3.8 Reptiles

installation and removal. Sea snake occurrence in the Southern California portion of the Study Area is 

considered extralimital. Therefore, the remainder of the analysis of effects from pile driving focuses on 

sea turtles.

3.8.3.1.4.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Pile Driving

Potential impacts considered are hearing loss due to threshold shift (permanent or temporary), masking 

of other biologically relevant sounds, physiological stress, and changes in behavior. To estimate the 

potential for hearing loss or behavioral changes, the Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate 

the number of instances that sea turtles could be affected by pile driving during construction of the 

elevated causeway system. The quantitative analysis takes into account:

• criteria and thresholds used to predict impacts from pile driving (see below)

• sea turtle spatial density as described above in Section 3.8.3.1.2.1 (Methods for Analyzing 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers – Sea Turtle Density)

• modeling of pile driving noise (see below)

Criteria and Thresholds used to Predict Impacts on Sea Turtles from Pile Driving

Auditory Weighting Functions

Animals are not equally sensitive to noise at all frequencies. To capture the frequency-dependent nature 

of the effects of noise, auditory weighting functions are used. The auditory weighting function for sea 

turtles presented above in Section 3.8.3.1.2.1 (Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Sonar and Other 

Transducers) is also used in the quantitative assessment of auditory impacts due to pile driving.

Hearing Loss from Pile Driving

Because impact pile driving produces impulsive noise, the criteria used to assess the onset of TTS and 

PTS are identical to those used for air guns (Hearing Loss from Air Guns in Section 3.8.3.1.3.1, Methods 

for Analyzing Impacts from Air Guns).

Because vibratory pile extraction produces continuous, non-impulsive noise, the criteria used to assess 

the onset of TTS and PTS due to exposure to sonars are used to assess auditory impacts on sea turtles 

(Hearing Loss from Sonar and Other Transducers in Section 3.8.3.1.2.1, Methods for Analyzing Impacts 

from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Modeling of Pile Driving Noise

Underwater noise effects from pile driving and vibratory pile extraction were modeled using actual 

measures of impact pile driving and vibratory removal during construction of an elevated causeway 

(Illingworth and Rodkin, 2015, 2016). A conservative estimate of spreading loss of sound in shallow 

coastal waters (i.e., transmission loss = 16.5*Log10[radius]) was applied based on spreading loss 

observed in actual measurements. Inputs used in the model are provided in Section 3.0.3.3.1.3 (Pile 

Driving), including source levels; the number of strikes required to drive a pile and the duration of 

vibratory removal for a pile; the number of piles driven or removed per day; and the number of days of 

pile driving and removal.

3.8.3.1.4.2 Impact Ranges for Pile Driving

The ranges to the onset of TTS and PTS for sea turtles exposed to impact pile driving are shown in Table 

3.8-4. The ranges to effect are short due to sea turtles’ relatively high thresholds for any auditory effects 

compared to the source levels of impact pile driving conducted during Navy training.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-42

3.8 Reptiles

Table 3.8-4: Ranges to TTS and PTS for Sea Turtles Exposed to Impact Pile Driving 

Type of Activity PTS (m) TTS (m)

Impact Pile Driving (single pile) 2 19

Notes: TTS = temporary threshold shift, PTS = permanent threshold 

shift. Calculations for ranges to TTS and PTS assume a sound 

exposure level accumulated over a duration of one minute, after 

which time an animal is assumed to avoid the immediate area.

Because vibratory pile extraction has a low source level, it is not possible for a sea turtle to experience 

TTS or PTS, even if exposed to a full day of pile removal. 

3.8.3.1.4.3 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Characteristics of pile driving and the number of times pile driving for the elevated causeway system

would occur during training under Alternative 1 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors).

Activities with pile driving would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions). This activity would take place nearshore 

and within the surf zone, up to two times per year at either the Silver Strand portion of the Southern 

California Range Complex in San Diego, California, or Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California. 

Only green sea turtles are expected to be rarely in the vicinity of this coastal activity.

Impulses from the impact hammer strikes are broadband, within the hearing range of sea turtles, and 

carry most of their energy in the lower frequencies. The quantitative analysis of impact pile driving 

estimates that no sea turtles could be exposed to levels of impact pile driving that could cause TTS 

or PTS. 

The impulse can also travel through the bottom sediment. The low risk of impacts on sea turtles would 

be further reduced by soft starts. As discussed in Section 2.3.3.1.10 (Pile Driving Safety), as a standard 

operating procedure, the Navy performs soft starts at reduced energy during an initial set of strikes from 

an impact hammer. Soft starts may “warn” sea turtles and cause them to move away from the sound 

source before impact pile driving increases to full operating capacity. Soft starts were not considered 

when calculating the number of sea turtles that could be impacted, nor was the possibility that a sea 

turtle would avoid the construction area. 

Sound produced from a vibratory hammer is broadband, continuous noise that is produced at a much 

lower level than impact driving. The quantitative analysis estimates that no sea turtles could be exposed 

to levels of vibratory pile extraction that could cause TTS or PTS.

To further avoid the potential for impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation for pile driving that 

includes ceasing impact pile driving and vibratory pile extraction if a sea turtle is observed in the 

mitigation zone, as discussed in Section 5.3.2 (Acoustic Stressors).

Based on prior observations of sea turtle reactions to sound, if a behavioral reaction were to occur, the 

responses could include increases in swim speed, change of position in the water column, or avoidance 

of the sound. There is no evidence to suggest that any behavioral response would persist beyond the 

sound exposure. It is assumed that a stress response could accompany any behavioral responses.

Sea turtles most likely use sound to detect nearby broadband, continuous environmental sounds, such 

as the sounds of waves crashing on the beach. Despite the short duration of each impulse from an 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-43

3.8 Reptiles

impact pile driving strike, the rate of impulses has the potential to result in some auditory masking of 

shore sounds or broadband vessel noise for sea turtles. Vibratory pile extraction is more likely than 

impact pile driving to cause masking of continuous broadband environmental sounds; however, due to 

its low source level, the masking effect would only be relevant in a small area around the vibratory pile 

extraction activity. These coastal areas tend to have high ambient noise levels due to natural and 

anthropogenic sources. For both types of activities, masking would only occur during the brief periods of 

time during which pile driving or removal is actively occurring, approximately less than two hours per 

day for two weeks in any year.

Because impacts on individual sea turtles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term 

consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any sea 

turtle populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, pile driving and removal during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat and would have no effect on hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles, but may affect ESA-listed green sea turtles. The 

Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 1 do not include pile driving.

3.8.3.1.4.4 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Pile driving training activities planned under Alternative 2 are identical to those planned under 

Alternative 1; therefore, the estimated impacts would be identical. Because impacts on individual sea 

turtles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to individuals are 

expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any sea turtle populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, pile driving and removal during training activities as described under Alternative 2

would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical and would have no effect on hawksbill, olive 

ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles, but may affect ESA-listed green sea turtles.

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 2 do not include pile driving.

3.8.3.1.4.5 Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g. pile driving) would not be introduced 

into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either 

remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.8.3.1.5 Impacts from Vessel Noise

The characteristics of noise produced by Navy vessels and their overall contribution to vessel noise in 

the Study Area are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.4 (Vessel Noise). Navy vessels make up a very small 

percentage of the overall traffic, and, because most Navy ships are quieter than similar sized commercial 

vessels, naval vessel noise contributes a very small portion of radiated noise in Navy operation areas

(Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011; Mintz, 2012). Even during major training activities, when a higher number of 

Navy vessels are at sea, the Navy vessel contribution to overall ship radiated noise is very small. On 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-44

3.8 Reptiles

average, in the West Coast exclusive economic zone, Navy vessels contribute about one percent of 

overall ship-radiated noise energy (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011). 

3.8.3.1.5.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Vessel Noise

Potential impacts considered are masking of other biologically relevant sounds, physiological stress, and 

changes in behavior. The source levels of vessels are below the level of sound that would cause hearing 

loss for sea turtles. Due to their presumed similar hearing abilities, this likely applies to sea snakes 

as well.

There is little information on assessing behavioral responses of sea turtles to vessels. Sea turtles have 

been both observed to respond (DeRuiter & Doukara, 2012) and not respond (Weir, 2007) during 

seismic surveys, and any reaction could have been due to the active firing of air gun arrays, ship noise, 

ship presence, or some combination thereof. Lacking data that assesses sea turtle reactions solely to 

vessel noise, the ANSI Sound Exposure Guidelines (Popper et al., 2014) suggest that the relative risk of a 

sea turtle behaviorally responding to a continuous noise, such as vessel noise, is high when near a 

source (tens of meters), moderate when at an intermediate distance (hundreds of meters), and low at 

farther distances. These recommendations did not consider source level. While it is reasonable to 

assume that sea turtles may exhibit some behavioral response to vessels, numerous sea turtles bear 

scars that appear to have been caused by propeller cuts or collisions with vessel hulls (Hazel et al., 

2007b; Lutcavage & Lutz, 1997; Lutcavage et al., 1997b) that may have been exacerbated by a sea turtle 

surfacing reaction or lack of reaction to vessels.

3.8.3.1.5.2 Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Characteristics of vessel noise that would occur during training under Alternative 1 are described in 

Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). Activities with vessel noise would be conducted as described in 

Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions).

Vessel movements involve transits to and from ports to various locations within the Study Area, and 

many ongoing and proposed activities within the Study Area involve maneuvers by various types of 

surface ships, boats, and submarines (collectively referred to as vessels), as well as unmanned vehicles. 

Activities involving vessel movements occur intermittently and are variable in duration, ranging from a 

few hours up to two weeks. Navy vessel traffic could occur anywhere within the Study Area, but would 

be concentrated near Navy ports such as San Diego and Pearl Harbor, and the HSTT Transit Lane which 

are heavily trafficked by private and commercial vessels, in addition to naval vessels. A study of Navy 

vessel traffic found that traffic was heaviest in the easternmost part of Southern California and in the 

area surrounding Honolulu (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011; Mintz, 2012). 

Surface combatant ships (e.g., destroyers, guided missile cruisers, and littoral combat ships) and 

submarines especially are designed to be quiet to evade enemy detection. Reptiles exposed to these 

Navy vessels may not respond at all or exhibit brief startle dive reactions, if, for example, basking on the 

surface near a passing vessel. Even for louder vessels, such as Navy tankers, it is not clear that reptiles 

would typically exhibit any reaction other than a brief startle and avoidance reaction, if they react at all. 

Any of these short-term reactions to vessels are not likely to disrupt important behavioral patterns more 

than for a brief moment.

Acoustic masking, especially from larger, non-combatant vessels, is possible. Vessels produce 

continuous broadband noise, with larger vessels producing sound that is dominant in the lower 

frequencies where reptile hearing is most sensitive. Smaller vessels emit more energy in higher 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-45

3.8 Reptiles

frequencies, much of which would not be detectable by sea turtles. Sea turtles most likely use sound to 

detect nearby broadband, continuous low-frequency environmental sounds, such as the sounds of 

waves crashing on the beach, so vessel noise in those habitats may cause more meaningful masking. 

However, most vessel use would be in harbors or in transit to offshore areas, limiting masking impacts 

on sea turtles in many shore areas. Existing high ambient noise levels in ports and harbors with nonNavy vessel traffic and in shipping lanes with large commercial vessel traffic would limit the potential for 

masking by naval vessels in those areas. In offshore areas with lower ambient noise, the duration of any 

masking effects in a particular location would depend on the time in transit by a vessel through an area. 

Because sea turtles appear to rely on senses other than hearing for foraging and navigation, any impact 

of temporary masking is likely minor or inconsequential.

Because impacts on individual sea turtles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term 

consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any sea 

turtle populations. Sea snakes, the only other reptile potentially present in the Study Area, likely have

hearing that is similar to sea turtles. It is reasonable to assume that sea snakes use their hearing similarly 

to sea turtles and that any impacts on sea snakes would be similar to impacts on sea turtles. 

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have

no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), testing activities under 

Alternative 1 include vessel movement during many events. Because many testing activities would use 

the same or similar vessels as Navy training events, the general locations and types of effects due to 

vessel noise described above for training would be similar for many testing activities. Navy vessel noise 

would continue to be a minor contributor to overall radiated vessel noise in the exclusive economic 

zone. Because impacts on individual reptiles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited. No long-term 

consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any reptile 

populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have

no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.

3.8.3.1.5.3 Impacts from Vessels Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Vessels Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), training activities under 

Alternative 2 include vessel movement during many events. While there would be an increase in the 

amount of at-sea vessel time during training under Alternative 2, the general locations and types of 

effects due to vessel noise would be the same as described in Alternative 1. Therefore, the general 

locations and types of effects due to vessel noise described above for training under Alternative 1 would 

be similar under Alternative 2. Navy vessel noise would continue to be a minor contributor to overall 

radiated vessel noise in the exclusive economic zone. Because impacts on individual reptile, if any, are 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-46

3.8 Reptiles

expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, 

there would be no consequences to any reptile populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have

no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

Impacts from Vessels Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), testing activities under 

Alternative 2 include vessel movement during many events. The difference in vessel noise contributed 

by testing activities under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1 is so small as to not be discernable. 

Therefore, the general locations and types of effects due to vessel noise described above for testing 

under Alternative 1 would be the same under Alternative 2. Navy vessel noise would continue to be a 

minor contributor to overall radiated vessel noise in the exclusive economic zone. Because impacts on 

individual reptiles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to 

individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any reptile populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have

no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

Impacts from Vessels Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g. vessel noise) would not be introduced 

into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either 

remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.8.3.1.6 Impacts from Aircraft Noise

Fixed, rotary-wing, and tilt-rotor aircraft are used during a variety of training and testing activities 

throughout the Study Area. Aircraft produce extensive airborne noise from either turbofan or turbojet 

engines. Rotary-wing aircraft (helicopters) produce low-frequency sound and vibration (Pepper et al., 

2003). An infrequent type of aircraft and missile overflight noise is the sonic boom, produced when the 

aircraft exceeds the speed of sound. Fixed-wing aircraft and missiles would pass quickly overhead, while 

rotary-wing aircraft (e.g., helicopters) may hover at lower altitudes for longer durations. A description of 

aircraft noise produced during Navy activities is provided in Section 3.0.3.3.1.5 (Aircraft Overflight 

Noise), including estimates of underwater noise produced by certain flight activities.

Most in-air sound would be reflected at the air-water interface. Depending on atmospheric conditions, 

in-air sound can refract upwards, limiting the sound energy that reaches the water surface. This is 

especially true for sounds produced at higher altitudes. Underwater sounds from aircraft would be 

strongest just below the surface and directly under the aircraft. Any sound that does enter the water 

only does so within a narrow cone below the sound source that would move with the aircraft. For the 

common situation of a hovering helicopter, the sound pressure level in water would be about 125 dB re 

1 μPa for an H-60 helicopter hovering at 50 ft. For an example fixed-wing flight, the sound pressure 

underwater would be about 128 dB re 1 μPa for an F/A-18 traveling at 250 knots at 3,000 ft. altitude. 

Most air combat maneuver activities would occur at higher altitudes. Supersonic aircraft and missiles, if 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-47

3.8 Reptiles

flying at low altitudes, could generate an airborne sonic boom that may be sensed by reptiles at the 

surface, or as a low-level impulsive sound underwater.

3.8.3.1.6.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Aircraft Noise

The amount of sound entering the ocean from aircraft would be very limited in duration, sound level, 

and affected area. For those reasons, impacts on sea turtles and other aquatic reptiles from aircraft 

have not been studied. Due to the low level of sound that could enter the water from aircraft, hearing 

loss is not further considered as a potential effect. Potential impacts considered are masking of other 

biologically relevant sounds, physiological stress, and changes in behavior.

There is little information on which to assess behavioral responses of sea turtles to aircraft. The ANSI 

Sound Exposure Guidelines for sea turtles did not consider this acoustic stressor (Popper et al., 2014). 

For this analysis, the Navy assumes that some animals at or near the water surface may exhibit startle 

reactions to certain aircraft overflights if aircraft altitude is low. This could mean a hovering helicopter, 

for which the sight of the aircraft and water turbulence could also cause a response, or a low-flying or 

super-sonic aircraft generating enough noise to be briefly detectable underwater or at the air-water 

interface. Because any fixed-wing or missile overflight would be brief, the risk of masking any sounds 

relevant to reptiles is very low.

3.8.3.1.6.2 Impacts from Aircraft Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Characteristics of aircraft noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors) and the number of 

training activities that include aircraft under Alternative 1 are shown in Section 3.0.3.3.4.4 (Aircraft).

Training activities with aircraft would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions Aircraft) and overflights would usually 

occur near Navy airfields, installations, and in special use airspace within Navy range complexes. In the 

Study Area, aircraft flights associated with training would be concentrated in the Southern California 

Range Complex compared to the Hawaii Range Complex and transit corridor.

Reptiles may respond to both the physical presence and to the noise generated by aircraft, making it 

difficult to attribute causation to one or the other stimulus. In addition to noise produced, all low-flying 

aircraft make shadows, which can cause animals at the surface to react. Helicopters may also produce 

strong downdrafts, a vertical flow of air that becomes a surface wind, which can also affect an animal’s 

behavior at or near the surface.

In most cases, exposure of a reptile to fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft presence and noise would be 

brief as the aircraft quickly passes overhead. Animals would have to be at or near the surface at the time

of an overflight to be exposed to appreciable sound levels. Supersonic flight at-sea is typically conducted 

at altitudes exceeding 30,000 ft., limiting the number of occurrences of supersonic flight being audible 

at the water surface.

Due to the low sound levels in water, it is unlikely that reptiles would respond to most fixed-wing 

aircraft, transiting helicopters, or missile overflights. Because overflight exposure would be brief and 

aircraft noise would be at low received levels, only startle reactions, if any, are expected in response to 

low altitude flights. Similarly, the brief duration of most overflight exposures would greatly limit any 

potential for masking of relevant sounds. Low flight altitudes of helicopters during some activities, which 

often occur under 100 ft. altitude, may elicit a stronger startle response due to the proximity of a 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-48

3.8 Reptiles

helicopter to the water; the slower airspeed and therefore longer exposure duration; and the downdraft 

created by a helicopter's rotor. 

It is unlikely that an individual would be exposed repeatedly for long periods of time as overflight events 

are typically dispersed over open ocean areas. Because impacts on individual reptiles, if any, are 

expected to be minor and limited, no long-term consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, 

there would be no consequences to any reptile populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have

no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Characteristics of aircraft noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors) and the number of 

testing activities with aircraft under Alternative 1 are shown in Section 3.0.3.3.4.4. (Aircraft). Testing 

activities using aircraft would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action 

and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions). Aircraft overflights would usually occur near 

Navy airfields, installations, and in special use airspace within Navy range complexes. The general 

locations and types of effects due to aircraft noise described above for training would be similar for 

many testing activities. Because impacts on individual reptiles, if any, are expected to be minor and 

limited, no long-term consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no 

consequences to any reptile populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have

no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.

3.8.3.1.6.3 Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

There would be minor increase in aircraft overflights under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; 

however, the types of impacts would not be discernible from those described for training under 

Alternative 1. Because impacts on individual reptiles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no 

long-term consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to 

any reptile populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have

no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

There would be a minor increase in aircraft overflights under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; 

however, the types of impacts would not be discernible from those described for testing under 

Alternative 1. Because impacts on individual reptiles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-49

3.8 Reptiles

long-term consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to 

any reptile populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have

no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

3.8.3.1.6.4 Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., aircraft noise) would not be introduced 

into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either 

remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.8.3.1.7 Impacts from Weapons Noise 

Reptiles may be exposed to sounds caused by the firing of weapons, objects in flight, and impact of nonexplosive munitions on the water's surface, which are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 (Weapons Noise). 

In general, these are impulsive sounds generated in close vicinity to or at the water surface, with the 

exception of items that are launched underwater. The firing of a weapon may have several components 

of associated noise. Firing of guns could include sound generated in air by firing a gun (muzzle blast) and 

a crack sound due to a low amplitude shock wave generated by a supersonic projectile flying through 

the air. Most in-air sound would be reflected at the air-water interface. Underwater sounds would be 

strongest just below the surface and directly under the firing point. Any sound that enters the water 

only does so within a narrow cone below the firing point or path of the projectile. Vibration from the 

blast propagating through a ship’s hull, the sound generated by the impact of an object with the water 

surface, and the sound generated by launching an object underwater are other sources of impulsive 

sound in the water. Sound due to missile and target launches is typically at a maximum at initiation of 

the booster rocket and rapidly fades as the missile or target travels downrange.

3.8.3.1.7.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Weapons Noise

The amount of sound entering the ocean from weapons firing, projectile travel, and inert objects hitting 

the water would be very limited in duration and affected area. Sound levels could be relatively high 

directly beneath a gun blast, but even in the worst case scenario of a naval large caliber gun fired at the 

lowest elevation angle, sound levels in the water directly below the blast (about 200 db re 1 μPa SPL 

peak; see Yagla & Stiegler, 2003) are substantially lower than necessary to cause hearing loss in a sea 

turtle. Similarly, situations in which inert objects hitting the water, even at high speeds, could 

hypothetically generate sound sufficient to cause hearing loss within a short distance would be very 

rare. Therefore, hearing loss is not further considered as a potential effect. Potential impacts considered 

are masking of other biologically relevant sounds, physiological stress, and changes in behavior.

3.8.3.1.7.2 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Activities using weapons and deterrents would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions). General characteristics of 

types of weapons noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Weapons Noise), and quantities and locations 

of expended non-explosive practice munitions and explosives (fragment-producing) for training under 

Alternative 1 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2. (Military Expended Materials). (For explosive munitions, only 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-50

3.8 Reptiles

associated firing noise is considered in the analysis of weapons noise. The noise produced by the 

detonation of explosive weapons is analyzed in Section 3.8.3.2, Explosive Stressors).

Activities would typically occur in the range complexes, with fewer activities in the transit corridor. Most 

activities involving large-caliber naval gunfire or the launching of targets, missiles, bombs, or other 

munitions are conducted more than 3 nautical miles (NM) from shore.

All of these sounds would be brief, lasting from less than a second for a blast or inert impact to few 

seconds for other launch and object travel sounds. Most incidents of impulsive sounds produced by 

weapons firing, launch, or inert object impacts would be single events, with the exception of gunfire 

activities. It is expected that these sounds may elicit brief startle reactions or diving, with avoidance 

being more likely with the repeated exposure to sounds during gunfire events. It is assumed that, similar 

to air gun exposures, reptile behavioral responses would cease following the exposure event and the 

risk of a corresponding, sustained stress response would be low. Similarly, exposures to impulsive noise 

caused by these activities would be so brief that risk of masking relevant sounds would be low. These 

activities would not typically occur in nearshore habitats where sea turtles may use their limited hearing 

to sense broadband, coastal sounds.

To further avoid the potential for impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation for weapons firing noise 

that includes ceasing large-caliber gunnery activities if a sea turtle is observed in the mitigation zone, as 

discussed in Section 5.3.2 (Acoustic Stressors).

Because impacts on individual reptiles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term 

consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any 

reptile populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would 

have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Activities using weapons and deterrents would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions). General characteristics of 

types of weapons noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Weapons Noise), and quantities and locations 

of expended non-explosive practice munitions and explosives (fragment-producing) for testing under 

Alternative 1 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2. (Military Expended Materials). (For explosive munitions, only 

associated firing noise is considered in the analysis of weapons noise. The noise produced by the 

detonation of explosive weapons is analyzed in Section 3.8.3.2, Explosive Stressors).

Use of weapons during testing would typically occur in the range complexes. Most activities involving 

large-caliber naval gunfire or the launching of targets, missiles, bombs, or other munitions are 

conducted more than 12 NM from shore.

All of these sounds would be brief, lasting from less than a second for a blast or inert impact to few 

seconds for other launch and object travel sounds. Most incidents of impulsive sounds produced by 

weapons firing, launch, or inert object impacts would be single events, with the exception of gunfire 

activities. It is expected that these sounds may elicit brief startle reactions or diving, with avoidance 

being more likely with the repeated exposure to sounds during gunfire events. It is assumed that, similar 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-51

3.8 Reptiles

to air gun exposures, reptile behavioral responses would cease following the exposure event and the 

risk of a corresponding, sustained stress response would be low. Similarly, exposures to impulsive noise 

caused by these activities would be so brief that risk of masking relevant sounds would be low. These 

activities would not typically occur in nearshore habitats where sea turtles may use their limited hearing 

to sense broadband, coastal sounds.

To further avoid the potential for impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation for weapons firing noise 

that includes ceasing large-caliber gunnery activities if a sea turtle is observed in the mitigation zone, as 

discussed in Section 5.3.2 (Acoustic Stressors).

Because impacts on individual reptiles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term 

consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any 

reptile populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would 

have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.

3.8.3.1.7.3 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Activities using weapons and deterrents would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions). General characteristics of 

types of weapons noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Weapons Noise), and quantities and locations 

of expended non-explosive practice munitions and explosives (fragment-producing) for training under 

Alternative 2 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2. (Military Expended Materials). (For explosive munitions, only 

associated firing noise is considered in the analysis of weapons noise. The noise produced by the 

detonation of explosive weapons is analyzed in Section 3.8.3.2, Explosive Stressors).

There would be minor increase in these activities under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; 

however, the types of impacts and locations of impacts would be the same as those described for 

training under Alternative 1. 

To further avoid the potential for impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation for weapons firing noise 

that includes ceasing large-caliber gunnery activities if a sea turtle is observed in the mitigation zone, as 

discussed in Section 5.3.2 (Acoustic Stressors).

Because impacts on individual reptiles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term 

consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any 

reptile populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would 

have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Activities using weapons and deterrents would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions). General characteristics of 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-52

3.8 Reptiles

types of weapons noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Weapons Noise), and quantities and locations

of expended non-explosive practice munitions and explosives (fragment-producing) for testing under 

Alternative 2 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2. (Military Expended Materials). (For explosive munitions, only 

associated firing noise is considered in the analysis of weapons noise. The noise produced by the 

detonation of explosive weapons is analyzed in Section 3.8.3.2, Explosive Stressors).

There would be minor increase in these activities under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; 

however, the types of impacts and locations of impacts would be the same as those described for 

testing under Alternative 1. 

To further avoid the potential for impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation for weapons firing noise 

that includes ceasing large-caliber gunnery activities if a sea turtle is observed in the mitigation zone, as 

discussed in Section 5.3.2 (Acoustic Stressors).

Because impacts on individual reptiles, if any, are expected to be minor and limited, no long-term 

consequences to individuals are expected. Accordingly, there would be no consequences to any reptile 

populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would 

have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles.

3.8.3.1.7.4 Impacts from Noise Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., weapons noise) would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and 

testing activities.

3.8.3.2 Explosive Stressors

Explosions in the water or near the water surface can introduce loud, impulsive, broadband sounds into 

the marine environment. But, unlike other acoustic stressors, explosives release energy at a high rate 

producing a shock wave that can be injurious and even deadly. Therefore, explosive impacts on reptiles

are discussed separately from other acoustic stressors, even though the analysis of explosive impacts 

will rely on data for sea turtle impacts due to impulsive sound exposure where appropriate.

Explosives are usually described by their net explosive weight, which accounts for the weight and type of 

explosive material. Additional explanation of the acoustic and explosive terms and sound energy 

concepts used in this section is found in Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts).

This section begins with a summary of relevant data regarding explosive impacts on sea turtles in 

Section 3.8.3.2.1 (Background). The ways in which an explosive exposure could result in immediate 

effects or lead to long-term consequences for an animal are explained in the Conceptual Framework for 

Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Stressors (Section 3.0.3.6.1), and this section follows that 

framework. Studies of the effects of sound and explosives on reptiles are limited; therefore, where 

necessary, knowledge of impacts on other species from explosives is used to assess impacts on reptiles.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-53

3.8 Reptiles

3.8.3.2.1 Background

The sections below include a survey and synthesis of best available science published in peer-reviewed 

journals, technical reports, and other scientific sources pertinent to impacts on reptiles potentially 

resulting from Navy training and testing activities. Reptiles could be exposed to a range of impacts 

depending on the explosive source and context of the exposure. In addition to acoustic impacts 

including temporary or permanent hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress, or changes in 

behavior; potential impacts from an explosive exposure can include non-lethal injury and mortality.

3.8.3.2.1.1 Injury

Because direct studies of explosive impacts on reptiles have not been conducted, the below discussion 

of injurious effects is based on studies of other animals, generally mammals. The generalizations that 

can be made about in-water explosive injuries to other species should be applicable to reptiles, with 

consideration of the unique anatomy of sea turtles. For example, it is unknown if the sea turtle shell may 

afford it some protection from internal injury.

If an animal is exposed to an explosive blast underwater, the likelihood of injury depends on the charge 

size, the geometry of the exposure (distance to the charge, depth of the animal and the charge), and the 

size of the animal. In general, an animal would be less susceptible to injury near the water surface 

because the pressure wave reflected from the water surface would interfere with the direct path 

pressure wave, reducing positive pressure exposure. However, rapid under-pressure caused by the 

negative surface-reflected pressure wave above an underwater detonation may create a zone of 

cavitation that may contribute to potential injury. In general, blast injury susceptibility would increase 

with depth, until normal lung collapse (due to increasing hydrostatic pressure) and increasing ambient 

pressures again reduce susceptibility. 

See Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts) for an overview of explosive propagation and an 

explanation of explosive effects on gas cavities. 

Primary blast injury is injury that results from the compression of a body exposed to a blast wave. This is 

usually observed as barotrauma of gas-containing structures (e.g., lung and gut) and structural damage 

to the auditory system (Greaves et al., 1943; Office of the Surgeon General, 1991; Richmond et al., 

1973). The lungs are typically the first site to show any damage, while the solid organs (e.g., liver, spleen, 

and kidney) are more resistant to blast injury (Clark & Ward, 1943). Recoverable injuries would include 

slight lung injury, such as capillary interstitial bleeding, and contusions to the gastrointestinal tract. 

More severe injuries would significantly reduce fitness and likely cause death in the wild. Rupture of the 

lung may also introduce air into the vascular system, producing air emboli that can cause a stroke or 

heart attack by restricting oxygen delivery to critical organs. In this discussion, primary blast injury to 

auditory tissues is considered gross structural tissue injury distinct from noise-induced hearing loss, 

which is considered below in Section 3.8.3.2.1.2 (Hearing Loss). 

Data on observed injuries to sea turtles from explosives is generally limited to animals found following 

explosive removal of offshore structures (Viada et al., 2008), which can attract sea turtles for feeding 

opportunities or shelter. Klima et al. (1988) observed a turtle mortality subsequent to an oil platform 

removal blast, although sufficient information was not available to determine the animal’s exposure. 

Klima et al. (1988) also placed small sea turtles (less than 7 kilograms) at varying distances from piling 

detonations. Some of the turtles were immediately knocked unconscious or exhibited vasodilation over 

the following weeks, but others at the same exposure distance exhibited no effects.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-54

3.8 Reptiles

Incidental injuries to sea turtles due to a military explosions have been documented in a few instances. 

In one incident, a single 1,200 pound (lb.) trinitrotoluene (TNT) underwater charge was detonated off 

Panama City, FL in 1981. The charge was detonated at a mid-water depth of 120 ft. Although details are 

limited, the following were recorded: at a distance of 500–700 ft., a 400 lb. sea turtle was killed; at 1,200 

ft., a 200–300 lb. sea turtle experienced “minor” injury; and at 2,000 ft. a 200–300 lb. sea turtle was not 

injured (O'Keeffe & Young, 1984). In another incident, two “immature” green sea turtles (size 

unspecified) were found dead about 100-150 ft. away from detonation of 20 lb. of C-4 in a shallow 

water environment.

Results from limited experimental data suggest two explosive metrics are predictive of explosive injury: 

peak pressure and impulse. 

Impulse as a Predictor of Explosive Injury

Without measurements of the explosive exposures in the above incidents, it is difficult to draw 

conclusions about what amount of explosive exposure would be injurious to sea turtles. Studies of 

observed in-water explosive injuries showed that terrestrial mammals were more susceptible than 

comparably sized fish with swim bladders (Yelverton & Richmond, 1981), and that fish with swim 

bladders may have increased susceptibility to swim bladder oscillation injury depending on exposure 

geometry (Goertner, 1978; Wiley et al., 1981). Therefore, controlled tests with a variety of terrestrial 

mammals (mice, rats, dogs, pigs, sheep and other species) are the best available data sources on actual 

injury to similar-sized animals due to underwater exposure to explosions. 

In the early 1970s, the Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research conducted a series of 

tests in an artificial pond to determine the effects of underwater explosions on mammals, with the goal 

of determining safe ranges for human divers. The resulting data were summarized in two reports 

(Richmond et al., 1973; Yelverton et al., 1973). Specific physiological observations for each test animal 

are documented in Richmond et al. (1973). Gas-containing internal organs, such as lungs and intestines, 

were the principle damage sites in submerged terrestrial mammals, consistent with earlier studies of 

mammal exposures to underwater explosions (Clark & Ward, 1943; Greaves et al., 1943). 

In the Lovelace studies, acoustic impulse was found to be the metric most related to degree of injury, 

and size of an animal’s gas-containing cavities was thought to play a role in blast injury susceptibility. 

The proportion of lung volume to overall body size is similar between sea turtles and terrestrial 

mammals, so the magnitude of lung damage in the tests may approximate the magnitude of injury to 

sea turtles when scaled for body size. Measurements of some shallower diving sea turtles (Hochscheid 

et al., 2007) show lung to body size ratios that are larger than terrestrial animals, whereas the lung to 

body mass ratio of the deeper diving leatherback sea turtle is smaller (Lutcavage et al., 1992). The use of 

test data with smaller lung to body ratios to set injury thresholds may result in a more conservative 

estimate of potential for damaging effects (i.e., lower thresholds) for animals with larger lung to 

body ratios. 

For these shallow exposures of small terrestrial mammals (masses ranging from 3.4 to 50 kilograms) to 

underwater detonations, Richmond et al. (1973) reported that no blast injuries were observed when 

exposures were less than 6 lb. per square in. per millisecond (psi-ms) (40 pascal-seconds [Pa-s]), no 

instances of slight lung hemorrhage occurred below 20 psi-ms (140 Pa-s), and instances of no lung 

damage were observed in some exposures at higher levels up to 40 psi-ms (280 Pa-s). An impulse of 34 

psi-ms (230 Pa-s) resulted in about 50 percent incidence of slight lung hemorrhage. About half of the 

animals had gastrointestinal tract contusions (with slight ulceration, i.e., some perforation of the 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-55

3.8 Reptiles

mucosal layer) at exposures of 25–27 psi-ms (170–190 Pa-s). Lung injuries were found to be slightly 

more prevalent than gastrointestinal tract injuries for the same exposure.

The Lovelace subject animals were exposed near the water surface; therefore, depth effects were not 

discernible in this data set. In addition, this data set included only small terrestrial animals, whereas 

adult sea turtles may be substantially larger and have respiratory structures adapted for the high 

pressures experienced at depth. Goertner (1982) examined how lung cavity size would affect 

susceptibility to blast injury by considering both size and depth in a bubble oscillation model of the lung, 

which is assumed to be applicable to reptiles as well for this analysis. Animal depth relates to injury 

susceptibility in two ways: injury is related to the relative increase in explosive pressure over hydrostatic 

pressure, and lung collapse with depth reduces the potential for air cavity oscillatory damage. The time 

period over which an impulse must be delivered to cause damage is assumed to be related to the 

natural oscillation period of an animal’s lung, which depends on lung size. Based on a study of green sea 

turtles, Berkson (1967) predicted sea turtle lung collapse would be complete around 80–160 m depth.

Peak Pressure as a Predictor of Explosive Trauma

High instantaneous peak pressures can cause damaging tissue distortion. Goertner (1982) suggested a 

peak overpressure gastrointestinal tract injury criterion because the size of gas bubbles in the 

gastrointestinal tract are variable, and their oscillation period could be short relative to primary blast 

wave exposure duration. The potential for gastrointestinal tract injury, therefore, may not be 

adequately modeled by the single oscillation bubble methodology used to estimate lung injury due to 

impulse. Like impulse, however, high instantaneous pressures may damage many parts of the body, but 

damage to the gastrointestinal tract is used as an indicator of any peak pressure-induced injury due to 

its vulnerability.

Older military reports documenting exposure of human divers to blast exposure generally describe peak 

pressure exposures around 100 lb. psi (237 dB re 1 μPa peak) to feel like a slight pressure or stinging 

sensation on skin, with no enduring effects (Christian & Gaspin, 1974). Around 200 psi, the shock wave 

felt like a blow to the head and chest. Data from the Lovelace Foundation experiments show instances 

of gastrointestinal tract contusions after exposures up to 1,147 psi peak pressure, while exposures of up 

to 588 psi peak pressure resulted in many instances of no observed gastrointestinal tract effects. The 

lowest exposure for which slight contusions to the gastrointestinal tract were reported was 237 dB re 1 

μPa peak. As a vulnerable gas-containing organ, the gastrointestinal tract is vulnerable to both high peak 

pressure and high impulse, which may vary to differing extents due to blast exposure conditions (i.e., 

animal depth, distance from the charge). This likely explains the range of effects seen at similar peak 

pressure exposure levels and shows the utility of considering both peak pressure and impulse when 

analyzing the potential for injury due to explosives.

The ANSI Sound Exposure Guidelines (Popper et al., 2014) recommended peak pressure guidelines for 

sea turtle injury from explosives. Lacking any direct data for sea turtles, these recommendations were 

based on fish data. Of the fish data available, the working group conservatively chose the study with the 

lowest peak pressures associated with fish mortality to set guidelines (Hubbs & Rechnitzer, 1952). The 

guidelines did not consider the Lovelace studies discussed above.

Fragmentation

Fragments produced by exploding munitions at or near the surface may present a high speed strike 

hazard for an animal at or near the surface. In water, however, fragmentation velocities decrease rapidly 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-56

3.8 Reptiles

due to drag (Swisdak & Montaro, 1992). Because blast waves propagate efficiently through water, the 

range to injury from the blast wave would likely extend beyond the range of fragmentation risk.

3.8.3.2.1.2 Hearing Loss

An underwater explosion produces broadband, impulsive sound that can cause noise-induced hearing 

loss, typically quantified as threshold shift, which persists after cessation of the noise exposure. This 

noise-induced hearing loss may manifest as TTS or PTS. Because studies on inducing threshold shift in 

reptiles are very limited (e.g., alligator lizards: Dew et al. (1993); Henry and Mulroy (1995)) and have not 

been conducted on any of the reptiles present in the Study Area, auditory threshold shift in reptiles is 

considered to be consistent with general knowledge about noise-induced hearing loss described in the 

Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities (see 

Section 3.0.3.6.1).

Little is known about how sea turtles use sound in their environment. The ANSI Sound Exposure 

Guidelines (Popper et al., 2014) do not suggest numeric sound exposure thresholds for auditory effects 

on sea turtles due to lack of data. Rather, the guidelines qualitatively advise that sea turtles are less 

likely to incur TTS or PTS with increasing distance from an explosive. The guidelines also suggest that 

data from fishes may be more relevant than data from marine mammals when estimating auditory 

impacts on sea turtles, because, in general, fish hearing range is more similar to the limited hearing 

range of sea turtles. As shown in Section 3.8.2.1.4.1 (Hearing and Vocalization – Sea Turtles), sea turtle 

hearing is most sensitive around 100–400 Hz in-water, is limited over 1 kHz, and is much less sensitive 

than that of any marine mammal.

3.8.3.2.1.3 Physiological Stress

A stress response is a suite of physiological changes that are meant to help an organism mitigate the 

impact of a stressor. If the magnitude and duration of the stress response is too great or too long, it can 

have negative consequences to the animal (e.g. decreased immune function, decreased reproduction). 

Physiological stress is typically analyzed by measuring stress hormones, other biochemical markers, or 

vital signs. Physiological stress has been measured for sea turtles during nesting (Flower et al., 2015; 

Valverde et al., 1999) and capture and handling (Flower et al., 2015; Gregory & Schmid, 2001), but the 

stress caused by acoustic exposure has not been studied for reptiles. Therefore, the stress response in 

reptiles in the Study Area due to acoustic exposures is considered to be consistent with general 

knowledge about physiological stress responses described in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework 

for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities).

Marine animals naturally experience stressors within their environment and as part of their life histories. 

Changing weather and ocean conditions, exposure to diseases and naturally occurring toxins, lack of 

prey availability, social interactions with members of the same species, nesting, and interactions with 

predators all contribute to stress. Anthropogenic sound-producing activities have the potential to 

provide additional stressors beyond those that naturally occur. 

Due to the limited information about acoustically induced stress responses, the Navy conservatively 

assumes in its effect analysis that any physiological response (e.g., hearing loss or injury) or significant 

behavioral response is also associated with a stress response.

3.8.3.2.1.4 Masking 

As described in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and 

Explosive Activities), auditory masking occurs when one sound, distinguished as the ‘noise,’ interferes 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-57

3.8 Reptiles

with the detection or recognition of another sound or limits the distance over which other biologically 

relevant sounds can be detected. Masking only occurs when the sound source is operating; therefore, 

direct masking effects stop immediately upon cessation of the sound-producing activity. Any unwanted 

sound above ambient noise and within an animal’s hearing range may potentially cause masking which 

can interfere with an animal’s ability to detect, understand, or recognize biologically relevant sounds 

of interest. 

Masking occurs in all vertebrate groups and can effectively limit the distance over which an animal can 

communicate and detect biologically relevant sounds. The effect of masking has not been studied for 

marine reptiles. The potential for masking in reptiles would be limited to certain sound exposures due to 

their limited hearing range to broadband low frequency sounds and lower sensitivity to noise in the 

marine environment. Only continuous human-generated sounds that have a significant low-frequency 

component, are not of brief duration, and are of sufficient received level could create a meaningful 

masking situation. While explosives produce intense, broadband sounds with significant low-frequency 

content, these sounds are very brief with limited potential to mask relevant sounds.

There is evidence that reptiles may rely primarily on senses other than hearing for interacting with their 

environment, such as vision (Narazaki et al., 2013), magnetic orientation (Avens & Lohmann, 2003; 

Putman et al., 2015a), and scent (Shine et al., 2004b). Any effect of masking may be mediated by 

reliance on other environmental inputs.

3.8.3.2.1.5 Behavioral Reactions

There are no observations of behavioral reactions by sea turtles to exposure to explosive sounds. 

Impulsive signals, particularly at close range, have a rapid rise time and higher instantaneous peak 

pressure than other signal types, making them more likely to cause startle responses or avoidance 

responses. Although explosive sources are more energetic than air guns, the few studies of sea turtles 

responses to air guns may show the types of behavioral responses that sea turtles may have towards 

explosives. General research findings regarding behavioral reactions from sea turtles due to exposure to 

impulsive sounds, such as those associated with explosions, are discussed in detail in Behavioral 

Reactions to Impulsive Sound Sources under Section 3.8.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors).

3.8.3.2.1.6 Long-Term Consequences

For reptiles present in the Study Area, long-term consequences to individuals and populations due to 

acoustic exposures have not been studied. Therefore, long term consequences to reptiles due to 

explosive exposures are considered following Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing 

Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities).

Long-term consequences to a population are determined by examining changes in the population 

growth rate. Physical effects that could lead to a reduction in the population growth rate include 

mortality or injury, which could remove animals from the reproductive pool, and permanent hearing 

impairment, which could impact navigation. The long-term consequences due to individual behavioral 

reactions and short-term instances of physiological stress are especially difficult to predict because 

individual experience over time can create complex contingencies. It is more likely that any long-term 

consequences to an individual would be a result of costs accumulated over a season, year, or life stage 

due to multiple behavioral or stress responses resulting from exposures to multiple stressors over 

significant periods of time. Conversely, some reptiles may habituate to or become tolerant of repeated 

acoustic exposures over time, learning to ignore a stimulus that in the past did not accompany any overt 

threat. For example, loggerhead sea turtles exposed to air guns with a source SPL of 179 dB re 1 μPa 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-58

3.8 Reptiles

initially exhibited avoidance reactions. However, they may have habituated to the sound source after 

multiple exposures since a habituation behavior was retained when exposures were separated by 

several days (Moein Bartol et al., 1995). More research is needed to better understand the long-term 

consequences of human-made noise on reptiles, although intermittent exposures are assumed to be 

less likely to have lasting consequences.

3.8.3.2.2 Impacts from Explosives

This section analyzes the impacts on reptiles due to in-water explosives that would be used during Navy 

training and testing activities, synthesizing the background information presented above.

3.8.3.2.2.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Explosives

Potential impacts considered are mortality, injury, hearing loss due to threshold shift (permanent or 

temporary), masking of other biologically relevant sounds, physiological stress, and changes in behavior. 

To estimate the potential for mortality, injury, hearing loss, or behavioral changes, the Navy performed 

a quantitative analysis to estimate the number of instances that sea turtles could be affected by 

explosives used during Navy training and testing activities. The quantitative analysis takes into account:

• criteria and thresholds used to predict impacts from explosives (described below)

• sea turtle spatial density as described in Section 3.8.3.1.2.1 (Methods for Analyzing Impacts 

from Sonar and Other Transducers — Sea Turtle Density)

• the Navy Acoustic Effects Model as described in Section 3.8.3.1.2.1 (Methods for Analyzing 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers — The Navy Acoustic Effects Model) and as 

discussed below with additional information about assumptions made for explosive modeling

A summary of the quantitative analysis is provided below. A detailed explanation of this analysis is in the 

technical report Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine 

Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a).

Criteria and Thresholds used to Predict Impacts on Sea Turtles from Explosives

Mortality and Injury from Explosives 

As discussed above in Section 3.8.3.2.1.1 (Injury), two metrics have been identified as predictive of 

injury: impulse and peak pressure. Peak pressure contributes to the “crack” or “stinging” sensation of a 

blast wave, compared to the “thump” associated with received impulse. Older military reports 

documenting exposure of human divers to blast exposure generally describe peak pressure exposures 

around 100 psi (237 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak) to feel like slight pressure or stinging sensation on skin, with 

no enduring effects (Christian & Gaspin, 1974).

Two sets of thresholds are provided for use in non-auditory injury assessment. The exposure thresholds 

are used to estimate the number of animals that may be affected during Navy training and testing 

activities (Table 3.8-5). The thresholds for the farthest range to effect are used to estimate the farthest 

range at which a mortality or non-auditory injury could occur based on predictions from experimental 

data and are useful for assessing mitigation effectiveness. Increasing animal mass and increasing animal 

depth both increase the impulse thresholds (i.e., decrease susceptibility), whereas smaller mass and 

decreased animal depth reduce the impulse thresholds (i.e., increase susceptibility). For impact 

assessment, sea turtle populations are assumed to be 5 percent adult and 95 percent sub-adult. This 

adult to sub-adult population ratio is estimated from what is known about the population age structure 

for sea turtles. Sea turtles typically lay multiple clutches of 100 or more eggs with little parental 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-59

3.8 Reptiles

investment and generally have low survival in early life. However, sea turtles that are able to survive 

past early life generally have high age-specific survival in later life. 

The derivation of these injury criteria and the species mass estimates are provided in the technical 

report Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2017c).

Table 3.8-5: Criteria to Quantitatively Assess Non-Auditory Injury due to Underwater 

Explosions

Impact 

Category Exposure Threshold Threshold for Farthest Range to Effect

Mortality1 144MM1 3� �1 + DD

10.1

�

1 6�

Pa-s 103MM1 3� �1 + DD

10.1

�

1 6�

Pa-s

Injury1 65.8M1 3� �1 + D

10.1

�

1 6�

Pa-s 47.5M1 3� �1 + D

10.1

�

1 6�

Pa-s

243 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak 237 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak

1 Impulse delivered over 20% of the estimated lung resonance period. See U.S. 

Department of the Navy (2017c).

Note: dB re 1 μPa = decibels referenced to 1 micropascal, SPL = sound pressure level

When explosive munitions (e.g., a bomb or missile) detonates, fragments of the weapon are thrown at 

high-velocity from the detonation point, which can injure or kill sea turtles if they are struck. Risk of 

fragment injury reduces exponentially with distance as the fragment density is reduced. Fragments 

underwater tend to be larger than fragments produced by in-air explosions (Swisdak & Montaro, 1992). 

Underwater, the friction of the water would quickly slow these fragments to a point where they no 

longer pose a threat. On the other hand, the blast wave from an explosive detonation moves efficiently 

through the seawater. Because the ranges to mortality and injury due to exposure to the blast wave are 

likely to far exceed the zone where fragments could injure or kill an animal, the above thresholds are 

assumed to encompass risk due to fragmentation. 

Auditory Weighting Functions

Animals are not equally sensitive to noise at all frequencies. To capture the frequency-dependent nature 

of the effects of noise, auditory weighting functions are used. Auditory weighting functions are 

mathematical functions that adjust received sound levels to emphasize ranges of best hearing and deemphasize ranges with less or no auditory sensitivity. The adjusted received sound level is referred to as 

a weighted received sound level. 

The auditory weighting function for sea turtles is shown in Figure 3.8-7. The derivation of this weighting 

function is described in the technical report Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Effects Analysis (Phase III) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017c). The frequencies around the top portion 

of the function, where the amplitude is closest to zero, are emphasized, while the frequencies below 

and above this range (where amplitude declines) are de-emphasized, when summing acoustic energy 

received by a sea turtle.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-60

3.8 Reptiles

Source: (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017c)

Notes: dB = decibels, kHz = kilohertz

Figure 3.8-7: Auditory Weighting Functions for Sea Turtles

Hearing Loss from Explosives

No studies of hearing loss have been conducted on sea turtles. Therefore, sea turtle susceptibility to 

hearing loss due to an acoustic exposure is evaluated using knowledge about sea turtle hearing abilities 

in combination with non-impulsive auditory effect data from other species (marine mammals and fish). 

This yields sea turtle exposure functions, shown in Figure 3.8-8, which are mathematical functions that 

relate the SELs for onset of TTS or PTS to the frequency of the sonar sound exposure. The derivation of 

the sea turtle exposure functions are provided in the technical report Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. 

Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase III) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017c).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-61

3.8 Reptiles

Notes: kHz = kilohertz, SEL = Sound Exposure Level, dB re 1 μPa2s = decibels referenced to 1 micropascal squared 

second. The solid black curve is the exposure function for TTS onset and the dashed black curve is the 

exposure function for PTS onset. Small dashed lines and asterisks indicate the SEL thresholds and most 

sensitive frequency for TTS and PTS.

Figure 3.8-8: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Impulsive Sounds

For impulsive sounds, hearing loss in other species has also been observed to be related to the 

unweighted peak pressure of a received sound. Because this data does not exist for sea turtles, 

unweighted peak pressure thresholds for TTS and PTS were developed by applying relationships 

observed between impulsive peak pressure TTS thresholds and auditory sensitivity in marine mammals 

to sea turtles. This results in dual-metric hearing loss criteria for sea turtles for impulsive sound 

exposure: the SEL-based exposure functions in Figure 3.8-8 and the peak pressure thresholds in Table 

3.8-6. The derivation of the sea turtle impulsive peak pressure TTS and PTS thresholds are provided in 

the technical report Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects Analysis (Phase 

III) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017c).

Table 3.8-6: TTS and PTS Peak Pressure Thresholds Derived for Sea Turtles Exposed to 

Impulsive Sounds

Auditory Effect Unweighted Peak Pressure Threshold

TTS 226 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak

PTS 232 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak

Notes: dB re 1 μPa = decibels referenced to 1 micropascal, PTS = 

permanent threshold shift, SPL = sound pressure level, 

TTS = temporary threshold shift
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-62

3.8 Reptiles

The Navy Acoustic Effects Model

The Navy Acoustic Effects Model is described above in Section 3.8.3.1.2.1 (Methods for Analyzing 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers — The Navy Acoustic Effects Model). Assumptions in the 

Navy model intentionally err on the side of overestimation when there are unknowns. Many explosions 

from munitions such as bombs and missiles actually occur upon impact with above-water targets. 

However, for this analysis, sources such as these were modeled as exploding at 1 m depth. In addition, 

explosives are modeled as the largest net explosive weight in each explosive bin. This overestimates the 

amount of explosive and acoustic energy entering the water. 

A detailed explanation of the Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model is provided in the technical report 

Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a).

Impact Ranges for Explosives

Ranges to effect (Tables 3.8-7 through 3.8-10) were developed in the Navy Acoustic Effects Model based 

on the thresholds for TTS, PTS, injury, and mortality discussed above.

Table 3.8-7: SEL Based Ranges to TTS and PTS for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives

Range to Effects for Explosives Bin: Sea Turtles1

Bin Source Depth 

(m)

Cluster 

Size PTS TTS

E1

0.1 1 0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

0.1 25 0

(0–0)

2

(2–5)

E2

0.1 1 0

(0–0)

0

(0–2)

0.1 10 0

(0–0)

3

(2–3)

E3

0.1 1 0

(0–0)

3

(2–3)

0.1 12 1

(0–2)

8

(8–25)

18.25 1 3

(3–3)

17

(16–18)

18.25 12 1

(0–2)

8

(8–25)

E4 3 2 17

(11–18)

57

(50–70)

15.25 2 8

(7–9)

63

(55–70)
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-63

3.8 Reptiles

Table 3.8-7: SEL Based Ranges to TTS and PTS for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives

(continued)

Range to Effects for Explosives Bin: Sea Turtles1

Bin Source Depth 

(m)

Cluster 

Size PTS TTS

19.8 2 7

(7–7)

50

(50–50)

198 2 0

(0–0)

0

(0–0)

E5

0.1 25 6

(6–25)

45

(25–280)

15.25 25 59

(55–75)

349

(240–950)

E6

0.1 1 2

(2–2)

10

(10–45)

3 1 30

(30–30)

143

(140–150)

15.25 1 17

(15–25)

133

(100–360)

E7

3 1 55

(55–55)

273

(230–360)

18.25 1 52

(45–90)

526

(330–750)

E8

0.1 1 5

(5–8)

44

(25–280)

45.75 1 40

(40–50)

289

(260–975)

E9 0.1 1 9

(9–35)

91

(40–525)

E10 0.1 1 13

(13–90)

189

(50–850)

E11

18.5 1 314

(240–525)

2,105

(1,525–2,525)

45.75 1 171

(170–200)

879

(700–2,275)

E12 0.1 1 32

(18–170)

273

(80–1,275)

1

Average distance (m) to TTS and PTS are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in 

parentheses. Values depict ranges to TTS and PTS based on the SEL metric.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-64

3.8 Reptiles

Table 3.8-8: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to TTS and PTS for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives

Range to Effects for Explosives Bin: Sea Turtles1

Bin Source Depth (m) PTS TTS

E1 0.1 35

(30–40)

66

(40–95)

E2 0.1 46

(35–50)

85

(45–95)

E3

0.1 79

(45–95)

140

(60–150)

18.25 80

(80–100)

158

(150–480)

E4

3 175

(130–210)

375

(220–410)

15.25 114

(100–190)

252

(190–420)

19.8 100

(100–100)

190

(190–190)

198 75

(75–75)

170

(170–170)

E5

0.1 122

(55–130)

223

(80–250)

15.25 144

(130–310)

278

(240–725)

E6

0.1 154

(65–170)

278

(95–320)

3 215

(190–260)

463

(330–625)

15.25 197

(170–410)

396

(310–825)

E7

3 355

(260–500)

614

(490–750)

18.25 376

(260–550)

587

(470–675)

E8

0.1 276

(260–300)

476

(370–575)

45.75 348

(280–950)

658

(500–1,775)

E9 0.1 370

(320–420)

620

(420–825)

E10 0.1 439

(230–550)

725

(330–1,025)

E11

18.5 765

(625–1,000)

1,342

(950–2,025)

45.75 657

(525–1,775)

1,096

(825–3,025)

E12 0.1 548

(400–700)

925

(500–1,275)

1

Average distance (m) to TTS and PTS are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in 

parentheses. Values depict ranges to TTS and PTS based on the peak pressure metric.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-65

3.8 Reptiles

Table 3.8-9 Ranges to Mortality for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives

Bin Animal Mass Intervals (kg)1

10 150

E1 4

(3–4)

0

(0–2)

E2 5

(5–6)

2

(2–2)

E3 11

(9–12)

4

(4–5)

E4 20

(0–45)

9

(0–16)

E5 17

(14–55)

8

(7–24)

E6 23

(19–70)

11

(9–30)

E7 89

(75–200)

36

(30–60)

E8 69

(30–140)

28

(16–35)

E9 45

(40–140)

22

(22–23)

E10 96

(50–240)

25

(25–25)

E11 277

(250–600)

122

(120–190)

E12 131

(65–400)

36

(30–80)

1

Average distance (m) to mortality is depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are in 

parentheses.

Table 3.8-10: Ranges to Injury for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives

Bin

Animal Mass Intervals (kg)1

10 150

E1 22

(21–24)

22

(21–24)

E2 26

(25–30)

26

(25–30)

E3 46

(35–65)

46

(35–65)

E4 62

(0–130)

62

(0–130)

E5 77

(45–170)

77

(45–130)

E6 98

(50–230)

98

(50–230)

E7 190

(140–550)

173

(140–460)

E8 173

(160–430)

173

(160–430)

E9 225

(220–380)

225

(220–230)
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-66

3.8 Reptiles

Table 3.8-10: Ranges to Injury for Sea Turtles Exposed to Explosives (continued)

Bin

Animal Mass Intervals (kg)1

10 150

E10 278

(140–600)

278

(140–310)

E11 544

(460–2,025)

399

(320–1,025)

E12 354

(320–1,025)

354

(320–400)

1

Average distance (m) to non-auditory injury is depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which are 

in parentheses. The ranges depicted are the further of the ranges for gastrointestinal tract injury or slight lung 

injury for an explosive bin and animal mass interval combination. 

3.8.3.2.2.2 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Activities using explosives would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions). General characteristics, quantities, and 

net explosive weights of in-water explosives used during training under Alternative 1 are provided in 

Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). Quantities and locations of fragment-producing explosives during 

training under Alternative 1 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials). Under Alternative 1, 

there could be fluctuation in the amount of explosives use that could occur annually, although potential 

impacts would be similar from year to year.

Training activities involving explosions would typically be conducted in the range complexes, with little 

explosive activity in the transit corridor. Activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive 

munitions typically occur more than 3 NM from shore.

The estimated impacts on sea turtles from explosives during training activities presented in Figure 3.8-9

are for the maximum anticipated training year under Alternative 1 (for impact tables, see Appendix E, 

Acoustic Impact Tables). Under Alternative 1, it is possible that impacts would be slightly reduced in 

some years, as explosive use would fluctuate. Sea turtle presence is limited outside of San Diego Bay in 

the Southern California portion of the Study Area; therefore, all estimated impacts are in the Hawaii 

Range Complex.

As shown in the estimates below, the quantitative analysis estimates that no sea turtles would be killed, 

however, a small number of green sea turtles would be exposed to levels of explosive sound and energy 

that could cause TTS, PTS, or injury. The quantitative analysis predicts that no olive ridley, leatherback, 

loggerhead, or hawksbill sea turtles are likely to be exposed to the levels of explosive sound and energy 

that could cause TTS, PTS, or injury during training activities under Alternative 1. Fractional estimated 

impacts per region and activity area represent the probability that the number of estimated impacts by 

effect will occur in a certain region or be due to a certain activity category.

Threshold shifts and injuries could reduce the fitness of an individual animal, causing a reduction in 

foraging success, reproduction, or increased susceptibility to predators. This reduction in fitness would 

be temporary for recoverable impacts, such as TTS, but there could be long-term consequences to some 

individuals. However, no population-level impact is expected due to the low number of estimated 

injuries for any sea turtle species relative to total population size.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-67

3.8 Reptiles

The estimates of impacts do not consider the potential benefits of implementation of mitigation. To 

avoid potential impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation that includes ceasing explosive activities 

(e.g., ceasing deployment of an explosive bomb, ceasing explosive missile firing) if a sea turtle is 

observed in the mitigation zone. In addition to this procedural mitigation, the Navy will implement 

mitigation to avoid impacts from explosives on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the 

Study Area, as described in Section 5.4.1 (Seafloor Resource Mitigation Areas). This will further reduce 

the potential for impacts on sea turtles that shelter and feed on shallow-water coral reefs and live 

hard bottom.

Reptile hearing is less sensitive than other marine animals (i.e., marine mammals), and the role of their 

underwater hearing is unclear. Reptiles’ limited hearing range (< 2 kHz) is most likely used to detect 

nearby broadband, continuous environmental sounds, such as the sounds of waves crashing on the 

beach, that may be important for identifying their habitat. Recovery from a hearing threshold shift 

begins almost immediately after the noise exposure ceases. A temporary threshold shift is expected to 

take a few minutes to a few days, depending on the severity of the initial shift, to fully recover (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2017c). If any hearing loss remains after recovery, that remaining hearing 

threshold shift is permanent. Because explosions produce broadband sounds with low-frequency 

content, hearing loss due to explosives could occur across a sea turtle’s very limited hearing range, 

reducing the distance over which relevant sounds, such as beach sounds, may be detected for the 

duration of the threshold shift.

Some reptiles may behaviorally respond to the sound of an explosive. A reptile’s behavioral response to 

a single detonation or explosive cluster is expected to be limited to a short-term startle response, as the 

duration of noise from these events is very brief. Limited research and observations from air gun studies 

suggest that if sea turtles are exposed to repetitive impulsive sounds in close proximity, they may react 

by increasing swim speed, avoiding the source, or changing their position in the water column. There is 

no evidence to suggest that any behavioral response would persist beyond the sound exposure.

A physiological stress response is assumed to accompany any injury, hearing loss, or behavioral reaction. 

A stress response is a suite of physiological changes that are meant to help an organism mitigate the 

impact of a stressor. While the stress response is a normal function for an animal dealing with natural 

stressors in their environment, chronic stress responses could reduce an individual’s fitness. Due to the 

low number of estimated impacts, it is not likely that any reptile would experience repeated stress 

responses due to explosive impacts.

Because the duration of most explosive events is brief, the potential for masking is low. The ANSI Sound 

Exposure Guidelines (Popper et al., 2014) consider masking to not be a concern for sea turtles exposed 

to explosions.

Sea snakes, the only other reptile potentially present in the Study Area, likely have hearing that is similar 

to sea turtles. It is reasonable to assume that sea snakes use their hearing similarly to sea turtles and 

that any impacts on sea snakes would be similar to impacts on sea turtles. 

Pursuant to the ESA, use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would 

have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-68

3.8 Reptiles

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Activities using explosives would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions). General characteristics, quantities, and 

net explosive weights of in-water explosives used during testing under Alternative 1 are provided in 

Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). Quantities and locations of fragment-producing explosives during 

testing under Alternative 1 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials). Testing activities that 

involve underwater detonations and explosive munitions typically occur more than 3 NM from shore 

and in the range complexes, rather than in the transit corridor. 

Under Alternative 1, the number of testing activities using explosives could fluctuate annually. The 

quantitative analysis predicts that no sea turtles of any species are likely to be killed, injured, or be 

exposed to sound that would cause TTS or PTS due to explosives during a maximum year of testing 

activities under Alternative 1. This estimate of impacts does not consider the potential benefits of 

implementation of mitigation. To further avoid potential impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation 

that includes ceasing explosive activities (e.g., ceasing deployment of an explosive bomb, ceasing 

explosive missile firing) if a sea turtle is observed in the mitigation zone. In addition to this procedural 

mitigation, the Navy will implement mitigation to avoid impacts from explosives on seafloor resources in 

mitigation areas throughout the Study Area, as described in Section 5.4.1 (Seafloor Resource Mitigation 

Areas). This will further reduce the potential for impacts on sea turtles that shelter and feed on shallowwater coral reefs and live hard-bottom.

Some reptiles may behaviorally respond to the sound of an explosive. A sea turtle response to a single 

detonation or explosive cluster is expected to be limited to a short-term startle response, as the 

duration of noise from these events is very brief. Limited research and observations from air gun studies 

(see Section 3.8.3.2.2.1, Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Explosives) suggest that if sea turtles are 

exposed to repetitive impulsive sounds in close proximity, they may react by increasing swim speed, 

avoiding the source, or changing their position in the water column. There is no evidence to suggest that 

any behavioral response would persist beyond the sound exposure.

A physiological stress response is assumed to accompany any behavioral reaction. A stress response is a 

suite of physiological changes that are meant to help an organism mitigate the impact of a stressor. 

While the stress response is a normal function for an animal dealing with natural stressors in their 

environment, chronic stress responses could reduce an individual’s fitness. Due to the low number of 

estimated impacts, it is not likely that any sea turtle would experience repeated explosive impacts.

Because the duration of most explosive events is brief, the potential for masking is low. The ANSI Sound 

Exposure Guidelines (Popper et al., 2014) consider masking to not be a concern for sea turtles exposed 

to explosions.

Sea snakes, the only other reptile potentially present in the Study Area, likely have hearing that is similar 

to sea turtles. It is reasonable to assume that sea snakes use their hearing similarly to sea turtles and 

that any impacts on sea snakes would be similar to impacts on sea turtles. 

With so few impacts estimated per year, it is very unlikely the same animal would be impacted more 

than once in a given year due to exposure to high levels of explosive energy or sound. Considering these 

factors, and the low number of overall estimated impacts, long-term consequences for the population 

would not be expected.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-69

3.8 Reptiles

Pursuant to the ESA, use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would 

have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No impacts are estimated for testing activities. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.8-9: Green Sea Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing.

3.8.3.2.2.3 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Under Alternative 2, the maximum number of training activities using explosives could occur every year. 

Activities using explosives would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions). General characteristics, quantities, and 

net explosive weights of in-water explosives used during training under Alternative 2 are provided in 

Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). Quantities and locations of fragment-producing explosives during 

training under Alternative 2 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-70

3.8 Reptiles

Training activities involving explosions would typically be conducted in the range complexes, with little 

explosive activity in the transit corridor. Activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive 

munitions typically occur more than 3 NM from shore.

The impacts due to the use of explosives during a maximum year of training under Alternative 2 are 

presented in Figure 3.8-10. Estimated impacts for Alternative 2 are identical to those described in 

Section 3.8.3.2.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1).

As shown in the estimates below, the quantitative analysis estimates that no sea turtles would be killed, 

however, a small number of green sea turtles would be exposed to levels of explosive sound and energy 

that could cause TTS, PTS, and injury. The quantitative analysis predicts that no olive ridley, leatherback, 

loggerhead, or hawksbill sea turtles are likely to be exposed to the levels of explosive sound and energy 

that could cause TTS, PTS, or injury during training activities under Alternative 2. Fractional estimated 

impacts per region and activity area represent the probability that the number of estimated impacts by 

effect will occur in a certain region or be due to a certain activity category. This estimate of impacts does 

not consider the potential benefits of implementation of mitigation. To further avoid potential impacts, 

the Navy will implement mitigation that includes ceasing explosive activities (e.g., ceasing deployment of 

an explosive bomb, ceasing explosive missile firing) if a sea turtle is observed in the mitigation zone. In 

addition to this procedural mitigation, the Navy will implement mitigation to avoid impacts from 

explosives on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area, as described in Section 

5.4.1 (Seafloor Resource Mitigation Areas). This will further reduce the potential for impacts on sea 

turtles that shelter and feed on shallow-water coral reefs and live hard-bottom.

Pursuant to the ESA, use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would 

have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Under Alternative 2, the maximum number of testing activities could occur every year. Activities using 

explosives would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives) and Appendix A (Activity Descriptions). General characteristics, quantities, and net 

explosive weights of in-water explosives used during testing under Alternative 2 are provided in Section 

3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). Quantities and locations of fragment-producing explosives during testing 

under Alternative 2 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials).

Activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive munitions typically occur more than 3 NM 

from shore and in the range complexes rather than in the transit corridor. 

The impacts due to the use of explosives during a maximum year of testing under Alternative 2 are

identical to Alternative 1, as described above in Section 3.8.3.2.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives under 

Alternative 1 for Training Activities). The quantitative analysis predicts that no sea turtles of any species 

are likely to be killed, injured, or be exposed to sound that would cause TTS or PTS due to explosives 

during a maximum year of testing activities under Alternative 2. This estimate of impacts does not 

consider the potential benefits of implementation of mitigation. To further avoid potential impacts, the 

Navy will implement mitigation that includes ceasing explosive activities (e.g., ceasing deployment of an 

explosive bomb, ceasing explosive missile firing) if a sea turtle is observed in the mitigation zone. In 

addition to this procedural mitigation, the Navy will implement mitigation to avoid impacts from 

explosives on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area, as described in Section 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-71

3.8 Reptiles

5.4.1 (Seafloor Resource Mitigation Areas). This will further reduce the potential for impacts on sea 

turtles that shelter and feed on shallow-water coral reefs and live hard-bottom.

Pursuant to the ESA, use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would 

have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the 

designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles.

Region and Activity bar charts show categories +/- 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Estimated impacts most years would 

be less based on fewer explosions. No impacts are estimated for testing activities. ASW: Anti-Submarine Warfare

Figure 3.8-10: Green Sea Turtle Impacts Estimated per Year from the Maximum Number of 

Explosions During Training and Testing

3.8.3.2.2.4 Impacts from Explosives Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various explosive stressors (e.g., explosive shock wave and sound; 

explosive fragments) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline 

conditions of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after 

cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-72

3.8 Reptiles

3.8.3.3 Energy Stressors

This section analyzes the potential impacts of energy stressors used during training and testing activities 

within the Study Area. This section includes analysis of the potential impacts of: (1) in-water 

electromagnetic devices and (2) high-energy lasers. General discussion of impacts can also be found in 

Section 3.0.3.6.2 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Energy-Producing Activities).

3.8.3.3.1 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices

For a discussion of the types of activities that create an electromagnetic field underwater, refer to 

Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices), and for information on locations and the number of activates

proposed for each alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices). The devices 

producing an electromagnetic field are towed or unmanned mine countermeasure systems. The 

electromagnetic field is produced to simulate a vessel’s magnetic field. In an actual mine-clearing 

operation, the intent is that the electromagnetic field would trigger an enemy mine designed to sense a 

vessel’s magnetic field.

Although the yellow-bellied sea snake can swim long distances in the open ocean, this species seems to 

rely on currents and temperature cues for orientation rather than electromagnetic fields. There has 

been some literature that discusses potential adverse impacts of electromagnetic radiation on breeding 

activity of various species (Gill et al., 2014; Hartwell et al., 1991; Hore, 2012; Larkin & Sutherland, 1977; 

Thomsen et al., 2015); however, no yellow-bellied snake breeding activity occurs in the Study Area. 

Because yellow-bellied sea snake reproduction and orientation would not be affected by 

electromagnetic devices, the analysis for electromagnetic devices and the impacts that may potentially 

occur from their use is limited to sea turtles. 

Well over a century ago, electromagnetic fields were introduced into the marine environment within the 

Study Area from a wide variety of sources (e.g., power transmission cables), yet little is known about the 

potential impacts on marine life. There is consensus, however, that magnetic fields and other cues (e.g., 

visual cues), are important for sea turtle orientation and navigation (Lohmann et al., 1997; Putman et 

al., 2015b). Studies on behavioral responses to magnetic fields have been conducted on green and 

loggerhead sea turtles. Loggerheads were found to be sensitive to field intensities ranging from 0.005 to 

4,000 microteslas, and green sea turtles were found to be sensitive to field intensities from 29.3 to 200 

microteslas (Normandeau et al., 2011). Because these data are the best available information, this 

analysis assumes that the responses would be similar for other sea turtle species. Sea turtles use 

geomagnetic fields to navigate at sea, and therefore changes in those fields could impact their 

movement patterns (Lohmann & Lohmann, 1996; Lohmann et al., 1997). Turtles in all life stages orient 

to the earth’s magnetic field to position themselves in oceanic currents; this helps them locate seasonal 

feeding and breeding grounds and to return to their nesting sites (Lohmann & Lohmann, 1996; Lohmann 

et al., 1997). Experiments show that sea turtles can detect changes in magnetic fields, which may cause 

them to deviate from their original direction (Lohmann & Lohmann, 1996; Lohmann et al., 1997). For 

example, Teuten et al. (2007) found that loggerhead hatchlings tested in a magnetic field of 52 

microteslas swam eastward, and when the field was decreased to 43 microteslas, the hatchlings swam 

westward. Sea turtles also use nonmagnetic cues for navigation and migration, and these additional 

cues may compensate for variations in magnetic fields. Putman et al. (2015b) conducted experiments on 

loggerhead hatchlings and determined that electromagnetic fields may be more important for sea turtle 

navigation in areas that may constrain a turtle’s ability to navigate (cold temperatures or displacement 

from a migration route). The findings of this study suggest that the magnetic orientation behavior of sea 

turtles is closely associated with ocean ecology and geomagnetic environment (Putman et al., 2015b).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-73

3.8 Reptiles

Liboff (2015) determined that freshly hatched sea turtles are able to detect and use the local 

geomagnetic field as a reference point before embarking a post-hatchling migration. Liboff proposed 

that the information is transferred from the mother to the egg through some undetermined 

geomagnetic imprinting process (Liboff, 2015). Aspects of electromagnetic stressors that are applicable 

to marine organisms in general are described in Section 3.0.3.6.2 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing 

Effects from Energy-Producing Activities).

As stated in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices), the static magnetic fields generated 

by electromagnetic devices used in training and testing activities are of relatively minute strength. The 

maximum strength of the magnetic field is approximately 2,300 microteslas, with the strength of the 

field decreasing further from the device. At a distance of 4 m from the source of a 2,300 microtesla

magnetic field, the strength of the field is approximately 50 microteslas, which is within the range of the 

Earth’s magnetic field (25 to 65 microteslas). At 8 m, the strength of the field is approximately 

40 percent of the Earth’s magnetic field, and only 10 percent at 24 m away from a 2,300 microtesla

magnetic field at the source. At a distance of 200 m the magnetic field would be approximately 

0.2 microteslas (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2005), which is less than one percent of the strength of 

the Earth’s magnetic field. This is likely within the range of detection for sea turtle species, but at the 

lower end of the sensitivity range.

3.8.3.3.1.1 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices), training activities that use inwater electromagnetic devices would occur within the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern California

Range Complex. All sea turtle species in the Study Area could occur in these locations and could be 

exposed to the electromagnetic fields.

If located in the immediate area (within about 200 m) where electromagnetic devices are being used,

adult, sub-adult, and hatchling sea turtles could deviate from their original movements, but the extent 

of this disturbance is likely to be inconsequential because of the low likelihood of a sea turtle occurring 

within 200 m of the device and the movement through the area of both the turtle and the device. In 

addition, potential impacts on sea turtles are not anticipated because any potential effects are likely 

limited to a few minor disturbances, which would be similar to natural stressors regularly occurring in 

the animal’s life cycle. The electromagnetic devices used in training activities are not expected to cause 

more than a short-term behavioral disturbance to sea turtles because of the: (1) relatively low intensity 

of the magnetic fields generated (0.2 microteslas at 200 m from the source), (2) very localized potential 

impact area, and (3) temporary duration of the activities (hours). Potential impacts of exposure to 

electromagnetic stressors are not expected to result in substantial changes in an individual’s behavior, 

growth, survival, annual reproductive success, lifetime reproductive success (fitness), or species 

recruitment, and are not expected to result in population-level impacts.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities 

would not occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, 

hawksbill, olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles (because close proximity to an 

electromagnetic field may cause temporary disorientation or temporarily disrupt migratory direction). 

The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-74

3.8 Reptiles

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices), offshore testing activities that 

use in-water electromagnetic devices would occur within the Hawaii Range Complex and the Southern 

California Range Complex. All sea turtle species in the Study Area could occur in these locations and 

could be exposed to the electromagnetic fields. 

If located in the immediate area (within about 200 m) where electromagnetic devices are being used, 

adult, sub-adult, and hatchling sea turtles could deviate from their original movements, but the extent 

of this disturbance is likely to be inconsequential because of the low likelihood of a sea turtle occurring 

within 200 m of the device and the movement through the area of both the turtle and the device. In 

addition, potential impacts on sea turtles are not anticipated because any potential effects are likely 

limited to a few minor disturbances, which would be similar to natural stressors regularly occurring in 

the animal’s life cycle. The electromagnetic devices used in training activities are not expected to cause 

more than a short-term behavioral disturbance to sea turtles because of the: (1) relatively low intensity 

of the magnetic fields generated (0.2 microteslas at 200 m from the source), (2) very localized potential 

impact area, and (3) temporary duration of the activities (hours). Potential impacts of exposure to 

electromagnetic stressors are not expected to result in substantial changes in an individual’s behavior, 

growth, survival, annual reproductive success, lifetime reproductive success (fitness), or species 

recruitment, and are not expected to result in population-level impacts.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities 

would not occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, 

hawksbill, olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles (because close proximity to an 

electromagnetic field may cause temporary disorientation or temporarily disrupt migratory direction). 

The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.8.3.3.1.2 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices), the locations and numbers of 

training activities that use in-water electromagnetic devices would be identical under Alternatives 1 and 

2. Although the numbers of annual activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 are the same, there is a slight 

increase in the number of activities proposed over five years. The increase in events does not 

measurably increase the probability for sea turtles to be exposed to electromagnetic energy; nor does it 

increase the potential for impacts on sea turtles to occur. As discussed for training activities that use 

electromagnetic devices under Alternative 1 (Section 3.8.3.3.1.1, Impacts from In-Water 

Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1), sea turtles with the potential to co-occur with these 

training events remain the same, and potential impacts would be temporary and minor, and natural 

behavioral patterns would not be significantly altered or abandoned.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities 

would not occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, 

hawksbill, olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles (because close proximity to an 

electromagnetic field may cause temporary disorientation or temporarily disrupt migratory direction). 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-75

3.8 Reptiles

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices) the locations, numbers of testing 

activities, and potential effects associated with in-water electromagnetic device use would be the same 

under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.8.3.3.1.1 (Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices

Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on sea turtles.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities 

would not occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, 

hawksbill, olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles (because close proximity to an 

electromagnetic field may cause temporary disorientation or temporarily disrupt migratory direction).

3.8.3.3.1.3 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. Various energy stressors (e.g., in-water electromagnetic devices) 

would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities.

3.8.3.3.2 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers), high-energy laser weapons testing involves the use of up to 

30 kilowatts of directed energy as a weapon against small surface vessels and airborne targets. These 

weapons systems are deployed from a surface ship to create small but critical failures in potential 

targets and used at short ranges from the target.

This section analyzes the potential impacts of high-energy lasers on sea turtles. This section also includes 

an analysis of probability for each testing alternative. Sea snakes were not included in the model—it is 

generally assumed that sea snake occurrence within the Study Area is very rare. Because of the low 

density of sea snakes in open ocean areas where high-energy laser testing would occur, sea snakes are 

assumed to not be impacted by high-energy laser strikes due to the extremely low likelihood of 

exposure. Therefore, sea snakes are not discussed further in the analysis for potential impacts on 

reptiles by testing activities using high-energy lasers.

The primary concern for high-energy weapons testing is the potential for a sea turtle to be struck by a 

high-energy laser beam at or near the water's surface, which could result in injury or death, resulting 

from traumatic burns from the beam. 

Sea turtles could be exposed to a laser only if the beam missed the target. Should the laser strike the sea 

surface, individual sea turtles at or near the surface could be exposed. The potential for exposure to a 

high-energy laser beam decreases as the water depth increases. Because laser platforms are typically 

helicopters and ships, sea turtles at sea would likely transit away or submerge in response to other 

stressors, such as ship or aircraft noise, although some sea turtles may not exhibit a response to an 

oncoming vessel or aircraft, increasing the risk of contact with the laser beam.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-76

3.8 Reptiles

3.8.3.3.2.1 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As shown in Table 3.0-13, no activities using high-energy lasers would occur as part of training activities. 

No impacts from high-energy lasers would occur under Alternative 1 training activities. 

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers), high-energy laser use associated with testing activities would 

occur within the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern California Range Complex. Navy testing activities 

have the potential to expose sea turtles that occur within these areas to this energy stressor.

Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) includes a conservative 

probability estimate for a direct laser strike on a sea turtle during testing activities. The analysis is overpredictive and conservative in that it assumes: (1) that all sea turtles would be at or near the surface 100 

percent of the time, and would not account for the duration of time a sea turtle would be diving; and (2) 

that sea turtles are stationary, which does not account for any movement or any potential avoidance of 

the training or testing activity in response to other stressors (e.g., vessel noise). As with modeling for 

acoustics and explosives impacts, the sea turtle guild is used as a conservative proxy for individual sea 

turtle species. As shown in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses)

the probability for a direct strike on a sea turtle is extremely low. The modeling results show that 

0.000064 loggerhead sea turtles would be exposed to a high-energy laser strike. Based on the 

assumptions used in the statistical probability analysis, there is a high level of certainty that a sea turtle 

strike by a high-energy laser would be extremely unlikely.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.8.3.3.2.2 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As shown in Table 3.0-13, no activities using high-energy lasers would occur as part of training activities. 

No impacts from high-energy lasers would occur under Alternative 2 training activities.

Impacts from Lasers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with high-energy laser use would be 

the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.8.3.3.2.1 (Impacts from High-Energy Lasers 

Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on sea turtles.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles.

3.8.3.3.2.3 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Lasers Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Various energy stressors (e.g., high-energy lasers) would not be introduced into 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-77

3.8 Reptiles

the marine environment. Therefore baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain 

unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.8.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of physical disturbance and strike 

stressors used by Navy during training and testing activities within the Study Area. The physical 

disturbance and strike stressors that may impact sea turtles and include: (1) Navy vessels; (2) in-water 

devices; (3) military expended materials, including non-explosive practice munitions and fragments from 

high-explosive munitions; and (4) seafloor devices. General discussion of impacts can also be found in 

Section 3.0.3.6.3 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Physical Disturbance or Strike).

The way a physical disturbance may affect a sea turtle would depend in part on the relative size of the 

object, the speed of the object, the location of the sea turtle in the water column, and the behavioral 

reaction of the animal. It is not known at what point or through what combination of stimuli (visual, 

acoustic, or through detection in pressure changes) a sea turtle becomes aware of a vessel or other 

potential physical disturbances prior to reacting or being struck. 

Like marine mammals, if a sea turtle reacts to physical disturbance, the individual must stop its activity 

and divert its attention in response to the stressor. The energetic costs of reacting to a stressor will 

depend on the specific situation, but one can assume that the caloric requirements of a response may 

reduce the amount of energy available for other biological functions. For sea turtles who have resident 

home ranges near Navy activities, the relative concentration of Navy vessels would cause sea turtles to 

respond repeatedly to the exposure. This repeated response would interrupt normal daily routines (e.g., 

foraging activities) more often than resident nearshore turtles not near Navy installations or in open 

ocean areas where Navy vessel traffic is less concentrated, though animals may become habituated to 

repeated stimuli. If a strike does occur, the cost to the individual could range from slight injury to death.

3.8.3.4.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices

Vessels

The majority of the training and testing activities under all alternatives involve some level of vessel 

activity. For a discussion on the types of activities that use in-water devices see Appendix B (Activity 

Stressor Matrices). Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices) Table 3.0-16 provides a list of 

representative vessels used in training and testing activities, along with vessel lengths and speeds used 

in training and testing activities.

Sea turtle strikes can cause permanent injury or death from bleeding or other trauma, paralysis and 

subsequent drowning, infection, or inability to feed. Apart from the severity of the physical strike, the 

likelihood and rate of a turtle’s recovery from a strike may be influenced by its age, reproductive state, 

and general condition. Much of what is written about recovery from vessel strikes is inferred from 

observing individuals sometime after a strike. Numerous sea turtles bear scars that appear to have been 

caused by propeller cuts or collisions with vessel hulls (Hazel et al., 2007b; Lutcavage & Lutz, 1997; 

Lutcavage et al., 1997b). Fresh wounds on some stranded animals may strongly suggest a vessel strike as 

the cause of death. The actual incidence of recovery versus death is not known, given available data. 

Sea turtles spend a majority of their time submerged (Renaud & Carpenter, 1994; Sasso & Witzell, 

2006), though Hazel et al. (2009) and Hazel et al. (2007b) showed most species of sea turtles staying 

within the top 3 m of water despite deeper water being available. Any of the sea turtle species found in 

the Study Area can occur at or near the surface in open ocean and coastal areas, whether feeding or 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-78

3.8 Reptiles

periodically surfacing to breathe. Distribution of species is not uniform, however. Typically in Hawaii, 

loggerheads and olive ridleys are not seen in nearshore habitats because they are either transiting 

(relatively briefly occurring within nearshore waters) or are in more pelagic habitats. Similarly for San 

Diego Bay, green sea turtles are regularly seen within the bay, but not other species. Green sea turtles 

are the most abundant sea turtles found in the nearshore environment of the Study Area, and in Hawaii, 

are observed to bask on land. Loggerheads, considered to be the most generalist of sea turtle species in 

terms of feeding and foraging behavior, apparently exhibit varied dive behavior that is linked to the 

quantity and quality of available resources. Foley et al. (2011) found that loggerheads spent 7.3 percent 

of time at the surface (associated with breathing), 42 percent of time under the surface but close to the 

surface within one body length, and 44 percent of time within the water column (the remaining time 

observed at or near the seafloor). Leatherback sea turtles are more likely to feed at or near the surface 

in open ocean areas. It is important to note that leatherbacks can forage for jellyfish at depth but bring 

them to the surface to ingest (Benson et al., 2007; Fossette et al., 2007; James & Herman, 2001). Basking 

on the water’s surface is common for all species within the Study Area as a strategy to thermoregulate, 

and the reduced activity associated with basking may pose higher risks for sea turtle strikes because of a 

likely reduced capacity to avoid cues. Green, hawksbill, and loggerhead sea turtles are more likely to 

forage nearshore, and although they may feed along the seafloor, they surface periodically to breathe 

while feeding and moving between nearshore habitats.

In an attempt to determine traffic patterns for Navy and non-Navy vessels, the Center for Naval Analysis 

(Mintz & Parker, 2006; Mintz, 2012) conducted a review of historic data for commercial vessels, coastal 

shipping patterns, and Navy vessels. Within the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area, significant 

commercial traffic is present as vessels bring shipments of goods to Hawaii as well as shipments 

between the islands. Trans-Pacific vessel traffic that passes through offshore waters near Hawaii are 

associated with transits between Asian ports and ports along the U.S. west coast or the Panama Canal.

Commercial and non-Navy traffic, which included cargo vessels, bulk carriers, passenger vessels, and oil 

tankers (all over 20 m in length), was heaviest along the U.S. West Coast between San Diego and Seattle 

(Puget Sound) and between the Hawaiian Islands and the Panama Canal (Mintz & Parker, 2006). Welldefined International shipping lanes within the Study Area are also heavily traveled. Compared to 

coastal vessel activity, there was relatively little concentration of vessels in the other portions of the 

Study Area (Mintz & Parker, 2006). Vessel traffic data from 2009 shows that Navy vessels accounted for 

less than 10 percent of the total large vessel traffic (from estimated vessel hours) in the Study Area 

(Mintz, 2012). In the Southern California Range Complex where Navy vessel activity is concentrated 

within the exclusive economic zone, the Navy vessels accounted for 24 percent of the total large vessel 

traffic (Mintz, 2012).

A total of 298 sea turtle strandings were reported in the Hawaiian Islands, from all causes between 1982 

and 2007. Based on an observed annual average of eight green sea turtles stranded in the Main 

Hawaiian Islands between 1982 and 2007, and after applying a correction factor for those that do not 

strand, NMFS estimated 25–50 green sea turtles are killed by vessel strike annually in the Main Hawaiian 

Islands (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2008b). A total of two hawksbill sea turtles were observed 

stranded with obvious boat strike injuries in the Main Hawaiian Islands between 1982 and 2008. The 

majority of strandings are likely the result of strikes with relatively small, but high speed fishing boats 

making thousands of trips through Hawaiian nearshore waters annually. As a term and condition for 

NMFS’s Reinitiated Biological Opinion, the Navy prepared an analysis of all sea turtle strandings within 

the Hawaii Range Complex. The vast majority of the strandings were green sea turtles (96 percent) with 

the remaining reported as hawksbill sea turtles or unidentifiable sea turtles. Most of these strandings 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-79

3.8 Reptiles

were from Oahu (approximately 70 percent). Of all reported strandings, 7 percent were attributed to 

vessel strike, with most (34 percent) from unspecified causes and 27 percent from fisheries interactions. 

The remainder were attributed to disease, predation, entrapment, and natural mortality.

The frequency of vessel strike in open ocean waters surrounding Hawaii is much less clear. It is assumed 

if an animal is struck in waters further from shore, it is less likely to strand and be documented. There 

has been one recent report of a stranded turtle in Hawaii that appeared as though it may have been 

struck by a large propeller (such as those used by some Navy vessels) (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2008b). However, it is more likely turtles struck by large propellers would not strand because the 

damage to the carcass would be so extensive as to facilitate sinking or consumption by scavengers.

There is not a high level of sea turtle stranding data on the U.S. West Coast (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2008b). This does not necessarily indicate vessel strike is less common off the U.S. West Coast 

versus Hawaii. Ocean currents, vessel sizes, or other factors may simply affect the likelihood a struck 

turtle will strand. Regardless, this lack of stranding data makes estimating the frequency of sea turtle 

vessel strike off the U.S. West Coast difficult. Most observations of stranded sea turtles in Southern 

California since 1990 occurred within San Diego Bay, where a population of green sea turtles resides. 

Between 1990 and 2014, 10 green sea turtle strandings were observed with evidence of boat collision 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2008b). No other sea turtle species have stranded near or in the 

Southern California Range Complex that have had evidence of boat strike (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2008b). As a term and condition for NMFS’s Reinitiated Biological Opinion, the Navy prepared 

an analysis of all sea turtle strandings within Southern California for 2015. Only seven reported 

strandings of sea turtles were reported in 2015. Four of these strandings were green sea turtles, two 

were loggerheads, and one was olive ridley. Only three sea turtles were reported as struck by vessels, all 

of whom were green sea turtles. These strandings were reported within San Diego Bay and were located 

in areas that are not used by the Navy (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015).

Disturbance of sea turtles from vessel movements is expected to occur with more frequency than actual 

strikes. Visual cues from vessels nearby and vessel noise would likely induce short-term behavioral 

changes, such as cessation of foraging activities or moving away from the disturbance.

In-Water Devices

In-water devices are generally smaller (several inches to 111 ft.) than most Navy vessels. For a discussion 

on the types of activities that use in-water devices see Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices), and for 

information on where in-water devices are used, and how many exercises would occur under each 

alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices).

Devices that could pose a collision risk to sea turtles are those operated at high speeds and are 

unmanned. The Navy reviewed torpedo design features and a large number of previous anti-submarine 

warfare torpedo exercises to assess the potential of torpedo strikes on marine mammals, and its 

conclusions are also relevant to sea turtles. The acoustic homing programs of Navy torpedoes are 

sophisticated and would not confuse the acoustic signature of a marine mammal with a 

submarine/target. It is reasonable to assume that acoustic signatures of sea turtles would also not be 

confused with a submarine or target. All exercise torpedoes are recovered and refurbished for eventual 

re-use. Review of the exercise torpedo records indicates there has never been an impact on a sea turtle. 

In thousands of exercises in which torpedoes were fired or in-water devices used, there have been no 

recorded or reported instances of a marine species strike from a torpedo or any other in-water device.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-80

3.8 Reptiles

Since some in-water devices are identical to support craft, (typically less than 15 m in length), sea turtles 

could respond to the physical presence of the device similar to how they respond to the physical 

presence of a vessel (see Table 3.0-17). Physical disturbance from the use of in-water devices is not 

expected to result in more than a momentary behavioral response. These responses would likely include 

avoidance behaviors (swimming away or diving) and cessation of normal activities (e.g., foraging). As 

with an approaching vessel, not all sea turtles would exhibit avoidance behaviors and be at higher risk of 

a strike.

In-water devices, such as unmanned underwater vehicles, that move slowly through the water are 

highly unlikely to strike sea turtles because the turtle could easily avoid the object. Towed devices are 

unlikely to strike a sea turtle because of the observers on the towing platform and other standard safety 

measures employed when towing in-water devices. Sea turtles that occur in areas that overlap with inwater device use within the Study Area may encounter in-water devices. It is possible that sea turtles 

may be disturbed by the presence of these activities, but any disturbance from the use of in-water 

devices is not expected to result in more than a temporary behavioral response.

3.8.3.4.1.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1

Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices) provides estimates of relative vessel and in-water 

device use and location throughout the Study Area. Under Alternative 1 the concentration of vessel and 

in-water device use and the manner in which the Navy trains and tests would remain consistent with the 

levels and types of activity undertaken in the HSTT Study Area over the last decade. Consequently, the 

Navy does not foresee any appreciable changes in the levels, frequency, or locations where vessels have 

been used over the last decade and therefore the level which physical disturbance and strikes are 

expected to occur is likely to remain consistent with the previous decade.

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), most training activities involve vessel 

movement. Vessel strikes to sea turtles are not associated with any specific training activity but rather a 

limited, sporadic, and accidental result of Navy ship movement within the Study Area. Vessel movement 

can be widely dispersed throughout the HSTT Study Area but is more concentrated near naval ports, 

piers, and range areas. Navy training vessel traffic would especially be concentrated near Pearl Harbor 

and San Diego Bay. Smaller support craft usage would also be more concentrated in the coastal areas 

near naval installations, ports, and ranges. 

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), in-water devices include unmanned 

surface vehicles, unmanned underwater vehicles, and towed devices. Unmanned surface vehicle use 

would be concentrated within the Southern California Range Complex, with a relatively minor use in 

Pearl Harbor and waters off of Oahu.

Although the likelihood is low, a harmful interaction with a vessel or in-water device cannot be 

discounted, and sea turtle strikes in high vessel traffic areas (e.g., Pearl Harbor) have been reported. 

These mitigations have been updated during the Navy’s section 7 ESA consultation process with NMFS, 

most recently in 2015 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015), and are primarily of benefit to green 

sea turtles because of their association with nearshore areas where concentrated vessel movements 

occur. Sea snakes in the Study Area are not anticipated to occur within high vessel traffic areas, as the 

yellow-bellied sea snake is associated with pelagic habitats, and only in low abundances. Strikes of sea 

snakes are considered unlikely to occur.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-81

3.8 Reptiles

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), most of the testing activities involve 

large vessel movement. However, the number of activities that involve large vessel movements for 

testing is comparatively lower than the number of training activities. In addition, testing often occurs 

jointly with a training event, so it is likely that the testing activity would be conducted from a training 

vessel. Vessel movement in conjunction with testing activities could be widely dispersed throughout the 

Study Area, but would be concentrated near Pearl Harbor and San Diego Bay. Smaller support craft 

usage would also be more concentrated in the coastal areas near naval installations, ports, and ranges.

There would be a higher likelihood of vessel strikes in these portions of the Study Area because of the 

concentration of vessel movement in those areas.

Propulsion testing events occur infrequently but pose a higher strike risk because of the higher speeds at 

which the vessels need to achieve in order to complete the testing activity. These activities could occur 

in the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern California Range Complex. However, there are just a few of 

these events proposed per year, so the increased risk is nominal compared to all vessel use proposed 

under Alternative 1.

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), testing activities involving the use of 

in-water devices would occur in the HSTT Study Area at any time of year. Unmanned surface vehicle use 

would occur within both the Southern California and Hawaii portions of the HSTT Study Area.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

3.8.3.4.1.2 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2

Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices) provides locations and number of activities that 

include vessels and in-water device use throughout the Study Area. Under Alternative 2, the locations of 

training activities that include vessels and in-water devices would be the same as what is proposed 

under Alternative 1. However, the number of activities proposed under Alternative 2 varies from what is 

proposed under Alternative 1 and is discussed in detail below.

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As shown in Table 3.0-15 (Annual Number and Location of Activities Including Vessels), training activities 

that involve vessel movement under Alternative 2 would only increase by a small fraction of one percent

over what is proposed under Alternative 1. Even with this nominal increase in activity level, Navy 

training activities would remain consistent with the levels of activity and types activities undertaken in 

the HSTT Study Area over the last decade. Consequently, the level which physical disturbance and vessel 

strikes are expected to occur is likely to remain consistent with the previous decade. Similarly, Table 

3.0-17 (Annual Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices) shows the use of in-water 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-82

3.8 Reptiles

devices associated with training activities under Alternative 2 would increase by approximately 16 

percent over what is proposed for training activities under Alternative 1. This level of increased of use 

in-water devices would not appreciably change the potential for physical disturbance or strike of a sea 

turtle. Therefore, impacts from training activities involving vessels and in-water devices under 

Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1 and the analyses presented in Section 3.7.3.4.1.1 

(Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1) for training activities are applicable to 

training activities under Alternative 2.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As shown on Table 3.0-15 (Annual Number and Location of Activities Including Vessels), testing activities 

that involve vessel movement under Alternative 2 are proposed to increase by a fraction of one percent 

as compared to Alternative 1. As previously indicated, the number of testing activities that involve 

vessels are much lower than the number of training activities. Furthermore, testing activities may be 

conducted simultaneously with a training event, using a training vessel. The proposed increase in vessel 

use from testing activities under Alternative 2 would still be consistent with the levels of activity and 

types of activities undertaken in the HSTT Study Area over the last decade. Therefore, the level which 

physical disturbance and strikes are expected to occur would remain consistent with the 

previous decade.

As shown on Table 3.0-17 (Annual Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices), inwater device use under Alternative 2 would increase by approximately four times over what is proposed 

annually for testing activities under Alternative 1 for the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area; there is no change in the proposed number for the Hawaii or Transit Corridor portions of the Study 

Area. This level of increased use of in-water devices would increase the potential for physical 

disturbance or strike of a sea turtle in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. As 

discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), testing activities involving the use of inwater devices would occur in the HSTT Study Area at any time of year. Unmanned surface vehicle use 

would occur within both the Southern California and Hawaii portions of the HSTT Study Area.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles.

3.8.3.4.1.3 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., vessels and in-water devices) 

would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-83

3.8 Reptiles

3.8.3.4.2 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets

Impacts from aircraft and aerial targets are not applicable to sea turtles because they do not occur in 

airborne environments and will not be analyzed further in this section. Refer to the Impacts from 

Military Expended Materials section (Section 3.8.3.4.3) for impacts from target fragments and the 

Acoustic Stressors section (Section 3.8.3.1) for potential disturbance from aircraft.

3.8.3.4.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials

This section analyzes the strike potential to sea turtles from the following categories of military 

expended materials: (1) all sizes of non-explosive practice munitions; (2) fragments from high-explosive 

munitions; (3) expendable targets; and (4) expended materials other than munitions, such as sonobuoys, 

expended bathythermographs, and torpedo accessories. For a discussion of the types of activities that 

use military expended materials refer to Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices) and for a discussion on 

where they are used and how many exercises would occur under each alternative, see Section 

3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials). As described in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and 

Direct Strike Impact Analyses), for physical disturbance and strike stressors as it relates to sea turtles, 

impacts from fragments from high-explosive munitions are included in the analysis presented in Section 

3.7.3.2 (Explosive Stressors), and are not considered further in this section. Sea snakes are not modeled 

for potential strikes because of their low numbers in the Study Area and a lack of density information to 

provide quantifiable estimations of strike impacts. Therefore, only sea turtles are considered in 

this analysis.

While disturbance or strike from an item as it falls through the water column is possible, it is not likely 

because the objects generally sink through the water slowly and can be avoided by most sea turtles. 

Materials will slow in their velocity as they approach the bottom and will likely be avoided by any sea 

turtles that happen to be in the vicinity foraging in benthic habitats. Therefore, the discussion of military 

expended materials strikes will focus on the potential of a strike at the surface of the water.

To estimate potential direct strike exposures, a worst-case scenario was calculated using the sea turtle 

with the highest average year-round density in areas with the highest military expended material 

expenditures in the Hawaii and Southern California portions of the HSTT Study Area (see Appendix F, 

Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses). The green sea turtle was used as a proxy 

for all sea turtle species because this species has the highest offshore density estimates, which would 

provide the most conservative modeling output results. For estimates of expended materials in all areas, 

see Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials).

There is a possibility that an individual turtle at or near the surface may be struck if they are in the target 

area at the point of physical impact at the time of non-explosive munitions delivery. Expended 

munitions may strike the water surface with sufficient force to cause injury or mortality. Adult sea 

turtles are generally at the surface for short periods, and spend most of their time submerged; however, 

hatchlings and juveniles spend more time at the surface while in ocean currents or at the surface while 

basking. The leatherback sea turtle is more likely to be foraging at or near the surface in the open ocean 

than other species, but the likelihood of being struck by a projectile remains very low because of the 

wide spatial distribution of leatherbacks relative to the point location of an activity. Furthermore, 

projectiles are aimed at targets, which will absorb the impact of the projectile.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-84

3.8 Reptiles

3.8.3.4.3.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Training activities in offshore waters that involve military expended materials under Alternative 1 would 

occur in the Hawaii Range Complex, Southern California Range Complex, and the Transit Corridor. Based 

on a worst-case scenario, the results indicate with a reasonable level of certainty that a sea turtle strike 

by non-explosive practice munitions and expended materials other than munitions would be extremely 

unlikely. The model results presented in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike 

Impact Analyses) estimate sea turtle exposures (as discussed above, green sea turtles used as a 

conservative proxy for all sea turtle species). The results indicate with a reasonable level of certainty 

that sea turtles would not be struck by non-explosive practice munitions and expended materials other 

than munitions. In the Hawaii Range Complex, the model estimates approximately 0.008 exposures per 

year. Again, to consider the most conservative of outcomes, only density estimates in the Hawaii Range 

Complex were used because in these waters, sea turtles occur in the highest numbers year round (in 

contrast to waters off of southern California, where sea turtle occurrence is more seasonal). 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities in offshore waters that involve military expended materials under Alternative 1 would 

occur in the Hawaii Range Complex, Southern California Range Complex, and the Transit Corridor. Based 

on a worst-case scenario, the results indicate with a reasonable level of certainty that sea turtles would 

not be struck by non-explosive practice munitions and expended materials other than munitions. The 

model results presented in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) 

estimate sea turtle exposures (as discussed above, green sea turtles used as a conservative proxy for all 

sea turtle species). In the Hawaii Range Complex, the model estimates approximately 0.009 exposures 

per year. Again, to consider the most conservative of outcomes, only density estimates in the Hawaii 

Range Complex were used because in these waters, sea turtles occur in the highest numbers year round 

(in contrast to waters off of southern California, where sea turtle occurrence is more seasonal). No 

modeling was conducted for activities within the transit corridor.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

3.8.3.4.3.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Training activities under Alternative 2 would involve the same amount of non-explosive practice 

munitions and fragments from high-explosive munitions for all locations in the Study Area as what is 

proposed under Alternative 1. As shown in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials), there 

would be an increase in the use of sonobuoys and other military materials during training under 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-85

3.8 Reptiles

Alternative 2 within the Study Area. Therefore, the strike calculations and conclusions for Alternative 1 

training activities would be the same for Alternative 2 training activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 2 would involve the same amount of non-explosive practice 

munitions and fragments from high-explosive munitions for all locations in the Study Area as what is 

proposed under Alternative 1. As shown in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials), there 

would be a minor increase in the use of sonobuoys and decelerator/parachutes during testing under 

Alternative 2 within the Study Area. 

Probability analysis results in Appendix F (Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses)

indicates that the minor increase in the amount of expended materials proposed under Alternative 2 

does not result in any substantial increase in the risk that a sea turtle would be struck by a military 

expended material. Therefore the associated impacts on sea turtles are expected to be similar to 

Alternative 1 and the analyses presented in Section 3.7.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended 

Materials under Alternative 1) for testing activities would be applicable to military expended materials 

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. T

3.8.3.4.3.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., military expended materials) 

would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities.

3.8.3.4.4 Impacts from Seafloor Devices

For a discussion of the types of activities that use seafloor devices refer to Appendix B (Activity Stressor 

Matrices) and for a discussion on where they are used and how many exercises would occur under each 

alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices). These include items placed on, dropped on or 

moved along the seafloor such as mine shapes, anchor blocks, anchors, bottom-placed instruments, and 

bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles. The likelihood of any sea turtle species encountering 

seafloor devices is considered low because these items are either stationary or move very slowly along 

the bottom. A benthic-foraging sea turtle would likely avoid the seafloor device. In the unlikely event 

that a sea turtle is in the vicinity of a seafloor device, the slow movement and stationary characteristics 

of these devices would not be expected to physically disturb or alter natural behaviors of sea turtles. As 

discussed in Section 3.8.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Material), objects falling through the 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-86

3.8 Reptiles

water column will slow in velocity as they sink toward the bottom and could be avoided by most sea 

turtles. Therefore, these items do not pose a significant strike risk to sea turtles. The only seafloor device 

used during training and testing activities that has the potential to strike a sea turtle at or near the 

surface is an aircraft deployed mine shape, which is used during aerial mine laying activities. These 

devices are identical to non-explosive practice bombs, therefore the analysis of the potential impacts 

from those devices are covered in Section 3.8.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials) and are 

not further analyzed in this section.

3.8.3.4.4.1 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Based on the analysis in Section 3.8.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials under Alternative 

1) for training activities, there is a reasonable level of certainty that no sea turtles would be struck by 

seafloor devices. The likelihood of a sea turtle encountering seafloor devices in benthic foraging habitats 

is considered low because these items are either stationary or move very slowly along the bottom. 

Seafloor devices are not likely to interfere with sea turtles resident to, or engaging in migratory, 

reproductive, and feeding behaviors within the range complexes of the HSTT Study Area. Further, 

seafloor devices would only impact sea turtle species that are foraging in benthic habitats (e.g., olive 

ridley, loggerhead, and green sea turtles). Sea turtles in coastal habitats can occur near the bottom 

when foraging or resting. Sea turtles encountering seafloor devices would likely to avoid them because 

of their slow movement and visibility. Given the slow movement of seafloor devices, the effort 

expended by sea turtles to avoid them will be minimal, temporary, and not have fitness consequences.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during training activities as described under Alternative 

1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur 

within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive 

ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities that involve the use of seafloor devices under Alternative 1 would occur in the 

Southern California Range Complex (435 activities per year), with the remaining activities occurring in 

the Hawaii Range Complex (35 activities per year). Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices) discusses the 

types of activities that use seafloor devices, where they are used, and how many events will occur under 

Alternative 1. The likelihood of a sea turtle encountering seafloor devices in benthic foraging habitats is 

considered low because these items are either stationary or move very slowly along the bottom.

Seafloor devices are not likely to interfere with sea turtles resident to, or engaging in migratory, 

reproductive, and feeding behaviors within the range complexes of the HSTT Study Area. Further, 

seafloor devices would only impact sea turtle species that are foraging in benthic habitats (i.e., 

loggerhead, and green sea turtles). Any sea turtle species found in the Study Area can occur at or near 

the surface in open-ocean and coastal areas, whether feeding or periodically surfacing to breathe. 

Additionally, sea turtles in coastal habitats can occur near the bottom when foraging or resting. Sea 

turtles encountering seafloor devices are likely to behaviorally avoid them. Given the slow movement of 

seafloor devices, the effort expended by sea turtles to avoid them will be minimal, temporary, and not 

have fitness consequences.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 1

would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-87

3.8 Reptiles

the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA.

3.8.3.4.4.2 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices; Table 3.0-26) the locations and annual number of 

training activities that involve seafloor devices are the same for Alternatives 1 and 2 within the Hawaii 

portion of the HSTT Study Area and within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area they 

decrease by an insignificant number. Therefore the impacts on sea turtles for the use of seafloor devices 

under Alternative 2 are expected to be the similar to Alternative 1 and as presented in Section 

3.7.3.4.4.1 (Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 1).

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during training activities as described under Alternative 

2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur 

within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive 

ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices; Table 3.0-26) the locations and annual number of 

testing activities that involve seafloor devices are the same for Alternatives 1 and 2 within the Hawaii 

portion of the HSTT Study Area and within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area they 

increase by an insignificant number. Therefore the impacts on sea turtles for the use of seafloor devices 

under Alternative 2 are expected to be the similar to Alternative 1 and as presented in Section 

3.7.3.4.4.1 (Impacts from Seafloor Devices under Alternative 1)

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 2

would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within 

the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, 

loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

3.8.3.4.4.3 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities

in the HSTT Study Area. Physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., seafloor devices) would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing 

activities.

3.8.3.5 Entanglement Stressors

This section analyzes the potential entanglement impacts of the various types of expended materials 

used by the Navy during training and testing activities within the Study Area. This analysis includes the 

potential impacts of three types of military expended materials, including: (1) wires and cables,

(2) decelerators/parachutes, and (3) biodegradable polymers. The number and location of training and 

testing exercises that involve the use of items that may pose an entanglement risk are provided in 

Section 3.0.3.3.5 (Entanglement Stressors). General discussion of impacts can also be found in Section 

3.0.3.6.4 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Entanglement).
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-88

3.8 Reptiles

These materials could be encountered by and if encountered, may have the potential to entangle sea 

turtles in the HSTT Study Area at the surface, in the water column, or along the seafloor. Sea snakes are 

not analyzed for potential entanglement stressors because of their physiology and lack of appendages 

that increase the likelihood of an entanglement interaction. Although the main threat to sea snakes 

globally is fisheries bycatch, this is primarily associated with prawn fisheries (using drag nets). Therefore, 

the impact analysis for entanglement stressors is limited to sea turtles. Risk factors for entanglement of 

sea turtles include animal size (and life stage), sensory capabilities, and foraging methods. Most 

entanglements discussed in the literature are attributable to sea turtle entrapments with fishing gear or 

other non-military materials that float or are suspended at the surface. Entanglement events are 

difficult to detect from land or from a boat as they may occur at considerable distances from shore and 

typically take place underwater. Juvenile turtles are inherently less likely to be detected than larger 

adult sea turtles. The likelihood of witnessing an entanglement event is therefore typically low. 

However, the properties and size of these military expended materials, as described in Section 3.0.3.3.5 

(Entanglement Stressors) and Section 3.0.3.6.4 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from 

Entanglement), makes entanglement unlikely.

3.8.3.5.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables

For a discussion of the types of activities that use wires and cables see Appendix B (Activity Stressor 

Matrices) and for a discussion on where they are used and how many exercises would occur under each 

alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables). A sea turtle that becomes entangled in nets, 

lines, ropes, or other foreign objects under water may suffer temporary hindrance to movement before 

it frees itself or the sea turtle may remain entangled. The turtle may suffer minor injuries but recover 

fully, or it may die as a result of the entanglement. The entanglement risk to sea turtles of these items 

are discussed below.

Fiber optic cables are flexible cables that can range in size up to 3,000 m in length. Longer cables present 

a higher likelihood of sea turtle interactions, and therefore present an increased risk of entanglement of 

a sea turtle. Other factors that increase risk of sea turtle interactions with fiber optic cables include the 

amount of time a fiber optic cable is in the same vicinity of a sea turtle; however, these cables will only 

be within the water column during the activity and while they sink, the likelihood of a sea turtle 

encountering and becoming entangled within the water column is extremely low. Fiber optic cables 

exhibit several physical qualities that reduce the risk of entanglement. Primarily, these cables are brittle 

and break easily. Because of the physical properties of fiber optic material, the cable is brittle and easily 

broken when kinked, twisted, or bent sharply. The cables are often designed with controlled buoyancy 

to minimize the cable's effect on vehicle movement. The fiber optic cable would be suspended within 

the water column during the activity, and then be expected to sink to the seafloor. Further, activities 

that use fiber optic cables occur in deep waters. These factors reduce the likelihood that a fiber optic 

cable would be in close proximity to a sea turtle—the cable is only buoyant during the training and 

testing activity, and subsequently sinks after use to rest in benthic habitats. If the isobaths is greater 

than the maximum benthic foraging ability (dive depth) of a sea turtle, then these cables would not 

present an entanglement risk. For example, as discussed previously, leatherbacks may dive to depths 

greater than 1,000 m in search of prey (e.g., jellyfish), while other species (e.g., loggerheads) may forage 

in benthic habitats as deep as approximately 200 m, and juvenile sea turtles (e.g., green sea turtles) 

resting and foraging in waters as deep as approximately 30 (Hochscheid, 2014; Rieth et al., 2011). In 

addition, because of the physical properties of the fiber optic material, the cable is unlikely to entangle a 

sea turtle body or appendage because the cable would likely break before an entangling loop would 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-89

3.8 Reptiles

form. If a loop did form around an appendage or sea turtle body, the cable would subsequently break 

quickly on its own or in response to sea turtle movement. Therefore, fiber optic cables present an 

entanglement risk to sea turtles, but it is unlikely that an entanglement event would occur and any 

entanglement would be temporary (a few seconds) before the sea turtle could resume normal activities. 

As noted in Section 3.8.2.1.5 (General Threats), entanglement by fishing gear is a serious global threat to 

sea turtles. The various types of marine debris attributed to sea turtle entanglement (e.g., commercial 

fishing gear, towed gear, stationary gear, or gillnets) have substantially higher (up to 500–2,000 lb.) 

breaking strengths at their “weak links.” If fiber optic cables and fragments of cables sink to the seafloor 

in an area where the bottom is calm, they would remain there undisturbed. In an area with bottom 

currents or active tidal influence, the fiber optic strands may move along the seafloor, away from the 

location in which they were expended and potentially into sea turtle benthic foraging habitats. Over 

time, these strands may become covered by sediment in most areas or colonized by attaching and 

encrusting organisms, which would further stabilize the material and reduce the potential for 

reintroduction as an entanglement risk.

Similar to fiber optic cables discussed above, guidance wires may pose an entanglement threat to sea 

turtles either in the water column or after the wire has settled to the seafloor. The Navy previously 

analyzed the potential for entanglement of sea turtles by guidance wires and concluded that the 

potential for entanglement is low (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1996). These conclusions have also 

been carried forward in NMFS analyses of Navy training and testing activities (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2013). The likelihood of a sea turtle encountering and becoming entangled in a guidance wire 

depends on several factors. With the exception of a chance encounter with the guidance wire while it is 

sinking to the seafloor (at an estimated rate of 0.7 ft. per second), it is most likely that a sea turtle would 

only encounter a guidance wire once it had settled on the seafloor. Since the guidance wire will only be 

within the water column during the activity and while it sinks, the likelihood of a sea turtle encountering 

and becoming entangled within the water column is extremely low. Guidance wires have a relatively low 

tensile breaking strength; between 10 and 42 lb. and can be broken by hand (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2008a)In addition, based on degradation times, the guidance wires would break down within 

one to two years and therefore no longer pose an entanglement risk. As with fiber optic cables, 

guidance wire fragments may move with bottom currents or active tidal influence, and present an 

enduring entanglement risk if the wires were moved into benthic foraging habitats. Subsequent 

colonization by encrusting organisms, burying by sediment, and chemical breakdown of the copper 

filament would further reduce the potential for reintroduction as an entanglement risk. The length of 

the guidance wires varies, as described in Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables), but greater lengths 

increase the likelihood that a sea turtle could become entangled. The behavior and feeding strategy of a 

species can determine whether it may encounter items on the seafloor, where guidance wires will most 

likely be available. There is potential for those species that feed on the seafloor to encounter guidance 

wires and potentially become entangled; however, the relatively few guidance wires being expended 

within the HSTT Study Area limits the potential for encounters.

Sonobuoys consist of a surface antenna and float unit and a subsurface hydrophone assembly unit. The 

two units are attached through a thin-gauge, dual-conductor, hard draw copper strand wire, which is 

then wrapped by a hollow rubber tubing or bungee in a spiral configuration. The tensile breaking 

strength of the sonobuoy wire and rubber tubing is no more than 40 lb. The length of the sonobuoy wire 

is housed in a plastic canister dispenser, which remains attached upon deployment. The length of cable 

that extends out is no more than 1,500 ft. and is dependent on the water depth and type of sonobuoy. 

Attached to the sonobuoy wire is a kite-drogue and damper disk stabilizing system made of non-woven 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-90

3.8 Reptiles

nylon fabric. The nylon fabric is very thin and can be broken by hand. The sonobuoy wire runs through 

the stabilizing system and leads to the hydrophone components. The hydrophone components may be 

covered by thin plastic netting depending on type of sonobuoy. Each sonobuoy has a saltwater activated 

polyurethane float that inflates when the sonobuoy is submerged and keeps the sonobuoy components 

floating vertically in the water column below it. Sonobuoys remain suspended in the water column for 

no more than 30 hours, after which they sink to the seafloor. Several factors reduce the likelihood of sea 

turtle entanglement from sonobuoy components. The materials that present an entanglement risk in 

sonobuoys are weak, and if wrapped around an adult or juvenile sea turtle, would likely break soon after 

entanglement or break while bending into potentially entangling loops, although hatchlings would not 

likely be able to escape entrapment if entangled. These materials, however, are only temporarily 

buoyant and would begin sinking after use in an activity. The entanglement risk from these components 

would only occur when a sea turtle and these components were in close proximity, which is only in the 

water column. These materials would be expended in waters too deep for benthic foraging, so bottom 

foraging sea turtles would not interact with these materials once they sink. Some sonobuoy 

components, once they sink to the bottom, may be transported by bottom currents or active tidal 

influence, and present an enduring entanglement risk. In the benthic environment, subsequent 

colonization by encrusting organisms, burying by sediment, and chemical breakdown of the various 

materials would further reduce the potential for reintroduction as an entanglement risk.

3.8.3.5.1.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Training activities under Alternative 1 would expend wires and cables within the Hawaii Range Complex 

and the Southern California Range Complex.

Based on the numbers and geographic locations of their use, wires and cables pose a risk of 

entanglement for all sea turtle species considered in this analysis. Any species of sea turtle that occurs in 

the Study Area could at some time encounter expended cables or wires. The sink rates of cables and 

wires would rule out the possibility of these drifting great distances into nearshore and coastal areas 

where green, hawksbill, olive ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles are more likely to occur and feed on the 

bottom. The leatherback is more likely to co-occur with these activities, given its preference for openocean habitats, but this species is known to forage on jellyfish at or near the surface. Hatchlings and 

juveniles of some sea turtle species (e.g. greens and loggerheads), may occur in open-ocean habitats, 

too. Under Alternative 1, exposure to cables and wires used in training activities may cause short-term 

or long-term disturbance to an individual turtle because if a sea turtle were to become entangled in a 

cable or wire, it could free itself, or the entanglement could lead to injury or death. Potential impacts of 

exposure to cable or wire may result in changes to an individual’s behavior, growth, survival, annual 

reproductive success, lifetime reproductive success (fitness), or species recruitment. However, cables 

and wires are generally not expected to cause disturbance to sea turtles because of (1) the physical 

characteristics of the cables and wires; (2) the behavior of the species, as sea turtles are unlikely to 

become entangled in an object that is resting on the seafloor, and (3) the low concentrations of 

expended wires and cables in the HSTT study area. Potential impacts of exposure to cables and wires are 

not expected to result in population-level impacts.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during training activities as described under Alternative 

1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur 

within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-91

3.8 Reptiles

ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 1 would expend wires and cables within the Hawaii Range Complex 

and the Southern California Range Complex.

Based on the numbers and geographic locations of their use, wires and cables pose a risk of 

entanglement for all sea turtle species considered in this analysis. Any species of sea turtle that occurs in 

the Study Area could at some time encounter expended cables or wires. The sink rates of cables and 

wires would rule out the possibility of these drifting great distances into nearshore and coastal areas 

where green, hawksbill, olive ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles are more likely to occur and feed on the 

bottom. The leatherback is more likely to co-occur with these activities, given its preference for openocean habitats, but this species is known to forage on jellyfish at or near the surface. Under Alternative 

1, exposure to cables and wires used in testing activities may cause short-term or long-term disturbance 

to an individual turtle because if a sea turtle were to become entangled in a cable or wire, it could free 

itself, or the entanglement could lead to injury or death. Potential impacts of exposure to cable or wire 

may result in changes to an individual’s behavior, growth, survival, annual reproductive success, lifetime 

reproductive success (fitness), or species recruitment. However, cables and wires are generally not 

expected to cause disturbance to sea turtles because of (1) the physical characteristics of the cables and 

wires, and (2) the behavior of the species, as sea turtles are unlikely to become entangled in an object 

that is resting on the seafloor. Potential impacts of exposure to cables and wires are not expected to 

result in population-level impacts.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under Alternative 

1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur 

within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive 

ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

3.8.3.5.1.2 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The locations of training activities that expend wires and cables are the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Table 3.0-28 shows the number and location of wires and cables expended during proposed training 

activities. The numbers of wires and cables would be the same for Alternative 2 as for Alternative 1 

except for a slight decrease in the number of fiber optic cables in the Southern California Range 

Complex, a slight increase in the number of sonobuoy wires in the Southern California Range Complex, 

and a slight increase in bathythermograph cables in both the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern 

California Range Complex. Overall, the number of wires and cables expended during training activities 

would increase by three percent annually and by eight percent over five years. However, the differences 

in species overlap and potential impacts from wires and cables on sea turtles during training activities 

would not be discernible from those described for training activities in Section 3.8.5.1.1 (Alternative 1). 

As with Alternative 1, the use of wires and cables in training activities may cause short-term or longterm disturbance to an individual turtle, because if a sea turtle were to become entangled in a cable or 

wire, it could free itself or the entanglement could lead to injury or death. Potential impacts of exposure 

to cable or wire may result in changes to an individual’s behavior, growth, survival, annual reproductive 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-92

3.8 Reptiles

success, lifetime reproductive success (fitness), or species recruitment. Potential impacts of exposure to 

cables and wires are not expected to result in population-level impacts.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during training activities as described under Alternative 

2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur 

within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive 

ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles.

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The locations of testing activities that expend wires and cables are the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Table 3.0-29 shows the number and location of wires and cables expended during proposed testing 

activities. The numbers of wires and cables would be the same for Alternative 2 as for Alternative 1 

except for an in the number of sonobuoy wires in both the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern 

California Range Complex. Overall, the number of wires and cables expended during training activities 

would increase by two percent annually and by six percent over five years. However, the differences in

species overlap and potential impacts from cables and wires on sea turtles during testing activities 

would not be discernible from those described for testing activities in Section 3.8.3.5.1.1 (Alternative 1). 

As with Alternative 1, the use of wires and cables in testing activities may cause short-term or long-term 

disturbance to an individual turtle, because if a sea turtle were to become entangled in a cable or wire, 

it could free itself or the entanglement could lead to injury or death. Potential impacts of exposure to 

cable or wire may result in changes to an individual’s behavior, growth, survival, annual reproductive 

success, lifetime reproductive success (fitness), or species recruitment. Potential impacts of exposure to 

cables and wires are not expected to result in population-level impacts.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under Alternative 

2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur 

within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive 

ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles.

3.8.3.5.1.3 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Various entanglement stressors (e.g., wires and cables) would not be introduced 

into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either 

remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.8.3.5.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes

Refer to Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes) provides the number of training and testing 

exercises that involve the use of decelerators/parachutes and the geographic areas where they would 

be expended. Training and testing activities that introduce decelerators/parachutes into the water 

column can occur anywhere in the HSTT Study Area and may pose an entanglement risk to sea turtles. 

Potential impacts from decelerators/parachutes as ingestion stressors to sea turtles are discussed in 

Section 3.8.3.6.2 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions).

As described in Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes), decelerators/parachutes used during the 

proposed activities range in size from 18 in. up to 19 ft. in diameter. The vast majority of expended 

decelerators/parachutes are small (18 in.), cruciform shaped, and are used with sonobuoys. Illumination 

flares and targets use large parachutes, up to 19 ft. in diameter. Decelerators/parachutes have short 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-93

3.8 Reptiles

attachment cords and upon water impact may remain at the surface for 5–15 seconds before it sinks to 

the seafloor, where it becomes flattened. Sonobuoy decelerators/parachutes are designed to sink within 

15 minutes, but the rate of sinking depends upon sea conditions and the shape of the 

decelerator/parachute, and the duration of the descent would depend on the water depth. While in the 

water column, a sea turtle is less likely to become entangled because the decelerator/parachute would 

have to land directly on the turtle, or the turtle would have to swim into the decelerator/parachute 

before it sank. Prior to reaching the seafloor, it could be carried along in a current, or snagged on a hard 

structure near the bottom. Conversely, it could settle to the bottom, where it would be buried by 

sediment in most soft bottom areas or colonized by attaching and encrusting organisms, which would 

further stabilize the material and reduce the potential for reintroduction as an entanglement risk. 

Decelerators/parachutes or decelerator/parachute lines may be a risk for sea turtles to become 

entangled, particularly while at the surface. A sea turtle would have to surface to breathe or grab prey 

from under the decelerator/parachute and swim into the decelerator/parachute or its lines.

If bottom currents are present, the canopy may billow and pose an entanglement threat to sea turtles 

that feed in benthic habitats (i.e., green, olive ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles). Bottom-feeding sea 

turtles tend to forage in nearshore areas rather than offshore, where these decelerators/parachutes are 

used; therefore, sea turtles are not likely to encounter decelerators/parachutes once they reach the 

seafloor. The potential for a sea turtle to encounter an expended decelerator/parachute at the surface 

or in the water column is extremely low, and is even less probable at the seafloor, given the general 

improbability of a sea turtle being near the deployed decelerator/parachute, as well as the general 

behavior of sea turtles. Depending on how quickly the decelerator/parachute may degrade, the risk may 

increase with time if the decelerator/parachute remains intact or if underwater currents delay settling 

of the decelerator/parachute on the seafloor (where they would likely be covered by sediment and 

encrusted). Factors that may influence degradation times include exposure to ultraviolet radiation and 

the extent of physical damage of the decelerator/parachute on the water’s surface, as well as water 

temperature and sinking depth. It should be noted that no known instances of sea turtle entanglement 

with a decelerator/parachute assembly have been reported.

3.8.3.5.2.1 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Training activities under Alternative 1 would expend decelerators/parachutes within the Hawaii Range 

Complex, Southern California Range Complex, and within the Transit Corridor. Based on the numbers 

and geographic locations of their use, decelerators/parachutes pose a risk of entanglement for all sea 

turtle species considered in this analysis. Any species of sea turtle that occurs in the Study Area could at 

some time encounter expended decelerator/parachute. The sink rates of a decelerator/parachute 

assembly would rule out the possibility of these drifting great distances into nearshore and coastal areas 

where green, hawksbill, olive ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles are more likely to occur and feed on the 

bottom. The leatherback is more likely to co-occur with these activities, given its preference for openocean habitats, but this species is known to forage on jellyfish at or near the surface. Early juveniles and 

hatchlings of other sea turtle species (e.g., green sea turtles and loggerheads) may also co-occur with 

these activities, as well. Under Alternative 1, exposure to decelerators/parachutes used in training 

activities may cause short-term or long-term disturbance to an individual turtle, because if a sea turtle 

were to become entangled in a decelerator/parachute, it could free itself, or the entanglement could 

lead to injury or death. Potential impacts of exposure to decelerator/parachute may result in changes to

an individual’s behavior, growth, survival, annual reproductive success, lifetime reproductive success 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-94

3.8 Reptiles

(fitness), or species recruitment. However, decelerators are generally not expected to cause disturbance 

to sea turtles because the decelerator/parachute would have to land directly on an animal, or an animal 

would have to swim into it before it sinks. Decelerators/parachutes have small footprints which further 

reduce the potential for entanglement. It is possible, however, that a benthic feeding sea turtle could 

become entangled when foraging in areas where decelerators/parachutes have settled on the seafloor. 

For example, if bottom currents are present, the canopy may temporarily billow and pose a greater 

entanglement threat.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities under Alternative 1 would expend decelerators/parachutes within the Hawaii Range 

Complex and Southern California Range Complex. Based on the number of decelerators/parachutes 

expended under Alternative 1 testing activities, the small footprint of impact, and the low likelihood of a 

decelerator/parachute landing directly on a sea turtle, adverse impacts on sea turtles are discountable 

(unlikely to occur). While entanglement is a serious stressor for sea turtles from a wide range of debris 

in the ocean, decelerators/parachutes used during military testing activities are an unlikely source.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes in testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

3.8.3.5.2.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2

Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The annual numbers of decelerators/parachutes expended during training activities within the Hawaii 

Range Complex, Southern California Range Complex, and the Transit Corridor are identical for 

Alternatives 1 and 2. Although there would be no increase in the near-term (one year), there would be a 

10 percent increase in the number of expended decelerators/parachutes over a five-year period under 

Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1. This level of increase is not expected to substantially increase 

the risk of entanglement to sea turtles. Potential impacts from training activities that expend 

decelerators/parachutes under Alternative 2 would be the same as what was presented in Section

3.8.3.5.2.1 (Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes under Alternative 1) for training activities. Therefore, 

the Navy anticipates that no sea turtles would become entangled in decelerators/parachutes from 

training activities under Alternative 2.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes in training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-95

3.8 Reptiles

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The locations of testing activities that expend decelerators/parachutes are the same under Alternatives 

1 and 2. However, the total number of decelerators/parachutes expended during testing activities would 

increase by approximately two percent annually and by seven percent over five years. This level of 

increase is not expected to appreciably increase the risk of entanglement to sea turtles that occur in 

these areas. Potential impacts from testing activities that expend decelerators/parachutes presented in 

Section 3.8.3.5.2.1 (Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes under Alternative 1) for testing activities 

would be applicable to testing activities under Alternative 2. Therefore, the Navy anticipates that no sea 

turtles would become entangled in decelerators/parachutes.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes in testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

3.8.3.5.2.3 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Various entanglement stressors (e.g., decelerators/parachutes) would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing 

activities.

3.8.3.5.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer

For a discussion of the types of activities that use biodegradable polymers see Appendix B (Activity 

Stressor Matrices) and for a discussion on where they are used and how many activities would occur 

under each alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.5.3 (Biodegradable Polymer). Navy activities that involve 

vessel entanglement systems include the development of the biodegradable polymer and would be 

associated with testing activities in the HSTT Study Area. As indicated by its name, vessel entanglement 

systems that make use of biodegradable polymers are designed to entangle the propellers of in-water 

vessels, which would significantly slow and potentially stop the advance of the vessel. A biodegradable 

polymer is a high molecular weight polymer that degrades to smaller compounds as a result of 

microorganisms and enzymes The rate of biodegradation could vary from hours to years and the type of 

small molecules formed during degradation can range from complex to simple products, depending on 

whether the polymers are natural or synthetic (Karlsson & Albertsson, 1998). Based on the constituents 

of the biodegradable polymer the Navy proposes to use, it is anticipated that the material will 

breakdown into small pieces within a few days to weeks. This will breakdown further and dissolve into 

the water column within weeks to a few months. The final products which are all environmentally 

benign will be dispersed quickly to undetectable concentrations. Unlike other entanglement stressors, 

biodegradable polymers only retain their strength for a relatively short period of time, therefore the 

potential for entanglement by a sea turtle would be limited. Furthermore the longer the biodegradable 

polymer remains in the water, the weaker it becomes making it more brittle and likely to break. A sea 

turtle would have to encounter the biodegradable polymer immediately after it was expended for it to 

be a potential entanglement risk. If an animal were to encounter the polymer a few hours after it was 

expended, it is very likely that it would break easily and would no longer be an entanglement stressor. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-96

3.8 Reptiles

Hatchlings, however, would not likely be able to escape entrapment if they became entangled in a 

biodegradable polymer if entanglement occurred. Biodegradable polymers would only be a risk to 

hatchlings while the biodegradable polymer retained its tensile strength. As stated above for larger life 

stages, this is likely in the timeframe of a few hours after expending, but for hatchlings, a lower tensile 

strength would be required; therefore, the risk to hatchlings would extend over weeks. Due to the wide 

dispersion and low numbers of biodegradable polymers, there is a low likelihood of hatchlings 

interacting with biodegradable polymers while they are an entanglement risk.

3.8.3.5.3.1 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Biodegradable polymers would not be used during training activities under Alternative 1.

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Table 3.0-30 (Activities Including Biodegradable Polymers during Testing Activities) shows the numbers 

of activities that would expend biodegradable polymers and locations where they would be used. 

Alternative 1 testing activities using biodegradable polymers would occur within the Hawaii Range 

Complex and Southern California Range Complex. Given the low concentration of biodegradable 

polymers proposed to be expended within these locations, combined with the limited amount of time 

each polymer would be intact and considered an entanglement threat, the Navy does not anticipate sea 

turtles would become entangled with biodegradable polymers.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of biodegradable polymer during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

3.8.3.5.3.2 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Biodegradable polymers would not be used during training activities under Alternative 2.

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The location and number of testing activities that expend biodegradable polymers under Alternative 2 

would be identical to what is proposed under Alternative 1. The analysis presented in Section 3.8.3.5.3.1 

(Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer under Alternative 1) for testing activities would also apply to 

Alternative 2.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of biodegradable polymer during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not 

occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, 

olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

3.8.3.5.3.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed testing activities in the HSTT

Study Area. Biodegradable polymer use is not a part of ongoing Navy activities in the Study Area and this 

entanglement stressor would not be introduced into the marine environment under the No Action 

Alternative. Therefore no change in baseline conditions of the existing environment would occur.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-97

3.8 Reptiles

3.8.3.6 Ingestion Stressors

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of ingestion stressors used during 

training and testing activities within the Study Area. This analysis includes the potential impacts from the 

following types of military expended materials: non-explosive practice munitions (small- and mediumcaliber), fragments from high-explosives, fragments from targets, chaff, flare casings (including plastic 

end caps and pistons), decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymers. For a discussion on the 

types of activities that use these materials refer to Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices) and for a 

discussion on where they are used and how many activities would occur under each alternative, see 

Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors). General discussion of impacts can also be found in Section 

3.0.3.6.5 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Ingestion). Sea snake species rarely occur in 

the Study Area, and the very few sea snakes that would travel north from their range would unlikely 

encounter military expended materials because of their wide distribution within the Study Area. In 

addition, the yellow-bellied sea snake feeds on fish near the surface and would be unlikely to mistake 

debris for a prey species. Therefore, sea snake species are not considered further for the analysis of 

ingestion stressors.

The potential impacts from ingesting these materials is dependent upon the probability of the animal 

encountering these items in their environment, which is primarily contingent on where the items are 

expended and how a sea turtle feeds. Sea turtles commonly mistake debris for prey. Recent 

observations and studies on sea turtle ingestion of non-prey items are summarized in Section 3.8.2.1.5.1 

(Water Quality). The risk is prolific throughout sea turtle habitats, and ingestion of expended materials 

by sea turtles could occur in all large marine ecosystems and open ocean areas and can occur at the 

surface, in the water column, or at the seafloor, depending on the size and buoyancy of the expended 

object and the feeding behavior of the turtle. Susceptibility of sea turtles to ingestion risk is a factor of 

the life-stage of the individual sea turtle, foraging habits of the species, the location of the item within 

the water column, and the type of debris. For example, floating material could be eaten by turtles such 

as leatherbacks, juveniles, and hatchlings of all species that feed at or near the water surface, while 

materials that sink to the seafloor pose a risk to bottom-feeding turtles such as loggerheads. The variety 

of items eaten by juvenile and hatchling sea turtles of all species and adult leatherbacks that feed are 

prone to ingesting non-prey items (Fujiwara & Caswell, 2001; Hardest & Wilcox, 2017; Mitchelmore et 

al., 2017; Schuyler et al., 2014a; Schuyler et al., 2016).

The consequences of ingestion could range from temporary and inconsequential to long-term physical 

stress or even death. Ingestion of these items may not be directly lethal; however, ingestion of plastic 

and other fragments can restrict food intake and have sublethal impacts caused by reduced nutrient 

intake (McCauley & Bjorndal, 1999). Poor nutrient intake can lead to decreased growth rates, depleted 

energy, reduced reproduction, and decreased survivorship. These long-term sublethal effects may lead 

to population-level impacts, but this is difficult to assess because the affected individuals remain at sea 

and the trends may only arise after several generations have passed. Schuyler et al. (2014b) determined 

that most sea turtles at some point will ingest some amount of debris. Because bottom-feeding occurs 

in nearshore areas, materials that sink to the seafloor in the open ocean are less likely to be ingested 

due to their location. While these depths may be within the diving capabilities of most sea turtle species, 

especially leatherback sea turtles, bottom foraging species (i.e., greens, hawksbills, olive ridleys, and 

loggerheads) are more likely to forage in the shallower waters less than 100 m in depth. This overlaps 

with only a small portion of the depth range at which military materials are expended.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-98

3.8 Reptiles

3.8.3.6.1 Impacts from Military Expended Material- Munitions

Many different types of explosive and non-explosive practice munitions are expended at sea during 

training and testing activities. Types of non-explosive practice munitions generally include projectiles, 

missiles, and bombs. Of these, only small- or medium-caliber projectiles would be small enough for a sea 

turtle to ingest. Small- and medium-caliber projectiles include all sizes up to and including 

2.25 in. (57 mm) in diameter. These solid metal materials would quickly move through the water column 

and settle to the seafloor. Ingestion of non-explosive practice munitions is not expected to occur in the 

water column because the munitions sink quickly. Instead, they are most likely to be encountered by 

species that forage on the bottom. Types of high-explosive munitions that can result in fragments 

include demolition charges, projectiles, missiles, and bombs. Fragments would result from fractures in 

the munitions casing and would vary in size depending on the size of the net explosive weight and 

munitions type; however, typical sizes of fragments are unknown. These solid metal materials would 

quickly move through the water column and settle to the seafloor; therefore, ingestion is not expected 

by most species. Fragments are primarily encountered by species that forage on the bottom. Other 

military expended materials such as targets, large-caliber projectiles, intact training and testing bombs, 

guidance wires, 55-gallon drums, sonobuoy tubes, and marine markers are too large for sea turtles 

to consume.

Sublethal effects due to ingestion of munitions used in training and activities may cause short-term or 

long-term disturbance to an individual turtle because: (1) if a sea turtle were to incidentally ingest and 

swallow a projectile or solid metal high-explosive fragment, it could potentially disrupt its feeding 

behavior or digestive processes; and (2) if the item is particularly large in proportion to the turtle 

ingesting it, the item could become permanently encapsulated by the stomach lining, with a rare chance 

that this could impede the turtle’s ability to feed or take in nutrients. Potential impacts of exposure to 

munitions may result in changes to an individual’s behavior, growth, survival, annual reproductive 

success, lifetime reproductive success (fitness), or species recruitment. In open ocean environments, 

munitions used in training activities are generally not expected to cause disturbance to sea turtles 

because: (1) sea turtles are not expected to encounter most small- and medium-caliber projectiles or 

high-explosive fragments on the seafloor because of the depth at which these would be expended; and 

(2) in some cases, a turtle would likely pass the projectile through their digestive tract and expel the 

item without impacting the individual. Because green, loggerhead, olive ridley, and hawksbill sea turtles 

feed along the seafloor, they are more likely to encounter munitions of ingestible size that settle on the 

bottom than leatherbacks that primarily feed at the surface and in the water column. Furthermore, 

these four species typically use nearshore feeding areas, while leatherbacks are more likely to feed in 

the open ocean. Given the very low probability of a leatherback encountering and ingesting materials on 

the seafloor, this analysis will focus on green, loggerhead, olive ridley, and hawksbill sea turtles and 

ingestible materials expended in offshore waters

3.8.3.6.1.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials- Munitions Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), offshore training activities involving non-explosive 

practice munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments would occur within the Hawaii Range 

Complex, Southern California Range Complex, and the Transit Corridor.

In open ocean waters and nearshore habitats, the amount of non-explosive practice munitions and highexplosive munitions fragments that an individual sea turtle would encounter is generally low based on 

the patchy distribution of both the projectiles and sea turtle feeding habits. In addition, a sea turtle 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-99

3.8 Reptiles

would not likely ingest every projectile it encountered. Furthermore, a sea turtle may attempt to ingest 

a projectile or fragment and then reject it when it realizes it is not a food item. Therefore, potential 

impacts of non-explosive practice munitions and fragments ingestion would be limited to the unlikely 

event in which a sea turtle might suffer a negative response from ingesting an item that becomes 

embedded in tissue or is too large to be passed through the digestive system. The Navy considers the 

likelihood of this occurring to be very low.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials - munitions during training activities as 

described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because 

activities would not occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed 

green, hawksbill, olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS 

as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), offshore testing activities involving non-explosive 

practice munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments would occur within the Hawaii Range 

Complex, Southern California Range Complex, and the Transit Corridor.

In open ocean waters and nearshore habitats, the amount of non-explosive practice munitions and highexplosive munitions fragments that an individual sea turtle would encounter is generally low based on 

the patchy distribution of both the projectiles and sea turtle feeding habits. In addition, a sea turtle 

would not likely ingest every projectile it encountered. Furthermore, a sea turtle may attempt to ingest 

a projectile or fragment and then reject it when it realizes it is not a food item. Therefore, potential 

impacts of non-explosive practice munitions and fragments ingestion would be limited to the unlikely 

event in which a sea turtle might suffer a negative response from ingesting an item that becomes 

embedded in tissue or is too large to be passed through the digestive system. The Navy considers the 

likelihood of this occurring to be very low.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials - munitions during testing activities as 

described under Alternative 1, would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because 

activities would not occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed 

green, hawksbill, olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult with NMFS

as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

3.8.3.6.1.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials- Munitions Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The locations training activities that expend non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive 

munition fragments are the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. In addition, the number of non-explosive 

practice munitions expended annually would remain the same, with a very slight increase over five years 

of less than 1 percent compared to Alternative 2. While the annual number of high-explosive munition 

fragments would not change under Alternative 2, there would be a slight increase (approximately 3 

percent) over five years. This increase does not substantially increase the risk of ingestion impacts on 

sea turtles. Therefore, the analysis presented in Section 3.8.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military Expended 

Materials-Munitions under Alternative 1) for training activities would also apply to training activities 

proposed for Alternative 2.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials - munitions during training activities as 

described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-100

3.8 Reptiles

activities would not occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed 

green, hawksbill, olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The locations testing activities that expend non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive 

munition fragments are the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. In addition, the number of non-explosive 

practice munitions expended annually would remain the same, with a very slight increase over five years 

of less than 1 percent compared to Alternative 1. While the annual number of high-explosive munition 

fragments would not change under Alternative 2, there would be a slight increase over five years. This 

increase does not substantially increase the risk of ingestion impacts on sea turtles. Therefore, the 

analysis presented in Section 3.8.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials-Munitions under 

Alternative 1) for training activities would also apply to training activities proposed for Alternative 2.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials - munitions during testing activities as 

described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because 

activities would not occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed 

green, hawksbill, olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

3.8.3.6.1.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials-Munitions under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Military Expended Materials- Munitions Under the No Action Alternative for Training 

and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Various ingestion stressors (e.g., military expended materials – munitions) 

would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities.

3.8.3.6.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions

Several different types of materials other than munitions are expended during training and testing 

activities in the HSTT Study Area. The following military expended materials other than munitions have 

the potential to be ingested by sea turtles:

• target-related materials

• chaff (including fibers, end caps, and pistons)

• flares (including end caps and pistons)

• decelerators/parachutes (cloth, nylon, and metal weights)

• biodegradable polymer

Target-Related Materials 

At-sea targets are usually remotely operated airborne, surface, or subsurface traveling units, most of 

which are designed to be recovered for reuse. If they are severely damaged or displaced, targets may 

sink before they can be retrieved. Expendable targets include air-launched decoys, marine markers 

(smoke floats), cardboard boxes, and 10-ft. diameter red balloons tethered by a sea anchor. Most target 

fragments would sink quickly in the sea. Floating material, such as Styrofoam, may be lost from target 

boats and remain at the surface for some time, however during target recovery, personnel would collect 

as much floating debris and Styrofoam as possible. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-101

3.8 Reptiles

Chaff 

Chaff is an electronic countermeasure designed to reflect radar waves and obscure aircraft, vessels, and 

other equipment from radar tracking sources. Chaff is composed of an aluminum alloy coating on glass 

fibers of silicon dioxide (U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997). It is released or dispensed in cartridges 

or projectiles that contain millions of chaff fibers. When deployed, a diffuse cloud of fibers undetectable 

to the human eye is formed. Chaff is a very light material that can remain suspended in air anywhere 

from 10 minutes to 10 hours and can travel considerable distances from its release point, depending on 

prevailing atmospheric conditions (Arfsten et al., 2002; U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997). Doppler 

radar has tracked chaff plumes containing approximately 900 grams (g) of chaff drifting 200 mi. from the 

point of release, with the plume covering greater than 400 cubic miles (1,667 cubic kilometers) (Arfsten 

et al., 2002).

The chaff concentrations that sea turtles could be exposed to following release of multiple cartridges 

(e.g., following a single day of training) are difficult to accurately estimate because it depends on several 

unknown factors. First, specific release points are not recorded and tend to be random, and chaff 

dispersion in air depends on prevailing atmospheric conditions. After falling from the air, chaff fibers 

would be expected to float on the sea surface for some period, depending on wave and wind action. The 

fibers would be dispersed further by sea currents as they float and slowly sink toward the bottom. Chaff 

concentrations in benthic habitats following release of a single cartridge would be lower than the values 

noted in this section, based on dispersion by currents and the enormous dilution capacity of the 

receiving waters.

Although chaff fibers are too small for sea turtles to confuse with prey and forage, there is some 

potential for chaff to be incidentally ingested along with other prey items, particularly if the chaff 

attaches to other floating marine debris. If ingested, chaff is not expected to impact sea turtles due to 

the low concentration that would be ingested and the small size of the fibers. While no similar studies to 

those discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.6.3 (Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions) on the 

impacts of chaff have been conducted on sea turtles, they are also not likely to be impacted by 

incidental ingestion of chaff fibers. For instance, some sea turtles ingest spicules (small spines within the 

structure of a sponge) in the course of eating the sponges, without harm to their digestive system. Since 

chaff fibers are of similar composition and size as these spicules (Spargo, 1999), ingestion of chaff should 

be inconsequential for sea turtles.

Chaff cartridge plastic end caps and pistons would also be released into the marine environment, where 

they would persist for long periods and could be ingested by sea turtles while initially floating on the 

surface and sinking through the water column. Chaff end caps and pistons would eventually sink in 

saltwater to the seafloor (Spargo, 2007), which reduces the likelihood of ingestion by sea turtles at the 

surface or in the water column. 

Flares 

Flares are designed to burn completely. The only material that would enter the water would be a small, 

round, plastic compression pad or piston (0.45 to 4.1 g depending on flare type). The flare pads and 

pistons float in sea water.

An extensive literature review and controlled experiments conducted by the United States Air Force 

demonstrated that self-protection flare use poses little risk to the environment or animals (U.S. 

Department of the Air Force, 1997). 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-102

3.8 Reptiles

Decelerators/Parachutes 

Aircraft-launched sonobuoys, lightweight torpedoes (such as the MK 46 and MK 54), and illumination 

flares use nylon decelerators/parachutes ranging in size from 18 to 48 in. in diameter. The majority of 

expended decelerators/parachutes are cruciform parachutes associated with sonobuoys, which are 

relatively small, and have short attachment lines. Parachutes are made up of cloth and nylon, with 

weights attached to the lines for rapid sinking upon impact with the water. At water impact, the 

decelerators/parachute assembly is expended, and it sinks away from the unit. The 

decelerator/parachute assembly may remain at the surface for a short time before it and its housing 

sink to the seafloor, where it becomes flattened (Environmental Sciences Group, 2005). The majority of 

decelerators/parachutes expended during deployment of a sonobuoy, are weighted and by design that 

decelerator/parachute must sink below the surface within 5 minutes of contact with the water. 

Ingestion of a decelerator/parachute by a sea turtle at the surface or within the water column would be 

unlikely, since the decelerator/parachute would not be available for very long before it sinks. Once on 

the seafloor, if bottom currents are present, the canopy may temporarily billow and be available for 

potential ingestion by a sea turtle feeding on or near the seafloor. 

Biodegradable Polymer

As stated in Section 3.0.3.3.5.3 (Biodegradable Polymer) based on the constituents of the biodegradable 

polymer, it is anticipated that the material will breakdown into small pieces within a few days to weeks. 

The small pieces will breakdown further and dissolve into the water column within weeks to a few 

months and could potentially be incidentally ingested by sea turtles. Because the final products of the 

breakdown are all environmentally benign, the Navy does not expect the use biodegradable polymer to 

be an ingestion stressor for sea turtles; therefore, is not analyzed further.

3.8.3.6.2.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Training 

Activities

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), military expended materials other than munitions

would be expended during offshore training activities within the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern 

California Range Complex. 

Target-related material, chaff, flares, decelerators/parachutes (and their subcomponents), and 

biodegradable polymers have the potential to be ingested by a sea turtle, although that is considered 

unlikely since most of these materials would quickly drop through the water column, settle on the 

seafloor, or in the case of biodegradable polymers, rapidly decay and not present an ingestion hazard. 

Some Styrofoam, plastic endcaps, chaff, and other small items may float for some time before sinking. 

While the smaller items discussed here may pose a hazard to sea turtles, as discussed for non-explosive 

practice munitions ingestion, the impacts of ingesting these forms of expended materials on sea turtles 

would be minor because of the following factors:

• the limited geographic area where materials other than munitions are expended during a given 

event

• the limited period of time these military expended materials would remain in the water column

• the unlikely chance that a sea turtle might encounter and swallow these items on the seafloor, 

particularly given that many of these items would be expended over deep, offshore waters
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-103

3.8 Reptiles

The impacts of ingesting military expended materials other than munitions would be limited to cases 

where an individual sea turtle might eat an indigestible item too large to be passed through the gut. The 

sea turtle would not be preferentially attracted to these military expended materials, with the possible 

exception of decelerators/parachutes that may appear similar to the prey of some sea turtle species and 

life stages that feed on jellyfish and similar organisms. For the most part, these military expended 

materials would most likely only be incidentally ingested by individuals feeding on the bottom in the 

precise location where these items were deposited. Non-munition military expended materials that 

would remain floating on the surface are too small to pose a risk of intestinal blockage to any sea turtle 

that happened to encounter it. Because leatherbacks and juveniles of some species (e.g., green sea 

turtles) are more likely to feed at or near the surface, they are more likely to encounter materials at the 

surface than are other species of turtles that primarily feed along the seafloor. Furthermore, 

leatherbacks typically feed in the open ocean, while other species are more likely to feed in nearshore 

areas. Though they are bottom-feeding species that generally feed nearshore, green, hawksbill, olive 

ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles may occur in the open ocean during migrations, as well as hatchling 

and juvenile stage turtles. 

Sublethal impacts due to ingestion of military expended materials other than munitions used in training 

activities may cause short-term or long-term disturbance to an individual turtle because (1) if a sea 

turtle were to incidentally ingest and swallow a decelerator/parachute, target fragment, chaff or flare 

component, it could potentially disrupt its feeding behavior or digestive processes; and (2) if the item is 

particularly large in proportion to the turtle ingesting it, the item could become permanently 

encapsulated by the stomach lining, with a rare chance that this could impede the turtle’s ability to feed 

or take in nutrients. Potential impacts of exposure to these items may result in changes to an 

individual’s behavior, growth, survival, annual reproductive success, lifetime reproductive success 

(fitness), or species recruitment. However, decelerators/parachutes, target fragments, chaff, and flare 

components used in training activities are generally not expected to cause disturbance to sea turtles 

because (1) leatherbacks are likely to forage further offshore than within range complexes, and other 

sea turtles primarily forage on the bottom in nearshore areas; (2) in some cases, a turtle would likely 

pass the item through its digestive tract and expel the item without impacting the individual; and 

(3) chaff, if ingested, would occur in very low concentration and is similar to spicules, which sea turtles 

(species and life stages that consume sponges and other organisms containing spicules) ingest without 

harm. Potential impacts of exposure to military expended materials other than munitions are not 

expected to result in population-level impacts.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions during training 

activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat 

because activities would not occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect 

ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult 

with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Testing 

Activities

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors) military expended materials other than munitions

would be expended during testing activities within the Hawaii Range Complex and Southern California 

Range Complex. Target-related material, chaff, flares, decelerators/parachutes (and their 

subcomponents), and biodegradable polymers have the potential to be ingested by a sea turtle, 

although that is considered unlikely since most of these materials would quickly drop through the water 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-104

3.8 Reptiles

column, settle on the seafloor, or in the case of biodegradable polymers, rapidly decay and not present 

an ingestion hazard. Some Styrofoam, plastic endcaps, chaff, and other small items may float for some 

time before sinking.

While the smaller items discussed here may pose a hazard to sea turtles, as discussed for non-explosive 

practice munitions ingestion, the impacts of ingesting these forms of expended materials on sea turtles 

would be minor because of the following factors:

• the limited geographic area where materials other than munitions are expended during a 

given event

• the limited period of time these military expended materials would remain in the water column

• the unlikely chance that a sea turtle might encounter and swallow these items on the seafloor, 

particularly given that many of these items would be expended over deep, offshore waters

The impacts of ingesting military expended materials other than munitions would be limited to cases 

where an individual sea turtle might eat an indigestible item too large to be passed through the gut. The 

sea turtle would not be preferentially attracted to these military expended materials, with the possible 

exception of decelerators/parachutes that may appear similar to the prey of some sea turtle species and 

life stages that feed on jellyfish and similar organisms. For the most part, these military expended 

materials would most likely only be incidentally ingested by individuals feeding on the bottom in the 

precise location where these items were deposited. Non-munition military expended materials that 

would remain floating on the surface are too small to pose a risk of intestinal blockage to any sea turtle 

that happened to encounter it. Because leatherbacks and juveniles of some species (e.g., green sea 

turtles) are more likely to feed at or near the surface, they are more likely to encounter materials at the 

surface than are other species of turtles that primarily feed along the seafloor. Furthermore, 

leatherbacks typically feed in the open ocean, while other species are more likely to feed in nearshore 

areas. Though they are bottom-feeding species that generally feed nearshore, green, hawksbill, olive 

ridley, and loggerhead sea turtles may occur in the open ocean during migrations, as well as hatchling 

and juvenile stage turtles. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions during testing 

activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat 

because activities would not occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect 

ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. The Navy will consult 

with NMFS and the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.8.3.6.2.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Training 

Activities

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), the locations of training activities that expend 

military expended materials other than munitions would be identical under Alternatives 1 and 2.

However, the total number of military expended materials other than munitions released throughout 

these locations would increase by 0.02 percent annually and by 7 percent over five years. The fractional 

increase in amount of military expended materials other than munitions would not substantially 

increase the potential for sea turtles to ingest these items. Therefore the analysis presented in Section 

3.8.3.6.2.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1) for 

training activities would also apply to training activities proposed under Alternative 2.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-105

3.8 Reptiles

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions during training 

activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat 

because activities would not occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect 

ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Testing 

Activities

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors) the locations of testing activities that expend 

military expended materials other than munitions would be identical under Alternatives 1 and 2. The 

number of military expended materials other than munitions used in these locations during testing 

activities would be the same under Alternative 2 as under Alternative 1. Therefore the analysis 

presented in Section 3.8.3.6.2.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under 

Alternative 1) for testing activities would also apply to testing activities proposed under Alternative 2.

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions during testing 

activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat 

because activities would not occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, but may affect 

ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, loggerhead, and leatherback sea turtles. 

3.8.3.6.2.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under the No Action 

Alternative

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under the No Action Alternative 

for Training and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the HSTT Study Area. Various ingestion stressors (e.g., military expended materials other than 

munitions) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the 

existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities.

3.8.3.7 Secondary Stressors

This section analyzes potential impacts on sea turtles and sea snakes exposed to stressors indirectly 

through impacts on their habitat (sediment or water quality) or prey availability. For the purposes of this 

analysis, indirect impacts on reptiles via sediment or water quality that do not require trophic transfer 

(e.g., bioaccumulation) in order to be observed are considered here. Bioaccumulation considered 

previously in this document in the analysis of fish (Section 3.6), invertebrates (Section 3.4), and marine 

habitats (Section 3.5) indicated minimal to no impacts on potential prey species of sea turtles sea 

snakes. It is important to note that the terms “indirect” and “secondary” do not imply reduced severity 

of environmental consequences but instead describe how the impact may occur in an organism. The 

potential for impacts from all of these secondary stressors are discussed below.

Stressors from Navy training and testing activities that could pose indirect impacts on sea turtles and sea 

snakes via habitat or prey include: (1) explosives, (2) explosive byproducts and unexploded munitions, 

(3) metals, and (4) chemicals. Analyses of the potential impacts on sediment and water quality are 

discussed in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). 

Explosives 

As it pertains to reptile species, underwater explosions could impact other species in the food web, 

including prey species that sea turtles and sea snakes feed upon and disrupt ecological relationships and 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-106

3.8 Reptiles

conditions that would lead to decreased availability of forage. The impacts of explosions would differ 

depending on the type of prey species in the area of the blast. As described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.6-1 through Table 2.6-4, training and testing activities 

resulting in underwater explosions will occur in the Study Area. 

In addition to the physical effects of an underwater blast (e.g., injury or mortality from the blast 

pressure wave), prey might have behavioral reactions to underwater sound. For instance, prey species 

might exhibit a strong startle reaction to detonations that might include swimming to the surface or 

scattering away from the source. This startle and flight response is the most common secondary defense 

among animals (Mather, 2004). The abundance of prey species near the detonation point could be 

diminished for a short period before being repopulated by animals from adjacent waters (Berglind et al., 

2009; Craig, 2001). Many sea turtle prey items, such as jellyfish, sponges, and molluscs have limited 

mobility and ability to react to pressure waves; therefore, mobile prey species for sea turtles and sea 

snakes would be less affected because of their ability to respond to other stressors preceding an 

underwater blast (e.g., vessel noise or visual cues). Any of these scenarios would be temporary, only 

occurring during activities involving explosives, and no lasting effect on prey availability or the pelagic 

food web would be expected. For example, if prey were removed from an area resulting from a stressor 

introduced by a training or testing activity, prey species would be expected to recolonize or recruit 

rapidly in the area because there would be little or no permanent change to the habitat.

The Navy will implement mitigation (e.g., not conducting gunnery activities within a specified distance of 

shallow-water coral reefs) to avoid potential impacts from explosives and physical disturbance and strike 

stressors on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, 

Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts 

from explosives on sea turtle and sea snake prey species that inhabit shallow-water coral reefs, live hard 

bottom, precious coral beds, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks.

Explosion Byproducts and Unexploded Munitions 

High-order explosions consume most of the explosive material, creating typical combustion products. In 

the case of Royal Demolition Explosive, also known as cyclonite and hexogen, 98 percent of the 

byproducts are common seawater constituents, and the remainder is rapidly diluted below threshold 

effect level (Section 3.2, Sediments and Water Quality). Explosion byproducts associated with high-order 

detonations present no indirect stressors to sea turtles or sea snakes through sediment or water. 

Furthermore, most explosions occur in depths exceeding that which normally support seagrass beds and 

coral reefs, areas that is commonly used by green and hawksbill sea turtles. For example, most 

detonations would occur in waters greater than 200 ft. in depth, and greater than 3 NM from shore, 

although mine warfare, demolition, and some testing detonations would occur in shallow water close to 

shore. These low-order detonations and unexploded munitions present elevated likelihood of secondary 

impacts on sea turtles. For sea snakes, deep diving to these depths is not likely, and would not be 

exposed to indirect stressors from explosion byproducts or unexploded munitions.

Deposition of undetonated explosive materials into the marine environment can be reasonably well 

estimated by the known failure and low-order detonation rates of high-explosives (Section 3.2, 

Sediments and Water Quality, Table 3.2-10). While it is remotely possible for sea turtles to come into 

contact with an undetonated explosive, to have contact with unexploded materials in the sediment or 

water, and or to ingest unexploded materials in sediments, it is very unlikely. For sea snakes, benthic 

foraging in pelagic environments is unlikely to occur, and interactions with undetonated explosives is 

highly unlikely.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-107

3.8 Reptiles

Indirect impacts of explosives and unexploded munitions to sea turtles via sediment contamination is 

possible only if a sea turtle ingested the sediment. Degradation of explosives proceeds through several 

pathways, as discussed in Section 3.2.3.1 (Explosives and Explosives Byproducts). Degradation products 

of Royal Demolition Explosive are not toxic to marine organisms at realistic exposure levels (Rosen & 

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. 

Furthermore, while explosives and their degradation products were detectable in marine sediment 

approximately 6–12 in. away from degrading munitions, the concentrations of these compounds were 

not statistically distinguishable from background beyond 3–6 ft. from the degrading munitions (Section 

3.2.3.1, Explosives and Explosives Byproducts). Taken together, it is possible that sea turtles could be 

exposed to degrading explosives, but it would be within a very small radius of the explosive (1 to 6 ft.). 

Sea snakes, with shallow water pelagic habits, would not likely interact with sediments.

A series of research efforts focused on World War II underwater munitions disposal sites in Hawaii 

(Edwards et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 2016; Koide et al., 2016; University of Hawaii, 2010) and an 

intensively used live fire range in the Mariana Islands (Smith & Marx, 2016) provide information in 

regard to the impacts of undetonated materials and unexploded munitions on marine life. Section 

3.2.3.1 (Explosives and Explosives Byproducts) and Section 3.2.3.3 (Metals) contains a summary of this 

literature that investigated water and sediment quality impacts, on a localized scale, from munitions 

ocean disposal sites and ocean disposed dredge spoils sites. Findings from these studies indicate that 

there were no adverse impacts on the local ecology from the presence of degrading munitions and there 

was no bioaccumulation of munitions-related chemicals in local marine species. 

The island of Farallon De Medinilla (in the Mariana Islands) has been used as a target area since 1971. 

Between 1997 and 2012, there were 14 underwater scientific survey investigations around the island 

providing a long-term look at potential impacts on the marine life from training and testing involving the 

use of munitions (Smith & Marx, 2016). Munitions use has included high-explosive rounds from gunfire, 

high-explosives bombs by Navy aircraft and U.S. Air Force B-52s, in addition to the expenditure of inert 

rounds and non-explosive practice bombs. Marine life assessed during these surveys included algae, 

corals, benthic invertebrates, sharks, rays, and bony fishes, and sea turtles. The investigators found no 

evidence over the 16-year period that the condition of the biological resources had been adversely 

impacted to a significant degree by the training activities (Smith & Marx, 2016). Furthermore, they 

found that the health, abundance, and biomass of fishes, corals and other marine resources were 

comparable to or superior to those in similar habitats at other locations within the Mariana Archipelago.

These findings are consistent with other assessments such as that done for the Potomac River Test 

Range at Dahlgren, Virginia, which was established in 1918 and is the nation’s largest fully instrumented, 

over-the-water gun-firing range. Munitions tested at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren have 

included rounds from small-caliber guns up to the Navy’s largest (16 in. guns), bombs, rockets, mortars, 

grenades, mines, depth charges, and torpedoes (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013b). Results from the 

assessment indicate that munitions expended at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren have not 

contributed to significant concentrations of metals to the Potomac River water and sediments given 

those contributions are orders of magnitude less than concentrations already present in the Potomac 

River from natural and manmade sources (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013b). 

The concentration of munitions/explosions, expended material, or devices in any one location in the 

HSTT Study Area would be a small fraction of that from a World War II dump site, or a target island used 

for 45 years, or a water range in a river used for almost 100 years. Based on findings from much more 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-108

3.8 Reptiles

intensively used locations, the water quality effects from the use of munitions, expended material, or 

devices resulting from any of the proposed actions would be negligible by comparison. As a result, 

explosion by-products and unexploded munitions would have no meaningful effect on water quality and 

would therefore not constitute a secondary indirect stressor for sea turtles or sea snakes.

Metals

Metals are introduced into seawater and sediments as a result of training and testing activities involving 

ship hulks, targets, munitions, and other military expended materials (see Section 3.2.3.2, Metals) 

(Environmental Sciences Group, 2005). Some metals bioaccumulate and physiological impacts begin to 

occur only after several trophic transfers concentrate the toxic metals (Section 3.5, Habitats, and 

Chapter 4.0, Cumulative Impacts). Evidence from a number of studies (Briggs et al., 2016; Edwards et al., 

2016; Kelley et al., 2016; Koide et al., 2016) indicate metal contamination is very localized and that 

bioaccumulation resulting from munitions cannot be demonstrated. Specifically in sampled marine life 

living on or around munitions on the seafloor, metal concentrations could not be definitively linked to 

the munitions since comparison of metals in sediment next to munitions show relatively little difference 

in comparison to other “clean” marine sediments used as a control/reference (Koide et al., 2015). 

Research has demonstrated that some smaller marine organisms are attracted to metal munitions as a 

hard substrate for colonization or as shelter (Kelley et al., 2015; Smith and Marx, 2016). Although this 

would likely increase prey availability for some benthic foraging sea turtles that feed on molluscs (e.g., 

loggerheads), the relatively low density of metals deposited by training and testing activities compared 

to concentrated dump and range sites would not likely substantively benefit sea turtles. As stated 

above, pelagic habits and shallow water diving would not likely present any opportunities for sea snake 

interactions with metal contaminated sediments.

Chemicals

Several Navy training and testing activities introduce chemicals into the marine environment that are 

potentially harmful in higher concentrations; however, rapid dilution would occur, and toxic 

concentrations are unlikely to be encountered. Chemicals introduced are principally from flares and 

propellants for missiles and torpedoes. Properly functioning flares, missiles, and torpedoes combust 

most of their propellants, leaving benign or readily diluted soluble combustion byproducts (e.g., 

hydrogen cyanide). Operational failures may allow propellants and their degradation products to be 

released into the marine environment. Flares and missile that operationally fail may release perchlorate, 

which is highly soluble in water, persistent, and impacts metabolic processes in many plants and animals

if in sufficient concentration. Such concentrations are not likely to persist in the ocean. Research has 

demonstrated that perchlorate did not bioconcentrate or bioaccumulate, which was consistent with the 

expectations for a water-soluble compound (Furin et al., 2013). Perchlorate from failed expendable 

items is therefore unlikely to compromise water quality to that point that it would act as a secondary 

stressor to sea turtles. It should also be noted that chemicals in the marine environment as a result of 

Navy training and testing activities would not occur in isolation and are typically associated with military 

expended materials that release the chemicals while in operation. Because sea turtles and sea snakes 

would likely avoid expended flares, missiles, or torpedoes in the water (because of other ques such as 

visual and noise disturbance), avoidance would further reduce the potential for introduced chemicals to 

act as a secondary stressor. 

3.8.3.7.1 Impacts on Habitat

As presented above in Section 3.8.3.7 (Secondary Stressors), Navy activities that introduce explosive 

byproducts and unexploded munitions, metals, and chemicals into the marine environment have not 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-109

3.8 Reptiles

demonstrated long-term impacts on sediment and water quality. Explosive byproducts and unexploded 

munitions from ongoing Navy activities have not resulted in water quality impacts, and the likelihood of 

sea turtles or sea snakes being in contact with sediments contaminated from degrading explosives is 

low, given the small radius of impact around the location of the explosive. Furthermore, there is no 

evidence of bioconcentration or bioaccumulation of chemicals introduced by Navy activities that would 

alter water quality to an extent that would result in overall habitat degradation for sea turtles or 

sea snakes.

As stated previously, most detonations would occur in waters greater than 200 ft. in depth, and greater 

than 3 NM from shore, although mine warfare, demolition, and some testing detonations would occur in 

shallow water close to shore. In deep waters, explosions would not likely remove habitat for sea turtles 

or sea snakes because the explosion would not be on or proximate to the sea floor. These habitats 

include corals, seagrass beds, and other benthic habitats that are used by sea turtles. In near shore 

waters, explosions would typically occur in the same locations, limiting the removal of habitat to 

previously disturbed areas. Therefore, habitat loss from training and testing activities that use 

explosions would not substantially remove habitats available to sea turtles and sea snakes and not 

impact sea turtle or sea snake individuals or populations.

Pursuant to the ESA, training and testing activities that introduce secondary stressors would have no 

effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the designated 

critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed green, hawksbill, olive ridley, loggerhead, and 

leatherback sea turtles through minor and localized indirect impacts on these species’ habitat. The Navy 

will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.8.3.7.2 Impacts on Prey Availability

As presented above in Section 3.8.3.7 (Secondary Stressors), Navy activities that introduce explosives, 

metals, and chemicals into the marine environment have not demonstrated long-term impacts on prey 

availability for sea turtles or sea snakes. Bioaccumulation of metals from munitions in prey species has 

not been demonstrated, and no effects to prey availability from metals and chemicals are known 

to occur. 

Training and testing activities in the HSTT Study Area would be unlikely to impact coral reefs (a direct or 

indirect source of prey and forage items for sea turtles) because the Navy implements mitigation with 

mitigation areas for shallow-water coral reefs. These mitigation measures would continue under both 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. 

Pursuant to the ESA, training and testing activities that introduce secondary stressors would have no 

effect on leatherback sea turtle critical habitat because activities would not occur within the designated 

critical habitat for this species, but may affect ESA-listed sea turtles through minor and localized indirect 

impacts on these species’ prey availability. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA.

3.8.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON REPTILES

3.8.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1

As described in Section 3.0.3.5 (Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Multiple Stressors), this section 

evaluates the potential for combined impacts of all the stressors from the proposed action. The analysis 

and conclusions for the potential impacts from each of the individual stressors are discussed in Sections

3.8.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors) through 3.8.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors) and, for ESA-listed species, summarized 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-110

3.8 Reptiles

in Section 3.8.4.4 (Endangered Species Act Determinations). Stressors associated with Navy training and 

testing activities do not typically occur in isolation but rather occur in some combination. For example, 

mine neutralization activities include elements of acoustic, physical disturbance and strike, 

entanglement, ingestion, and secondary stressors that are all coincident in space and time. An analysis 

of the combined impacts of all stressors considers the potential consequences of additive stressors and 

synergistic stressors, as described below. This analysis makes the reasonable assumption that the 

majority of exposures to stressors are non-lethal, and instead focuses on consequences potentially 

impacting sea turtle or sea snake fitness (e.g., physiology, behavior, reproductive potential).

Additive Stressors–There are generally two ways that a sea turtle or sea snake could be exposed to 

multiple additive stressors. The first would be if an animal were exposed to multiple sources of stress 

from a single event or activity within a single testing or training event (e.g., a mine warfare event may 

include the use of a sound source and a vessel). 

The potential for a combination of these impacts from a single activity would depend on the range to 

effects of each of the stressors and the response or lack of response to that stressor. Most of the 

activities proposed under Alternative 1 generally involve the use of moving platforms (e.g., ships, 

torpedoes, aircraft) that may produce one or more stressors; therefore, it is likely that if a sea turtle or 

sea snake were within the potential impact range of those activities, it may be impacted by multiple 

stressors simultaneously. Individual stressors that would otherwise have minimal to no impact, may 

combine to have a measurable response. However, due to the wide dispersion of stressors, speed of the 

platforms, general dynamic movement of many training and testing activities, and behavioral avoidance 

exhibited by sea turtles, it is very unlikely that a sea turtle or sea snake would remain in the potential 

impact range of multiple sources or sequential exercises. Exposure to multiple stressors is more likely to 

occur at an instrumented range where training and testing using multiple platforms may be 

concentrated during a particular event. In such cases involving a relatively small area on an 

instrumented range, a behavioral reaction resulting in avoidance of the immediate vicinity of the activity 

would reduce the likelihood of exposure to additional stressors. Nevertheless, the majority of the 

proposed activities are unit-level training and small testing activities which are conducted in the open 

ocean. Unit level exercises occur over a small spatial scale (one to a few square miles) and with few 

participants (usually one or two vessels) or short duration (the order of a few hours or less).

Secondly, a sea turtle or sea snake could be exposed to multiple training and testing activities over the 

course of its life, however, training and testing activities are generally separated in space and time in 

such a way that it would be unlikely that any individual sea turtle or sea snake would be exposed to 

stressors from multiple activities within a short timeframe. However, sea turtles with a home range 

intersecting an area of concentrated Navy activity have elevated exposure risks relative to sea turtles 

that simply transit the area through a migratory corridor. Similarly, sea snakes in open ocean 

environments within the Study Area are more associated with currents without home ranges in pelagic 

areas; therefore, activities concentrated in repeated geographic locations would not present a risk to 

pelagic roaming sea snakes.

Synergistic Stressors–Multiple stressors may also have synergistic effects for sea turtles. Assumed to 

rarely occur within the Study Area, and not occurring within groups, sea snakes would likely not 

experience synergistic effects. Sea turtles that react to a sound source (behavioral response) or 

experience injury from acoustic stressors could be more susceptible to physical strike and disturbance 

stressors via a decreased ability to detect and avoid threats. Sea turtles that experience behavioral and 

physiological consequences of ingestion stressors could be more susceptible to entanglement and 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-111

3.8 Reptiles

physical strike stressors via malnourishment and disorientation. Similarly, sea turtles that may be 

weakened by disease (e.g., fibropapillomatosis) or other factors that are not associated with Navy 

training and testing activities may be more susceptible to stressors analyzed in this EIS. These 

interactions are speculative, and without data on the combination of multiple Navy stressors, the 

synergistic impacts from the combination of Navy stressors are difficult to predict in any meaningful 

way. Research and monitoring efforts have included before, during, and after-event observations and 

surveys, data collection through conducting long-term studies in areas of Navy activity, occurrence 

surveys over large geographic areas, biopsy of animals occurring in areas of Navy activity, and tagging 

studies where animals are exposed to Navy stressors. These efforts are intended to contribute to the 

overall understanding of what impacts may be occurring overall to animals in these areas. To date, the 

findings from the research and monitoring and the regulatory conclusions from previous analyses by 

NMFS (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013; National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2015) are that majority of impacts from Navy training and testing activities are not 

expected to have deleterious impacts on the fitness of any individuals or long-term consequences to 

populations of sea turtles.

Although potential impacts on certain sea turtle species from training and testing activities under 

Alternative 1 may include injury to individuals, those injuries are not expected to lead to long-term 

consequences for populations. The potential impacts anticipated from Alternative 1 are summarized in 

Sections 3.8.4.4 (Endangered Species Act Determinations). For a discussion of cumulative impacts, see 

Chapter 4 (Cumulative Impacts).

3.8.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2, the potential for exposure of sea turtles or sea snakes to multiple stressors would 

increase relative to Alternative 1, thereby increasing the risk of synergistic effects on sea turtles or sea 

snakes and possibly increasing the exposure of sea turtles or sea snakes to different stressors 

throughout a reptile’s life. The impacts would be similar as described under Alternative 1, such as 

reducing the reptile’s ability to respond to a stressor while coping with the effects of another stressor. 

As with Alternative 1, however, activities are separated by geographic location and time, which reduces 

the potential for synergistic effects of multiple exposures to different stressors and repeated exposures 

over time.

3.8.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, training and testing activities associated with the Proposed Action will 

not be conducted within the HSTT Study Area. Under this alternative, there would be no potential for 

impacts on sea turtles or sea snakes. The cessation of some stressors would be more beneficial than 

others. For instance, because of the localized and short-term duration of any potential impact from an 

electromagnetic field on a sea turtle, the potential benefits to sea turtles or sea snakes are not likely 

measureable. The removal of fast vessel movement training activities, however, would likely decrease 

behavioral impacts and responses to vessels, but again, the impact is likely short-term, with normal 

behaviors resuming within minutes of a passing vessel. Vessel strike risk would be reduced, which would 

likely increase survivability and individual fitness for a small number of sea turtles or sea snakes. Further, 

the synergistic effects of multiple stressors would not occur, thereby providing benefits to sea turtles 

and sea snakes by removing short-term and long-term potential impacts. The implementation of the No 

Action Alternative would remove risks of impacts associated with training and testing activities; 

however, monitoring data accumulated through range sustainment programs would cease. These data 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-112

3.8 Reptiles

provide foundational data for the research and regulatory communities to assess ongoing threats and 

conservation status of various species. 

3.8.4.4 Endangered Species Act Determinations

Administration of ESA obligations associated with sea turtles are shared between NMFS and USFWS, 

depending on life stage and specific location of the sea turtle. NMFS has jurisdiction over sea turtles in 

the marine environment, and USFWS has jurisdiction over sea turtles on land. The Navy is consulting 

with NMFS on its determination of effect on the potential impacts of the Proposed Action. Because no 

activities analyzed in this EIS/OEIS occur on land within sea turtle nesting areas, consultation with 

USFWS is not required for sea turtles.

Pursuant to the ESA, Navy training and testing activities would have no effect on leatherback sea turtle 

critical habitat because activities would not occur within the designated critical habitat for this species, 

but may affect the green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, olive ridley sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, 

and leatherback sea turtle. The Navy will consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

The outcome of those consultations pursuant to ESA will be described in the Final HSTT EIS/OEIS.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-113

References

REFERENCES

Aguilar de Soto, N., M. P. Johnson, P. T. Madsen, F. Diaz, I. Dominguez, A. Brito, & P. Tyack. (2008). 

Cheetahs of the deep sea: deep foraging sprints in short-finned pilot whales off Tenerife (Canary 

Islands). The Journal of animal ecology, 77(5), 936–947. 

Aki, K., R. Brock, J. Miller, J. R. Mobley, Jr., P. J. Rappa, D. Tarnas, & M. Yuen. (1994). A site 

characterization study for the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Alfaro-Shigueto, J., P. H. Dutton, J. Mangel, & D. Vega. (2004). First confirmed occurrence of loggerhead 

turtles in Peru. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 103, 7–11. 

Allen, C. D., G. E. Lemons, T. Eguchi, R. A. LeRoux, C. C. Fahy, P. H. Dutton, S. H. Peckham, & J. A. 

Seminoff. (2013). Stable isotope analysis reveals migratory origin of loggerhead turtles in the 

Southern California Bight. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 472, 275–285. 

Arfsten, D. P., C. L. Wilson, & B. J. Spargo. (2002). Radio frequency chaff: The effects of its use in training 

on the environment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 53(1), 1–11. 

Aschettino, J., D. Engelhaupt, A. Engelhaupt, J. Bell, & J. B. Thornton. (2015). Humpback Whale Presence 

and Habitat-Use in High-Traffic Areas off Virginia. Paper presented at the 21st Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, San Francisco, CA. 

Avens, L., & K. J. Lohmann. (2003). Use of multiple orientation cues by juvenile loggerhead sea turtles, 

Caretta caretta. Journal of Experiential Biology, 206(23), 4317–4325. 

Balazs, G. (1986). Fibropapillomas in Hawaiian green turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 39, 1–3. 

Balazs, G. H., P. Craig, B. R. Winton, & R. K. Miya. (1994). Satellite telemetry of green turtles nesting at 

French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii, and Rose Atoll, American Samoa. In (Proceedings of the 

Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation). U. S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine Fisheries 

Service.

Balazs, G. H., & M. Chaloupka. (2006). Recovery trend over 32 years at the Hawaiian green turtle rookery 

of French Frigate Shoals. Atoll Research Bulletin(543), 147–158. 

Bartol, S. M., J. A. Musick, & M. L. Lenhardt. (1999). Auditory evoked potentials of the loggerhead sea 

turtle (Caretta caretta). Copeia, 1999(3), 836–840. 

Bartol, S. M., & D. R. Ketten. (2006). Turtle and Tuna Hearing (Sea Turtle and Pelagic Fish Sensory 

Biology: Developing Techniques to Reduce Sea Turtle Bycatch in Longline Fisheries: NOAA

Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-7). Honolulu, HI: Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center.

Becking, L. E., T. C. J. M. van Bussel, A. O. Debrot, & M. J. A. Christianen. (2014). First record of a 

Caribbean green turtle (Chelonia mydas) grazing on invasive seagrass (Halophila stipulacea). 

Caribbean Journal of Science, 48(2-3), 162–163. 

Benson, S. R., K. A. Forney, J. T. Harvey, J. V. Carretta, & P. H. Dutton. (2007). Abundance, distribution, 

and habitat of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) off California, 1990–2003. Fishery 

Bulletin, 105(3), 337–347. 

Berglind, R., D. Menning, R. Tryman, A. Helte, P. Leffler, & R. M. Karlsson. (2009). Environmental Effects 

of Underwater Explosions: A Literature Study. Totalforsvarets Forskningsinstitut, FOI.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-114

References

Berkson, H. (1967). Physiological adjustments to deep diving in the Pacific green turtle (Chelonia mydas 

agassizii). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 21(3), 507–524. 

Besseling, E., E. M. Foekema, J. A. Van Franeker, M. F. Leopold, S. Kuhn, E. L. B. Rebolledo, E. Hebe, L. 

Mielke, J. Ijzer, P. Kamminga, & A. A. Koelmans. (2015). Microplastic in a macro filter feeder: 

humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 95(1), 48–52. 

Biggs, D. C., R. R. Leben, & J. G. Ortega-Ortiz. (2000). Ship and satellite studies of mesoscale circulatio 

and sperm whale habitats in the northeast Gulf of Mexico during GulfCetII. Gulf of Mexico 

Science, 18(1), 15–22. 

Birney, K., M. Byrd, S. Hastings, S. Herron, B. Shafritz, & R. Freedman. (2015). Report on the 2014 Vessel 

Speed Reduction Incentive Trial in the Santa Barbara Channel (Protecting Blue Whales and Blue 

Skies).

Bjorndal, K. A., & A. B. Bolten. (1988). Growth rates of immature green turtles, Chelonia mydas, on 

feeding grounds in the southern Bahamas. Copeia, 1988(3), 555–564. 

Bjorndal, K. A., A. B. Bolten, & C. J. Lagueux. (1994). Ingestion of marine debris by juvenile sea turtles in 

coastal Florida habitats. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 28(3), 154–158. 

Bjorndal, K. A. (1997a). Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles. In In P. L. Lutz & J. A. Musick (Eds.), 

The Biology of Sea Turtles (Vol. 1, pp. 199-231). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Bjorndal, K. A. (1997b). Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles. In P. L. Lutz & J. A. Musick (Eds.), 

The biology of sea turtles (pp. 199–231). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Bjorndal, K. A. (2003). Roles of loggerhead sea turtles in marine ecosystems. In A. B. Bolten & B. E. 

Witherington (Eds.), Loggerhead Sea Turtles (pp. 235–254). Washington, DC: Smithsonian 

Institution Press.

Bolten, A. B. (2003). Active swimmers-passive drifters: The oceanic juvenile stage of loggerheads in the 

Atlantic system. In A. B. Bolten & B. E. Witherington (Eds.), Loggerhead Sea Turtles (pp. 63–78). 

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.

Bowen, B. W., F. A. Abreu-Grobois, G. H. Balazs, N. Kamezaki, C. J. Limpus, & R. J. Ferl. (1995). TransPacific migrations of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) demonstrated with mitochondrial 

DNA markers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 

92, 3731–3734. 

Bowen, B. W., A. L. Bass, S.-M. Chow, M. Bostrom, K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten, T. Okuyama, B. M. Bolker, 

S. Epperly, E. Lacasella, D. Shaver, M. Dodd, S. R. Hopkins-Murphy, J. A. Musick, M. Swingle, K. 

Rankin-Baransky, W. Teas, W. N. Witzell, & P. H. Dutton. (2004). Natal homing in juvenile 

loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta). Mol Ecol, 13, 3797–3808. 

Boyer, J. N., J. W. Fourqurean, & R. D. Jones. (1999). Seasonal and long-term trends in the water quality 

of Florida Bay (1989–1997). Estuaries, 22(2), 417–430. 

Bredvik, J. J., S. E. Graham, & B. Saunders. (2016). Progress Report: Evaluation of Fine Scale Movements 

of East Pacific Green Sea Turtles in San Diego Bay. Prepared for Commander, Naval Installations 

Command and Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command (NAVFAC) Southwest, California, March 2016.

Bresette, M., D. Singewald, & E. DeMaye. (2006). Recruitment of post-pelagic green turtles (Chelonia 

mydas) to nearshore reefs on Florida's east coast. In In M. Frick, A. Panagopoulou, A. F. Rees & 

K. Williams (Eds.), Twenty-sixth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation: Book 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-115

References

of Abstracts (pp. 288). Athens, Greece: National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center, International Sea Turtle Society.

Briggs, C., S. M. Shjegstad, J. A. K. Silva, & M. H. Edwards. (2016). Distribution of chemical warfare agent, 

energetics, and metals in sediments at a deep-water discarded military munitions site. Deep Sea 

Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 63–69. 

Brischoux, F., C. Cotte, H. B. Lillywhite, F. Bailleul, M. Lalire, & P. Gaspar. (2016). Oceanic circulation 

models help to predict global biogeography of pelagic yellow-bellied sea snake. Biology Letters, 

12(8). 

Browlow, A., J. Onoufriou, A. Bishop, N. Davidson, & D. Thompson. (2016). Corkscrew Seals: Grey Seal 

(Halichoerus grypus) infanticide and cannibalisng may indicate the cause of spiral lacerations in 

seals. PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0156464. 

Buckland, S. T., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, J. L. Laake, D. L. Borchers, & L. Thomas. (2001).

Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Oxford, UK: 

Oxford University Press.

Bugoni, L., T. S. Neves, N. O. Leite Jr., D. Carvalho, G. Sales, R. W. Furness, C. E. Stein, F. V. Peppes, B. B. 

Giffoni, & D. S. Monteiro. (2008). Potential bycatch of seabirds and turtles in hook-and-line 

fisheries of the Itaipava Fleet, Brazil. Fisheries Research, 90, 217-224. 

Burkholder, J., D. Eggleston, H. Glasgow, C. Brownie, R. Reed, G. Janowitz, M. Posey, G. Mella, C. Kinder, 

R. Corbett, D. Toms, T. Alphin, N. Deamer, & J. Springer. (2004). Comparative impacts of two 

major hurricane seasons on the Neuse River and western Pamlico Sound ecosystems. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(25), 9291–9296. 

Campbell, C. (2016). Port of Baltimore's first container ship through expanded Panama Canal carries 

hope for future. The Baltimore Sun. http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-panamacanal-expansion-20160715-story.html

Carr, A., & A. B. Meylan. (1980). Evidence of passive migration of green turtle hatchlings in Sargassum. 

Copeia, 1980(2), 366–368. 

Chaloupka, M., P. Dutton, & H. Nakano. (2004). Status of sea turtle stocks in the Pacific (Papers 

Presented at the Expert Consultation on Interactions between Sea Turtles and Fisheries Within 

an Ecosystem Context). Rome, Italy: United Nations Environment Programme, Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Chaloupka, M., T. M. Work, G. H. Balazs, S. K. K. Murakawa, & R. Morris. (2008). Cause-specific temporal 

and spatial trends in green sea turtle strandings in the Hawaiian Archipelago (1982–2003). 

Marine Biology, 154, 887–898. 

Chaloupka, M., G. Balazs, & T. M. Work. (2009). Rise and fall over 26 years of a marine epizootic in 

Hawaiian green sea turtles. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 45(4), 1138-1142. 

Chambault, P., B. De Thoisy, K. Heerah, A. Conchon, S. Barrioz, V. Dos Reis, R. Berzins, L. Kelle, B. Picard,

& F. Roquet. (2016). The influence of oceanographic features on the foraging behavior of the 

olive ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea along the Guiana coast. Progress in Oceanography, 

142, 58–71. 

Christensen, C. B., J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, C. Brandt, & P. T. Madsen. (2012). Hearing with an 

atympanic ear: good vibration and poor sound-pressure detection in the royal python, Python 

regius. Journal of Experimental Biology, 215(2), 331-342. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-116

References

Christian, E. A., & J. B. Gaspin. (1974). Swimmer Safe Standards from Underwater Explosions. Navy 

Science Assistance Program Project No. PHP-11-73. White Oak, MD: Naval Ordnance Laboratory.

Clark, C. W., M. W. Brown, & P. Corkeron. (2010). Visual and acoustic surveys for North Atlantic right 

whales, Eubalaena glacialis, in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts, 2001–2005: management 

implications. Marine Mammal Science, 26(4), 837–843. 

Clark, H. R., & C. J. Gobler. (2016). Diurnal fluctuations in CO2 and dissolved oxygen concentrations do 

not provide a refuge from hypoxia and acidification for early-life-stage bivalves. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 558, 1–14. 

Clark, S. L., & J. W. Ward. (1943). The effects of rapid compression waves on animals submerged in 

water. Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics, 77, 403–412. 

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. (2009). COSEWIC Assessment and Update 

Status Report on the Bowhead Whale Balaena mysticetus Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort population 

East Canada-West Greenland population in Canada. Ottawa, Canada.

Conant, T. A., P. H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S. P. Epperly, C. C. Fahy, M. H. Godfrey, S. L. MacPherson, E. E. 

Possardt, B. A. Schroeder, J. A. Seminoff, M. L. Snover, C. M. Upite, & B. E. Witherington. (2009). 

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered Species 

Act. Report of the Loggerhead biological review team to the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

August 2009.

Cook, S. L., & T. G. Forrest. (2005). Sounds produced by nesting leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys 

coriacea). Herpetological Review, 36(4), 387–389. 

Cook, T. R., X. Bonnet, T. Fauvel, R. Shine, & F. Brischoux. (2015). Foraging behaviour and energy budgets 

of sea snakes: insights from implanted data loggers. Journal of Zoology. 

Craig, J. C., Jr. (2001). Appendix D, Physical Impacts of Explosions on Marine Mammals and Turtles Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Shock Trial of the WINSTON CHURCHILL (DDG 81). U.S. 

Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA).

Crear, D. P., D. D. Lawson, J. A. Seminoff, T. Eguchi, R. A. LeRoux, & C. G. Lowe. (2016). Seasonal shifts in 

the movement and distribution of green sea turtles Chelonia mydas in response to 

anthropogenically altered water temperatures. Marine Ecology Progess Series, 548, 219–232. 

Davenport, J. (1988). Do diving leatherbacks pursue glowing jelly? British Herpetological Society Bulletin, 

24, 20-21. 

Denkinger, J., M. Parra, J. P. Muñoz, C. Carrasco, J. C. Murillo, E. Espinosa, F. Rubianes, & V. Koch. (2013). 

Are boat strikes a threat to sea turtles in the Galapagos Marine Reserve? Ocean & Coastal 

Management, 80, 29-35. 

DeRuiter, S. L., & K. L. Doukara. (2012). Loggerhead turtles dive in response to airgun sound exposure. 

Endangered Species Research, 16(1), 55–63. 

Dew, L. A., R. G. Owen, & M. J. Mulroy. (1993). Changes in size and shape of auditory hair cells in vivo 

during noise-induced temporary threshold shift. Hearing Research, 66(1), 99–107. 

Dodd, C. K., Jr. (1988a). Synopsis of the biological data on the Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta 

(Linnaeus 1758). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Dodd, C. K., Jr. (1988b). Synopsis of the Biological Data on the Loggerhead Sea Turtle, Caretta caretta 

(Linnaeus 1758). Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-117

References

Dow Piniak, W. E., S. A. Eckert, C. A. Harms, & E. M. Stringer. (2012). Underwater Hearing Sensitivity of 

the Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea): Assessing the Potential Effect of 

Anthropogenic Noise. Herndon, VA.

Eckert, S. A., K. L. Eckert, P. Ponganis, & G. L. Kooyman. (1989). Diving and foraging behavior of 

leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 67, 2834–2840. 

Eckert, S. A. (1997). Distant fisheries implicated in the loss of the world's largest leatherback nesting 

population. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 78, 2–7. 

Edmonds, N. J., C. J. Firmin, D. Goldsmith, R. C. Faulkner, & D. T. Wood. (2016). A review of crustacean 

sensitivity to high amplitude underwater noise: Data needs for effective risk assessment in 

relation to UK commercial species. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 108, 5–11. 

Edwards, M. H., S. M. Shjegstad, R. Wilkens, J. C. King, G. Carton, D. Bala, B. Bingham, M. C. Bissonnette, 

C. Briggs, N. S. Bruso, R. Camilli, M. Cremer, R. B. Davis, E. H. DeCarlo, C. DuVal, D. J. Fornari, I. 

Kaneakua-Pia, C. D. Kelley, S. Koide, C. L. Mahk, T. Kerby, G. J. Kurras, M. R. Rognstad, L. Sheild, J. 

Silva, B. Wellington, & M. Van Woerkom. (2016). The Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions 

Assessment. Deep-Sea Research II, 128, 4–13. 

Eguchi, T., J. A. Seminoff, R. A. LeRoux, P. H. Dutton, & D. L. Dutton. (2010). Abundance and survival 

rates of green turtles in an urban environment—coexistence of humans and an endangered 

species. Marine Biology, 157, 1869–1877. 

Eguchi, T. (2015, 2 November 2015). [SOCAL sea turtle abundance. Personal communication between 

Tomoharu Eguchi (NMFS SWFSC) and Mike Zickel (ManTech) via email].

Eisenberg, J. F., & J. Frazier. (1983). A leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) feeding in the wild. 

Journal of Herpetology, 17(1), 81-82. 

Ellis, M. (2016). Disentangling a Whale of a Problem. Retrieved from www.nmfs.noa.gov

Engelhaupt, A., J. Aschettino, T. A. Jefferson, D. Engelhaupt, & M. Richlen. (2016). Occurrence, 

Distribution, and Density of Marine Mammals Near Naval Station Norfolk and Virginia Beach, 

Virginia. Virginia Beach, VA: U.S. Fleet Forces Command.

Engeman, R. M., D. Addison, & J. C. Griffin. (2016). Defending against disparate marine turtle nest 

predators: nesting success benefits from eradicating invasive feral swine and caging nests from 

raccoons. Oryx, 50(02), 289–295. 

Environmental Sciences Group. (2005). Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges 

(CFMETR) Environmental Assessment Update 2005. Kingston, Ontario: Environmental Sciences 

Group, Royal Military College.

Eriksson, C., & H. Burton. (2003). Origins and biological accumulation of small plastic particles in fur seals 

from Macquarie Island. Ambio, 32(6), 380–384. 

Fais, A., N. Aguilar Soto, M. Johnson, C. Perez-Gonzales, P. J. O. Miller, & P. T. Madsen. (2015). Sperm 

whale echolocation behavior reveals a directed, prior-based search strategy informed by prey 

distribution. Behaviour Ecology and Sociobiology, 69(4), 663–674. 

Fergusson, I. K., L. J. V. Compagno, & M. A. Marks. (2000). Predation by white sharks Carcharodon 

carcharias (Chondrichthyes: Lamnidae) upon chelonians, with new records from the 

Mediterranean Sea and a first record of the ocean sunfish Mola mola (Osteichthyes: Molidae) as 

stomach contents. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 58, 447–453. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-118

References

Ferrara, C. R., R. C. Vogt, M. R. Harfush, R. S. Sousa-Lima, E. Albavera, & A. Tavera. (2014). First evidence 

of leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) embryos and hatchlings emitting sounds. Chelonian 

Conservation and Biology, 13(1), 110–114. 

Finkbeiner, E. M., B. P. Wallace, J. E. Moore, R. L. Lewison, L. B. Crowder, & A. J. Read. (2011). 

Cumulative estimates of sea turtle bycatch and mortality in USA fisheries between 1990 and 

2007. Biological Conservation, 144(11), 2719-2727. 

Fish, M., I. Cote, J. Horrocks, B. Mulligan, A. Watkinson, & A. Jones. (2008). Construction setback 

regulations and sea-level rise: mitigating sea turtle nesting beach loss. Ocean & Coastal 

Management, 51(4), 330-341. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2011). 2011-2015 Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for Atlantic 

Seals: Harp (Pagophilus groenlandicus), Hooded (Cystophora cristata), Grey (Halichoerus 

grypus), Ringed (Phoca hispida), Bearded (Erignathus barbatus), Harbour (Phoca vitulina).

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2016a, 7 April 2016). Grey Seal Competitive Fleet in Atlantic Canada. 

Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/decisions/fm-2016-gp/atl-02-eng.htm

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2016b, 7 April 2016). Harp Seal and Hooded Seal Competitive Fleet in 

Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Gulf and Maritime Regions. Retrieved 

from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/decisions/fm-2016-gp/atl-03-eng.htm

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. (2015). Manatee Synoptic Surveys. Retrieved 

from http://myfwc.com/research/manatee/research/population-monitoring/synoptic-surveys/

Flower, J. E., T. M. Norton, K. M. Andrews, S. E. Nelson, C. E. Parker, L. M. Romero, & M. A. Mitchell. 

(2015). Baseline plasma corticosterone, haematological and biochemical results in nesting and 

rehabilitating loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Conservation Physiology, 3(1). 

Foley, H. J., R. C. Holt, R. E. Hardee, P. B. Nilsson, K. A. Jackson, A. J. Read, D. A. Pabst, & W. A. McLellan. 

(2011). Observations of a western North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) birth offshore 

of the protected southeast U.S. critical habitat. Marine Mammal Science, 27(3), E234–E240. 

Fossette, S., S. Ferraroli, H. Tanaka, Y. Ropert-Coudert, N. Arai, K. Sato, Y. Naito, Y. Le Maho, & J. Y. 

Georges. (2007). Dispersal and dive patterns in gravid leatherback turtles during the nesting 

season in French Guiana. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 338, 233–247. 

Fuentes, M. M., D. A. Pike, A. Dimatteo, & B. P. Wallace. (2013a). Resilience of marine turtle regional 

management units to climate change. Global Change Biology, 19(5), 1399-1406. 

Fuentes, M. M. P. B., D. A. Pike, A. Dimatteo, & B. P. Wallace. (2013b). Resilience of marine turtle 

regional management units to climate change. Global Change Biology, 19(5), 1399–1406. 

Fujiwara, M., & H. Caswell. (2001). Demography of the endangered North Atlantic right whale. Nature, 

414, 537–541. 

Fukuoka, T., M. Yamane, C. Kinoshita, T. Narazaki, G. J. Marshall, K. J. Abernathy, N. Miyazaki, & K. Sato. 

(2016). The feeding habit of sea turtles influences their reaction to artificial marine debris. 

Scientific Reports, 6. 

Furin, C. G., F. A. von Hippel, B. Hagedorn, & T. M. O'Hara. (2013). Perchlorate trophic transfer increases 

tissue concentrations above ambient water exposure alone in a predatory fish. Journal of 

Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part A, 76(18), 1072–1084. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-119

References

Gaos, A. R., & I. L. Yañez. (2008). Where have the Eastern Pacific Hawksbills Gone?! SWoT Report-State 

of the World's Sea Turtles, III, 18–19. 

Garcia-Parraga, D., J. L. Crespo-Picazo, Y. B. de Quiros, V. Cervera, L. Marti-Bonmati, J. Diaz-Delgado, M. 

Arbelo, M. J. Moore, P. D. Jepson, & A. Fernandez. (2014). Decompression sickness ('the bends') 

in sea turtles. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 111(3), 191–205. 

Gill, A. B., I. Gloyne-Philips, J. Kimber, & P. Sigray. (2014). Marine Renewable Energy, Electromagnetic 

(EM) Fields and EM-Sensitive Animals. 61–79. 

Gitschlag, G. R. (1996). Migration and diving behavior of Kemp's ridley (Garman) sea turtles along the 

U.S. southeastern Atlantic coast. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 205, 115–

135. 

Godley, B. J., D. R. Thompson, S. Waldron, & R. W. Furness. (1998). The trophic status of marine turtles 

as determined by stable isotope analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 166, 277–284. 

Goertner, J. F. (1978). Dynamical model for explosion injury to fish.

Goertner, J. F. (1982). Prediction of Underwater Explosion Safe Ranges for Sea Mammals. Dahlgren, VA: 

Naval Surface Weapons Center.

Grant, G. S., & D. Ferrell. (1993). Leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea (Reptilia: Dermochelidae): 

Notes on near-shore feeding behavior and association with cobia. Brimleyana, 19, 77–81. 

Greaves, F. C., R. H. Draeger, O. A. Brines, J. S. Shaver, & E. L. Corey. (1943). An experimental study of 

concussion. United States Naval Medical Bulletin, 41(1), 339–352. 

Gregory, L. F., & J. R. Schmid. (2001). Stress response and sexing of wild Kemp's ridley sea turtles 

(Lepidochelys kempii) in the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. General and Comparative 

Endocrinology, 124, 66–74. 

Hanser, S. F., S. H. Smith, & R. K. Uyeyama. (In Prep.). Estimates of Sea Turtle Presence in and Adjacent to 

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and Observations of Green Sea Turtle Behavior. Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific.

Hardest, B. D., & C. Wilcox. (2017). A risk framework for tackling marine debris.

Hartline, P. H. (1971). Physiological basis for detection of sound and vibration in snakes. Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 54(2), 349-371. 

Hartwell, S. I., C. H. Hocutt, & W. F. van Heukelem. (1991). Swimming response of menhaden (Brevoortia 

tyrannus) to electromagnetic pulses. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 7(2), 90–94. 

Hatase, H., K. Sato, M. Yamaguchi, K. Takahashi, & K. Tsukamoto. (2006). Individual variation in feeding 

habitat use by adult female green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas): are they obligately neritic 

herbivores? Oecologia, 149(1), 52–64. 

Hawkes, L. A., A. C. Broderick, M. S. Coyne, M. H. Godfrey, L. F. Lopez-Jurado, P. Lopez-Suarez, S. E. 

Merino, N. Varo-Cruz, & B. J. Godley. (2006). Phenotypically linked dichotomy in sea turtle 

foraging requires multiple conservation approaches. Current Biology, 16, 990–995. 

Hays, G. C., J. D. R. Houghton, C. Isaacs, R. S. King, C. Lloyd, & P. Lovell. (2004). First records of oceanic 

dive profiles for leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, indicate behavioural plasticity 

associated with long-distance migration. Animal Behaviour, 67, 733–743. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-120

References

Hazel, J., I. R. Lawler, H. Marsh, & S. Robson. (2007a). Vessel speed increase collision risk for the green 

turtle Chelonia mydas. Endangered Species Research, 3, 105-113. 

Hazel, J., I. R. Lawler, H. Marsh, & S. Robson. (2007b). Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green 

turtle Chelonia mydas. Endangered Species Research, 3, 105–113. 

Hazel, J., I. R. Lawler, & M. Hamann. (2009). Diving at the shallow end: Green turtle behaviour in nearshore foraging habitat. Journal of Experiemental Marine Biology and Ecology, 371(1), 84–92. 

Heatwole, H. (1999). Sea snakes: Krieger Publishing Company.

Heithaus, M. R., J. J. McLash, A. Frid, L. M. Dill, & G. J. Marshall. (2002). Novel insights into green sea 

turtle behaviour using animal-borne video cameras. Journal of the Marine Biological Association 

of the United Kingdom, 82(6), 1049–1050. 

Henry, W. R., & M. J. Mulroy. (1995). Afferent synaptic changes in auditory hair cells during noiseinduced temporary threshold shift. Hearing Research, 84(1), 81–90. 

Hetherington, T. (2008). Comparative anatomy and function of hearing in aquatic amphibians, reptiles, 

and birds. Sensory evolution on the threshold: adaptations in secondarily aquatic vertebrates, 

183–209. 

Hill, J. E., N. J. Robinson, C. M. King, & F. V. Paladino. (2017). Diving behavior and thermal habitats of 

gravid hawksbill turtles at St. Croix, USA. Marine Biology, 164(1), 17. 

Hill, M. S. (1998). Spongivory on Caribbean reefs releases corals from competition with sponges. 

Oecologia, 117(1/2), 143-150. 

Hochscheid, S., C. R. McMahon, C. J. A. Bradshaw, F. Maffucci, F. Bentivegna, & G. C. Hays. (2007). 

Allometric scaling of lung volume and its consequences for marine turtle diving performance. 

Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 148(2), 

360–367. 

Hochscheid, S. (2014). Why we mind sea turtles' underwater business: A review on the study of diving 

behavior. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 450, 118–136. 

Holloway-Adkins, K. G. (2006). Juvenile green turtles (Chelonia mydas) forage on high-energy, shallow 

reef on the east coast of Florida. In In M. Frick, A. Panagopoulou, A. F. Rees & K. Williams (Eds.), 

Twenty-sixth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation: Book of Abstracts (pp. 

193). Athens, Greece: National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 

International Sea Turtle Society.

Hoopes, L. A., A. M. Landry Jr., & E. K. Stabenau. (2000). Physiological effects of capturing Kemp's ridley 

sea turtles, Lepidochelys kempii, in entanglement nets. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78(11), 

1941–1947. 

Hore, P. J. (2012). Are biochemical reactions affected by weak magnetic fields? Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences, 109(5), 1357–1358. 

Houghton, J. D. R., M. J. Callow, & G. C. Hays. (2003). Habitat utilization by juvenile hawksbill turtles 

(Eretmochelys imbricata, Linnaeus, 1766) around a shallow water coral reef. Journal of Natural 

History, 37, 1269–1280. 

Hubbs, C. L., & A. B. Rechnitzer. (1952). Report on experiments designed to determine effects of 

underwater explosions on fish life California Fish and Game (pp. 333–366). La Jolla, CA.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-121

References

Humber, F., B. J. Godley, & A. C. Broderick. (2014). So excellent a fishe: a global overview of legal marine 

turtle fisheries. Diversity and Distributions, 20(5), 579-590. 

Illingworth and Rodkin. (2015). Underwater and airborne acoustic monitoring for the U.S. Navy Elevated 

Causeway (ELCAS) removal at the JEB Little Creek Naval Station: 10–11 September 2015.

Illingworth and Rodkin. (2016). Navy Pile Driving Report - in press.

James, M. C., & T. B. Herman. (2001). Feeding of Dermochelys coriacea on medusae in the northwest 

Atlantic. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 4(1), 202–205. 

James, M. C., S. A. Eckert, & R. A. Myers. (2005a). Migratory and reproductive movements of male 

leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Marine Biology, 147, 845–853. 

James, M. C., R. A. Myers, & C. A. Ottensmeyer. (2005b). Behaviour of leatherback sea turtles, 

Dermochelys coriacea, during the migratory cycle. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological 

Sciences, 272, 1547-1555. 

Jepson, P. D., R. Deaville, J. L. Barber, A. Aguilar, A. Borrell, S. Murphy, J. Barry, A. Brownlow, J. Barnett, 

S. Berrow, A. A. Cunningham, N. J. Davison, M. Ten Doeschate, R. Esteban, M. Ferreira, A. D. 

Foote, T. Genov, J. Gimenez, J. Loveridge, A. Llavona, V. Martin, D. L. Maxwell, A. 

Papachlimitzou, R. Penrose, M. W. Perkins, B. Smith, R. de Stephanis, N. Tregenza, P. Verborgh, 

A. Fernandez, & R. J. Law. (2016). PCB pollution continues to impact populations of orcas and 

other dolphins in European waters. Sci Rep, 6, 18573. 

Júnior, J. C. R., J. B. Pfaller, R. Corbetta, & L. Veríssimo. (2015). Parasitic isopods associated with sea 

turtles nesting in Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 

95(05), 973-981. 

Kamezaki, N., Y. Matsuzawa, O. Abe, H. Asakawa, T. Fujii, K. Goto, S. Hagino, M. Hayami, M. Ishii, T. 

Iwamoto, T. Kamata, H. Kato, J. Kodama, Y. Kondo, I. Miyawaki, K. Mizobuchi, Y. Nakamura, Y. 

Nakashima, H. Naruse, K. Omuta, M. Samejima, H. Suganuma, H. Takeshita, T. Tanaka, T. Toji, M. 

Uematsu, A. Yamamoto, T. Yamato, & I. Wakabayashi. (2003). Loggerhead turtles nesting in 

Japan. In A. B. Bolten & B. E. Witherington (Eds.), Loggerhead Sea Turtles (pp. 210–217). 

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.

Karlsson, S., & A. C. Albertsson. (1998). Biodegradable Polymers and Environmental Interaction. Polymer 

Engineering and Science, 38(8), 1251–1253. 

Kelley, C., G. Carton, M. Tomlinson, & A. Gleason. (2016). Analysis of towed camera images to determine 

the effects of disposed mustard-filled bombs on the deep water benthic community off south 

Oahu. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 

Ketten, D. R., & S. Moein-Bartol. (2006). Functional Measures of Sea Turtle Hearing. Woods Hole, MA: 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Klima, E. F., G. R. Gitschlag, & M. L. Renaud. (1988). Impacts of the explosive removal of offshore 

petroleum platforms on sea turtles and dolphins. Marine Fisheries Review, 50(3), 33–42. 

Koide, S., J. A. K. Silva, V. Dupra, & M. Edwards. (2016). Bioaccumulation of chemical warfare agents, 

energetic materials, and metals in deep-sea shrimp from discarded military munitions sites off 

Pearl Harbor. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 53–62. 

Laloë, J.-O., N. Esteban, J. Berkel, & G. C. Hays. (2016). Sand temperatures for nesting sea turtles in the 

Caribbean: Implications for hatchling sex ratios in the face of climate change. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 474, 92–99. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-122

References

Lam, T., Lingxu, S. Takahashi, E. A. Burgess, & T. E. Asia. (2012). Market forces: an examination of marine 

turtle trade in China and Japan: TRAFFIC East Asia.

Larkin, R. P., & P. J. Sutherland. (1977). Migrating birds respond to Project Seafarer's electromagnetic 

field. Science, 195(4280), 777–779. 

Lavender, A. L., S. M. Bartol, & I. K. Bartol. (2014). Ontogenetic investigation of underwater hearing 

capabilities in loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) using a dual testing approach. The Journal 

of Experimental Biology, 217(Pt 14), 2580–2589. 

Law, K. L., S. E. Moret-Ferguson, D. S. Goodwin, E. R. Zettler, E. Deforce, T. Kukulka, & G. Proskurowski. 

(2014). Distribution of surface plastic debris in the eastern Pacific Ocean from an 11-year data 

set. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(9), 4732–4738. 

Lenhardt, M. L., S. Bellmund, R. A. Byles, S. W. Harkins, & J. A. Musick. (1983). Marine turtle reception of 

bone-conducted sound. Journal of Auditory Research, 23, 119–125. 

Lenhardt, M. L., R. C. Klinger, & J. A. Musick. (1985). Marine turtle middle-ear anatomy. The Journal of 

Auditory Research, 25, 66–72. 

Lenhardt, M. L. (1994). Seismic and very low frequency sound induced behaviors in captive loggerhead 

marine turtles (Caretta caretta). Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual 

Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

Leon, Y. M., & K. A. Bjorndal. (2002). Selective feeding in the hawksbill turtle, an important predator in 

coral reef ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 245, 249–258. 

Lewison, R. L., L. B. Crowder, B. P. Wallace, J. E. Moore, T. Cox, R. Zydelis, S. McDonald, A. DiMatteo, D. 

C. Dunn, & C. Y. Kot. (2014). Global patterns of marine mammal, seabird, and sea turtle bycatch 

reveal taxa-specific and cumulative megafauna hotspots. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences, 111(14), 5271-5276. 

Liboff, A. (2015). Is the geomagnetic map imprinted in pre-emergent egg? Electromagnetic biology and 

medicine, 1-2. 

Lillywhite, H. B., C. M. Sheehy, F. Brischoux, & A. Grech. (2014a). Pelagic sea snakes dehydrate at sea. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 281(1782), 20140119. 

Lillywhite, H. B., C. M. Sheehy, F. Brischoux, & A. Grech. (2014b). Pelagic sea snakes dehydrate at sea. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 281(1782). 

Lillywhite, H. B., C. M. S. Iii, F. Brischoux, & J. B. Pfaller. (2015). On the abundance of a pelagic sea snake. 

Journal of Herpetology, 49(2), 184–189. 

Limpus, C. J. (1992). The hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, in Queensland: Population structure 

within a southern Great Barrier Reef ground. Wildlife Research, 19, 489–506. 

Limpus, C. J., I. Bell, & J. D. Miller. (2009). Mixed stocks of green turtles foraging on Clack Reef, northern 

Great Barrier Reef identified from long term tagging studies. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 123, 3–5. 

Lohmann, K. J., & C. M. F. Lohmann. (1996). Orientation and open-sea navigation in sea turtles. Journal 

of Experimental Biology, 199, 73–81. 

Lohmann, K. J., B. E. Witherington, C. M. F. Lohmann, & M. Salmon. (1997). Orientation, navigation, and 

natal beach homing in sea turtles. In P. L. Lutz & J. A. Musick (Eds.), The biology of sea turtles

(pp. 107–136). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-123

References

Lotufo, G. R., G. Rosen, W. Wild, & G. Carton. (2013). Summary Revire of the Aquatic Toxicology of 

Munitions Constituents. (ERDC/EL TR-13-8).

Lutcavage, M., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, & P. Lutz. (1997a). Human impacts on sea turtle survival. In. 

In P. Lutz & J. A. Musick (Eds.), The biology of sea turtles (Vol. 1, pp. 387-409). Boca Raton, FL: 

CRC Press.

Lutcavage, M. E., P. G. Bushnell, & D. R. Jones. (1992). Oxygen stores and aerobic metabolism in the 

leatherback sea turtle. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 70(2), 348–351. 

Lutcavage, M. E., & P. L. Lutz. (1997). Diving Physiology. In P. L. Lutz & J. A. Musick (Eds.), The biology of 

sea turtles (pp. 277–296). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Lutcavage, M. E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, & P. L. Lutz. (1997b). Human impacts on sea turtle survival. 

In P. Lutz & J. A. Musick (Eds.), The biology of sea turtles (Vol. 1, pp. 387–409). Boca Raton, FL: 

CRC Press.

MacDonald, B. D., R. L. Lewison, S. V. Madrak, J. A. Seminoff, & T. Eguchi. (2012). Home ranges of East 

Pacific green turtles Chelonia mydas in a highly urbanized temperate foraging ground. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 461, 211-221. 

MacDonald, B. D., S. V. Madrak, R. L. Lewison, J. A. Seminoff, & T. Eguchi. (2013). Fine scale diel 

movement of the east Pacific green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in a highly urbanized foraging 

environment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 443, 56–64. 

Maison, K. A., I. K. Kelly, & K. P. Frutchey. (2010). Green Turtle Nesting Sites and Sea Turtle Legislation 

throughout Oceania. (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO- 110). U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Marine Fisheries 

Service.

Marine Corps Base Hawaii. (2011). Marine Corps Base Hawaii Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan (MCB Hawaii INRMP) Update (2012-2016). Prepared for: Environmental 

Compliance and Protection Department Marine Corps Base Hawaii. Prepared by: Sustainable 

Resources Group International, Inc.

Martin, K. J., S. C. Alessi, J. C. Gaspard, A. D. Tucker, G. B. Bauer, & D. A. Mann. (2012). Underwater 

hearing in the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta): A comparison of behavioral and auditory 

evoked potential audiograms. Journal of Experimental Biology, 215(17), 3001–3009. 

Martínez-Abraín, A. (2008). Statistical significance and biological relevance: A call for a more cautious 

interpretation of results in ecology. Acta Oecologica, 34(1), 9–11. 

Mather, J. (2004). Cephalopod Skin Displays: From Concealment to Communication. In D. Kimbrough 

Oller and Ulrike Griebel (Ed.), The Evolution of Communication Systems: A Comparative 

Approach. Cambridge, MA: The Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology and the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology.

McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, A. J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M. N. Jenner, J. D. Penrose, R. I. T. Prince, A. Adhitya, 

J. Murdoch, & K. McCabe. (2000a). Marine seismic surveys—A study of environmental 

implications. Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Association Journal, 692–708. 

McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, A. J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M. N. Jenner, J. D. Penrose, R. I. T. Prince, A. Adhitya, 

J. Murdoch, & K. A. McCabe. (2000b). Marine Seismic Surveys: Analysis and Propagation of Airgun Signals; and Effects of Air-gun Exposure on Humpback Whales, Sea Turtles, Fishes and Squid. 

Western Australia: Centre for Marine Science and Technology.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-124

References

McCauley, S. J., & K. A. Bjorndal. (1999). Conservation implications of dietary dilution from debris 

ingestion: Sublethal effects in post-hatchling loggerhead sea turtles. Conservation Biology, 13(4), 

925–929. 

McCorkle, S. L. (2016). Fibropapillomatosis in Marine Turtles: A Comprehensive Review. 

McCracken, M. L. (2000). Estimation of Sea Turtle Take and Mortality in the Hawaiian Longline Fisheries. 

Honolulu, HI: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

McCracken, M. L. (2014). Estimation of Incidental Interactions with Sea Turtles and Seabirds in the 2013 

Hawaii Deep-Set Longline Fishery. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center National Marine 

Fisheries Service.

Meylan, A. B. (1988). Spongivory in hawksbill turtles: A diet of glass. Science, 239(4838), 393-395. 

Milstein, M. (2015, October 2015). Oncoming El Niño Likely to Continue Species Shakeup in Pacific. 

Retrieved from http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/news/features/el_nino/index.cfm

Milton, D. A. (2001). Assessing the susceptibility to fishing of populations of rare trawl bycatch: sea 

snakes caught by Australia’s Northern Prawn Fishery. Biological Conservation, 101(3), 281-290. 

Mintz, J. D., & C. L. Parker. (2006). Vessel Traffic and Speed Around the U.S. Coasts and Around Hawaii. 

Alexandria, VA: CNA Corporation.

Mintz, J. D., & R. J. Filadelfo. (2011). Exposure of Marine Mammals to Broadband Radiated Noise

(Specific Authority N0001-4-05-D-0500).

Mintz, J. D. (2012). Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii-Southern California and Atlantic Fleet Testing and 

Training Study Areas. (CRM D0026186.A2/Final). Center for Naval Analysis.

Mitchelmore, C. L., C. A. Bishop, & T. K. Collier. (2017). Toxicological estimation of mortality of oceanic 

sea turtles oiled during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Endangered Species Research, 33, 39–

50. 

Moein Bartol, S. E., J. A. Musick, J. A. Keinath, D. E. Barnard, M. L. Lenhardt, & R. George. (1995). 

Evaluation of Seismic Sources for Repelling Sea Turtles from Hopper Dredges. In L. Z. Hales (Ed.), 

Sea Turtle Research Program: Summary Report (Vol. Technical Report CERC-95, pp. 90–93). Kings 

Bay, GA: U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Atlanta, GA and U.S. Naval Submarine 

Base.

Montero, J. T., R. O. Martinez-Rincon, S. S. Heppell, M. Hall, & M. Ewal. (2016). Characterizing 

environmental and spatial variables associated with the incidental catch of olive ridley 

(Lepidochelys olivacea) in the Eastern Tropical Pacific purse-seine fishery. Fisheries 

Oceanography, 25(1), 1–14. 

Mortimer, J. A. (1995). Feeding ecology of sea turtles. In. In K. A. Bjorndal (Ed.), Biology and 

Conservation of Sea Turtles (Revised ed., pp. 103–109). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution 

Press.

Mortimer, J. A., & M. Donnelly. (2008). Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate): Marine Turtle 

Specialist Group 2008 IUCN Red List status assessment. Retrieved from www.iucnredlist.org

Mrosovsky, N. (1972). Spectrographs of the sounds of leatherback turtles. Herpetologica, 28(3), 256–

258. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-125

References

Mrosovsky, N., G. D. Ryan, & M. C. James. (2009). Leatherback turtles: The menace of plastic. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 58, 287-289. 

Murphy, J. C. (2012). Marine invasions by non-sea snakes, with thoughts on terrestrial–aquatic–marine 

transitions. Integrative and comparative biology, ics060. 

Murray, C. C., A. Bychkov, T. Therriault, H. Maki, & N. Wallace. (2015). The impact of Japanese tsunami 

debris on North America. PICES Press, 23(1), 28. 

Musick, J. A., & C. J. Limpus. (1997). Habitat utilization and migration of juvenile sea turtles. In In P. L. 

Lutz & J. A. Musick (Eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles (Vol. 1, pp. 137-163). Boca Raton, Florida: 

CRC Press.

Nagaoka, S., A. Martins, R. dos Santos, M. Tognella, E. de Oliveira Filho, & J. Seminoff. (2012). Diet of 

juvenile green turtles (Chelonia mydas) associating with artisanal fishing traps in a subtropical 

estuary in Brazil. Marine Biology, 159(3), 573–581. 

Narazaki, T., K. Sato, K. J. Abernathy, G. J. Marshall, & N. Miyazaki. (2013). Loggerhead turtles (Caretta 

caretta) use vision to forage on gelatinous prey in mid-water. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e66043. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1991). Recovery Plan for U.S. 

Populations of Atlantic Green Turtle Chelonia mydas. Washington, DC: National Marine Fisheries 

Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1993). Recovery Plan for the 

Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico St. 

Petersburg, Florida: National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1998a). Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific 

Populations of the Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine 

Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1998b). Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific 

Populations of the Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Silver Spring, MD: National 

Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1998c). Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific 

Populations of the Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine 

Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007a). Loggerhead Sea Turtle 

(Caretta caretta) 5-year review: Summary and Evaluation. Silver Spring, MD: National Marine 

Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007b). Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia 

mydas) 5-year review: Summary and Evaluation. Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries 

Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007c). Hawksbill Sea Turtle 

(Eretmochelys imbricata) 5-year review: Summary and Evaluation. Silver Spring, MD: National 

Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007d). Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia 

mydas) 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries 

Service.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-126

References

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2008a). Biological Opinion for the 2008 Rim-of-the-Pacific Joint 

Training Exercises. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 

Endangered Species Division.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2008b). Programmatic Biological Opinion on the U.S. Navy's Proposal 

to Conduct Training Exercises in the Hawaii Range Complex from December 2008 to December 

2013 and the Permits Division's Proposal to Issue Regulations to Authorize the U.S. Navy to 

"take" Marine Mammals Incidental to the Conduct of Training Exercises in the Hawaii Range 

Complex December 2008 to December 2013. National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009). Recovery Plan for the 

Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta). Silver Spring, MD: 

National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2011). Sea Turtles and the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: National Marine 

Fisheries Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011). Bi-National Recovery Plan for 

the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2012). Ecosystem Status Report for the Northeast Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem–2011. (Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 12-07). Woods Hole, 

MA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Ecosystem Assessment Program.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2013). Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Activities (2013–2018). Silver Spring, MD: Office of Protected Resources.

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2013a). Hawksbill Sea Turtle 

(Eretmochelys imbricata) 5-year review: Summary and evaluation. Silver Spring, MD: National 

Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2013b). Leatherback Turtle 

(Dermochelys coriacea) 5 Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Silver Spring, MD: NMFS Office 

of Protected Resources and USFWS Southeast Region.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2014). 2010 Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: Sea Turtles, Dolphins, and 

Whales: NOAA Fisheries. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2014). Olive Ridley Sea Turtle 

(Lepidochelys olivacea) 5 Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Silver Spring, MD: NMFS Office 

of Protected Resources and USFWS Southeast Region 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015). Reinitiated Biological Opinion and Conference Report on U.S. 

Navy Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016). Species in the Spotlight: Pacific Leatherback 5-Year Action 

Plan. Silver Sping, MD: NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Ocean Service. (2016, Swptember 2, 2016). Where Are Reef Building Corals Found. Retrieved 

from http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_corals/coral05_distribution.html

Normandeau, E., T. Tricas, & A. Gill. (2011). Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on 

Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-127

References

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific Outer Continental 

Shelf Region.

O'Hara, J., & J. R. Wilcox. (1990). Avoidance responses of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, to low 

frequency sound. Copeia, 1990(2), 564–567. 

O'Keeffe, D. J., & G. A. Young. (1984). Handbook on the Environmental Effects of Underwater Explosions. 

Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Navy, Naval Surface Weapons Center (Code R14).

Office of the Surgeon General. (1991). Conventional Warfare Ballistic, Blast, and Burn Injuries. In R. 

Zajitchuk, Col. (Ed.), U.S.A. Textbook of Military Medicine. Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon 

General.

Oros, J., A. Torrent, P. Calabuig, & S. Deniz. (2005). Diseases and causes of mortality among sea turtles 

stranded in the Canary Islands, Spain (1998–2001). Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 63, 13–24. 

Ortmann, A. C., J. Anders, N. Shelton, L. Gong, A. G. Moss, & R. H. Condon. (2012). Dispersed oil disrupts 

microbial pathways in pelagic food webs. PLoS ONE, 7(7). 

Pacific Fishery Management Council. (2011, March 22, 2011). Habitat and Communities: Wave, Tidal, 

and Offshore Wind Energy. Retrieved from http://www.pcouncil.org/habitat-andcommunities/wave-tidal-and-offshore-wind-energy/

Parker, D. M., P. H. Dutton, K. Kopitsky, & R. L. Pitman. (2003). Movement and Dive Behavior Determined 

by Satellite Telemetry for Male and Female Olive Ridley Turtles in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. 

(NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503). U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Marine Fisheries Service Retrieved 

from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/symposia.htm.

Parker, D. M., & G. H. Balazs. (2008). Diet of the oceanic green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in the north 

Pacific. In (Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and 

Conservation). U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration.

Parkinson, S. C., K. Dragoon, G. Reikard, G. García-Medina, H. T. Özkan-Haller, & T. K. Brekken. (2015). 

Integrating ocean wave energy at large-scales: A study of the US Pacific Northwest. Renewable 

Energy, 76, 551-559. 

Patino-Martinez, J., A. Marco, L. Quiñones, & L. A. Hawkes. (2014). The potential future influence of sea 

level rise on leatherback turtle nests. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 461, 

116-123. 

Patrício, A. R., C. E. Diez, R. P. Van Dam, & B. J. Godley. (2016). Novel insights into the dynamics of green 

turtle fibropapillomatosis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 547, 247–255. 

Pepper, C. B., M. A. Nascarella, & R. J. Kendall. (2003). A review of the effects of aircraft noise on wildlife 

and humans, current control mechanisms, and the need for further study. Environmental 

Management, 32(4), 418–432. 

Peterson, S. H., J. T. Ackerman, & D. P. Costa. (2015). Marine foraging ecology influences mercury 

bioaccumulation in deep-diving nothern elephant seals. Proceedings of the Royal Society 

Biological Sciences, 282(20150710), 10. 

Pike, D. A. (2014a). Forecasting the viability of sea turtle eggs in a warming world. Global Change 

Biology, 20(1), 7-15. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-128

References

Pike, D. A. (2014b). Forecasting the viability of sea turtle eggs in a warming world. Global Change 

Biology, 20(1), 7–15. 

Pike, D. A., E. A. Roznik, & I. Bell. (2015). Nest inundation from sea-level rise threatens sea turtle 

population viability. Royal Society Open Science, 2(7), 150127. 

Piniak, W. E. D., D. A. Mann, C. A. Harms, T. T. Jones, & S. A. Eckert. (2016). Hearing in the Juvenile Green 

Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas): A Comparison of Underwater and Aerial Hearing Using Auditory 

Evoked Potentials. PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0159711. 

Plot, V., B. De Thoisy, & J.-Y. Georges. (2015). Dispersal and dive patterns during the post-nesting 

migration of olive ridley turtles from French Guiana. Endangered Species Research, 26(3), 221–

234. 

Plotkin, P., & A. F. Amos. (1998). Entanglement and ingestion of marine turtles stranded along the south 

Texas coast. In. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and 

Biology, Fort Fisher, North Carolina.

Polovina, J., I. Uchida, G. Balazs, E. A. Howell, D. Parker, & P. Dutton. (2006). The Kuroshio Extension 

Bifurcation Region: A pelagic hotspot for juvenile loggerhead sea turtles. Deep-Sea Research II, 

53, 326–339. 

Polovina, J. J., D. R. Kobayashi, D. M. Parker, M. P. Seki, & G. H. Balazs. (2000). Turtles on the edge: 

movement of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) along oceanic fronts, spanning longline fishing 

grounds in the central North Pacific, 1997–1998. Fisheries Oceanography, 9(1), 71–82. 

Polovina, J. J., E. Howell, D. R. Kobayashi, & M. P. Seki. (2001). The transition zone chlorophyll front, a 

dynamic global feature defining migration and forage habitat for marine resources. Progress in 

Oceanography, 49, 469–483. 

Polovina, J. J., E. Howell, D. M. Parker, & G. H. Balazs. (2002). Dive-depth distribution of loggerhead 

(Caretta caretta) and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles in the central North Pacific: 

Might deep longline sets catch fewer turtles? Fishery Bulletin, 101(1), 189–193. 

Polovina, J. J., G. H. Balazs, E. A. Howell, D. M. Parker, M. P. Seki, & P. H. Dutton. (2004). Forage and 

migration habitat of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea 

turtles in the central North Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Oceanography, 13(1), 36–51. 

Popper, A. N., A. D. Hawkins, R. R. Fay, D. A. Mann, S. M. Bartol, T. J. Carlson, S. Coombs, W. T. Ellison, R. 

L. Gentry, M. B. Halvorsen, S. Løkkeborg, P. H. Rogers, B. L. Southall, D. G. Zeddies, & W. N. 

Tavolga. (2014). Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles.

Putman, N. F., & K. L. Mansfield. (2015). Direct Evidence of Swimming Demonstrates Active Dispersal in 

the Sea Turtle “Lost Years”. Current Biology, 25(9), 1221-1227. 

Putman, N. F., P. Verley, C. S. Endres, & K. J. Lohmann. (2015a). Magnetic navigation behavior and the 

oceanic ecology of young loggerhead sea turtles. Journal of Experimental Biology, 218(7), 1044–

1050. 

Putman, N. F., P. Verley, C. S. Endres, & K. J. Lohmann. (2015b). Magnetic navigation behavior and the 

oceanic ecology of young loggerhead sea turtles. Journal of Experimental Biology, 218(7), 1044-

1050. 

Rees, D. R., D. V. Jones, & B. A. Bartlett. (2016). Haul-Out Counts and Photo-Identification of Pinnipeds in 

Chesapeake Bay, Virginia: 2015/16 Annual Progress Report. Final Report. Norfolk, Virginia: Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-129

References

Renaud, M. L., & J. A. Carpenter. (1994). Movements and submergence patterns of loggerhead turtles 

(Caretta caretta) in the Gulf of Mexico determined through satellite telemetry. Bulletin of 

Marine Science, 55(1), 1–15. 

Renaud, M. L., J. A. Carpenter, J. A. Williams, & A. M. Landry, Jr. (1996). Kemp's Ridley sea turtle 

(Lepidochelys kempii) tracked by satellite telemetry from Louisiana to Nesting Beach at Rancho 

Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 2(1), 108–109. 

Rice, D. W., A. A. Wolman, & H. W. Braham. (1984). The Gray Whale, Eschrichtius robustus. Marine 

Fisheries Review, 46(4), 7–14. 

Rice, M. R., & G. H. Balazs. (2008). Diving behavior of the Hawaiian green turtle (Chelonia mydas) during 

oceanic migrations. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 356(1–2), 121–127. 

Richardson, J. I., & P. McGillivary. (1991). Post-hatchling loggerhead turtles eat insects in Sargassum

community. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 55, 2–5. 

Richmond, D. R., J. T. Yelverton, & E. R. Fletcher. (1973). Far-field underwater-blast injuries produced by 

small charges. Washington, DC: Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 

Defense Nuclear Agency.

Ridgway, S. H., E. G. Wever, J. G. McCormick, J. Palin, & J. H. Anderson. (1969). Hearing in the giant sea 

turtle, Chelonia mydas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., 64(3), 884–890. 

Rieth, T. M., T. L. Hunt, C. Lipo, & J. M. Wilmshurst. (2011). The 13th century polynesian colonization of 

Hawaii Island. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 2740–2749. 

Rosen, G., & G. R. Lotufo. (2005). Toxicity and Fate of Two Munitions Constituents in SPiked Sediment 

Exposures with the Marine Amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry, 24(11), 2887–2897. 

Rosen, G., & G. R. Lotufo. (2010). Fate and effects of composition B in multispecies marine exposures. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 9999(12), 1–8. 

Russell, D. J., S. Hargrove, & G. H. Balazs. (2011). Marine Sponges, Other Animal Food, and Nonfood 

Items Found in Digestive Tracts of the Herbivorous Marine Turtle Chelonia mydas in Hawai'i. 

Pacific Science, 65(3), 375-381. 

Russell, D. J., & G. H. Balazs. (2015). Increased use of non-native algae species in the diet of the Green 

Turtle (Chelonia mydas) in a primary pasture ecosystem in Hawaii. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & 

Management, 18(3), 342–346. 

Sakamoto, W., K. Sato, H. Tanaka, & Y. Naito. (1993). Diving patterns and swimming environment of two 

loggerhead turtles during internesting. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi, 59(7), 1129–1137. 

Salmon, M., T. T. Jones, & K. W. Horch. (2004a). Ontogeny of diving and feeding behavior in juvenile 

seaturtles: Leatherback seaturtles (Dermochelys coriacea L) and green seaturtles (Chelonia 

mydas L) in the Florida current. Journal of Herpetology, 38(1), 36-43. 

Salmon, M., T. T. Jones, & K. W. Horch. (2004b). Ontogeny of diving and feeding behavior in juvenile sea 

turtles: Leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea L) and green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas 

L) in the Florida current. Journal of Herpetology, 38(1), 36–43. 

Sampson, L., & A. Giraldo. (2014). Annual abundance of salps and doliolids (Tunicata) around Gorgona 

Island (Colombian Pacific), and their importance as potential food for green sea turtles. Revista 

De Biologia Tropical, 62, 149–159. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-130

References

Sarti-Martinez, L., S. A. Eckert, N. Garcia T., & A. R. Barragan. (1996). Decline of the world's largest 

nesting assemblage of leatherback turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 74, 2–5. 

Sasso, C. R., & W. N. Witzell. (2006). Diving behaviour of an immature Kemp's ridley turtle (Lepidochelys 

kempii) from Gullivan Bay, Ten Thousand Islands, south-west Florida. Journal of the Marine 

Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 86, 919–925. 

Schroeder, B. A., A. M. Foley, & D. A. Bagley. (2003). Nesting patterns, reproductive migrations, and 

adult foraging areas of loggerhead turtles. In A. B. Bolten & B. E. Witherington (Eds.), 

Loggerhead Sea Turtles (pp. 114–124). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Schuyler, Q., B. D. Hardesty, C. Wilcox, & K. Townsend. (2014a). Global analysis of anthropogenic debris 

ingestion by sea turtles. Conservation Biology, 28(1), 129–139. 

Schuyler, Q., B. D. Hardesty, C. Wilcox, & K. Townsend. (2014b). Global analysis of anthropogenic debris 

ingestion by sea turtles. Conservation Biology, 28(1), 129-139. 

Schuyler, Q. A., C. Wilcox, K. A. Townsend, K. R. Wedemeyer-Strombel, G. Balazs, E. Sebille, & B. D. 

Hardesty. (2016). Risk analysis reveals global hotspots for marine debris ingestion by sea turtles. 

Global Change Biology, 22(2), 567–576. 

Seminoff, J., G. Balazs, P. Dutton, T. Eguchi, H. Haas, S. Hargrove, D. Klemm, A. Lauritsen, S. MacPherson, 

& P. Opay. (2015a). Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) status review under the US Endangered 

Species Act. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, 592. 

Seminoff, J. A., A. Resendiz, & W. J. Nichols. (2002). Home range of green turtles Chelonia mydas at a 

coastal foraging area in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 242, 253-

265. 

Seminoff, J. A., W. J. Nichols, A. Resendiz, & L. Brooks. (2003). Occurrence of hawksbill turtles, 

Eretmochelys imbricata (Reptilia: Cheloniidae), near the Baja California peninsula, Mexico. 

Pacific Science, 57(1), 9–16. 

Seminoff, J. A., T. Eguchi, J. Carretta, C. D. Allen, D. Prosperi, R. Rangel, J. W. Gilpatrick, K. Forney, & S. H. 

Peckham. (2014). Loggerhead sea turtle abundance at a foraging hotspot in the eastern Pacific 

Ocean: implications for at-sea conservation. Endangered Species Research, 24(3), 207–220. 

Seminoff, J. A., C. D. Allen, G. H. Balazs, P. H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, H. L. Haas, S. A. Hargrove, M. P. Jensen, 

D. L. Klemm, A. M. Lauritsen, S. L. MacPherson, P. Opay, E. E. Possardt, S. L. Pultz, E. E. Seney, K. 

S. Van Houtan, & R. S. Waples. (2015b). Status Review of the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAANMFS- SWFSC539.

Shankar, K., J. Ramadevi, B. C. Choudhary, L. Singh, & R. K. Aggarwal. (2004). Phylogeography of olive 

ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) on the east coast of India: Implications for conservation 

theory. Mol Ecol, 13, 1899–1909. 

Shine, R., X. Bonnet, M. Elphick, & E. Barrott. (2004a). A novel foraging mode in snakes: browsing by the 

sea snake Emydocephalus annulatus (Serpentes, Hydrophiidae). Functional ecology, 18(1), 16-

24. 

Shine, R., X. Bonnet, M. J. Elphick, & E. G. Barrott. (2004b). A novel foraging mode in snakes: browsing by 

the sea snake Emydocephalus annulatus (Serpentes, Hydrophiidae). Functional Ecology, 18(1), 

16–24. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-131

References

Skillman, R. A., & G. H. Balazs. (1992). Leatherback turtle captured by ingestion of squid bait on 

swordfish longline. Fishery Bulletin, 90(4), 807–808. 

Skillman, R. A., & P. Kleiber. (1998). Estimation of Sea Turtle Take and Mortality in the Hawaii-based 

Longline Fishery, 1994–1996 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-257). La Jolla, CA: 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Smith, A., T. Stehly, & W. Musial. (2015). 2014 US Offshore Wind Market Report: Industry Trends,

Technology Advancement, and Cost Reduction. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL).

Smith, S. H., & D. E. Marx, Jr. (2016). De-facto marine protection from a Navy bombing range: Farallon 

De Medinilla, Mariana Archipelago, 1997 to 2012. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 102(1), 187–198. 

Snoddy, J. E., M. Landon, G. Blanvillain, & A. Southwood. (2009). Blood biochemistry of sea turtles 

captured in gillnets in the lower Cape Fear River, North Carolina, USA. Journal of Wildlife 

Management, 73(8), 1394–1401. 

Southwood, A. L., R. D. Andrews, M. E. Lutcavage, F. V. Paladino, N. H. West, R. H. George, & D. R. Jones. 

(1999). Heart rates and diving behavior of leatherback sea turtles in the eastern Pacific Ocean. 

Journal of Experimental Biology, 202, 1115–1125.

Spargo, B. (1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff: A Select Panel Report to the Undersecretary of 

Defense for Environmental Security. Washington, DC: Naval Research Laboratory.

Spargo, B. J. (2007, June 1, 2007). [Chaff end cap and piston bouyancy].

Stabenau, E. K., T. A. Heming, & J. F. Mitchell. (1991). Respiratory, acid-base and ionic status of Kemp's 

ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempi) subjected to trawling. Comparative Biochemistry and 

Physiology Part A: Physiology, 99(1), 107–111. 

Starbird, C. H., A. Baldridge, & J. T. Harvey. (1993). Seasonal occurrence of leatherback sea turtles 

(Dermochelys coriacea) in the Monterey Bay region, with notes on other sea turtles, 1986–1991. 

California Fish and Game, 79(2), 54–62. 

Stinson, M. L. (1984). Biology of Sea Turtles in San Diego Bay, California, and in the Northeastern Pacific 

Ocean. (Master of Science in Biological Sciences Thesis). San Diego State University.

Suzuki, D., T. Miyamoto, T. Kikawada, M. Watanabe, & T. Suzuki. (2014). A leech capable of surviving 

exposure to extremely low temperatures. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e86807. 

Swisdak, M. M., Jr., & P. E. Montaro. (1992). Airblast and fragmentation hazards produced by 

underwater explosions. Silver Springs, MD: Naval Surface Warfare Center.

Teuten, E. L., S. J. Rowland, T. S. Galloway, & R. C. Thompson. (2007). Potential for plastics to transport 

hydrophobic contaminants. Environmental Science and Technology, 41(22), 7759–7764. 

Thomsen, F., A. Gill, M. Kosecka, M. Andersson, M. Andre, S. Degraer, T. Folegot, J. Gabriel, A. Judd, T. 

Neumann, A. Norro, D. Risch, P. Sigray, D. Wood, & B. Wilson. (2015). MaRVEN – Environmental 

Impacts of Noise, Vibrations and Electromagnetic Emissions from Marine Renewable Energy

(Final Study Report). European Commission, Directorate General for Research and Innovation.

Turner-Tomaszewicz, C., & J. A. Seminoff. (2012). Turning off the heat: impacts of power plant 

decommissioning on green turtle research in San Diego Bay. Coastal Management, 40(1), 73–87. 

U.S. Department of the Air Force. (1997). Environmental effects of self-protection chaff and flares. 

Langley Air Force Base, VA: U.S. Department of the Air Force.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-132

References

U.S. Department of the Navy. (1996). 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. Pearl 

Harbor Hawaii: United States Command Pacific Fleet.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2005). Final Environmental Assessment and Overseas Environmental 

Assessment for Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep Mission Tests. Washington, DC: 

Airborne Mine Defense Program Office, Program Executive Office: Littoral and Mine Warfare.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013a). San Diego Bay Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. 

NAVFAC.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013b). Water Range Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment, 

Potomac River Test Range Complex. Dahlgren, VA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2016). Commander Task Force 20, 4th, and 6th Fleet Navy Marine Species 

Density Database. Norfolk, VA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017a). Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive 

Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. Space and Naval Warfare System Command, 

Pacific and Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017b). U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Database Phase III for the 

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area (NAVFAC Pacific Technical Report). 

Pearl Harbor, HI: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017c). Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. Space and Naval Warfare System Command, 

Pacific.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1999). South Florida Multi-species Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia.

Udyawer, V., M. A. Read, M. Hamann, C. A. Simpfendorfer, & M. R. Heupel. (2013). First record of sea 

snake (Hydrophis elegans, Hydrophiinae) entrapped in marine debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 

73(1), 336–338. 

United Nations Environmental Program. (2005). Marine litter: an analytical overview: UNEP's Regional 

Seas Programme.

University of Hawaii. (2010). Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions Assessment, Final Investigation Report 

HI-05, South of Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii. University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Valverde, R. A., D. W. Owens, D. S. MacKenzie, & M. S. Amoss. (1999). Basal and stress-induced 

corticosterone levels in olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) in relation to their mass 

nesting behavior. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 284(6), 652–662. 

Van Houtan, K. S., D. L. Francke, S. Alessi, T. T. Jones, S. L. Martin, L. Kurpita, C. S. King, & R. W. Baird. 

(2016). The developmental biogeography of hawksbill sea turtles in the North Pacific. Ecology 

and Evolution, 6(8), 2378–2389. 

Viada, S. T., R. M. Hammer, R. Racca, D. Hannay, M. J. Thompson, B. J. Balcom, & N. W. Phillips. (2008). 

Review of potential impacts to sea turtles from underwater explosive removal of offshore 

structures. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28, 267–285. 

Wallace, B. P., R. L. Lewison, S. L. McDonald, R. K. McDonald, C. Y. Kot, S. Kelez, R. K. Bjorkland, E. M. 

Finkbeiner, S. Helmbrecht, & L. B. Crowder. (2010). Global patterns of marine turtle bycatch. 

Conservation Letters, 3(3), 131-142. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-133

References

Watson, D. M., K. V. Milner, & A. Leigh. (2017). Blood flukes of the family Spirorchiidae are significant 

pathogens of both free-ranging and captive marine turtles. International Journal for 

Parasitology, 47(1), 61-67. 

Watwood, S. L., J. D. Iafrate, E. A. Reyier, & W. E. Redfoot. (2016). Behavioral Response of Reef Fish and 

Green Sea Turtles to Mid-Frequency Sonar. In A. N. Popper & A. Hawkins (Eds.), The Effects of 

Noise on Aquatic Life II (pp. 1213–1221). New York, NY: Springer New York.

Weir, C. R. (2007). Observations of marine turtles in relation to seismic airgun sound off Angola. Marine 

Turtle Newsletter, 116, 17–20. 

Wiley, M. L., J. B. Gaspin, & J. F. Goertner. (1981). Effects of underwater explosions on fish with a 

dynamical model to predict fishkill. Ocean Science and Engineering, 6(2), 223–284. 

Williams, S. L. (1988). Thalassia testudinum productivity and grazing by green turtles in a highly 

disturbed seagrass bed. Marine Biology, 98, 447-455. 

Willis, K. L., J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, D. R. Ketten, & C. E. Carr. (2013). Middle ear cavity morphology is 

consistent with an aquatic origin for testudines. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e54086. 

Witt, M. J., L. A. Hawkes, M. H. Godfrey, B. J. Godley, & A. C. Broderick. (2010). Predicting the impacts of 

climate change on a globally distributed species: the case of the loggerhead turtle. Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 213(6), 901–911. 

Witzell, W. N. (1983a). Synopsis of biological data on the hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata 

(Linnaeus, 1766). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Witzell, W. N. (1983b). Synopsis of biological data on the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata 

(Linnaeus, 1766). Rome, Italy: United Nations Environment Programme, Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations.

Work, T. M., & G. H. Balazs. (2013a). Tumors in sea turtles: the insidious menace of fibropapillomatosis. 

The Wildlife Professional, 44-47. 

Work, T. M., & G. H. Balazs. (2013b). Tumors in sea turtles: the insidious menace of fibropapillomatosis. 

The Wildlife Professional, 44–47. 

Yagla, J., & R. Stiegler. (2003). Gun blast noise transmission across the air-sea interface. Paper presented 

at the euronoise, Naples, FL. 

Yelverton, J. T., D. R. Richmond, E. R. Fletcher, & R. K. Jones. (1973). Safe distances from underwater 

explosions for mammals and birds. Albuquerque, NM: Lovelace Foundation for Medical 

Education and Research.

Yelverton, J. T., & D. R. Richmond. (1981, 30 November—4 December 1981). Underwater explosion 

damage risk criteria for fish, birds, and mammals. Paper presented at the 102nd Meeting of the 

Acoustical Society of America Miami Beach, FL.

Yudhana, A., J. Din, Sundari, S. Abdullah, & R. B. R. Hassan. (2010). Green turtle hearing identification 

based on frequency spectral analysis. Applied Physics Research, 2(1), 125–134. 
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

3.8-134

References

This page intentionally left blank.