Appendix E: Estimated Marine Mammal and Sea 

Turtle Impacts from Exposure to Acoustic and

Explosive Stressors Under Navy Training and 

Testing Activities

Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

i

Table of Contents

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement

Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix E Estimated Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Impacts from Exposure to Acoustic 

and Explosive Stressors Under Navy Training and Testing Activities .................................... E-1

E.1 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Navy 

Training Activities...............................................................................................................E-1

E.2 Estimated Impacts Marine Mammal Impacts per Five Year Period from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Under Navy Training Activities ...............................................................E-6

E.3 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Navy 

Testing Activities.................................................................................................................E-9

E.4 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five Year Period from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Under Navy Testing Activities.........................................................................E-14

E.5 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Air Guns Under Navy Training Activities.............E-17

E.6 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Air Guns Under Navy Testing Activities ..............E-17

E.7 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five year Period from Air Guns Under Navy 

Testing Activities...............................................................................................................E-20

E.8 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Pile Driving Under Navy Training Activities.........E-21

E.9 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five year Period from Pile Driving Under 

Navy Training Activities.....................................................................................................E-24

E.10 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Pile Driving Under Navy Testing Activities..........E-25

E.11 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Explosives Under Navy Training Activities..........E-25

E.12 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five year Period from Explosives Under 

Navy Training Activities.....................................................................................................E-32

E.13 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts from Explosives Under Navy Testing Activities............E-37

E.14 Estimated Marine Mammal Impacts per Five Year Period from Explosives Under 

Navy Testing Activities......................................................................................................E-44

E.15 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Navy 

Training and Testing Activities...........................................................................................E-49

E.16 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Air Guns Under Navy Training and Testing 

Activities ..........................................................................................................................E-49

E.17 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Pile Driving Under Navy Training and Testing 

Activities ..........................................................................................................................E-49
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

E.18 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts from Explosives Under Navy Training and Testing 

Activities ..........................................................................................................................E-49

E.19 Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per Five year Period from Explosives Under Navy 

Training and Testing Activities...........................................................................................E-50

List of Tables

Table E-1: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Year from Sonar Training Activities........................................ E-2

Table E-2: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Five-Year Period from Sonar Training Activities..................... E-6

Table E-3: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Year from Sonar Testing Activities ....................................... E-10

Table E-4: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Five-Year Period from Sonar Testing Activities .................... E-14

Table E-5: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Year from Air Gun Activities................................................. E-18

Table E-6: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Five-Year Period from Air Gun Activities.............................. E-20

Table E-7: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Year from Pile Driving Activities........................................... E-22

Table E-8: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Five-Year Period from Pile Driving Activities........................ E-24

Table E-9: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Year from Explosive Training Activities ................................ E-26

Table E-10: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Five-Year Period from Explosive Training Activities........... E-33

Table E-11: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Year for Explosive Testing Activities................................... E-38

Table E-12: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Five-Year Period from Explosive Testing Activities............. E-45

Table E-13: Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per Year from Explosive Training and Testing Activities....................... E-49

Table E-14: Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per Five-Year Period from Explosive Training and Testing Activities.... E-50

List of Figures

There are no figures in this appendix.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-1

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

APPENDIX E ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL AND SEA 

TURTLE IMPACTS FROM EXPOSURE TO ACOUSTIC AND 

EXPLOSIVE STRESSORS UNDER NAVY TRAINING AND 

TESTING ACTIVITIES

Navy training and testing activities would result in the incidental takes of marine mammals and sea 

turtles within the Study Area. The following appendix provides the estimated number of marine 

mammal and sea turtle impacts. Specifically, estimated impacts are derived from the quantitative 

analysis for activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 that involve the use of acoustic or explosive stressors.

The quantitative analysis takes into account Navy activities, marine species density layers, acoustic 

modeling, and other environmental parameters. A detailed explanation of the quantitative 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, 2017c). It is important to note that

impacts, as discussed in this appendix, represent the estimated instances of take of marine mammals or 

sea turtles, not necessarily the number of individuals impacted (i.e., some marine mammals or sea 

turtles could be impacted several times, while others would not experience any impact). In addition, 

across training and testing activities, the five-year total impacts in each table may be less than five times 

the maximum impact in any year, because the level of certain activities may vary annually as described 

in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives).

E.1 ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS FROM SONAR AND OTHER TRANSDUCERS UNDER 

NAVY TRAINING ACTIVITIES

Table E-1 provides a summary of the estimated number of marine mammal impacts from exposure to 

sonar and other transducers used during Navy training activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 over the 

course of a year.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-2

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Table E-1: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Year from Sonar Training Activities

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Blue whale*

Central North Pacific 9 23 0 9 25 0 11 33 0

Eastern North Pacific 344 571 0 408 739 0 519 898 0

Bryde's whale

Eastern Tropical 

Pacific 7 14 0 8 18 0 9 25 0

Hawaiian 24 72 0 25 80 0 31 101 0

Fin whale*

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 381 617 0 457 781 0 572 975 0

Hawaiian 13 17 0 14 19 0 16 19 0

Humpback whale✝

California, Oregon, & 

Washington✝ 50 448 0 65 591 0 73 723 1

Central North Pacific 1,583 3,575 0 1,643 3,939 0 1,850 4,760 1

Minke whale

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 127 421 0 141 504 0 184 702 0

Hawaiian 699 2,402 0 750 2,703 1 871 3,229 1

Sei whale*

Eastern North Pacific 14 30 0 15 37 0 20 48 0

Hawaiian 26 79 0 28 90 0 34 103 0

Family Eschrichtiidae

Gray whale✝

Eastern North Pacific 441 1,595 1 573 2,122 2 616 2,372 2

Western North 

Pacific✝ 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 3 0

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)

Sperm whale* California, Oregon, & 

Washington 1,144 33 0 1,351 43 0 1,600 53 0

Hawaiian 1,526 21 0 1,691 23 0 1,966 27 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-3

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)

Dwarf sperm whale Hawaiian 2,981 9,587 12 3,124 10,700 14 3,477 13,121 16

Pygmy sperm whale Hawaiian 1,155 3,845 5 1,214 4,296 6 1,364 5,219 6

Kogia whales California, Oregon, & 

Washington 1,253 3,901 9 1,346 4,588 12 1,658 6,357 15

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Baird's beaked whale California, Oregon, & 

Washington 1,155 8 0 1,307 10 0 1,831 12 0

Blainville's beaked 

whale Hawaiian 3,428 11 0 3,675 12 0 4,495 14 0

Cuvier's beaked whale

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 1,149 2 0 1,232 3 0 1,470 3 0

Longman's beaked 

whale Hawaiian 12,057 52 0 12,953 57 0 15,939 70 0

Mesoplodon spp 

(beaked whale guild)

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 9,452 76 0 10,614 98 0 14,566 124 0

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose dolphin

California Coastal 182 5 0 189 5 0 189 5 0

California, Oregon, & 

Washington Offshore 24,320 2,320 0 28,953 3,007 0 35,590 3,651 0

Hawaiian Pelagic 1,856 82 0 1,993 92 0 2,361 104 0

Kauai & Niihau 70 0 0 74 0 0 75 0 0

Oahu 8,134 35 0 8,137 35 0 8,188 35 0

4-Island 148 2 0 150 2 0 151 2 0

Hawaii 39 3 0 39 3 0 42 5 0

False killer whale✝ Hawaii Pelagic 622 26 0 672 29 0 819 32 0

Main Hawaiian Islands 

Insular✝ 381 9 0 394 10 0 485 13 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-4

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands 226 10 0 245 11 0 299 12 0

Fraser's dolphin Hawaiian 25,225 772 0 27,491 910 0 31,075 1,008 0

Killer whale

Eastern North Pacific 

Offshore 53 8 0 63 10 0 83 15 0

Eastern North Pacific 

Transient/West Coast 

Transient

99 15 0 117 18 0 155 27 0

Hawaiian 74 3 0 80 4 0 92 5 0

Long-beaked common 

dolphin California 89,185 7,093 0 119,518 9,324 0 130,970 11,093 0

Melon-headed whale

Hawaiian Islands 1,949 148 0 2,141 192 0 2,669 192 0

Kohala Resident 180 2 0 180 2 0 211 4 0

Northern right whale 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 41,973 5,103 0 50,090 6,692 0 61,039 8,025 0

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 32,075 3,999 0 38,735 5,156 0 47,145 6,355 0

Pantropical spotted 

dolphin

Hawaii Island 2,437 114 0 2,463 122 0 2,821 182 0

Hawaii Pelagic 6,002 299 0 6,467 341 0 8,077 398 0

Oahu 4,092 29 0 4,097 29 0 4,114 29 0

4-Island 259 1 0 259 1 0 271 1 0

Pygmy killer whale

Hawaiian 5,018 268 0 5,510 305 0 6,386 354 0

Tropical 370 30 0 433 38 0 568 47 0

Risso's dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 56,098 6,402 0 67,867 8,356 0 81,280 10,099 0

Hawaiian 5,761 304 0 6,253 336 0 7,676 391 0

Rough-toothed 

dolphin

Hawaiian 3,717 251 0 4,012 280 0 4,806 328 0

NSD1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-5

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Short-beaked common 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 705,511 75,760 1 832,626 99,397 1 1,055,419 121,779 2

Short-finned pilot 

whale

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 808 51 0 922 68 0 1,119 81 0

Hawaiian 7,671 284 0 8,271 320 0 9,788 370 0

Spinner dolphin

Hawaii Island 86 1 0 88 1 0 90 1 0

Hawaii Pelagic 2,753 152 0 2,972 166 0 3,815 177 0

Kauai & Niihau 264 1 0 309 1 0 370 1 0

Oahu & 4-Island 1,469 16 0 1,473 16 0 1,504 17 0

Striped dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 99,418 7,404 0 109,630 9,566 0 148,534 12,136 0

Hawaiian 4,615 274 0 5,076 312 0 5,952 351 0

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Dall's porpoise California, Oregon, & 

Washington 5,064 17,166 50 5,715 21,082 64 6,473 27,223 79

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals)

California sea lion U.S. 59,495 3,591 0 65,455 3,709 0 75,497 3,890 0

Guadalupe fur seal* Mexico 428 10 0 506 12 0 558 17 0

Northern fur seal California 8,250 79 0 9,684 100 0 12,163 129 0

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Harbor seal California 950 1,466 1 1,138 1,937 1 1,196 2,157 1

Hawaiian monk seal* Hawaiian 91 40 0 92 44 0 100 63 0

Northern elephant 

seal California 21,498 10,452 0 24,582 13,351 1 30,109 16,784 1

*ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. ✝Only designated stocks are ESA-listed. 1NSD: No stock designation. PTS: permanent threshold 

shift; TTS: temporary threshold shift.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-6

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

E.2 ESTIMATED IMPACTS MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS PER FIVE YEAR PERIOD FROM SONAR 

AND OTHER TRANSDUCERS UNDER NAVY TRAINING ACTIVITIES

Table E-2 provides a summary of the estimated number of marine mammal impacts from exposure to

sonar and other transducers used during Navy training activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 over the 

course of five years.

Table E-2: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Five-Year Period from Sonar Training Activities

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Blue whale*

Central North 

Pacific 42 97 0 53 151 0

Eastern North 

Pacific 1,827 3,171 0 2,562 4,474 0

Bryde's whale

Eastern Tropical 

Pacific 37 78 0 46 123 0

Hawaiian 115 314 0 149 457 0

Fin whale*

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

2,049 3,400 0 2,834 4,862 0

Hawaiian 62 71 0 73 86 0

Humpback whale✝

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington✝

279 2,525 0 356 3,612 3

Central North 

Pacific 7,842 15,706 0 9,101 21,776 3

Minke whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

655 2,249 0 913 3,493 0

Hawaiian 3,462 10,161 2 4,245 14,339 2

Sei whale*

Eastern North 

Pacific 70 162 0 100 238 0

Hawaiian 127 326 0 161 449 0

Family Eschrichtiidae

Gray whale✝

Eastern North 

Pacific 2,509 9,088 7 3,033 11,850 11

Western North 

Pacific✝ 3 11 0 4 14 0

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)

Sperm whale*

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

6,053 186 0 7,921 267 0

Hawaiian 6,997 81 0 9,081 119 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-7

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)

Dwarf sperm 

whale Hawaiian 14,946 41,963 49 17,193 59,432 68

Pygmy sperm 

whale Hawaiian 5,790 16,824 20 6,739 23,609 28

Kogia whales

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

6,417 20,572 50 8,227 31,538 74

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Baird's beaked 

whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

6,001 43 0 9,091 59 0

Blainville's beaked 

whale Hawaiian 16,321 43 0 21,457 59 0

Cuvier's beaked 

whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 5,488 9 0 7,028 12 0

Longman's 

beaked whale Hawaiian 56,966 206 0 75,671 304 0

Mesoplodon spp 

(beaked whale 

guild)

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

49,077 425 0 72,299 616 0

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose 

dolphin

California Coastal 752 24 0 758 24 0

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington 

Offshore

129,894 12,944 0 176,229 18,221 0

Hawaiian Pelagic 8,711 340 0 11,168 464 0

Kauai & Niihau 356 0 0 377 0 0

Oahu 40,671 177 0 40,941 177 0

4-Island 739 11 0 754 11 0

Hawaii 194 13 0 211 27 0

False killer whale✝

Hawaii Pelagic 2,906 99 0 3,858 137 0

Main Hawaiian 

Islands Insular✝ 1,873 39 0 2,381 59 0

Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands 1,057 37 0 1,409 51 0

Fraser's dolphin Hawaiian 119,407 3,339 0 146,716 4,564 0

Killer whale

Eastern North 

Pacific Offshore 282 44 0 413 73 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-8

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Eastern North 

Pacific 

Transient/West 

Coast Transient

524 82 0 766 136 0

Hawaiian 338 14 0 424 21 0

Long-beaked 

common dolphin California 518,773 40,017 0 647,923 55,313 0

Melon-headed 

whale

Hawaiian Islands 9,015 686 0 12,446 859 0

Kohala Resident 901 12 0 1,055 21 0

Northern right 

whale dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

224,296 28,590 0 302,249 40,037 0

Pacific whitesided dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

172,522 22,249 0 233,540 31,717 0

Pantropical 

spotted dolphin

Hawaii Island 12,036 567 0 14,014 909 0

Hawaii Pelagic 27,948 1,255 0 38,060 1,786 0

Oahu 20,463 142 0 20,571 146 0

4-Island 1,289 6 0 1,357 6 0

Pygmy killer 

whale

Hawaiian 23,304 1,121 0 29,758 1,573 0

Tropical 1,941 164 0 2,804 234 0

Risso's dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

302,456 35,847 0 402,777 50,398 0

Hawaiian 26,931 1,210 0 36,139 1,704 0

Rough-toothed 

dolphin

Hawaiian 17,473 1,033 0 22,716 1,454 0

NSD1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Short-beaked 

common dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

3,734,713 424,461 6 5,223,474 607,478 8

Short-finned pilot 

whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

4,204 288 0 5,542 401 0

Hawaiian 35,880 1,181 0 46,118 1,652 0

Spinner dolphin

Hawaii Island 428 5 0 448 6 0

Hawaii Pelagic 12,322 504 0 17,530 657 0

Kauai & Niihau 1,385 2 0 1,834 4 0

Oahu & 4-Island 7,346 79 0 7,516 83 0

Striped dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

509,735 41,090 0 736,477 60,512 0

Hawaiian 21,438 1,088 0 27,710 1,497 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-9

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Dall's porpoise

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

26,564 92,325 278 32,012 134,842 393

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals)

California sea lion U.S. 307,054 18,188 0 375,420 19,446 0

Guadalupe fur 

seal* Mexico 2,334 52 0 2,791 83 0

Northern fur seal California 43,571 436 0 60,342 647 0

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Harbor seal California 5,121 8,309 4 5,898 10,778 6

Hawaiian monk 

seal* Hawaiian 455 192 0 496 305 0

Northern 

elephant seal California 112,002 57,762 3 149,089 83,680 4

*ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. 

✝Only designated stocks are ESA-listed. 1

NSD: No stock designation. 

PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift.

E.3 ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS FROM SONAR AND OTHER TRANSDUCERS UNDER 

NAVY TESTING ACTIVITIES

Table E-3 provides a summary of the estimated number of marine mammal impacts from exposure to

sonar and other transducers used during Navy testing activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 over the 

course of a year.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-10

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Table E-3: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Year from Sonar Testing Activities

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Blue whale*

Central North Pacific 6 8 0 6 8 0 6 8 0

Eastern North Pacific 367 436 0 383 444 0 383 444 0

Bryde's whale

Eastern Tropical 

Pacific 6 8 0 6 8 0 6 8 0

Hawaiian 15 26 0 15 26 0 15 26 0

Fin whale*

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 356 583 0 378 595 0 380 596 0

Hawaiian 7 8 0 7 8 0 7 8 0

Humpback whale✝

California, Oregon, & 

Washington✝ 130 309 0 133 312 0 133 311 0

Central North Pacific 1,145 2,284 0 1,194 2,291 0 1,193 2,289 0

Minke whale

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 111 154 0 118 156 0 118 156 0

Hawaiian 467 962 0 483 966 0 485 966 0

Sei whale*

Eastern North Pacific 11 14 0 12 14 0 11 15 0

Hawaiian 18 30 0 18 31 0 19 30 0

Family Eschrichtiidae

Gray whale✝ Eastern North Pacific 719 1,127 1 742 1,147 1 743 1,148 1

Western North Pacific✝ 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)

Sperm whale*

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 1,045 10 0 1,084 10 0 1,093 10 0

Hawaiian 750 7 0 775 7 0 775 7 0

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-11

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Dwarf sperm whale Hawaiian 2,525 3,629 9 2,633 3,638 9 2,639 3,631 9

Pygmy sperm whale Hawaiian 1,023 1,447 4 1,067 1,454 4 1,069 1,448 4

Kogia whales California, Oregon, & 

Washington 1,250 1,644 5 1,365 1,678 5 1,373 1,672 5

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Baird's beaked whale California, Oregon, & 

Washington 678 4 0 723 4 0 738 4 0

Blainville's beaked 

whale Hawaiian 1,638 4 0 1,694 4 0 1,688 4 0

Cuvier's beaked whale

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 541 1 0 560 1 0 560 1 0

Longman's beaked 

whale Hawaiian 5,999 23 0 6,199 23 0 6,174 23 0

Mesoplodon spp 

(beaked whale guild)

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 6,394 20 0 6,840 20 0 6,886 20 0

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose dolphin

California Coastal 1,560 33 0 1,561 33 0 1,561 33 0

California, Oregon, & 

Washington Offshore 21,798 667 0 22,747 669 0 22,868 667 0

Hawaiian Pelagic 1,174 39 0 1,203 39 0 1,195 39 0

Kauai & Niihau 409 31 0 460 31 0 410 31 0

Oahu 444 15 0 460 15 0 462 15 0

4-Island 135 7 0 197 7 0 197 7 0

Hawaii 35 3 0 35 3 0 35 3 0

False killer whale✝

Hawaii Pelagic 313 13 0 327 13 0 320 13 0

Main Hawaiian Islands 

Insular✝ 173 6 0 178 6 0 177 6 0

Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands 115 5 0 120 5 0 117 5 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-12

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Fraser's dolphin Hawaiian 11,857 368 0 12,287 369 0 12,133 368 0

Killer whale

Eastern North Pacific 

Offshore 33 1 0 33 1 0 34 1 0

Eastern North Pacific 

Transient/West Coast 

Transient

61 2 0 62 2 0 64 2 0

Hawaiian 38 2 0 38 2 0 39 2 0

Long-beaked common 

dolphin California 108,573 4,399 0 113,786 4,397 0 113,672 4,399 0

Melon-headed whale

Hawaiian Islands 1,064 39 0 1,119 38 0 1,111 39 0

Kohala Resident 149 7 0 161 7 0 151 7 0

Northern right whale 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 38,513 1,337 0 39,922 1,328 0 40,240 1,337 0

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 29,325 919 0 30,487 916 0 30,677 920 0

Pantropical spotted 

dolphin

Hawaii Island 1,266 105 0 1,304 105 0 1,295 105 0

Hawaii Pelagic 3,432 132 0 3,505 133 0 3,508 132 0

Oahu 176 15 0 187 15 0 189 15 0

4-Island 304 15 0 441 15 0 439 15 0

Pygmy killer whale

Hawaiian 2,548 95 0 2,612 95 0 2,617 95 0

Tropical 258 12 0 277 12 0 274 12 0

Risso's dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 46,491 1,724 0 48,211 1,720 0 48,456 1,725 0

Hawaiian 2,627 110 0 2,696 110 0 2,695 110 0

Rough-toothed 

dolphin

Hawaiian 2,042 92 0 2,099 92 0 2,102 92 0

NSD1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Short-beaked common 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 515,030 18,786 0 540,773 18,796 0 542,718 18,794 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-13

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Short-finned pilot 

whale

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 831 56 0 867 56 0 867 56 0

Hawaiian 4,081 110 0 4,225 110 0 4,197 110 0

Spinner dolphin

Hawaii Island 187 11 0 191 11 0 190 11 0

Hawaii Pelagic 1,336 36 0 1,359 36 0 1,367 36 0

Kauai & Niihau 1,249 62 0 1,374 62 0 1,253 62 0

Oahu & 4-Island 249 13 0 314 13 0 315 13 0

Striped dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 50,550 2,031 0 53,992 2,022 0 54,545 2,032 0

Hawaiian 2,247 92 0 2,302 92 0 2,316 92 0

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Dall's porpoise California, Oregon, & 

Washington 7,816 8,213 17 8,312 8,182 17 8,351 8,290 17

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals)

California sea lion U.S. 46,695 921 1 47,719 920 1 47,774 921 1

Guadalupe fur seal* Mexico 871 3 0 936 3 0 942 3 0

Northern fur seal California 5,219 23 0 5,479 23 0 5,501 23 0

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Harbor seal California 1,235 1,023 0 1,280 1,025 0 1,281 1,025 0

Hawaiian monk seal* Hawaiian 34 12 0 48 12 0 48 12 0

Northern elephant 

seal California 17,060 4,276 0 18,208 4,302 0 18,277 4,303 0

*ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. ✝Only designated stocks are ESA-listed. 1

NSD = No stock designation. 

PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-14

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

E.4 ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS PER FIVE YEAR PERIOD FROM SONAR AND 

OTHER TRANSDUCERS UNDER NAVY TESTING ACTIVITIES

Table E-4 provides a summary of the estimated number of marine mammal impacts from exposure to

sonar and other transducers used during Navy testing activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 over the 

course of five years.

Table E-4: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Five-Year Period from Sonar Testing Activities

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Blue whale*

Central North 

Pacific 28 37 0 29 38 0

Eastern North 

Pacific 1,842 2,135 0 1,904 2,171 0

Bryde's whale

Eastern Tropical 

Pacific 31 38 0 32 38 0

Hawaiian 74 120 0 76 121 0

Fin whale*

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

1,791 2,870 0 1,885 2,926 0

Hawaiian 35 39 0 36 39 0

Humpback whale✝

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington✝

651 1,510 0 661 1,517 0

Central North 

Pacific 5,768 10,838 0 5,960 10,916 0

Minke whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

562 737 0 589 746 0

Hawaiian 2,347 4,486 0 2,418 4,536 0

Sei whale*

Eastern North 

Pacific 54 70 0 57 70 0

Hawaiian 90 139 0 93 141 0

Family Eschrichtiidae

Gray whale✝

Eastern North 

Pacific 3,608 5,517 3 3,708 5,605 3

Western North 

Pacific✝ 4 7 0 4 7 0

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)

Sperm whale*

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

5,208 44 0 5,407 44 0

Hawaiian 3,700 31 0 3,806 31 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-15

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)

Dwarf sperm 

whale Hawaiian 12,772 16,929 42 13,208 17,059 42

Pygmy sperm 

whale Hawaiian 5,174 6,737 18 5,348 6,792 18

Kogia whales

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

6,379 7,920 24 6,854 8,075 24

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Baird's beaked 

whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

3,400 18 0 3,646 18 0

Blainville's beaked 

whale Hawaiian 8,098 19 0 8,313 19 0

Cuvier's beaked 

whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 2,670 5 0 2,751 5 0

Longman's 

beaked whale Hawaiian 29,640 103 0 30,396 104 0

Mesoplodon spp 

(beaked whale 

guild)

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

32,081 93 0 34,057 94 0

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose 

dolphin

California Coastal 7,802 164 0 7,806 164 0

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington 

Offshore

109,203 3,106 0 113,511 3,123 0

Hawaiian Pelagic 5,834 179 0 5,923 180 0

Kauai & Niihau 2,069 92 0 2,072 92 0

Oahu 2,218 76 0 2,293 76 0

4-Island 736 33 0 982 33 0

Hawaii 172 14 0 173 14 0

False killer whale✝

Hawaii Pelagic 1,560 62 0 1,591 62 0

Main Hawaiian 

Islands Insular✝ 866 26 0 881 26 0

Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands 571 23 0 582 23 0

Fraser's dolphin Hawaiian 58,632 1,673 0 59,837 1,683 0

Killer whale

Eastern North 

Pacific Offshore 163 3 0 169 3 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-16

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Eastern North 

Pacific 

Transient/West 

Coast Transient

303 6 0 313 6 0

Hawaiian 189 9 0 193 10 0

Long-beaked 

common dolphin California 546,154 21,403 0 566,667 21,426 0

Melon-headed 

whale

Hawaiian Islands 5,271 152 0 5,466 154 0

Kohala Resident 759 36 0 767 36 0

Northern right 

whale dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

192,644 6,132 0 199,615 6,168 0

Pacific whitesided dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

146,709 4,191 0 152,185 4,218 0

Pantropical 

spotted dolphin

Hawaii Island 6,301 490 0 6,426 491 0

Hawaii Pelagic 17,017 591 0 17,340 604 0

Oahu 883 74 0 937 74 0

4-Island 1,652 74 0 2,188 74 0

Pygmy killer 

whale

Hawaiian 12,586 419 0 12,887 427 0

Tropical 1,295 56 0 1,361 56 0

Risso's dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

232,439 7,945 0 240,360 7,982 0

Hawaiian 12,995 492 0 13,289 499 0

Rough-toothed 

dolphin

Hawaiian 10,125 399 0 10,382 404 0

NSD1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Short-beaked 

common dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

2,582,358 88,389 0 2,694,739 89,093 0

Short-finned pilot 

whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

4,168 272 0 4,315 272 0

Hawaiian 20,261 484 0 20,762 490 0

Spinner dolphin

Hawaii Island 936 57 0 949 57 0

Hawaii Pelagic 6,606 161 0 6,743 164 0

Kauai & Niihau 6,340 190 0 6,356 190 0

Oahu & 4-Island 1,306 65 0 1,572 65 0

Striped dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

253,588 9,287 0 269,681 9,428 0

Hawaiian 11,120 417 0 11,418 423 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-17

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Dall's porpoise

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

39,593 39,225 78 41,691 39,682 78

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals)

California sea lion U.S. 233,207 4,542 4 237,668 4,544 4

Guadalupe fur 

seal* Mexico 4,344 13 0 4,641 13 0

Northern fur seal California 26,049 105 0 27,200 106 0

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Harbor seal California 6,211 4,945 0 6,394 4,957 0

Hawaiian monk 

seal* Hawaiian 184 45 0 240 45 0

Northern 

elephant seal California 86,031 20,431 0 90,843 20,675 0

*ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. 

✝Only designated stocks are ESA-listed. 1

NSD: No stock designation. PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift.

E.5 ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS FROM AIR GUNS UNDER NAVY TRAINING 

ACTIVITIES

There are no air gun activities under training; therefore, there would be no takes.

E.6 ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS FROM AIR GUNS UNDER NAVY TESTING 

ACTIVITIES

Table E-5 provides a summary of the estimated number of marine mammal impacts from exposure to air 

guns used during Navy testing activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 over the course of a year. Most 

species and stocks in the Study Area either do not occur in areas where air gun activities take place, or 

did not result in any estimated impact based on the quantitative analysis.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-18

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Table E-5: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Year from Air Gun Activities

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Blue whale* Eastern North Pacific 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

Family Eschrichtiidae

Gray whale Eastern North Pacific 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)

Dwarf sperm whale Hawaiian 0 6 1 0 6 1 0 6 1

Pygmy sperm whale Hawaiian 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1

Kogia whales California, Oregon, & 

Washington 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose dolphin California, Oregon, & 

Washington Offshore 6 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0

Long-beaked common

dolphin California 51 0 0 51 0 0 51 0 0

Northern right whale 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 9 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 6 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0

Risso's dolphin California, Oregon, & 

Washington 23 0 0 23 0 0 23 0 0

Short-beaked common 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 198 2 1 198 2 1 198 2 1

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Dall's porpoise California, Oregon, & 

Washington 3 5 2 3 5 2 3 5 2

Suborder Pinnipedia
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-19

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Family Otariidae (eared seals)

California sea lion U.S. 6 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0

Northern fur seal California 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Harbor seal California 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0

Northern elephant 

seal California 9 2 0 9 2 0 9 2 0

* ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-20

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

E.7 ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS PER FIVE YEAR PERIOD FROM AIR GUNS UNDER 

NAVY TESTING ACTIVITIES

Table E-6 provides a summary of the estimated number of marine mammal impacts from exposure to air 

guns used during Navy testing activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 over the course of five years. Most 

species or stock in the Study Area either do not occur in areas where air gun activities take place, or did 

not result in any estimated impact based on the quantitative analysis.

Table E-6: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Five-Year Period from Air Gun Activities

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Blue whale* Eastern North 

Pacific 3 0 0 3 0 0

Family Eschrichtiidae

Gray whale Eastern North 

Pacific 6 0 0 6 0 0

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)

Dwarf sperm 

whale Hawaiian 0 29 6 0 29 6

Pygmy sperm 

whale Hawaiian 0 13 3 0 13 3

Kogia whales

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

0 4 3 0 4 3

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose 

dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington 

Offshore

31 0 0 31 0 0

Long-beaked 

common dolphin California 254 0 0 254 0 0

Northern right 

whale dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

44 0 0 44 0 0

Pacific whitesided dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

31 0 0 31 0 0

Risso's dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

113 0 0 113 0 0

Short-beaked 

common dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

992 10 7 992 10 7

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-21

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Dall's porpoise

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

14 26 10 14 26 10

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals)

California sea lion U.S. 30 0 0 30 0 0

Northern fur seal California 6 0 0 6 0 0

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Harbor seal California 16 0 0 16 0 0

Northern 

elephant seal California 45 10 0 45 10 0

* ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary 

threshold shift.

E.8 ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS FROM PILE DRIVING UNDER NAVY TRAINING 

ACTIVITIES

Table E-7 provides a summary of the estimated number of marine mammal impacts from exposure to

pile driving used during Navy training activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 over the course of a year. Pile 

driving only occurs in the Southern California region of the Study Area, therefore species or stocks that 

occur near or around Hawaii would not be impacted. Most species or stocks in the Study Area either do 

not occur in areas where pile driving activities take place, or did not result in any estimated impact 

based on the quantitative analysis.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-22

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Table E-7: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Year from Pile Driving Activities

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose dolphin

California Coastal 20 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0

California, Oregon, & 

Washington Offshore 8 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0

Long-beaked common 

dolphin California 82 0 0 82 0 0 82 0 0

Northern right whale 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 12 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 6 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0

Risso's dolphin California, Oregon, & 

Washington 18 0 0 18 0 0 18 0 0

Short-beaked common 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 238 0 0 238 0 0 238 0 0

Striped dolphin California, Oregon, & 

Washington 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Dall's porpoise California, Oregon, & 

Washington 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 0

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals)

California sea lion U.S. 150 0 0 150 0 0 150 0 0

Northern fur seal California 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-23

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Harbor seal California 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0

Northern elephant 

seal California 12 0 0 12 0 0 12 0 0

Notes: PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-24

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

E.9 ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS PER FIVE YEAR PERIOD FROM PILE DRIVING 

UNDER NAVY TRAINING ACTIVITIES

Table E-8 provides a summary of the estimated number of marine mammal impacts from exposure to

pile driving used during Navy training activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 over the course of five years.

Pile driving only occurs in the Southern California region of the Study Area, therefore species or stocks 

that occur near or around Hawaii would not be impacted. Most species or stocks in the Study Area 

either do not occur in areas where pile driving activities take place, or did not result in any estimated 

impact based on the quantitative analysis.

Table E-8: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Five-Year Period from Pile Driving Activities

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose 

dolphin

California Coastal 100 0 0 100 0 0

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington 

Offshore

40 0 0 40 0 0

Long-beaked 

common dolphin California 410 0 0 410 0 0

Northern right 

whale dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

60 0 0 60 0 0

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

30 0 0 30 0 0

Risso's dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

90 0 0 90 0 0

Short-beaked 

common dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

1190 0 0 1190 0 0

Striped dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

10 0 0 10 0 0

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Dall's porpoise

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

10 10 0 10 10 0

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals)

California sea lion U.S. 750 0 0 750 0 0

Northern fur seal California 10 0 0 10 0 0

Family Phocidae (true seals)
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-25

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Behavioral Response TTS PTS

Harbor seal California 10 0 0 10 0 0

Northern elephant 

seal California 60 0 0 60 0 0

Notes: PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift

E.10 ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS FROM PILE DRIVING UNDER NAVY TESTING 

ACTIVITIES

There are no pile driving activities under testing; therefore, there would be no takes.

E.11 ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS FROM EXPLOSIVES UNDER NAVY TRAINING 

ACTIVITIES

Table E-9 provides a summary of the estimated number of marine mammal impacts from exposure to

explosives used during Navy training activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 over the course of a year. In 

addition to impacts listed in Table E-9, over the course of a year, the quantitative analysis estimates 

mortality of one short-beaked common dolphin and one California sea lion (a total of two marine 

mammals) as a result of exposure to explosive training activities.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-26

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Table E-9: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Year from Explosive Training Activities

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Blue whale*

Central North 

Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eastern North 

Pacific 0 8 1 0 0 8 1 0 0 8 1 0

Bryde's 

whale

Eastern 

Tropical Pacific 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fin whale*

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

0 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Humpback 

whale✝

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington✝

0 13 1 0 0 13 1 0 0 13 1 0

Central North 

Pacific 0 21 1 0 0 22 1 0 0 22 1 0

Minke 

whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

0 3 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 4 1 0

Hawaiian 0 8 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0

Sei whale*

Eastern North 

Pacific 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Eschrichtiidae

Gray whale✝ Eastern North 

Pacific 0 56 3 0 0 56 3 0 0 56 3 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-27

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Western North 

Pacific✝ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)

Sperm 

whale*

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)

Dwarf 

sperm 

whale

Hawaiian 29 102 20 0 31 106 21 0 31 106 21 0

Pygmy 

sperm 

whale

Hawaiian 13 31 9 0 14 32 10 0 14 32 10 0

Kogia 

whales

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

32 44 11 0 33 45 11 0 33 45 11 0

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Baird's 

beaked 

whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Blainville's 

beaked 

whale

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cuvier's 

beaked 

whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-28

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Longman's 

beaked 

whale

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mesoplodon 

spp (beaked 

whale guild)

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose 

dolphin

California 

Coastal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington 

Offshore

6 12 2 0 6 12 2 0 6 12 2 0

Hawaiian 

Pelagic 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Kauai & Niihau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oahu 3 11 1 0 3 11 1 0 3 11 1 0

4-Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

False killer 

whale✝

Hawaii Pelagic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Main Hawaiian 

Islands Insular✝ 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Northwestern 

Hawaiian 

Islands

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fraser's 

dolphin Hawaiian 3 5 1 0 3 5 1 0 3 5 1 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-29

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Killer whale

Eastern North 

Pacific 

Offshore

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eastern North 

Pacific 

Transient/West 

Coast Transient

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Longbeaked 

common 

dolphin

California 27 43 13 1 27 43 13 1 27 43 13 1

Melonheaded 

whale

Hawaiian 

Islands 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

Kohala

Resident 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern 

right whale 

dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

8 18 7 1 8 18 7 1 8 18 7 1

Pacific 

white-sided 

dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

4 13 3 0 4 13 3 0 4 13 3 0

Pantropical 

spotted 

dolphin

Hawaii Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii Pelagic 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Oahu 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

4-Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pygmy killer 

whale

Hawaiian 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Tropical 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-30

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Risso's 

dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

8 27 6 0 8 27 6 0 8 27 6 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Roughtoothed 

dolphin

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NSD1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shortbeaked 

common 

dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

47 139 38 6 50 142 38 6 50 142 38 6

Short-finned 

pilot whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Hawaiian 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0

Spinner

dolphin

Hawaii Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii Pelagic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kauai & Niihau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oahu & 4-

Island 1 3 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 3 1 0

Striped

dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

6 14 1 0 7 14 1 0 7 14 1 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Dall's 

porpoise

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

150 329 73 0 150 331 73 0 150 331 73 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-31

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals)

California 

sea lion U.S. 78 151 82 8 78 151 82 8 78 151 82 8

Guadalupe 

fur seal* Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern 

fur seal California 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Harbor seal California 18 24 6 0 18 24 6 0 18 24 6 0

Hawaiian 

monk seal* Hawaiian 0 3 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 1 0

Northern 

elephant 

seal

California 46 176 68 2 47 177 69 2 47 177 69 2

* ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. 

✝Only designated stocks are ESA-listed. 1

NSD = No stock designation; PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-32

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

E.12 ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS PER FIVE YEAR PERIOD FROM EXPLOSIVES 

UNDER NAVY TRAINING ACTIVITIES

Table E-10 provides a summary of the estimated number of marine mammal impacts from exposure to

explosives used during Navy training activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 over the course of five years.

In addition to impacts listed in Table E-10, over the course of a five-year period, the quantitative analysis 

estimates mortality of three short-beaked common dolphins and four California sea lions (a total of 

seven marine mammals) as a result of exposure to explosive training activities.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-33

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Table E-10: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Five-Year Period from Explosive Training Activities

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Blue whale*

Central North Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eastern North Pacific 0 38 3 0 0 40 3 0

Bryde's whale

Eastern Tropical 

Pacific 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fin whale*

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 0 33 0 0 0 34 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Humpback whale✝

California, Oregon, & 

Washington✝ 0 60 3 0 0 61 3 0

Central North Pacific 0 106 5 0 0 112 5 0

Minke whale

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 0 16 4 0 0 17 4 0

Hawaiian 0 41 0 0 0 51 0 0

Sei whale*

Eastern North Pacific 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Eschrichtiidae

Gray whale✝

Eastern North Pacific 0 263 12 0 0 263 12 0

Western North 

Pacific✝ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)

Sperm whale*

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 12 6 0 0 12 6 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-34

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)

Dwarf sperm whale Hawaiian 148 514 99 0 157 528 105 0

Pygmy sperm whale Hawaiian 64 155 44 0 68 162 48 0

Kogia whales California, Oregon, & 

Washington 160 217 55 0 162 221 56 0

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Baird's beaked whale California, Oregon, & 

Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Blainville's beaked 

whale Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cuvier's beaked whale

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Longman's beaked 

whale Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mesoplodon spp 

(beaked whale guild)

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 5 9 0 0 5 9 0 0

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose dolphin

California Coastal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

California, Oregon, & 

Washington Offshore 29 59 9 0 30 59 9 0

Hawaiian Pelagic 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0

Kauai & Niihau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oahu 13 57 5 0 13 57 5 0

4-Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

False killer whale✝ Hawaii Pelagic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Main Hawaiian Islands 

Insular✝ 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-35

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fraser's dolphin Hawaiian 13 25 3 0 13 25 3 0

Killer whale

Eastern North Pacific 

Offshore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eastern North Pacific 

Transient/West Coast 

Transient

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Long-beaked common 

dolphin California 132 208 64 5 132 208 64 5

Melon-headed whale

Hawaiian Islands 2 2 0 0 4 4 0 0

Kohala Resident 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern right whale 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 35 87 34 6 36 87 34 6

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 20 61 12 0 20 61 13 0

Pantropical spotted 

dolphin

Hawaii Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii Pelagic 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0

Oahu 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0

4-Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pygmy killer whale

Hawaiian 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0

Tropical 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Risso's dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 37 130 30 0 37 130 30 0

Hawaiian 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0

Rough-toothed 

dolphin

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NSD1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-36

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Short-beaked common 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 232 687 183 27 245 697 186 28

Short-finned pilot 

whale

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0

Hawaiian 6 10 0 0 6 10 0 0

Spinner dolphin

Hawaii Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii Pelagic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kauai & Niihau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oahu & 4-Island 4 16 5 0 4 16 5 0

Striped dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 32 69 3 0 34 71 3 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Dall's porpoise California, Oregon, & 

Washington 730 1,617 356 0 732 1,622 357 0

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals)

California sea lion U.S. 390 754 409 38 391 754 410 38

Guadalupe fur seal* Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern fur seal California 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Harbor seal California 80 116 30 0 80 116 30 0

Hawaiian monk seal* Hawaiian 0 15 3 0 0 15 3 0

Northern elephant 

seal California 225 877 338 8 228 882 343 8

*ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. ✝Only designated stocks are ESA-listed. 1NSD: No stock designation. PTS: 

permanent threshold shift; TTS: temporary threshold shift.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-37

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

E.13 ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS FROM EXPLOSIVES UNDER NAVY TESTING 

ACTIVITIES

Table E-11 provides a summary of the estimated number of marine mammal impacts from exposure to

explosives used during Navy testing activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 over the course of a year. In 

addition to impacts listed in Table E-11 over the course of a year, the quantitative analysis estimates 

mortality of one short-beaked common dolphin as a result of exposure to explosive testing activities.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-38

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Table E-11: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Year for Explosive Testing Activities

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Blue whale*

Central North 

Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eastern North 

Pacific 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0

Bryde's 

whale

Eastern 

Tropical Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fin whale*

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

0 7 1 0 0 7 1 0 0 7 1 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Humpback 

whale✝

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington✝

0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0

Central North 

Pacific 0 37 2 0 0 37 2 0 0 37 2 0

Minke 

whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

Hawaiian 0 18 1 0 0 18 1 0 0 18 1 0

Sei whale*

Eastern North 

Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Eschrichtiidae

Gray whale✝ Eastern North 

Pacific 0 29 1 0 0 30 1 0 0 30 1 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-39

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Western North 

Pacific✝ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)

Sperm 

whale*

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)

Dwarf 

sperm 

whale

Hawaiian 82 100 19 0 82 100 19 0 82 100 19 0

Pygmy 

sperm 

whale

Hawaiian 34 37 8 0 34 37 8 0 34 37 8 0

Kogia 

whales

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

31 34 7 0 35 41 9 0 35 41 9 0

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Baird's 

beaked 

whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Blainville's 

beaked 

whale

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cuvier's 

beaked 

whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-40

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Longman's 

beaked 

whale

Hawaiian 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Mesoplodon 

spp (beaked 

whale guild)

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose 

dolphin

California 

Coastal 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington 

Offshore

7 6 1 0 7 7 1 0 7 7 1 0

Hawaiian

Pelagic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kauai & Niihau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oahu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4-Island 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0

Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

False killer 

whale✝

Hawaii Pelagic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Main Hawaiian 

Islands Insular✝ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northwestern 

Hawaiian 

Islands

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fraser's 

dolphin Hawaiian 3 5 1 0 3 5 1 0 3 5 1 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-41

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Killer whale

Eastern North 

Pacific 

Offshore

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eastern North 

Pacific 

Transient/West 

Coast Transient

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Longbeaked 

common 

dolphin

California 20 22 4 1 21 23 5 1 21 23 5 1

Melonheaded 

whale

Hawaiian 

Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kohala 

Resident 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern 

right whale 

dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

11 9 3 0 11 9 3 0 11 9 3 0

Pacific 

white-sided 

dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

6 7 2 0 7 8 2 0 7 8 2 0

Pantropical 

spotted 

dolphin

Hawaii Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii Pelagic 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

Oahu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4-Island 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

Pygmy killer 

whale

Hawaiian 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Tropical 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-42

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Risso's 

dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

16 13 3 0 16 15 3 0 16 15 3 0

Hawaiian 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

Roughtoothed 

dolphin

Hawaiian 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

NSD1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shortbeaked 

common 

dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

156 174 37 4 163 188 39 4 163 187 39 4

Short-finned 

pilot whale

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0

Spinner 

dolphin

Hawaii Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii Pelagic 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Kauai & Niihau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oahu & 4-

Island 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0

Striped 

dolphin

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

8 11 2 0 9 12 2 0 9 12 2 0

Hawaiian 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Dall's 

porpoise

California, 

Oregon, & 

Washington

280 254 48 0 300 289 53 0 300 289 53 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-43

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – Minimum Alternative 1 – Maximum Alternative 2

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals)

California 

sea lion U.S. 11 7 3 0 11 9 4 1 11 9 4 1

Guadalupe 

fur seal* Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern 

fur seal California 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Harbor seal California 9 8 1 0 9 8 1 0 9 8 1 0

Hawaiian 

monk seal* Hawaiian 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0

Northern 

elephant 

seal

California 54 98 25 0 58 123 27 0 58 122 27 0

* ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. 

✝Only designated stocks are ESA-listed. 1

NSD = No stock designation; PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-44

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

E.14 ESTIMATED MARINE MAMMAL IMPACTS PER FIVE YEAR PERIOD FROM EXPLOSIVES 

UNDER NAVY TESTING ACTIVITIES

Table E-12 provides a summary of the estimated number of marine mammal impacts from exposure to

explosives used during Navy testing activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 over the course of five years. In 

addition to impacts listed in Table E-12, over the course of a five-year period, the quantitative analysis 

estimates mortality of three short-beaked common dolphins as a result of exposure to explosive testing 

activities.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-45

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Table E-12: Estimated Marine Mammals Impacts per Five-Year Period from Explosive Testing Activities

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Blue whale*

Central North Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eastern North Pacific 0 25 0 0 0 27 0 0

Bryde's whale

Eastern Tropical 

Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fin whale*

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 0 34 3 0 0 34 3 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Humpback whale✝

California, Oregon, & 

Washington✝ 0 17 0 0 0 18 0 0

Central North Pacific 0 171 10 0 0 171 10 0

Minke whale

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 0 10 0 0 0 11 0 0

Hawaiian 0 85 4 0 0 85 4 0

Sei whale*

Eastern North Pacific 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Eschrichtiidae

Gray whale✝ Eastern North Pacific 0 146 4 0 0 152 4 0

Western North Pacific✝ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)

Sperm whale*

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 0 7 0 0 0 8 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-46

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Dwarf sperm whale Hawaiian 392 485 92 0 392 485 92 0

Pygmy sperm whale Hawaiian 166 180 39 0 166 180 39 0

Kogia whales California, Oregon, & 

Washington 157 183 40 0 173 205 45 0

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Baird's beaked whale California, Oregon, & 

Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Blainville's beaked 

whale Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cuvier's beaked whale

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Longman's beaked 

whale Hawaiian 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0

Mesoplodon spp 

(beaked whale guild)

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 4 7 0 0 4 8 0 0

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Bottlenose dolphin

California Coastal 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

California, Oregon, & 

Washington Offshore 37 33 4 0 37 35 4 0

Hawaiian Pelagic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kauai & Niihau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oahu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4-Island 6 3 0 0 6 3 0 0

Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

False killer whale✝

Hawaii Pelagic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Main Hawaiian Islands 

Insular✝ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-47

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Fraser's dolphin Hawaiian 15 25 5 0 15 25 5 0

Killer whale

Eastern North Pacific 

Offshore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eastern North Pacific 

Transient/West Coast 

Transient

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Long-beaked common 

dolphin California 99 110 21 3 103 117 23 3

Melon-headed whale

Hawaiian Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kohala Resident 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern right whale 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 53 44 15 0 53 46 16 0

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 31 38 8 0 33 41 10 0

Pantropical spotted 

dolphin

Hawaii Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii Pelagic 3 4 0 0 3 4 0 0

Oahu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4-Island 5 3 0 0 5 3 0 0

Pygmy killer whale

Hawaiian 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0

Tropical 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Risso's dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 78 71 15 0 80 77 15 0

Hawaiian 4 4 0 0 4 4 0 0

Rough-toothed 

dolphin

Hawaiian 4 4 0 0 4 4 0 0

NSD1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Short-beaked common 

dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 786 896 188 21 813 936 194 21
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-48

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species Stock

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

Behavioral 

Response TTS PTS Injury Behavioral Response TTS PTS Injury

Short-finned pilot 

whale

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaiian 8 4 0 0 8 4 0 0

Spinner dolphin

Hawaii Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii Pelagic 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

Kauai & Niihau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oahu & 4-Island 10 8 0 0 10 8 0 0

Striped dolphin

California, Oregon, & 

Washington 42 56 10 0 45 62 10 0

Hawaiian 4 5 0 0 4 5 0 0

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Dall's porpoise California, Oregon, & 

Washington 1,421 1,332 250 0 1,499 1,443 264 0

Suborder Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals)

California sea lion U.S. 53 38 17 2 53 47 20 3

Guadalupe fur seal* Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern fur seal California 4 4 4 0 5 5 4 0

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Harbor seal California 47 39 5 0 47 42 5 0

Hawaiian monk seal* Hawaiian 11 14 0 0 11 14 0 0

Northern elephant 

seal California 275 551 131 0 291 610 135 0

* ESA-listed species (all stocks) within the HSTT Study Area. 

✝Only designated stocks are ESA-listed. 1NSD: No stock designation. PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary threshold shift.
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-49

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

E.15 ESTIMATED SEA TURTLE IMPACTS FROM SONAR AND OTHER TRANSDUCERS UNDER 

NAVY TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES

Based on the quantitative analysis, no sea turtle impacts are anticipated from exposure to sonar and 

other transducers used during Navy training and testing activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 over the 

course of a year or five years.

E.16 ESTIMATED SEA TURTLE IMPACTS FROM AIR GUNS UNDER NAVY TRAINING AND 

TESTING ACTIVITIES

There are no air gun activities under training; therefore, there would be no takes. No sea turtle impacts 

are anticipated from exposure to air guns used during Navy testing activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 

over the course of a year and over the course of five years. 

E.17 ESTIMATED SEA TURTLE IMPACTS FROM PILE DRIVING UNDER NAVY TRAINING AND 

TESTING ACTIVITIES

There are no pile driving activities under testing; therefore, there would be no takes. No sea turtle 

impacts are anticipated from exposure to pile driving used during Navy training activities under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 over the course of a year and over the course of five years.

E.18 ESTIMATED SEA TURTLE IMPACTS FROM EXPLOSIVES UNDER NAVY TRAINING AND 

TESTING ACTIVITIES

Table E-13 provides a summary of the estimated number of sea turtle impacts from exposure to

explosives used during Navy training and testing activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 over the course of 

a year.

Table E-13: Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per Year from Explosive Training and Testing Activities

Species

Alternative 1 –

Minimum

Alternative 1 –

Maximum Alternative 2

TTS PTS Injury TTS PTS Injury TTS PTS Injury

Explosive Training Activities

Family Cheloniidae (hardshell turtles)

Green turtle* 20 7 1 20 7 1 20 7 1

Hawksbill turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Loggerhead turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Olive ridley turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Dermochelyidae (scuteless turtles)

Leatherback turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Explosive Testing Activities

Family Cheloniidae (hardshell turtles)

Green turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawksbill turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Loggerhead turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hawaii-Southern California

Training and Testing Activities Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

E-50

Appendix E Navy Estimated Impacts

Species

Alternative 1 –

Minimum

Alternative 1 –

Maximum Alternative 2

TTS PTS Injury TTS PTS Injury TTS PTS Injury

Olive ridley turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Dermochelyidae (scuteless turtles)

Leatherback turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*ESA-listed species within the HSTT Study Area. PTS: permanent threshold shift; TTS: temporary 

threshold shift.

E.19 ESTIMATED SEA TURTLE IMPACTS PER FIVE YEAR PERIOD FROM EXPLOSIVES UNDER 

NAVY TRAINING AND TESTING ACTIVITIES

Table E-14 provides a summary of the estimated number of sea turtle impacts from exposure to

explosives used during Navy training and testing activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 per fiveyear period.

Table E-14: Estimated Sea Turtle Impacts per Five-Year Period from Explosive Training and 

Testing Activities

Species

Alternative 1 – 5-Year Alternative 2 – 5-Year

TTS PTS Injury TTS PTS Injury

Explosive Training Activities

Family Cheloniidae (hardshell turtles)

Green turtle* 98 35 3 98 35 3

Hawksbill turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0

Loggerhead turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0

Olive ridley turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Dermochelyidae (scuteless turtles)

Leatherback turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0

Explosive Testing Activities

Family Cheloniidae (hardshell turtles)

Green turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawksbill turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0

Loggerhead turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0

Olive ridley turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0

Family Dermochelyidae (scuteless turtles)

Leatherback turtle* 0 0 0 0 0 0

*ESA-listed species within the HSTT Study Area. PTS = permanent threshold shift; TTS = temporary 

threshold shift.
Appendix F: Military Expended Material and Direct 

Strike Impact Analyses

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

F MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIAL AND DIRECT STRIKE IMPACT ANALYSES ..................................F-1

F.1 Estimating The Impact of Military Expended Materials and Underwater Explosions 

on Abiotic Substrates as a Habitat for Biological Resources.........................................F-1

F.1.1 Military Expended and Recovered Material – Training Activities........................F-11

F.1.2 Military Expended and Recovered Materials – Testing Activities........................F-22

F.1.3 Impacts to Abiotic Substrate – Training and Testing ...........................................F-34

F.2 Statistical Probability Analysis for Estimating Direct Strike Impact and Number of 

Potential Exposures from Military Expended Materials.............................................F-43

F.2.1 Direct Impact Analysis..........................................................................................F-43

F.2.2 Parameters for Analysis.......................................................................................F-45

F.2.3 Input Data ............................................................................................................F-46

F.2.4 Output Data .........................................................................................................F-46

F.3 Poisson Probability of Direct Vessel Strike With Marine Mammals............................F-50

List of Figures

There are no figures in this chapter.

List of Tables

Table F-1: Categories and Footprints for Various Materials and Underwater Explosions ........................ F-3

Table F-2: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Training 

Activities in a Single Year under Alternatives 1 and 2 ........................................................ F-12

Table F-3: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Training 

Activities in a Single Year with Differences between Alternatives 1 and 2 ........................ F-14

Table F-4: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Training 

Activities in Five Years under Alternatives 1 and 2............................................................. F-15

Table F-5: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Training 

Activities in Five Years with Differences between Alternatives 1 and 2............................. F-17

Table F-6: Number and Impacts1 of Recovered Bottom-Placed Materials Proposed for Use During 

Training Activities in a Single Year under Alternatives 1 and 2 .......................................... F-19

Table F-7: Numbers of Recovered Materials Proposed for Use During Training Activities in Five Years 

under Alternatives 1 and 2 ................................................................................................. F-20
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

Table F-8: Number and Impacts1 of Recovered Bottom-Placed materials Proposed for Use During 

Training Activities in Five Years under Alternatives 1 and 2............................................... F-21

Table F-9: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Testing 

Activities in a Single Year under Alternatives 1 and 2 ........................................................ F-23

Table F-10: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Testing 

Activities in a Single Year with Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2 ........................ F-25

Table F-11: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Testing in 

Five Years under Alternatives 1 and 2 ................................................................................ F-26

Table F-12: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Testing 

Activities in Five Years with Differences between Alternatives 1 and 2............................. F-28

Table F-13: Number of Recovered materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in a Single Year 

as Part of Alternatives 1 and 2............................................................................................ F-30

Table F-14: Number and Impacts1 of Recovered Bottom Placed Materials Proposed for Use During 

Testing Activities in a Single Year as Part of Alternatives 1 and 2 ...................................... F-31

Table F-15: Number of Recovered materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in Five 

Years as Part of Alternatives 1 and 2 .................................................................................. F-32

Table F-16: Number and Impacts1 of Recovered Bottom Placed materials Proposed for Use During 

Testing Activities in Five Years as part of Alternatives 1 and 2 .......................................... F-33

Table F-17: Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Training Activities in Alternative 1 

and 2 in a Single Year.......................................................................................................... F-35

Table F-18: Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities in Alternative 1 in a 

Single Year........................................................................................................................... F-36

Table F-19: Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities in Alternative 2 

in a Single Year.................................................................................................................... F-36

Table F-20: Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Training Activities under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 Over Five Years.................................................................................. F-37

Table F-21: Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities under 

Alternative 1 Over Five Years.............................................................................................. F-38

Table F-22: Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities under Alternative 2 

Over Five Years ................................................................................................................... F-38

Table F-23: Potential Impact of Military Expended Materials from Training Activities on Each 

Substrate Type Within the Range Complexes in a Single Year........................................... F-39

Table F-24: Potential Impact of Military Expended Materials from Testing Activities on Each 

Substrate Type Within the Range Complexes in a Single Year........................................... F-39

Table F-25: Potential Impact of Military Expended materials from Training Activities on Each 

Substrate Type within the Range Complexes over Five Years............................................ F-40

Table F-26: Potential Impact of Military Expended materials from Testing Activities on Each 

Substrate Type within the Range Complexes over Five Years............................................ F-40

Table F-27: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Training Activities under Alternatives 1 

and 2 in a Single Year.......................................................................................................... F-41
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

iii

Table of Contents

Table F-28: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Testing Activities under Alternatives 1 

and 2 in a Single Year.......................................................................................................... F-41

Table F-29: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Training Activities under Alternatives 1 

and 2 Over Five Years ......................................................................................................... F-42

Table F-30: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Testing Activities under Alternatives 1 

and 2 Over Five Years ......................................................................................................... F-42

Table F-31: Estimated Representative Marine Mammal Exposures from Direct Strike of a High 

Energy Laser by Area and Alternative in a Single Year ....................................................... F-47

Table F-32: Estimated Representative Sea Turtle Guild Exposures from Direct Strike of a High 

Energy Laser by Area and Alternative in a Single Year ....................................................... F-47

Table F-33: Estimated Representative Marine Mammal Exposures from Direct Strike of Military 

Expended Materials by Area and Alternative in a Single Year............................................ F-48

Table F-34: Estimated Representative Sea Turtle Exposures from Direct Strike of Military 

Expended Materials by Area and Alternative in a Single Year............................................ F-49
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

iv

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-1

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

F MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIAL AND DIRECT STRIKE 

IMPACT ANALYSES

F.1 ESTIMATING THE IMPACT OF MILITARY EXPENDED MATERIALS AND 

UNDERWATER EXPLOSIONS ON ABIOTIC SUBSTRATES AS A HABITAT FOR 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section discusses the methods and results for quantifying two scenarios under Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 2 of the Proposed Action: (1) the highly improbable worst-case scenario of all military 

expended materials or underwater explosions occurring on one particular substrate type; and (2) the 

unlikely, but slightly more realistic, scenario of uniform or proportional impact distribution within a 

particular area. Training and testing typically occurs in areas that are not called out or linked to specific 

activities for various reasons (e.g., flexibility and national security). Because training and testing 

activities would not be conducted under the No Action Alternative, it will not be discussed in 

this appendix. 

This section describes the calculation of the disturbance footprint (i.e., military expended material 

footprint or explosive crater footprint) of an instantaneous impact of military expended materials or 

explosions on the substrate. The actual instantaneous impact on the bottom will depend on the number 

and location of military expended materials expended and not recovered, which is likely much lower and 

more concentrated than either scenario being analyzed. Longer-term impacts on the bottom are far 

more difficult to quantify—refer to the Habitats section of Chapter 3 (Section 3.5-Affected Environment 

and Environmental Consequences) for qualitative discussion.

The analysis requires two data elements: (1) a tabular summary of the military expended material or 

crater (underwater explosions) footprints expected in training and testing areas; and (2) a tabular 

summary of analysis dimensions, which includes abiotic substrate areas. The data for (1) comes from the

Hawaii and Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) action proponents and represents the most 

locational flexibility with regard to expenditure of military expended materials and underwater 

explosions. The data for both expended and recovered material is reported in Table F-1 through 

Table F-16 below. Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) of the HSTT Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) provides basic descriptions of military expended 

materials, and Chapter 3.0 (3.0.3.3.2 – Explosive Stressors) provides basic descriptions of explosive 

categories. The data for number of military expended materials and underwater explosions are then 

multiplied by an estimate of the footprint size documented in Table F-1. The data for (2) comes from a 

compilation of abiotic substrate mapping presented in the Habitats section of Chapter 3 (Section 3.5).

To determine the potential level of disturbance of military expended materials on marine substrates, it 

was assumed that the impact footprint of the expended material on the seafloor is twice the size of its 

footprint (unless specified otherwise in Appendix F notes). By doubling the footprint, the results should 

more accurately reflect the potential disturbance to soft bottom habitats (i.e., to account for sediment 

plumes), but should overestimate disturbance to hard bottom habitats (i.e., because sediment plumes 

are not expected) based on mitigation requirements. Items with casings (e.g., small-, medium-, and 

large-caliber munitions; flares; sonobuoys) have their impact footprints further doubled to account for 

both the item and its casing. To be conservative, items and their casings were assumed to be the same 

size, although in reality the items are a smaller size in order to fit in their casing. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-2

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Additionally, highly explosive munitions that explode either at the surface or in the water column were 

treated in the same manner as non-explosive practice munitions, although in reality, the explosions 

would result in smaller fragments reaching the substrate than expected by the fully intact non-explosive 

practice munitions. 

The data for analysis dimensions (data element 2) comes from the Aquatic Habitat Database technical 

report and supporting databases (Building and Maintaining a Comprehensive Database and Prioritization 

Scheme for Overlapping Habitat Data, U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016) ), in addition to spatial data 

depicting training and testing areas. 

The combined analysis dimensions data was used to create a table of substrate category acreage by 

training and testing areas, and large marine ecosystems. Within the HSTT Study Area there are acreages 

of substrate that are included under Protective Measures Assessment Protocol categories from the 

Phase II HSTT EIS/OEIS. These Protective Measures Assessment Protocol categories indicate the amount 

of mapped substrate that may be protected by Navy mitigation measures. However, the Protective 

Measures Assessment Protocol areas were not excluded from the quantitative impacts analysis due to 

how Protective Measures Assessment Protocol is implemented. For more information on the substrates 

protected under the Protective Measures Assessment Protocol see Chapter 5 (Mitigation). 

The percentage of impacted substrate (Scenario 1) was calculated by totaling the impact footprint of 

individual activities divided by the total area of a given substrate in the training or testing area for which 

the impacts could occur. The results are provided in Table F-17 through Table F-26. 

Assumptions used in the Scenario 1 analysis included:

• Areas of unknown substrate type were not included in the analysis.

• The analysis focused on substrates that are likely to have habitat for sedentary benthic 

organisms; therefore, areas that are not likely to have substrate inhabited by these 

organisms (i.e., the Pacific Basin and Abyssal Zone open ocean areas) were excluded from 

the analysis. 

• Artificial substrate was removed from the analysis because it was inconsistently mapped or 

mapped with a degree of uncertainty considered too high for quantitative analysis.

The above assumptions also applied to Scenario 2 (Proportional Impacts), which used the proportion of 

a substrate type in an analysis dimension (i.e., training or testing area) multiplied by the total military 

expended material or crater footprints. The resulting acres indicated the impact area expected if the 

military expended materials or bottom explosions were distributed uniformly across the training or 

testing area. In other words, a majority proportion of the military expended material footprint would 

impact soft substrate if the majority of the analysis dimension was soft substrate. The results are 

provided in Tables F-27 through Table F-30. This scenario is considered more realistic than Scenario 1, 

yet still unlikely as it does not account for areas of concentrated training, nor does it account for the 

clumping of military expended materials and explosives in a particular area and over a particular 

substrate type where a training or testing activity occurs.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-3

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-1: Categories and Footprints for Various Materials and Underwater Explosions

Material Group Material Category Bottom 

Frequency1

Crater 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

MEM Size 

(ft.

2

)

MEM 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

Material Specific Notes

Bomb

Bombs (Explosive) NA NA 8.1203 112.9048 The MEM footprint was calculated using the bomb with the 

largest footprint in terms of material fragments, which in 

this case is the Rockeye which disperses 247 bomblets.

Bombs (Nonexplosive) NA NA 8.1203 112.9048

Countermeasure

Acoustic 

Countermeasures NA NA 0.31107 1.2432 Includes all type of non-recoverable Acoustic Countermeasures 

Chaff- Air Cartridge NA NA 0.0012 0.0022

Chaff is a radar reflector material made of thin, narrow, 

metallic strips cut in various lengths to elicit frequency 

responses, which deceive enemy radars. Chaff-Air is fired 

from an aircraft using a small cartridge.

Chaff-Ship 

Cartridge NA NA 2.000 4.000 Chaff-ship serves the same purpose of chaff-air. It is fired from a ship in cartridges. 

Anti-torpedo 

Torpedo NA NA 4.5424 9.0847

The Countermeasure Anti-torpedo consists of an antitorpedo torpedo enclosed within All Up Round Equipment 

canister. The anti-torpedo torpedo is a 6.75-inch diameter 

high-maneuverability hard-kill torpedo designed to rapidly 

intercept and engage an incoming threat torpedo. The All 

Up Round Equipment consists of a nose sabot, ram plate, 

launch tube, muzzle cover, and breech mechanism to 

encapsulate, protect, and ultimately launch the antitorpedo torpedo. Anti-torpedo torpedo s are frequently 

recovered; assume all are non-recoverable for worst-case.

Explosive Charge

Flares NA NA 1.2196 4.8782 Assumed to not have parachutes

0.5 lb. explosive 

charges 50% 12 NA NA None

10 lb. explosive 

charges 50% 85 NA NA None
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-4

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-1: Categories and Footprints for Various Materials and Underwater Explosions (continued)

Material Group Material Category Bottom 

Frequency1

Crater 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

MEM Size 

(ft.

2

)

MEM 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

Material Specific Notes

Explosive Charge 

(continued)

20 lb. explosive 

charges 50% 135 NA NA None

5 lb. explosive 

charges 50% 54 NA NA None

60 lb. explosive 

charges 50% 281 NA NA None

Missiles

Missiles (Explosive) NA NA 37.3669 74.7338 MEM size based on SM-6 

Missile (Nonexplosive) NA NA 31.0011 62.0023 MEM size based on Tomahawk 

Rockets (Explosive) NA NA 0.7987 1.5974 MEM sized based on Hydra 70

Rockets (Nonexplosive) NA NA 0.7987 1.5974 MEM size based on Hydra 70. Also include flechette 

rockets. 

Rockets (Nonexplosive): 

Flechette

NA NA 0.7987 1.5974 MEM size based on Hydra 70. Included flechette darts in 

warhead.

Other

Air-launched 

lightweight 

(Explosive) torpedo

NA NA 19.1199 38.2399 MEM size based on MK50/MK54

Air-launched 

lightweight (Nonexplosive) torpedoNA NA 19.1199 38.2399 MEM size based on MK50/MK54. Typically recovered

AMNS/EMNS 

Neutralizer 

(Explosive)

50% 430.5564 1.6286 3.2572 AMNS is air deployed whereas EMNS is ship deployed
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-5

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-1: Categories and Footprints for Various Materials and Underwater Explosions (continued)

Material Group Material Category Bottom 

Frequency1

Crater 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

MEM Size 

(ft.

2

)

MEM 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

Material Specific Notes

Other 

(continued)

AMNS Neutralizer

(Non-explosive) NA NA 0.1513 0.3026

The neutralizer itself is recovered, but the associated fiber 

optic cable and the can that holds the fiber optic cable is 

not.

Anchor 

(Expendable) NA NA 6.2495 12.5001 Associated primarily with mine shapes. 

Anchor 

(Recoverable) NA NA 6.2495 12.5001 Associated primarily with mine shapes.

Biodegradable 

Polymer NA NA NA NA

A substance composed of molecules that degrade as a 

result of microorganisms and/or enzymes. Footprint is not 

applicable because the material breaks up within a couple 

of hours, depending on the type of material out of which 

the polymer is made. Reference: Karlsson and Albertsson. 

1998. Biodegradable polymers and environmental 

interaction. Polymer Engineering and Science 38(8): 1251-

1253.

Bottom Placed 

Instruments

NA NA 2.0000 4.000

Likely moored tracking beacons, so the footprint on the 

bottom would be approximately 2 square feet. It would 

weight approximately 50 pounds.

Buoy (Explosive) NA NA 0.9752 3.8987 Explosive buoys including mini-sound source and SUS. 

MEM-size based on Marine Marker.

Buoy (Nonexplosive) NA NA 0.9752 3.8987

These buoys are separate from sonobuoys, and are 

included for DWADS (expendable) or IMPASS (recovered). 

MEM size based on Marine Marker. Can be expended or 

recovered. 

Concrete slugs NA NA 0.0011 0.0022 Assume similar in dimensions to a chaff cartridge
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-6

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-1: Categories and Footprints for Various Materials and Underwater Explosions (continued)

Material Group Material Category Bottom 

Frequency1

Crater 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

MEM Size 

(ft.

2

)

MEM 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

Material Specific Notes

Other 

(continued)

Endcaps & Pistons 

– Non Chaff & 

Flare

NA NA 0.0043 0.0086

Applies only to where it cannot be associated to another 

object (e.g., endcaps and pistons associated with chaff 

would be covered by 'chaff'). Used for testing. 

Endcaps – Chaff & 

Flare NA NA 0.00215 0.0043 Applies only to Chaff-Air and Flares. 1 Endcap is expended per chaff-air or flare. 

Flare O-Ring NA NA 0.0043 0.0086

Assumed similar 2-dimensional footprint as endcaps and 

pistons. Associated with flares. Assumed 1 Flare O-Ring 

per flare. 

Fiber Optic Can NA NA 0.0011 0.0022

Assumed similar 2-dimensional footprint as chaff-air 

cartridge. Associated with AMNS Neutralizer fiber optic 

cable. Can that holds fiber optic cable is expended. 

Bathythermograph 

– Expended NA NA 0.0258 0.0516

An instrument that is deployed from a ship to record 

temperature and depth measurements. Small wires 

transmit the temperature data from the probe to the ship. 

This item is fairly standard in terms of footprint; these are 

off the shelf Commercial products. Reference: NOAA 2015. 

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/goos/uot/xbt-what-is.php. 

Accessed November 3, 2015.

Fiber optic cables NA NA NA NA Associated with some rockets and AMNS neutralizers

Guidance wires NA NA 0 0

Fragments created for relatively small portion associated 

with explosive devices (associated with heavyweight 

torpedoes).

Bathythermograph 

– Expended Wire NA NA NA NA Single vertical wire

Heavyweight 

(Explosive) torpedo NA NA 39.6155 79.2299 MEM size based on MK-48
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-7

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-1: Categories and Footprints for Various Materials and Underwater Explosions (continued)

Material Group Material Category Bottom 

Frequency1

Crater 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

MEM Size 

(ft.

2

)

MEM 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

Material Specific Notes

Other 

(continued)

Heavyweight 

torpedo 

accessories

NA NA 0.1615 3.2367 MEM includes ballast weights, flex tubing

Heavyweight (Nonexplosive) torpedo NA NA NA NA Typically recovered

Illumination flares NA NA 1.2196 4.8782

Flares that have a large parachute; MEM size based on half 

the surface area of an 18 ft. diameter parachute used with 

an LUU-2 illumination flare.

Lightweight 

Torpedo 

Accessories

NA NA 1.0107 2.0215 MEM includes ballast weights, flex tubing (parachute size 

not included)

Marine marker 0.9752 3.8987 MEM footprint based on two Navy marine markers (MK25 

and MK58 

Mine (Explosive) 50% 14800.3763 25.7903 51.5806 Another name for a 650 lb. explosive charge including 

material based on the footprint of a mine shape.

Parachute (Large) NA NA 283.9961 567.9932 MEM size based on diameter of LUU-2 illumination flare 

parachute (18 ft. diameter).

Parachute 

(Medium) NA NA 9.0417 18.0834 Associated with air-launched torpedoes

Small Decelerator/ 

Parachute NA NA 2.8438 5.6876 Associated with launched sonobuoys

Sabot NA NA 1.2195 4.8782 An accessory used during projectile firing. Footprint similar 

in size to the projectile.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-8

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-1: Categories and Footprints for Various Materials and Underwater Explosions (continued)

Material Group Material Category Bottom 

Frequency1

Crater 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

MEM Size 

(ft.

2

)

MEM 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

Material Specific Notes

Other 

(continued)

Sonobuoys

(Non-explosive) NA NA 1.2206 2.4413 Sonobuoys have an extra item footprint (half the 

dimensions of the sonobuoy) added in addition to the 

actual sonobuoy and casing to account for the items that 

are discarded from the sonobuoy following its release. 

MEM size does not include the associated Small 

Decelerator/Parachute (noted in table above)

Sonobuoys 

(Explosive) 0 NA 1.2206 2.4413

Sonobuoy wires NA NA NA NA One wire is associated with each sonobuoy 

Surface-Launched 

Lightweight 

(Explosive) 

Torpedo

0 NA 10.0782 20.1576 MEM size based on MK50/MK54

Surface-Launched 

Lightweight (NonExplosive) TorpedoNA NA 10.0782 20.1576 Typically recovered

Projectile

Grenades 

(Explosive) 0 NA 0.1044 0.2088 None

Large Caliber 

(Explosive) NA NA 1.0097 4.0386 Item assumed to have a projectile and casing

Large Caliber 

(Non-explosive) NA NA 1.0097 4.0386 Item assumed to have a projectile and casing

Large caliber 

(Casing only) NA NA 0.5048 1.0097 Used when the target is on land; no MEM from projectile

Medium Caliber 

(Explosive) NA NA 0.0560 0.2239 Item assumed to have a projectile and casing

Medium Caliber 

(Non-explosive) NA NA 0.0560 0.2239 Item assumed to have a projectile and casing

Small Caliber

(Non-explosive) NA NA 0.0301 0.1216 Item assumed to have a projectile and casing 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-9

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-1: Categories and Footprints for Various Materials and Underwater Explosions (continued)

Material Group Material Category Bottom 

Frequency1

Crater 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

MEM Size 

(ft.

2

)

MEM 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

Material Specific Notes

Projectile

Small Caliber 

(Casing only) NA NA 0.0151 0.0301 Used only for small caliber 'blanks'. All other small caliber rounds are included under NEPM

Kinetic Energy 

Round NA NA 0.5048 1.0097 Item assumed to only have a projectile (no casing) - size of Large Caliber round.

Target

Aerial Drones –

Expendable NA NA 294.6082 589.2164 MEM when specifically known it is an aerial drone; MEM size based on Firebee 

Aerial Drones –

Recovered NA NA 294.6082 589.2164 MEM when specifically known it is an aerial drone; MEM size based on Firebee. Typically recovered. 

Air Target –

Expended (NonDrone)NA NA 42.1622 84.3244

MEM when specifically known it is an air launched decoy. 

MEM size based on dimensions of Tactical Air Launched 

Decoy or Miniature Air-Launched Decoy. 

Metal Plates NA NA 2.7782 5.5563

Charges are secured to a 20" X 20" X 1/2" ferrous metal 

plate The target unit (concrete blocks, metal plate, and any 

debris) is brought to the surface and analyzed.

Surface Target -

Expended NA NA 5.7522 11.5034 Includes remote controlled or towed targets

Surface Target -

Recovered NA NA NA NA Reported as recovered.

Surface Target 

(Mobile) -

Expended

NA* NA 5.7522 11.5034 Includes remote controlled or towed targets

Surface Target 

(Stationary) -

Expended

NA NA 96.8752 193.7504 MEM when specifically known it is a stationary surface 

target. MEM size based on Killer Tomato. 

Subsurface Target 

(Mobile) -

Expended

NA NA 1.2206 2.4412 MEM when specifically known it is a sub-surface Motorized 

Autonomous Target
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-10

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-1: Categories and Footprints for Various Materials and Underwater Explosions (continued)

Material Group Material Category Bottom 

Frequency1

Crater 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

MEM Size 

(ft.

2

)

MEM 

Footprint 

(ft.

2

)

Material Specific Notes

Target

Surface Target 

(Stationary) -

Expended

NA NA 96.8752 193.7504 MEM when specifically known it is a stationary surface 

target. MEM size based on Killer Tomato. 

Subsurface Target 

(Mobile) -

Expended

NA NA 1.2206 2.4412 MEM when specifically known it is a sub-surface Motorized 

Autonomous Target

Mine Shape -

Expended NA NA 25.7903 51.5807

Mine shapes that were specifically identified as 

non-recoverable; footprint based on size of explosive mine; 

size not including anchor

Mine Shape -

Expended NA NA 25.7903 51.5807

Mine shape and associated anchor block that are 

recovered. The vast majority of practice mines have built-in 

anchors for placing on the bottom; relatively few are 

moored/floating, and none are drifting.

Ship Hulk NA NA 316136.0367 632272.0734 None. 

1

Bottom frequencies (%) are only listed for underwater explosions; crater footprints are only listed for material that may be detonated on the bottom. 

Notes: MEM = Military Expended Materials; AMNS/EMNS = Airborne Mine Neutralization System/Expendable Mine Neutralization System
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-11

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

F.1.1 MILITARY EXPENDED AND RECOVERED MATERIAL – TRAINING ACTIVITIES

Tables F-2 through F-8 show military expended and recovered materials and impact footprints within 

the HSTT Study Area for both a Single Year and Five Year totals.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-12

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-2: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Training Activities in a Single Year under 

Alternatives 1 and 2

Military Expended Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex HSTT Transit Lane Southern California Range 

Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Bombs

Bombs (Explosive) 8.1203 112.9048 381 0.9875 0 0.0000 368 0.9538

Bombs (Non-Explosive) 8.1203 112.9048 2,862 7.4181 90 0.2333 12 0.0311

Projectiles

Small-Caliber (Non-Explosive) 0.0301 0.1216 1,774,450 4.9535 0 0.0000 11,615,600 32.4256

Small-Caliber (Casing Only) 0.0151 0.0301 300,000 0.2073 100,000 0.0691 2,375,000 1.6411

Medium-Caliber (Explosive) 0.056 0.2239 4,956 0.0255 400 0.0021 6,236 0.0321

Medium Caliber (Non-Explosive) 0.056 0.2239 208,565 1.0720 43,600 0.2241 757,950 3.8959

Large-Caliber (Explosive) 1.0097 4.0386 2,969 0.2753 32 0.0030 4,569 0.4236

Large-Caliber (Non-Explosive) 1.0097 4.0386 564 0.0523 384 0.0356 3,516 0.3260

Large-Caliber (Casing only) 0.5048 1.0097 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 9,900 0.2295

Missiles (Explosive) 37.6691 74.7338 212 0.3637 0 0.0000 194 0.3328

Missiles (Non-Explosive) 37.6691 74.7338 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 4 0.0069

Rockets (Explosive) 0.7987 1.5974 251 0.0092 0 0.0000 1,798 0.0659

Countermeasures

Chaff (ship cartridge) 2 4 74 0.0068 0 0.0000 250 0.0230

Chaff (Air cartridge) 0.0011 0.0022 513 0.0000 0 0.0000 3,780 0.0002

Flares 1.2196 4.8782 1,933 0.2165 0 0.0000 11,690 1.3091

Targets

Air Target - Expended (Non-Drone) 42.1622 84.3245 92 0.1781 0 0.0000 29 0.0561

Sub-Surface Targets (Mobile) - Expended 5.7522 11.5034 422 0.1114 13 0.0034 580 0.1532
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-13

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-2: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Training Activities in a Single Year under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 (continued)

Military Expended Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex HSTT Transit Lane Southern California Range 

Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Targets (continued)

Surface Targets - Expended 5.7522 11.5034 132 0.0349 0 0.0000 750 0.1981

Mine Shapes - Expended 25.7903 51.5807 18 0.0213 0 0.0000 187 0.2214

Ship Hulk 316,136 632,272 3 43.5449 0 0.0000 1 14.5150

Other

ANMS/EMNS Neutralizer (Explosive) 1.6286 3.2572 6 0.0004 0 0.0000 32 0.0024

Anchor (Expendable) 6.2495 12.5001 39 0.0112 0 0.0000 24 0.0069

Buoy (Explosive) 0.9752 3.8987 6 0.0005 0 0.0000 3 0.0003

Endcaps 0.0021 0.0043 7,524 0.0007 0 0.0000 46,422 0.0046

Compression Pad/Piston 0.0043 0.0086 1,933 0.0004 0 0.0000 11,690 0.0023

Fiber Optic Can 0.0011 0.0022 32 0.0000 0 0.0000 578 0.0000

Flare O-Ring 0.0043 0.0086 3,990 0.0008 0 0.0000 23,388 0.0046

Illumination Flare 1.2196 4.8782 62 0.0069 0 0.0000 4 0.0004

Heavyweight Torpedo (Explosive) 39.6155 79.2299 8 0.0146 0 0.0000 3 0.0055

Heavyweight Torpedo Accessories 0.1615 3.2367 252 0.0187 0 0.0000 199 0.0148

Lightweight Torpedo Accessories 1.1011 2.0215 78 0.0036 0 0.0000 270 0.0125

Marine Marker 0.9752 3.8987 779 0.0697 11 0.0010 808 0.0723

Mine (Explosive) 25.7903 51.5807 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 78 0.0924

Parachutes - Medium 9.0417 18.0834 16 0.0066 0 0.0000 129 0.0536

Parachutes - Large 283.9961 567.9932 62 0.8084 0 0.0000 4 0.0522

Total 2,313,094 61.81 144,777 0.79 14,832,530 63.48

1

Calculations for “Impact (Acre) Column = [(Impact Footprint) x (Number)]/43560

Notes: HSTT = Hawaii and Southern California Training and Testing; AMNS/EMNS = Airborne Mine Neutralization System/Expendable Mine Neutralization System
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-14

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-3: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Training Activities in a Single Year with 

Differences between Alternatives 1 and 2

Military Expended Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex HSTT Transit Lane Southern California Range 

Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Alternative 1

Countermeasures

Acoustic Countermeasures 0.3311 1.2432 850 0.0243 14 0.0004 274 0.0078

Other

Buoy (Non-Explosive) 0.9752 3.8987 7 0.0006 0 0.0000 83 0.0074

Small Decelerator/Parachute 2.8438 5.6876 10,836 1.4148 120 0.0157 26,676 3.4831

Sonobuoys (Non-Explosive) 1.2207 2.4413 10,836 0.6073 120 0.0067 26,676 1.4950

Bathythermograph - Expended 0.2771 0.5554 591 0.0075 7 0.0015 1,086 0.0138

Alternative 2

Countermeasures

Acoustic Countermeasures 0.3311 1.2432 850 0.0243 14 0.0004 278 0.0079

Other

Buoy (Non-Explosive) 0.9752 3.8987 7 0.0006 0 0.0000 97 0.0087

Small Decelerator/Parachute 2.8438 5.6876 10,836 1.4148 120 0.0157 28,244 3.6878

Sonobuoys (Non-Explosive) 1.2207 2.4413 10,836 0.6073 120 0.0067 28,244 1.5829

Bathythermograph - Expended 0.2771 0.5554 594 0.0076 7 0.0001 1,089 0.0139

1

Calculations for “Impact (Acre) Column = [(Impact Footprint) x (Number)]/43560

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-15

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-4: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Training Activities in Five Years under 

Alternatives 1 and 2

Military Expended Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex HSTT Transit Lane Southern California Range 

Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Bombs

Bombs (Non-Explosive) 8.1203 112.9048 14,310 37.0906 450 1.1664 60 0.1555

Projectiles

Large-Caliber (Casing only) 0.5048 1.0097 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 49,500 1.1474

Medium Caliber (Non-Explosive) 0.056 0.2239 1,042,825 5.3602 218,000 1.1205 3,789,750 19.4795

Medium-Caliber (Explosive) 0.056 0.2239 24,780 0.1274 2,000 0.0103 31,180 0.1603

Missiles (Non-Explosive) 37.6691 74.7338 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 20 0.0343

Rockets (Explosive) 0.7987 1.5974 1,255 0.0460 0 0.0000 8,990 0.3297

Small-Caliber (Casing Only) 0.0151 0.0301 1,500,000 1.0365 500,000 0.3455 11,875,000 8.2056

Targets

Air Target - Expended (Non-Drone) 42.1622 84.3245 460 0.8905 0 0.0000 145 0.2807

Mine Shapes - Expended 25.7903 51.5807 90 0.1066 0 0.0000 935 1.1072

Sub-Surface Targets (Mobile) - Expended 5.7522 11.5034 2,108 0.5567 65 0.0172 2,898 0.7653

Surface Targets - Expended 5.7522 11.5034 660 0.1743 0 0.0000 3,750 0.9903

Countermeasures

Chaff (Air cartridge) 0.0011 0.0022 2,565 0.0001 0 0.0000 18,900 0.0010

Chaff (Ship cartridge) 2 4 370 0.0340 0 0.0000 1,250 0.1148

Flares 1.2196 4.8782 9,665 1.0824 0 0.0000 58,450 6.5457
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-16

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-4: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Training Activities in Five Years under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 (continued)

Military Expended Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex HSTT Transit Lane Southern California Range 

Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Other

ANMS/EMNS Neutralizer (Explosive) 1.6286 3.2572 30 0.0022 0 0.0000 160 0.0120

Anchor (Expendable) 6.2495 12.5001 195 0.0560 0 0.0000 120 0.0344

Buoy (Explosive) 0.9752 3.8987 30 0.0027 0 0.0000 15 0.0013

Endcaps 0.0021 0.0043 12,540 0.0012 0 0.0000 77,370 0.0076

Compression Pad/Piston 0.0043 0.0086 9,665 0.0019 0 0.0000 58,450 0.0115

Fiber Optic Can 0.0011 0.0022 160 0.0000 0 0.0000 2,890 0.0001

Flare O-Ring 0.0043 0.0086 9,975 0.0020 0 0.0000 58,470 0.0115

Illumination Flare 1.2196 4.8782 310 0.0347 0 0.0000 20 0.0022

Lightweight Torpedo Accessories 1.1011 2.0215 390 0.0181 0 0.0000 1,254 0.0582

Marine Marker 0.9752 3.8987 3,895 0.3486 55 0.0049 4,040 0.3616

Mine (Explosive) 25.7903 51.5807 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 390 0.4618

Parachutes - Medium 9.0417 18.0834 80 0.0332 0 0.0000 645 0.2678

Parachutes - Large 283.9961 567.9932 310 4.0422 0 0.0000 20 0.2608

Total 2,636,668 51.0480 720,570 2.6648 16,044,672 40.8082

1

Calculations for “Impact (Acre) Column = [(Impact Footprint) x (Number)]/43560

Notes: AMNS/EMNS = Airborne Mine Neutralization System/Expendable Mine Neutralization System
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-17

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-5: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Training Activities in Five Years with

Differences between Alternatives 1 and 2

Military Expended Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex HSTT Transit Lane Southern California 

Range Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Alternative 1

Countermeasures

Acoustic Countermeasures 0.3311 1.2432 4,192 0.1196 70 0.0020 1,340 0.0382

Other

Bathythermograph - Expended 0.2771 0.5554 2,955 0.0377 35 0.0004 5,070 0.0646

Bomb (Explosive) 8.1203 112.9048 1,617 4.1912 0 0.0000 1,696 4.3959

Buoy (Non-Explosive) 0.9752 3.8987 21 0.0019 0 0.0000 346 0.0310

Heavyweight Torpedo (Explosive) 39.6155 79.2299 24 0.0437 0 0.0000 7 0.0127

Heavyweight Torpedo Accessories 0.1615 3.2367 1,244 0.0924 0 0.0000 507 0.0377

Large-Caliber (Explosive) 1.0097 4.0386 13,405 1.2428 160 0.0148 22,525 2.0884

Large-Caliber (Non-Explosive) 1.0097 4.0386 2,660 0.2466 1,920 0.1780 17,500 1.6225

Missiles (Explosive): Non-Fiber Optic Guided 37.6691 74.7338 852 1.4617 0 0.0000 866 1.4858

Ship Hulk 316,136 632,272 7 101.6048 0 0.0000 1 14.5150

Small Decelerator/Parachute 2.8438 5.6876 46,864 6.1190 600 0.0783 123,921 16.1803

Small-Caliber (Non-Explosive) 0.0301 0.1216 8,712,250 24.3207 0 0.0000 58,038,000 162.0161

Sonobuoys (Non-Explosive) 1.2207 2.4413 46,864 2.6265 600 0.0336 123,921 6.9451

Total 8,832,955 142.1086 3,385 0.3073 58,335,700 209.4332
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-18

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-5: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Training Activities in Five Years with 

Differences between Alternatives 1 and 2 (continued)

Military Expended Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex HSTT Transit Lane Southern California 

Range Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Alternative 2

Countermeasures

Acoustic Countermeasures 0.3311 1.2432 4,220 0.1204 70 0.0020 1,391 0.0397

Other

Bathythermograph - Expended 0.2771 0.5554 2,968 0.0378 35 0.0004 5,443 0.0694

Bomb (Explosive) 8.1203 112.9048 1,905 4.9376 0 0.0000 1,840 4.7692

Buoy (Non-Explosive) 0.9752 3.8987 35 0.0031 0 0.0000 485 0.0434

Heavyweight Torpedo (Explosive) 39.6155 79.2299 40 0.0728 0 0.0000 15 0.0273

Heavyweight Torpedo Accessories 0.1615 3.2367 1,260 0.0936 0 0.0000 515 0.0383

Large-Caliber (Explosive) 1.0097 4.0386 14,845 1.3763 160 0.0148 22,845 2.1180

Large-Caliber (Non-Explosive) 1.0097 4.0386 2,820 0.2615 1,920 0.1780 17,580 1.6299

Missiles (Explosive): Non-Fiber Optic Guided 37.6691 74.7338 1,060 1.8186 0 0.0000 970 1.6642

Ship Hulk 316,136 632,272 15 217.7245 0 0.0000 5 72.5748

Small Decelerator/Parachute 2.8438 5.6876 50,040 6.5337 600 0.0783 138,244 18.0504

Small-Caliber (Non-Explosive) 0.0301 0.1216 8,872,250 24.7673 0 0.0000 58,078,000 162.1278

Sonobuoys (Non-Explosive) 1.2207 2.4413 50,040 2.8045 600 0.0336 138,244 7.7478

Total 9,001,498 260.5519 3,385 0.3073 58,405,577 270.9002

1

Calculations for “Impact (Acre) Column = [(Impact Footprint) x (Number)]/43560

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-19

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-6: Number and Impacts1 of Recovered Bottom-Placed Materials Proposed for Use During Training Activities in a Single 

Year under Alternatives 1 and 2

Recovered Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex HSTT Transit Lane Southern California Range 

Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Anchors - Recovered 6.2495 12.5001 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 2 0.0006

Mine Shape 

(Recovered) 

Alternative 1

25.7903 51.5807 828 0.9805 0 0.0000

9,061 10.7294

Alternative 2 8,811 0.0000

Bottom Placed Instruments 2.0000 4.0000 4 0.0004 0 0.0000 6 0.0006

Total 832 0.9808 0 0.0000 17880 10.7305

1

Calculations for “Impact (Acre) Column = [(Impact Footprint) x (Number)]/43560

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-20

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-7: Numbers of Recovered Materials Proposed for Use During Training Activities in Five Years under Alternatives 1 and 2

Recovered Materials

Hawaii Range Complex HSTT Transit Lane Southern California 

Range Complex

Number Number Number

Other

Air-Launched Lightweight Non-Explosive Torpedo 80 0 645

AMNS/EMNS Neutralizer 50 0 1,285

Aerial Drones 505 0 145

Unmanned Surface Vehicle 25 0 50

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle 2475 0 1,650

Unmanned Aerial System 1195 30 15,435

Surface Target (Recovered) 4630 390 14,530

Subsurface Target (Stationary): Recovered 15 0 150

Subsurface Target (Recovered) 305 0 95

Air Target 0 0 25

Heavyweight Non-Explosive Torpedo 1530 0 505

Buoy (Non-Explosive): Recovered 120 0 0

Total 10,930 420 34,515

Note: AMNS/EMNS = Airborne Mine Neutralization System/Expendable Mine Neutralization System
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-21

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-8: Number and Impacts1 of Recovered Bottom-Placed materials Proposed for Use During Training Activities in Five Years 

under Alternatives 1 and 2

Recovered Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex HSTT Transit Lane Southern California Range 

Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Anchors - Recovered 6.2495 12.5001 0 0.0000 0 0.0000 10 0.0029

Mine Shape 

(Recovered) 

Alternative 1

25.7903 51.5807 4140 4.9023 0 0.0000

44,805 53.0549

Alternative 2 44,055 52.1668

Bottom Placed Instruments 2.0000 4.0000 20 0.0018 0 0.0000 30 0.0028

Total 4160 4.9041 0 0.0000 88,900 105.2274

1

Calculations for “Impact (Acre) Column = [(Impact Footprint) x (Number)]/43560

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-22

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

F.1.2 MILITARY EXPENDED AND RECOVERED MATERIALS – TESTING ACTIVITIES 

Tables F-9 through F-16 show military expended and recovered materials and impact footprints within 

the HSTT Study Area for both a Single Year and Five Year totals.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-23

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-9: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in a Single Year under 

Alternatives 1 and 2

Military Expended Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex Southern California Range Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Bombs

Bombs (Explosive) 8.1203 112.9048 1 0.0026 1 0.0026

Bombs (Non-Explosive) 8.1203 112.9048 56 0.1451 114 0.2955

Projectiles

Small-Caliber (Non-Explosive) 0.0301 0.1216 44,100 0.1231 90,800 0.2535

Medium-Caliber (Explosive) 0.056 0.2239 15,365 0.0790 27,341 0.1405

Medium Caliber (Non-Explosive) 0.056 0.2239 222,515 1.1437 302,461 1.5547

Kinetic Energy Round 0.5048 1.0097 16,087 0.3729 424 0.0098

Large-Caliber (Explosive) 1.0097 4.0386 3,996 0.3705 4,056 0.3760

Rocket (Non-Explosive): Flechette 0.7987 1.5974 3 0.0001 141 0.0052

Large-Caliber (Non-Explosive) 1.0097 4.0386 21,704 2.0123 21,854 2.0262

Missiles (Explosive) 37.6691 74.7228 396 0.6793 455 0.7805

Missiles (Non-Explosive) 31.0011 62.0023 292 0.4156 389 0.5537

Rockets (Explosive) 0.7987 1.5974 3 0.0001 203 0.0074

Rockets (Non-Explosive) 0.7987 1.5974 9 0.0003 421 0.0154

Countermeasures

Acoustic Countermeasures 0.3311 1.2432 2,491 0.0711 2,491 0.0711

Chaff - Air Cartridges 0.0011 0.0022 2,490 0.0001 4,660 0.0002

Chaff - Ship Cartridges 2 4 902 0.0828 1,250 0.1148

Anti-Torpedo Torpedo 4.524 9.0847 279 0.0582 279 0.0582

Flares 1.2196 4.8782 2,490 0.2789 4,260 0.4771

Targets

Aerial Drones - Expendable 294.6082 589.2164 0 0.0000 92 1.2444
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-24

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-9: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in a Single Year under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 (continued)

Military Expended Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex Southern California Range Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Air Targets 39.0407 78.0814 130 0.2330 182 0.3262

Surface Targets 5.7522 11.5034 575 0.1518 1,134 0.2995

Surface Target - Stationary 96.8752 193.7504 56 0.2491 5 0.0222

Sub-Surface Targets - Mobile 1.2206 2.4413 295 0.0165 310 0.0174

Mine Shapes (Non-Explosive) 25.7903 51.5807 1,384 1.6388 10,450 12.3742

Other

Air-Launched Lightweight Torpedo 

(Explosive) 19.1199 38.2399 12 0.0105 12 0.0105

Anchor - Expendable 6.2495 12.5001 710 0.2037 2,631 0.7550

Compression Pads/Pistons 0.0043 0.0086 2,490 0.0005 4,260 0.0008

Endcaps 0.0021 0.0043 9,960 0.0010 17,840 0.0018

Flare O-Ring 0.0043 0.0086 2,490 0.0005 4,260 0.0008

Bathythermograph - Expended 0.2771 0.5554 1,209 0.0154 1,241 0.0158

Heavyweight Torpedo (Explosive) 39.6155 79.2299 18 0.0327 18 0.0327

Heavyweight Torpedo Accessories 0.1615 3.2367 241 0.0179 241 0.0179

Lightweight Torpedo Accessories 1.1011 2.0215 1,544 0.0717 1,700 0.0789

Sabot 1.2196 4.8782 16,088 1.8017 424 0.0475

Sonobuoy (Explosive) 1.2207 2.4413 0 0.0000 72 0.0040

Surface-Launched Lightweight Torpedo 

(Explosive)

10.0782 20.1576 22 0.0102 22 0.0102

Parachutes (Medium) 9.0417 18.0834 472 0.1959 594 0.2466

Total 370,875 10.49 507,088 22.25

1

Calculations for “Impact (Acre) Column = [(Impact Footprint) x (Number)]/43560
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-25

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-10: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in a Single Year with 

Differences Between Alternatives 1 and 2

Military Expended Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex Southern California Range Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Alternative 1

Targets

Mine (Explosive) 25.7903 51.5807 0 0.0000 90 0.1066

Other

ANMS/EMNS Neutralizer (Explosive) 1.6286 3.2572 192 0.0144 434 0.0325

Fiber Optic Can 0.0011 0.0022 1,920 0.0001 4,206 0.0002

Sonobuoys (Non-Explosive) 1.2207 2.4413 14,630 0.8199 20,317 1.1387

Buoy (Explosive) 0.97521 3.8987 1,281 0.1147 1,942 0.1738

Small Decelerator/Parachute 2.8438 5.6876 14,630 1.9102 40,778 5.3244

Total 32,653 2.8593 67,767 6.7761

Alternative 2

Targets

Mine (Explosive) 25.7903 51.5807 0 0.0000 96 0.1137

Other

ANMS/EMNS Neutralizer (Explosive) 1.6286 3.2572 192 0.0144 464 0.0347

Fiber Optic Can 0.0011 0.0022 1,920 0.0001 4,302 0.0002

Sonobuoys (Non-Explosive) 1.2207 2.4413 14,940 0.8373 20,767 1.1639

Buoy (Explosive) 0.97521 3.8987 1,301 0.1164 1,972 0.1765

Small Decelerator/Parachute 2.8438 5.6876 14,940 1.9507 41,678 5.4419

Total 33,293 2.9189 69,279 6.9309

1

Calculations for “Impact (Acre) Column = [(Impact Footprint) x (Number)]/43560

Note: AMNS/EMNS = Airborne Mine Neutralization System/Expendable Mine Neutralization System; Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of 

MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-26

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-11: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Testing in Five Years under Alternatives 

1 and 2

Military Expended Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex Southern California Range Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Bombs

Bomb (Explosive) 8.1203 112.9048 5 0.0130 5 0.0130

Bombs (Non-Explosive) 8.1203 112.9048 280 0.7257 570 1.4774

Projectiles

Kinetic Energy Round 0.5048 1.0097 80,438 1.8645 2,118 0.0491

Large-Caliber (Explosive) 1.0097 4.0386 19,980 1.8524 20,280 1.8802

Large-Caliber (Non-Explosive) 1.0097 4.0386 108,520 10.0613 109,270 10.1308

Sabot 1.2196 2.4413 80,438 4.5081 2,118 0.1187

Small-Caliber (Non-Explosive) 0.0301 0.1216 220,500 0.6155 454,000 1.2674

Countermeasures

Chaff (Air cartridge) 0.0011 0.0022 12,450 0.0006 23,300 0.0012

Chaff (Ship cartridge) 2 4 4,510 0.4141 6,250 0.5739

Flares 1.2196 4.8782 12,450 1.3943 21,300 2.3853

Targets

Aerial Drones 294.6082 589.2164 0 0.0000 460 6.2222

Air Target - Expended (Non-Drone) 39.0407 78.0894 648 1.1617 908 1.6278

Mine Shapes - Expended 25.7903 51.5807 6,920 8.1942 52,246 61.8661

Sub-Surface Targets (Mobile) - Expended 1.2206 2.4413

1,475 0.0827 1,550 0.0869

Surface Target (Stationary): Expended 96.8752 193.7504 280 1.2454 25 0.1112

Surface Targets - Expended 5.7522 11.5034 2,878 0.7600 5,568 1.4704
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-27

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-11: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Testing in Five Years under Alternatives 

1 and 2 (continued)

Military Expended Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex Southern California Range Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Other

Acoustic Countermeasures 0.3311 1.2423 12,455 0.3552 12,455 0.3552

Air-Launched Lightweight Torpedo 

(Explosive) 19.1199 39.2399 60

0.0540

60

0.0540

Surface-Launched Lightweight Torpedo 

(Explosive) 10.0782 20.1576 110

0.0509

110

0.0509

Anti-Torpedo Torpedo 4.524 9.0847 1,395 0.2909 1,395 0.2909

Compression Pad/Piston 0.0043 0.0086 12,450 0.0025 21,300 0.0042

Endcaps 0.0021 0.0043 24,900 0.0025 44,600 0.0044

Flare O-Ring 0.0043 0.0086 12,450 0.0025 21,300 0.0042

Heavyweight Torpedo (Explosive) 39.6155 79.2299 90 0.1637 90 0.1637

Heavyweight Torpedo Accessories 0.1615 3.2367 1,205 0.0895 1,205 0.0895

Sonobuoy (Explosive) 1.2207 2.4413 0 0.0000 360 0.0202

1

Calculations for “Impact (Acre) Column = [(Impact Footprint) x (Number)]/43560
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-28

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-12: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in Five Years with 

Differences between Alternatives 1 and 2

Military Expended Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex Southern California Range Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Alternative 1

Projectiles

Medium Caliber (Non-Explosive) 0.056 0.2239 1,112,575 5.7187 1,476,305 7.5883

Medium-Caliber (Explosive) 0.056 0.2239 76,825 0.3949 124,705 0.6410

Missile (Non-Explosive) 31.0011 62.0023 1,460 2.0781 1,921 2.7343

Missiles (Explosive): Non-Fiber Optic 

Guided

37.6691 74.7228 1,978 3.3931 2,249 3.8579

Rockets (Explosive) 0.7987 1.5974 15 0.0006 815 0.0299

Rockets (Non-Explosive) 0.7987 1.5974 45 0.0017 2,020 0.0741

Rockets (Non-Explosive): Flechette 0.7987 1.5974 15 0.0006 674 0.0247

Other

Anchor (Expendable) 6.2495 12.5001 3,250 0.9326 12,852 3.6880

ANMS/EMNS Neutralizer (Explosive) 1.6286 3.2572 960 0.0718 2,009 0.1502

Bathythermograph - Expended 0.2771 0.5554 6,030 0.0769 6,145 0.0784

Buoy (Explosive) 0.9752 3.8987 6,300 0.5639 8,984 0.8041

Fiber Optic Can 0.0011 0.0022 9,600 0.0005 20,388 0.0010

Lightweight Torpedo Accessories 1.1011 2.0215 7,690 0.3569 8,284 0.3844

Mine (Explosive) 25.7903 51.5807 0 0.0000 290 0.3434

Parachute Medium 9.0417 18.0834 2,330 0.9673 2,754 1.1433

Small Decelerator/Parachute 2.8438 5.6876 70,995 9.2698 96,127 12.5512

Sonobuoys (Non-Explosive) 1.2207 2.4413 70,995 3.9789 95,767 5.3672

Total 1,371,063 27.8059 1,862,289 39.4615

Note: AMNS/EMNS = Airborne Mine Neutralization System/Expendable Mine Neutralization System
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-29

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-12: Number and Impacts1 of Military Expended Materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in Five Years with 

Differences between Alternatives 1 and 2 (continued)

Alternative 2

Projectiles

Medium Caliber (Non- Explosive) 0.056 0.2239 1,112,575 5.7187 1,512,305 7.7733

Medium-Caliber (Explosive) 0.056 0.2239 76,825 0.3949 136,705 0.7027

Missile (Non-Explosive) 31.0011 62.0023 1,460 2.0781 1,945 2.7685

Missiles (Explosive): Non-Fiber Optic 

Guided

31.0011 62.0023 1,978

2.8154

2,273

3.2353

Rocket (Explosive) 0.7987 1.5974 15 0.0006 1,015 0.0372

Rocket (Non-Explosive) 0.7987 1.5974 45 0.0017 2,104 0.0772

Rocket (Non-Explosive): Flechette 0.7987 1.5974 15 0.0006 702 0.0257

Other

Anchor (Expendable) 6.2495 12.5001 3,550 1.0187 13,152 3.7741

ANMS/EMNS Neutralizer (Explosive) 1.6286 3.2572 960 0.0718 2,318 0.1733

Bathythermograph - Expended 0.2771 0.5554 6,045 0.0771 6,205 0.0791

Buoy (Explosive) 0.9752 3.8987 6,505 0.5822 9,860 0.8825

Fiber Optic Can 0.0011 0.0022 9,600 0.0005 21,506 0.0011

Lightweight Torpedo Accessories 1.1011 2.0215 7,720 0.3583 8,500 0.3945

Mine (Explosive) 25.7903 51.5807 0 0.0000 480 0.5684

Parachute Medium 9.0417 18.0834 2,360 0.9797 2,970 1.2330

Small Decelerator/Parachute 2.8438 5.6876 74,700 9.7535 104,195 13.6047

Sonobuoys (Non-Explosive) 1.2207 2.4413 74,700 4.1865 103,835 5.8194

Total 1,379,053 28.0382 1,930,070 41.1499

Note: Calculations for “Impact (Acre) Column = [(Impact Footprint) x (Number)]/43560; AMNS/EMNS = Airborne Mine Neutralization System/Expendable 

Mine Neutralization System

Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-30

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-13: Number of Recovered materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in a Single Year as Part of Alternatives 1 

and 2

Recovered Materials

Hawaii Range 

Complex HSTT Transit Lane Southern California Range Complex

Number Number Number

Other

Air-Launched Lightweight Torpedo (Non-Explosive) 224 0 285

AMNS/EMNS Neutralizer (NonExplosive)

Alternative 1

768 0

1,670

Alternative 2 1,688

Heavyweight Torpedo (Non-explosive) 423 0 423

Surface-Launched Lightweight Torpedo 

(Non-Explosive) 235 0 252

Aerial Drone 2 0 19

Unmanned Aerial System 21 0 1,467

Unmanned Surface Vehicle 2 0 6

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle 160 0 205

Targets 

Air Targets 520 0 1,738

Sub-Surface Targets (Stationary) 2,580 2400 2,540

Sub-Surface Targets 44 0 2,457

Surface Targets 1,441 0 3,674

Total 6,420 2,400 16,424

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2; AMNS/EMNS = Airborne Mine 

Neutralization System/Expendable Mine Neutralization System
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-31

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-14: Number and Impacts1 of Recovered Bottom Placed Materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in a Single 

Year as Part of Alternatives 1 and 2

Recovered Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex HSTT Transit Lane Southern California Range 

Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Mine Shape (Recovered) 25.7903 51.5807 776 0.9189 0 0.0000 1,121 1.3274

Anchor (Recovered) 6.2495 12.5001 10 0.0029 0 0.0000 0 0.0000

Total 786 0.9218 0 0 1121 1.3274

1

Calculations for “Impact (Acre) Column = [(Impact Footprint) x (Number)]/43560
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-32

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-15: Number of Recovered materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in Five Years as Part of Alternatives 1 and 2

Recovered Materials

Hawaii Range 

Complex HSTT Transit Lane Southern California Range Complex

Number Number Number

Other

Air-Launched Lightweight 

Torpedo (Non-Explosive)

Alternative 1 1105

0

1,317

Alternative 2 1120 1,425

AMNS/EMNS Neutralizer (NonExplosive)

Alternative 1

3840 0

8,186

Alternative 2 8,436

Heavyweight Torpedo (Non-explosive) 2115 0 2,115

Surface-Launched Lightweight Torpedo 

(Non-Explosive) 1175 0 1,260

Aerial Drone 10 0 95

Unmanned Aerial System 105 0 7,335

Unmanned Surface Vehicle 10 0 30

Unmanned Underwater Vehicle 1600 0 1,025

Targets 

Air Targets 2,598 0 8,688

Sub-Surface Targets (Stationary) 12,700 12000 12,700

Sub-Surface Targets 

Alternative 1

164 0 11,770

Alternative 2 12,226

Surface Targets

Alternative 1

7,063 0

18,145

Alternative 2 18,229

Total 33,605 12,000 112,982

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-33

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-16: Number and Impacts1 of Recovered Bottom Placed materials Proposed for Use During Testing Activities in Five Years 

as part of Alternatives 1 and 2

Recovered Materials Size

(ft.

2

)

Impact 

Footprint

(ft.

2

)

Hawaii Range Complex HSTT Transit Lane Southern California Range 

Complex

Number Impact 

(Acre) Number Impact (Acre) Number Impact (Acre)

Mine Shape (Recovered) 

Alternative 1 25.7903 51.5807 3880 4.5944 0 0.0000 4,789 5.6708

Alternative 2 25.7903 51.5807 3880 4.5944 0 0.0000 5,605 6.6370

Anchor (Recovered) 6.2495 12.5001 50 0.0143 0 0.0000 0 0.0000

1

Calculations for “Impact (Acre) Column = [(Impact Footprint) x (Number)]/43560

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-34

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

F.1.3 IMPACTS TO ABIOTIC SUBSTRATE – TRAINING AND TESTING 

Tables F-17 through F-30 show impact to abiotic substrate within the HSTT Study Area for both a Single 

Year and Five Year totals. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-35

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-17: Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Training Activities in Alternative 1 and 2 in a Single Year

Training Areas

Net Explosive 

Weight

(lb.)

Number 

of 

Charges

Total Impact 

Footprint

(Acre)

Hard Substrate Intermediate Substrate Soft substrate

Acre % 

Impact Acre % Impact Acre % Impact

Hawaii Range Complex

0.5 2 0.0030

2,053

0.000144394

0

0.0000000

1,607

0.0001845

20 618 10.3080 0.501994488 0.0000000 0.6415172

29 6 0.2624 0.01277875 0.0000000 0.0163304

60 1 0.0034 0.000165578 0.0000000 0.0002116

AMNS/EMNS 

Neutralizer 6 0.0297 0.001444069 0.0000000 0.0018454

Total NA NA 10.6064 0.51652728 0.0000000 0.6600892

Southern California 

Range Complex

0.5 4 0.0059

11,249

0.000053

16,413

0.0000361

2,770

0.0002141

5 16 0.1067 0.000949 0.0006501 0.0038518

10 24 0.2520 0.002240 0.0015354 0.0090971

20 637 10.6249 0.094452 0.0647342 0.3835558

29 151 6.6045 0.058712 0.0402391 0.2384205

60 36 1.2499 0.011111 0.0076152 0.0451210

650 78 13.2510 0.117797 0.0807342 0.4783573

AMNS/EMNS 

Neutralizer 32 0.1581 0.001406 0.0009635 0.0057091

Total NA NA 32.253078 0.286720 0.1965079 1.1643268
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-36

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-18: Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities in Alternative 1 in a Single Year

Training Areas

Net Explosive 

Weight 

(lb.)

Number of 

Charges

Total Impact 

Footprint 

(Acre)

Hard Substrate Intermediate Substrate Soft substrate

Acre % 

Impact Acre % Impact Acre % Impact

Hawaii Range Complex AMNS 

Neutralizer 192 0.9489

2,053

0.046210211

0

0.0000000

1,607

0.0590537

Total NA NA 0.948885 0.046210 0.0000000 0.0590537

Southern California 

Range Complex

0.5 24 0.0035

11,249

0.000032

16,413

0.0000216

2,770

0.0001281

650 90 15.2897 0.135921 0.0931553 0.5519538

AMNS/EMNS 

Neutralizer 434 2.1437 0.019057 0.0130609 0.0773870

Total NA NA 17.436949 0.155009 0.1062379 0.6294688

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2; AMNS/EMNS = Airborne Mine Neutralization System/Expendable 

Mine Neutralization System

Table F-19: Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities in Alternative 2 in a Single Year

Training Areas

Net Explosive 

Weight 

(lb.)

Number of 

Charges

Total Impact 

Footprint 

(Acre)

Hard Substrate Intermediate Substrate Soft substrate

Acre % 

Impact Acre % Impact Acre % Impact

Hawaii Range Complex AMNS 

Neutralizer 192 0.9489

2,053

0.046210211

0

0.0000000

1,607

0.0590537

Total NA NA 0.948885 0.046210 0.0000000 0.0590537

Southern California 

Range Complex

5 24 0.1597

11,249

0.001420

16,413

0.0009731

2,770

0.0057660

650 96 16.3090 0.144982 0.0993653 0.5887486

AMNS/EMNS 

Neutralizer 464 2.1437 0.019057 0.0130609 0.0773870

Total NA NA 18.612379 0.165458 0.1133994 0.6719015

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2; AMNS/EMNS = Airborne Mine Neutralization System/Expendable 

Mine Neutralization System
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-37

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-20: Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Training Activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 Over Five Years

Training Areas

Net Explosive 

Weight

(lb.)

Number 

of 

Charges

Total Impact 

Footprint

(Acre)

Hard Substrate Intermediate Substrate Soft substrate

Acre % 

Impact Acre % Impact Acre % Impact

Hawaii Range Complex

0.5 10 0.0148

2,053

0.000720753

0

0.0000000

1,607

0.0009211

20 3090 51.5400 2.509972441 0.0000000 3.2075861

29 30 1.3100 0.06379635 0.0000000 0.0815277

60 5 0.1736 0.008454234 0.0000000 0.0108040

AMNS/EMNS 

Neutralizer 30 0.1483 0.007222136 0.0000000 0.0092294

Total NA NA 53.1867 2.59016591 0.0000000 3.3100683

Southern California 

Range Complex

0.5 20 0.0297

11,249

0.000264

16,413

0.0001810

2,770

0.0010722

5 80 0.5337 0.004744 0.0032517 0.0192664

10 120 1.2602 0.011203 0.0076780 0.0454929

20 3185 53.1246 0.472262 0.3236715 1.9177828

29 755 33.0224 0.293559 0.2011951 1.1920991

60 150 5.2078 0.046296 0.0317295 0.1880001

650 390 66.2551 0.588988 0.4036715 2.3917900

AMNS/EMNS 

Neutralizer 160 0.7907 0.007029 0.0048175 0.0285440

Total NA NA 160.224200 1.424345 0.9761958 5.7840475

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2; AMNS/EMNS = Airborne Mine Neutralization 

System/Expendable Mine Neutralization System
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-38

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-21: Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities under Alternative 1 Over Five Years

Training Areas

Net Explosive 

Weight 

(lb.)

Number of 

Charges

Total Impact 

Footprint 

(Acre)

Hard Substrate Intermediate Substrate Soft substrate

Acre % 

Impact Acre % Impact Acre % Impact

Hawaii Range Complex AMNS 

Neutralizer 960 4.7444

2,053

0.231049927

0

0.0000000

1,607

0.2952672

Total NA NA 4.744400 0.231050 0.0000000 0.2952672

Southern California 

Range Complex

0.5 120 0.1775

11,249

0.001578

16,413

0.0010815

2,770

0.0064077

650 290 49.2666 0.437965 0.3001659 1.7785101

AMNS/EMNS 

Neutralizer 2009 9.9277 0.088254 0.0604864 0.3583871

Total NA NA 59.371800 0.527797 0.3617338 2.1433049

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2; AMNS/EMNS = Airborne Mine Neutralization System/Expendable 

Mine Neutralization System

Table F-22: Impact from Explosives On or Near the Bottom for Testing Activities under Alternative 2 Over Five Years

Training Areas

Net Explosive 

Weight 

(lb.)

Number of 

Charges

Total Impact 

Footprint 

(Acre)

Hard Substrate Intermediate Substrate Soft substrate

Acre % 

Impact Acre % Impact Acre % Impact

Hawaii Range Complex AMNS 

Neutralizer 960 4.7444

2,053

0.231049927

0

0.0000000

1,607

0.2952672

Total NA NA 4.744400 0.231050 0.0000000 0.2952672

Southern California 

Range Complex

0.5 120 1.7750

11,249

0.015779

16,413

0.0108145

2,770

0.0640770

650 480 81.5448 0.724909 0.4968269 2.9437438

AMNS/EMNS 

Neutralizer 2318 11.4538 0.101821 0.0697844 0.4134789

Total NA NA 94.773600 0.842509 0.5774258 3.4212997

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2; AMNS/EMNS = Airborne Mine Neutralization System/Expendable 

Mine Neutralization System
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-39

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-23: Potential Impact of Military Expended Materials from Training Activities on Each Substrate Type Within the Range 

Complexes in a Single Year

Training Areas

Percent Impact to 

Hard Bottom

Percent Impact to 

Intermediate Bottom

Percent Impact to 

Soft Bottom

Alternative 

1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Hawaii Range Complex 3.0419 0 3.8874000

Southern California Range Complex 0.5539 0.5565 0.3796 0.3814 2.2493000 2.2599

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2; AMNS/EMNS = Airborne Mine 

Neutralization System/Expendable Mine Neutralization System

Table F-24: Potential Impact of Military Expended Materials from Testing Activities on Each Substrate Type Within the Range 

Complexes in a Single Year

Testing Areas

Percent Impact to 

Hard Bottom

Percent Impact to 

Intermediate Bottom

Percent Impact to 

Soft Bottom

Alternative 

1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Hawaii Range Complex 0.619 0.6219 0 0.7911000 0.7948000

Southern California Range Complex 0.244 0.2448 0.1672 0.1678 0.9908000 0.9943000

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-40

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-25: Potential Impact of Military Expended materials from Training Activities on Each Substrate Type within the Range 

Complexes over Five Years

Training Areas

Percent Impact to 

Hard Bottom

Percent Impact to 

Intermediate Bottom

Percent Impact to 

Soft Bottom

Alternative 

1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Hawaii Range Complex 9.4038 15.172 0 12.0175 19.3888

Southern California Range Complex 2.2308 2.7773 1.529 1.9034 9.0591 11.2781

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2

Table F-26: Potential Impact of Military Expended materials from Testing Activities on Each Substrate Type within the Range 

Complexes over Five Years

Testing Areas

Percent Impact to 

Hard Bottom

Percent Impact to 

Intermediate Bottom

Percent Impact to 

Soft Bottom

Alternative 

1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Hawaii Range Complex 3.0705 3.1096 0 3.9240 3.9739

Southern California Range Complex 1.2035 1.2242 0.8249 0.839 4.8874 4.9714

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-41

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-27: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Training Activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single Year

Training Areas

Impact to Hard Bottom Impact to Intermediate 

Bottom Impact to Soft Bottom Impact to Unknown Bottom

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

Hawaii 

Range 

Complex

Alternative 1

0.0159 0.002708 0 0 0.012449 0.002119 62.4379 10.6329

Alternative 2

HSTT Transit 

Lane

Alternative 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5918 0

Alternative 2

Southern 

California 

Range 

Complex

Alternative 1 2.3502

1.2165

3.4291

1.775

0.5787

0.2996

55.951

28.962

Alternative 2 2.3613 3.4453 0.5815 56.215

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2

Table F-28: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Testing Activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 in a Single Year

Testing Areas

Impact to Hard Bottom Impact to Intermediate 

Bottom Impact to Soft Bottom Impact to Unknown Bottom

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive

Footprint

(Acres)

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

Hawaii Range 

Complex

Alternative 1 0.003237

0.0002416 0 0

0.002533

0.000189043

12.7082

0.9485

Alternative 2 0.003252 0.002545 12.7678

Southern 

California 

Range 

Complex

Alternative 1 1.0352 0.6589 1.5105 0.9614 0.2549 0.1623 24.6461 15.6863

Alternative 2 1.0389 0.7029 1.5158 1.0256 0.2558 0.1731 24.7323 16.7336

Note: Calculations for “Impact (Acre) Column = [(Impact Footprint) x (Number)]/43560

Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-42

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-29: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Training Activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 Over Five Years

Training Areas

Impact to Hard Bottom Impact to Intermediate 

Bottom Impact to Soft Bottom Impact to Unknown Bottom

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

Hawaii Range 

Complex

Alternative 1 0.0492

0.0135 0.0000 0.0000

0.0385

0.0106

193.0242

53.1647

Alternative 2 0.0793 0.0621 311.4137

HSTT Transit Lane Alternative 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.9589 0.0000

Alternative 2

Southern California 

Range Complex

Alternative 1 9.4656

6.0434

13.8110

8.8178

2.3309

1.4882

225.3454

143.8746

Alternative 2 11.7840 17.1937 2.9019 280.5402

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2

Table F-30: Proportional Impact to Bottom Habitat from Testing Activities under Alternatives 1 and 2 Over Five Years

Training Areas

Impact to Hard Bottom Impact to Intermediate 

Bottom Impact to Soft Bottoms Impact to Unknown Bottom

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

MEM 

Footprint

(Acres)

Explosive 

Footprint

(Acres)

Hawaii Range 

Complex

Alternative 1 0.0161

0.0012 0.0000 0.0000

0.0126

0.0009

63.0364

4.7423

Alternative 2 0.0163 0.0127 63.8390

Southern California 

Range Complex

Alternative 1 5.1065 2.2394 7.4508 3.2675 1.2575 0.5515 121.5703 53.3134

Alternative 2 5.1943 3.5144 7.5789 5.1278 1.2791 0.8654 123.6614 83.6682

Note: Blue shading indicates numbers and impacts of MEM that differ between Alternatives 1 and 2
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-43

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

F.2 STATISTICAL PROBABILITY ANALYSIS FOR ESTIMATING DIRECT STRIKE 

IMPACT AND NUMBER OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURES FROM MILITARY 

EXPENDED MATERIALS

This section discusses the methods and results for calculating the probability of a direct strike of an 

animal from any military items from the proposed training and testing activities falling toward (or 

directed at) the sea surface. For the purposes of this section, military items include non-explosive 

practice munitions, sonobuoys, acoustic countermeasures, targets, and high-energy lasers. Only marine 

mammals and sea turtles will be analyzed using these methods because animal densities are necessary 

to complete the calculations, and density estimates are currently only available for marine mammals 

and sea turtles within the Study Area. The analysis conducted here does not account for explosive 

munitions because impacts from explosives are analyzed within the Navy Acoustic Effects Model as 

described in the Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles: Methods and 

Analytical Approach for Phase III Training and Testing (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017). 

F.2.1 DIRECT IMPACT ANALYSIS

A probability was calculated to estimate the impact probability (P) and number of exposures (T) 

associated with direct impact of military items on marine animals on the sea surface within the specified 

training or testing area (R) in which the activities are occurring. The statistical probability analysis is 

based on probability theory and modified Venn diagrams with rectangular “footprint” areas for the

individual animal (A) and total impact (I) inscribed inside the training or testing area (R). The analysis is 

over-predictive and conservative, in that it assumes: (1) that all animals would be at or near the surface 

100 percent of the time, when in fact, marine mammals spend the majority of their time underwater, 

and (2) that the animals are stationary, which does not account for any movement or any potential 

avoidance of the training or testing activity. 

1. A = length*width, where the individual animal’s width (breadth) is assumed to be 20 percent of 

its length for marine mammals and 112 percent of its length for sea turtles. This product for A is 

multiplied by the number of animals Na in the specified training or testing area (i.e., product of 

the highest average month animal density [D] and training or testing area [R]: Na = D*R) to 

obtain the total animal footprint area (A*Na = A*D*R) in the training or testing area. As a 

conservative scenario, the total animal footprint area is calculated for the species with the 

highest average month density in the training or testing area with the highest use of military 

items within the entire Study Area. 

2. I = Nmun*length*diameter, where Nmun = total annual number of military items for each type, 

and “length” and “diameter” refer to the individual military equipment dimensions. For each 

type, the individual impact footprint area is multiplied by the total annual number of military 

items to obtain the type-specific impact footprint area (I = Nmun*length*diameter). Each training 

or testing activity uses one or more different types of military items, each with a specific 

number and dimensions, and several training and testing activities occur in a given year. When 

integrating over the number of military items types for the given activity (and then over the 

number of activities in a year), these calculations are repeated (accounting for differences in 

dimensions and numbers) for all military items types used, to obtain the type-specific impact 

footprint area (I). These impact footprint areas are summed over all military items types for the 

given activity, and then summed (integrated) over all activities to obtain the total impact 

footprint area resulting from all activities occurring in the training or testing area in a given year. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-44

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

As a conservative scenario, the total impact footprint area is calculated for the training or 

testing area with the highest use of military items within the entire Study Area.

Though marine mammals and sea turtles are not randomly distributed in the environment, a random 

point calculation was chosen due to the intensive data needs that would be required for a calculation 

that incorporated more detailed information on an animal’s or military item’s spatial occurrence. 

The analysis is expected to provide an overestimation of the probability of a strike for the following 

reasons: (1) it calculates the probability of a single military item (of all the items expended over the 

course of the year) hitting a single animal at its species’ highest seasonal density, (2) it does not take 

into account the possibility that an animal may avoid military activities, (3) it does not take into account 

the possibility that an animal may not be at the water surface, (4) it does not take into account that 

most projectiles fired during training and testing activities are fired at targets, and so only a very small 

portion of those projectiles that miss the target would hit the water with their maximum velocity and 

force, and (5) it does not quantitatively take into account the Navy avoiding animals that are sighted 

through the implementation of mitigation measures (for consideration of mitigation during analysis see 

Sections 3.7.3.4 [Marine Mammals] and 3.8.3.4 [Reptiles].

The likelihood of an impact is calculated as the probability (P) that the animal footprint (A) and the 

impact footprint (I) will intersect within the training or testing area (R). This is calculated as the area 

ratio A/R or I/R, respectively. Note that A (referring to an individual animal footprint) and I (referring to 

the impact footprint resulting from the total number of military items Nmun) are the relevant quantities 

used in the following calculations of single-animal impact probability [P], which is then multiplied by the 

number of animals to obtain the number of exposures (T). The probability that the random point in the 

training or testing area is within both types of footprints (i.e., A and I) depends on the degree of overlap 

of A and I. The probability that I overlaps A is calculated by adding a buffer distance around A based on 

one-half of the impact area (i.e., 0.5*I), such that an impact (center) occurring anywhere within the 

combined (overlapping) area would impact the animal. Thus, if Li and Wi are the length and width of the 

impact footprint such that Li*Wi = 0.5*I and Wi/Li = La/Wa (i.e., similar geometry between the animal 

footprint and impact footprint), and if La and Wa are the length and width (breadth) of the individual

animal such that La*Wa = A (= individual animal footprint area), then, assuming a purely static, 

rectangular scenario (Scenario 1), the total area Atot = (La + 2*Li)*(Wa + 2*Wi), and the buffer area 

Abuffer = Atot – La*Wa. 

Four scenarios were examined with respect to defining and setting up the overlapping combined areas 

of A and I: 

1. Scenario 1: Purely static, rectangular scenario. Impact is assumed to be static (i.e., direct impact 

effects only; non-dynamic; no explosions or scattering of military items after the initial impact). 

Hence the impact footprint area (I) is assumed to be rectangular and given by the product of 

military items length and width (multiplied by the number of military items). 

Atot = (La + 2*Li)*(Wa + 2*Wi) and Abuffer = Atot – La*Wa. 

2. Scenario 2: Dynamic scenario with end-on collision, in which the length of the impact footprint 

(Li) is enhanced by Rn = 5 military items lengths to reflect forward momentum.

Atot = (La + (1 + Rn)*Li)*(Wa + 2*Wi) and Abuffer = Atot – La*Wa.

3. Scenario 3: Dynamic scenario with broadside collision, in which the width of the impact 

footprint (Wi) is enhanced by Rn = 5 military items lengths to reflect forward momentum. 

Atot = (La + 2*Wi)*(Wa + (1 + Rn)*Li) and Abuffer = Atot – La*Wa.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-45

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

4. Scenario 4: Purely static, radial scenario, in which the rectangular animal and impact footprints 

are replaced with circular footprints while conserving area. Define the radius (Ra) of the circular 

individual animal footprint such that π*Ra

2 = La*Wa, and define the radius (Ri) of the circular 

impact footprint such that π *Ri

2 = 0.5*Li*Wi = 0.5*I. Then Atot = π *(Ra + Ri)

2 and 

Abuffer = Atot – π *Ra

2 (where π = 3.1415927). 

Static impacts (Scenarios 1 and 4) assume no additional aerial coverage effects of scattered military 

items beyond the initial impact. For dynamic impacts (Scenarios 2 and 3), the distance of any scattered 

military items must be considered by increasing the length (Scenario 2) or width (Scenario 3), depending 

on orientation (broadside versus end-on collision), of the impact footprint to account for the forward 

horizontal momentum of the falling object. Forward momentum typically accounts for five object 

lengths, resulting in a corresponding increase in impact area. Significantly different values may result 

from the static and dynamic orientation. Both of these types of collision conditions can be calculated 

each with 50 percent likelihood (i.e., equal weighting between Scenarios 2 and 3, to average these 

potentially different values). 

Impact probability P is the probability of impacting one animal with the given number, type, and 

dimensions of all military items used in training or testing activities occurring in the area per year, and is 

given by the ratio of total area (Atot) to training or testing area (R): P = Atot/R. Number of exposures is 

T = N*P = N*Atot/R, where N = number of animals in the training or testing area per year (given as the 

product of the animal density [D] and range size [R]). Thus, N = D*R and hence 

T = N*P = N*Atot/R = D*Atot. Using this procedure, P and T were calculated for each of the four scenarios, 

for Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed marine mammals and the marine mammal and sea turtle 

species with the highest average month density (used as the annual density value) and for each military 

item type. The scenario-specific P and T values were averaged over the four scenarios (using equal 

weighting) to obtain a single scenario -averaged annual estimate of P and T. The potential number of 

exposures (t) are reported in Table F-31 through Table F-34.

F.2.2 PARAMETERS FOR ANALYSIS 

Impact probabilities (P) and number of exposures (T) were estimated by the analysis for the following 

parameters: 

1. Two action alternatives: Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Animal densities, animal dimensions, 

and military item dimensions are the same for the two action alternatives. 

2. Two training or testing areas: Hawaii Range Complex and Southern California Range Complex. 

3. The following types of non-explosive munitions or other items: 

• Small-caliber projectiles: up to and including .50 caliber rounds

• Medium-caliber projectiles: larger than .50 caliber rounds but smaller than 

57 millimeters (mm) projectiles 

• Large-caliber projectiles: includes projectiles greater than or equal to a 57 mm 

projectile

• Missiles: includes rockets and jet-propelled munitions

• Bombs: Non-explosive practice bombs and mine shapes, ranging from 10 to 

2,000 pounds

• Torpedoes: includes all lightweight torpedoes 

• Sonobuoys: includes all sonobuoys

• Targets: includes expended, airborne and surface, targets, as well as mine shapes
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-46

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

• Lightweight torpedo accessories: includes all accessories that are dropped along with 

the torpedo (nose cap, air stabilizer, etc.)

• Anchors: includes blocks used to anchor mine shapes to the seafloor

• Acoustic countermeasures: includes aircraft deployed acoustic countermeasures 

• High Energy Lasers: includes high energy laser weapons that are directed at a surface 

target

• Expended Bathythermographs: small sensor deployed from ships 

4. Animal species of interest: The eight species of ESA-listed marine mammals and the non-ESA 

listed marine mammal species with the highest average month density in the training and 

testing areas of interest. The sea turtle species with the highest average month density in the 

training and testing areas of interest.

F.2.3 INPUT DATA 

Input data for the direct strike analysis include animal species likely to be in the area and military items 

proposed for use under each of the two action alternatives. Animal species data include: (1) species 

identification and status (i.e., threatened, endangered, or neither), (2) highest average month density 

estimate for the species of interest, and (3) adult animal dimensions (length and width) for the species 

with the highest density. The animal’s dimensions are used to calculate individual animal footprint areas 

(A = length*width), and animal densities are used to calculate the number of exposures (T) from the 

impact probability (P): T = N*P. Military items data include: (1) military items category (e.g., projectile, 

bomb, rocket, target), (2) military items dimensions (length and width), and (3) total number of military 

items used annually. 

Military items input data, specifically the quantity (e.g., numbers of bombs and rockets), are different in 

magnitude between the two action alternatives. All animal species input data, the military items’

identification and category, and the military items’ dimensions are the same for the two alternatives;

only the quantities (i.e., total number of military items) are different. 

F.2.4 OUTPUT DATA 

Estimates of impact probability (P) and number of exposures (T) for a given species of interest were 

made for the specified training or testing area with the highest annual number of military items used for 

each of the two action alternatives. The calculations derived P and T from the highest annual number of 

military items used in the Study Area for the given alternative. Differences in P and T between the 

alternatives arise from different numbers of events (and therefore military items) for the two 

alternatives.

Results for marine mammals and sea turtles are presented in Tables F-31 through F-34. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-47

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-31: Estimated Representative Marine Mammal Exposures from Direct Strike of a High 

Energy Laser by Area and Alternative in a Single Year

Hawaii Range Complex

Species

Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

False Killer Whale (MHI 

Insular DPS) 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

Sei Whale 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

Fin Whale 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

Blue Whale 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

Sperm Whale 0.000000 0.000000 0.000001 0.000001

Hawaiian Monk Seal 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

Bottlenose Dolphin (Oahu) 0.000000 0.000000 0.000068 0.000068

SOCAL Range Complex

Species Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Gray Whale (Western North 

Pacific DPS) 0.000000 0.000000 0.000004 0.000015

Humpback Whale (Central 

American DPS) 0.000000 0.000000 0.000003 0.000011

Sei Whale 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

Fin Whale 0.000000 0.000000 0.000003 0.000012

Blue Whale 0.000000 0.000000 0.000004 0.000016

Sperm Whale 0.000000 0.000000 0.000002 0.000008

Guadalupe Fur Seal 0.000000 0.000000 0.000032 0.000146

Short Beaked Common

Dolphin 0.000000 0.000000 0.000693 0.003321

Table F-32: Estimated Representative Sea Turtle Guild Exposures from Direct Strike of a High 

Energy Laser by Area and Alternative in a Single Year

Hawaii Range Complex

Species

Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 

2

Pacific Sea Turtle Guild 0.000000 0.000000 0.000064 0.000064
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-48

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-33: Estimated Representative Marine Mammal Exposures from Direct Strike of 

Military Expended Materials by Area and Alternative in a Single Year

Hawaii Range Complex

Species

Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

False Killer 

Whale 

(MHI 

Insular 

DPS)

0.000035 0.000035 0.000042 0.000043

Sei Whale 0.000007 0.000007 0.000009 0.000009

Fin Whale 0.000003 0.000003 0.000003 0.000003

Blue 

Whale 0.000002 0.000002 0.000003 0.000003

Sperm 

Whale 0.000068 0.000068 0.000082 0.000083

Hawaiian 

Monk Seal 0.000048 0.000030 0.000037 0.000037

Bottlenose 

Dolphin 

(Oahu)

0.008154 0.008154 0.009900 0.009924

SOCAL Range Complex

Species Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Gray 

Whale 

(Western 

North 

Pacific 

DPS)

0.000576 0.003197 0.000383 0.000386

Humpback 

whale 

(Central 

American 

DPS)

0.000443 0.002457 0.000295 0.000297

Sei whale 0.000012 0.000064 0.000008 0.000008

Fin whale 0.000424 0.002331 0.000283 0.000285

Blue 

whale 0.000565 0.003097 0.000378 0.000380

Sperm 

whale 0.000296 0.001641 0.000197 0.000199

Guadalupe 

Fur Seal 0.006305 0.035318 0.004181 0.004209

Short 

Beaked 

Common 

Dolphin

0.149682 0.841811 0.099091 0.099772
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-49

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

Table F-34: Estimated Representative Sea Turtle Exposures from Direct Strike of Military 

Expended Materials by Area and Alternative in a Single Year

Hawaii Range Complex

Species Training Testing

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Pacific 

Sea Turtle 

Guild

0.007559 0.007559 0.009177 0.009198
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-50

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

F.3 POISSON PROBABILITY OF DIRECT VESSEL STRIKE WITH MARINE MAMMALS

It is Navy policy to report all marine mammal strikes by Navy vessel. The information is collected by the 

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Readiness and provided to the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) on an annual basis. Only the 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 rather 

than a greater frequency of collisions relative to other ship types. Historically and as a cautionary 

practice today, some Navy strikes are reported to NMFS even though the strike to a marine mammal 

could not be confirmed, or if large cetacean was struck then exact species may not be known. Most 

vessel strikes of marine mammals reported involve commercial vessels and occur over or near the 

continental shelf (Laist et al., 2001). Reporting to NMFS of whale strikes by commercial vessels is not 

required and reporting rates are therefore unknown but likely to be much lower than actual 

occurrences. 

Between 2007 and 2009, the Navy developed and distributed additional training, mitigation, and 

reporting tools to Navy operators to improve marine mammal protection and to ensure compliance with 

upcoming permit requirements. In 2007, the Navy implemented the Marine Species Awareness Training, 

which is designed to improve the effectiveness of visual observations for marine resources, including 

marine mammals and sea turtles. In subsequent years, the Navy issued refined policy guidance 

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. For over a decade, the Navy has implemented the 

Protective Measures Assessment Protocol software tool, which provides operators with notification of 

the required mitigation and a visual display of the planned training or testing activity location overlaid 

with relevant environmental data. Similar mitigation, reporting, and monitoring requirements have been 

in place since 2009 and are expected to continue into the future. Therefore, the conditions affecting the 

potential for ship strikes are the most consistent across this time frame. As a result, data from the past 

nine years (i.e., 2009 to 2016) are used to calculate the probability of a Navy vessel striking a whale 

during proposed training activities in the Study Area. 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 this time period.

Data over a period from 2009 to 2016 are used to calculate the most current probability of a Navy vessel 

striking a whale in the Study Area. From January 2009 through December 2016, a total of two

(2) reported whale strikes have occurred from Navy training and testing activities in the HSTT Study 

Area, two in the Southern California Range Complex (both fin whales in 2009).

Large unmanned surface vessels are an emerging technology area. Within the timeframe covered by this 

analysis, the Navy anticipates that testing of large unmanned surface vehicles in the HSTT Study Area 

would could occur up to approximately 300 at-sea days per year. During some testing of large 

unmanned surface vessels, the platforms would be manned by testing personnel who would serve as 

Lookouts and would have the ability to over-ride autonomous navigation; however, other testing would 

occur while the platform is unmanned. As described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), autonomous marine 

mammal detection technologies are being investigated, but it is assumed that these technologies may 

not be available for large unmanned surface vehicle testing in the timeframe covered by this analysis.

Unlike for manned naval vessels, there are no historical at-sea hours or strike data upon which a large 

unmanned surface vessel strike analysis can be based. The method presented above for naval vessels, 

therefore, is followed to assess the risk of strike due to the addition of large unmanned vessel at-sea 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-51

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

days. Following the method presented above, an additional 300 at-sea days annually are added to the 

strike risk to account for large unmanned surface vessels. This is a small increase in risk compared to the 

risk based on historical data for manned vessels; however, actual additional risk is assumed to be 

greater because of the lack of both lookouts and implementation of procedural mitigation. Still, this 

increased risk would be limited because large unmanned surface vessel at-sea days are a small portion 

(less than 7 percent) of overall vessel predicted at-sea days for 2019-2023; large unmanned surface 

vessels would be substantially smaller than most naval vessels; and a portion of large unmanned surface 

vessel tests would include lookouts who could implement avoidance mitigation.

Since the probability of a Navy vessel strike to whales is influenced by the amount of time at sea for 

Navy vessels within the HSTT Study Area, the Navy used historic at-sea days in HSTT from 2009–2016 

and estimated potential at-sea days for the period from 2019 to 2023. The at-sea days then are used to

calculate a strike rate based on the 2009–2016 reporting period. Total ship at-sea days for this period 

were 33,860 days. Dividing the two reported strikes by ship at-sea day (2/33,860) results in a strike rate 

of 0.00006 strike per day. Estimated ship at-sea days within HSTT for the period from 2019 to 2023 is 

22,663 days. The historic strike rate (0.00006 strike per day) can be multiplied by the estimated at-sea 

days from 2019 to 2023 to estimate the number of whale strikes that could be anticipated (0.00006

strike per day x 22,663 days). This calculation predicts up to 1.34 strikes over the period from 2019

to 2023.

The probabilities of a specific number of strikes (n=0, 1, 2, etc.) over the period from 2019 to 2023 can 

be derived from a Poisson distribution. A Poisson distribution is often used to describe random 

occurrences when the probability of an occurrence is small, e.g., count data such as cetacean sighting 

data, or in this case strike data, often described as a Poisson or over-dispersed Poisson distribution. The 

formula for a Poisson distribution is:

P(nǀμ) is the probability of observing n events in some time interval, when the expected number of 

events in that time interval is μ. For this analysis, μ is the estimated 2019–2023 strike rate of 1.2.

From the strike rate (1.2), the Poisson distribution can estimate the probability of n where n=0 (no 

strikes), 1 strike, 2 strikes, and 3 strikes:

P(0)= 0.262 or a 26% chance of zero strikes over the period from 2019 to 2023

P(1)= 0.351 or a 35% chance of one strike over the period from 2019 to 2023

P(2)= 0.235 or a 23% chance of two strikes over the period from 2019 to 2023

P(3)= 0.105 or a 10% chance of three strikes over the period from 2019 to 2023
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-52

Appendix F Military Expended Material and Direct Strike Impact Analyses

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-53

References

REFERENCES

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. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2016). Building and Maintaining a Comprehensive Database and 

Prioritization Scheme for Overlapping Habitat Data.

U.S. Department of the Navy (2017). Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles: 

Methods and Analytical Approach for Phase III Training and Testing. Technical report prepared 

by Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific, San Diego and Naval Undersea Warfare 

Center, Division Newport.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

F-54

References

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix G: Federal Register Notices

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

APPENDIX G FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES ....................................................................................... G-1
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

G-1

Appendix G Federal Register Notices

Appendix G Federal Register Notices

This appendix contains the United States Department of the Navy’s notices that were published in the 

Federal Register throughout the preparation of the Hawaii-Southern California Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS), including the Notice of Intent, Notice 

of Availability of the Draft EIS/OEIS, and Notice of Public Meetings for the Draft EIS/OEIS.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

G-2

Appendix G Federal Register Notices
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

G-3

Appendix G Federal Register Notices
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

G-4

Appendix G Federal Register Notices

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix H: Public Comment Responses

This appendix to appear in the Final EIS/OEIS

Appendix I: Geographic Information System Data 

Sources

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

Appendix I Geographic Information System Data Sources.........................................................................I-1

List of Figures

There are no figures in this appendix.

List of Tables

Table I-1: Data Sources by Feature/Layer...................................................................................................I-1
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

I-1

Appendix I Geographic Information System Data Sources

Appendix I Geographic Information System Data Sources

Table I-1: Data Sources by Feature/Layer

Feature/Layer Applicable 

Figures Data Source References

HSTT Study Area Multiple 

Figures 

(Global)

Department of the Navy (2016). U.S. Pacific Fleet Common 

Operating Picture (COP)

Navy POC: Jonathan Crain

Jonathan.crain@navy.mil

Military Installation Area Multiple 

Figures 

(Global)

Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) (2010).

NOTE: California and Hawaii installations from Defense 

Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) IVT dataset. Naval 

Base Coronado installations extracted from a SANDAG land 

ownership dataset. NAVBASE San Diego created with 

combination of SANDAG and 2000 San Diego SID. Installation 

areas around Pearl Harbor received from the Department of the 

Navy in 2006.

Military 

Training/Range/Operation

Areas

Multiple 

Figures 

(Global)

Department of the Navy (2016). U.S. Pacific Fleet Common 

Operating Picture (COP)

Navy POC: Jonathan Crain

Jonathan.crain@navy.mil

Special Use Airspace Multiple 

Figures 

(Global)

NGA Digital Aeronautical Flight Information File (DAFIF) (2017).

Transit Corridor Multiple 

Figures 

(Global)

Research and Innovative Technology Administration’s Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (RITA/BTS) National Transportation 

Atlas Database (2007). National Waterway Network. 

General Ocean 

Bathymetry 

Multiple 

Figures 

(Global)

National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) NOAA (2008). Global 

Digital Elevation Model (ETOPO2). 

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/relief/ETOPO2/

Detailed Ocean 

Bathymetry/Ocean Floor

Multiple 

Figures 

(Global)

NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. 

Coastal Relief Model. (2016).

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coastal/crm.html

Large Marine Ecosystems 3.0-1, 3.0-

2,3.64,3.6-22

NOAA-Fisheries, US LME Program, Narragansett Laboratory 

Kenneth.Sherman@NOAA.gov 

www.lme.noaa.gov

North Pacific Transition 

Zone

3.0-2 Department of the Navy. (2010). (Contract N624470-08-R-1008). 

Norfolk, VA: Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, Atlantic. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., 

Arlington, VA.

HSTT Open Ocean Focus 

Area

3.0-1, 3.0-2 Department of the Navy. (2010). (Contract N624470-08-R-1008). 

Norfolk, VA: Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, Atlantic. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., 

Arlington, VA.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

I-2

Appendix I Geographic Information System Data Sources

Table I-1: Data Sources by Feature/Layer (continued)

Feature/Layer Applicable 

Figures Data Source References

Seamount Locations 3.0-4 Data Basin (2004).

Kitchingman, A. and S. Lai. 2004. “Inferences on potential 

seamount locations from mid-resolution bathymetric data.”

https://databasin.org/datasets/1c6af28887364008969f94c7e9d

f796e

SOCAL Ocean Currents 3.0-6 Department of Navy (2008). SOCAL MRA

Upwelling Domain 3.0-6 Department of Navy (2008). SOCAL MRA

Hawaii Ocean Currents 3.0-7 Department of Navy (2005). Hawaii MRA

Sea Surface Temperature 3.0-8, 3.0-9 NOAA Optimum Interpolation (OI) Sea Surface Temperature 

(SST) V2 (2016).

NCEP/NWS/NOAA. Climate Modeling Branch 

W/NP24http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.noaa

.oisst.v2.html#references

California Air Basins 3.2-1 California Air Resources Board (2004)

Vessel Traffic Density 3.0-10 NOAA (2015). Vessel Traffic Data/Automatic Identification 

System (AIS) Data.

http://marinecadastre.gov/ais/

ManTech (2015). Raw AIS data processed through ArcGIS 10.2 

Spatial Analyst tools to create raster dataset.

San Diego Bay Eel Grass 3.3-8,3.5-2 Merkel and Associates (2014)

Pearl Harbor Mangrove 

Removal Area

3.3-10 U.S. Department of the Navy. (2014). Fy14 chief of naval 

operations (CNO) environmental awards natural resources 

management – large installation Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam: Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam.

Bottom Substrate Types 

SOCAL

3.5-5 TerraLogic GIS, and S. Copps. (2004).

Ocean Vegetation SSTC 3.5-10 Dataset received from Tierradata with no metadata. Dataset is 

likely from the San Diego Nearshore Mapping Program.

POC: Tierradata (Rob Wolf; rob@tierradata.net).

Ocean Anchorages SSTC 3.5-10 ManTech (2012). Digitized from NOAA Raster Nautical Chart 

18772.

Ocean Substrate SSTC 3.5-10 Dataset received from Tierradata with no metadata. Dataset is 

likely from the San Diego Nearshore Mapping Program.

POC: Tierradata (Rob Wolf; rob@tierradata.net).

Benthetic Habitat Hawaii 3.5-11,3.5-

13,3.5-14

Miles Anderson, Analytical Laboratories of Hawaii (2007). Center 

for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment (CCMA), Biogeography 

Program

POC: tim.battista@noaa.gov

Steelhead Critical Habitat 3.6-4,3.6-22 NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (2005)

Shipwrecks 3.10-1, 3.10-2, 

3.10-3, 3.10-4, 

3.10-5

NOAA Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System 

[AWOIS] (2012)

California State Lands Shipwreck Database (2012)

Department of Navy (2005). SOCAL MRA

Ports 3.11-5,3.11-8 NGA (2016). World Port Index
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

I-3

Appendix I Geographic Information System Data Sources

Table I-1: Data Sources by Feature/Layer (continued)

Feature/Layer Applicable 

Figures Data Source References

Shipping Routes 3.11-5,3.11-8 Research and Innovative Technology Administration’s Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (RITA/BTS) National Transportation 

Atlas Database (2007). National Waterway Network.

Air Traffic Control 

Assigned Airspace (ATCAA)

3.11-11 KAYA (FIR), FACSFAC San Diego Instruction 3120.1G (ATCAA)

(2013)

Dive Site Hawaii 3.11-27,3.11-

28,3.11-

29,3.11-32

Department of the Navy. 2005. Dive Sites. Marine Resources 

Assessment for the Hawaiian Islands Operating Area. Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific Division, Pearl Harbor, 

Hawaii. Contract N62470-02-D-9997, CTO 0026. Prepared by

Geo-Marine, Inc., Plano, Texas.

Beaches Hawaii 3.11-27,3.11-

28,3.11-29

USGS. Geographic Place Names from the USGS Geographic 

Names Information System (GNIS).

Park Locations Hawaii 3.11-27,3.11-

28,3.11-29

USGS. Geographic Place Names from the USGS Geographic 

Names Information System (GNIS).

Park Areas 3.11-27,3.11-

28,3.11-29

Tele Atlas North America, Inc./ESRI (2008)

San Diego Bay Marinas 3.11-34 San Diego Department of Governments (SANDAG) (2013)

National Wildlife Refuge 

Area

3.11-34 San Diego Department of Governments (SANDAG); USFWS, 

Region 1, Division of Refuge Planning (2013).

Fishing Location SOCAL 3.11-34 San Clemente Island GPS Reference Points. The Fishing Network. 

http://fishingnetwork.net/index.php?pageid=sci

Depth Contour 

(Bathymetry) S

3.11-34 NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. 

Coastal Relief Model. (2016).

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coastal/crm.html

Notes: NGA = National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

U.S. = United States, USGS = United States Geological Society, AWOIS = Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information 

System, NRHP = National Register of Historic Places, nm = nautical miles, OCS = Office of Coast Survey, 

SOCAL = Southern California
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

I-4

Appendix I Geographic Information System Data Sources

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix J: Agency Correspondence

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

APPENDIX J AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE ......................................................................................... J-1

J.1 Notice of Preparation.................................................................................................J-2

J.1.1 Agencies and Officials Notice of Preparation ........................................................ J-2

J.1.2 Government-to-Government Notice of Preparation............................................. J-6

J.2 Cooperating Agency Correspondence ....................................................................... J-11

J.2.1 Navy Request to National Marine Fisheries Service............................................ J-11

J.2.2 National Marine Fisheries Service Response to Navy.......................................... J-14
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-1

Appendix J Agency Correspondence

APPENDIX J AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

This appendix contains correspondence sent between the United States Department of the Navy and 

relevant government agencies and officials regarding topics such as notifications of preparation, 

requests for consultations, and consistency determinations. These agencies include the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Hawaii and California State Historic Preservation Offices, local tribes, and the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-2

Appendix J Agency Correspondence

J.1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION

J.1.1 AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-3

Appendix J Agency Correspondence
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-4

Appendix J Agency Correspondence
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-5

Appendix J Agency Correspondence

1
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-6

Appendix J Agency Correspondence

J.1.2 GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-7

Appendix J Agency Correspondence
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-8

Appendix J Agency Correspondence
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-9

Appendix J Agency Correspondence
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-10

Appendix J Agency Correspondence

1
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-11

Appendix J Agency Correspondence

J.2 COOPERATING AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

J.2.1 NAVY REQUEST TO NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-12

Appendix J Agency Correspondence
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-13

Appendix J Agency Correspondence
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-14

Appendix J Agency Correspondence

J.2.2 NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE RESPONSE TO NAVY
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-15

Appendix J Agency Correspondence
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

J-16

Appendix J Agency Correspondence

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix K: Geographic Mitigation Assessment

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

APPENDIX K GEOGRAPHIC MITIGATION ASSESSMENT..............................................K-1

K.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................K-1

K.1.1 Mitigation Areas Analyzed.....................................................................................K-2

K.2 Mitigation Area Assessment.....................................................................................K-17

K.2.1 Approach to Analysis ...........................................................................................K-17

K.2.2 Mitigation Areas to be Implemented...................................................................K-20

K.3 Biologically Important Areas Within the Hawaii Range Complex Portion of the HSTT 

Study Area...............................................................................................................K-40

K.3.1 Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Area ............................K-40

K.3.2 Hawaii Island Dwarf Sperm Whale Small and Resident Population Area............K-61

K.3.3 False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area: Main Hawaiian Island 

Insular Stock.........................................................................................................K-67

K.3.4 Hawaii Island Pygmy Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area .............K-84

K.3.5 Hawaii Island Short-Finned Pilot Whale Small and Resident Population Area....K-92

K.3.6 Hawaii Island Melon-Headed Whales Small and Resident Population Area .....K-100

K.3.7 Common Bottlenose Dolphins Small and Resident Population Areas: Hawaiian 

Islands Stock Complex........................................................................................K-107

K.3.8 Pantropical Spotted Dolphins Small and Resident Population Areas................K-125

K.3.9 Spinner Dolphins Small and Resident Population Areas: Hawaiian Islands Stock 

Complex .............................................................................................................K-136

K.3.10 Hawaii Island Rough-Toothed Dolphins Small and Resident Population Area ..K-156

K.3.11 Hawaii Island Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area .....K-161

K.3.12 Hawaii Island Blainville’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area .K-171

K.4 Biologically Important Areas within the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study 

Area ......................................................................................................................K-181

K.4.1 Blue Whale Feeding Areas.................................................................................K-181

K.4.2 Gray Whale Migration and Potential Presence Areas .......................................K-208

K.5 Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area.................K-216

K.5.1 Settlement Areas Within the Hawaii Portion of the HSTT Study Area ..............K-216

K.5.2 Settlement Areas Within the Hawaii Portion of the HSTT Study Area ..............K-217

K.5.3 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing in the Hawaii Portion 

of the HSTT Study Area ......................................................................................K-222
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

ii

Table of Contents

K.5.4 Proposed Mitigation Areas that Overlap the Hawaii Portion of the HSTT 

Settlement Agreement areas.............................................................................K-222

K.5.5 Settlement Areas Within the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study AreaK-222

K.5.6 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing in the Southern 

California Portion of the HSTT Study Area.........................................................K-224

K.5.7 Proposed Mitigation Areas that Overlap the Southern California Settlement 

Agreement Areas...............................................................................................K-225

K.6 Areas Identified by the California Coastal Commission............................................K-225

K.6.1 Intended Species and Impacts Mitigated ..........................................................K-226

K.6.2 San Diego Arc: Area Parallel to the Coastline from the Gulf of California Border to 

just North of Del Mar.........................................................................................K-227

K.6.3 3 NM Santa Barbara Island Area: Area within 3 NM Around Santa Barbara Island 

within the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary.....................................K-227

K.6.4 3 NM Shore Area: Area within 3 NM from the Mainland California Shoreline 

Between Del Mar Northward to the Northern Boundary of the Southern 

California Portion of the HSTT Study Area.........................................................K-227

K.6.5 Proposed Mitigation Areas Within Areas Identified by the California Coastal 

Commission........................................................................................................K-228

K.7 Areas Identified During the NEPA Scoping Process..................................................K-228

K.7.1 Hawaii Scoping Comment Areas........................................................................K-228

K.7.2 Southern California Scoping Comment Areas....................................................K-236

LIST OF TABLES

Table K.1-1: Areas Considered for Geographic Mitigation Within the HSTT Study Area ........................K-13

Table K.2-1: Mitigation Areas Proposed to be Implemented in the Study Area .....................................K-24

Table K.7-1: Seamounts Identified in HSTT EIS/OEIS Scoping Comment...............................................K-230

Table K.7-2: Scoping Comment Areas for Consideration within the Southern California Portion of the 

Study Area.................................................................................................................................K-236

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure K.1-1: Biologically Important Areas in the Hawaii Portion of the Study Area ................................K-3

Figure K.1-2: Biologically Important Areas in the Southern California Portion of the Study Area ............K-4

Figure K.1-3: Settlement Areas in the Hawaii Portion of the Study Area..................................................K-6

Figure K.1-4: Settlement Areas in the Southern California Portion of the Study Area..............................K-6

Figure K.1-5: Humpback Whale Cautionary Area and Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area ..........K-12

Figure K.2-1: Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Area...........................................K-41

Figure K.2-2: Humpback Whale Encounters During a Passive Acoustic Survey South of Oahu. Circle Size 

Indicates Percentage of Recording Time per Dive with Target Signals ......................................K-43
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

iii

Table of Contents

Figure K.2-3: Dwarf Sperm Whale Small and Resident Population Area off Hawaii Island .....................K-62

Figure K.2-4: False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area off Main Hawaiian Islands..........K-68

Figure K.2-5: False Killer Whale Tracks off Kauai, August 12–14, 2013...................................................K-73

Figure K.2-6: Boundary of Main Hawaiian Islands Insular False Killer Whale Stock Relative to Areas in 

Hawaii Range Complex Where Explosives Training Typically Occurs.........................................K-75

Figure K.2-7: Pygmy Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area off Hawaii Island ......................K-84

Figure K.2-8: Tracked Locations of Pygmy Killer Whales.........................................................................K-86

Figure K.2-9: Tracked Locations of Pygmy Killer Whales off Oahu in 2010. ............................................K-88

Figure K.2-10: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Small and Resident Population Area.......................................K-93

Figure K.2-11: Low-Frequency Detections During a Passive Acoustic Survey South of Oahu. Note: Circle 

size indicates percentage of recording time per dive with target signals...................................K-95

Figure K.2-12: The Small and Resident Population Area Identified for the Kohala Resident Stock of 

Melon-Headed Whales.............................................................................................................K-101

Figure K.2-13: Range of melon-headed whales in the Hawaiian Islands from sighting and telemetry data..

.....................................................................................................................................K-102

Figure K.2-14: Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area ..............................................K-108

Figure K.2-15: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area................................K-126

Figure K.2-16: Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area Main Hawaiian Islands ..............K-137

Figure K.2-17: Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area in Northwest Hawaiian Islands..K-138

Figure K.2-18: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area off Hawaii Island...........K-157

Figure K.2-19: Cuvier's Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population off Hawaii Island .....................K-162

Figure K.2-20: Satellite Tag Locations for Eight Cuvier’s Beaked Whales Tagged off Hawaii Island Between 

2008 and 2011. .........................................................................................................................K-164

Figure K.2-21: Blainville's Beaked Whales Small and Resident Population off Hawaii Island ...............K-172

Figure K.2-22: Satellite track of a Blainville’s beaked whale (tag HIMd 153) tagged in 2009 in the resident 

population area west of Hawaii Island. ....................................................................................K-175

Figure K.2-23: Satellite Tagged Blainville’s Beaked Whale Locations from February 2014 Over an EightDay Period.................................................................................................................................K-175

Figure K.3-1: Blue Whale Feeding Areas off the Southern California Coast..........................................K-182

Figure K.3-2: Comparison Of Home Ranges For Satellite Tagged Blue Whales (a) 1998–2008, (b) 2014, 

and (c) 2015 ..............................................................................................................................K-184

Figure K.3-3: Movements of 2014 and 2015 in the Eastern Pacific (top) Relative to the HSTT Study Area 

(bottom)....................................................................................................................................K-187

Figure K.3-4: The Limited Number of Tagged Blue Whale Transits Through Tanner-Cortes Bank in 2014 

and 2015 ...................................................................................................................................K-188

Figure K.3-5: Blue Whale Movements in 2014 and 2015 in the Eastern Pacific Relative to the HSTT Study 

Area .....................................................................................................................................K-193
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

iv

Table of Contents

Figure K.3-6: The Limited Number of Tagged Blue Whale Transits Through Tanner-Cortes Bank in 2014 

and 2015 ...................................................................................................................................K-194

Figure K.3-7: Gray Whale Migration Area off the Southern California Coast........................................K-209

Figure K.4-1: Settlement Areas Within the Hawaii Portion of the HSTT Study Area .............................K-217

Figure K.4-2: Settlement Areas Within the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area.........K-223

Figure K.5-1: California Coastal Commission Areas and Biologically Important Areas Within the Southern 

California Portion of the HSTT Study Area................................................................................K-226

Figure K.6-1: Basins in the Southern California Bight Referred to in Scoping Comments.....................K-237
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-1

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

APPENDIX K GEOGRAPHIC MITIGATION ASSESSMENT

K.1 INTRODUCTION

The United States (U.S.) Department of the Navy (Navy) has been mitigating impacts from its training 

and testing activities for more than two decades using a combination of procedural mitigation and 

geographic mitigation. Current procedural mitigation (which applies throughout the Study Area) and 

mitigation measures that apply to specific geographic areas are reflected in the December 20, 2013 

Record of Decision for the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) Final Environmental 

Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS). 

Procedural mitigation measures presented in this Draft EIS/OEIS apply to both Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 2 and would be implemented as part of the Proposed Action, as discussed in Chapter 2

(Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives), Section 2.3.4 (Mitigation Measures) and shown in 

Table 2.3-7. These mitigations are considered in the Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences) environmental analyses for each relevant biological resource and are 

discussed in detail in Chapter 5 (Mitigation).

Procedural mitigations are tailored to specific training and testing activities and are implemented 

whenever and wherever those activities take place within the Study Area. The Navy’s methods for 

developing procedural mitigation for each specific activity are detailed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation).

In addition to procedural mitigation, the Navy implements specific mitigation measures in designated 

geographic locations within the Study Area, referred to as “mitigation areas.” This appendix

demonstrates the Navy’s thorough consideration of specific mitigation areas during the planning 

process. This appendix contains background information and lays out the methodology used by the Navy 

in its scientific and operational analysis for assessing and developing proposed mitigation areas within 

the HSTT Study Area to further avoid or reduce potential impacts on marine mammals in key areas of 

biological importance.

For the purposes of this assessment, the term “geographic mitigation” means mitigation that has been 

tailored to geographic locations (mitigation areas), designed to benefit particular species and stocks of 

marine mammals, and can include provisions to apply measures either year-round or seasonally, 

depending on the unique characteristics of the area. When committed to, for a particular species, such 

mitigations can also serve to provide indirect benefits to other marine species, such as sea turtles, fish, 

corals, or other marine mammals. A list of the mitigation areas assessed in this appendix is provided in 

Table K.1-1 and described in Section K.1.1 (Mitigation Areas Analyzed). Information on the approach to 

analysis is contained in Section K.2 (Approach to Analysis). The mitigation area assessments are 

presented in Sections K.3 (Biologically Important Areas Within the Hawaii Portion of the HSTT Study 

Area) and K.4 (Biologically Important Areas Within the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study 

Area). The assessments for all mitigation areas considered in this appendix are also summarized in 

Chapter 5 (Mitigation).

All final procedural and geographic mitigation measures will be coordinated with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, as appropriate, through the 

consultation and permitting process and will be documented in the Navy and NMFS Records of Decision,

NMFS Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Final Rule and Letters of Authorization, and the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Biological Opinions.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-2

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.1.1 MITIGATION AREAS ANALYZED

K.1.1.1 Biologically Important Areas

The Navy has assessed areas that were identified in Baird et al. (2015b); Calambokidis et al. (2015); Van 

Parijs et al. (2015a) as “Biologically Important Areas” within the HSTT Study Area (Note: Discrete maps of 

the individual areas are presented in the following subsections where those areas are discussed for each 

species. 

Figure K.1-1 and Figure K.1-2). As discussed in Section 3.7.2.1.2 (Habitat Use), the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration’s Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Working Group identified 

biologically important areas for 24 cetacean species, stocks, or populations in seven regions within U.S. 

waters. These “region-, species, and time-specific” ... defined areas are biologically important if they 

meet the following criteria (Ferguson et al., 2015b):

1. Reproductive Areas – Areas and times within which a particular species selectively mates, give

birth, or are found with neonates or calves.

2. Feeding Areas – Areas and times within which aggregations of a particular species 

preferentially feed. These either may be persistent in space and time or associated with 

ephemeral features that are less predictable but are located within a larger area that can be 

delineated.

3. Migratory Corridors – Areas and times within which a substantial portion of a species is known 

to migrate; the corridor is spatially restricted.

4. Small and Resident Population – Areas and times within which small and resident populations 

occupy a limited geographic extent. (Note: for this category, the Cetacean Density and 

Distribution Mapping Working Group delineated biologically important areas for “populations 

or stocks whose range spans only a bay, an area around one or several islands, or a portion of 

what the Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Working Group define as a region. Each 

regional chapter provides an explicit definition of ’resident‘ for each small and resident 

biologically important area delineated”).

Biologically important areas as defined in Ferguson et al. (2015b) are not exclusionary zones (closure 

areas) and are not analogous to marine protected areas or critical habitat under the ESA, but rather 

were identified as resource management tools to “aid the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration and other federal agencies in ... analyses and planning as required under multiple U.S. 

statutes,” such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), MMPA and ESA, “to characterize and 

minimize the impacts of anthropogenic activities on cetaceans and to achieve conservation and 

protection goals” (Ferguson et al., 2015b).

Although NMFS considers each area’s boundary to be dynamic and subject to change based on new 

information (Ferguson et al., 2015a), the Navy’s assessments in this appendix are based on the areas as 

they were described by the Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Working Group source 

documents (Van Parijs et al., 2015a). As new data becomes available, Navy and NMFS will continue to 

reassess the data via the adaptive management process discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), Section 

5.0.1 (Monitoring, Research, and Reporting Initiatives).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-3

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Note: Discrete maps of the individual areas are presented in the following subsections where those areas are discussed for each species. 

Figure K.1-1: Biologically Important Areas in the Hawaii Portion of the Study Area
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-4

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.1-2: Biologically Important Areas in the Southern California Portion of the Study Area
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-5

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

For this assessment, the Navy used the Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Working Group

source literature (Van Parijs et al., 2015a) in combination with Navy marine species monitoring reports, 

all relevant tagging data regardless of source, and the most up-to-date scientific literature to assess the 

potential likelihood that additional mitigation in these areas would be warranted. In many instances, 

data from the Navy’s marine mammal tagging studies were particularly helpful in providing context 

about the full extent of habitats used by cetaceans for biologically important behaviors in the Study 

Area, since oftentimes the biologically important areas identified in Baird et al. (2015b); Calambokidis et 

al. (2015); Van Parijs et al. (2015a) represent only a portion of the habitats used by marine mammals 

throughout their range.

K.1.1.2 Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within the HSTT Study Area

Following the publication of the 2013 Hawaii-Southern California Final EIS/OEIS, a 2015 HSTT-related 

settlement agreement prohibited or restricted Navy activities within specific areas in the HSTT Study 

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

Navy agreed to prohibit or restrict the use of certain hull-mounted active sonar and in-water explosives 

within defined areas (hereafter referred to as “settlement areas”) until the current authorizations under 

MMPA and ESA expire on December 24, 2018 or the earlier issuance of superseding environmental 

compliance documents1

.

The settlement agreement imposes various provisional prohibitions and restrictions on activities within 

specific portions of the Study Area as depicted in Figures K.1-3 and K.1-4. The settlement measures 

include combinations of temporal and geographic prohibitions or restrictions on the use of midfrequency active sonar and in-water explosives during major training exercises and unit level training or 

testing activities. The settlement also includes several safe speed measures that apply to Navy vessels 

within defined areas, but those measures do not place a numerical limit on vessel speed. Subject to 

certain reporting requirements, the Navy has the right to conduct activities otherwise prohibited by the 

agreement if it deems the activities necessary for national defense.

The settlement measures were derived pursuant to negotiations with plaintiffs and were specifically not 

evaluated or selected based on the type of thorough examination of best available science that occurs 

through the consultation process under the MMPA, or through analysis conducted for NEPA purposes.

The agreement did not constitute a concession by any party as to the potential impacts of Navy activities 

on marine mammals, or any other marine species. Furthermore, the Navy's adoption of restrictions on 

its activities as part of a relatively short-term settlement does not mean that those restrictions are 

necessarily supported by the best available science or practicable to implement for the Navy’s military 

readiness activities in the HSTT study area over a longer term.

 1 Conservation Council for Hawaii et al. v. NMFS et al. and Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. NMFS et al.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-6

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.1-3: Settlement Areas in the Hawaii Portion of the Study Area

Figure K.1-4: Settlement Areas in the Southern California Portion of the Study Area
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-7

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

The settlement measures have applied to the Navy’s ongoing activities since September 2015 and form 

part of the baseline environmental conditions that exist within the HSTT Study Area. To understand the 

restrictions and prohibitions on activities reflected in the settlement agreement, it is necessary to 

review the following set of definitions that apply to the terms of the agreement:

“In-water explosive” means a weapon containing an explosive-filled warhead or demolition charge 

purposefully detonated below the water’s surface. This definition specifically excludes devices 

employing explosives with 5 pounds (lb.) net explosive weight or less for non-weapon functions such as 

launch or ejection, or actuating or performing internal functions.

“Mid-frequency active sonar” means hull-mounted, mid-frequency active sonar producing signals from 1 

to 10 kilohertz [kHz] on Navy surface vessels.

“Major training exercise” means a coordinated or strike group major training exercise that consists of: 

Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Course, Composite Training Unit Exercise, Joint Task Force Exercise, 

Sustainment Exercise; Undersea Warfare Exercise; Independent Deployer Certification Exercise; and Rim 

of the Pacific Exercise. Major training exercise includes Unit-Level Training that may be conducted by

major training exercise participants when a major training exercise is ongoing.

“System checks” means the non-tactical use of mid-frequency active sonar for pre-operational testing, 

preventive or corrective maintenance, and during inspections by the Board of Inspection and Survey.

“Unit-level training” means single surface vessel training, or a combination of surface vessels and 

submarines or aircraft training, with the use of surface ship mid-frequency active sonar.

The following are the settlement areas and their associated restrictions or limitations (Figures K.1-3

and K.1-4):

Area 1-A: the Navy agreed to (a) prohibit the use of mid-frequency active sonar for training and testing 

activities during both major training events and unit-level training; and (b) prohibit the use of in-water 

explosives for training and testing activities.

Area 1-B: the Navy agreed to limit the use of mid-frequency active sonar for training and testing 

activities during major training events to one Rim of the Pacific in 2016, one Rim of the Pacific in 2018,

three Undersea Warfare Exercises per calendar year, and one Independent Deployer Certification 

Exercise per calendar year.

Area 1-C: the Navy agreed to (a) limit the use of mid-frequency active sonar for training and testing 

activities during major training events to one Rim of the Pacific in 2016, one Rim of the Pacific in 2018, 

three Undersea Warfare Exercises per calendar year, and one Independent Deployer Certification 

Exercise per calendar year; (b) prohibit the use of mid-frequency active sonar for training and testing 

activities during unit-level training (excluding unit-level training conducted by participants in an ongoing 

major training event); and (c) prohibit the use of in-water explosives for training and testing activities.

Area 1-D: the Navy agreed to (a) limit the use of mid-frequency active sonar for training and testing 

activities during major training events to one Rim of the Pacific in 2016, one Rim of the Pacific in 2018, 

three Undersea Warfare Exercises per calendar year, one Independent Deployer Certification Exercise

per calendar year, and one Sustainment Exercise per calendar year; (b) prohibit the use of mid-
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-8

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

frequency active sonar for training and testing activities during unit-level training (excluding unit-level 

training conducted by participants in ongoing major training events); and (c) prohibit the use of in-water 

explosives for training and testing activities.

Area 1-E: the Navy agreed to require that all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe 

speed so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or 

disturbance, and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and 

conditions (where Area 1-E overlaps with Areas 1-B and 1-C, the restrictions imposed within Areas 1-B 

and 1-C, respectively, also apply).

Area 2-A: the Navy agreed to (a) prohibit the use of mid-frequency active sonar for training and testing 

activities during major training events; (b) prohibit the use of in-water explosives for training and testing 

activities; and (c) require that all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe speed so they 

can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and can 

be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. 

Area 2-B: the Navy agreed to (a) prohibit the use of in-water explosives for training and testing 

activities; and (b) require that all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe speed so they 

can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and can 

be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

Area 2-C: the Navy agreed to (a) prohibit the use of mid-frequency active sonar for training and testing 

activities during major training events; (b) implement a Protective Measure Assessment Protocol 

measure advising Commanding Officers that the area is false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) habitat 

and that they should avoid using mid-frequency active sonar during unit-level training within the area 

whenever practicable; and (c) prohibit the use of in-water explosives for training and testing activities 

(within the overlap of Area 2-B and Area 2-C, the restrictions imposed in Area 2-B and Area 2-C both 

apply).

Area 2-D: the Navy agreed to prohibit the use of in-water explosives for training and testing activities.

Area 3-A: the Navy agreed to (a) prohibit the use of mid-frequency active sonar for training and testing 

activities during major training events and unit-level training from June 1 through October 31; and (b) 

require that all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe speed so they can take proper 

and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and can be stopped 

within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

Area 3-B: the Navy agreed to (a) prohibit the use of mid-frequency active sonar for training and testing 

activities during major training events and unit-level training, except for system checks, from June 1 

through October 31; (b) implement a seasonal Protective Measure Assessment Protocol measure from 

June 1 through October 31 advising Commanding Officers that the area is blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus) habitat and that they should avoid conducting system checks within the area whenever 

practicable; and (c) require that all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe speed so 

they can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and 

can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

Area 3-C: the Navy agreed to require, from November 1 through May 20, that all surface vessels use 

extreme caution and proceed at safe speed so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-9

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the 

prevailing circumstances and conditions. 

Area 4-A: the Navy agreed to (a) prohibit the use of mid-frequency active sonar for training and testing 

activities during major training events and unit-level training; and (b) prohibit the use of in-water 

explosives for training and testing activities.

Area 4-B: the Navy agreed to prohibit the use of mid-frequency active sonar for training and testing 

activities during major training events and unit-level training.

Area 4-C: the Navy agreed to require, from June 1 through October 31, that all surface vessels use 

extreme caution and proceed at safe speed so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a 

collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the 

prevailing circumstances and conditions.

Area 4-D: The Navy agreed to require all surface vessels to use extreme caution and proceed at a safe 

speed so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or 

disturbance, and can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and 

conditions.

K.1.1.3 Areas Identified by the California Coastal Commission

On January 14, 2013, the Navy submitted a Consistency Determination pursuant to the Coastal Zone 

Management Act to the California Coastal Commission, which the Commission objected to on March 8, 

2013 based on a lack of information. An exchange of letters and additional information furthered 

dialogue until the Navy issued the 2013 Record of Decision for the HSTT Final EIS/OEIS after informing 

the Commission that the Navy would proceed over their objection. In July 2014, the Navy entered into 

more discussion with the California Coastal Commission regarding training and testing offshore of 

Southern California. In accordance with an agreement signed April 14, 2016, and in effect until 

December 25, 2018, Navy agreed, among other things, to designate three geographic areas as areas of 

low use for hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during major training events and to provide 

annual notice to the Commission of any usage in these areas. These areas are reflected in Table K.1-1

and Figure K.5-1. The Navy also agreed that, in the event that training in the Southern California portion 

of the Study Area involves a single underwater detonation greater than 20 lb. net explosive weight at

nighttime (between sunset and sunrise), Navy would provide the California Coastal Commission postevent notice within 72 hours of the event. Under the terms of the agreement, Navy is assessing whether 

geographic limitations are scientifically supported and operationally practicable for these three 

particular areas. The areas agreed upon between the Navy and the California Coastal Commission for 

low use of hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar during major training events are:

1. San Diego Arc (an area parallel to the coastline in the HSTT Study Area to just north of Del Mar);

2. Area within the Southern California portion of the Study Area that is within 3 nautical miles 

(NM) around each island of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (includes only Santa 

Barbara Island); and 

3. Area within 3 NM (San Diego Shore Area) from the mainland California shoreline between Del 

Mar northward to the northern boundary of the Southern California portion HSTT Study Area

(this area also runs parallel to the coastline north of the San Diego Arc)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-10

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.1.1.4 Areas Suggested during the Scoping Process

In addition to the biologically important areas identified in Baird et al. (2015b); Calambokidis et al. 

(2015); Van Parijs et al. (2015a), the HSTT settlement areas, and the California Coastal Commission 

agreement areas described above, the Navy received comments during the public scoping process for 

the HSTT EIS/OEIS suggesting that the Navy consider additional areas for “time-area management.”

These areas are listed in Table K.1-1 and depicted in Note: Discrete maps of the individual areas are 

presented in the following subsections where those areas are discussed for each species. 

Figure K.1-1 and Figure K.1-2.

The areas proposed for consideration were recommended based on their purported biological 

importance to marine mammals but were not included in the current list of Cetacean Density and 

Distribution Mapping biologically important areas identified in Baird et al. (2015b); Calambokidis et al. 

(2015); Van Parijs et al. (2015a). The recommended areas include the following locations in the HSTT 

Study Area:

1. Cross Seamount, located south of Oahu and southwest of the island of Hawaii (18o 10N. latitude 

and 158o W. longitude). The scoping comment suggested that this area has rich pelagic 

biodiversity, high productivity, and provides foraging habitat for beaked whales. The 

recommendation also suggested that the Navy consider other nearby seamounts within the 

Hawaii Range Complex for habitat-based management measures given that they are considered 

productive long-line fishing grounds for top predators.

2. San Nicolas Basin located in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. The San 

Nicolas Basin was recommended based on satellite telemetry data, photo-identification, and 

mark-recapture data indicating that it represents an area of high site fidelity for a small 

population of Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris).

3. Santa Catalina Basin, also located in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area.

Based on telemetry data, the Santa Catalina Basin also is associated with a high degree of site 

fidelity for Cuvier’s beaked whales.

4. Southernmost edge of California Current, west of Tanner and Cortes Banks (collectively referred 

to hereafter as Tanner-Cortes Bank), in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area.

Acoustic data from long-term acoustic hydrophone recordings suggests this area as biologically 

important habitat for beaked whales, primarily Cuvier’s beaked whales.

5. Northern Catalina Basin and San Clemente Basin, both located in the Southern California portion

of the HSTT Study Area. Based on long-term acoustic data, these basins were identified as 

biologically important habitat for Perrin’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon perrini).

6. Between the 200 m and 1,000 m isobath off the mainland shelf within the Southern California 

portion of the HSTT Study Area for time-area management between November and February to 

reduce ship-strike risk to fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) due to their increased vulnerability 

during shallow foraging. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-11

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.1.1.5 Mitigation Areas Currently Implemented 

Since 2009, the Navy has been implementing seasonal mitigation within certain established areas of the 

Hawaii Range Complex for specific activities. One of these areas was identified as an area with high

humpback whale density from December 15–April 15. This seasonal mitigation area was developed in 

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

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

Cautionary Area (Figure K.1-3).

Humpback Whale Cautionary Area:

• The Navy will not use hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar in the mitigation area between 

December 15 and April 15. 

• Should national security present a requirement for hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar 

training or testing in the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area, the Navy will require approval from 

Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet. The Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet will base such authorization 

on the unique characteristics of the area from a military readiness perspective, taking into 

account the importance of the area for humpback whales and the need to avoid adverse 

impacts from hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar to the maximum extent practicable. 

Further the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet will provide specific direction to operational units on 

required mitigation prior to conducting training or testing in the Humpback Whale 

Cautionary Area. 

• The Navy will continue to provide NMFS with advance notice if training or testing is to occur in 

the mitigation area, and will provide data on the training and testing activities conducted after 

the completion of the events.

• On an annual basis, the Navy will provide a report of the total estimated hours (from December 

15 through April 15) of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar used in the Humpback Whale 

Cautionary Area.

The Navy will continue implementing the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area. However, the Navy is 

proposing changes in the size, season and approval requirements for the mitigation area. See Section

2.4 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) for more details on the proposed changes to this 

cautionary area. 

While not a mitigation measure, the Navy has also been providing special reporting of mid-frequency 

active sonar use within the Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area (Figure K.1-5). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-12

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.1-5: Humpback Whale Cautionary Area and Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area

The Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area is comprised of additional areas of high humpback whale 

densities that overlap the Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. This reporting is included in the 

exercise and monitoring reports that are an ongoing Navy requirement and are submitted to NMFS

annually. Special reporting data, along with all other reporting requirements, are considered during 

adaptive management to determine if additional mitigation may be required. The Navy currently reports

to NMFS the total hours (from December 15 through April 15) of all hull-mounted mid-frequency active 

sonar usage occurring in the Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area, plus a 5-km buffer, but not 

including the Pacific Missile Range Facility. The Navy will continue this reporting for the Humpback 

Whale Special Reporting Area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-13

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Table K.1-1: Areas Considered for Geographic Mitigation Within the HSTT Study Area

Species Biologically Important Area Overlapping Other Area(s) Mitigation Area 

Seasonality

Hawaii

Humpback whales 

(Megaptera 

novaeangliae)

Reproduction Area: 

Northwest Kauai

None

December–

April

Reproduction Area: East 

Niihau

None

Reproduction Area: North 

Oahu

None

Reproduction Area: Southeast 

Oahu 

Settlement Area 2-A and 2-D

Reproduction Area: 4- Islands 

Region and Penguin Bank

Settlement Area 2-A and 2-B

Reproduction Area: 

Northwest Hawaii Island

Settlement Area 1-B, 1-C, and 1-D

NA

Humpback Whale Cautionary 

Area

Humpback Whale Special 

Reporting Areas

Dwarf sperm whales 

(Kogia sima)

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Hawaii Island

Settlement Area 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, 

and 2-E

Year-round

False killer whales 

(Pseudorca crassidens)

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Main Hawaiian Islands 

Insular Stock

Settlement Area 1-A through 1-E, 

2-E, and 2-A through 2-D

Year-round

Pygmy killer whales 

(Feresa attenuata)

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Hawaii Island

Settlement Area 1-A, 1-C, 1-D, 1-

E, and 2-E

Year-round

Short-finned pilot whales 

(Globicephala 

macrorhynchus)

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Hawaii Island

Settlement Areas 1-A through 1-

D

Year-round

Melon-headed whales 

(Peponocephala electra)

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Hawaii Island

Settlement Area 1-B through 1-E, 

and 2-E

Year-round
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-14

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Table K.1-1: Areas Considered for Geographic Mitigation Within the HSTT Study Area

(continued)

Species Biologically Important Area Overlapping Other Area(s) Mitigation Area 

Seasonality

Common 

bottlenose 

dolphins 

(Tursiops 

truncatus)

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Kauai and Niihau

None

Year-round

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Hawaii Island

Settlement Areas 1-A through 

1-E, and 2-E

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Oahu Settlement Area 2-D

Small and Resident Population 

Area: 4-Islands Region

Settlement Area 2-A through 

2-C

Pantropical 

spotted dolphins 

(Stenella 

attenuata)

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Hawaii Island

Settlement Area 1-C through 1-

E and 2-E

Year-round Small and Resident Population 

Area: 4-Islands Region

Settlement Area 2-B

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Oahu

None

Spinner dolphins 

(Stenella 

longirostris)

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Kure and Midway Atolls

None

Year-round

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Pearl and Hermes Reef

None

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Kauai and Niihau

None

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Oahu and 4-Islands

Region

Settlement Areas 2-A through 

2-D, and 1-B

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Hawaii Island

Settlement Areas 1-A through 

1-E, and 2-E

Rough-toothed 

dolphins (Steno 

bredanensis)

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Hawaii Island

Settlement Area 1-C through 1-

E

Year-round

Cuvier's beaked 

whales (Ziphius 

cavirostris)

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Hawaii Island

Settlement Areas 1-A through 

1-D

Year-round

Blainville's 

beaked whales

(Mesoplodon 

densirostris)

Small and Resident Population 

Area: Hawaii Island

Settlement Areas 1-A through 

1-E, and 2-E

Year-round
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-15

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Table K.1-1: Areas Considered for Geographic Mitigation Within the HSTT Study Area

(continued)

Species Biologically Important Area Overlapping Other Area(s) Mitigation Area Seasonality

Multiple species NA

Cross Seamount and nearby 

seamounts within the Main

Hawaiian Islands Exclusive 

Economic Zone

Year-round 

Southern California 

Blue whales 

(Balaenoptera 

musculus)

Feeding Area: Santa Monica 

Bay to Long Beach

Settlement Area 3-C

California Coastal June–October

Commission (CCC) 3 nautical 

mile (NM) Area

Feeding Area: San Nicolas 

Island Settlement Area 4-A

June–October

Feeding Area: Tanner-Cortes 

Bank Settlement Area 4-C

Feeding Area: San Diego Arc

Settlement Area 3-A through 

3-C

CCC 3 NM area, and San 

Diego Arc

Gray whales 

(Eschrichtius 

robustus)

Migration Area: Southern 

California Bight

Settlement Areas 3-A 

through 3-C and 4-A through 

4-D

October–July (approximately) CCC 3 NM area, Channel 

Island Area, and San Diego 

Arc

Channel Islands National 

Marine Sanctuary
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-16

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Table K.1-1: Areas Considered for Geographic Mitigation Within the HSTT Study Area

(continued)

Species Biologically 

Important Area Overlapping Other Area(s) Mitigation Area Seasonality

Cuvier’s beaked 

whales (Ziphius 

cavirostris)

NA (refer to Section

K.1.1.4, Areas 

Suggested during the 

Scoping Process)

San Nicolas Basin

Year-round

Tanner Canyon

Santa Cruz Basin

Santa Catalina Basin

Southernmost edge of 

California Current, west of 

Tanner-Cortes Bank (approx. 

lat/long of Site E 32.75N, 

119.46W)

Between November and June

San Clemente Basin (approx. 

lat/long 32.52N, 118.32 W. 

based on location of HARP 

[Bauman-Pickering et al. 

2015])

Year-round

Perrin’s beaked 

whales

(Mesoplodon 

perrini)

NA (refer to Section

K.1.1.4, Areas 

Suggested during the 

Scoping Process)

Northern Catalina Basin and 

waters southeast of Santa 

Catalina Island (approx. 

lat/long 33.28N, 118.25W 

based on location of HARP 

[Bauman-Pickering et al. 

2015])

Year-round

Fin whales 

(Balaenoptera 

physalus) 

NA (refer to Section

K.1.1.4, Areas 

Suggested during the 

Scoping Process)

Fin whales off Southern 

California between 200 M and 

100 M isobaths

November– February
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-17

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.2 MITIGATION AREA ASSESSMENT

K.2.1 APPROACH TO ANALYSIS

In developing mitigation areas, the Navy considered the manner and degree to which a potential 

mitigation measure was likely to reduce impacts on species and stocks, without impeding the 

effectiveness of a military readiness activity or negatively impacting personnel safety. The Navy used a 

qualitative assessment process when considering potential geographic mitigation areas based on the 

best available science, the analyses from Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences), published literature including tagging studies, Navy marine species monitoring data, and 

input from the operational community. 

Potential mitigation options within specific geographic areas include reducing or modifying activities in 

order to reduce impacts on marine species or stocks and their habitat. For example, specific mitigation 

could include: limiting the total amount of activity in an area, limiting activities such that a certain 

number of sonar hours would not be exceeded, using an area less often or for a shorter duration,

complete restriction of certain activities or the use of certain systems that result in a stressor, limiting

the time of year that an activity is conducted, limiting certain activities to daylight hours only, limiting or 

restricting major training exercises in certain areas, implementing special reporting requirements, or 

requiring approval from a designated Navy authority for conducting activities in certain areas or during 

certain times of year. The Navy’s mitigation objectives in this assessment are to:

Ensure that the Proposed Action has only a negligible impact on marine mammal species and stocks; 

Identify means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected marine mammal 

species or stocks and their habitat (as required by Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA);

Ensure that the Proposed Action does not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or 

threatened species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (as required under 

ESA); and 

Avoid or reduce the level of impact of incidental take to individuals and their habitat to the extent 

reasonable and prudent.

K.2.1.1 Stressors Considered for Analysis

The environmental analyses in Section 3.7 (Marine Mammals) indicate that only certain stressors have 

the potential to adversely affect ESA-listed marine mammals or have the potential to impact marine 

mammals in the Study Area in a manner that rises to the level of incidental take.

The Navy considered, when combined with the procedural mitigations that the Navy already 

implements as outlined in detail in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), if implementing additional geographic 

mitigation would likely avoid or reduce impacts to marine mammals for the following specific stressors:

• Acoustic: Sonar and other transducers, airguns

• Explosives: In-water

• Physical disturbance and strike: Vessel strike
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-18

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Active sonar and other transducers have the potential to result in incidental takes of marine mammals 

by behavioral harassment, temporary hearing loss or permanent hearing loss. Explosives may result in 

takes by behavioral harassment, temporary hearing loss, permanent hearing loss or other injury, 

or mortality.

The Navy’s modeling of acoustic effects for testing activities using air guns predicted exposures to only 

one blue whale and one gray whale annually in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. 

Therefore, air guns were not analyzed for other species or locations as listed in Table K.1-1. 

Vessel strikes from commercial, recreational, and Navy vessels are known to have resulted in serious 

injury and occasional fatalities to large whales (Abramson et al., 2011; Berman-Kowalewski et al., 2010; 

Bradford & Lyman, 2015; Calambokidis, 2012; Carretta et al., 2016a; Jensen & Silber, 2003; Laggner, 

2009; Laist et al., 2001; Lammers et al., 2003). There is, however, no evidence that small cetaceans or 

pinnipeds present in the HSTT Study Area are at risk due to Navy vessel strikes. In Appendix F, the Navy 

has prepared an analysis of the potential for a Navy vessel to strike a marine mammal in the HSTT Study 

Area to inform this appendix and the Draft EIS/OEIS. 

The remaining stressors as analyzed in Section 3.7 (Marine Mammals), and consistent with the current

MMPA authorizations effective through 23 December 2018 and the 2015 ESA section 7 Biological 

Opinion, would not result in incidental take under the MMPA or are not likely to adversely affect ESAlisted marine mammals. Modeling of acoustic effects from pile driving training activities at Camp 

Pendleton and the Silver Strand Training Complex in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area does not predict any effects to blue whales or gray whales. Given these are the only two species 

with identified biologically important areas in the vicinity of the proposed training locations; pile driving 

will not be analyzed as a stressor in this appendix. The following stressors were dismissed from further 

consideration for evaluating geographic mitigation:

• Acoustic: weapons noise, pile driving, vessel noise, aircraft noise

• Energy: in-air electromagnetic devices, in-water electromagnetic devices, lasers

• Physical disturbance and strike: in-water devices, aircraft and aerial targets, military expended 

materials, seafloor devices

• Entanglement: wires and cables, decelerators and parachutes; biodegradable polymer

• Ingestion: military expended materials–munitions; military expended materials other than 

munitions

• Secondary: Impacts on Habitat; Impacts on Prey Availability

K.2.1.2 Biological Effectiveness Assessment

The first step of the mitigation area assessment was a biological effectiveness assessment (Biological 

Considerations) of each area identified in Section K.1.1 (Mitigation Areas Analyzed) to determine if 

implementing geographic mitigation in these areas would be beneficial to the species/stock or its 

habitat from a biological standpoint within the context of the stressor analysis provided in Section 3.7 

(Marine Mammals). Assessments of overlapping areas were combined whenever possible. The Navy 

considered a specific mitigation area to be biologically effective if it met all three of the 

following criteria:

1. The mitigation area is a key area of biological or ecological importance: The best available science 

suggests that the area is of biological importance to one or more species or resources for a 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-19

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

biologically important life process (e.g., foraging, migration, reproduction) or ecological function, 

year-round or for part of the year;

2. The mitigation would result in an avoidance or reduction of impacts: Implementing the mitigation 

would likely result in an avoidance or reduction of impacts on: (1) species, stocks, or populations 

of marine mammals based on data regarding seasonality, density, and animal behavior; and (2) 

implementing the mitigation would not wittingly shift or transfer adverse effects from one species 

to another, or to a more vulnerable or sensitive species.

A second step, an operational assessment (Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing),

considered what activities are conducted in specific geographic areas and assessed the importance of 

that area for those specific activities. The Navy assessed how and to what degree a specific mitigation 

would be compatible with planning, scheduling, and conducting training and testing activities under the 

Proposed Action. This part of the assessment considered information from annual training exercise 

reports, testing event reports, and monitoring reports, and feedback from members of the training and 

testing community who are responsible for implementing the mitigation.

It is vital that the Navy effectively executes readiness activities to ensure Sailors are well prepared to 

respond effectively to a crisis, while adequately managing risk. The ability to schedule and locate 

training and testing without excessive restrictions within the Study Area is crucial to maximizing

practicality, effectiveness, and safety when executing those activities. Some of the elements considered 

in selecting training and testing locations include:

• Proximity to training ranges, testing facilities, air squadrons, home ports, and existing 

infrastructure (e.g., instrumented underwater and land ranges);

• Availability of aircraft emergency landing fields;

• Access to a variety of realistic, or unique tactical environments (e.g., bathymetry and sea space) 

required to maximize training and testing effectiveness and testing program requirements;

• Ability to de-conflict participants (e.g., ships, aircraft, or submarines) or other users of the water 

and air space (e.g., commercial shipping, recreational boating, fishing, and commercial air traffic 

routes) during Navy activities to ensure the various training and testing events do not encroach 

on each other or other users.

Lastly, the operational assessment process considered the biological effectiveness of a proposed 

geographic mitigation when balanced with the practicability of implementing a mitigation without 

negatively impacting the effectiveness or compromising the safety of military personnel.

The Navy considered mitigation to be practicable to implement if it met all criteria listed below (See 

Section 5.2.3 (Practicability of Implementation) for more details):

Implementing mitigation is safe: The mitigation would not increase safety risks to Navy personnel and 

equipment or the general public.

Implementing mitigation is sustainable: The mitigation would not result in excessive time away from 

homeport for Navy personnel or an impracticable increase in resource requirements, such as wear and 

tear on equipment, additional fuel, additional personnel, additional funding, or undue shifting of time 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-20

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

spent on operational obligations to other tasks (e.g., increased reporting requirements that take 

disproportionate time away from focusing on mission requirements).

Implementing mitigation allows the Navy to continue meeting its Title 10 requirements and successfully 

accomplish military readiness objectives: The Navy requires access to a variety of realistic tactical 

oceanographic and environmental conditions (e.g., varied bathymetry and open sea space) to maximize 

training effectiveness and meet testing program requirements, and the availability of sea space and air 

space that is large enough for training or testing activities to be completed without physical or logistical 

obstructions. Activities are planned and scheduled in compliance with the Optimized Fleet Response 

Plan, which details instructions on manning distribution, range scheduling, operational requirements, 

maintenance and modernization plans, quality of work and life for personnel, achieving training 

capabilities, and meeting strategic readiness objectives. The mitigation would not modify training and 

testing activities in a way that prevents the activity from meeting it’s intended objectives; does not 

cause an erosion of capabilities or reduction in perishable skills; does not decrease training or testing 

realism or access to necessary environmental or oceanographic conditions; does not present national 

security concerns (such as a reduction in the Navy’s ability to be ready, maintain deployment schedules, 

or respond to national emergencies; or a requirement to provide advance notification of specific times 

and locations of Navy platforms, such as sonar, in a way that would compromise security); does not 

prevent ready access to facilities or range support structures; does not impede shipboard maintenance, 

repairs, or pierside testing prior to at-sea operations; and does not unduly delay testing associated with 

required acquisition milestones or as required on an as-needed basis to meet operational requirements.

K.2.2 MITIGATION AREAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED

Based on the extensive review and analysis that is presented in the following assessments of this 

appendix (see Sections K.3-K.7), the Navy proposes to implement the mitigation areas summarized in 

Table K.2-1 and depicted in Figures K.2-1 through K.2-9. The Navy determined that establishing these 

mitigation areas would likely avoid or reduce the potential effects to specific species or stocks and their 

habitat occurring within specific geographic areas. These mitigation areas would secondarily provide 

extra protection to other species or stocks also occurring within the areas. The proposed mitigation 

areas were developed because they met the biological effectiveness and operational practicability 

criteria noted above in Sections K.2.1.2 and K.2.1.3.

The Navy is proposing two categories of mitigation areas: Planning Awareness Areas and Cautionary 

Areas. For the purposes of this document, these mitigation areas are characterized based on the 

factors below:

Planning Awareness Area:

Establishes predefined limits on the use of the area for particular activities (e.g., by a percentage or 

number of events, limits on total sonar hour use) 

No Navy approvals required

Confined to a bounded area (i.e., latitude/longitude)

Seasonal or year-round 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-21

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

If a planned activity is expected to exceed the predefined limits, NMFS advance notification would be 

required prior to conducting the activity

Allows the use of the area for other activities

A Planning Awareness Area is not a "permission scheme"; rather, it is a discrete geographic area 

designed to demonstrate limited use of the area for some activities that would provide additional 

benefits to marine species, above and beyond the Navy’s procedural mitigations, and could be modified 

during adaptive management with NMFS.

Cautionary Area:

• Restricts certain activities unless determined that it is necessary to conduct those activities in 

that area for national security reasons

• If naval units determine conducting a restricted activity within the Cautionary Area is necessary 

for national security, permission shall be required from the appropriate delegated Command 

authority prior to using the Cautionary Area for those activities

• Confined to a bounded area (i.e., latitude/longitude)

• Seasonal or year-round

• NMFS advance notification would be required prior to conducting the activity

• Allows the use of the area for other activities 

A Cautionary Area is an area in which certain activities are restricted, either seasonally or year-round, 

where prior approval is required to conduct restricted activities, unless deemed necessary for 

national security.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-22

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.2-1: Mitigation Areas to be Implemented in the Southern California Portion of the Study Area
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-23

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.2-2: Mitigation Areas to be Implemented in the Hawaii Portion of the Study Area
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-24

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Table K.2-1: Mitigation Areas Proposed to be Implemented in the Study Area

Summary of Proposed Mitigation Areas

Mitigation Area 

Name

Type of Mitigation 

Area

Species Protected Stressor or 

Activity

Time of Year

Southern California 

San Diego Arc Planning 

Awareness Area

Blue whales Surface ship hullmounted midfrequency active 

sonar during 

limited MTEs

Jun 1 - Oct 31

San Diego Arc Cautionary Area Blue whales In-water explosives 

during gunnery

(large-caliber), 

torpedo, bombing, 

and missile 

exercises

(including 2.75

inch rockets) 

during testing, ULT 

and MTEs

Jun 1 - Oct 31

Channel Island 

Sanctuary (Santa 

Barbara Island out 

to 6 NM)

Cautionary Area All protected 

species in the 

Channel Island 

National Marine 

Sanctuary portion 

within the Study 

Area

Surface ship hullmounted midfrequency active 

sonar and in-water 

explosives during 

gunnery (all

caliber), torpedo, 

bombing, and 

missile exercises 

(including 2.75

inch rockets) 

during testing, ULT 

and MTEs

Year-round

Hawaii 

West-side Hawaii

Island

Planning 

Awareness Area

Main Hawaiian 

Islands insular 

false killer whale, 

humpback whales, 

pygmy killer 

whale, dwarf 

sperm whale, 

melon-headed 

whale, shortfinned pilot whale 

and dolphin 

species

Surface ship hullmounted midfrequency active 

sonar during 

testing, ULT and 

MTEs

Year-round
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-25

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Table K.2-1. Mitigation Areas Proposed to be Implemented in the Study Area (continued)

Notes: HSTT – Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing; ULT – unit-level training; MTE – major training 

exercise; NM – nautical mile

K.2.2.1 Planning Awareness Areas within the HSTT Study Area

The Navy will strive to limit the use of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar within the 

following Planning Awareness Areas when conducting certain anti-submarine major training exercises 

under Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 of the Proposed Action. Only surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar during an anti-submarine major training exercise is subject to the Planning 

Awareness Area limitation. All other surface ship mid-frequency active sonar by Navy units (e.g., unit 

level training, maintenance and system checks while in transit) is allowed.

A major training exercise is a coordinated or strike group exercise that may be further sub-categorized 

as either Large or Medium Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare training, as discussed in 2.3.1 (Proposed 

Training Activities) and shown in Table 2.3.1 (Major Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Exercises and 

Integrated/Coordinated Training). Anti-submarine major training exercises include: Composite Training 

Summary of Proposed Mitigation Areas

Mitigation Area 

Name

Type of Mitigation 

Area

Species Protected Stressor or 

Activity

Time of Year

West-side Hawaii 

Island

Cautionary Area Main Hawaiian 

Islands insular 

false killer whale, 

humpback whales, 

Cuvier and 

Blainville’s beaked 

whales, pygmy 

killer whale, dwarf 

sperm whale, 

melon-headed 

whale, shortfinned pilot whale 

and dolphin 

species.

All in-water 

explosives during 

testing, ULT and 

MTEs

Year-round

East-side Hawaii 

Island

Cautionary Area Main Hawaiian 

Islands insular 

false killer whale, 

Cuvier and 

Blainville’s beaked 

whales, and 

dolphin species

Surface ship hullmounted midfrequency active 

sonar and all inwater explosives 

during testing, ULT 

and MTEs

Year-round

Humpback Whale Cautionary Area Humpback whale,

main Hawaiian 

Islands insular 

false killer whale, 

and dolphin 

species

All surface ship 

hull-mounted midfrequency active

sonar

Nov 15 - April 15
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-26

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Unit Exercise, Joint Task Force Exercise, Fleet Exercise/Sustainment Exercise, Undersea Warfare Exercise,

and Rim of the Pacific Exercise. Unit-level training that is conducted opportunistically by major training 

exercise participants may occur when a major training exercise is ongoing. Unit-level training means 

single surface vessel training, or a combination of surface vessels and submarines or aircraft training, 

and may involve the use of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar.

1. San Diego Arc Planning Awareness Area (Seasonal Jun 1 – Oct 31):

A San Diego Arc Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-3) would be established where the Navy would not 

conduct more than a combined total of three (3) large or medium integrated anti-submarine warfare 

major training exercises (e.g., Composite Training Unit Exercise or Fleet Exercise/Sustainment Exercise)

using surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar per season from June 1 through October 31. 

If a naval unit needs to conduct additional anti-submarine warfare major training exercises with surface 

ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar in this area for national security, the Navy would provide 

NMFS with advance notification and include the activity exceedance information (e.g., total sonar usage) 

in the annual training and testing reports. 

This measure is designed to provide additional protection for Endangered Species Act-listed blue whales 

which have been documented foraging in this area seasonally.

2. West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Year-round):

A West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-4) would be established where the Navy 

would not conduct more than one (1) large integrated anti-submarine major training exercise (such as 

Rim of the Pacific) every other year; and three (3) medium integrated anti-submarine major training 

exercises (e.g., Undersea Warfare Exercise) per year. This is a year-round measure.

If a naval unit needs to conduct additional anti-submarine major training exercises with surface ship 

hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar in this area for national security, the Navy would provide 

NMFS with advance notification and include the activity exceedance information (e.g., total sonar usage)

in the annual training and testing reports.

This measure is designed to provide additional protection for Endangered Species Act-listed main 

Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales and two species of beaked whales (Cuvier and Blainville’s),

which have been documented using this area year-round to support multiple biological functions. Main 

Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales are found only in the main Hawaiian Islands and are a 

critically endangered species. Beaked whales are scientifically shown to be highly sensitive to sonar 

exposures. This area also overlaps with other identified biologically important areas for other marine 

mammal species such as humpback whale, dwarf sperm whale, pygmy killer whale, melon-headed 

whale, short-finned pilot whale and dolphin species for which the Planning Awareness Area would

provide additional protection.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-27

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-3: Proposed San Diego Arc Planning Awareness Area (June 1 – October 31)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-28

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-4: Proposed West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Year-round)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-29

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.2.2.2 Proposed Cautionary Areas within the HSTT Study Area

1. San Diego Arc Cautionary Area (Seasonal Jun 1- Oct 31):

A San Diego Arc Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-5) would be established from June 1 to October 31 where 

the Navy would not use in-water explosives during gunnery (large-caliber), torpedo, bombing, and 

missile exercises (including 2.75 inch rockets) during testing, unit-level training, and major training 

exercises. 

If a naval unit needs to conduct gunnery (large-caliber), torpedo, bombing, or missile exercises 

(including 2.75 inch rockets) using in-water explosives in this area for national security during testing, 

unit-level training, and major training exercises, permission shall be required from the appropriate 

delegated Command authority prior to their use in the Cautionary Area. The Navy would provide NMFS 

with advance notification and include the activity information (e.g., explosive usage) in the annual 

training and testing reports.

This measure is designed to provide additional protection for Endangered Species Act-listed blue whales 

which have been documented foraging in this area seasonally.

2. Channel Island Sanctuary Cautionary Area (Year-round):

A Channel Island Sanctuary Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-6) surrounding Santa Barbara Island out to 6 NM 

(the only Sanctuary area within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area) would be 

established where the Navy would not use any surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or

in-water explosives used in gunnery (all calibers), torpedo, bombing, and missile exercises (including 

2.75 inch rockets) during testing, unit-level training, and major training exercises year round.

If a naval unit needs to use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar and in-water 

explosives in gunnery (all calibers), torpedo, bombing, or missile exercises (including 2.75 inch rockets) 

during unit-level and major training exercises in this area for national security, permission shall be 

required from the appropriate delegated Command authority prior to their use in the Cautionary Area. 

The Navy would provide NMFS with advance notification and include the activity information (e.g., sonar 

and explosive usage) in the annual training and testing reports.

This measure is designed to provide additional protection for all protected marine species in the portion 

of the Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary that falls within the boundary of the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-30

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-5: Proposed San Diego Arc Cautionary Area (June 1 – October 31)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-31

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-6: Proposed Channel Island Cautionary Area (Year-round)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-32

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

3. East-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (Year-round):

A East-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-7) would be established where the Navy would not

use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or in-water explosives during testing, unitlevel training, and major training exercises year-round.

If a naval unit needs to use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or explosives during 

testing, unit-level training, and major training exercises in this area for national security, permission shall 

be required from the appropriate delegated Command authority prior to their use in the Cautionary 

Area. The Navy would provide NMFS with advance notification and include the activity information (e.g., 

sonar and explosive usage) in the annual training and testing reports.

This measure is designed to provide additional protection for Endangered Species Act-listed main 

Hawaiian Island insular false killer whales and two species of beaked whales (Cuvier and Blainville’s)

which have been documented using this area year-round to support multiple biological functions. Main 

Hawaiian Island insular false killer whales are a critically endangered species and beaked whales are 

scientifically shown to be highly sensitive to exposure to sonar. This area also overlaps with identified 

biologically important areas for some dolphin species for which the Cautionary Area would provide 

additional protection.

4. West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (Year-round):

The West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-8) would be established where the Navy would 

not use any in-water explosives during testing, unit-level training, and major training exercises yearround.

If a naval unit needs to use explosives during testing, unit-level training, and major training exercises in 

this area for national security, permission shall be required from the appropriate delegated Command 

authority prior to their use in the Cautionary Area. The Navy would provide NMFS with advance

notification and include the activity information (e.g., explosive usage) in the annual training and 

testing reports.

This measure is designed to provide additional protection for Endangered Species Act-listed main 

Hawaiian Island insular false killer whales and two species of beaked whales (Cuvier and Blainville’s) 

which have been documented using this area year-round to support multiple biological functions. Main 

Hawaiian Island insular false killer whales are a critically endangered species and beaked whales are 

scientifically shown to be highly sensitive to exposure to sonar. This area also overlaps with other 

identified biologically important areas for other marine mammal species such as humpback whale, 

dwarf sperm whale, pygmy killer whale, melon-headed whale, short-finned pilot whale and dolphin 

species for which the Cautionary Area would provide additional protection.

5. Humpback Whale Cautionary Area (Seasonal Nov 15- Apr 15):

The Navy proposes to expand the size and extend the season of the current Humpback Whale 

Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-9) where permission is required prior to the use of any surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar during testing, unit-level training, and major training exercises 

from December 15 through April 15. The Navy proposes to extend the season from November 15 

through April 15 since humpback whales often arrive in the fall.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-33

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-7: Proposed East-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (Year-round)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-34

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-8: Proposed West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (Year-round)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-35

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

The Navy will change the level of authority of who will determine whether surface ship hull-mounted 

mid-frequency active sonar will be allowed in the Cautionary Area for training or testing for the purpose 

of national security. Currently, permission is required from the four-star Commander of the U.S. Pacific 

Fleet. The Navy is amending the requirement so that the U.S. Commander, Third Fleet or System 

Command (SYSCOM) conducting the activity has delegated authority for approval prior to using surface 

ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar in the Cautionary Area. The Navy will amend the current 

language of the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area as follows: 

“Should national security present a requirement for hull-mounted mid-frequency active 

sonar training or testing in the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area, the Navy will require 

approval from the U.S. Commander, Third Fleet or delegated SYSCOM authority prior to 

use in the Cautionary Area. The U.S. Commander, Third Fleet or SYSCOM’s delegate will 

base such authorization on the unique characteristics of the area from a military 

readiness perspective, taking into account the importance of the area for humpback 

whales and the need to avoid adverse impacts from hull-mounted mid-frequency active 

sonar to the maximum extent practicable. Further, the authority designated to the U.S. 

Commander, Third Fleet or SYSCOM conducting the activity will provide specific 

direction to operational units on required mitigation prior to conducting training or 

testing in the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area”. 

The Navy will continue to provide NMFS with advance notice if training or testing is to occur in the 

mitigation area, and provide data on the training and testing activities conducted after the completion 

of the events. On an annual basis, the Navy will provide a report of the total estimated hours (from 15 

November through 15 April) of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar if used in the 

Humpback Whale Cautionary Area.

This mitigation measure is designed to provide additional protection for humpback whales. The reason 

for interest in the expansion is that although humpbacks have recovered to the point of Endangered

Species Act delisting or down-listing, most Pacific stocks of humpbacks appear to be experiencing a 

decline in migratory rates and physical health.

The Maui/Molokai area (4-Islands Region) is an important reproductive and calving area for humpback 

whales. Recent scientific research indicates peak humpback whale season has expanded, with higher 

densities of whales occurring earlier than prior studies had indicated. In addition, a portion of this area 

has also been identified as biologically important for the critically endangered main Hawaiian Island 

insular false killer whales and extending the season and size of the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area 

will provide some added protection for that species during half of the year.

For these reasons, the Navy will continue to provide additional protection for humpback whales with an 

additional area that would also protect habitat used by main Hawaiian Island insular false killer whales 

in the 4-Islands Region in the form of this Cautionary Area from November 15 through April 15.

The Navy is not planning to use explosives in these areas; therefore, a prohibition on the use of in-water 

explosives is not necessary at this time.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-36

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-9: Humpback Whale Cautionary Area and Proposed Expansion (November 15 – April 15)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-37

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.2.2.3 Awareness Notification Messages 

While not specifically mitigation, the Navy will issue awareness notification messages seasonally to alert 

ships and aircraft to the possible presence of concentrations of large whales in portions of the Study 

Area. In order to maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during transit, 

vessels will be instructed to remain vigilant to the presence of certain large whale species, that when 

concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. Lookouts will use the information 

from the awareness notification messages to assist their visual observations of mitigation zones and to 

aid in implementing procedural mitigation. The Navy anticipates that providing Lookouts additional 

information about the possible presence of concentrations of large whales in certain locations 

seasonally will likely help the Navy further avoid interactions with these animals during vessel transits, 

when training and testing activities are conducted in these areas. The Navy reports all whale strikes 

within the Study Area, should one occur. Navy will issue awareness notification messages for the 

following species and seasons:

1. Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area:

Spring Season: 

a. Blue whale – nearshore out to 20 NM from CA mainland (June – October)

Fall season:

a. Gray whales – nearshore out to 10 NM from CA mainland (November – March) 

b. Fin whales – nearshore out to 20 NM from CA mainland (November – May)

2. Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area:

Winter Season:

a. Humpback Whales – throughout entire Hawaii Range Complex (November – April)

K.2.2.4 Mitigation Determinations

The Navy developed the mitigation areas identified in Table K.2-1 to provide further protection for 

marine mammals during training and testing activities in areas that the best available science suggests 

are particularly important to species or stocks for foraging, migrating, and reproduction either yearround or for part of the year (depending on the species). Implementing these mitigation areas off of 

Southern California and Hawaii would likely be effective in avoiding or reducing impacts on certain 

marine mammal species in these areas and are practicable to implement, without compromising military 

readiness by reducing the effectiveness of training and testing or decreasing the safety of personnel. The 

mitigation would consequently also help the Navy avoid or reduce impacts on other marine species that 

are present in the mitigation area during certain times of year or year-round.

The proposed Planning Awareness Areas and Cautionary Areas are designed to help the Navy further 

avoid or reduce the level of impacts from sonar or explosives on marine mammals that inhabit, feed in, 

reproduce in, or migrate through the areas. The Navy can limit the number of major training exercises 

within the Planning Awareness Areas because the Navy is not tied to a specific range support structure 

in those particular areas. Further, based on the deployment cycles to meet national security 

requirements, some major training events are not required to be conducted within a specific range 

boundary and the Navy has some flexibility in managing those events, therefore minimizing impacts

within the Planning Awareness Area. The Navy does not have the same flexibility to relocate, restrict, or 

limit all training and testing activities everywhere however. The Navy acknowledges the importance of 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-38

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

certain habitats for species and stocks of marine mammals, particularly for certain life stages, and has 

balanced the need for certain training and testing environments needed in order to achieve readiness 

and meet its Title 10 responsibilities when establishing the proposed mitigation areas.

The requirements to train are designed to provide the experience needed to ensure Sailors are properly 

prepared for operational success. Training requirements have been developed through many years of 

iteration and are designed to ensure Sailors achieve the levels of readiness needed to properly respond 

to the many contingencies that may occur during an actual mission. The Proposed Action does not 

include training beyond levels required for maintaining satisfactory levels of readiness due to the need 

to efficiently use limited resources (e.g., fuel, personnel, and time). Therefore, reductions in training 

would prevent the Sailors from achieving the satisfactory levels of readiness needed to accomplish their 

mission and increases the risk to Sailors when deployed

Major training exercises, as defined in the DEIS/OEIS, are training events that bring together the 

component elements of a large force (e.g. Strike Group) that could include the full spectrum of the force 

– various ships, submarines, aircraft, and Marine Corps forces – to train in the complex command, 

control, operational coordination, and logistics functions designed to prepare the force for deployment.

A Strike Group may be composed of up to 4-6 destroyers and a cruiser, 75 aircraft, and an aircraft 

carrier, with 7,500 Sailors and Marines participating. They also provide partner building with other 

maritime nations allowing U.S. military to learn to work with foreign partners across a range of military 

operations, building interoperability.

For example, due to the number of participants during Rim of the Pacific training in Hawaii, requires vast 

areas of sea and air space. Rim of the Pacific is the world’s largest naval exercise, with multiple nations 

participating. This exercise is critical to partner building with other maritime nations, and is a principal 

means by which the U.S. military learns to work with foreign partners across a range of military 

operations, building interoperability and long-term personal relationships before a crisis in which we 

would need to work together. Due to the sheer volume of participating anti-submarine forces, the sea 

space under military warning areas is completely scheduled during the entirety of the exercise. 

As discussed in Section 2.3.3, (Standard Operating Procedures), when scheduling activities, the Navy 

must minimize sea space and airspace conflicts within ranges and throughout the Study Area to avoid 

interactions or encroachment on established commercial air traffic routes and commercial shipping 

vessels and for safety reasons, not only to those conducting the activities but for other users of the sea 

and air space. Events may change mid-activity based on evaluators’ assessments of performance and 

other conditions (such as weather or mechanical issues), which may preclude the use of a permission 

scheme for access to sea space. Daily fluctuations in training and testing schedules and objectives could 

mean that, on any given day, vessels may operate in any area or location within the Study Area to 

complete training or certification requirements.

Training and testing activities must also mimic real world conditions to ensure safety of personnel, skill 

proficiency, and validation of testing program requirements. Areas for training or testing are chosen to 

allow for the realistic representation of the myriad of training and testing scenarios that Navy units are 

required to complete to be mission effective. Areas have been chosen and designated based on

proximity to associated training ranges (e.g., Southern California Range Complex proximate to San Diego 

area Navy and Marine Corps bases), available airspace (e.g., avoiding airspace conflicts), unobstructed 

sea space, or due to safety concerns. For example, military aircraft emergency (divert) landing fields are 

located to support aircrews in the event of an emergency to allow for short transits to these fields and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-39

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

hopefully, allow for safe landings. These fields also are located to avoid populated areas of civilians in 

order to prevent mishaps that could put civilians in harm’s way. Training areas are also chosen often to 

avoid areas popular for recreational boating and fishing. 

Certain activities, such as deployment certification exercises using integrated warfare components, 

require large areas of the littorals and open ocean for realistic and safe training. The Operating Areas 

within the Study Areas represent critical training sea space that is necessary to prepare naval forces for 

combat. Training and testing in these areas is vital to ensuring that Navy units will be able to operate 

and defend the U.S. mainland from adversaries.

Expanding mitigation areas to encompass the Navy’s existing training ranges would require moving 

activities farther out to sea, which would reduce training and testing opportunities by taking time away 

from the intended activity to transit to a more distant area. This would also result in training or testing 

being conducted further offshore in water conditions that may not accurately reflect the types of 

environments where real world activities would occur. For example, conducting shallow water antisubmarine warfare training in a deep water environment while simulating fathometer readings would 

develop bad habit patterns of ignoring the critical depth aspect of the training, and in a real world 

situation, those readings may possibly be ignored as well, and thereby jeopardizing safety and survival of 

the ship and crew. Training in actual shallow water conditions is mandatory to develop proper crew 

coordination and tactics, techniques and procedures to ensure mission success. Additionally, training in 

the shallow water environment is essential for crews to experience the effect of bottom topography, 

(upslope and downslope) on sonar transmission/returns for detecting threat targets in different 

constrained environments that simulate environments where the Navy may operate in, such as the East 

and South China Seas or the Strait of Hormuz. For example, transit training in the Alenuihaha Channel 

replicates these types of strait environments that meet the Navy’s requirement to deploy Naval forces 

to ensure the free flow of commerce and the freedom of navigation by combatting piracy or mine 

threats. Naval forces are required to train to counter a submarine threat before deployment – to ensure

the first time a surface asset conducts anti-submarine warfare training in a strait prior to being deployed 

to the Strait of Hormuz or similar areas. There are few geographic areas that enable forces to do this

type of training outside of the HSTT Study Area or that would not have similar effects on the marine 

environment. Newer-generation submarines, operated by more than 40 nations worldwide continue to 

be a threat to global commerce, national security, and the safety of U.S. and our allied military 

personnel. As a result, defense against enemy submarines is a top priority for the Navy. While simulators 

provide early skill repetition and enhance teamwork, there is no substitute for live training in a 

realistic environment.

As discussed in Section K.2.1.3, (Operational Practicability Assessment), increasing transit times would 

also result in additional fuel consumption, while increasing the Navy’s carbon footprint, and increases 

other expenditures due to wear and tear on equipment, additional personnel, or undue shifting of time 

spent on operational obligations to other tasks (e.g., increased reporting requirements that take 

disproportionate time away from focusing on mission requirements), which could serve as limiting 

factors for Navy surface units and decreasing valuable on station training time. Additionally, unit-level 

training is constrained by the Optimized Fleet Response Plan timeline milestones and increasing the 

time anywhere in the cycle exacerbates an already compact schedule, and moving training evolutions 

farther offshore increases the impracticability of meeting deployment cycles. It is also likely that such a 

strategy would merely shift impacts from one area or species/stock to another.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-40

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

In summary, further restrictions on the level, number, or timing (seasonal or time of day) of training or 

testing activities could significantly impact a unit’s ability to meet their individual training and 

certification requirements; the Navy’s ability to certify strike groups for deployment in support of

national security tasking; the Navy’s ability to meet testing program requirements and required 

acquisition milestones; operational costs due to increased fuel, maintenance, and time required to 

complete activities. Constraints on training and testing have the potential to increase safety risks by

extending activity locations further distances offshore and accelerating the fatigue-life of aircraft and 

other equipment, and can reduce training and testing realism by limiting access to necessary 

environmental or oceanographic conditions for proper testing and training in tactics, technics and 

procedures in the shallow water environment.

The Navy’s responsibility to the American people dictates an efficient use of fiscal resources and an 

approach that adapts to the evolving security environment, with the ability to make adjustments 

according to global events, be it humanitarian assistance or disaster relief to deterring war or defeating 

an adversary. The training and testing under the Proposed Action allows for just that and is balanced 

with the Navy’s commitment to environmental stewardship. 

K.3 BIOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT AREAS WITHIN THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX PORTION OF 

THE HSTT STUDY AREA

K.3.1 MAIN HAWAIIAN ISLANDS HUMPBACK WHALE REPRODUCTION AREA

A single biologically important area around and between portions of eight islands was designated for 

breeding humpback whales in the Main Hawaiian Islands during the 5-month period from December 

through April (Baird et al., 2015a) (Figure K.3-1). Portions of the biologically important area around and 

between the eight islands have been considered separately in the following subsections, because the 

various portions are separated geographically, and Navy training and testing activities that occur in the 

different portions of the Biologically Important Area can differ significantly. As shown in Table K.1-1, and 

described in Section K.1.1.2 (Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area), 

the Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Area overlaps with HSTT Settlement Areas 

2-A, 2-B, 2-D, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, and 2-E. The Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction 

Area also overlaps the Navy’s existing Humpback Whale Cautionary Area and Humpback Whale Special 

Reporting Areas described in Section K.1.1.5 (Mitigation Areas Currently Implemented) and shown in 

Figure K.1-5. The Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Area covers approximately 

5,845 square km (km2

) of water space and also encompasses the entire Humpback Whale National 

Marine Sanctuary.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-41

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-1: Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Area

K.3.1.1 General Biological Assessment

For a thorough description of the humpback whales in Hawaii, see Section 3.7.2.3.1 (Humpback Whale 

[Megaptera novaeangliae], Hawaii Distinct Population Segment). Humpback whales of the Hawaii

Distinct Population Segment were removed from the list of threatened and endangered species under 

the ESA (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016b). 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), with the North Pacific population 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).

A review of the available literature indicates the Hawaii Distinct Population Segment of humpback whale

breeding in Hawaii has been “matched” (i.e., identified as the same individual whale using photoidentification methods) to humpbacks feeding in the Gulf of Alaska, the Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 

(Baird et al., 2015a; Calambokidis et al., 2008). In all of these feeding areas, humpback whales from 

Hawaii cross paths with humpback whales migrating from Mexico and Central America. In addition, 

there is evidence that some individual 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) within a season. 

The majority of humpback whales in the waters off Hawaii have been detected within the shallow 

waters of the 200 m isobath (Mobley et al., 2001; Mobley, 2005; Mobley & Pacini, 2013; Mobley & 

Deakos, 2015; Mobley et al., 2015). The greatest densities of humpback whales (including calves) have 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-42

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

been in the 4-islands region around Maui, Molokai, Kahoolawe, and Lanai, as well as Penguin Bank 

(Mobley et al., 2001) 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). Acoustic recordings near the Northwest Hawaiian Islands indicate that humpback whales are 

present there as well as off the Main Hawaiian Islands from early December through early June 

(Lammers et al., 2011). These results, coupled with habitat modeling, suggest that humpback whales 

may be extending their overwintering range to include waters surrounding portions of the Northwest 

Hawaiian Islands (Baird et al., 2015a). The available visual sighting and tagging data do suggest that 

individuals are using these high-use areas during February and March. It is not yet known if this 

represents a previously undocumented breeding stock or if the whales occurring at the Northwest 

Hawaiian Islands are part of the same population that winters near the Main Hawaiian Islands (Bettridge 

et al., 2015a).

The presence of vocalizing humpback whales has been detected farther offshore than the designated 

Main Hawaiian Island Reproduction Area (Klinck et al., 2015). Between December 11, 2014, and January 

26, 2015, a passive acoustic survey was conducted in the Hawaii Range Complex using an autonomous 

glider fitted with a hydrophone (Figure K.2-2). The survey began and ended approximately 120 

kilometers (km) south of Honolulu, Oahu, navigating a roughly triangular track through deep ocean 

waters that intermittently crossed over or near multiple seamounts as far as 300 km offshore. Note that 

the symbols representing the track are obscured by the data in Figure K.2-2. Humpback whale songs 

were recorded during the entire survey, and usually more than one whale was recorded at the same 

time. The percentage of the recording time during which vocalizations were recorded is represented by 

the size of the circle in Figure K.2-2. For example, the two largest circles on the map indicate that 

humpback vocalizations were recorded during more than half of the time the glider was recording. 

Vocalizing humpbacks were detected as far as 300 km offshore. Based on the signal strength for some of 

the vocalizing humpbacks, they were very close to the glider indicating those individuals would have 

been 100 to 300 km offshore as opposed to in the nearshore shallow water areas previously 

documented as their preferred habitat (Klinck & Nieukirk, 2016).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-43

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Source: Adapted from Klinck et al. (2015); PAM = Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Figure K.2-2: Humpback Whale Encounters During a Passive Acoustic Survey South of Oahu. 

Circle Size Indicates Percentage of Recording Time per Dive with Target Signals

In addition to occurring in the Hawaii Range Complex, humpbacks migrating from breeding grounds in 

Hawaii to feeding grounds at higher latitudes may pass through the eastern portions of the HSTT Study 

Area Transit Corridor.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-44

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.3.1.1.1 Biological Considerations Applicable to all Humpback Whale Reproduction Areas

The Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Area contains several humpback whale 

breeding sub-areas off the coasts of Kauai, Niihau, Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii Island. The area was 

designated as important for reproductive behavior because extensive photo-identification and satellite 

tagging studies have identified the area as having the highest density of breeding humpback whales 

within the Main Hawaiian Islands (Baird et al., 2015a). Over half (7,000 to 10,000 individuals) of the 

North Pacific population migrates to Hawaiian waters during the winter breeding season, with peak 

abundance from February through March (Baird et al., 2015a; Mobley et al., 1999; Mobley et al., 2001; 

Norris et al., 1999). The highest densities of whales occur in waters that are less than 200 meters (m) in 

depth. The boundaries of the biologically important sub-areas are based on the highest density areas 

within the Main Hawaiian Islands and, with the exception of two small areas, one off Kauai and one off 

Molokai, are within the 1,000 m isobath (Baird et al., 2015a).

An analysis of recently acquired tagging data suggests that humpback whales spend an average of 4 

weeks in Hawaiian waters—from the time of tagging to the time of departure—regardless of the month 

when tagging occurs (Mate et al., 2017). Some variation in residence time was observed between the 

sexes. Mature females without a calf stayed for shorter periods than mature males, likely because the 

females only needed to stay long enough to breed successfully, whereas the males remained to 

inseminate as many females as possible before reduced energy reserves compelled them to begin their 

northward migration to feeding grounds off of Alaska. Females with a new calf may stay in Hawaiian 

waters for 10 weeks or longer to allow calves more time to build muscle mass, gain coordination, and 

accumulate insulating blubber that will function as an energy reserve during migration (Mate et al., 

2017). 

Aerial surveys by Mobley et al. (1999) of humpback whale breeding areas around Hawaii Island, 

4-Islands Region (Molokai, Lanai, Maui, Kahoolawe), Penguin Bank, Oahu, and Kauai/Niihau showed a 

trend of an increasing number of sightings moving northwest along the island chain. These data 

suggested that, from as far back as 1999, the wintering population may have been expanding beyond 

previously preferred reproductive sites near the 4-Islands Region and Penguin Bank. In the mid-1990s, 

satellite tagging of six humpback whales off Kauai found that whales transited between islands at a 

greater pace than initially thought. One adult traveled 250 km around Kauai and then to Oahu in four

days, while another individual traveled to Penguin Bank and the Kalohi Channel between Molokai and 

Lanai, totaling 820 km, in 10 days (Mate et al., 1997). A steady increase of 7 percent per year in the 

density of the Hawaii breeding population between 1993 and 2000 was reported by Mobley et al. 

(2001). The authors noted that the increase was all the more impressive considering it occurred 

simultaneously with a rapid increase in the popularity of whale watching and the industry’s 

economic importance.

Zoidis et al. (2014) recorded video of calf behavior at breeding sites in Hawaiian waters and observed 

that behavior varied between male and female calves and as the breeding season progressed leading up 

to the seasonal migration, but did not vary significantly with sea state. This result suggests that innate 

developmental drivers can persist in the presence of external disturbance.

K.3.1.1.2 Stressor Analysis

Numerous studies have documented a variety of responses by humpback whales to anthropogenic 

disturbance. Watkins (1981) found that humpback whales largely ignored vessels that remained 100 m 

or more away, and similarly Mobley et al. (2001) noted that humpback whale breeding success 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-45

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

appeared unaffected by the frequent presence of whale watching vessels as acoustic and physical 

disturbance stressors. 

K.3.1.1.2.1 Sonar and Other Transducers

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.1.2, (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), humpback whales may be 

exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training and testing activities.

Quantitative acoustic analysis for the entire Hawaii population estimates that the majority of exposures 

result in behavioral reactions or TTS, and only a few exposures resulting in PTS or injury are anticipated.

While the Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproductive Biologically Important Area was 

proposed for breeding humpbacks, responses by humpback whales engaged in other behaviors to sonar 

or other transducers can be informative for assessing potential response to breeding behavior. 

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. 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 contextual factors, including distance 

to the source, whether or not the source is moving, and the physical presence of vessels in addition to 

the acoustic source (Goldbogen, Friedlaender, et al., 2013; C. Harris & Thomas, 2015; C. M. Harris et al., 

2015; S. W. Martin et al., 2015; Sivle et al., 2015).

In the presence of low-frequency 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. 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, indicates that 

adaptations to masking can also move beyond vocal compensations (Dunlop et al., 2010).

Several individuals and pods of humpback whales have been observed during aerial or surface visual 

surveys while Navy training events using sonar were occurring (HDR, 2011; Mobley & Milette, 2010; 

Mobley & Pacini, 2012, 2013; Mobley et al., 2015; Shoemaker et al., 2014; Smultea & Mobley, 2009). No 

avoidance or other behavioral responses were ever noted, including in one case when the whales were 

observed within 5 km of a vessel using sonar with maximum received levels estimated to be between 

135 and 161 decibels (dB) referenced to one micro Pascal (re 1 μPa) (Mobley & Pacini, 2012). One group 

of humpback whales moved along a course that would ultimately converge with the path of a Navy 

vessel using active sonar. The whales continued along their path despite the decreasing distance from 

the vessel and the active sonar source. In fact, the distance between the vessel and the whales 

decreased to the point where the sonar system had to be shut-down. The whales continued 

approaching, and swam under the vessel (Farak et al., 2011). Another group of humpback whales 

continued heading towards a vessel with active sonar, with an estimated median received level of 143 

dB re 1 μPa, as the vessel was moving away for almost 30 minutes. This group was observed producing 

active surface behaviors such as pectoral 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 & Pacini, 2012; Mobley et al., 2012).

A series of studies was undertaken in 1997–98 pursuant to the Navy’s Low-Frequency Sound Scientific 

Research Program. Humpback whales on breeding grounds were exposed to sonar operating in lowfrequency bands ranging from 100 to 500 hertz, with received levels between 115 and 150 dB re 1 μPa. 

The studies found only short-term responses to low-frequency sound by some humpback whales, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-46

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

including changes in vocal activity and avoidance of the source vessel, while other humpback whales did 

not respond at all (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). Low-frequency signals from the sound 

source did not affect dive times of humpback whales in Hawaiian waters (Frankel & Clark, 2000). 

Within the Hawaii Range Complex, training and testing activities that use sonar and other transducers 

primarily occur farther offshore than the designated boundaries of the Main Hawaiian Islands 

Humpback Whale Reproduction Area. Humpback whales within the breeding area may be exposed to 

sound from sonar and other transducers used during activities occurring outside of the area, because of 

the substantial transmission ranges associated with some sonar. While impacts on humpback whale 

breeding and other behaviors due to training and testing with sonar and other transducers may occur 

within the reproduction area, they are unlikely to rise to the level of significant under NEPA nor would 

they be 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. Any TTS in the 

biologically important areas would be minor to moderate, from which the individual would fully recover 

quickly. Any PTS is limited to a couple individuals and is unlikely to occur within the reproduction area

since these are areas where the Navy does not conduct intense activities, such as anti-submarine 

warfare training or testing during the reproductive season. While the potential exists for distant sound 

sources to be detected by individual humpback whales in the area, adverse impacts on the breeding 

behaviors of the population or most individuals would not be anticipated within the humpback whale 

reproduction areas from training and testing with sonar and other transducers.

K.3.1.1.2.2 Explosives

As detailed in the analysis in Section 3.7.3.2 (Impacts from Explosives), some TTS and PTS exposures are 

estimated from the acoustic model. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be minor to 

moderate, from which the individual would fully recover quickly. Any PTS is limited to a couple 

individuals and is unlikely to occur within the reproduction area since these are not areas where the 

Navy conducts activities using explosives.

Baleen whales, including humpbacks, have shown a variety of responses to impulsive sound sources

including explosives. Observed responses have included avoidance, approaching the source, reduced 

surface intervals, altered swimming behavior, and changes in vocalization rates (Gordon et al., 2003; 

McCauley et al., 2000a; Richardson et al., 1985; Southall et al., 2007). Generally, the results of multiple 

studies on different species are assumed to be representative of all baleen whale species. 

Research suggests the behavioral state of a whale and the location and movement of a sound source are

integral drivers of how or if an animal responds, more so than the received level of the sound. 

Humpback whales migrating towards breeding grounds off western Australia showed limited avoidance 

behavior at ranges of 5–8 km from an impulsive seismic array, during observational studies (McCauley et 

al., 2000b). Auditory trauma was found in two humpback whales that died following the detonation of a 

5,000 kilogram 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.

Within the Hawaii Range Complex, humpback whales may be exposed to sound or energy from 

explosions associated with training and testing activities, which occur throughout the year. However, 

most activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive munitions typically occur more than 3 

NM from shore in areas that are designated for explosive use except for some activities at the Navy’s 

Puuloa Underwater Range near Pearl Harbor. Historical data suggests that explosive events are most 

likely to be scheduled at Puuloa Underwater Training Range, W-188, or KAPU HOT in W-192 south of 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-47

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Oahu (Figure K.3-3) for ease of scheduling, safety, instrumentation, and airspace concerns. These areas 

are outside of the Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Area, though W-188 is 

adjacent to the Northwest Kauai portion of the reproduction area. Humpback whales within the 

breeding area would not be directly exposed to sound or energy from explosions; therefore, impacts on 

breeding behaviors would not be anticipated within the humpback whale reproduction area from 

training and testing with explosives.

K.3.1.1.2.3 Vessel Strikes 

Vessel strikes have been documented for almost all mysticetes species (Van der Hoop et al., 2015), 

including humpback whales (Lammers et al., 2003; Vanderlaan & Taggart, 2007). From 2007 to 2012 in 

Hawaii, there were 39 vessel collisions between humpback whales and vessels (Bradford & Lyman, 

2015); none of these involved Navy vessels. Lammers et al. (2013) reported that, from 1975 to 2011, 61 

percent of collisions witnessed between humpback whales and vessels in Hawaii involved tour vessels, 

however, some vessel types may under-report collisions. U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy vessels are 

required to report all vessel collisions with whales. There has not been a Navy vessel strike to a 

humpback whale in Hawaiian waters within at least the last decade. 

Most training activities and many testing activities involve the use of vessels. Vessel strikes to large 

whales in the past have not been associated with any specific training or testing activity but rather a 

limited, sporadic, and accidental result of Navy vessel movements within the HSTT Study Area. Vessel 

movements can be widely dispersed throughout the HSTT Study Area, but for the most part occur within 

the established range complexes, and in Hawaii are concentrated at Pearl Harbor. Refer to Section 

3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels) for estimated vessel use by range complex. 

K.3.1.2 Northwest Kauai Humpback Whale Reproduction Area

The Northwest Kauai Humpback Whale Reproduction Area is located on the northwest side of Kauai, 

extending from Kilauea, around the Na Pali coast, into the Kaulakahi Channel, and to Waimea Bay on the 

southwestern side of the island (Figure K.3-1). The area reaches from the shoreline to approximately 44 

km offshore. The water depth in the biologically important area is within the 1,000 m isobath, which 

encompasses the depth range of habitat preferred by both male and female humpbacks (Baird et al., 

2015a). Two bays are adjacent to the biologically important area; Hanalei Bay is on the north shore of 

Kauai, and Waimea Bay is on the west shore. A small boat harbor called Kikiaola is located near 

Waimea Bay.

The Northwest Kauai Humpback Whale Reproduction Area does not overlap with any HSTT Settlement 

Areas; however, the area does overlap with the existing Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area and 

the Hawaiian Island Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary located on the north side of 

Kauai (Figure K.3-1).

K.3.1.2.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Northwest Kauai Humpback Whale Reproductive Area overlaps with the Navy’s Shallow Water 

Training Range and a small portion of the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range, both of which are 

part of the U.S. Naval Pacific Missile Range Facility (hereafter referred to as Pacific Missile Range Facility) 

on the western side of Kauai. The Pacific Missile Range Facility contains the Navy’s premier 

instrumented, multi-environmental ranges which are used for a variety of training and testing activities 

(see Section 2.1.1, Hawaii Range Complex). The Pacific Missile Range Facility is the world's largest 

instrumented multi-environment range capable of supporting surface, subsurface, air, and space 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-48

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

operations simultaneously. Both the Shallow Water Training Range and the Barking Sands Tactical 

Underwater Range are under controlled or restricted air space, specifically Warning Area 188(A) (W188A) and Restricted Area 3101 (R-3101) (Figure K.3-1).There are over 1,100 square miles of 

instrumented underwater range and over 42,000 square miles of controlled airspace. The Pacific Missile 

Range Facility supports operations which vary from small, single-unit exercises up to largescale, 

multiple-unit battle group scenarios.

The existing infrastructure is unique, providing a full spectrum of range support, including radar, 

underwater instrumentation (e.g., bottom-mounted transducers and hydrophones), telemetry, 

electronic warfare, remote target command and control, communications, data display and processing, 

and target⁄weapon launching and recovery facilities. The Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range 

provides underwater tracking and communication for an area of approximately 100 NM2

, and the 

Shallow Water Training Range covers 80 NM2

. 

Both the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range and the Shallow Water Training Range are regularly 

used for anti-submarine warfare, anti-submarine tracking exercises, anti-submarine torpedo exercises, 

and anti-submarine coordinated exercises like Submarine Command Course and Rim of The Pacific, 

while the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range is also specifically used for Naval Surface Fire 

Support. These ranges provide operators with a shallow-water sonar training area to conduct shallowwater sonar proficiency training and readiness activities under realistic conditions on an 

instrumented range. 

Mine-laying events are designed to train forces to conduct offensive (deploying mines to tactical 

advantage of friendly forces) and defensive (deploying mines for protection of friendly forces and 

facilities) mining events. Aerial mining occurs off the southwest coast of Kauai and the southeast coast 

of Niihau, in W-186 and W-188. Submarine mining events are conducted in W-188. Air Operations are 

conducted within R-3101, which completely overlaps the Northwest Kauai Humpback Whale 

Reproductive Area. Inert mine shapes may be released into the ocean during these training events. W188 is used for a variety of anti-air warfare and -surface warfare exercises including torpedo, missile and 

gunnery exercises, however, only small nearshore portions of W-188(a) and W-186 overlap with the 

Humpback Whale Reproduction Area around Kauai. However, is it unlikely that torpedo, missile and 

gunnery events would overlap with the biologically important area because of its nearshore location;

these events typically occur further offshore. 

The Pacific Missile Range Facility supports training, tactics development, and testing of air, surface, and 

subsurface weapons systems for the Navy. The instrumentation on the ranges yields a 10 ft. tracking 

accuracy, which is crucial for reconstruction, grading and feedback on events. This maximizes the value 

of available training and testing opportunities. Because of its unique infrastructure and un-encroached 

geographic range, it is also the lead range for a variety of testing and evaluation events. Ongoing testing 

and evaluation programs include torpedo, torpedo defense, submarine and periscope detection, shipdefense systems, and other miscellaneous programs (such as gunnery and special weapons tests).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-49

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.3.1.2.2 Northwest Kauai Humpback Whale Reproduction Area Mitigation Considerations 

The Northwest Kauai Humpback Whale Reproduction Area is mostly in shallow, nearshore waters of 

Kauai where the Navy does not typically conduct activities that involve sonar or other transducers. The 

Navy typically conducts the vast majority of more complex and coordinated anti-submarine warfare

training or testing and major training events farther offshore on the underwater-instrumented ranges in 

waters that do not overlap with the Northwest Kauai Humpback Whale Reproduction Area. 

A portion of the Northwest Kauai Humpback Whale Reproduction Area overlaps the Humpback Whale 

Special Reporting Areas, where since 2009, annual reporting indicates this is a low use area for midfrequency active sonar during the humpback whale reproduction period. However, sound from sonar or 

other transducers or explosives used within the Shallow Water Training Range and the Barking Sands 

Tactical Underwater Range could propagate into the humpback whale reproduction area and potentially 

expose whales located within the area to acoustic stressors. Sound propagating from a distant source is 

subject to signal loss as it travels through the water column and transitions from deep water to shallow 

water areas, which would result in lower received levels within the reproductive area. Animals within 

the Northwest Kauai Humpback Whale Reproduction Area could be exposed to sound from sonar or 

other transducers and sound and energy from explosives, and some behavioral or temporary impacts 

could occur from the occasional use of sonar and explosives during training and testing events at the 

Pacific Missile Range Facility. Reducing or limiting Navy training and testing in the Kauai area as part of 

geographic mitigation would push critical training and testing into areas that may be constrained, or 

require deconflicting air and seaspace with other users, could compromise personnel safety, and would 

reduce the effectiveness of training and testing by increasing the risk to safety and encroachment. One 

of the primary purposes of the Navy’s instrumented ranges is to facilitate a safe training and testing 

environment for surface vessels and submarines operating simultaneously by acoustically tracking 

event participants. 

K.3.1.3 East Niihau Humpback Whale Reproduction Area

The East Niihau Humpback Whale Reproduction Area is located on the east side of Niihau, extending 

along the east side of the island from Kawaihoa Point to the northern tip of the island and including a 

portion of the Kaulakahi Channel, which separates Niihau and Kauai (Figure K.3-1). The water depth in 

the biologically important area ranges up to approximately 870 m (2,800 ft.), within the range of habitat 

preferred by both male and female humpbacks (Baird et al., 2015a). Several bays and inlets are located 

along the coast of Niihau and adjacent to the biologically important area, but none of these areas 

are populated. 

The East Niihau Humpback Whale Reproduction Area does not overlap with any HSTT Settlement Areas; 

however, the East Niihau Humpback Whale Reproduction Area does overlap with the existing Hawaiian 

Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary and the Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area 

in Hawaii.

K.3.1.3.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The East Niihau Humpback Whale Reproduction Area overlaps with the Kingfisher Underwater Training 

Area, which is located off the southeast coast of Niihau in water depths ranging from approximately 200 

to 350 ft. Kingfisher is a simulated underwater minefield used for training with active sonar 

(Figure K.3-1).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-50

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.3.1.3.2 East Niihau Humpback Whale Reproduction Area Mitigation Considerations

The East Niihau Humpback Whale Reproduction Area is mostly in shallow, nearshore waters where the 

Navy does not typically conduct activities that involve sonar or other transducers, with the exception of 

simulated underwater minefield that is used for training with mine detection systems in the Kingfisher 

Underwater Training Range. Explosives are not typically used within the East Niihau Humpback Whale 

Reproduction Area.

As discussed in Sections 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers) and 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts 

from Explosives), humpback whale reactions to sonar and explosives (impulsive sounds) 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, like feeding or 

calling at breeding sites. Therefore, significant impacts on humpback whale reproductive behaviors from 

training and testing with sonar and other transducers or explosives are unlikely to occur within the East 

Niihau Humpback Whale Reproduction Area.

Reducing or limiting Navy training and testing in the Niihau area as part of geographic mitigation would

reduce the effectiveness of training and testing. East Niihau Humpback Whale Reproduction Area 

overlaps with the Kingfisher Underwater Tracking Range, which is a simulated underwater minefield 

used for training with active sonar. This infrastructure and the bathymetry where it is located are unique 

to the area which is in close proximity to Pacific Missile Range Facility and Pearl Harbor. Navy training 

and testing events may also require vessels to move around Kauai and Niihau and through the channel 

separating the islands as an integral part of tactical scenarios. Realistic training in proper tactics, 

techniques and procedures cannot be achieved if pieces of the ocean environment and nearshore 

waters around the islands of Kauai and Niihau are unavailable for full tactical employment and scenario 

development due to geographic mitigation.

K.3.1.4 North Oahu Humpback Whale Reproduction Area

The North Oahu Humpback Whale Reproduction Area is located on the north side of Oahu. The

reproduction area extends from Kaaawa on the east side of Oahu, around Kahuku Point, and then 

around Kaena Point on the west side of the island (Figure K.3-1). The area extends seaward 

approximately 17 km from shore along its entire length. The water depth in the biologically important 

area ranges up to approximately 700 m, which is shallower than other reproductive areas and may be 

used more by female-calf pairs than males (Baird et al., 2015a). There are no major ports landward of 

the area.

The North Oahu Humpback Whale Reproduction Area does not overlap with any HSTT Settlement Areas; 

however, it does overlap with the Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Sanctuary and the 

existing Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area.

K.3.1.4.1 Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing

The North Oahu Humpback Whale Reproduction Area minimally overlaps with Warning Area 189 

(W-189). While W-189is routinely used by MH-60s and other rotary wing aircraft for non-explosive 

gunnery and rockets, and for dipping sonar used during anti-submarine warfare training, these activities 

occur outside of the reproduction area. Training and testing using in-water explosives are not typically 

conducted within the boundaries of the North Oahu Humpback Whale Reproduction Area as this area is 

not a designated underwater training range nor is it within Special Use Airspace.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-51

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.3.1.4.2 North Oahu Humpback Whale Reproduction Area Mitigation Considerations

The North Oahu Humpback Whale Reproduction Area is in shallow, nearshore 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 and testing or major training events, or the use of 

explosives. Designated Navy training ranges offshore of Oahu are all located on the south side of the 

island and do not overlap with the North Oahu Humpback Whale Reproduction Area.

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers) and 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts 

from Explosives), humpback whale reactions to sonar and explosives 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, like feeding or calling at breeding sites. 

K.3.1.5 Southeast Oahu Humpback Whale Reproduction Area, and Settlement Area 2-D

The Southeast Oahu Humpback Whale Reproduction Area is located on the southeast side of Oahu, and 

extends from Diamond Head, around Maunalua Bay, Koko Head, and Makapuu Point and north into the 

southern half of Waimanalo Bay (Figure K.3-1). The biologically important area extends 33 km along its 

length on the coastline from Makapuu Point (Baird et al., 2015a). The water depth in the biologically 

important area ranges up to approximately 600 m.

The Kaiwi Channel (or Molokai Channel) separates the islands of Oahu and Molokai and is approximately 

49 km wide. This reproduction area overlaps with a coastal portion of the channel, with the Hawaiian 

Islands Humpback Whale National Sanctuary and with a very small and essentially negligible portion of 

HSTT Settlement Area 2-D. Maximum depth in the channel is approximately 700 m. It would not be 

unusual for humpback whales to traverse the channel as they travel between Penguin Bank and areas 

off Oahu.

K.3.1.5.1 Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing

The Kaiwi Channel is used for opportunistic training within a channel environment for Navy ships 

stationed in Pearl Harbor. It also is an area used for opportunistic mid-frequency active sonar and 

anti-submarine warfare training when ships are present in this area. Larger, coordinated training events 

that involve protecting a high-value unit during a strait transit typically occur in the seaspace west of 

Hawaii Island (a primary venue for carrier strike group training), in the Alenuihaha Channel. 

Training and testing using in-water explosives are not conducted in the Kaiwi Channel, as this area is not 

a designated underwater training range or within Special Use Airspace, typically necessary for in-water 

explosive usage.

K.3.1.5.2 Southeast Oahu Humpback Whale Reproduction Area Mitigation Considerations

The Southeast Oahu Humpback Whale Reproduction Area is in shallow, nearshore waters where the 

Navy does not routinely conduct activities that involve sonar or other transducers, especially more 

intense activities such as anti-submarine warfare training and testing or major training events. 

Designated Navy training ranges offshore Oahu are all located on the south side of the island and do not 

overlap with this Humpback Whale Reproduction Area. 

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers) and 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts 

from Explosives), humpback whale reactions to sonar and explosives 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, like feeding or calling at breeding sites. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-52

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.3.1.6 4-Islands Region and Penguin Bank Humpback Whale Reproduction Area, and 

Settlement Area 2-A and 2-B

The 4-Islands Region Humpback Whale Reproduction Area encompasses an area of approximately 

2,000 square kilometers (km2

). The area is located south of the island of Molokai and encompasses the

area over Penguin Bank and between Lanai, Maui, and Molokai. Penguin Bank extends southwest 

approximately 60 km off Molokai and is 30 km at its widest point. Dynamic oceanographic conditions 

characterize the area, which includes Kalohi Channel between Molokai and Lanai, Pailolo Channel 

between Molokai and Maui, the Kealaikahiki Channel between Lanai and Kahoolawe, the Alakeiki 

Channel between Maui and Kahoolawe, Kanapou Bay on Kahoolawe, Maalaea Bay on Maui, and the 

Kaunakakai Harbor on Molokai. The water depth in much of the biologically important area is less than 

400 m, which is shallower than other reproductive areas and may be preferred by female-calf pairs 

more than males (Baird et al., 2015a). 

The 4-Islands Region Humpback Whale Reproduction Area overlaps with HSTT Settlement Area 2-A and 

2-B, the Main Hawaiian Island Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, and the Humpback Whale 

Cautionary Area.

K.3.1.6.1 Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing

The 4-Islands Region provides a unique training capability that does not exist elsewhere in the Hawaii 

Range Complex and is an ideal location for shallow water anti-submarine and mine warfare activities 

because of the bathymetry and bottom type. This unique combination of bathymetry and bottom type is 

very limited within the Hawaii Range Complex which provides invaluable training in a shallow water 

environment for anti-submarine warfare search, tracking and avoidance of opposing forces. Penguin 

Bank particularly is used for shallow water submarine testing and anti-submarine warfare training 

because of its large expanse of shallow bathymetry. While submarines do not typically use midfrequency active sonar, relying primarily on passive sonar (listening mode) to avoid detection from 

adversaries, submarines are required to train in counter detection tactics, techniques and procedures 

against threat surface vessels, airborne anti-submarine warfare units and other threat submarines using 

mid-frequency active sonar as part of both their perspective commanding officers qualification course 

and pre-deployment certification. 

The ability for surface vessels and air assets to simulate opposing forces, using use mid frequency active 

sonar when training with submarines, is critical to submarine crew training for deployed and wartime 

operations. Surface warfare training is designed to support unit-level training requirements and group 

cross-platform events in 28 mission areas for surface ship certification prior to deployment. The 

Required Operational Capabilities and Required Operational Environment guidance outlines 

anti-submarine warfare areas specifically requiring crews to accomplish 58 major tasks to support both 

deep and shallow water anti-submarine training activities, across multiple domains of the open ocean 

and littoral areas, while conducting unit and group self-defense training across multiple platforms and 

defensive operations.

Submarine Command Course training is conducted twice a year in Hawaii, in February and August, (with 

the intermittent use of active sonar over a 3¬5-day-period per event). Submarine Command Course 

training is an Integrated/Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training exercise. The 4-Islands Region is 

used for Submarine Command Course training as a location to train prospective Submarine 

Commanding Officers to operate in shallow water. The Pailolo and Kalohi Channels are used to simulate 

strait transits and provide valuable experience that the prospective Commanding Officers would 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-53

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

experience while deployed. The Pailolo and Kalohi Channels are used to simulate strait transits and 

provides a realistic shallow water environment for qualification of prospective Commanding Officers.

The winter (February) Submarine Command Course training will typically occur north of Maui to avoid 

typical whale reproduction areas from December to April.

While the current HSTT settlement agreement prohibits the use of in-water explosives for training and 

testing in Areas 2-A and 2-B which overlap with the Humpback Whale Reproduction Area, the area has 

not typically been used for explosives training and testing. All training in the 4-Islands Region is 

conducted using non-explosive munitions. The northern Maui Basin north of Kahului is used for shallow

water non-explosive torpedo training. Non-explosive exercise torpedo firing could also be scheduled in 

the area between Maui, Lanai, and Kahoolawe but generally only in summer during Submarine 

Command Course (August). For the winter Submarine Command Course typically conducted in February, 

exercise torpedo firings will typically be north of Maui to avoid areas of high densities of humpback 

whales. This training area critical as it is the only location where the Navy can conduct very shallow 

water exercise torpedo firings at surface ships, MK-30 targets and simulated operating forward

submarines. In addition to being non-explosive, these torpedoes and targets are recoverable in this 

shallow water area if they experience a failure of the buoyancy systems.

Surface vessels and air assets work with submarines in that area while conducting submarine 

Commanding Officer’s training scenarios that include extended shallow water operations at periscope 

depth, general surveillance missions in shallow water, shallow water weapons employment, close to 

shore navigation, shallow water minefield operations, and shallow water ship control. Such training 

evolutions are necessary for the Commanding Officer to learn the skills necessary, while protecting the 

vessel, to ensure the crews are capable of executing their mission.

Additionally, the 4-Islands Region possesses other attributes which make it an important area for 

anti-submarine and mine warfare training and testing:

• Training and certifications are conducted throughout the year in support of Pacific Command/ 

Joint Staff ordered deployment requirements and multiple wartime mission crew readiness. A 

typical submarine exercise is approximately 3–4 days in duration. 

• Kahoolawe Minefield is utilized by submarine crews and during Submarine Command Course 

certification training for mine counter measure training and certification. Kahoolawe Minefield 

is used throughout the year to support mine counter measure training in support of wartime 

missions. Mine counter measure training is typically less than one day and does not involve use 

of mid-frequency active sonar by the submarine.

• The area known as the Hawaii Area Tracking System, which is adjacent to the Kahoolawe 

Minefield, is used by submarine crews and Submarine Command Course certification training 

and certification for anti-submarine warfare missions. The certification training involves the 

employment of advance capability torpedoes (non-explosive exercise torpedoes) in a 

challenging shallow water and bottom type environment. Before an exercise torpedo is fired, 

extensive surface surveillance, which may include airborne assets, is conducted. These 

torpedoes are non-explosive and are recovered. Typically, training within the Hawaii Area 

Tracking System is one day in length and does not involve mid-frequency active sonar. While the 

name implies that the area is instrumented, the Navy never installed tracking system 

instruments in the area and the area remains un-instrumented (see Figure 2.1-5).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-54

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

• Expeditionary warfare training is conducted off the west coast of Maui to train swimmers to 

reach a beach with small boats in areas subject to limited access. During this training, no 

explosives are used. 

• Littoral Combat Ship training and certification of the anti-submarine and mine warfare mission 

modules may require use of the Kahoolawe Minefield and shallow water in this area.

• Unit level anti-submarine warfare training during the basic phase is conducted within this area.

• Insertion and extraction utilizing small submersible vessels and small boats (rigid-hulled 

inflatable boats and zodiacs) is conducted around the waters off Maui.

K.3.1.6.2 4-Islands Region and Penguin Bank Humpback Whale Reproduction Area Mitigation 

Considerations

This area provides a unique and irreplaceable shallow water training capability for units to practice 

operations in littoral areas that are both shallow and navigationally constrained. This network of shallow 

water inter-island channels is unique within the mid Pacific training range complexes. The area provides 

an unmatched opportunity for Pearl Harbor based submarines to train in shallow water without the 

need to transit to the SOCAL operating area for shallow water training and certification. Training and 

testing in these littoral areas will allow fleet units to continue to deploy improved sensors and tactics in 

littoral waters into the future.

While mid-frequency active sonar is used infrequently in this area, Submarine Command Course 

certification training effectiveness would be reduced if submarines and surface ships training were 

limited to only the Pacific Missile Range Facility, which already has a significantly busy training and 

testing schedule, making those additional events difficult to absorb. The training value within the 

4-Islands Region is much higher due to the challenging and unique bathymetry (i.e., large shallow water 

areas) which allows for submarine crews to retain and improve their capabilities and to keep up with 

emerging technologies. However, the Navy recognizes the biological importance of this area to 

humpback whales during the reproductive season and strives to limit the use of surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar during that time of year.

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers) and 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts 

from Explosives), humpback whale reactions to sonar and explosives 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, like feeding or calling at breeding sites. The Navy 

does not typically use explosives in the 4-Islands Region. 

The 4-Islands Region Humpback Whale Reproduction Area, excluding Penguin Bank, completely overlaps 

with Navy’s current Humpback Whale Cautionary Area. As described above in Section K.3.1.6.1 (Navy 

Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing), the Navy utilizes this area because of the unique 

characteristics for some military readiness activities. While balancing the importance of the area for 

humpback whales by avoiding or reducing adverse impacts from surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar with the unique environment for training and testing, the Navy proposes to

expand the size and extend the season of the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area (Figure K.3-7) and 

continue to implement the requirement that the Navy would receive approval prior to the use of surface 

ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar in the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area during the 

calving season, see Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-55

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.3.1.7 Northwest Hawaii Island Humpback Whale Reproduction Area, Settlement Areas 

1-B, 1-C, and 1-D

The Northwest Hawaii Island Humpback Whale Reproduction Area encompasses approximately 700 km2

and is 17 km at its widest point. The area is located on the northwest side of the island of Hawaii and 

extends from the northern tip south for approximately 10 km to the westernmost point of the island, 

skirting Kawaihae Bay and Kiholo Bay. The water depth in the biologically important area reaches 

approximately 800 m. Vessels entering and leaving Kawaihae harbor may transit through a portion of 

the biologically important area. No Navy ranges are located off the island of Hawaii.

The Northwest Hawaii Island Humpback Whale Reproduction Area overlaps with HSTT Settlement Areas 

1-B, 1-C, and 1-D, the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, and the Humpback 

Whale Special Reporting Area.

K.3.1.7.1 Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing

The Alenuihaha Channel, as well as the waters north and west of Hawaii Island, provides a unique 

training capability that does not exist elsewhere in the Hawaiian Range Complex. The Alenuihaha 

Channel is an ideal location for strait transits training using mid-frequency active sonar. The Alenuihaha 

Channel is an actual channel that provides a vital and realistic analog for similar straits worldwide where 

the Navy operates, such as the South China Sea or the Strait of Hormuz. For example, transit training in

the Alenuihaha Channel replicates these types of strait environments that meet the Navy’s requirement 

to deploy Naval forces to ensure the free flow of commerce and the freedom of navigation by 

combatting piracy or mine threats. Naval forces are required to train to counter a submarine threat 

before deployment – to ensure the first time a surface asset conducts anti-submarine warfare training in 

a strait prior to being deployed to the Strait of Hormuz or similar areas. Additionally, this channel 

provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because there is a shallow trench running through 

part of the channel. There are few geographic areas that enable forces to do this type of training outside 

of the HSTT Study Area or that would not have similar effects on the marine environment.

The ability of an aircraft carrier to defend itself from submarine attack, with all available assets while 

conducting straits transits, is critical to its survival in forward operating areas. The channel is located 

outside most of the civilian air traffic corridors approaching the Honolulu International Airport, which is 

necessary to safely de-conflict with civilian air traffic.

While there are other channels within the Hawaiian Range Complex, none provide the important 

attributes of the Alenuihaha Channel. Using other channels for strait transits could introduce additional 

problems. The additional distance of other available channels from Pohakuloa Training Area would 

result in training being segmented and could impact the realism of the training as well as increase time 

and fuel costs due to transiting further between training areas. The channel between Niihau and Kauai is 

also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add at least two days of transit during each

Under Sea Warfare training exercise (time required to move through a different channel and reposition 

to operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). The channel between Oahu and Molokai is also 

acceptable from some mid-frequency active sonar training perspective, but it is also a significant civilian 

air corridor, and raises safety concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft flying in that channel. In 

addition, the channel between Nihau and Kauai is proximate to the Pacific Missile Range Facility 

instrumented range) which would result in problems de-conflicting multiple activities and hazardous 

operations, raising safety concerns. The channel between Oahu and Molokai is located under a 

significant civilian air corridor, and its use would raise safety concerns for anti-submarine warfare 

aircraft flying in that channel during major training events. For these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still 

the most suitable for anti-submarine warfare training.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-56

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

The Northwest Hawaii Island Humpback Whale Reproduction Area includes waters approaching 

Kawaihae Harbor, the point of amphibious insertion for forces proceeding to the range at Pohakuloa 

Training Area, which is the only range in the Hawaiian Range Complex that supports ground force and 

aviation live-fire training. Training in this area allows for the integration of carrier strike group 

operations and amphibious landings, working in conjunction within a controlled airspace west of Hawaii 

Island for military training near the Pohakuloa Training Area. 

As an air-to-ground range, Pohakuloa Training Area supports carrier strike group activities near a 

channel and near large open water areas for strike group maneuvering and submarine activities. Midfrequency active sonar conducted to support strike maneuver and protect high value units (e.g., carrier) 

as aircraft go to strike at Pohakuloa Training Area is vital.

Hawaii Island is unique in that it is provides the only capable air-to-ground range able of conducting 

carrier and expeditionary strike group activities near a channel with unfettered access to the open 

ocean. Open ocean areas support strike group maneuvering, using mid-frequency active sonar to 

prosecute (detect/track) a submarine in the vicinity of a high value unit (e.g., carrier) as aircraft execute 

strikes into Pohakuloa Training Area. The area around Hawaii Island is also used by surface ships with 

anti-submarine warfare capability to train for clearing the sea space of any submarine threat before 

Marines go ashore at Kawaihae Harbor (part of Rim of the Pacific and Marine Corps unit-level training 

scenarios). There are limited locations for amphibious landings in Hawaii due to existing environmental 

concerns. The west coast of Hawaii is one of the best locations for integrated joint marine amphibious 

operations because of its close proximity to the Pohakuloa Training Area which is the only range in the 

Hawaiian Range Complex that supports ground force and aviation live-fire training.

Activities utilizing in-water explosives, such as bombing or torpedo exercises, are not conducted in the 

waters within this Main Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Reproduction Biologically Important Area 

since it is not within controlled airspace.

K.3.1.7.2 Northwest Hawaii Island Humpback Whale Reproduction Area Mitigation 

Considerations

The Northwest Hawaii Island Humpback Whale Reproduction Area is in shallow, nearshore 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 and testing or major training events or 

the use of explosives. While some impacts on reproductive behavior could occur depending on the 

proximity of sound-producing activities to the reproductive areas, humpback whale reactions to sonar 

and explosives (impulsive sounds) 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, like feeding or calling at breeding sites. 

The Navy balanced the need for the use of the area to meet training and testing requirements with the 

biological importance of the area for humpback whales and other species. The Navy proposes to 

implement mitigation areas that overlap the Northwest Hawaii Island Humpback Whale Reproduction 

Area. See Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) for details on these proposed 

mitigation areas:

1. West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area – limits the amount of surface ship 

hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during anti-submarine major training exercises yearround (Figure K.2-4);
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-57

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

2. West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area – restricts the use of in-water explosives during testing, 

unit-level training and major training exercises year-round (Figure K.2-8); and

3. East-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area – restricts surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency 

active sonar and all in-water explosives during testing, unit-level training and anti-submarine 

major training exercises year-round (Figure K.2-7).

Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad 

spectrum of naval and amphibious training. These areas provide a unique and irreplaceable capability 

within the Hawaiian Range Complex that allows naval forces to conduct realistic, integrated training in 

an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will be called to serve.

As noted above in Section K.3.1.7.1 (Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing), limiting 

or restricting mid-frequency active sonar training in the Alenuihaha Channel would force the separation 

or relocation of portions of Undersea Warfare training, Independent Deployer Certification training, Rim 

of the Pacific, and unit level training exercises to other channels in the Hawaiian Operating Areas 

(OPAREA) further from the Pohakuloa Training Area range thereby increasing transit time and fuel costs 

(while increasing the Navy’s carbon footprint) to relocate to other channels further away from the 

Pohakuloa Training Area. Undersea Warfare certification training occurs up to three times per year; Rim 

of the Pacific occurs once every two years; Independent Deployer Certification training occurs once per 

year. Segmenting these training events over time and space would result in an increased unacceptable 

loss of realism, could result in increased safety risks, and would erode strike group readiness.

The channel between Niihau and Kauai is also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add 

at least two days of transit, for example, during each Under Sea Warfare training exercise and disrupts 

the realism of the training (time required to move through a different channel and reposition to 

operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area. If limited or restricted, use of the Alenuihaha Channel

during a training event with multiple assets involved, the Navy, would be required to relocate mid 

training. While the channel between Oahu and Molokai is also acceptable from some mid-frequency 

active sonar training perspective, this channel is already within a civilian air corridor, raising safety 

concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft. For these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still the most 

suitable for anti-submarine warfare training that enables forces to do this type of training prior to 

being deployed. 

The West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area and the Cautionary Area do not overlap the 

Alenuihaha Channel and therefore, would not limit or restrict the use of that area during critical training 

activities necessary to meet military readiness requirements.

K.3.1.8 Humpback Whale Reproduction Area Mitigation Assessment

The Humpback Whale Reproduction Area overlaps with a small portion of the Hawaii Range Complex 

and specific ranges, and is located within nearshore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct 

activities that involve sonar or other transducers, especially more intense activities such as antisubmarine warfare training or major training events. However, animals within the area could be 

exposed to sound from sonar or other transducers, or explosions, and some behavioral or temporary 

impacts could occur. Humpback whale behavioral reactions to sonar and explosives (impulsive sounds) 

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, like feeding 

or calling at breeding sites. While impacts on humpback whale reproductive behaviors due to training 

and testing with sonar and other transducers may occur within the biologically important sub-areas, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-58

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

they are unlikely to rise to the level of significant under NEPA nor would they be 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. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be 

minor to moderate, from which the individual whale would fully recover quickly.

Since 2009, the Navy has provided NMFS with annual sonar reporting from December through April 

within the Humpback Whale Reporting Areas. When first established, the reporting was used by NMFS 

in order to clarify that these areas were areas of low use for mid-frequency active sonar and to 

determine if additional mitigations were needed. Through this and other reporting requirements, the 

areas with high densities of humpback whales have been identified by the Navy as areas of low use of 

mid-frequency active sonar year-round. Most anti-submarine warfare activity historically occurs well 

offshore, away from areas where the highest densities of humpback whales are found during the winter 

months. If anti-submarine warfare activities were to occur in these areas when high concentrations of 

whales are present, current procedural mitigations that are employed would result in anti-submarine 

warfare activity training and testing activities being unrealistic and ineffective because exercise 

participants would be required to frequently power down or shut down sonar any time a whale was 

sighted within 1,000 yards.

The Navy recognizes the importance of the Humpback Whale Reproduction Area to the species and has 

balanced this with the Navy’s need to train in areas that overlap with the biologically important areas. 

As discussed in Section K.3.1.2.1 (Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing). Reducing 

or limiting Navy training and testing in the Kauai and Niihau areas as part of geographic mitigation would 

not be practicable from an operational perspective. This biologically important area overlaps with the 

Navy’s training and testing instrumented ranges. Reducing or limiting Navy training and testing as part 

of geographic mitigation would reduce the effectiveness of training and testing on these ranges. The 

Humpback Whale Reproduction Area overlaps with the Kingfisher Underwater Tracking Range and the 

Pacific Missile Range Facility, one of which is an underwater minefield used for training with active 

sonar. The Pacific Missile Range Facility contains the Navy’s premier underwater instrumented ranges. 

The infrastructure and the bathymetry where the Kingfisher Underwater Tracking Range and the Pacific 

Missile Range Facility are located, are in close proximity to Pearl Harbor. Relocating, in particular the 

Pacific Missile Range Facility, would result in extraordinary costs (millions of dollars) requiring an act 

from Congress. In addition, there are no other viable locations within the HRC in which to relocate these 

ranges and would also result in economic losses to the communities of Kauai through job losses. In 

addition, relocating these ranges in the HRC would only transfer the effects of training and testing to 

other habitats or other species/stocks.

Navy training and testing events may also require vessels to move around Kauai and Niihau and through 

the channel separating the islands as an integral part of tactical scenarios. Training and testing realism 

would be hampered if pieces of the ocean environment and nearshore waters around the islands of 

Kauai and Niihau are unavailable for full tactical employment and scenario development consideration 

due to geographic mitigation. 

Reducing or limiting Navy training and testing in the Southeast Oahu area is not likely to be effective in 

reducing or avoiding impacts given that the Navy does not routinely conduct activities that involve sonar 

or other transducers or explosives in this portion of the Humpback Whale Reproduction Area, and 

impacts to humpback whales occurring in this area are not anticipated. However, the Navy does propose 

to establish mitigation areas that overlap with some other portions of the Humpback Whale 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-59

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Reproduction Area in order to provide extra protections to this species during the reproduction season.

See Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) for more details on these mitigation areas:

1. In establishing the West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-4), the Navy 

would limit the number of major training exercises using surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar that could occur annually unless an increase in these activities is deemed 

necessary due to national security. 

2. In the West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (K.2-8), the Navy would not use any in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round. If a naval 

unit needs to use explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises in 

this area for national security, permission shall be required from the delegated Command 

authority conducting the activity prior to their use in the Cautionary Area.

3. The Navy would not use any surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round in the Eastside Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-7). Again, should national security require the use 

of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or in-water explosives in the area, 

permission shall be required from the delegated Command authority conducting the activity 

prior to their use in the Cautionary Area.

4. The Navy would restrict the use of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar in the 

Humpback Whale Cautionary Area from November 15 through April 15. Should national security 

present a requirement for using surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during 

Navy training or testing in the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area, the Navy will require approval 

from the delegated Command authority, prior to its use in the Cautionary Area.

5. The Navy will provide NMFS with annual enhanced sonar reporting for the areas identified as 

Humpback Whale Reporting Areas. Enhanced reporting includes information on specific acoustic 

sources, specific activities, and the level of activity in annual classified reports to NMFS.

The Navy determined that by establishing these mitigation areas, there was the potential to further 

avoid or reduce the number and level of impacts to this species and other species or stocks occurring 

within the biologically important area without compromising military readiness by reducing the 

effectiveness of training and testing or decreasing the safety of personnel. Establishing any additional 

mitigation areas within other Humpback Whale Reproduction Areas would either be impracticable to 

implement as they are adjacent to or within areas of high use and provide critical infrastructure or 

environmental conditions that are not easily replicated elsewhere, or are areas identified as low use by 

the Navy and adverse impacts to the population of humpback whales are not anticipated.

While the Navy is proposing to establish mitigation areas adjacent to the Alenuihaha Channel, the 

environmental conditions presented by the Alenuihaha Channel cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the 

Hawaiian Islands. As discussed above in Section K.3.1.7.1 (Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training 

and Testing), due to the strategic importance of the Alenuihaha Channel, use of surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar training in the channel during portions of Undersea Warfare 

training, Independent Deployer Certification training, Rim of the Pacific, and unit level training and other 

exercises allows naval forces to train in an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will 

be called to serve. 

Balancing the needs of the area for this species and other species as well as the Navy’s need to access 

and use sonar in this area was considered. Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west 

of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad spectrum of naval and amphibious training. Additionally, this 

channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because there is a shallow trench running 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-60

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

through part of the channel. Establishing a mitigation area measure that would impede access and limit 

unit-level training and major training exercises or testing within the Alenuihaha Channel or impede the 

free execution of Navy tactical and operational procedures for these events would be impracticable to 

implement without impacting the effectiveness of military readiness. 

The channel between Niihau and Kauai is also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add 

at least two days of transit, for example, during each Under Sea Warfare training exercise and disrupts 

the realism of the training (time required to move through a different channel and reposition to 

operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). If limited or restricted, use of the Alenuihaha Channel 

during a training event with multiple assets involved, the Navy, would be required to relocate mid

training. While the channel between Oahu and Molokai is also acceptable from some mid-frequency 

active sonar training perspective, this channel is already within a civilian air corridor, raising safety 

concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft. For these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still the most 

suitable for anti-submarine warfare training that enables forces to do this type of training prior to being 

deployed. Balancing the needs of the area for this species and other species as well as the Navy’s need 

to access and use sonar in this area was considered. 

Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad 

spectrum of naval and amphibious training. Additionally, this channel provides a unique acoustic and 

tactical environment because there is a shallow trench running through part of the channel. Establishing 

a mitigation area measure that would impede access and limit unit-level training and major training 

exercises or testing within the Alenuihaha Channel or impede the free execution of Navy tactical and 

operational procedures for these events would be impracticable to implement without impacting the 

effectiveness of military readiness.

In addition to the mitigation areas proposed above and summarized in Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to 

be Implemented), the Navy proposes to continue implementing procedural mitigation measures 

throughout the HSTT Study Area during training and testing activities that use active sonar and other 

transducers or explosives. These procedural mitigations prescribe reducing the sound level or powering 

off sonar systems or transducers if marine mammals are sighted within the mitigation zones (see 

Chapter 5 for details). Mitigation measures for activities using explosives includes observing a mitigation 

zone prior to and during the activity. Mysticetes, including humpback whales, are very large with typical 

dive durations lasting less than ten minutes and have conspicuous exhalation “blows” that can be seen 

many kilometers away. Therefore, it is highly likely that most mysticetes would be sighted and 

mitigation measures could be fully implemented if the animal enters the mitigation zone, greatly 

reducing potential impacts. Procedural mitigations are designed to provide protection to all marine 

mammal species year-round throughout the Study Area, including humpback whales during the 

reproductive season.

With respect to whether additional mitigation is warranted because of the potential for a vessel strike, 

as discussed in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), Navy vessels operate differently from 

commercial vessels in ways important to the prevention of vessel strikes. Surface ships operated by or 

for the Navy have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when a ship or surfaced 

submarine is moving through the water (underway). A primary duty of personnel standing watch on 

surface ships is to detect and report all objects and disturbances sighted in the water that may indicate a 

threat to the vessel and its crew, such as debris, a periscope, surfaced submarine, or surface 

disturbance. Per vessel safety requirements, personnel standing watch also report any marine mammals 

sighted in the path of the vessel as a standard collision avoidance procedure. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-61

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Implementing the Navy’s Marine Species Awareness Training, beginning in 2006, along with other 

existing Navy mitigation measures intended to ensure that vessels avoid whales, correlates well with the 

reduction of strikes on large whales by Navy vessels in the last decade. The existing protection measures 

have been very effective in mitigating the potential for ship strikes both within the HSTT Study Area as 

well as worldwide. Navy vessels proceed at a safe speed at all times so that proper and effective action

can be taken to avoid collision and so they can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the 

prevailing circumstances and conditions.

The Navy will continue to issue seasonal awareness notifications to inform vessels that humpback 

whales may be present in higher concentrations during the calving season throughout the Hawaii Range 

Complex. These notices provide a general heightened level of awareness, not only within a delimited 

biologically important area but also in the surrounding region where high densities of humpback whales 

are likely to be present.

K.3.2 HAWAII ISLAND DWARF SPERM WHALE SMALL AND RESIDENT POPULATION AREA

An area with a small and resident population of dwarf sperm whales in waters off Hawaii Island was 

identified as a year-round biologically important area within the Hawaii Range Complex (Baird et al., 

2015b) (Figure K.3-3). The area is approximately 2,674 km2 in size, is located off the western coastline of 

Hawaii Island, and extends from south Kona to Kawaihae Bay. The area is approximately 42 km at its 

widest point and 85 km long and is somewhat triangular in shape. Water depth in the area ranges from 

approximately 10 m to over 2,600 m. As shown in Table K.1-1, and described in Section K.1.1.2, 

Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area, the Dwarf Sperm Whale Small 

and Resident Population Area overlaps with HSTT Settlement Areas 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, and 2-E.

K.3.2.1 General Biological Assessment

For a thorough description of the dwarf sperm whale species, see Section 3.7.2.3.6 (Dwarf Sperm Whale 

[Kogia sima]). The dwarf sperm whale is protected under the MMPA and 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., 

2017).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-62

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-3: Dwarf Sperm Whale Small and Resident Population Area off Hawaii Island

K.3.2.1.1 Biological Considerations Applicable to the Hawaii Island Dwarf Sperm Whale Small 

and Resident Population Area

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). During small boat 

surveys between 2002 and 2012 in the Main Hawaiian Islands, this species was the fifth most frequently 

encountered species of odontocete (55 sightings) in waters shallower than 1,000 m, with a strong peak 

in the sighting rate where water depth was between 500 and 1,000 m (Baird et al., 2013c; Oleson et al., 

2013). These data suggest that the small and residential population may be using relatively nearshore 

habitat over the continental slope (Baird et al., 2013d; Baird et al., 2015b).

Dwarf sperm whales have been observed 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, therefore suggesting the 

existence of an island-resident population (Baird, 2014; Baird et al., 2015c; Oleson et al., 2013). Pittman 

et al. (2016) reported on sightings of 184 dwarf sperm whales over 69 line transects conducted in both 

summer and winter from 1993 to 2014. The data were integrated from multiple sources and used to 

support spatially explicit predictive models of species occurrence. Dwarf sperm whales were only 

sighted in nearshore waters, with the largest number of sightings occurring off the west coast of the 

island of Hawaii. Efforts at tagging individual dwarf sperm whales off Hawaii are ongoing with the goal of 

further defining their movements and habitat in the region (Baird, 2014).

Genetic analysis has not been undertaken for this species because of insufficient sampling size. Due to a 

relatively small survey effort and the lack of tagging data and genetic analyses in areas of suitable 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-63

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

habitat around the main Hawaiian Islands, it is not known whether additional resident populations exist 

(Baird et al., 2015a).Only two dwarf sperm whales have been detected on the Navy’s Pacific Missile 

Range Facility off the west coast of Kauai during small-boat survey efforts off Kauai and Niihau since 

2003 (Baird et al., 2016b).

K.3.2.1.2 Stressor Analysis

Sonar and Other Transducers

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), dwarf sperm whales may 

be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training and testing activities 

throughout the year. Analysis for the entire Hawaii population estimates that exposures will result in 

behavioral reactions or TTS, and some exposures at levels that result in a few PTS are anticipated.

Odontocetes would likely avoid sound levels that could cause higher levels of TTS (> 20 dB) or PTS. Kogia 

spp. that do experience hearing loss (i.e., TTS or PTS) from sonar sounds may have reduced ability to 

detect biologically important sounds until their hearing recovers. The limited amount of information 

available on Kogia spp. behavioral reactions to human disturbance suggests that these species may be 

more sensitive and avoid human activity, and presumably sound sources, at a longer range than most 

other odontocetes. This sensitivity may also make dwarf sperm whales less susceptible to hearing loss 

due to their avoidance of sound sources; therefore, it is likely that the quantitative acoustic modeling 

over-predicted hearing loss impacts (i.e., TTS and PTS) in dwarf sperm whales.

TTS would be recoverable and PTS would leave some residual hearing loss. During the period that a 

Kogia whale had hearing loss, biologically important sounds could be more difficult to detect or 

interpret. Odontocetes, including Kogia spp., use echolocation clicks to find and capture prey. These 

echolocation clicks are at frequencies above a few tens of kHz in Kogia spp.; therefore, echolocation is 

unlikely to be affected by a threshold shift at lower frequencies and should not affect a Kogia whale’s 

ability to locate prey or feed. 

Research and observations on Kogia whale reactions to sound from sonar or other transducers are not 

available, although Kogia have been observed negatively reacting to vessels by diving and avoiding. 

Reactions, if any, could include alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, diving or 

swimming away, changing 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.

The small and resident population area is a very small portion of the Hawaii Range Complex; therefore, 

the population is likely to be exposed to sound from sonar or other transducers infrequently. While 

impacts on dwarf sperm whale natural behaviors due to training and testing with sonar and other 

transducers may occur within the small and resident population areas, they are unlikely to rise to the 

level of significant under NEPA nor would they be 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. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be minor to moderate, from which 

the individual would fully recover quickly. A small number of PTS may occur in the biologically important 

area, however the majority of PTS would occur outside of the area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-64

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Explosives

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives), quantitative acoustic analysis estimated 

some PTS exposure from explosives for this species; however, the Navy does not conduct training or 

testing activities with explosives off the west coast of Hawaii Island where the dwarf sperm whale small 

and resident population area is located. Therefore, dwarf sperm whales in the area would not be 

exposed directly to sound or energy from explosives and impacts from training or testing with explosives 

would not be anticipated within the small and resident population area.

Vessel Strike

Odontocetes, including dwarf sperm whales that occur within the 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. As discussed in Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water 

Devices) available literature suggests that due to their smaller body size, maneuverability, larger group 

sizes, and hearing capabilities, most small odontocetes are not likely to be struck by a Navy vessel. Most 

small whale and dolphin species have, however, at least occasionally suffered from strikes attributed to 

small boats and craft such as jet skis. 

Generally, 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. Some studies 

established that marine mammals engage in avoidance behavior when surface vessels move toward 

them. It is not clear whether these responses are caused by the physical presence of a surface vessel, 

the underwater noise generated by the vessel, or an interaction between the two.

K.3.2.2 Hawaii Island Dwarf Sperm Whale Small and Resident Population Area, 

Settlement Areas 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, and 2-E

K.3.2.2.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Alenuihaha Channel, as well as the waters north and west of Hawaii Island, provides a unique 

training capability that does not exist elsewhere in the Hawaiian Range Complex. The Alenuihaha 

Channel is an ideal location for strait transits training using mid-frequency active sonar. The Alenuihaha 

Channel is an actual channel that provides a vital and realistic analog for similar straits worldwide where 

the Navy operates, such as the South China Sea or the Strait of Hormuz. For example, transit training in

the Alenuihaha Channel replicates these types of strait environments that meet the Navy’s requirement 

to deploy Naval forces to ensure the free flow of commerce and the freedom of navigation by 

combatting piracy or mine threats. Naval forces are required to train to counter a submarine threat 

before deployment – to ensure the first time a surface asset conducts anti-submarine warfare training in 

a strait prior to being deployed to the Strait of Hormuz or similar areas. There are few geographic areas 

that enable forces to do this type of training outside of the HSTT Study Area or that would not have 

similar effects on the marine environment.

The ability of an aircraft carrier to defend itself from submarine attack with all available assets while

conducting straits transits is critical to its survival in forward operating areas. The channel is located 

outside most of the civilian air traffic corridors approaching the Honolulu International Airport which is 

necessary to safely de-conflict with civilian air traffic.

While there are other channels within the Hawaiian Range Complex, none provide the important 

attributes of the Alenuihaha Channel. Using other channels for strait transits could introduce additional 

problems. The additional distance of other available channels from Pohakuloa Training Area would 

result in training being segmented and could impact the realism of the training as well as increase time 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-65

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

and fuel costs due to transiting further between training areas. The channel between Niihau and Kauai is 

also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add at least two days of transit during each 

Under Sea Warfare training exercise (time required to move through a different channel and reposition 

to operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). The channel between Oahu and Molokai is also 

acceptable from some mid-frequency active sonar training perspective, but it is also a significant civilian 

air corridor, and raises safety concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft flying in that channel. For 

these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still the most suitable for anti-submarine warfare training. In 

addition, the channel between Nihau and Kauai is proximate to the Pacific Missile Range Facility 

instrumented range) which would result in problems de-conflicting multiple activities and hazardous 

operations, raising safety concerns. The channel between Oahu and Molokai is located under a 

significant civilian air corridor, and its use would raise safety concerns for anti-submarine warfare 

aircraft flying in that channel during major training events.

Hawaii Island is unique in that it is provides the only capable air-to-ground range able of conducting 

carrier and expeditionary strike group activities near a channel with unfettered access to the open 

ocean. Open ocean areas support strike group maneuvering, using mid-frequency active sonar to 

prosecute (detect/track) a submarine in the vicinity of a high value unit (e.g., carrier) as aircraft execute 

strikes into Pohakuloa Training Area. The area around Hawaii Island is also used by surface ships with 

anti-submarine warfare capability to train for clearing the sea space of any submarine threat before 

Marines go ashore at Kawaihae Harbor (part of Rim of the Pacific and Marine Corps unit-level training 

scenarios). There are limited locations for amphibious landings in Hawaii due to existing environmental 

concerns. The west coast of Hawaii is one of the best locations for integrated joint marine amphibious 

operations because of its close proximity to the Pohakuloa Training Area which is the only range in the 

Hawaiian Range Complex that supports ground force and aviation live-fire training.

The Hawaii Island Dwarf Sperm Whale Small and Resident Population Area is adjacent to waters 

approaching Kawaihae Harbor, the point of amphibious insertion for forces proceeding to the live-fire 

range at Pohakuloa Training Area.

Activities utilizing in-water explosives, such as underwater detonations, bombing s or torpedo exercises, 

are not conducted in the waters within the Dwarf Sperm Whale Small and Resident Population Area 

since it is not within a designated underwater training range or within Special Use Airspace, typically 

necessary for in-water explosive usage. 

K.3.2.3 Dwarf Sperm Whale Small and Resident Population Area Mitigation Assessment

The Navy has been training and testing in the area with the same basic systems for over 40 years and 

there is no evidence of any adverse impacts having occurred, and there are multiple lines of evidence 

demonstrating the population’s high site fidelity to the area. The identified small and resident 

population area only takes up a very small portion of the Hawaii Range Complex, and sonar use in this 

area would be infrequent and typically only last for a short duration. Very few if any Navy vessels are 

likely to be within the designated area using active mid frequency sonar or other transducers. However, 

during the occasional use of mid-frequency active acoustic sonar during Undersea Warfare training, 

Independent Deployer Certification training, and Rim of the Pacific training, a small number of 

significant behavioral responses from dwarf sperm whales could occur within the small and resident 

population area. Predicted effects on individuals in the dwarf sperm whale resident population are 

expected to be behavioral in response to the use of sonar and other transducers (see Appendix E).

As presented in Section 3.7.1.3.2.2 (Impact Ranges for Sonar and Other Transducers), behavioral impacts 

from a mid-frequency sonar source on a dwarf sperm whale could, theoretically, occur at distances of 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-66

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

tens of nautical miles. Therefore, individual animals within the biologically important area could 

potentially be affected by activities taking place outside of and at great distance from the boundaries of 

the biologically important area. 

The current HSTT settlement agreement prohibits the use of in-water explosives within Areas 1-C, 1-D, 

1-E, and 2-E which overlap with the Dwarf Sperm Whale Small and Resident Population Area. However, 

these areas are not historically used for explosives training and testing; therefore, dwarf sperm whales 

in the small and resident population area would not be exposed directly to sound or energy from 

explosives and impacts would not be anticipated. 

The Navy balanced the need for the use of the area to meet training and testing requirements with the 

biological importance of the area for dwarf sperm whales and other species. The Navy proposes to 

implement mitigation areas that overlap portions of the Small and Resident Population Area. While 

these mitigation areas are designed to provide additional protection for humpback whales, false killer 

whales and some beaked whale species, these measure will also reduce the number and level of impacts 

to these species and other species or stocks occurring within the area, including dwarf sperm whales, 

false killer whales, Cuvier and Blainville’s beaked whales, short-finned pilot whales, melon-headed 

whales, pantropical spotted dolphins, pygmy killer whales, and dolphins occurring within the area

without compromising military readiness (see Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) for 

details on these proposed mitigation areas):

1. In establishing the West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-4), the Navy 

would limit the number of major training exercises using surface ship hull-mounted 

mid-frequency active sonar that could occur annually unless an increase in these activities is 

deemed necessary due to national security. 

2. In the West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (K.2-8), the Navy would not use any in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round. If a naval 

unit needs to use explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises in 

this area for national security, permission shall be required from the delegated Command 

authority conducting the activity prior to their use in the Cautionary Area.

While the Navy is proposing to establish mitigation areas adjacent to the Alenuihaha Channel, the 

environmental conditions presented by the Alenuihaha Channel cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the 

Hawaiian Islands. As discussed above in Section K.3.2.2.1 (Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training 

and Testing), due to the strategic importance of the Alenuihaha Channel, use of surface ship 

hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar training in the channel during portions of Undersea Warfare 

training, Independent Deployer Certification training, Rim of the Pacific, and unit level training and other 

exercises allows naval forces to train in an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will 

be called to serve. Balancing the needs of the area for this species and other species as well as the 

Navy’s need to access and use sonar in this area was considered. Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel 

and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad spectrum of naval and amphibious training. 

Additionally, this channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because there is a 

shallow trench running through part of the channel. Establishing a mitigation area measure that would 

impede access and limit unit-level training and major training exercises or testing within the Alenuihaha 

Channel or impede the free execution of Navy tactical and operational procedures for these events 

would be impracticable to implement without impacting the effectiveness of military readiness. 

The channel between Niihau and Kauai is also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add 

at least two days of transit, for example, during each Under Sea Warfare training exercise and disrupts 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-67

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

the realism of the training (time required to move through a different channel and reposition to 

operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). If limited or restricted, use of the Alenuihaha Channel 

during a training event with multiple assets involved, the Navy, would be required to relocate mid 

training. While the channel between Oahu and Molokai is also acceptable from some mid-frequency 

active sonar training perspective, this channel is already within a civilian air corridor, raising safety 

concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft. For these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still the most 

suitable for anti-submarine warfare training that enables forces to do this type of training prior to 

being deployed.

Balancing the needs of the area for this species and other species as well as the Navy’s need to access 

and use sonar in this area was considered. Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west 

of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad spectrum of naval and amphibious training. Additionally, this 

channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because there is a shallow trench running 

through part of the channel. Establishing a mitigation area measure that would impede access and limit 

unit-level training and major training exercises or testing within the Alenuihaha Channel or impede the 

free execution of Navy tactical and operational procedures for these events would be impracticable to 

implement without impacting the effectiveness of military readiness.

The West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area and the West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area 

do not overlap the Alenuihaha Channel and therefore, would not limit or restrict the use of that area 

during these critical training activities.

As described in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), surface ships operated by or for the 

Navy, have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when a ship or surfaced 

submarine is moving through the water (underway). The Navy’s standard operating procedures 

discussed in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures) and ongoing mitigation measures described 

in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) are designed to avoid or reduce impacts to marine species and stocks 

throughout the Study Area. These measures would also limit the interaction between Navy vessels and 

odontocetes, further reducing the potential for vessel strikes in and outside of identified biologically 

important areas.

K.3.3 FALSE KILLER WHALE SMALL AND RESIDENT POPULATION AREA: MAIN HAWAIIAN ISLAND 

INSULAR STOCK

Areas with a small and resident population of false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) in waters from 

Hawaii Island to Oahu were identified as a year-round biologically important area within the Hawaii 

Range Complex portion of the HSTT Study Area in Van Parijs (2015) and Baird et al. (2015b). The False 

Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Areas are shown on Figure K.3-4 with an overall area that is 

approximately 5,430 km2 and varies from 5 to 55 km in width and 5 to 129 km in length. The water 

depth of the area is up to 2,622 m below sea level. As shown in Table K.1-1, and described in Section 

K.1.1.2, (Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area), these small and 

resident population areas overlap in part with HSTT Settlement Areas 1-A through 1-E, 2-E, and 

2-A through 2-D.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-68

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-4: False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area off Main Hawaiian Islands

K.3.3.1 General Biological Assessment

For a thorough description of the false killer whales species, see Section 3.7.2.2.7.2 (False Killer Whale 

[Pseudorca crassidens]; Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock).

NMFS recognizes three false killer whale stocks within Hawaiian waters including a Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands stock, a pelagic stock and the ESA-listed Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock (Carretta 

et al., 2016, Martien et al., 2014).

K.3.3.1.1 Biological Considerations Applicable to the Main Hawaiian Islands Insular Stock False 

Killer Whales Small and Resident Population Area

This small and resident population area was based upon known high-use areas for the ESA-listed Main 

Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whale. The Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock is estimated to be 

151 individuals (Baird et al., 2015b; Carretta et al., 2017) with a minimum population estimate of 

92 animals (Carretta et al., 2017). The stock boundary extends from west of Niihau to east of Hawaii 

Island and was revised in 2015 after the biologically important area was designated (Bradford & Lyman, 

2015). The Main Hawaiian Islands stock boundary overlaps with both the pelagic and Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands stocks. Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales have been observed in three 

clusters; telemetry data is available for two of the three. A combination of telemetry data, home range 

estimates and expert elicitation was used to qualitatively derive the revised stock boundary after 

qualitative derivation from telemetry-only data provided unsatisfactory results (Bradford & Lyman, 

2015; Carretta et al., 2017). This process appears to illustrate that the stock boundaries are still 

somewhat in flux, and may continue to shift as more data become available. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-69

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Results from visual surveys and satellite tagging were used to delineate several high-use areas within 

this population’s known range (Baird et al., 2012; Baird et al., 2015e). Grid cells with density of satellite 

tag locations (from 22 individuals) greater than one standard deviation above the mean were 

considered “high-use areas” and mapped accordingly to identify the biologically important area (Baird et 

al., 2012; Baird et al., 2015e). Since survey effort was lacking for the spring season, sample size is small 

and there is a lack of tagging data from one of the three social groupings. It is unknown whether 

additional high-use areas or resident populations exist.

As defined, “Small and Resident” includes all life functions, however, NMFS acknowledged that there is 

considerable uncertainty surrounding all aspects of their biology, abundance, trends in abundance and 

threats (Oleson et al., 2010). The NMFS-assembled Take Reduction Team considered the effects of 

potential threats, and included analysis of anthropogenic sound including military sonar and seismic 

exploration. However, NMFS determination was that rather than sound in the water, the highest threats 

to the population were small population size, exposure to environmental contaminants, competition for 

food with commercial fisheries, and hooking, entanglement, or intentional harm by fishers (Oleson et 

al., 2010). Overall, the Take Reduction Team ranked threats related to small population size and 

hooking, entanglement, or intentional harm by fishers as the highest threats to the Hawaiian insular 

false killer whales and NMFS closed a large portion of the stocks’ range to longline fishing in 2012 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012). NMFS is still gathering data to conduct a quantitative 

assessment as to whether the closure has had a positive effect on the stock (Carretta et al., 2017).

Limitations inherent with satellite tags have resulted in data insufficient to determine any behavioral 

characteristics associated especially with the areas most used by this stock compared to other areas of 

their range. Satellite tracking data suggest that individuals move throughout most of the range of the 

population rapidly and semi-regularly (Baird et al., 2010b; Baird et al., 2012) and there is likely no 

specific breeding area within their range. The available evidence also suggests that false killer whales 

feed daily, year-round, throughout their range, as foraging and feeding behavior has been documented 

in virtually all of the long (e.g. >2 h) encounters Baird et al. (2012) had with this population. All of the 

reported visual observations have been in areas that are relatively low-density areas for this population 

so the researchers were unable to directly assess feeding within high density areas (Baird et al., 2012).

NMFS convened a recovery planning workshop in October 2016 where current status, threats and 

recovery goals were discussed. Attendees included the Take Reduction Team, non-governmental 

organizations, and invited contributors including two representatives from the U.S. Navy, Pacific Fleet.

NMFS has provided a summary of the workshop proceedings which indications that fisheries 

interactions are considered the highest threat to the stock, with the effects of contaminants and 

anthropogenic noise needing more research and monitoring (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2017). 

Recovery planning is ongoing, a final recovery plan is anticipated in two to three years and critical 

habitat is expected to be proposed in 2017.

The U.S. Navy has been funding monitoring in the Main Hawaiian Islands under the Pacific Fleet Marine 

Species Monitoring Program since the mid-2000s (see www.marinespeciesmonitoring.us for detailed 

methodology and results). Since 2012, monitoring in the Hawaii Range Complex has occurred primarily 

off Kauai in order to utilize the instrumented hydrophone range at the Pacific Missile Range Facility for 

passive acoustic monitoring and analysis of marine mammal exposure and response to Navy training and 

testing. The Pacific Missile Range Facility is used for a variety of training and testing activities, including 

anti-submarine warfare training which requires use of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar. Since 

2007, several days of marine mammal acoustic data have been obtained and archived from the Pacific 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-70

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Missile Range Facility hydrophones each month for future analysis. The Submarine Command Course

occurs on the range twice a year and utilizes mid-frequency active sonar so it was chosen by US Pacific 

Fleet as the focal training event for monitoring. Additional (classified) data have been archived from 

during the Submarine Command Course since 2011 for post-exercise analysis of marine mammal 

exposure and response. 

Non-systematic boat-based visual surveys have been a part of the monitoring program since 2012. They 

have occurred primarily off the Pacific Missile Range Facility in order to utilize acoustic detection and 

localizations from the instrumented range to direct the at-sea part of the monitoring team to priority 

species for satellite tag deployment and enable opportunistic behavioral exposure and response analysis

to occur. The surveys are scheduled just prior to the Submarine Command Course to maximize the 

possibility of tagging animals that may stay in close proximity to the range during the training event. 

Photos and biopsy samples are also collected to feed analysis of occurrence, population structure and 

habitat use of marine mammals in the archipelago. 

False killer whales are one of the priority species for Navy monitoring in Hawaii and satellite tags were 

deployed on seven individuals off Kauai between 2012 and 2015 (Baird et al., 2014b; Baird et al., 2015e; 

Baird et al., 2016a). Tag attachment ranged from 15 to 108 days. Two animals were from the Main 

Hawaiian Islands insular stock and five from the North West Hawaiian Insular stock. Location data from a

false killer whale tagged off Kauai in 2013 showed a very different pattern in spatial use than had 

previously been documented for false killer whales from the Northwest Hawaiian Islands stock (Baird et 

al., 2014a). Prior to this effort, false killer whales from this population had been tagged on two different 

occasions, off Nihoa in 2010 (Baird et al., 2013a), and off Kauai in June 2012 (Baird et al., 2013e). The 

two previous tagging locations were of individuals from at least two different social groups, although 

movement patterns were generally similar, with broad scale movements from Kauai/Nihoa to Gardner 

Pinnacles (Baird et al., 2013b; Baird et al., 2013e). 

The individual tagged in July 2013 was from the same group as at least two of the individuals tagged in 

July 2012 but in contrast to the movements of the 2012 tag tracks, it remained associated with the Kauai 

and Niihau area for the entire 21 days post-tagging. This includes before, during, and after the 

Submarine Command Course held in August 2013; it passed through the Pacific Missile Range Facility

range twice during the five-day training event. The tag track was compared with mid-frequency acoustic 

sonar usage to estimate received levels of sonar as well as ascertain any behavioral response to the 

sonar (Baird et al., 2014a; Baird et al., 2016b), the results of which are discussed in detail in the Stressor 

Analysis sections below.

The visual, tagging and biopsy data from Navy monitoring has been shared with NMFS to inform their 

understanding of distribution of the three stocks in the Hawaiian Islands. Simultaneously, analysis of 

behavior and habitat use relative to Navy training and testing is ongoing under the monitoring program.

The Navy monitoring data were not collected in the biologically important area; however, some of the 

individuals were from the Main Hawaiian Islands Insular stock. The Navy-funded data contributes to the 

scientific community and the Take Reduction Team’s overall knowledge on this species and stock. 

Ongoing data collection illustrates the need for a larger sample size to more precisely assess habitat use 

and any importance of the biologically important area for life functions such as feeding and breeding.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-71

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.3.3.1.2 Stressor Analysis

Sonar and Other Transducers

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), Main Hawaiian Islands 

insular false killer whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

training and testing activities throughout the year. Analysis for the entire Hawaii population estimates 

that all exposures result in behavioral reactions or TTS and zero exposures at levels of PTS are 

anticipated. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be minor to moderate, from which the 

individual whale would fully recover quickly.

This identified small and resident population area is mostly located within shallow, nearshore waters 

where the Navy does not typically conduct activities that involve sonar or other transducers, especially 

more intense activities such as anti-submarine warfare activities 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 to acoustic stressors and some impacts on behavior could occur. As discussed 

in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), 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. Evidence 

indicates false killer whales do not significantly alter their behavior or abandon an area in response to 

sonar exposure Baird et al. (2013b); Baird et al. (2014a). 

Although the Navy proposes to continue use of mid-frequency active sonar throughout the Hawaii 

Range Complex under the Proposed Action, it is likely to be used more frequently and with more shortduration intensity by surface ships in specific locations like the Pacific Missile Range or further offshore 

in areas that do not overlap with the biologically important area. Some major training exercises, such as 

Rim of the Pacific and Undersea Warfare Exercise, use the Alenuihaha Channel for anti-submarine 

warfare and may transit through the biologically important area. Rim of the Pacific typically only occurs 

every two years, Undersea Warfare Exercise is only one to three times per year. The Alenuihaha channel 

is not routinely used other than during these training exercises. 

Navy monitoring in the Hawaii Range Complex has resulted in tags being deployed on seven false killer 

whales prior to the Submarine Command Course and contributed valuable information on the 

occurrence and movements of false killer whale. Unfortunately, the movements of only one individual in 

the Pacific Missile Range Complex Facility allowed for detailed analysis of exposure and response. The 

biologically important areas identified for false killer whales do not overlap with the instrumented 

ranges off of the Pacific Missile Rage facility. The Navy is unaware of any exposure or response data for 

false killer whales from within the designated biologically important area. Therefore, the response of 

this false killer whale and one tagged in the Southern California Range Complex by DeRuiter et al. (2013)

are used as species-specific examples of how false killer whales would be expected to respond to 

acoustic stressors. An animal’s response to sonar in the biologically important areas and the rest of the 

Hawaii Range Complex would be expected to be the same as the Pacific Missile Range Facility example.

This satellite tag was deployed on the false killer whale in 2013 off Kauai (Baird et al., 2014a; Baird et al., 

2016b). The tag transmitted for 21 days, allowing the researchers to track animal movements over a 

period before, during, and after the Submarine Command Course. The tagged individual remained 

associated with the island before, during, and after the Submarine Command Course held in August 

2013 (Baird et al., 2014a).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-72

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

The mid-frequency acoustic sonar transmission times (determined directly using sounds received on the 

range hydrophones), ship positions at time of transmissions, and animal locations (determined from 

satellite tag positions) allowed estimation of the sound pressure levels the tagged animals were exposed 

to using a propagation model. More detail on analysis methodology can be found in Manzano-Roth et al. 

(2013) and Baird et al. (2014a). 

In this example, the false killer whale passed through the range twice, receiving an estimated median 

received level of 156 dB re 1 μPa with a maximum estimated received level of 188 dB re1 μPa on August 

12 (Baird et al., 2016b) (Figure K.3-5). Despite this exposure, the animal remained in the vicinity for two 

more days, and passed through the Submarine Command Course again, continuing to be exposed to 

mid-frequency acoustic sonar. This animal’s lack of observable behavioral response to mid-frequency 

active sonar is consistent with bottlenose dolphins, rough-toothed dolphins, and pilot whales for which 

analysis of this kind has also been conducted from Pacific Missile Range Facility data (Baird et al., 2014a; 

Baird et al., 2014b; Baird et al., 2016c).

Behavioral response studies are being or have been conducted at three U.S. Navy instrumented ranges 

(the Pacific Missile Range Facility in the Hawaii Range Complex, the Atlantic Undersea Test and 

Evaluation Center [in the Bahamas] and the Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range [in the 

Southern California Range Complex]). Methodologies differ in all three (e.g., controlled exposure, tag 

type); however, results consistently suggest that behavioral response is context specific. DeRuiter, L., et 

al. (2013) found that D-tag sound recordings from a false killer whale in the Southern California Range 

Complex revealed seventy-seven instances in which, just after exposure to the mid-frequency active 

sonar signal, false killer whales produced whistles that sounded similar to mid-frequency sonar-like 

signals to human listeners. Furthermore, overall whistle rate and production rate for the most midfrequency sonar-like whistles decreased with time since the last mid-frequency active sonar reception 

(DeRuiter, Boyd, et al., 2013). The impact of mid-frequency acoustic sonar exposure on behaviors such 

as feeding and reproduction on this species is not well characterized. However, these two examples–one 

using satellite tags and one using acoustic tags–represent the best available data for this species with 

regard to response to mid-frequency acoustic sonar.

The results of the behavioral response studies in Southern California and Hawaii suggest that false killer 

whales do not have an observable behavioral response to mid-frequency active sonar at an estimated 

maximum received level of 188 dB re1 μPa. A received level of 188 dB re 1 μPa is greater than the 

received level predicted to elicit a behavioral response from false killer whales, suggesting that either 

there was some type of unobserved response or that, contrary to predictions, the animals were not 

affected by the sound (Baird et al., 2016c; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017). 

The Main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whale stock is ESA-listed and it is believed that biological 

removal of just one individual (Carretta et al., 2017) may adversely affect the ability of this stock to 

recover. However, exposure of false killer whales to active sonar or other transducers would not result 

in mortality or the removal of any individuals from the Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock or any other 

stock of false killer whales throughout the Study Area. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-73

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Source: Baird et al. (2017).

Figure K.2-5: False Killer Whale Tracks off Kauai, August 12–14, 2013

Note: False killer whale tag track and analysis results illustrating (1) the area of mid-frequency active sonar; (2) the 

whale's relative horizontal movements from 12–14 August 2013; and (3) the median estimated received levels 

when the sonar was closest to the animal, resulting in the highest estimated received level, and at the end of the 

exposure when the sonar ceased active transmission.

Monitoring and research data, albeit with small sample sizes, suggests that individual false killer whales 

do not respond to U.S. Navy mid-frequency active sonar in such a way that would reduce their use of a 

geographic area. These identified small and resident population areas are mostly located within shallow, 

nearshore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct activities that involve sonar or other 

transducers, especially more intense activities such as anti-submarine warfare activities or major 

training events. While impacts on false killer whales’ natural behaviors due to training and testing with 

sonar and other transducers may occur within the small and resident population areas, they are unlikely 

to rise to the level of significant under NEPA nor would they be 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.

Explosives

As indicated in Section 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives) only TTS for this species is estimated due to 

exposure to the use of explosive during training and testing. Any TTS in the biologically important areas 

would be minor to moderate, from which the individual whale would fully recover quickly.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-74

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Most activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive munitions typically occur more than 

3 NM from shore with the exception of those activities occurring in underwater ranges that are

designated for explosive use. Historical data suggests that explosive events are most likely to be 

scheduled at Puuloa Underwater Training Range, W-188, or KAPU HOT located in W-192 south of Oahu

(Figure K.3-6) for ease of scheduling, safety, availability of instrumentation, and airspace concerns. 

Standard mitigation is implemented during explosives training and testing which includes use of

lookouts and mitigation zones sized based on activity making it unlikely that an animal at the surface 

would be affected.

Puuloa Underwater Training Range and KAPU HOT are entirely within the stock boundary of the Main 

Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales, as is the inshore portion of W-188 (Figure K.3-6), but they do 

not overlap with the biologically important areas for the false killer whale small and resident 

populations; therefore, explosives training and testing is not likely to occur in the biologically 

important areas.

Although Navy monitoring data has added to the scientific base of knowledge on species/stock

occurrence, habitat use, and genetics, the Navy is not aware of any research or monitoring data that 

specifically evaluates false killer whale responses to explosives. However, a general discussion of the 

effects of explosives and blast trauma to marine mammals is discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts 

from Explosives).

Furthermore, the current HSTT settlement agreement prohibits the use of in-water explosives, within 

Areas 1-A through 1-E, 2-E, and 2-A through 2-D which overlap with the False Killer Whale Small and 

Resident Population Area. However, these areas are not historically used for explosives training and 

testing; therefore, false killer whales in the small and resident population areas would not be exposed 

directly to sound or energy from explosives and impacts would not be anticipated.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-75

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-6: Boundary of Main Hawaiian Islands Insular False Killer Whale Stock Relative to 

Areas in Hawaii Range Complex Where Explosives Training Typically Occurs

Vessel Strike

Odontocetes that occur within the 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. As discussed in Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices), 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 strikes 

attributed to small boats and craft such as jet skis. Available literature suggests that due to their smaller 

body size, maneuverability, larger group sizes, and hearing capabilities, most small odontocetes are not 

likely to be struck by a Navy vessel. Generally, 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.

Some studies established that marine mammals engage in avoidance behavior when surface vessels 

move toward them. It is not clear whether these responses are caused by the physical presence of a 

surface vessel, the underwater noise generated by the vessel, or the combination of interactions

between the two.

K.3.3.1.3 North and West of Hawaii Island False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population 

Area, Settlement Areas 1-A through 1-E, 2-E, and 2-A through 2-D

The North and west of Hawaii Island False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area overlaps 

with Alenuihaha Channel and Settlement Areas 1-A through 1-E, 2-E, and 2-A through 2-D (Figure K.3-1),

and includes waters just offshore from Kawaihae Harbor on the northwest coast of the island.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-76

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.3.3.1.4 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Alenuihaha Channel, as well as the waters north and west of Hawaii Island, provides a unique 

training capability that does not exist elsewhere in the Hawaiian Range Complex. The Alenuihaha 

Channel is an ideal location for strait transits using mid-frequency active sonar during training. The 

Alenuihaha Channel is an actual channel that provides a vital and realistic analog for similar straits or 

restricted maneuvering areas where the Navy operates worldwide, such as the East or South China seas. 

For example, transit training in the Alenuihaha Channel replicates these types of strait environments 

that meet the Navy’s requirement to deploy Naval forces to ensure the free flow of commerce and the 

freedom of navigation by combatting piracy or mine threats. Naval forces are required to train to 

counter a submarine threat before deployment – to ensure the first time a surface asset conducts antisubmarine warfare training in a strait prior to being deployed to the Straits of Hormuz or Malacca or 

similar areas. There are few geographic areas that enable forces to do this type of training outside of the 

HSTT Study Area. 

The ability of an aircraft carrier to defend itself from submarine attack with all available assets while 

conducting straits transits is critical to its survival in forward operating areas. The channel is located 

outside most of the civilian air traffic corridors approaching the Honolulu International Airport which is 

necessary to safely de-conflict with civilian air traffic.

While there are other channels within the Hawaiian Range Complex, none provide the important 

attributes of the Alenuihaha Channel. Using other channels for strait transits could introduce additional 

problems. The additional distance of other available channels from Pohakuloa Training Area would 

result in training being segmented and could impact the realism of the training as well as increase time 

and fuel costs due to transiting further between training areas. The channel between Niihau and Kauai is 

also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add at least two days of transit during each 

Under Sea Warfare training exercise (time required to move through a different channel and reposition 

to operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). The channel between Oahu and Molokai is also 

acceptable from some mid-frequency active sonar training perspective, but it is also a significant civilian 

air corridor, and raises safety concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft flying in that channel. For 

these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still the most suitable for anti-submarine warfare training. In 

addition, the channel between Nihau and Kauai is proximate to the Pacific Missile Range Facility 

instrumented range) which would result in problems de-conflicting multiple activities and hazardous 

operations, raising safety concerns. 

The channel between Oahu and Molokai is located under a significant civilian air corridor, and its use 

would raise safety concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft flying in that channel during major 

training events.

The North and West of Hawaii Island False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area is adjacent 

to waters approaching Kawaihae Harbor, the point of amphibious insertion for forces proceeding to the

range at Pohakuloa Training Area. As an air-to-ground range, Pohakuloa Training Area supports carrier 

strike group activities near a channel and near large open water areas for strike group maneuvering and 

submarine activities. Mid-frequency active sonar conducted to support strike maneuver and protect 

high value units (e.g., carrier) as aircraft go to strike at Pohakuloa Training Area is vital.

Carrier strike group training can include a full spectrum of the force – various ships, submarines, aircraft, 

and Marine Corps forces – to train in the complex command, control operational coordination, and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-77

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

logistics functions designed to prepare forces for deployment. Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel 

and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor is also vital for a broad spectrum of naval and amphibious 

training. The west coast of Hawaii is one of the best locations for integrated joint marine amphibious 

operations because of its close proximity to the Pohakuloa Training Area which is the only range in the 

Hawaiian Range Complex that supports ground force and aviation live-fire training. These areas provide 

a unique and irreplaceable capability within the Hawaiian Range Complex that allows naval forces to 

conduct realistic, integrated training in an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will 

be called to serve.

Activities utilizing in-water explosives, such as bombing torpedo exercises, are not conducted in the 

waters within the False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area since it is not within controlled 

airspace usually required to support the use of large explosives.

K.3.3.1.5 North and West of Hawaii Island False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population 

Area, Settlement Areas 1-A through 1-E, 2-E, and 2-A through 2-D Mitigation 

Considerations

As noted above, the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor are used for a broad 

spectrum of naval and amphibious training. Limiting or restricting mid-frequency active sonar training in 

the Alenuihaha Channel would force the relocation of portions of Undersea Warfare training, 

Independent Deployer Certification training, Rim of the Pacific, and unit level training exercises to other 

channels in the Hawaiian OPAREAs further from the Pohakuloa Training Area range. Undersea Warfare 

certification training occurs up to three times per year, Rim of the Pacific occurs once every two years,

and Independent Deployer Certification training occurs once per year. Segmenting the scenarios within

each of these training events over time and space would result in an unacceptable loss of training

realism, degrade the training and would erode strike group readiness.

Explosives are not used in this area and therefore no impacts are anticipated due to that stressor.

Through annual reporting to NMFS since 2009, this area has been identified by the Navy as an area of 

low use of mid-frequency active sonar year-round with the exception of during Undersea Warfare 

training, Independent Deployer Certification training, and Rim of the Pacific training. Animals within the 

False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area could be exposed to sound from sonar or other 

transducers and some behavioral or temporary impacts could occur from the occasional use of midfrequency active sonar during those events. While significant long-term impacts on main Hawaiian 

Island insular false killer whales from training and testing with sonar and other transducers are unlikely 

to occur within the Small and Resident Population Area, the Navy considered the likelihood that 

additional measures would further reduce impacts on this species and their habitat and whether a 

mitigation area measure would be practicable to implement, given their critically endangered status.

The Navy balanced the need for the use of the area to meet training and testing requirements with the 

biological importance of the area for false killer whales and other species. The Navy proposes to 

implement mitigation areas that overlap portions of the North and West of Hawaii Island False Killer 

Whale Small and Resident Population Area. These mitigation areas are designed to provide additional 

protection for humpback whales, false killer whales and some beaked whale species, and will also 

reduce the number and level of impacts for other species or stocks, including pygmy killer whales, dwarf 

sperm whales, melon-headed whales, short-finned pilot whales and dolphin species occurring within the 

area without compromising military readiness(see Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) 

for details on these proposed mitigation areas):
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-78

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

1. West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area – limits the amount of surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar during anti-submarine major training exercises year-round 

(Figure K.2-4);

2. West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area – restricts the use of in-water explosives during testing, 

unit-level training and major training exercises year-round (Figure K.2-8); and

3. East-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area – restricts surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency 

active sonar and all in-water explosives during testing, unit-level training and anti-submarine 

major training exercises year-round (Figure K.2-7).

As discussed in Section K.3.3.1.4 (Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing), due to the 

strategic importance of the Alenuihaha Channel, use of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active 

sonar during unit level training and other exercises allows naval forces to train in an environment that 

replicates the actual areas where they will be called to serve. Establishing a mitigation area measure 

that would impede access and limit unit-level training and major training exercises or testing within the 

Alenuihaha Channel would be impracticable to implement without impeding the effectiveness of 

military readiness. None of the proposed mitigation areas described above overlap with the channel and 

therefore, would not limit or restrict the use of that area during these critical training activities.

K.3.3.1.6 4-Islands Region False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area, Settlement 

Areas 1-A through 1-E, 2-E, and 2-A through 2-D

The 4-Islands Region False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area overlaps partly with 

Settlement Area 2-B and fully overlaps with Settlement Areas 1-A through 1-E, 2-E, and 2-A through 2-D,

This False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area also overlap with Kaiwi Channel, the channel 

between Molokai and Oahu and the water space adjacent to the northern portion of the Pailolo Channel 

between Molokai and Maui.

K.3.3.1.7 Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing

The 4-Islands Region provides an environment for anti-submarine warfare search, tracking and 

avoidance of opposing anti-submarine warfare forces. The bathymetry provides unique attributes and 

unmatched opportunity to train in searching for submarines in shallow water. Littoral training allows 

units to continue to deploy improved sensors or tactics in littoral waters. In the Hawaii portion of the 

HSTT Study Area specifically, anti-submarine warfare training in shallow water is vitally important to the 

Navy since diesel submarines typically hide in that extremely noisy and complex marine environment 

(Arabian Gulf, Strait of Malacca, Sea of Japan, and the Yellow Sea all contain water less than 200 m 

deep). There is no other area in the this portion of the HSTT Study Area with the bathymetry and sound 

propagation analog to seas where Navy conducts real operations that this training could relocate to. The 

Navy cannot conduct realistic shallow water training exercises without training in and around the 

4-Islands Region. In addition, this area includes unique shallow water training opportunities for unitlevel training, including opportunity to practice operations in littoral areas that are both shallow, and 

navigationally constrained, and in close proximity to deeper open ocean environments.

The areas of deep water located off the northwest coast of Kaho’olawe provide unique and necessary 

bathymetry to support submarine post-major maintenance testing and certification. The area is also 

used by submarine crews during Submarine Command Course certification training on anti-submarine 

warfare and surface warfare missions. The mine warfare range off Kahoolawe contains multiple bottom 

and tethered mine shapes in shallow water. Although the area is not instrumented in the way that the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-79

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Pacific Missile Range Facility is, the area provides submerged submarine positioning with Submerged 

Acoustic Navigation System buoys. 

While submarines do not typically use mid-frequency active sonar, relying primarily on passive sonar 

(listening mode) to avoid detection from adversaries, submarines are required to train in counter 

detection tactics, techniques and procedures against threat surface vessels, airborne anti-submarine 

warfare units and other threat submarines using mid-frequency active sonar as part of both their 

perspective commanding officers qualification course and pre-deployment certification. The ability for 

surface vessels and air assets to simulate opposing forces, using use mid frequency active sonar when 

training with submarines, is critical to submarine crew training for deployed and wartime operations. 

Surface warfare training is designed to support unit-level training requirements and group crossplatform events in 28 mission areas for surface ship certification prior to deployment. The Required 

Operational Capabilities and Required Operational Environment guidance outlines anti-submarine 

warfare areas specifically requiring crews to accomplish 58 major tasks to support both deep and 

shallow water anti-submarine training activities, across multiple domains of the open ocean and littoral 

areas, while conducting unit and group self-defense training across multiple platforms and defensive 

operations. Submarine Command Course training is conducted twice a year in Hawaii, in February and 

August, (with the intermittent use of active sonar over a three-to-five-day period use per event). 

Submarine Command Course training is an Integrated/Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Training exercise.

The 4-Islands Region is used for Submarine Command Course training as a location to train prospective 

Submarine Commanding Officers to operate in shallow water. Adjacent to the designated biologically 

important area, the Kaiwi, Pailolo, and Kalohi Channels are used to simulate strait transits and provide 

realistic shallow water environments for qualification that prospective Commanding Officers would 

experience while deployed. For example, conducting shallow water anti-submarine warfare training in a 

deep water environment while simulating fathometer readings would develop bad habit patterns of 

ignoring the critical depth aspect of the training, and in a real world situation, those readings may 

possibly be ignored as well, and thereby jeopardizing safety and survival of the ship and crew. Training in 

actual shallow water conditions is mandatory to develop proper crew coordination and tactics, 

techniques and procedures to ensure mission success. Additionally training in the shallow water 

environment is essential for crews to experience the effect of bottom topography, (upslope and 

downslope) on sonar transmission and returns for detecting threat targets in different advantageous 

positions. Surface vessels and air assets work with submarines in that area while conducting submarine 

Commanding Officer’s training scenarios that include extended shallow water operations at periscope 

depth, general surveillance missions in shallow water, shallow water weapons employment, close to 

shore navigation, shallow water minefield operations, and shallow water ship control. 

Additionally, the 4-Islands Region possesses other attributes which make it an important area for antisubmarine and mine warfare training:

• Adjacent to the designated biologically important area south of Lanai, the Kahoolawe Minefield 

is utilized by submarine crews and during Submarine Commander’s Course certification training 

for mine counter measure training and certification. Kaho’olawe Minefield is used throughout 

the year to support mine counter measure training. Mine counter measure training is typically 

less than one day and does not involve the use of mid-frequency active sonar by the submarine.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-80

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

• Expeditionary warfare training is conducted on the west coast of Maui—no explosives are 

used—which includes swimmers getting to a beach with small boats where access is limited.

• Littoral Combat Ship training and certification of the anti-submarine and mine warfare mission 

modules may require use of the Kahoolawe minefield and shallow water in this area.

• Unit level anti-submarine warfare training during the basic phase is conducted within this area.

• Insertion and extraction utilizing small submersible vessels and small boats (rigid-hulled 

inflatable boats and zodiacs) is conducted around the waters off Maui.

This area provides a unique and highly important shallow water training environment in which units can 

practice operations in littoral areas that are both shallow and navigationally constrained. This network 

of shallow water inter-island channels is unique within the Eastern and Mid Pacific training range 

complexes. The area provides an unmatched opportunity for submarines to train in shallow water 

without the need to use active sonar during their searches. Training in these littoral areas will allow fleet 

units to continue to deploy improved sensors and tactics in littoral waters into the future. In general for 

the Hawaii Range Complex, pushing anti-submarine warfare training further from land and out of the 

littorals would add transit time (increased fuel and loss of training time) in addition to providing an 

environment less likely to be expected in operating areas during deployment.

Loss of the shallow to deep transition would eliminate up/downslope exploitation and bottom bounce 

investigations, for example. Water space outside of Hawaii OPAREA can be subject to seasonal extremes 

making large sea states, decreasing training value. Lastly, pushing training and testing further from land 

increases the difficulty in air control reporting and coordination required to conduct integrated 

readiness activities. While Kaiwi Channel between Molokai and Oahu is not routinely used for training

that involves strait transiting while protecting high-value units, this channel provides for opportunistic 

training within a channel environment for Navy ships homeported in Pearl Harbor. The Kaiwi Channel 

also overlaps partially with the Aloha submarine transit lane where some opportunistic mid-frequency 

active sonar and anti-submarine warfare training occurs when ships and submarines are present in this 

area. Training and testing activities using in-water explosives are not conducted Kaiwi Channel, as this 

area is not within Special Use Airspace. Overall, this area is characterized as an area of “low use” for 

mid-frequency active sonar.

K.3.3.1.8 4-Islands Region False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area, Mitigation 

Considerations

The training value within the 4-Islands Region is much higher compared to other near shore 

environments within the Hawaii Range Complex, including the ranges at the Pacific Missile Range 

Facility, due to the challenging bathymetry. Shifting the location for Submarine Command Course would 

result in a loss of shallow water operating experience for prospective submarine Commanding Officers,

which is an absolutely vital skill for these commanders to master. Such a shift in location would result in 

a loss of shallow water operating experience and would compromise a submarine crew’s ability to retain 

and improve their capabilities and to train with new emerging technologies.

Training and testing using in-water explosives are not typically conducted within the 4-Islands Region as 

these areas are not a designated underwater training range or within Special Use Airspace. All training 

and testing in the 4-Islands Region is conducted using non-explosive munitions.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-81

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

While the Navy has been training and testing in the area with the same basic systems for over 40 years,

there is no evidence of any adverse impacts having occurred, and there are multiple lines of evidence 

demonstrating the population’s high site fidelity to the area. Animals within the False Killer Whale Small 

and Resident Population Area could be exposed to sound from sonar or other transducers and some 

behavioral or temporary impacts could occur from the occasional use of mid-frequency active sonar 

during the Submarine Command Course and unit-level training and testing. However, given the critically

endangered status of the main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whale, the Navy has considered the 

biological effectiveness and operational practicability of implementing additional mitigation area 

measures that would be expected to further reduce the number and level of potential impacts on false 

killer whales and their habitat in the small and resident area in the 4-Islands Region.

Expanding the existing Humpback Whale Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-9) north of Molokai and Maui to 

overlap partially with that portion of the 4-Islands Region False Killer Whale Small and Resident 

Population Area would provide some additional protection to main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer 

whales and their habitat during that time of year. The Navy would restrict the use of all surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises in 

the Cautionary Area from November 15 through April 15.

K.3.3.2 North and East of Oahu False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Areas

In the waters off Oahu, there are two separate small False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population 

Areas with one located offshore of Kaena Point and the other located north and east of Kahuku. These 

two designated areas are square in shape and situated between the 200 m and the 1,000 m isobaths.

These areas do not overlap any of the settlement areas described in Section K.1.1.2, (Provisional 2015 

Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area).

K.3.3.2.1 Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing

The False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area north of Oahu (Kaena Point) partially overlaps 

with Warning Area 189 (W-189) which is routinely used by Navy MH-60 helicopters and Marine Corps 

rotary wing aircraft based out of Marine Corps Base Hawaii. The limited distance from land that rotary 

wing can travel because of fuel limitations and safety factors dictate the use of this area versus other 

areas. However, non-explosive gunnery and rockets and dipping sonar used during anti-submarine 

warfare training would likely occur further offshore in W-189 outside 12 NM, and not within these 

biologically important areas north and east of Oahu. The False Killer Whale Small and Resident 

Population Area offshore of Kahuku does not overlap any designated training and testing areas or 

airspace. However, the area is en route to Warning Areas (W-189 and W-190) where the Navy does 

conduct air warfare activities. The North and East of Oahu False Killer Whale Small and Resident 

Population Areas are considered areas of “low use” of active sonar.

K.3.3.2.2 North and East of Oahu False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Areas

Mitigation Considerations 

The identified small and resident population areas only overlap with a very small portion of the Hawaii 

Range Complex and are located within nearshore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct 

activities that involve sonar or other transducers, especially more intense activities like major training 

events. However, animals within the False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area could be 

exposed to sound from sonar or other transducers and some behavioral or temporary impacts could 

occur from the occasional use of mid-frequency active sonar during aircraft and surface ship unit-level 

training and testing. Training and testing using in-water explosives are not typically conducted within the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-82

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Areas north and east of Oahu as these areas are not a 

designated underwater training range nor within Special Use Airspace. 

K.3.3.3 False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area Mitigation Assessment

Consistent with the literature and results from Navy funded false killer whale tagging studies between 

2010 and 2016, analysis indicates false killer whale reactions to sonar are expected to be 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, such as feeding and reproduction. Any 

disruptions to behavior would not rise to the level of significant under NEPA nor would they be 

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 disruptions. The current HSTT 

settlement agreement prohibits the use of in-water explosives, within Areas 1-A through 1-E, 2-E, and 2-

A through 2-D which overlap with the False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area. However, 

these areas are not historically used for explosives training and testing, therefore, false killer whales in 

the small and resident population areas would not be exposed directly to sound or energy from 

explosives and impacts would not be anticipated.

However, given that this stock is critically endangered with a potential biological removal (PBR) of less 

than one individual [0.18], the Navy considered methods of meaningfully reducing any potential impacts 

to the main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whales from acoustic stressors. The Navy balanced the 

need for the use of the small and resident population areas to meet training and testing requirements 

with the biological importance of the area to false killer whales. The Navy determined that establishing 

mitigation areas would likely reduce the number and level of impacts to this species and other species 

or stocks, including humpback whales, Cuvier and Blainville’s beaked whales, pygmy killer whales, dwarf 

sperm whales, melon-headed whales, short-finned pilot whales and dolphin species occurring within the 

area without compromising military readiness. See Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be implemented) 

for details on these proposed mitigation areas:

1. In establishing the West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-4), the 

Navy would limit the number of major training exercises using surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar that could occur annually unless an increase in 

these activities is deemed necessary due to national security. 

2. In the West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (K.2-8), the Navy would not use any inwater explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises yearround. If a naval unit needs to use explosives during testing, unit-level training and 

major training exercises in this area for national security, permission shall be required 

from the delegated Command authority conducting the activity prior to their use in the 

Cautionary Area. 

3. The Navy would not use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or inwater explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises yearround in the East-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-7). Again, should 

national security require the use of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active 

sonar or in-water explosives in the area, permission shall be required from delegated 

Command authority conducting the activity prior to their use in the Cautionary Area.

4. In the expanded Humpback Whale Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-9), which overlaps in part 

with the 4-Islands Region False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area, the 

Navy would restrict the use of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar 

from November 15 through April 15. Should national security present a requirement for 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-83

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

using surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during Navy training or 

testing in the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area, the Navy will require approval from 

the U.S. Commander, Third Fleet or delegated SYSCOM authority, prior to its use in the 

Cautionary Area. 

Given the extremely limited overlap of Navy training and testing activities with the Oahu Main Hawaiian 

Insular False Killer Whale Biologically Important Area, implementing geographic mitigation requiring the 

Navy to avoid those biologically important areas would not be effective at further reducing adverse 

impacts on the resident population in those areas., since are none are anticipated.

While the Navy is proposing to establish mitigation areas adjacent to the Alenuihaha Channel, the 

environmental conditions presented by the Alenuihaha Channel cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the 

Hawaiian Islands. As discussed above in Section K.3.3.1.4 (Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training 

and Testing), due to the strategic importance of the Alenuihaha Channel, use of surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar training in the channel during portions of Undersea Warfare 

training, Independent Deployer Certification training, Rim of the Pacific, and unit level training and other 

exercises allows naval forces to train in an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will 

be called to serve. Balancing the needs of the area for this species and other species as well as the 

Navy’s need to access and use sonar in this area was considered. Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel 

and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad spectrum of naval and amphibious training. 

Additionally, this channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because there is a 

shallow trench running through part of the channel. Establishing a mitigation area measure that would 

impede access and limit unit-level training and major training exercises or testing within the Alenuihaha 

Channel or impede the free execution of Navy tactical and operational procedures for these events 

would be impracticable to implement without impacting the effectiveness of military readiness. 

The channel between Niihau and Kauai is also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add 

at least two days of transit, for example, during each Under Sea Warfare training exercise and disrupts 

the realism of the training (time required to move through a different channel and reposition to 

operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). If limited or restricted, use of the Alenuihaha Channel 

during a training event with multiple assets involved, the Navy, would be required to relocate mid 

training. While the channel between Oahu and Molokai is also acceptable from some mid-frequency 

active sonar training perspective, this channel is already within a civilian air corridor, raising safety 

concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft. For these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still the most 

suitable for anti-submarine warfare training that enables forces to do this type of training prior to being 

deployed. The West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area and the Cautionary Area do not overlap 

the Alenuihaha Channel and therefore, would not limit or restrict the use of that area during these 

critical training activities.

Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that are important to prevent whale 

collisions. As described in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), surface ships operated by or 

for the Navy, have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when a ship or 

surfaced submarine is moving through the water (underway). Available literature suggests that based on 

their smaller body size, maneuverability, larger group sizes, and hearing capabilities, most odontocetes 

would be less likely to be struck by a Navy vessel than mysticetes. Generally, 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.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-84

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

The Navy’s standard operating procedures discussed in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures) 

and ongoing mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) are designed to avoid or reduce 

impacts to marine species and stocks throughout the Study Area. These measures would also limit the 

interaction between Navy vessels and odontocetes, further reducing the potential for vessel strikes in 

and outside of identified biologically important areas.

K.3.4 HAWAII ISLAND PYGMY KILLER WHALE SMALL AND RESIDENT POPULATION AREA

The Pygmy Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area is shown on igure K.2-7 and covers 

approximately 2,270 km2 of water space off Hawaii Island. This area extends from the Kona Coast and 

around the south point of the island of Hawaii (Baird et al., 2015a). The water depth of the area includes 

shallow water at the coast but extends to where the depth is over 3,200 m. As shown in Table K.1-1, and

described in Section K.1.1.2, (Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area), 

the Pygmy Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area overlaps with HSTT Settlement Areas 1-A, 

1-C, 1-D, 1-E, and 2-E.

K.3.4.1 General Biological Assessment

For a thorough description of the pygmy killer whale species, see Section 3.7.2.3.9 (Pygmy Killer Whale 

[Feresa attenuata]). 

The pygmy killer whale is protected under the MMPA and is not listed under the ESA. At present, all 

pygmy killer whales in Hawaiian waters are part of a single population managed as the Hawaiian stock. 

Figure K.2-7: Pygmy Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area off Hawaii Island
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-85

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.3.4.1.1 Biological Considerations Applicable to the Pygmy Killer Whales Small and Resident 

Population Area

In the Hawaiian Islands, pygmy killer whales have been sighted during small boat surveys close to shore 

off Kauai, Niihau, Oahu, Lanai, and Hawaii Island (Baird et al., 2011a; Baird et al., 2011c; Baird et al., 

2013e; McSweeney et al., 2009; Oleson et al., 2013) as well as sighted far offshore during NMFS line 

transect surveys for the Hawaiian Islands (Barlow, 2006; Bradford et al., 2017); (Carretta et al., 2017).

Adjacent to Hawaii Island where research has been focused and ongoing for almost three decades, 

pygmy killer whales were opportunistically photo-identified whenever encountered, which led to the 

identification of individuals being present in those waters off the island of Hawaii over spans of up to 27 

years (Baird et al., 2015b; McSweeney et al., 2009). It is due to the identification and long-term 

residency of those individual pygmy killer whales that an area has been designated for the small and 

resident population present off the west and southeast shores of Hawaii Island (Baird et al., 2015b). 

Assessment of potential genetic differentiation of these resident pygmy killer whales off the island of 

Hawaii from other areas has not been undertaken due to insufficient genetic sample sizes (Oleson et al., 

2013). As a result there is no information available to determine the degree of interchange or the 

degree of isolation for the pygmy killer whales off Hawaii Island as a small and resident population. 

The area identified for the resident population is in waters along the west side of the island of Hawai‘i, 

from area offshore of Kawaihae stretching south around South Point to a point midway along the 

southeast coast of the island (Baird et al., 2015b). The boundaries for the area were delimited by 

encompassing locations from two tracked pygmy killer whales; a satellite-tagged individual over 11 days 

in 2008 and locations from another individual tagged in 2009 and tracked over 15 days (Baird et al., 

2011a; Baird et al., 2011c; Baird et al., 2015b). Both individuals had been identified in the general area in 

prior years and both were tagged when they were part of a group of pygmy killer whales. As shown on 

Figure K.3-8, both tagged individuals remained strongly associated with the island slope during the 

periods of tag signal contact (Baird et al., 2011a; Baird et al., 2011c). Given the area was delimited using 

a small sample size based on only two individuals and over two short time periods, the known range for 

the population is likely to increase if additional satellite-tag data become available (Baird et al., 2015b).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-86

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-8: Tracked Locations of Pygmy Killer Whales 

Note: Offshore Hawaii Island in December 2008 (HIFa398) and April 2009 (HIFa279);

Source: Baird et al., 2011b

In 2010, two individuals in two groups of pygmy killer whales were satellite tagged off Oahu (Baird et al., 

2011a; Baird et al., 2015b). Both tagged whales had been photographed together twice off Oahu in two 

prior years and both were observed together again at the end of 2010 after the tags had come off (Baird 

et al., 2011a). The group tracked for 30 days was mainly composed of animals (12 of 15) that had been 

previously identified off Oahu in prior years. As shown in Figure K.3-9 (from Baird et al. (2011a); Figure 

2), this group moved through waters along the south and west shores of Oahu and across the Kaiwi 

Channel to the far end of Penguin Bank, an area roughly centered approximately 30 NM south of Oahu 

(Baird et al., 2011a). In the other group, although 17 individuals were photographed, none had been 

previously identified off Oahu, although one individual had been previously documented off the island 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-87

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

of Lanai and another previously off the island of Hawaii (Baird et al., 2011a). The distances to these 

islands from Oahu indicate approximate movements within a range of at least 40 NM and 120 NM. 

This second group was only tracked for 7 days, but the entire time remained off the west coast of Oahu. 

Baird et al. (2011a) suggested that the low re-sighting rate based on photo identification and movement 

pattern over the 7-day tracking period indicated this second group was not resident to the island 

of Oahu. 

Based on all the photo identification and tracking of pygmy killer whales to date, Oleson et al. (2013)

proposed recognition of an island-associated stock of pygmy killer whales with a range of up to 20 km 

from shore for the Main Hawaiian Islands, but this proposal was not incorporated into subsequent 

management of stocks in the Hawaiian Islands (Carretta et al., 2014; Carretta et al., 2017). During the 

effort to identify biologically important areas in the Hawaiian Islands, there was recognition that, as 

additional future information is obtained on core area use and range for individuals considered part of 

the “Oahu resident population,” an additional biologically important area would likely be warranted for 

that population (Baird et al., 2015b). In summary, pygmy killer whales have been encountered during 

small boat surveys close to shore off most of the Main Hawaiian Islands as well as the open ocean far 

offshore. At present, all pygmy killer whales in Hawaiian waters are part of a single population managed 

as the Hawaiian stock (Carretta et al., 2016). 

Even without a comprehensive or representative survey sampling of the nearshore areas in the 

Hawaiian Islands, photo identification has documented individuals moving between islands and groups 

of “resident” and suggested non-resident animals using the same habitat off Oahu. Long-term residency 

by individuals documented over decades in areas like the waters off Oahu and Hawaii Island suggest a 

general lack of threats to those individuals the open ocean far offshore. At present, all pygmy killer 

whales in Hawaiian waters are part of a single population managed as the Hawaiian stock (Carretta et 

al., 2017). Even without a comprehensive or representative survey sampling of the nearshore areas in 

the Hawaiian Islands, photo identification has documented individuals moving between islands and 

groups of “resident” and suggested non-resident animals using the same habitat off Oahu. Long-term 

residency by individuals documented over decades in areas like the waters off Oahu and Hawaii Island

suggest a general lack of threats to those individuals in the small and resident population.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-88

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-9: Tracked Locations of Pygmy Killer Whales off Oahu in 2010.

Note: The upper box depicts the locations over 30 days of the group containing individuals identified off Oahu in 

previous years. The lower box depicts the locations of the group tracked over seven days and having no individuals 

previously documented off Oahu, but two individuals previously documented with one off Lanai and one off Hawaii 

islands; well to the southeast of the area shown in the figure. Source: Baird et al., 2011a
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-89

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.3.4.1.2 Stressor Analysis

Sonar and Other Transducers

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), pygmy killer whales in 

Hawaii may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training and testing

activities throughout the year. Quantitative acoustic analysis for the entire Hawaii population estimates 

that all exposures result in behavioral reactions or TTS, and zero exposures resulting in PTS 

are anticipated.

The identified small and resident population area off Hawaii Island is mostly located within nearshore 

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. 

While impacts on pygmy killer whale natural behaviors due to training and testing with sonar and other 

transducers may occur within the small and resident population area, they are unlikely to rise to the 

level of significant under NEPA nor would they be 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. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be minor to moderate, from which 

the individual would fully recover quickly.

Explosives

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives), pygmy killer whales may be exposed to 

explosives which may result in behavioral reactions or TTS, however, most activities that involve 

underwater detonations and explosive munitions typically occur more than 3 NM from shore in areas 

that are designated for explosive use. Historical data suggests that explosive events are most likely to be 

scheduled at Puuloa Underwater Training Range, W-188, or KAPU HOT in W-192 south of Oahu (Figure 

K.3-3) for ease of scheduling, safety, instrumentation, and airspace concerns. These areas are outside of 

the pygmy killer whale small and resident population area. Sound from explosives could still expose 

animals within the pygmy killer whale small and resident population area to acoustic stressors, and 

some impacts on behavior could occur. 

Although Navy monitoring data has added to the scientific base of knowledge on species/stock 

occurrence, habitat use, and genetics, the Navy is not aware of any research or monitoring data that 

specifically evaluates pygmy killer whale responses to explosives. A general discussion of the effects of 

explosives and blast trauma to marine mammals is discussed in Section 3.7.3.2 (Marine Mammals, 

Explosive Stressors).

Vessel Strike

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices), in general, odontocetes, 

including pygmy killer whales, 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 

strikes attributed to small boats and craft such as jet skis.

Odontocetes that occur within the 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 that due on their smaller body size, maneuverability, larger group 

sizes, and hearing capabilities, most small odontocetes are not likely to be struck by a Navy vessel. 

Generally, 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.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-90

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Some studies established that marine mammals engage in avoidance behavior when surface vessels 

move toward them. It is not clear whether these responses are caused by the physical presence of a 

surface vessel, the underwater noise generated by the vessel, or an interaction between the two.

K.3.4.2 Hawaii Island Pygmy Killer Whales Small and Resident Population Area, 

Settlement Areas 1-A, 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, and 2-E

K.3.4.2.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Hawaii Island Pygmy Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area is just south and west of 

Kawaihae Harbor. These waters west of Hawaii and Kawaihae Harbor provide access for a broad 

spectrum of naval and amphibious training. Kawaihae Harbor is the point of amphibious insertion for 

forces proceeding to the live-fire range at Pohakuloa Training Area, and this training area is the only livefire range in the Hawaii Range Complex that supports ground force and aviation live-fire training.

Training in this area allows for the integration of carrier strike group operations and amphibious 

landings. Sea, air, and land-based units work in conjunction with one another in controlled airspace in 

close proximity to the Pohakuloa Training Area range, the only range of its kind in Hawaii. This is also an 

area outside of civilian air traffic corridors approaching the Honolulu International Airport which is 

necessary to safely de-conflict with civilian air traffic.

Carrier strike group training can include a full spectrum of the force – various ships, submarines, aircraft, 

and Marine Corps forces – to train in the complex command, control operational coordination, and 

logistics functions designed to prepare forces for deployment. Access to the waters west of Kawaihae 

Harbor is vital for amphibious training. The west coast of Hawaii is one of the best locations for 

integrated joint marine amphibious operations because of its close proximity to the Pohakuloa Training 

Area. Also, due to its proximity to the Alenuihaha Channel, waters west of Hawaii and Kawaihae Harbor 

have strategic importance during portions of Undersea Warfare training, Independent Deployer 

Certification training, Rim of the Pacific, and unit level training and other exercises The area provides a 

unique and irreplaceable capability within the Hawaiian Range Complex that allows naval forces to 

conduct realistic, integrated training in an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will 

be called to serve.

Activities utilizing in-water explosives, such as underwater detonations, bombing or torpedo exercises, 

are not conducted in the waters within the Pygmy Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area since 

it is not within a designated underwater training range or within Special Use Airspace, typically 

necessary for in-water explosive usage. 

K.3.4.3 Pygmy Killer Whales Small and Resident Population Area Mitigation Assessment

The identified small and resident population area only takes up a very small portion of the Hawaii Range 

Complex and is located within nearshore 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, animals within the Pygmy Killer Whale Small and 

Resident Population Area could be exposed to sound from sonar or other transducers and some 

behavioral or temporary impacts could occur from the occasional use of mid-frequency active sonar 

during Undersea Warfare training, Independent Deployer Certification training, and Rim of the 

Pacific training. 

The current HSTT settlement agreement prohibits the use of in-water explosives within Areas 1-A, 1-C, 

1-D, 1-E, and 2-E. However, these areas are not historically used for explosives training and testing. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-91

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Therefore, pygmy killer whales in the small and resident population areas would not be exposed directly 

to sound or energy from explosives and impacts are not anticipated. 

The Navy balanced the need for the use of the area to meet training and testing requirements with the 

biological importance of the area to pygmy killer whales and proposes to implement mitigation areas 

that overlap some portions of the Small and Resident Population Area. While these mitigation areas are 

designed to provide additional protection for humpback whales, false killer whales and beaked whale 

species, these measures would also reduce the number and level of impacts to these and other species 

or stocks occurring within the area, including pygmy killer whales, dwarf sperm whales, melon-headed 

whales, short-finned pilot whales and dolphin species. The Navy determined establishing these 

mitigation areas would not compromise military readiness. See Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be 

Implemented) for details on these proposed mitigation areas.

1. In establishing the West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-4), the Navy 

would limit the number of major training exercises using surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar that could occur annually unless an increase in these activities is deemed 

necessary due to national security. 

2. In the West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (K.2-8), the Navy would not use any in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round. If a naval 

unit needs to use explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises in 

this area for national security, permission shall be required from the delegated Command 

authority conducting the activity prior to their use in the Cautionary Area. 

While the Navy is proposing to establish mitigation areas adjacent to the Alenuihaha Channel, the 

environmental conditions presented by the Alenuihaha Channel cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the 

Hawaiian Islands. As discussed in Section K.3.7.6.1 (Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and 

Testing), due to the strategic importance of the Alenuihaha Channel, use of surface ship hull-mounted 

mid-frequency active sonar training in the channel during portions of Undersea Warfare training, 

Independent Deployer Certification training, Rim of the Pacific, and unit level training and other 

exercises allows naval forces to train in an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will 

be called to serve. Additionally, this channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment 

because there is a shallow trench running through part of the channel. Establishing a mitigation area 

measure that would impede access and limit unit-level training and major training exercises or testing 

within the Alenuihaha Channel or impede the free execution of Navy tactical and operational 

procedures for these events would be impracticable to implement without impeding the effectiveness 

of military readiness.

The Alenuihaha Channel, as well as the waters north and west of Hawaii Island, provides a unique 

training capability that does not exist elsewhere in the Hawaiian Range Complex. The Alenuihaha 

Channel is an ideal location for strait transits using mid-frequency active sonar during training. The 

Alenuihaha Channel is an actual channel that provides a vital and realistic analog for similar straits or 

restricted maneuvering areas where the Navy operates worldwide, such as the East or South China seas. 

For example, transit training in the Alenuihaha Channel replicates these types of strait environments 

that meet the Navy’s requirement to deploy Naval forces to ensure the free flow of commerce and the 

freedom of navigation by combatting piracy or mine threats. Naval forces are required to train to 

counter a submarine threat before deployment – to ensure the first time a surface asset conducts antisubmarine warfare training in a strait prior to being deployed to the Straits of Hormuz or Malacca or 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-92

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

similar areas. There are few geographic areas that enable forces to do this type of training outside of the 

HSTT Study Area. 

The West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area and the Cautionary Area do not overlap the 

Alenuihaha Channel and therefore, would not limit or restrict the use of that area during these critical 

training activities.

Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that are important to prevent whale 

collisions. As described in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), surface ships operated by or 

for the Navy, have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when a ship or 

surfaced submarine is moving through the water (underway).

Available literature suggests that based on their smaller body size, maneuverability, larger group sizes, 

and hearing capabilities, most odontocetes would be less likely to be struck by a Navy vessel than 

mysticetes. Generally, 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’s standard operating procedures discussed in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures) 

and ongoing mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) are designed to avoid or reduce 

impacts to marine species and stocks throughout the Study Area. These measures would also limit the 

interaction between Navy vessels and odontocetes, further reducing the potential for vessel strikes in 

and outside of identified biologically important areas.

K.3.5 HAWAII ISLAND SHORT-FINNED PILOT WHALE SMALL AND RESIDENT POPULATION AREA

An area with a small and resident population of short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus)

in waters along the Kona coast and channel of Hawaii Island (Figure K.2-10) has been identified as a 

year-round biologically important area (Baird et al., 2015a). The Short-finned Pilot Whale Small and 

Resident Population Area covers approximately 2,970 km2 of water space off Hawaii Island. The 

biologically important area was designated as a “contiguous high-use area” derived from satellite tag 

data from 35 tag deployments off the west side of Hawaii Island. As shown in Table K.1-1, and described 

in Section K.1.1.2, (Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area), the 

Short-finned Pilot Whale Small and Resident Population Area overlaps with HSTT Settlement Areas 1-A 

through 1-D.

K.3.5.1 General Biological Assessment

For a thorough description of the common short-finned pilot whale species, see Section 3.7.2.3.10 

(Short-finned Pilot Whale [Globicephala macrorhynchus]).

Short-finned pilot whales are found worldwide within tropical, subtropical, and warm-temperate waters 

(Baumann-Pickering et al., 2016b; Van Cise et al., 2016). In the Hawaiian Islands, short-finned pilot 

whales have been the most commonly encountered species of odontocete during near-shore surveys 

and the second most common odontocete encountered in deep offshore waters during the two NMFS 

systematic ship surveys of the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone (25 sightings in 2002, and 36 sightings 

in 2010) (Baird et al., 2013c; Barlow, 2006; Bradford et al., 2013; Bradford et al., 2017; Oleson et al., 

2013). Acoustic data also indicates a widespread use of the HSTT Study Area by pilot whales (BaumannPickering et al., 2010; Klinck et al., 2015; Lammers et al., 2015c). Small boat surveys from 2003 through 

2015 have photo-identified hundreds of individuals and in conjunction with satellite tag tracking data 

have provided evidence suggesting the presence of both island area associated groups of pilot whales 

and groups that are part of a widely-ranging open-ocean population (Baird et al., 2003; Baird et al., 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-93

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

2011a; Baird et al., 2013e; Baird et al., 2014a; Baird et al., 2015b; Baird et al., 2015d; Baird et al., 2016b; 

Mahaffy et al., 2015c; Oleson et al., 2013). At present, all short-finned pilot whales in Hawaiian waters 

are part of a single population managed as the Hawaiian stock (Carretta et al., 2017). 

K.3.5.1.1 Biological Considerations Applicable to the Short-finned Pilot Whales Small and 

Resident Population Area

Years of small boat sighting data, photo-identification data demonstrating long-term re-sightings of 

individuals, and satellite-tag deployments indicating high site fidelity suggest that at least some portion 

of the pilot whales documented off Hawaii Island are resident to the island (Baird et al., 2013e; Baird et 

al., 2015b; Mahaffy et al., 2015c; Oleson et al., 2013). As a result, a year-round small and resident 

population area has been identified for short-finned pilot whales extending approximately 85 NM north 

to south off the west coast of the Island of Hawaii (Baird et al., 2015b). This small and resident area for 

short-finned pilot whales is different than some of the other biologically important areas in the Hawaiian 

Islands (such as the small and resident area for pygmy killer whales), because it does not enclose the 

entirety of the locations where the animals have been observed. The pilot whale area is instead a 

“contiguous high-use area” derived from satellite tag data locations from 35 tag deployments off the 

west side of Hawaii Island between 2006 through 2010 (Baird et al., 2015b). 

Figure K.2-10: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Small and Resident Population Area

The high-use locations were identified by taking the total time of all satellite tracks within 5 km × 5 km 

grid cells and those cells with total time greater than one standard deviation above the mean were 

classified as part of the high-use area. The resulting boundary identified for the short-finned pilot whale 

small and resident population area was formed by the largest contiguous block of these derived highuse grid cell locations (Baird et al., 2015b; Mahaffy et al., 2015c).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-94

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

The presence of short-finned pilot whales has also been surmised south of Oahu and outside of the 

identified biologically important area based on passive acoustic detections of low-frequency whistles 

(Klinck et al., 2015). Between December 11, 2014 and January 26, 2015, a passive acoustic survey was 

conducted in the Hawaii Range Complex using an autonomous glider fitted with an acoustic receiver. 

The survey began and ended approximately 120 km south of Honolulu, Oahu, navigating a circular track

through deep ocean waters that intermittently crossed over or near multiple seamounts. Low-frequency 

whistles and clicks were detected and likely associated with four species based on the frequency 

characteristics of the whistles: false killer whale, short-finned pilot whale, melon-headed whale, and 

rough-toothed dolphin. The whistles were most often detected near bathymetric features (e.g., 

seamounts) (Figure K.2-11).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-95

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

PAM = Passive Acoustic Monitoring

Figure K.2-11: Low-Frequency Detections During a Passive Acoustic Survey South of Oahu. 

Note: Circle size indicates percentage of recording time per dive with target signals.

Source: Adapted from Klinck et al. (2015)

K.3.5.1.2 Stressor Analysis

Sonar and Other Transducers

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), short-finned pilot whales in 

Hawaii may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training and testing 

activities throughout the year. Analysis for the entire Hawaii population estimates that all exposures 

result in behavioral reactions or TTS, and zero exposures resulting in PTS are anticipated. Navy training 

activities that use sonar and other transducers could occur year-round within the Hawaii Range 

Complex. There have been two occasions where research has documented the exposure of short-finned 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-96

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

pilot whales to Navy hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar in Hawaii (Baird et al., 2014b; Mobley & Deakos, 

2015), though they did not occur in the designated small and resident population area. On both those 

occasions the received levels were relatively high (154 & 157 dB re 1 μPa) and yet no overt avoidance or 

other discernable change in behavior was observed in the whales. The acoustic criteria used by the Navy

and NMFS to predict exposures indicate that there was a relatively high probability of a significant 

behavioral reaction at those received levels over long exposure periods (up to 3 days). The tagged 

individual was photo-identified as being from the resident population to the Kauai and Niihau area, and

on the third day of sonar use on the range off Kauai, “moved in a fairly directional manner” towards the 

sonar activity and areas of higher sound level (Baird et al., 2014b). 

This identified small and resident population area is mostly located within nearshore 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. While impacts on 

short-finned pilot whale natural behaviors due to training and testing with sonar and other transducers 

may occur within the small and resident population area, they unlikely to rise to the level of significant 

under NEPA nor would they be 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. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be minor to moderate, from which the 

individual would fully recover quickly. 

Explosives

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives), short-finned pilot whales may be exposed to 

explosives which may result in behavioral reactions or TTS. Most activities that involve underwater 

detonations and explosive munitions typically occur more than 3 NM from shore in areas that are 

designated for explosive use. Historical data suggests that explosive events are most likely to be 

scheduled at Puuloa Underwater Training Range, W-188, or KAPU HOT (Figure K.3-3) for ease of 

scheduling, safety, instrumentation, and airspace concerns. These areas are outside of the short-finned 

pilot whale small and resident population area. Sound from explosives could still expose animals within 

the short-finned pilot whale small and resident population area to acoustic stressors, and some impacts 

on behavior could occur. However, significant impacts to short-finned pilot whale natural behaviors or 

abandonment due to training with explosives are unlikely to occur within the small and resident 

population area. within the small and resident population area.

Vessel Strike

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices), in general, odontocetes, 

including short-finned pilot whales, 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 strikes attributed to small boats and craft such as jet skis. 

Odontocetes that occur within the 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 that due to their smaller body size, maneuverability, larger group 

sizes, and hearing capabilities, most small odontocetes are not likely to be struck by a Navy vessel. 

Generally, 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.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-97

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Some studies established that marine mammals engage in avoidance behavior when surface vessels 

move toward them. It is not clear whether these responses are caused by the physical presence of a 

surface vessel, the underwater noise generated by the vessel, or an interaction between the two.

K.3.5.2 Hawaii Island Short-finned Pilot Whales Small and Resident Population Area, 

Settlement Areas 1-A through 1-D

K.3.5.2.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Alenuihaha Channel, as well as the waters north and west of Hawaii Island, provides a unique 

training capability that does not exist elsewhere in the Hawaiian Range Complex. The Alenuihaha 

Channel is an ideal location for strait transits using mid-frequency active sonar during training. The 

Alenuihaha Channel is an actual channel that provides a vital and realistic analog for similar straits or 

restricted maneuvering areas where the Navy operates worldwide, such as the East or South China seas. 

For example, transit training in the Alenuihaha Channel replicates these types of strait environments 

that meet the Navy’s requirement to deploy Naval forces to ensure the free flow of commerce and the 

freedom of navigation by combatting piracy or mine threats. Naval forces are required to train to 

counter a submarine threat before deployment – to ensure the first time a surface asset conducts antisubmarine warfare training in a strait prior to being deployed to the Straits of Hormuz or Malacca or 

similar areas. Additionally, this channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because 

there is a shallow trench running through part of the channel. There are few geographic areas that 

enable forces to do this type of training outside of the HSTT Study Area. 

The ability of an aircraft carrier to defend itself from submarine attack with all available assets while 

conducting straits transits is critical to its survival in forward operating areas. The channel is located 

outside most of the civilian air traffic corridors approaching the Honolulu International Airport which is 

necessary to safely de-conflict with civilian air traffic.

While there are other channels within the Hawaiian Range Complex, none provide the important 

attributes of the Alenuihaha Channel. Using other channels for strait transits could introduce additional 

problems. The additional distance of other available channels from Pohakuloa Training Area would 

result in training being segmented and could impact the realism of the training as well as increase time 

and fuel costs due to transiting further between training areas. The channel between Niihau and Kauai is 

also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add at least two days of transit during each 

Under Sea Warfare training exercise (time required to move through a different channel and reposition 

to operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). The channel between Oahu and Molokai is also 

acceptable from some mid-frequency active sonar training perspective, but it is also a significant civilian 

air corridor, and raises safety concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft flying in that channel. 

In addition, the channel between Nihau and Kauai is proximate to the Pacific Missile Range Facility 

instrumented range) which would result in problems de-conflicting multiple activities and hazardous 

operations, raising safety concerns. The channel between Oahu and Molokai is located under a 

significant civilian air corridor, and its use would raise safety concerns for anti-submarine warfare 

aircraft flying in that channel during major training events. For these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still 

the most suitable for anti-submarine warfare training.

The Hawaii Island Short-finned Pilot Whales Small and Resident Population is adjacent to waters 

approaching Kawaihae Harbor, the point of amphibious insertion for forces proceeding to the range at 

Pohakuloa Training Area, which is the only range in the Hawaiian Range Complex that supports ground 

force and aviation live-fire training. Training in this area allows for the integration of carrier strike group 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-98

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

operations and amphibious landings, working in conjunction within a controlled airspace west of Hawaii 

Island for military training near the Pohakuloa Training Area range. Carrier strike group training can 

include a full spectrum of the force ¬ various ships, submarines, aircraft, and Marine Corps forces – to 

train in the complex command, control operational coordination, and logistics functions designed to 

prepare forces for deployment. As an air to ground range, Pohakuloa Training Area supports carrier 

strike group activities near a channel and near large open water areas for strike group maneuvering and 

submarine activities. Mid-frequency active sonar conducted to support strike maneuver and protect 

high value units (e.g., carrier) as aircraft go to strike at Pohakuloa Training Area is vital. 

Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad 

spectrum of naval and amphibious training. These areas provide a unique and irreplaceable capability 

within the Hawaiian Range Complex that allows naval forces to conduct realistic, integrated training in 

an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will be called to serve.

Activities utilizing in-water explosives, such as underwater detonations, bombing or torpedo exercises, 

are not conducted in the nearshore waters within the Short-finned Pilot Whale Small and Resident 

Population Area since it is not within a designated underwater training range or within Special Use 

Airspace, typically necessary for in-water explosive usage. 

K.3.5.3 Short-finned Pilot Whales Small and Resident Population Area Mitigation 

Assessment

The identified small and resident population area only takes up a very small portion of the Hawaii Range 

Complex and is located mostly within nearshore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct 

activities that involve sonar or other transducers, except where it overlaps with the Alenuihaha Channel.

Animals within the short-finned pilot whale small and resident population area could be exposed to 

sound from sonar or other transducers and some behavioral or temporary impacts could occur from the 

occasional use of mid-frequency active acoustic sonar during Undersea Warfare training, Independent 

Deployer Certification training, and Rim of the Pacific training. On the two occasions where research has 

documented the exposure of short-finned pilot whales to Navy hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar in 

Hawaii, no behavioral response was observed (Baird, W., et al., 2014; Mobley & Deakos, 2015).

The Navy has been training and testing in the Hawaiian Islands with the same basic systems for over 40 

years and there is no evidence of any adverse impacts having occurred, and there are multiple lines of 

evidence demonstrating the population’s high site fidelity to the area. Research indicates no overt 

avoidance or discernible behavioral changes when short-finned pilot whale are exposed to sonar activity 

and the little use of active sonar within the small and resident population area, therefore, it is 

reasonable to conclude that disruptions to natural behaviors are unlikely to be 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.

The current HSTT settlement agreement prohibits the use of in-water explosives within Areas 1-A 

through 1-D. However, these areas are not historically used for explosives training and testing; 

therefore, short-finned pilot whales in the small and resident population areas would not be exposed 

directly to sound or energy from explosives and impacts would not be anticipated. 

While significant long-term impacts on short-finned pilot whales from training and testing with sonar 

and other transducers or explosives are unlikely to occur within the small and resident population area,

the Navy balanced the need for the use of the area to meet training and testing requirements with the 

biological importance of the area to short-finned pilot whales. The Navy proposes to implement 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-99

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

mitigation areas that overlap some portions of the Short-finned Pilot Whale Small and Resident 

Population Area. While these mitigation areas are designed to provide additional protection for 

humpback whales, false killer whales and some beaked whale species, these measures would also 

reduce the number and level of impacts to these and other species or stocks occurring within the area, 

including short-finned pilot whales, pygmy killer whales, dwarf sperm whales, melon-headed whales, 

and dolphin species. The Navy determined establishing these mitigation areas would not compromise 

military readiness. See Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) for details on these proposed 

mitigation areas:

1. In establishing the West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-4), the Navy 

would limit the number of major training exercises using surface ship hull-mounted 

mid-frequency active sonar that could occur annually unless an increase in these activities is 

deemed necessary due to national security. 

2. In the West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (K.2-8), the Navy would not use any in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round. If a naval 

unit needs to use explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises in 

this area for national security, permission shall be required from the delegated Command 

authority conducting the activity prior to their use in the Cautionary Area. 

3. The Navy would not use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round in the 

East-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-7). Again, should national security require 

the use of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or in-water explosives in the 

area, permission shall be required from the delegated Command authority conducting the 

activity prior to their use in the Cautionary Area.

While the Navy is proposing to establish mitigation areas adjacent to the Alenuihaha Channel, the 

environmental conditions presented by the Alenuihaha Channel cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the 

Hawaiian Islands. As discussed in Section K.3.5.2.1 (Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and 

Testing), due to the strategic importance of the Alenuihaha Channel, use of surface ship hull-mounted 

mid-frequency active sonar training in the channel during portions of Undersea Warfare training, 

Independent Deployer Certification training, Rim of the Pacific, and unit level training and other 

exercises allows naval forces to train in an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will 

be called to serve. Additionally, this channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment 

because there is a shallow trench running through part of the channel. Establishing a mitigation area 

measure that would impede access and limit unit-level training and major training exercises or testing 

within the Alenuihaha Channel or impede the free execution of Navy tactical and operational 

procedures for these events would be impracticable to implement without impeding the effectiveness 

of military readiness.

The channel between Niihau and Kauai is also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add 

at least two days of transit, for example, during each Under Sea Warfare training exercise and disrupts 

the realism of the training (time required to move through a different channel and reposition to 

operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). If limited or restricted, use of the Alenuihaha Channel 

during a training event with multiple assets involved, the Navy, would be required to relocate mid 

training. While the channel between Oahu and Molokai is also acceptable from some mid-frequency 

active sonar training perspective, this channel is already within a civilian air corridor, raising safety 

concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft. For these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still the most 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-100

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

suitable for anti-submarine warfare training that enables forces to do this type of training prior to 

being deployed.

Balancing the needs of the area for this species and other species as well as the Navy’s need to access 

and use sonar in this area was considered. Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west 

of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad spectrum of naval and amphibious training. Additionally, this 

channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because there is a shallow trench running 

through part of the channel. Establishing a mitigation area measure that would impede access and limit 

unit-level training and major training exercises or testing within the Alenuihaha Channel or impede the 

free execution of Navy tactical and operational procedures for these events would be impracticable to 

implement without impacting the effectiveness of military readiness.

The West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area and the Cautionary Areas do not overlap the 

Alenuihaha Channel and therefore, would not limit or restrict the use of that area during these critical 

training activities.

Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that are important to prevent whale 

collisions. As described in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), surface ships operated by or 

for the Navy, have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when a ship or 

surfaced submarine is moving through the water (underway).

Available literature suggests that based on their smaller body size, maneuverability, larger group sizes, 

and hearing capabilities, most odontocetes would be less likely to be struck by a Navy vessel than 

mysticetes. Generally, 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’s standard operating procedures discussed in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures) 

and ongoing mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) are designed to avoid or reduce 

impacts to marine species and stocks throughput the Study Area. These measures would also limit the 

interaction between Navy vessels and odontocetes, further reducing the potential for vessel strikes in 

and outside of identified biologically important areas.

K.3.6 HAWAII ISLAND MELON-HEADED WHALES SMALL AND RESIDENT POPULATION AREA

An area with a small and resident population of melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra) off the 

northwest coast of Hawaii Island has been identified as a year-round biologically important area within 

the Hawaii Range Complex portion of the HSTT Study Area (Figure K.2-12). This small and resident 

population area is approximately triangular in shape with an area of approximately 1,750 km2 off the 

Kohala coast of Hawaii Island. As shown in Table K.1-1, and described in Section K.1.1.2, (Provisional 

2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area), the Melon-headed Whale Small and 

Resident Population Area overlaps with HSTT Settlement Areas 1-B through 1-E, and 2-E.The boundary 

for this biologically important area was based on 545 locations obtained from four satellite-tagged 

individuals (Baird et al., 2015a). The distance from shore extends from 2 km at its closest point to 47 km 

at its farthest point. The range of the Kohala resident population is significantly nearer shore and 

shallower than the Hawaiian Island population of melon-headed whales whose range includes the midocean far from the Hawaiian Islands (Aschettino et al., 2012; Baird et al., 2015a; Carretta et al., 2017). 

K.3.6.1 General Biological Assessment

For a thorough description of the melon-headed whale, see Section 3.7.2.3.11 (Melon-headed Whale 

[Peponocephala electra]).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-101

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

There are two recognized populations (stocks) of melon-headed whales in the Hawaiian Islands (Carretta 

et al., 2017). These stocks have been defined as: 1) the Kohala resident stock, which consists of resident 

melon-headed whales off the west coast of Hawaii Island in less than 2,500 m of water, and 2) the 

Hawaiian Islands stock, which includes melon-headed whales inhabiting waters throughout the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone of the Hawaiian Islands (Aschettino et al., 2012; Baird et al., 2015a; Carretta et 

al., 2017; Oleson et al., 2013). 

Figure K.2-12: The Small and Resident Population Area Identified for the Kohala Resident 

Stock of Melon-Headed Whales
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-102

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.3.6.1.1 Biological Considerations Applicable to the Melon-Headed Whales Small and Resident 

Population Area

Based on the record of animals with distinctive markings photographed from 2000 through 2008, there 

were 310 resightings of 250 individuals indicative of long-term residency to the islands for both the 

Kohala resident stock off of Hawaii Island and the Hawaiian Islands stock (Aschettino et al., 2012; 

Carretta et al., 2017). Although dedicated surveys did not start until 2000, photographic data for Hawaii 

that includes more than 1,600 unique individual melon-headed whales has documented the long-term 

(22-year) presence of three individual melon-headed whales of the Kohala resident population and the 

long-term (13-year) presence of individuals from the Hawaii Islands population (Aschettino et al., 2012). 

For melon-headed whales in Hawaii as documented during small boat surveys, the mean group size of 

approximately 252 suggests they are likely to be detected when present in an area when military 

readiness activities are being conducted (Baird et al., 2013).

Data from photo-identification, satellite tagging, and genetic studies indicating the presence of a 

resident population with strong, year-round site fidelity to the nearshore Kohala coast of Hawaii Island 

supported the identification of the Kohala resident population of melon-headed whales in those waters 

(Baird et al., 2015a). Because there are only two estimates of abundance available from survey data, no 

population trend analysis has been possible for either stock of melon-headed whales in Hawaii (Carretta 

Figure K.2-13: Range of melon-headed whales in the Hawaiian Islands from sighting and 

telemetry data.

Note: As shown on Figure K.3 13, the range of these two stocks of melon-headed whales overlap, although photoidentification and telemetry studies indicate these two populations are demographically-independent with low 

rates of interchange between them (Aschettino et al., 2012). The Kohala Resident stock satellite telemetry records 

from four Kohala resident individuals are shown as dark gray triangles, and the Hawaiian Islands stock sightings are 

shown as light gray squares. Graphic taken from the 2015 Pacific Stock Assessment Report as developed from 

unpublished data (Carretta et al., 2017). The dotted line around waters adjacent to the northwest and west shores 

of Hawaii Island represents the provisional stock boundary for the Kohala resident stock (Oleson et al., 2013), the 

outer line represents U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and the gray shaded area to the northwest indicates the 

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-103

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

et al., 2017). Although the data only represents a sample of the overall Kohala resident population, a 

total of 64 individual whales assigned to that population have been encountered on two or more 

occasions between 1986 and 2008 off the Island of Hawaii (Aschettino et al., 2012). The long-term 

documented presence by individual melon-headed whales would seem to indicate there have been no 

significant impacts on those individuals in the Kohala resident population from the long history of Navy 

training and testing co-occurring in Hawaii over that same timeframe.

The presence of melon-headed whales has been surmised based on passive acoustic detection of lowfrequency whistles south of Oahu, and beyond the identified biologically important area (Klinck et al., 

2015). Between December 11, 2014, and January 26, 2015, a passive acoustic survey was conducted in 

the Hawaii Range Complex using an autonomous glider fitted with an acoustic receiver. The survey 

began and ended approximately 120 km south of Honolulu, Oahu, navigating a circular track through

deep ocean waters that intermittently crossed over or near multiple seamounts. Low-frequency whistles 

and clicks were detected were likely associated with four species based on the frequency characteristics 

of the whistles: false killer whale, short-finned pilot whale, melon-headed whale, and rough-toothed 

dolphin. The whistles were most often detected near bathymetric features (e.g., seamounts) (Figure 

K.2-11).

K.3.6.1.2 Stressor Analysis

Sonar and Other Transducers

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), melon-headed whales in 

Hawaii may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training and testing 

activities throughout the year. Analysis for the entire Hawaii population estimates that all exposures 

result in behavioral reactions or TTS, and zero exposures resulting in PTS are anticipated. This identified 

small and resident population area is mostly located within nearshore waters where the Navy does not 

routinely conduct anti-submarine warfare activities that involve sonar or other transducers, especially 

more intense activities such as anti-submarine warfare training or major training events. While impacts 

on pygmy killer whale natural behaviors due to training and testing with sonar and other transducers 

may occur within the small and resident population area, they unlikely to rise to the level of significant 

under NEPA nor would they be 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. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be minor to moderate, from which the 

individual would fully recover quickly. 

Explosives

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives), most activities that involve underwater 

detonations and explosive munitions typically occur more than 3 NM from shore in areas that are 

designated for explosive use. Historical data suggests that explosive events are most likely to be 

scheduled at Puuloa Underwater Training Range, W-188, or KAPU HOT in W-192 south of Oahu (Figure 

K.3-3) for ease of scheduling, safety, instrumentation, and airspace concerns. These areas are outside of 

the melon-headed whale small and resident population area. 

The biologically important area is mostly located within nearshore waters and is not within a designated 

underwater training range nor within Special Use Airspace, typically necessary for in-water explosive 

usage. Quantitative acoustic analysis estimates only a single TTS and a behavioral reaction from 

exposure to explosives through the entire Study Area, so it is very unlikely that sound from explosives
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-104

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

would expose animals within the melon-headed whale small and resident population area; therefore, no

impacts on behavior would occur from this stressor.

Vessel Strike

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Marine Mammals, Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices), in 

general, odontocetes, including melon-headed whales, 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 strikes attributed to small boats and craft such as jet skis. 

Odontocetes that occur within the 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 that due on their smaller body size, maneuverability, larger group 

sizes, and hearing capabilities, most small odontocetes are not likely to be struck by a Navy vessel. 

Generally, 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.

Some studies established that marine mammals engage in avoidance behavior when surface vessels 

move toward them. It is not clear whether these responses are caused by the physical presence of a 

surface vessel, the underwater noise generated by the vessel, or an interaction between the two.

K.3.6.2 Hawaii Island Melon-headed Whale Small and Resident Population Area, 

Settlement Areas 1-B through 1-E, and 2-E

K.3.6.2.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Alenuihaha Channel, as well as the waters north and west of Hawaii Island, provides a unique 

training capability that does not exist elsewhere in the Hawaiian Range Complex. The Alenuihaha 

Channel is an ideal location for strait transits using mid-frequency active sonar during training. The 

Alenuihaha Channel is an actual channel that provides a vital and realistic analog for similar straits or 

restricted maneuvering areas where the Navy operates worldwide, such as the East or South China seas. 

For example, transit training in the Alenuihaha Channel replicates these types of strait environments 

that meet the Navy’s requirement to deploy Naval forces to ensure the free flow of commerce and the 

freedom of navigation by combatting piracy or mine threats. Naval forces are required to train to 

counter a submarine threat before deployment – to ensure the first time a surface asset conducts antisubmarine warfare training in a strait prior to being deployed to the Straits of Hormuz or Malacca or 

similar areas. Additionally, this channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because 

there is a shallow trench running through part of the channel. There are few geographic areas that 

enable forces to do this type of training outside of the HSTT Study Area. 

The ability of an aircraft carrier to defend itself from submarine attack with all available assets while 

conducting straits transits is critical to its survival in forward operating areas. The channel is located 

outside most of the civilian air traffic corridors approaching the Honolulu International Airport which is 

necessary to safely de-conflict with civilian air traffic.

While there are other channels within the Hawaiian Range Complex, none provide the important 

attributes of the Alenuihaha Channel. Using other channels for strait transits could introduce additional 

problems. The additional distance of other available channels from Pohakuloa Training Area would 

result in training being segmented and could impact the realism of the training as well as increase time 

and fuel costs due to transiting further between training areas. The channel between Niihau and Kauai is 

also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add at least two days of transit during each 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-105

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Under Sea Warfare training exercise (time required to move through a different channel and reposition 

to operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). The channel between Oahu and Molokai is also 

acceptable from some mid-frequency active sonar training perspective, but it is also a significant civilian 

air corridor, and raises safety concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft flying in that channel. 

In addition, the channel between Nihau and Kauai is proximate to the Pacific Missile Range Facility 

instrumented range) which would result in problems de-conflicting multiple activities and hazardous 

operations, raising safety concerns. The channel between Oahu and Molokai is located under a 

significant civilian air corridor, and its use would raise safety concerns for anti-submarine warfare 

aircraft flying in that channel during major training events. For these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still 

the most suitable for anti-submarine warfare training.

The Hawaii Island Melon-headed Whale Small and Resident Population Area is adjacent to waters 

approaching Kawaihae Harbor, the point of amphibious insertion for forces proceeding to the range at 

Pohakuloa Training Area, which is the only range in the Hawaiian Range Complex that supports ground 

force and aviation live-fire training. Training in this area allows for the integration of carrier strike group 

operations and amphibious landings, working in conjunction within a controlled airspace west of Hawaii 

Island for military training near the Pohakuloa Training Area range. Carrier strike group training can 

include a full spectrum of the force ¬ various ships, submarines, aircraft, and Marine Corps forces – to 

train in the complex command, control operational coordination, and logistics functions designed to 

prepare forces for deployment. As an air to ground range, Pohakuloa Training Area supports carrier 

strike group activities near a channel and near large open water areas for strike group maneuvering and 

submarine activities. Mid-frequency active sonar conducted to support strike maneuver and protect 

high value units (e.g., carrier) as aircraft go to strike at Pohakuloa Training Area is vital.

Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad 

spectrum of naval and amphibious training. These areas provide a unique and irreplaceable capability 

within the Hawaiian Range Complex that allows naval forces to conduct realistic, integrated training in 

an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will be called to serve.

Activities utilizing in-water explosives, such as underwater detonations, bombing or torpedo exercises, 

are not conducted in the nearshore waters within the Melon-headed Whale Small and Resident 

Population Area since it is not within a designated underwater training range or within Special Use 

Airspace, typically necessary for in-water explosive usage. 

K.3.6.3 Melon-Headed Whale Small and Resident Population Area Mitigation 

Assessment

The identified small and resident population area for melon-headed whales only takes up a very small 

portion of the Hawaii Range Complex and is located within nearshore 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, animals within the Melonheaded Whale Small and Resident Population Area could be exposed to sound from sonar or other 

transducers, and some behavioral or temporary impacts could occur from the occasional use of midfrequency active sonar during Undersea Warfare training, Independent Deployer Certification training, 

and Rim of the Pacific training. Predicted effects on individuals in the population are expected to be 

behavioral in response to the use of sonar and other transducers (see Appendix E). The most likely 

behavioral response (if any) by an individual melon-headed whale would be to avoid a sound source. 

Model predicted behavioral (and other) effects are based on precautionary criteria and thresholds and it 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-106

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

is likely the exposures would have little to no biological consequence. In such cases where behavioral 

effects on individual animals are at most minor and temporary, and no population level effects are 

expected.

The current HSTT settlement agreement prohibits the use of in-water explosives within Areas 1-B 

through 1-E, and 2-E. However, these areas are not historically used for explosives training and testing. 

Therefore, melon-headed whales in the small and resident population areas would not be exposed 

directly to sound or energy from explosives and impacts would not be anticipated.

The Navy balanced the need for the use of the area to meet training and testing requirements with the 

biological importance of the area to melon-headed whales and other species and proposes to 

implement mitigation areas that overlap some portions of the Small and Resident Population Area. 

While these mitigation areas are designed to provide additional protection for humpback whales, false 

killer whales and beaked whale species, these measures would also reduce the number and level of 

impacts to these and other species or stocks occurring within the area, including false killer whales, 

humpback whales, beaked whales, pygmy killer whales, dwarf sperm whales, melon-headed whales, 

short-finned pilot whales, and dolphin species. The Navy determined establishing these mitigation areas 

would not compromise military readiness. See Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) for 

details on these proposed mitigation areas:

1. In establishing the West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-4), the Navy 

would limit the number of major training exercises using surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar that could occur annually unless an increase in these activities is deemed 

necessary due to national security. 

2. In the West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (K.2-8), the Navy would not use any in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round. If a naval 

unit needs to use explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises in 

this area for national security, permission shall be required from the delegated Command 

authority conducting the activity prior to their use in the Cautionary Area.

The designated biologically important area reaches well into the Alenuihaha Channel on the Hawaii 

Island side. The environmental conditions presented by the Alenuihaha Channel cannot be duplicated 

elsewhere in the Hawaiian Islands. Due to the strategic importance of the Alenuihaha Channel, use of 

surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar training in the channel during portions of 

Undersea Warfare training, Independent Deployer Certification training, Rim of the Pacific, and unit 

level training and other exercises allows naval forces to train in an environment that replicates the 

actual areas where they will be called to serve. 

Balancing the needs of the area for this species and other species as well as the Navy’s need to access 

and use sonar in this area was considered. As discussed in Section K.3.6.2.1 (Navy Requirements for 

Area-Specific Training and Testing), access to both the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west of 

Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad spectrum of naval and amphibious training. Additionally, this 

channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because there is a shallow trench running 

through part of the channel. Establishing a mitigation area measure that would impede access and limit 

unit-level training and major training exercises or testing within the Alenuihaha Channel or impede the 

free execution of Navy tactical and operational procedures for these events would be impracticable to 

implement without impacting the effectiveness of military readiness. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-107

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

The West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area and the Cautionary Area do not overlap the 

Alenuihaha Channel and therefore, would not limit or restrict the use of that area during these critical 

training activities.

Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that are important to prevent whale 

collisions. As described in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), surface ships operated by or 

for the Navy, have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when a ship or 

surfaced submarine is moving through the water (underway).

Available literature suggests that based on their smaller body size, maneuverability, larger group sizes, 

and hearing capabilities, most odontocetes would be less likely to be struck by a Navy vessel than 

mysticetes. Generally, 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’s standard operating procedures discussed in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures) 

and ongoing mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) are designed to avoid or reduce 

impacts to marine species and stocks throughput the Study Area. These measures would also limit the 

interaction between Navy vessels and odontocetes, further reducing the potential for vessel strikes in 

and outside of identified biologically important areas.

K.3.7 COMMON BOTTLENOSE DOLPHINS SMALL AND RESIDENT POPULATION AREAS: HAWAIIAN 

ISLANDS STOCK COMPLEX

Four areas with small and resident populations of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) off the coast 

of the Main Hawaiian Islands (Kauai and Niihau, Oahu, 4-Islands Region, and Hawaii Island) have been 

recognized by NMFS as year-round biologically important areas (Figure K.2-14) (Baird et al., 2015a). 

These resident populations reflect four of the five stocks making up the Hawaiian Islands Stock Complex 

(Carretta et al., 2017). Together these areas cover approximately 21,920 km2 of water space in the Main 

Hawaiian Islands. The areas were identified based on data from photo-identification, satellite tagging, 

and genetic analyses. The boundary of the small and resident population area is defined by the 1000 m 

isobath, which is the boundary recognized in the NMFS stock assessment reports for these four 

populations (Baird et al., 2015a). As shown in Table K.1-1, and described in Section K.1.1.2 (Provisional 

2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area), the Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and 

Resident Population Area overlaps with HSTT Settlement Areas 1-A through 1-E and 2-A through 2-E.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-108

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-14: Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area

K.3.7.1 General Biological Assessment

For a thorough description of the common bottlenose dolphins species, see Section 3.7.2.3.14 (Common 

Bottlenose Dolphin [Tursiops truncatus]).

Available photo-identification, genetic, and tagging data suggest that there are four separate small 

populations of bottlenose dolphins that are resident in the Main Hawaiian Islands.

K.3.7.1.1 Biological Considerations Applicable to all Common Bottlenose Dolphins Small and 

Resident Population Areas

The biologically important areas for bottlenose dolphins were created based on evidence of year-round 

habitat use by resident populations. Visual surveys conducted from 2000 to 2012 obtained 227 sightings 

of bottlenose dolphins within the Main Hawaiian Islands and revealed that they were primarily found in 

depths of 1000 m or less (Baird et al., 2013e). Photo-identification data from 2000 to 2013 recorded

272 encounters with bottlenose dolphins and a total of 509 unique identifications; all but two 

individuals stayed within the boundaries of the specific island areas (Baird et al., 2013e).

Individuals were generally distributed in shallow water areas and numerous resightings suggest 

individuals were residents rather than part of an offshore population moving through the area. There 

were movements from Kauai to Niihau and among the four islands of the 4-Islands Region, but there 

was no evidence of movements between island groups (Kauai and Niihau, Oahu, 4-Islands Region and 

Hawaii Island). Genetic samples collected near Palmyra Atoll provide evidence of a genetically distinct 

pelagic population, which visits the Hawaiian Islands offshore waters (Martien, et al, 2012) but is 

not resident.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-109

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

The high resighting rates around the separate island areas suggest that each resident population is 

demographically independent and associated with a specific island area, and that there is no 

intermingling between the four island-associated populations (Baird et al., 2009a). Genetic analysis of 

biopsy samples shows that there is genetic differentiation between, and low dispersal rates among, the 

four island-associated populations (Martien et al., 2012). Nine individuals, from three of the four insular 

stocks, were satellite tagged, and results showed that each stayed within the NMFS stock assessment 

boundaries (Baird et al., 2013b). Individuals were tagged off Kauai, Lanai, and Hawaii, but no individuals 

were tagged off of Oahu. Although most visual survey and tagging effort took place on the leeward side 

of the islands, satellite tagging results showed that individuals used both the leeward and windward 

sides of Kauai and Lanai (Baird et al., 2013b). Additional satellite tagging data is needed to show the full 

extent of habitat use for the eastern side of Hawaii Island, the eastern half of Maui, and the northern 

side of Molokai. Synthesizing tracks from eight tags over several years, Baird created a map of common 

bottlenose density around Kauai indicating possible “core range” areas on the west and northeast coasts 

(Baird et al., 2015d). These eight animals were not, however, identified as part of the small and 

resident population.

Demographic differences among bottlenose dolphins can influence habitat selection, and, therefore, 

resource use. Results from an examination of resource use by dolphins in Florida of different ages and 

sexes showed females had the most varied use of resources, males least varied, and juveniles were 

somewhere in the middle (Rossman et al., 2015). Variation of resource use between different 

demographic groups of dolphins can have a large effect on the viability of the species especially in areas 

close to human activity and disturbance. For instance, if the habitat upon which juveniles depend is 

made less viable due to disturbance from human activity, then there could be an impact on the future 

development of the population. On the other hand, differential habitat use between assemblages could 

result in increased viability and a more robust population. If a preferred habitat were lost, the 

population could survive or even thrive in another, similar habitat even if that habitat was underutilized 

previously. The differences in resource use patterns for bottlenose dolphins likely resulted from tradeoffs between social interactions, predator avoidance, energetic needs based on body size, activity levels,

and reproductive condition (Rossman et al., 2015).

Hartel et al. (2015) suggests management mechanisms to protect dolphin populations from these 

impacts. Instead of static management boundaries, the research indicates that it would be worthwhile 

to consider dynamic protection zones or activity-based, non-spatial management measures. These 

adaptive management mechanisms are more conducive to managing a population that is highly 

dynamic. This type of management boundary may be more effective in managing impacts from human 

disturbance on a dynamic small and resident population of bottlenose dolphins than a geographically 

delineated management area, based on the results of Hartel et al. (2015).

K.3.7.2 Stressor Analysis

K.3.7.2.1 Sonar and Other Transducers

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.1 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), common bottlenose dolphins 

in Hawaii may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training and testing 

activities throughout the year. Analysis for the entire Hawaii population estimates that all exposures 

result in behavioral reactions or mild to moderate TTS, and zero exposures at levels of PTS are 

anticipated. The identified small and resident population areas are mostly located within shallow, 

nearshore waters. While impacts on common bottlenose dolphin natural behaviors due to training and 

testing with sonar and other transducers may occur within the small and resident population areas, they 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-110

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

are unlikely to rise to the level of significant under NEPA nor would they be 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. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be 

minor to moderate, from which the individual dolphin would fully recover quickly.

K.3.7.2.2 Explosives

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives), common bottlenose dolphins in Hawaii may 

be exposed to sound from sound and energy from explosives used during training and testing activities 

throughout the year. Analysis for the entire Hawaii population estimates that most exposures result in 

behavioral reactions or TTS. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be minor to moderate, 

from which the individual dolphin would fully recover quickly. A single PTS is modeled off Oahu. PTS 

could have minor long-term consequences for individuals.

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 outside of designated 

ranges. Most activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive munitions typically occur 

more than 3 NM from shore with the exception of those activities occurring in underwater ranges that 

are designated for explosive use, such as the Puuloa Underwater Training Range

Historical data suggests that larger explosive events, such as gunnery, bombing or torpedo exercises, are 

most likely to be scheduled in W-188 or KAPU HOT located in W-192 south of Oahu (Figure K.3-6) for 

ease of scheduling, safety, availability of instrumentation, and airspace concerns. However, animals 

within the Common Bottlenose Dolphin Whale Small and Resident Population Area could be exposed to 

energy from explosives, and some behavioral or temporary impacts could occur from the occasional use 

of explosives during unit-level training and testing. A single PTS is modeled for this species in this area, 

but potential biological removal for this stock is 4.9.

Standard mitigation is implemented during explosives training and testing which includes use of 

lookouts and mitigation zones sized based on activity making it unlikely that an animal at the surface 

would be affected. While impacts on common bottlenose dolphins’ natural behaviors due to training 

and testing with explosives may occur within the small and resident population areas, they are unlikely 

to rise to the level of significant under NEPA nor would they be 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. 

K.3.7.2.3 Vessel Strike

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.4.1(Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices), in general, odontocetes, 

including bottlenose dolphins, 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 

strikes attributed to small boats and craft such as jet skis. 

Odontocetes that occur within the 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 that due on their smaller body size, maneuverability, larger group 

sizes, and hearing capabilities, most small odontocetes are not likely to be struck by a Navy vessel. 

Generally, 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. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-111

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Some studies established that marine mammals engage in avoidance behavior when surface vessels 

move toward them. It is not clear whether these responses are caused by the physical presence of a 

surface vessel, the underwater noise generated by the vessel, or an interaction between the two.

K.3.7.3 Kauai and Niihau Common Bottlenose Dolphins Small and Resident Population 

Area

K.3.7.3.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Kaulakahi Channel contains shallow water portions of the Pacific Missile Range Facility, a multidimensional range that is a heavily used training and testing area. The Common Bottlenose Dolphin 

Small and Resident Population Area around Kauai and Niihau fully encompasses the Kingfisher Range 

and restricted area R-3101, and overlaps significant portions of the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater 

Range and the Shallow Water Training Range. It also overlaps portions of special use airspace W-188(A) 

and W-186 (W-188[A] and W-186). 

The Pacific Missile Range Facility is the largest instrumented multi-environment test range in the world 

and includes land, sea, and air zones. The Battle Management Interoperability Center contains the 

operational systems necessary to communicate and coordinate the complex activities involved in livefire testing and training. The existing infrastructure is unique and irreplaceable, providing a full spectrum 

of range support, including radar, underwater instrumentation (e.g., bottom-mounted transducers and 

hydrophones), telemetry, electronic warfare, remote target command and control, communications,

data display and processing, and target⁄weapon launching and recovery facilities. The Barking Sands 

Tactical Underwater Range provides underwater tracking and communication for an area of 

approximately 100 NM, and the Shallow Water Training Range covers 80 NM. The Kingfisher Range is a 

simulated underwater minefield of steel buoys that is used to test the kingfisher mine detection system 

and train operators.

Both the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range and the Shallow Water Training Range are regularly

used for Anti-submarine Warfare, Anti-submarine Tracking Exercise, Anti-submarine Torpedo Exercise, 

and Anti-submarine coordinated exercises like Submarine Commander Course and Rim of The Pacific, 

while the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range is also specifically used for Naval Surface Fire 

Support. These ranges provide operators with a shallow-water sonar training area to conduct shallowwater sonar proficiency training and readiness activities under realistic conditions on an instrumented 

range. Amphibious assault tactics are also conducted at Barking Sands on the Pacific Missile 

Range Facility.

Mine-laying events are designed to train forces to conduct offensive (deploying mines to tactical 

advantage of friendly forces) and defensive (deploying mines for protection of friendly forces and 

facilities) mining events. Aerial mining occurs off the southwest coast of Kauai and the southeast coast 

of Niihau, in W-186 and W-188. Submarine mining events are conducted in W-188. Air Operations are 

conducted within R-3101. Inert mine shapes may be released into the ocean during these training 

events. W-188 is used for a variety of Anti-air warfare and surface warfare exercises including missile 

and gunnery exercises, however only small nearshore portions of W-188(a) and W-186 overlap with the 

Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area around Kauai and Niihau.

The Pacific Missile Range Facility supports training, tactics development, and testing of air, surface, and 

subsurface weapons systems for the Navy. The instrumentation on the ranges yields a 10 ft. tracking 

accuracy, which is crucial for reconstruction, grading and feedback on events. This maximizes the value 

of available training and testing opportunities. Because of its unique infrastructure and un-encroached 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-112

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

geographic range, it is also the lead range for a variety of testing and evaluation events. Ongoing testing 

and evaluation programs include torpedo, torpedo defense, submarine and periscope detection, shipdefense systems, and other miscellaneous programs (such as gunnery and special weapons tests).

Explosives may be used for some specific training and testing events on the ranges or in W-188 and W186, though much of the explosives use in the warning areas is conducted further offshore in waters 

that do not overlap with the biologically important area. The remainder of the common bottlenose 

dolphin small and resident population area around Kauai and Niihau that lies outside of Kaulakahi 

Channel and Navy ranges is not as commonly used for training and testing. None of the specific training 

and testing areas around Kauai and Niihau are within the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National 

Marine Sanctuary.

K.3.7.3.2 Kauai and Niihau Common Bottlenose Dolphins Small and Resident Population Area

Mitigation Considerations

The training and testing activities at the Pacific Missile Range Facility would be significantly less effective 

and potentially impossible if conducted elsewhere without the feedback and communication provided 

by range instrumentation. The combination of the existing range infrastructure and adjacent controlled 

air, land, and sea zones that include shallow water, a channel, and un-encroached deep water cannot be 

replicated in other locations. Events or portions of events that require quantitative evaluation or specific 

range support infrastructure in shallow water could not be conducted in other areas of the Hawaii 

Range Complex. Anti-submarine warfare events and training could not be fully reconstructed and 

graded to determine outcomes if these activities were conducted off the range. Shallow water testing 

events may specifically require the range support services and instrumentation provided by the ranges 

in order to meet their primary objectives. The Kingfisher Range is the only one available in the Hawaii 

Range Complex; therefore, if the Navy could not access it, the only option would be synthetic training 

with no opportunity to test the system against real targets. 

The population area encompasses almost the entirety of the Shallow Water Training Range and nearly 

half of the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range. Confining activities to only the portions of the 

ranges that lie outside the population area would limit the sea space available to maneuver in a realistic 

way as required by tactics and to de-conflict when multiple platforms are present. Ships require sea 

space for safety of navigation, appropriate stand-off ranges when deploying weapons, and to prevent 

mutual interference between sonar and electronic emissions. Given the large areas of overlap, training 

would be impractical, unrealistic, and ineffective if this sea space was unavailable. Limiting or prohibiting 

the use of sonar on the ranges would not allow anti-submarine warfare events that require the ranges 

to meet their mission objectives.

While the use of non-explosive mine shapes mines is generally limited to areas greater than 600 ft. in 

depth, certain testing events may require that mines are placed in shallower areas. Restricted Area 3101 

is the only location designated in the Hawaii Range Complex for airborne mine laying. Before dropping 

inert exercise mines, the crew visually determines that the area is clear. Although the altitude at which 

inert exercise mines are dropped varies, the potential for drift during descent generally favors release at 

lower altitudes, where visual searches for marine mammals are more effective. When the inert exercise 

mine is released, a small parachute retards its entry into the ocean. The mine can be designed to float 

on the surface or near surface or to sink on a tether. Ultimately the mine sinks carrying the parachute 

with it. Standard Navy procedures are followed for the deployment of inert mines from submarines. 

There are no known instances of a Navy mine striking any species of marine mammal.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-113

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Common bottlenose dolphins are one of the most frequently encountered odontocete species in the 

Pacific Missile Range Facility, and tagging data from Navy’s Marine Species Monitoring program from 

2011-2014 shows regular use of all the ranges (Moretti et al 2015, Baird et al., 2015d). Navy’s Marine 

Species Monitoring Program and the Marine Mammal Monitoring on Navy Ranges program use real -

time passive acoustic monitoring that takes advantage of existing range instruments and other 

technologies to research a variety of questions including what, if any, are the short-term behavioral 

responses of marine mammal species when exposed to sonar or explosions at different 

levels/conditions, and what is the occurrence and estimated received level of sonar.

The Navy marine mammal research program is actively working to understand the effects of sound on 

marine mammals, including physiological, behavioral and ecological effects, and supports development 

of improved marine mammal monitoring and detection technology and overall knowledge about marine 

mammals. A bottlenose dolphin tagged on the Pacific Missile Range Facility during Submarine 

Commander’s Course in 2013 showed no large-scale movements out of the area during sonar exposures 

despite proximity to the vessels using mid-frequency active sonar, and relatively high predicted received 

sound levels (149–168 dB) (Baird et al 2014b). The ranges in Kaulakahi Channel overlap with what has 

been identified as possibly part of the population’s “core range” (Baird et al., 2015b). Despite the long 

history of Navy training and testing on these ranges, the island-associated population shows site fidelity 

and appears to be stable.

Animals within the Kauai and Niihau common bottlenose dolphin Small and Resident Population Area 

could be exposed to sound from sonar or other transducers and sound and energy from explosives, and 

some behavioral or temporary impacts could occur from the occasional use of mid-frequency active 

sonar and explosives during training and testing events at the Pacific Missile Range Facility. The most 

likely behavioral response (if any) by an individual animal would be to avoid a sound source. Satellite 

tracking data from tagged bottlenose dolphins have shown that they routinely occur on all sides of Kauai 

Island (Baird et al., 2016c), suggesting that movement from an area where sonar is in use to another 

portion of their habitat would be within their normal range of behavior and of little or no biological 

consequence. In such cases where behavioral effects on individual animals are at most minor and 

temporary, and no population level effects are expected, introducing geographic mitigation would not 

be effective at reducing adverse impacts on the population. Additionally, model predicted behavioral 

(and other) effects are based on precautionary criteria and thresholds. Observations of bottlenose 

dolphin behavior during Navy training events using sonar off Kauai have not shown the dolphins 

avoiding the sound source or exhibiting adverse impacts (Baird et al., 2014b). Given limited or no 

observed adverse effects, minimal predicted behavioral effects on individual animals, and no indication 

of population level effects, implementing geographic mitigation requiring the Navy to avoid biologically 

important areas would not be effective at further reducing adverse impacts on a population of 

marine mammals. 

Reducing or limiting Navy training and testing in the Kauai and Niihau area as part of geographic 

mitigation would not be practicable and would compromise personnel safety and reduce the 

effectiveness of training and testing. One of the primary purposes of the Navy’s instrumented range at 

Kauai is to facilitate a safe training and testing environment for surface vessels and submarines 

operating simultaneously by acoustically tracking event participants. The instrumented range also 

enhances the effectiveness of training and testing by enabling the managers overseeing the event to 

direct participants into specific tactical interactions. Navy training and testing events may require vessels 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-114

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

to move around Kauai and Niihau and through the channel separating the islands as an integral part of 

tactical scenario. Training realism cannot be achieved if pieces of the ocean environment and nearshore 

waters around the islands of Kauai and Niihau are unavailable for full tactical consideration due to 

geographic mitigation. 

K.3.7.4 4-Islands Region Common Bottlenose Dolphins Small and Resident Population 

Area, Settlement Areas 2-A through 2-C

The 4-Islands Region common bottlenose dolphin small and resident population area incorporates 

waters around Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe out to 1,000 m depth, except between Molokai and 

Oahu, where the boundary runs approximately equidistant between the 500 m isobaths around Oahu 

and the 4-Islands Region, through the middle of Kaiwi Channel. This population area overlaps with 

Settlement Areas 2-A through 2-C. It overlaps with a portion of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary, the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area, and a Humpback Whale Special 

Reporting Area.

K.3.7.4.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The 4-Islands Region provides an environment for anti-submarine warfare search, tracking and 

avoidance of opposing anti-submarine warfare forces. The bathymetry provides unique attributes and 

unmatched opportunity to train in searching for submarines in shallow water. Littoral training allows 

units to continue to deploy improved sensors or tactics in littoral waters. In the Hawaii portion of the 

HSTT Study Area specifically, anti-submarine warfare training in shallow water is vitally important to the 

Navy since diesel submarines typically hide in that extremely noisy and complex marine environment 

(Arabian Gulf, Strait of Malacca, Sea of Japan, and the Yellow Sea all contain water less than 200 m 

deep). There is no other area in the this portion of the HSTT Study Area with the bathymetry and sound 

propagation analog to seas where Navy conducts real operations that this training could relocate to. The 

Navy cannot conduct realistic shallow water training exercises without training in and around the 4-

Islands Region. In addition, this area includes unique shallow water training opportunities for unit-level 

training, including opportunity to practice operations in littoral areas that are both shallow, and 

navigationally constrained, and in close proximity to deeper open ocean environments.

Penguin Bank particularly is used for shallow water submarine testing and anti-submarine warfare 

training because of its large expanse of shallow bathymetry. While submarines do not typically use midfrequency active sonar, relying primarily on passive sonar (listening mode) to avoid detection from 

adversaries, submarines are required to train in counter detection tactics, techniques and procedures 

against threat surface vessels, airborne anti-submarine warfare units and other threat submarines using 

mid-frequency active sonar as part of both their perspective commanding officers qualification course 

and pre-deployment certification. 

The ability for surface vessels and air assets to simulate opposing forces, using use mid frequency active 

sonar when training with submarines, is critical to submarine crew training for deployed and wartime 

operations. Surface ships and aircraft mimicking opposition forces present submarines with a realistic 

and complicated acoustic and tactical environment. The Navy expects real-world adversaries to target 

our submarines with active sonar. Without active sonar from opposition forces submarines don’t get a 

realistic picture regarding if they successfully evaded detection. Surface warfare training is designed to 

support unit-level training requirements and group cross-platform events in 28 mission areas for surface 

ship certification prior to deployment. The Required Operational Capabilities and Required Operational 

Environment guidance outlines anti-submarine warfare areas specifically requiring crews to accomplish 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-115

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

58 major tasks to support both deep and shallow water anti-submarine training activities, across 

multiple domains of the open ocean and littoral areas, while conducting unit and group self-defense 

training across multiple platforms and defensive operations. The Navy expects real-world adversaries to 

target our submarines with active sonar Submarine Command Course training is conducted twice a year 

in Hawaii, in February and August, (with the intermittent use of active sonar over a 3¬5-day-period per 

event). Submarine Command Course training is an Integrated/Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare 

Training exercise. The 4-Islands Region is used for Submarine Command Course training as a location to 

train prospective Submarine Commanding Officers to operate in shallow water. 

The Pailolo and Kalohi Channels are used to simulate strait transits and provide valuable experience that 

the prospective Commanding Officers would experience while deployed. The Pailolo and Kalohi 

Channels are used to simulate strait transits and provide realistic shallow water environments for 

qualification of prospective Commanding Officers. For example, conducting shallow water antisubmarine warfare training in a deep water environment while simulating fathometer readings would 

develop bad habit patterns of ignoring the critical depth aspect of the training, and in a real world 

situation, those readings may possibly be ignored as well, and thereby jeopardizing safety and survival of 

the ship and crew. Training in actual shallow water conditions is mandatory to develop proper crew 

coordination and tactics, techniques and procedures to ensure mission success. Additionally training in 

the shallow water environment is essential for crews to experience the effect of bottom topography, 

(upslope and downslope) on sonar transmission and returns for detecting threat targets in different 

advantageous positions. The winter (February) Submarine Command Course training will typically occur 

north of Maui to avoid typical whale reproduction areas from December to April. Many of the real-world 

straits of interest where submarines deploy are similarly high-contact and acoustically 

challenging environments.

Surface vessels and air assets work with submarines in that area while conducting submarine 

Commanding Officer’s training scenarios that include extended shallow water operations at periscope 

depth, general surveillance missions in shallow water, shallow water weapons employment, close to 

shore navigation, shallow water minefield operations, and shallow water ship control. Such training 

evolutions are necessary for the Commanding Officer to learn the skills necessary, while protecting the 

vessel, to ensure the crew are capable of executing their mission.

Additionally, the 4-Islands Region possesses other attributes which make it an important area for antisubmarine and mine warfare training and testing:

1. The Hull Integrity Testing Site is used infrequently throughout the year for post major 

maintenance controlled dives to test depth. This deep water range located off the 

northwest coast of Kahoolawe is unique and provides the necessary bathymetry to 

support maintenance testing and certification. A surface ship is required to escort the 

submarine for this type of testing.

2. Kahoolawe Minefield is utilized by submarine crews and during Submarine 

Commander’s Course certification training for mine counter measure training and 

certification. Mine counter measure training is typically less than one day and does not 

involve the use of mid-frequency active sonar by the submarine. The mine warfare 

range contains multiple bottom and tethered mine shapes in shallow water.

Instrumentation provides submerged submarine positioning with Submerged Acoustic 

Navigation System buoys. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-116

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

3. Hawaii Area Tracking System, a non-instrumented range, is used by submarine crews 

and during Submarine Command Course certification training for anti-submarine 

warfare missions involving the employment of advance capability torpedoes (exercise 

torpedoes) in a challenging shallow water and bottom type environment. These 

torpedoes are non-explosive and are recovered. The areas of deep water in the Hawaii 

Area Tracking System located off the northwest coast of Kahoolawe provide challenging 

bathymetry to support submarine post-major maintenance testing and certification. The 

Hawaii Area Tracking System is also used by submarine crews during Submarine 

Commander’s Course certification training on anti-submarine warfare and surface 

warfare missions.

4. Expeditionary warfare training is conducted on the west coast of Maui—no explosives 

are used—which includes swimmers getting to a beach with small boats where access is 

limited. 

5. Unit level anti-submarine warfare training during the basic phase is conducted within 

this area.

6. Insertion and extraction utilizing small submersible vessels and small boats (rigid-hulled 

inflatable boats and zodiacs) is conducted around the waters off Maui.

This area provides a unique and highly important shallow water training environment in which units can 

practice operations in littoral areas that are both shallow and navigationally constrained. This network 

of shallow water inter-island channels is unique within the Eastern and Mid Pacific training range 

complexes. The area provides an unmatched opportunity for submarines to train in shallow water 

without the need to use active sonar during their searches. Training in these littoral areas will allow fleet 

units to continue to deploy improved sensors and tactics in littoral waters into the future. In general for 

the Hawaii Range Complex, pushing anti-submarine warfare training further from land and out of the 

littorals would add transit time (increased fuel and loss of training time).

The current HSTT settlement agreement prohibits the use of in-water explosives within Areas 2-A 

through 2-C, which overlap with the common bottlenose dolphin small and resident population area.

These areas are not historically used for explosives training and testing; however, the Maui Basin north 

of Kahului has been used for shallow water non-explosive torpedo training. Non-explosive exercise 

torpedo firing could also be scheduled in the area between Maui, Lanai, and Kahoolawe only for 

summer training (August). For the winter training (February) exercise torpedo firings will typically be 

north of Maui to avoid areas of high densities of humpback whales. This is the only location where the 

Navy can conduct very shallow water firings. These non-explosive torpedoes are recoverable. At the 

southeast slope beyond Penguin Bank the population area does overlap with a very small portion of W191, which is used for surface-to-surface Gunnery Exercise that may expend explosive munitions.

Under the current HSTT settlement agreement, mid-frequency active acoustic sonar is not used during 

major training events in Areas 2-A through 2-C, and Navy agreed to limit the use of mid-frequency active 

sonar for training and testing activities during major training events to one Rim of the Pacific in 2016, 

one Rim of the Pacific in 2018; and three Undersea Warfare Exercises per calendar year.

While Kaiwi Channel between Molokai and Oahu is not routinely used for training that involves strait 

transits to protect high-value units, this channel provides for opportunistic training within a channel 

environment for Navy ships based in Pearl Harbor. This is an area where opportunistic mid-frequency 

active sonar and anti-submarine warfare training occurs when ships are present in this area. Training 

and testing activities using in-water explosives are not conducted in Kaiwi Channel, as this area is not 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-117

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

within Special Use Airspace. Overall, this area is characterized as an area of "low use" for mid-frequency 

active sonar.

The 4-Islands Region common bottlenose dolphin small and resident population area also covers the 

shallow portions of the Alenuihaha Channel along the southeast coast of Maui. The Alenuihaha Channel 

offers a unique training capability that does not exist elsewhere in the Hawaii Range Complex and is an 

ideal location for strait transits using mid-frequency active sonar and combined Carrier Strike Group 

Operations. However, the narrow coastal waters of the 4-Islands Region population area do not extend 

far into the channel and are unlikely to be used during those operations. Operations conducted in the 

Alenuihaha channels and potential geographic mitigation in that area are addressed in the Hawaii Island 

biologically important area discussion (see K.3.7.6).

K.3.7.4.2 4-Islands Region Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area

Mitigation Considerations

Training effectiveness of the Submarine Command Course certification training could be compromised if 

units were forced to adhere to year-round restrictions and prohibitions against using any mid-frequency 

active sonar in the 4-Islands Region or if units were instead required to operate strictly on the Pacific 

Missile Range Facility ranges. The training value within the 4-Islands Region is much higher due to the 

challenging bathymetry. Such a shift in location would result in a loss of shallow water operating 

experience for prospective Submarine Commanding Officers, which is an absolutely vital skill for these 

commanders to master when the course convenes in the Hawaii Range Complex.

Some unit level anti-submarine warfare training within the 4-Islands Region, because of its unique 

shallow water environment, would be difficult to replicate elsewhere within the Hawaii Range Complex. 

Such a shift in location would result in a loss of shallow water operating experience and would 

compromise a submarine crew’s ability to retain and improve their capabilities and to train with new 

emerging technologies. Additionally, shifting all Submarine Command Course certification and unit-level

anti-submarine warfare training to the ranges offshore of the Pacific Missile Range Facility or to other 

areas could put additional pressure on other small and resident populations.

Animals within the 4-Islands Region Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area 

could be exposed to sound from sonar or other transducers and some behavioral or temporary impacts 

could occur from the occasional use of mid-frequency active sonar during Submarine Command Course 

and unit-level training and testing. The Navy is proposing to expand the existing Humpback Whale 

Cautionary Area to the north of Molokai and Maui in the 4-Island Region that overlaps partially with the 

4-Islands Region Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (Figure K.2-9). The 

Navy would restrict the use of all surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during testing, 

unit-level training and major training exercises in the Cautionary Area from November 15 through April 

15. Implementing the additional mitigation would provide some added protection to bottlenose 

dolphins in the small and resident area during that time of year. See Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to 

be Implemented) for details on proposed mitigation areas.

Training and testing using in-water explosives are not typically conducted within the 4-Islands Region as 

these areas are not a designated underwater training range or within Special Use Airspace. There is a 

very small overlap with W-191, but the area of overlap is so small that the probability of explosives use 

off the edge of Penguin Bank in the population area is very low. Current mitigation measures also 

require observation before and during activities that involve explosives, and require operators to cease 

fire or cease detonations if marine mammals are sighted in the mitigation zones (see Chapter 5, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-118

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Mitigation, for details). All other training and testing in the 4-Islands Region is conducted using nonexplosive munitions.

K.3.7.5 Oahu Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area, 

Settlement Area 2-D

The Oahu Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area encompasses waters around 

Oahu out to 1,000 m depth, except in the Kaiwi Channel between Molokai and Oahu, where the 

boundary runs approximately equidistant between the 500 m isobaths around Oahu and Molokai, 

through the middle of Kaiwi Channel. The total size of the area is in excess of approximately 800 NM2

. 

This population area overlaps with a portion of settlement area 2-D and Humpback Whale Special 

Reporting Areas along the north and southeast coasts of Oahu in the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale 

National Marine Sanctuary.

K.3.7.5.1 Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing

This population area fully contains the Pearl Harbor Naval Defense Sea Area, Puuloa Underwater Range, 

Barbers Point Underwater Range, and the Ewa Training Minefield. It overlaps portions of the Fleet 

Operational Readiness Accuracy Check Site Range and W-189.

The Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy Check Site Range on the west of Oahu is associated with insitu electronic equipment that checks range and bearing accuracy for Navy ships to ensure equipment 

function and calibration. Systems that are checked include radars, passive sonars, and active sonars. The 

ship will conduct a series of “runs” on the range, each taking approximately 1.5 hours. Both active and 

passive sonar can be checked on a single run. During a run, the ship will approach the target, which 

could be a stationary underwater acoustic transducer located offshore or the shore station, making a 

slow turn to eventually track outbound from the target, and establishing a bearing to the target in use. 

This information is compared with the known bearing. During active sonar testing, range-to-target 

information is also evaluated.

There is relatively little tactical training sonar usage in areas overlapping the Common Bottlenose 

Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area around Oahu, but opportunistic unit-level training can

occur when ships are in the area. Sonar may be used during events in W-189, but only a small portion of 

W-189 overlaps with the population area. Non-explosive gunnery and rockets and dipping sonar used 

during anti-submarine warfare training would likely occur further offshore in W-189, and not within the 

biologically important area around Oahu.

The Naval Defensive Sea Area is a restricted area at Naval Station Pearl Harbor established by an 

Executive Order and controlled by the Navy. The Naval Defensive Sea Area encompasses areas where 

underwater training for training and testing activities would occur, notably diving and salvage 

operations. The Naval Defensive Sea Area includes Pearl Harbor Channel, where activities include 

submarine navigation with sonar, sonar system maintenance and systems checks, and vessel operations.

In-port activities like Civilian Port Defense – Homeland Security Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection 

Exercises, pier-side system checks, swimmer defense, and small boat operations occur in Pearl Harbor.

Access to the area is restricted.

The Puuloa and Barbers Point Underwater Ranges and the Ewa Training Minefield are restricted areas 

used for mine neutralization and special warfare operations. Mine Neutralization involves the detection, 

identification, evaluation, rendering safe, and disposal of mines and unexploded ordnance that 

constitutes a threat to ships or personnel. Mine neutralization training is conducted by a variety of air, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-119

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

surface, and sub-surface assets. Tactics for neutralizing ground or bottom mines involve a diver placing a 

specific amount of explosives which, when detonated underwater at a specific distance from a mine, 

results in neutralization of the mine. Floating, or moored, mines involve the diver placing a specific 

amount of explosives directly on the mine. The Navy deploys divers in very shallow water depths (10 to 

40 ft.) to locate mines and obstructions. Additionally, the Puuloa Underwater Range is also used for 

diving and salvage operations and the Ewa Training Minefield is used by surface ships for mine 

avoidance training. 

Marine Corps Base Hawaii and Marine Corps Training Area Bellows are used for amphibious warfare 

expeditionary assault, swimmer insertion/extraction, and special warfare operations. Only a small, 

nearshore portion of W-189 overlaps with the Common Bottlenose Dolphin population area around 

Oahu. W-189 is used for both surface and air operations, specifically air combat maneuver, during which 

no live ordnance are used, only chaff and flares. W-189 is routinely used by Navy MH-60 helicopters and 

Marine Corps rotary wing aircraft based out of Marine Corps Base Hawaii for non-explosive gunnery and 

rocket exercises, and used during anti-submarine warfare training during which they use dipping sonar.

The limited distance from land that rotary wing aircraft can travel because of fuel limitations and safety 

factors dictate the use of this area versus other areas.

K.3.7.5.2 Oahu Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area Mitigation

Considerations

The designated Oahu common bottlenose dolphin area includes the Naval Defensive Sea Area, the Pearl 

Harbor Channel and harbor itself, underwater ranges at Puuloa and Barbers Point, the Ewa Training 

Minefield, the amphibious warfare training beaches and waters of Marine Corps Base Hawaii and 

Marine Corps Training Area Bellows, and the Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy Check Site Range off 

the west Oahu coast. All these areas and their use are critical to the Navy’s basic operations (such as 

access to Pearl Harbor), critical to the requirements (such as the shallow water diver training area at 

Puuloa), and critical to the effectiveness of specific training requirements as detailed previously. 

System checks at the Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy Check Site Range cannot be completed 

anywhere else because they require infrastructure on the bottom and on the adjacent land. 

Much of the sonar use in this population area is involved in system testing and navigation. Pier-side 

testing cannot be done outside Pearl Harbor and sonar usage when entering and exiting Pearl Harbor is 

necessary for safety reasons, for navigation and to ensure systems work and operators are proficient.

Activities on the Puuloa and Barbers Point Underwater Ranges and the Ewa Training Minefield occur 

there because access is controlled for the safety of the public, and because these areas are shallow and 

close to shore facilities for small boat access. Training and testing using in-water explosives within the 

common bottlenose small and resident population area around Oahu will only occur on designated 

underwater training ranges or Special Use Airspace. Flying or sailing those military units and all their 

equipment to the Pacific Missile Range Facility for all of their required training and testing if these 

ranges were unavailable would be impractical, due to increased costs, lost training/testing time, time 

away from homeport, all of which potentially impact readiness. The only Special Use Airspace that 

overlaps this population area is W-189, but most materials will be expended in deeper waters beyond 

the biologically important area. All training and testing outside of those areas is conducted using nonexplosive munitions.

While Kaiwi Channel between Molokai and Oahu is not routinely used for training that involves strait 

transiting while protecting high-value units, this channel provides for opportunistic training within a 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-120

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

channel environment for Navy ships based in Pearl Harbor. This is an area is used for opportunistic antisubmarine warfare training when ships are present in this area. Training and testing activities using inwater explosives are not conducted Kaiwi Channel, as this area is not within Special Use Airspace. 

Overall, this area is characterized as an area of "low use" for mid-frequency active sonar.

The identified small and resident population is located within nearshore waters where the Navy does 

not typically conduct more intense activities such as anti-submarine warfare training or major training 

events. Explosives use is restricted to designated ranges or typically conducted offshore. However, 

animals within the Common Bottlenose Dolphin Whale Small and Resident Population Area could be 

exposed to sound from sonar or other transducers and sound and energy from explosives, and some 

behavioral or temporary impacts could occur from the occasional use of mid-frequency active sonar and 

explosives during unit-level training and testing. 

There are no alternative locations to Pearl Harbor, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, shallow water areas of 

Oahu, or other associated Oahu water space since all of the waters around Oahu are part of the 

designated biologically important area. When balanced with the mitigation’s effectiveness and 

operational practicability, implementing additional mitigation, for sonar or other transducers, to further 

avoid or reduce potential impacts on common bottlenose dolphins in the small and resident population 

area would compromise military readiness.

K.3.7.6 Hawaii Island Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area,

Settlement Areas 1-A through 1-E, and 2-E

The Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area around Hawaii Island incorporate 

waters around Hawaii Island out to 1,000 m depth. This population area overlaps with portions of 

Settlement Areas 1-A through 1-E, and 2-E and a Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area along the 

northwest coast of Hawaii Island that is part of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine 

Sanctuary.

K.3.7.6.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Alenuihaha Channel, as well as the waters north and west of Hawaii Island, provides a unique 

training capability that does not exist elsewhere in the Hawaiian Range Complex. The Alenuihaha 

Channel is an ideal location for strait transits using mid-frequency active sonar during training. The 

Alenuihaha Channel is an actual channel that provides a vital and realistic analog for similar straits or 

restricted maneuvering areas where the Navy operates worldwide, such as the East or South China seas. 

For example, transit training in the Alenuihaha Channel replicates these types of strait environments 

that meet the Navy’s requirement to deploy Naval forces to ensure the free flow of commerce and the 

freedom of navigation by combatting piracy or mine threats. Naval forces are required to train to 

counter a submarine threat before deployment – to ensure the first time a surface asset conducts antisubmarine warfare training in a strait prior to being deployed to the Straits of Hormuz or Malacca or 

similar areas. Additionally, this channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because 

there is a shallow trench running through part of the channel. There are few geographic areas that 

enable forces to do this type of training outside of the HSTT Study Area. 

The ability of an aircraft carrier to defend itself from submarine attack with all available assets while 

conducting straits transits is critical to its survival in forward operating areas. Real –world adversaries 

would be expected to target our high value units in choke points like straits, where maneuvering is 

restricted and vessels are vulnerable to attack from land. The channel is located outside most of the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-121

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

civilian air traffic corridors approaching the Honolulu International Airport which is necessary to safely 

de-conflict with civilian air traffic.

While there are other channels within the Hawaiian Range Complex, none provide the important 

attributes of the Alenuihaha Channel. Using other channels for strait transits could introduce additional 

problems. The additional distance of other available channels from Pohakuloa Training Area would 

result in training being segmented and could impact the realism of the training as well as increase time 

and fuel costs due to transiting further between training areas. The channel between Niihau and Kauai is 

also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add at least two days of transit during each 

Under Sea Warfare training exercise (time required to move through a different channel and reposition 

to operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). 

The channel between Oahu and Molokai is also acceptable from some mid-frequency active sonar 

training perspective, but it is also a significant civilian air corridor, and raises safety concerns for antisubmarine warfare aircraft flying in that channel. In addition, the channel between Nihau and Kauai is 

proximate to the Pacific Missile Range Facility instrumented range) which would result in problems deconflicting multiple activities and hazardous operations, raising safety concerns. The channel between 

Oahu and Molokai is located under a significant civilian air corridor, and its use would raise safety 

concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft flying in that channel during major training events. For 

these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still the most suitable for anti-submarine warfare training.

The Hawaii Island Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area is adjacent to waters 

approaching Kawaihae Harbor, the point of amphibious insertion for forces proceeding to the range at 

Pohakuloa Training Area, which is the only range in the Hawaiian Range Complex that supports ground 

force and aviation live-fire training. Training in this area allows for the integration of carrier strike group 

operations and amphibious landings, working in conjunction within a controlled airspace west of Hawaii 

Island for military training near the Pohakuloa Training Area range. Carrier strike group training can 

include a full spectrum of the force ¬ various ships, submarines, aircraft, and Marine Corps forces – to 

train in the complex command, control operational coordination, and logistics functions designed to 

prepare forces for deployment. As an air to ground range, Pohakuloa Training Area supports carrier 

strike group activities near a channel and near large open water areas for strike group maneuvering and 

submarine activities. Mid-frequency active sonar conducted to support strike maneuver and protect 

high value units (e.g., carrier) as aircraft go to strike at Pohakuloa Training Area is vital.

Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad 

spectrum of naval and amphibious training. These areas provide a unique and irreplaceable capability 

within the Hawaiian Range Complex that allows naval forces to conduct realistic, integrated training in 

an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will be called to serve.

Other waters in the small and resident population area on the west coast of Hawaii are occasionally 

used for unit level training. Navy does not generally train or test in the nearshore waters on the north, 

east, or south coasts of Hawaii island in the remainder of the designated area. 

Training and testing using in-water explosives are not typically conducted within the boundaries of the 

Hawaii Island Common Bottlenose Dolphin Biologically Important Area as this area is not a designated 

underwater training range nor is it within Special Use Airspace.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-122

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.3.7.6.2 Hawaii Island Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area 

Mitigation Considerations 

As noted above, the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor are used for a broad 

spectrum of naval and amphibious training. Limiting or restricting mid-frequency active sonar training in 

the Alenuihaha Channel would force the separation or relocation of portions of Undersea Warfare 

training, Independent Deployer Certification training, Rim of the Pacific, and unit level training exercises 

to other channels in the Hawaiian OPAREAs further from the Pohakuloa Training Area. Undersea 

Warfare certification training occurs up to 3 times per year; Rim of the Pacific occurs once every 2 years; 

Independent Deployer Certification training occurs once per year. Segmenting these training events over 

time and space could result in an unacceptable loss of realism, could result in increased safety risks, and 

erode readiness.

Since 2009, the Navy has provided NMFS with annual sonar reporting which indicates this area has been 

identified by the Navy as an area of low use of mid-frequency sonar year-round with the exception of 

during the occasional use of this area for Undersea Warfare training, Independent Deployer Certification 

training, and Rim of the Pacific training. Animals within the Hawaii Island Common Bottlenose Dolphin 

Small and Resident Population Area could be exposed to sound from sonar or other transducers and 

some behavioral or temporary impacts could occur from the occasional use of mid-frequency active 

sonar during those events. Impacts from explosives are not anticipated in this area.

The Navy balanced the need for the use of the area to meet training and testing requirements with the 

biological importance of the area for false common bottlenose dolphin and other species. Establishing 

the following mitigation areas would likely reduce the number and level of impacts to this species and 

other species or stock, including humpback whales, Cuvier and Blainville’s beaked whales, pygmy killer 

whales, dwarf sperm whales, melon-headed whales, short-finned pilot whales and other dolphin species 

occurring within the area without compromising military readiness. See Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas 

to be Implemented) for details on these proposed mitigation areas:

1. West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area – limits the amount of surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar during anti-submarine major training exercises year-round 

(Figure K.2-4);

2. West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area – restricts the use of in-water explosives during testing, 

unit-level training and major training exercises year-round (Figure K.2-8); and

3. East-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area – restricts surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency 

active sonar and all in-water explosives during testing, unit-level training and anti-submarine 

major training exercises year-round (Figure K.2-7).

K.3.7.7 Common Bottlenose Dolphins Small and Resident Population Areas Mitigation 

Assessment

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.1, (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), common bottlenose 

dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training and testing 

activities in the Study Area, which can occur throughout the year. The majority of exposures resulted in 

behavioral responses or TTS, with the majority of those exposures occurring in the Southern California

portion of the HSTT Study Area. Animals within the Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident 

Population Areas could be exposed to sound from sonar or other transducers and some behavioral or 

temporary impacts could occur from the occasional use of mid-frequency active sonar. A single PTS was 

modeled due to exposures during training activities in the Oahu area. The results of behavioral response 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-123

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

studies in Hawaii suggest that common bottlenose dolphins do not have an observable behavioral 

response to mid-frequency active acoustic sonar (Baird, Dilley, et al., 2015; Baird, Jarvis, et al., 2014).

Animals within the Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Areas could be exposed 

to sound and energy from explosives and some behavioral or temporary impacts could occur from the 

occasional use of explosives. Navy quantitative analysis estimates some injury to common bottlenose 

dolphins during training and none from testing in the Oahu area. 

The identified small and resident population areas are mostly located within shallow, nearshore waters 

where the Navy does not typically conduct activities that involve explosives with the exception of the 

established ranges proximate to Pearl Harbor. However, sound from explosives could still expose 

animals within the identified bottlenose dolphin small and resident population areas to explosive

stressors and some impacts on behavior could occur. It is unlikely the same animal would receive more 

than a few impacts per year due to exposure to sound and energy from explosives. Bottlenose dolphin 

reactions to impulsive 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. A single PTS and a few injury were estimate from the acoustic model for this 

species, specifically for the population around Oahu. The potential for biological removal for that stock is 

4.9, however, impacts at the population level are not anticipated. 

As described in section 3.7.3.1.2.1 (Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), 

the Navy’s modeling results do not take into account mitigation and may therefore overestimate 

potential impacts. 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. Navy training and testing activities were associated with mortality takes of 

dolphins in 2011 in San Diego, but that event occurred when animals swam into a previously cleared 

area where a time-delay fused explosive had been placed. Mitigation measures in place now were 

improved to preclude a similar event and include four Lookouts and two small boats to monitor for 

marine mammals during the event; see Chapter 5 (Mitigation) for more details.

The Navy balanced the need for the use of the area to meet training and testing requirements with the 

biological importance of the area for common bottlenose dolphin and other species. While geographic 

mitigation would not be practicable to implement across the vast identified biologically important areas 

for bottlenose dolphin, given that the population areas encompass all shallow waters around all of the 

main Hawaiian Islands, the Navy proposes to implement mitigation areas that overlap some portions of 

the Common Bottlenose Dolphins Small and Resident Population Areas in the 4-Islands Region and the 

nearshore areas around Hawaii Island. While these mitigation areas are designed to provide additional 

protection for humpback whales, false killer whales and Cuvier and Blainville’s beaked whales, these 

measures will also reduce the number and level of impacts to other species or stocks occurring within 

the area, including bottlenose dolphin, pygmy killer whales, dwarf sperm whales, melon-headed whales, 

short-finned pilot whales and other dolphin species occurring within the area without compromising 

military readiness. See Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) for details on these proposed 

mitigation areas:

1. In establishing the West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-4), the Navy 

would limit the number of major training exercises using surface ship hull-mounted mid-
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-124

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

frequency active sonar that could occur annually unless an increase in these activities is deemed 

necessary due to national security. 

2. In the West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (K.2-8), the Navy would not use any in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round. If a naval 

unit needs to use explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises in 

this area for national security, permission shall be required from the delegated Command 

authority conducting the activity prior to their use in the Cautionary Area. 

3. The Navy would not use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round in the Eastside Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-7). Again, should national security require the use 

of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or in-water explosives in the area, 

permission shall be required from the delegated Command authority conducting the activity 

prior to their use in the Cautionary Area.

4. In the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-9), which overlaps the small and resident 

population area for common bottlenose dolphin, the Navy would restrict the use of surface ship 

hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar from November 15 through April 15. Should national 

security present a requirement for using surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar 

during Navy training or testing in the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area, the Navy will require 

approval from the U.S. Commander, Third Fleet or delegated SYSCOM authority, prior to its use 

in the Cautionary Area. 

While the Navy is proposing to establish mitigation areas adjacent to the Alenuihaha Channel, the 

environmental conditions presented by the Alenuihaha Channel cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the 

Hawaiian Islands. As discussed above in Section K.3.7.6.1 (Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training 

and Testing), due to the strategic importance of the Alenuihaha Channel, use of surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar training in the channel during portions of Undersea Warfare 

training, Independent Deployer Certification training, Rim of the Pacific, and unit level training and other 

exercises allows naval forces to train in an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will 

be called to serve. Balancing the needs of the area for this species and other species as well as the 

Navy’s need to access and use sonar in this area was considered. Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel 

and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad spectrum of naval and amphibious training. 

Additionally, this channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because there is a 

shallow trench running through part of the channel. Establishing a mitigation area measure that would 

impede access and limit unit-level training and major training exercises or testing within the Alenuihaha 

Channel or impede the free execution of Navy tactical and operational procedures for these events 

would be impracticable to implement without impacting the effectiveness of military readiness. 

The channel between Niihau and Kauai is also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add 

at least two days of transit, for example, during each Under Sea Warfare training exercise and disrupts 

the realism of the training (time required to move through a different channel and reposition to 

operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). If limited or restricted, use of the Alenuihaha Channel 

during a training event with multiple assets involved, the Navy, would be required to relocate mid 

training. While the channel between Oahu and Molokai is also acceptable from some mid-frequency 

active sonar training perspective, this channel is already within a civilian air corridor, raising safety 

concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft. For these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still the most 

suitable for anti-submarine warfare training that enables forces to do this type of training prior to 

being deployed.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-125

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Balancing the needs of the area for this species and other species as well as the Navy’s need to access 

and use sonar in this area was considered. Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west 

of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad spectrum of naval and amphibious training. Additionally, this 

channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because there is a shallow trench running 

through part of the channel. Establishing a mitigation area measure that would impede access and limit 

unit-level training and major training exercises or testing within the Alenuihaha Channel or impede the 

free execution of Navy tactical and operational procedures for these events would be impracticable to 

implement without impacting the effectiveness of military readiness. The West-side Hawaii Island 

Planning Awareness Area and the Cautionary Area do not overlap the Alenuihaha Channel and 

therefore, would not limit or restrict the use of that area during these critical training activities.

Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that are important to prevent whale 

collisions. As described in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), surface ships operated by or 

for the Navy have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when a ship or surfaced 

submarine is moving through the water. Available literature suggests that based on their smaller body 

size, maneuverability, larger group sizes, and hearing capabilities, most odontocetes would be less likely 

to be struck by a Navy vessel than mysticetes. Generally, odontocetes (including common bottlenose 

dolphins) 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’s standard operating procedures discussed in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures) 

and ongoing mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) are designed to avoid or reduce 

impacts to marine species and stocks throughout the Study Area. These measures would also limit the 

interaction between Navy vessels and odontocetes, further reducing the potential for vessel strikes in 

and outside of identified biologically important areas.

K.3.8 PANTROPICAL SPOTTED DOLPHINS SMALL AND RESIDENT POPULATION AREAS

Three areas with small and resident populations of pantropical spotted dolphins (Stenella attenuata) off 

the coasts of the Main Hawaiian Islands have been recognized by NMFS as year-round biologically 

important areas within the HSTT Study Area (Figure K.2-15). These areas encompass waters off Oahu, 

the 4-Islands Region (Molokai, Lanai, Maui, Kahoolawe), and Hawaii Island (Baird et al., 2015b) and 

cover approximately 7,250 km2 of water space. Visual sightings and genetic analyses suggest the 

presence of three demographically isolated populations. The boundaries of these populations are not 

known due to survey effort focused on the leeward side of the islands and lack of satellite-tag data. As 

shown in Table K.1-1, and described in Section K.1.1.2, (Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas 

within HSTT Study Area), the small and resident population areas overlap in part with HSTT Settlement 

Areas 1-C through 1-E and 2-E, and 2 -B.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-126

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-15: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area

K.3.8.1 General Biological Assessment

For a thorough description of the pantropical dolphin species, see Section 3.7.2.3.15 (Pantropical 

Spotted Dolphin [Stenella attenuata]).

K.3.8.1.1 Biological Considerations Applicable to all Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and 

Resident Population Areas

Surveys have indicated that pantropical spotted dolphins appear to be clustered near the Main Hawaiian 

Islands (Barlow, 2006; Bradford et al., 2017; Forney et al., 2015). Pantropical spotted dolphins show a 

preference for the leeward side of the islands during the summer and the winter, with a considerably 

restricted distribution in the winter (Pittman et al., 2016). Pantropical spotted dolphins have been

frequently observed leaping out of the water, likely increasing sighting distances for the species (Baird et 

al., 2013d). In Hawaiian waters, spotted dolphins have been observed in associations mixed in with 

larger numbers of spinner dolphins (Baird et al., 2013d; Psarakos et al., 2003). Both of these 

characteristics result in the increased likelihood that pantropical spotted dolphins would be detected by 

Navy personnel engaged in training and testing activities at sea and applicable procedural mitigations 

being implemented.

In Hawaiian waters, pantropical spotted dolphins have been divided into four stocks based on photo 

identification data, genetic data, and the distribution of sightings in pelagic waters around Hawaii 

(Courbis et al., 2014; Oleson et al., 2013). The four management stocks are (1) the Oahu stock, which 

includes spotted dolphins within 20 km of Oahu; (2) the 4-Islands Region 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-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-127

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

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., 2017). As a result of the photo identification data, genetic data, and the distribution of sightings, 

some of the areas where the three demographically isolated insular stocks populations are found have 

been recognized as small and resident population areas for those populations (Baird et al., 2015b). In 

the Hawaiian Islands, pantropical spotted dolphins are often found in relatively small groups compared

to pelagic populations than can be found in pods that reach 1,000. Surveys in the Hawaiian Islands in 

2002 encountered pantropical spotted dolphins having a mean group size of 60 (Barlow, 2006) and in 

2017 a mean group size of 43 (Bradford et al., 2017). Small boat surveys off Kauai and Niihau in 2011 

and 2012 encountered groups ranging in size from 1-25 and off Oahu group sizes ranged from 11-170 

(Baird et al., 2013e). During research off the west side of Hawaii Island, Silva et al. (2016) reported 

encountering one group with an estimated 400 spotted dolphins and on a subsequent day a group 

estimated to consist of 140 individuals. 

During research off the west side of Hawaii Island, Silva et al. (2016) reported encountering one group 

with an estimated 400 pantropical spotted dolphins and on a subsequent day a group estimated to 

consist of 140 individuals. Based on genetic evidence, the effective population size of the island of 

Hawaii stock (population) was estimated to be 220 individuals (Courbis et al., 2014). Given the small 

sample sizes, limited surveys, and the fact that at least one group approximately twice as large as the 

estimated total population size (n=220) has been observed in the Hawaii Island small and resident 

population area (Silva et al., 2016), there is likely considerable unrecognized range overlap between the 

insular stock and the Hawaii pelagic stock, despite the pelagic stock being defined as those spotted 

dolphins found outside of the insular stock areas (Carretta et al., 2017). Sample sizes were not sufficient 

to estimate the population sizes for the Oahu or the 4-Islands Region population (Courbis et al., 2014).

K.3.8.1.2 Stressor Analysis

Sonar and Other Transducers

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), pantropical spotted 

dolphins in Hawaii may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training and 

testing activities throughout the year. Analysis for the entire Hawaii population estimates that all 

exposures result in behavioral reactions or TTS and zero exposures at levels of PTS are anticipated. 

This identified small and resident population areas are mostly located within nearshore 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. While impacts on 

pantropical spotted dolphin natural behaviors due to training and testing with sonar and other 

transducers may occur within the small and resident population area, they are unlikely to rise to the 

level of significant under NEPA nor would they be 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. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be minor to moderate, from which 

the individual dolphin would fully recover quickly.

Explosives

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives) for pantropical spotted dolphins, Navy 

training and testing activities that use explosives could occur year-round within the Hawaii Range 

Complex. However, the identified small and resident population areas are mostly located within 

nearshore waters and do not overlap with areas where the Navy conducts activities that involve 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-128

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

underwater explosives, e.g., Puuloa Underwater Training Range or Special Use Airspace where bombing 

or torpedo exercises (e.g., KAPU HOT) would occur. Sound from explosives outside of the biologically 

important area could still expose animals within the small and resident population areas to acoustic 

stressors, though 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. While impacts on pantropical spotted dolphins’ 

natural behaviors due to training and testing with explosives may occur within the small and resident 

population area, they unlikely to rise to the level of significant under NEPA nor would they be 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. Any TTS in the biologically important 

areas would be minor to moderate, from which the individual dolphin would fully recover quickly. No

PTS or injury was estimated for this species from exposure to explosives.

Vessel Strike

In small boat surveys in Hawaii, pantropical spotted dolphins showed no obvious avoidance of the 

research vessel (Baird et al., 2013d). As discussed in Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and InWater Devices), 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 strikes attributed to small boats and craft such as jet skis. Generally, 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. 

Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that are important to prevent 

collisions with marine mammals. As described in Section 2.3.3, Standard Operating Procedures, surface 

ships operated by or for the Navy, have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, 

when a ship or surfaced submarine is moving through the water (underway). Available literature 

suggests that based on their smaller body size, maneuverability, larger group sizes, and hearing 

capabilities, most odontocetes would be less likely to be struck by a Navy vessel than mysticetes. 

K.3.8.2 Oahu Pantropical Spotted Dolphins Small and Resident Population Area

The Pantropical Spotted Dolphins Small and Resident Population Area is shown on Figure K.2-15 and 

encompasses 1,050 km2

. This area is located along the southwest coast of Oahu, between 21 N and 22 N 

latitude and 157 W and 159 W longitude (Baird et al., 2015a). The water depth of the area ranges from 

300 m to 2,960 m. The Oahu Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area does not 

overlap any settlement areas.

K.3.8.2.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Oahu Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area overlaps with the Shipboard 

Electronic Systems Evaluation Facility and a small portion of the Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy 

Check Site Range. It does not overlap with any special use airspace.

The Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy Check Site Range on the west of Oahu is associated with insitu electronic equipment that checks range and bearing accuracy for Navy ships to ensure equipment 

function and calibration. Systems that are checked include radars, passive sonars, and active sonars. The 

ship will conduct a series of “runs” on the range, each taking approximately 1.5 hours. Both active and 

passive sonar can be checked on a single run. During a run, the ship will approach the target, which 

could be a stationary underwater acoustic transducer located offshore or the shore station, making a 

slow turn to eventually track outbound from the target, and establishing a bearing to the target in use. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-129

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

This information is compared with the known bearing. During active sonar testing, range-to-target 

information is also evaluated.

The Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small And Resident Population Area also overlaps with the Surface Ship 

Radiated Noise Measurement System west of the entrance to Pearl Harbor, which evaluates the 

waterborne acoustic characteristics of Navy ships, and provides information to determine corrective 

actions to reduce a ship's acoustic noise, thus reducing vulnerability to undersea warfare threats.

Sonar may be used as ships and submarines enter and exit Pearl Harbor. The Pantropical Spotted 

Dolphin Small and Resident Population area is relatively far from the Pearl Harbor Channel, but 

opportunistic unit-level training and testing using sonar can occur when ships are in the area or 

transiting through it to and from Pearl Harbor. 

The Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation Facility provides state-of-the-art test and evaluation of 

combat systems that radiate or receive electromagnetic energy. The range includes land based test 

facilities that provide electromagnetic system test and evaluation services to afloat and shore 

commands. The facility’s services can be used for the development of new or upgraded systems, and 

provide a real-time evaluation of a system in an operational environment. Tests are conducted to 

evaluate ship, shore, and aircraft systems that emit or detect electronic emissions. These systems 

include those used for radio communications, data transfer, navigation, radar, and systems that identify 

friend and foe. Either the platform being tested, the Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation Facility, or 

both will transmit specific electronic signals. The test equipment operated by the facility allows for a 

performance evaluation of the ship, shore, or aircraft system. Tests conducted by the facility fall into 

one of two broad categories: Quick Look and System Performance tests. Neither test uses ordnance or 

sonar.

Quick Look tests are generally conducted during transit to and from port, or while pier side at Pearl 

Harbor. These tests provide a quick operational evaluation of the system(s) on the ship that are being 

tested and result in a simple “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” grade. System performance tests provide

a more detailed analysis and evaluation of the system(s) being testing, and generally require longer 

periods of dedicated testing and require the ship to maneuver in pre-defined geometries within a 

certain geographic area.

K.3.8.2.2 Oahu Pantropical Spotted Dolphins Small and Resident Population Area Mitigation 

Considerations

As discussed above, the designated pantropical spotted dolphin area off the west coast of Oahu overlaps 

the Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy Check Site Range and the Shipboard Electronic Systems 

Evaluation Facility. System checks at the Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy Check Site Range cannot 

be completed elsewhere because they require infrastructure on the seafloor and on the adjacent land.

While some Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation Facility associated testing can be completed while 

in port, more detailed analyses require specific maneuvering on the range. If these system checks could 

not be conducted Navy combat, communications, and navigational systems could go out of calibration 

without the operators’ knowledge. That could make Navy platforms unable to accurately resolve their 

targets, unable to correctly position themselves and increases the risk of collisions and grounding, or 

could make Navy ships more vulnerable to electronic warfare. Additionally, the portion of the area to 

the south is adjacent to the Barbers Point Underwater Range, the Ewa Training Minefield, the Puuloa 

Underwater Training Range, and the southwestern approach to Pearl Harbor and the Navy Defense Sea 

Area. All these areas and their use are critical to the Navy’s basic operations (such as access to Pearl 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-130

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Harbor), critical to the requirements (such as the infrastructure at Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy 

Check Site Range and Surface Ship Radiated Noise Measurement System), and critical to the 

effectiveness of specific training requirements as detailed previously. There is no alternative to the use 

of Pearl Harbor and it is most effective and efficient to use the adjacent training locations offshore. Any 

other training and testing in the small and resident population area is likely to be opportunistic during 

transit.

Activities utilizing in-water explosives, such as underwater detonations, bombing or torpedo exercises, 

are not conducted in the waters within the Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population 

Area since it is not a designated underwater training range nor within Special Use Airspace, typically 

necessary for in-water explosive usage.

K.3.8.3 4-Islands Region Pantropical Spotted Dolphins Small and Resident Population 

Area, Settlement Area 2-B

The 4-Islands Region Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (area around 

south coast of Lanai, including Auau Channel between Lanai and Maui, and northern portions of 

Kealaikahiki Channel between Lanai and Kahoolawe) overlaps with Settlement Area 2-B as described in 

Section K.1.1.2 (Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area). It overlaps with

a portion of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, the Humpback Whale 

Cautionary Area, and a Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area. It does not overlap with any special 

use airspace. 

K.3.8.3.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The 4-Islands Region provides a for anti-submarine warfare search, tracking and avoidance of opposing 

anti-submarine warfare forces. The bathymetry provides unique attributes and unmatched opportunity 

to train in searching for submarines in shallow water. Littoral training allows units to continue to deploy 

improved sensors or tactics in littoral waters. In the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area specifically, 

anti-submarine warfare training in shallow water is vitally important to the Navy since diesel submarines 

typically hide in that extremely noisy and complex marine environment (Arabian Gulf, Strait of Malacca, 

Sea of Japan, and the Yellow Sea all contain water less than 200 m deep). There is no other area in the 

this portion of the HSTT Study Area with the bathymetry and sound propagation analog to seas where 

Navy conducts real operations that this training could relocate to. The Navy cannot conduct realistic 

shallow water training exercises without training in and around the 4-Islands Region. In addition, this 

area includes unique shallow water training opportunities for unit-level training, including opportunity 

to practice operations in littoral areas that are both shallow, and navigationally constrained, and in close 

proximity to deeper open ocean environments.

Submarine Command Course training is conducted twice a year in Hawaii, in February and August, (with 

the intermittent use of active sonar over a 3¬5-day-period per event). Submarine Command Course 

training is an Integrated/Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training exercise. The 4-Islands Region is 

used for Submarine Command Course training as a location to train prospective Submarine 

Commanding Officers to operate in shallow water. The Pailolo and Kalohi Channels are used to simulate 

strait transits and provide valuable experience that the prospective Commanding Officers would 

experience while deployed. The Pailolo and Kalohi Channels are used to simulate strait transits and 

provide realistic shallow water environments for qualification of prospective Commanding Officers. For 

example, conducting shallow water anti-submarine warfare training in a deep water environment while 

simulating fathometer readings would develop bad habit patterns of ignoring the critical depth aspect of 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-131

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

the training, and in a real world situation, those readings may possibly be ignored as well, and thereby 

jeopardizing safety and survival of the ship and crew. Training in actual shallow water conditions is 

mandatory to develop proper crew coordination and tactics, techniques and procedures to ensure 

mission success. Additionally training in the shallow water environment is essential for crews to 

experience the effect of bottom topography, (upslope and downslope) on sonar transmission and 

returns for detecting threat targets in different advantageous positions.

While submarines do not typically use mid-frequency active sonar, relying primarily on passive sonar 

(listening mode) to avoid detection from adversaries, submarines are required to train in counter 

detection tactics, techniques and procedures against threat surface vessels, airborne anti-submarine 

warfare units and other threat submarines using mid-frequency active sonar as part of both their 

perspective commanding officers qualification course and pre-deployment certification. The ability for 

surface vessels and air assets to simulate opposing forces, using use mid frequency active sonar when 

training with submarines, is critical to submarine crew training for deployed and wartime operations. 

Surface warfare training is designed to support unit-level training requirements and group crossplatform events in 28 mission areas for surface ship certification prior to deployment. The Required 

Operational Capabilities and Required Operational Environment guidance outlines anti-submarine 

warfare areas specifically requiring crews to accomplish 58 major tasks to support both deep and 

shallow water anti-submarine training activities, across multiple domains of the open ocean and littoral 

areas, while conducting unit and group self-defense training across multiple platforms and defensive 

operations.

Surface vessels and air assets work with submarines in that area while conducting submarine 

Commanding Officer’s training scenarios that include extended shallow water operations at periscope 

depth, general surveillance missions in shallow water, shallow water weapons employment, close to 

shore navigation, shallow water minefield operations, and shallow water ship control. Such training 

evolutions are necessary for the Commanding Officer to learn the skills necessary, while protecting the 

vessel, to ensure the crews are capable of executing their mission.

Additionally, the 4-Islands Region possesses other attributes which make it an important area for antisubmarine and mine warfare training and testing:

1. The Hull Integrity Testing Site is used infrequently throughout the year for post major 

maintenance controlled dives to test depth. This deep water range located off the 

northwest coast of Kahoolawe is unique and provides the necessary bathymetry to 

support maintenance testing and certification. A surface ship is required to escort the 

submarine for this type of testing.

2. Kahoolawe Minefield is utilized by submarine crews and during Submarine 

Commander’s Course certification training for mine counter measure training and 

certification. Mine counter measure training is typically less than one day and does not 

involve the use of mid-frequency active sonar by the submarine. The mine warfare 

range contains multiple bottom and tethered mine shapes in shallow water. 

Instrumentation provides submerged submarine positioning with Submerged Acoustic 

Navigation System buoys. 

3. Hawaii Area Tracking System, a non-instrumented range, is used by submarine crews 

and during Submarine Command Course certification training for anti-submarine 

warfare missions involving the employment of advance capability torpedoes (exercise 

torpedoes) in a challenging shallow water and bottom type environment. These 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-132

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

torpedoes are non-explosive and are recovered. The areas of deep water in the Hawaii 

Area Tracking System located off the northwest coast of Kahoolawe provide challenging 

bathymetry to support submarine post-major maintenance testing and certification. The 

Hawaii Area Tracking System is also used by submarine crews during Submarine 

Commander’s Course certification training on anti-submarine warfare and surface 

warfare missions.

4. Expeditionary warfare training is conducted on the west coast of Maui—no explosives 

are used—which includes swimmers getting to a beach with small boats where access 

is limited. 

5. Littoral Combat Ship training and certification of the anti-submarine and mine warfare 

mission modules may require use of the Kahoolawe minefield and shallow water in 

this area. 

6. Unit level anti-submarine warfare training during the basic phase is conducted within 

this area. 

This area provides a unique and highly important shallow water training environment in which units can 

practice operations in littoral areas that are both shallow and navigationally constrained. This network 

of shallow water inter-island channels is unique within the Eastern and Mid Pacific training range 

complexes. The area provides an unmatched opportunity for submarines to train in shallow water 

without the need to use active sonar during their searches. Training in these littoral areas will allow fleet 

units to continue to deploy improved sensors and tactics in littoral waters into the future. In general for 

the Hawaii Range Complex, pushing anti-submarine warfare training further from land and out of the 

littorals would add transit time (increased fuel and loss of training time) in addition to providing an 

environment less likely to be expected in operating areas during deployment.

Loss of the shallow to deep transition would eliminate up/downslope exploitation and bottom bounce 

investigations, for example. Water space outside of Hawaii OPAREA can be subject to seasonal extremes 

making large sea states, decreasing training value. Pushing training and testing further from land 

increases the difficulty in air control reporting and coordination required to conduct integrated 

readiness activities. While Kaiwi Channel between Molokai and Oahu is not routinely used for training 

that involves strait transiting while protecting high-value units, this channel provides for opportunistic 

training within a channel environment for Navy ships homeported in Pearl Harbor. The Kaiwi Channel 

also overlaps partially with the Aloha submarine transit lane where some opportunistic mid-frequency 

active sonar and anti-submarine warfare training occurs when ships and submarines are present in this 

area. Training and testing activities using in-water explosives are not conducted Kaiwi Channel, as this 

area is not within Special Use Airspace. Overall, this area is characterized as an area of “low use” for 

mid-frequency active sonar.

The area provides an unmatched opportunity for submarines to train in shallow water without the need 

to use active sonar during their searches. Training in these littoral areas will allow fleet units to continue 

to deploy improved sensors and tactics in littoral waters into the future. In general for the Hawaii Range 

Complex, pushing anti-submarine warfare training further from land and out of the littorals would add 

transit time (increased fuel and loss of training time).

The current HSTT settlement agreement prohibits the use of in-water explosives within Area 2-B, which 

overlap with the Pantropical Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area. While this area has not 

historically been used for explosives training and testing, the area is a valuable training area for shallow 

water non-explosive torpedo training during the Submarine Command Course. All training in the 4-
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-133

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Islands Region is conducted using non-explosive munitions. Non-explosive exercise torpedo firing could 

also be scheduled in the area between Maui, Lanai, and Kahoolawe only for summer classes (August). 

For the winter class (February) exercise torpedo firings will typically be north of Maui to avoid areas of 

high densities of humpback whales. This is the only location where the Navy can conduct very shallow 

water firings. These non-explosive torpedoes are recoverable

K.3.8.3.2 4-Islands Region Pantropical Spotted Dolphins Small and Resident Population Area, 

Settlement Areas 2-B Mitigation Considerations

Only some portions of the Submarine Command Course occur in waters that overlap with the 

Pantropical Spotted Dolphin population area. However, training effectiveness of the Submarine 

Command Course certification training would be compromised if units were instead forced to operate 

strictly on the Pacific Missile Range Facility. The training value within the 4-Islands Region is much higher 

due to the challenging bathymetry. Such a shift in location would result in a loss of shallow water 

operating experience for prospective Submarine Commanding Officers, which is an absolutely vital skill 

for these commanders to master when the course convenes in the Hawaii Range Complex.

Unit level submarine training within the 4-Islands Region area, because of its unique shallow water 

environment, would be difficult to replicate elsewhere within the Hawaii Range Complex. The 

biologically important area is only a subset of the 4-Islands Region, but it is centrally located in some of 

the most operationally useful portions of the larger area. Such a shift in location for all activities would 

result in a loss of shallow water operating experience and would compromise a submarine crew’s ability 

to retain and improve their capabilities and to train with new emerging technologies.

The identified small and resident population area only overlaps with a very small portion of the Hawaii 

Range Complex. Animals within the Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area 

could be exposed to sound from sonar or other transducers and some behavioral or temporary impacts 

could occur from the occasional use of mid-frequency active sonar during Submarine Command Course 

and unit-level training and testing. Training and testing using in-water explosives are not typically 

conducted within the 4-Islands Region as these areas are not a designated underwater training range or 

within Special Use Airspace. All training and testing in the 4-Islands Region is conducted using nonexplosive munitions. 

While significant long-term impacts on pantropical spotted dolphin from training and testing with sonar 

and other transducers or explosives are unlikely to occur within the small and resident population area,

the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area overlaps most of the 4-Islands Region Pantropical Spotted 

Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area, where the use of all surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar is restricted during testing unit-level training and major training exercises from

November 15 through April 15. Implementing this geographic mitigation would provide some added 

protection to pantropical spotted dolphin in the small and resident area during that time of year.

K.3.8.4 Hawaii Island Pantropical Spotted Dolphins Small and Resident Population Area,

Settlement Areas 1-C through 1-E and 2-E

The Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area Hawaii Island (portion of near 

shore area west of Hawaii Island out to 65 km) overlaps with Settlement Areas 1-C through 1-E and 2-E.

It overlaps with a small portion of a Humpback Whale Special Reporting Area in the Hawaiian Islands 

Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, and does not overlap with any special use airspace. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-134

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.3.8.4.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Hawaii Island Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area includes waters 

approaching Kawaihae Harbor, the point of amphibious insertion for forces proceeding to the range at 

the Pohakuloa Training Area, the only range in the Hawaii Range Complex that supports ground force 

and aviation live-fire training. Training in this area allows for the integration of carrier strike group 

operations and amphibious landings. Sea, air, and land-based units work in conjunction with one 

another in controlled airspace in close proximity to the Pohakuloa Training Area range, the only range of 

its kind in Hawaii.

The waters west of Hawaii Island and those approaching Kawaihae Harbor support a wide spectrum of 

naval and amphibious training. Sea space and controlled airspace near the Pohakuloa Training Area land 

range facilitates integrated/coordinated training for anti-submarine, amphibious, and surface warfare.

Hawaii Island is unique in that it has the only air to ground range able to support carrier strike group 

activities near a channel and near large open water areas for strike group maneuvering and submarine 

activities. Mid-frequency active sonar supports strike maneuver while protecting a high value unit (e.g., 

carrier) as aircraft from the strike group strike at Pohakuloa Training Area as part of vital training. The 

area around Hawaii Island is used by surface ships with anti-submarine warfare capability to train to 

clear the sea space for any submarine threat before Marines go ashore at Kawaihae Harbor at the 

military landing zone during amphibious movements into the Pohakuloa Training Area range.

K.3.8.4.2 Hawaii Island Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area

Mitigation Considerations

As noted above, the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor are used for a broad spectrum of naval and 

amphibious training. These areas provide a unique and irreplaceable capability within the Hawaii Range 

Complex that allows naval forces to conduct realistic, integrated training in an environment that 

replicates the actual areas where they will be called to serve.

Since 2009, the Navy has provided NMFS with annual sonar reporting throughout the Hawaii Range 

Complex. This reporting is pertinent to NMFS in order to clarify that the area is an area of low use for 

mid-frequency active sonar. Through this reporting requirement, this area has been identified by the 

Navy as an area of low use of mid-frequency sonar year-round with the exception of during the 

occasional use of this area for Undersea Warfare training, Independent Deployer Certification training, 

and Rim of the Pacific training. 

The identified small and resident population area only overlaps with a very small portion of the Hawaii 

Range Complex and is located within nearshore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct 

activities that involve sonar or other transducers, especially more intense activities such as antisubmarine warfare training or major training events. However, animals within the Pantropical Spotted 

Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area could be exposed to sound from sonar or other transducers 

and some behavioral or temporary impacts could occur from the occasional use of mid-frequency active 

sonar during Undersea Warfare training, Independent Deployer Certification training, and Rim of the 

Pacific training. The Navy balanced the need for the use of the area to meet training and testing 

requirements with the biological importance of the area for pantropical spotted dolphins and other 

species. Establishing the following mitigation areas would likely reduce the number and level of impacts 

to this species and other species or stock, including humpback whales, Cuvier and Blainville’s beaked 

whales, pygmy killer whales, dwarf sperm whales, melon-headed whales, short-finned pilot whales and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-135

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

other dolphin species occurring within the area without compromising military readiness. See Section 

K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) for details on these proposed mitigation areas:

1. West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area – limits the amount of surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar during anti-submarine major training exercises year-round 

(Figure K.2-4)

2. West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area – restricts the use of in-water explosives during testing, 

unit-level training and major training exercises year-round (Figure K.2-8). See Section K.2.2

(Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) for details on these proposed mitigation areas.

K.3.8.5 Pantropical Spotted Dolphins Small and Resident Population Areas Mitigation 

Assessment

Animals within the Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area could be exposed to 

sound from sonar or other transducers and some behavioral or temporary impacts could occur from the 

occasional use of mid-frequency active sonar. Navy quantitative modelling does not estimate any nonauditory injuries to pantropical spotted dolphins in the HSTT Study Area due to Navy training and 

testing. Pantropical spotted dolphins are most likely to respond to exposures to sonar and other 

transducers with short-term behavioral reactions or TTS from which they would fully recover quickly.

Pantropical spotted dolphins currently total over 15,900 individuals in the Hawaii Pelagic stock, with an 

unknown number of individuals in the Oahu, the 4-Islands Region, and the Hawaii Island small and 

resident populations. It is unlikely the same animal would receive more than a few impacts per year due 

to exposure to sound from sonar used during training and testing. While impacts on pantropical spotted 

dolphins’ natural behaviors due to training and testing with sonar and other transducers may occur 

within the small and resident population area, they are unlikely to rise to the level of significant under 

NEPA nor would they be 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. 

Activities utilizing in-water explosives, such as underwater detonations, bombing and torpedo exercises, 

are not conducted in any of the Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Areas, and 

therefore impacts are not expected. 

However, the Navy proposes to implement mitigation areas that overlap some portions of the 

Pantropical Spotted Dolphins Small and Resident Population Areas in the 4-Islands Region and the 

nearshore areas around Hawaii Island. While these mitigation areas are designed to provide additional 

protection for humpback whales, false killer whales and beaked whale species, these measures would

also reduce the number and level of impacts to other species or stocks occurring within the area, 

including pantropical spotted dolphin. See Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be implemented) for 

details on these proposed mitigation areas.

1. In establishing the West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-4), the Navy 

would limit the number of major training exercises using surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar that could occur annually unless an increase in these activities is deemed 

necessary due to national security. 

2. In the West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (K.2-8), the Navy would not use any in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round. If a naval 

unit needs to use explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises in 

this area for national security, permission shall be required from the delegated Command 

authority conducting the activity prior to their use in the Cautionary Area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-136

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

3. In the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-9), which overlaps the small and resident 

population area for pantropical spotted dolphin, the Navy would restrict the use of surface ship 

hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar from November 15 through April 15. Should national 

security present a requirement for using surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar 

during Navy training or testing in the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area, the Navy will require 

approval from the U.S. Commander, Third Fleet or delegated SYSCOM authority, prior to its use 

in the Cautionary Area. 

Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that are important to prevent whale 

collisions. As described in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), surface ships operated by or 

for the Navy has personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when a ship or surfaced 

submarine is moving through the water. Available literature suggests that, based on their smaller body 

size, maneuverability, larger group sizes, and hearing capabilities, most odontocetes would be less likely 

to be struck by a Navy vessel than mysticetes. Generally, odontocetes (including pantropical spotted 

dolphins) 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’s standard operating procedures discussed in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures) 

and ongoing mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) are designed to avoid or reduce 

impacts to marine species and stocks throughout the Study Area. These measures would also limit the 

interaction between Navy vessels and odontocetes, further reducing the potential for vessel strikes in 

and outside of identified biologically important areas.

K.3.9 SPINNER DOLPHINS SMALL AND RESIDENT POPULATION AREAS: HAWAIIAN ISLANDS STOCK

COMPLEX 

Areas with a small and resident population of spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) in waters from 

Hawaii Island to Kure and Midway Atolls and Pearl and Hermes Reefs were identified as year-round 

biologically important areas within the HSTT Study Area in Baird et al (2015b) (Figure K.2-16 and Figure 

K.2-17). These resident populations reflect five of the six spinner dolphin stocks making up the Hawaiian 

Islands Stock Complex (Carretta et al., 2017). The Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Areas 

have an overall area that covers approximately 38,000 km2 and extends 10 NM off the coast of each 

island, atoll, or reef. The water depth of the area ranges up to approximately 4,440 m. These small and 

resident population areas overlap in part with HSTT Settlement Areas 2-A through 2-D, 1-A through 1-E, 

and 2-E. General Biological Assessment

NMFS recognizes five distinct island-associated stocks of spinner dolphins in Hawaii. They are the 

Midway/Kure, Pearl and Hermes Reef, Kauai and Niihau, Oahu/4-Islands Region, and Hawaii Island 

stocks. Spinner dolphins that occur farther than 10 NM offshore are considered to be part of a pelagic 

stock. None of these stocks are listed under the ESA.

K.3.9.1.1 Biological Considerations Applicable to all Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident 

Population Areas

For a thorough description of the spinner dolphin species, see Section 3.7.2.3.17 (Spinner Dolphin 

[Stenella longirostris]).

Spinner dolphins occur in both oceanic and coastal environments and do not show seasonal movement 

patterns (Jefferson et al., 2015). 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. 

Genetic evidence has identified five isolated populations of spinner dolphins in the Hawaiian archipelago 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-137

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

and it is these populations that have been identified as small and resident populations, which also 

correspond to the stock designations (Carretta et al., 2017). The boundaries of the populations are 

recognized from shore out to 10 NM, as few individuals have been found to occur farther offshore, or to 

move significant distances from island associated habitat (Baird et al., 2015a; Carretta et al., 2011).

Spinner dolphins exhibit a predictable diurnal behavioral pattern of foraging in deeper waters offshore 

at night, and moving to shallow (less than 50 m) protected areas (e.g., bays) during the day to rest and 

socialize (Tyne et al., 2014).

Figure K.2-16: Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area Main Hawaiian Islands
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-138

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-17: Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area in Northwest Hawaiian 

Islands

The biologically important areas described for spinner dolphins are used for both daytime behaviors

(rest and socialization) closer to shore and nocturnal foraging behavior offshore. Island-associated 

spinner dolphins have been tagged and tracked moving as far as 8 km offshore to feed (Hill et al., 2010). 

While genetic differences are statistically significant between island-associated populations, the Kure 

and Midway atolls, and Pearl and Hermes reef, genetic indicators from populations on Oahu are not 

significantly different from the Niihau/Kauai or the Maui/Lanai (4-Islands Region) populations. 

Therefore, due to geographic separation from Niihau and Kauai, the Oahu population is considered to be

part of the 4-Islands Region population (Hill et al., 2010). Models by Tyne et al., (2015) found that 

spinner dolphins are highly unlikely to rest in areas other than protected embayments after being 

displaced or disturbed by anthropogenic activity (e.g., swimming, kayaking, close proximity to small 

boat). Daytime resting areas located close to shore are easily accessible by dolphin watching boats,

resulting in an increase in vessel, kayak, and swimmer traffic inside and at the mouths of bays where 

resting behavior occurs. On the Island of Hawaii, these activities have resulted in spinner dolphins 

spending less time in essential resting habitats (Heenehan et al., 2016a; Heenehan et al., 2016b; 

Heenehan et al., 2017a; Heenehan et al., 2017b; Tyne et al., 2014; Tyne, 2015; Tyne et al., 2015; Tyne et 

al., 2017). 

At night, spinner dolphins must remain vigilant for foraging and predator avoidance. As an animal 

remains vigilant they exhibit enhanced brain function and tire. The accrual of time staying vigilant causes 

vigilance decrement in higher vertebrates which results in an individual’s decreased ability to detect 

predators or prey, and may also reduce their decision-making skills (Tyne et al., 2014). This decreased 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-139

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

ability to locate predators and prey as well as make decisions leads to negative impacts on individuals 

and, if chronic, to entire small and resident populations. 

Typically, spinner dolphins return to protected bays at sunrise and socialize then rest over sandy bottom 

substrate between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. before becoming more social before nightfall and their next 

feeding (Tyne et al., 2016). Because spinner dolphins have a predictable behavioral pattern of feeding 

nocturnally and returning to bays in the morning and throughout the day to rest, they may be less 

resilient to tourism related human disturbances than other species since this is their normal resting 

period (Tyne et al., 2017). Estimates of spinner dolphin populations were not reliable in 2010 for any of 

the spinner dolphin stocks; the collaborative project Spinner Dolphin Acoustics Population Parameters 

and Human Impacts Research Project was developed to assess the abundance, distribution, and 

behavior of spinner dolphins along the west (Kona) coast of the island of Hawaii (Tyne et al., 2015). 

Results of this study found that there was an abundance of between 631 and 668 spinner dolphins on 

the west coast of the island of Hawaii (Tyne et al., 2015). The interactions between humans and spinner 

dolphins has increased significantly in Hawaii over the last 30 years, and the abundance estimates from 

2011 and 2012 were lower than in previous estimates. This may indicate that there has been a longterm impact on the small and resident populations from tourism and human disturbance in resting bays

(Heenehan et al., 2017a; Tyne et al., 2017).

On November 16, 2016, as a result of these studies, NMFS reopened the comment period on a proposed 

rule in the Federal Register (81 Federal Register 80629), issued originally on August 24, 2016 (81 FR 

57854) under the under MMPA, to prohibit swimming with and approaching Hawaiian spinner dolphins 

within 50 yards (45.7 m) for persons, vessels, and objects, including approach by interception (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2016a, 2016c). Other alternatives proposed in the ruling include time-area 

closures of certain preferred resting bay habitats to preclude tourism related disturbances at those 

locations. As of the time of this writing, the proposed rule has not been finalized.

The U.S. Navy has been funding monitoring in the Main Hawaiian Islands under the Pacific Fleet Marine 

Species Monitoring Program since the mid-2000s. Since 2012, monitoring in the Hawaii Range Complex

has occurred primarily off Kauai in order to utilize the instrumented hydrophone range at the Pacific 

Missile Range Facility for passive acoustic monitoring and analysis of marine mammal exposure and 

response to Navy training and testing. The Pacific Missile Range Facility is used for a variety of training 

and testing activities, including anti-submarine warfare training which requires use of hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar. Since 2007, several days of marine mammal acoustic data have been obtained 

and archived from the Pacific Missile Range Facility hydrophones each month for future analysis.

Submarine Command Course occurs on the range twice a year and utilizes mid-frequency active sonar

so it was chosen by U.S. Pacific Fleet as the focal training event for monitoring. Additional (classified) 

data have been archived since 2011 from Submarine Command Course for post-exercise analysis of 

marine mammal exposure and response. 

Non-systematic boat-based visual surveys were added to the monitoring program beginning in 2012. 

They have occurred primarily off the Pacific Missile Range Facility in order to utilize localizations from 

the instrumented range to prioritize species for satellite tag deployment and enable opportunistic 

behavioral exposure and response analyses. The surveys are scheduled just prior to the Submarine 

Command Course to maximize the possibility of tagging animals that may stay in close proximity to the 

range during the training event. Photos and biopsy samples are also collected to feed analysis of 

occurrence, population structure and habitat use of marine mammals in the archipelago.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-140

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Spinner dolphins have been detected during monitoring surveys at the Pacific Missile Range Facility both 

visually and using passive acoustics. Data collected based on these monitoring survey results are 

discussed in detail in the Stressor Analysis sections. 

K.3.9.1.2 Stressor Analysis

Sonar and Other Transducers

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), spinner dolphins in Hawaii 

may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training and testing activities 

throughout the year. Analysis for the entire Hawaii population estimates that most exposures result in 

behavioral reactions or TTS, and zero exposures at levels of PTS are anticipated. Although the Navy 

proposes to continue use of mid-frequency active sonar throughout the Hawaii Range Complex, it is 

likely to be used more frequently and with more short-duration intensity by surface ships off the Pacific 

Missile Range Facility and further offshore than the extent of the biologically important areas. Spinner 

dolphins are routinely sighted within or in the vicinity of the range off Kauai (Ampela et al., 2015; Baird 

et al., 2015d; Baird et al., 2016b; Deakos & Richlen, 2015; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2006a).

Behavioral response studies are being or have been conducted at three U.S. Navy instrumented ranges 

(the Pacific Missile Range Facility in the Hawaii Range Complex, the Atlantic Undersea Test and 

Evaluation Center in the Bahamas, and the Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range in the 

Southern California Range Complex). Methodologies differ in all three (e.g., controlled exposure, tag 

type); however, results consistently suggest that behavioral response is species and context specific.

Monitoring shows that spinner dolphins would not be expected to respond to acoustic stressors in a 

distressed fashion as discussed in the 2006 Rim of the Pacific Exercise After Action Report (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2006b), and post naval activity surveys and Submarine Commander’s Course 

monitoring from 2014 (Mobley & Deakos, 2015; Mobley et al., 2015). The results of these surveys 

showed that no animals exhibited unusual behavior or signs of distress, and that there were no 

strandings as a result of the activities. The impact of mid-frequency active acoustic sonar exposure on 

behaviors such as feeding and reproduction on this species is not well characterized. However, these 

three examples represent the best available data for this species with regard to response to midfrequency acoustic sonar.

On the west coast of the Island of Hawaii, Heenehan et al. (2017) conducted passive acoustic monitoring 

and visual surveys across four spinner dolphin embayments between January 2011 and March 2013. 

Humans drastically altered the daytime soundscape with sound from nearby commercial aquaculture, 

tourist vessels and swimmers. In the two years of monitoring there was, in August 2011, one recorded

mid-frequency sonar event, brief sonar pings were measured at sound pressure levels as high as 45.8 dB 

re 1 uPa above median noise levels (Heenehan et al., 2017). There were no observed behavioral 

reactions by spinner dolphins at the time of the August 2011 event. Given the distance from the source,

it is unlikely there were any significant impacts on spinner dolphins resulting from that sound exposure. 

Monitoring and research data, albeit with small sample sizes, suggests that individual spinner dolphins 

do not respond to U.S. Navy mid-frequency active sonar in such a way that would reduce their use of a 

geographic area or to cause behavioral responses to the extent that behavioral patterns are abandoned 

or significantly altered.

While impacts on spinner dolphins’ natural behaviors due to training and testing with sonar and other 

transducers may occur within the small and resident population areas, they are unlikely to rise to the 

level of significant under NEPA nor would they be sustained for a duration long enough that it caused an 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-141

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

animal to be outside of normal daily variations in feeding, reproduction, resting, migration/movement, 

or social cohesion. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be minor to moderate, from which 

the individual dolphin would fully recover quickly.

Explosives

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), spinner dolphins in Hawaii 

may be exposed to sound from sound and energy from explosives used during training and testing 

activities throughout the year. Analysis for the entire Hawaii population estimates that most exposures 

result in behavioral reactions or TTS, and one exposure at the levels of PTS is anticipated in the Oahu/4-

Islands region.

Since most activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive munitions typically occur more 

than 3 NM from shore with the exception of underwater training ranges that are designated for 

explosive use, it is unlikely the PTS would occur in the Oahu/4-Islands region. Historical data suggests 

that explosive events are most likely to be scheduled at either the Puuloa Underwater Training Range

(located near the entrance to Pearl Harbor), offshore in W-188, or the range area designated as KAPU 

HOT in W-192 south of Oahu (see Chapter 2 [Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives], Figures 

2.1-2 and 2.1-4). Procedural mitigation, as described in Chapter 5, (Mitigation), is implemented during 

explosives training and testing which includes the use of lookouts and mitigation zones (sized based on 

activity), making it unlikely that an animal at the surface would be affected.

Seven groups of spinner dolphins were sighted on 1 and 4–6 August 2014 post-Rim of the Pacific 

Exercise (which included the use of explosives) shoreline surveys on Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and 

Kahoolawe. No stranded animals were seen throughout the surveys post naval activities (Mobley & 

Deakos, 2015). Although Navy monitoring data has added to the scientific base of knowledge on 

species/stock occurrence, habitat use, and genetics, the Navy is not aware of any research or monitoring 

data that specifically evaluates spinner dolphin responses to explosives. However, a general discussion 

of the effects of explosives and blast trauma to marine mammals is discussed in Section 3.7.3.2

(Explosive Stressors).

Navy training and 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 nearshore waters 

where the Navy does not typically conduct activities that involve explosives; the exception being the 

historically used Puuloa Underwater Training Range on the south shore of Oahu near the Pearl Harbor 

entrance. While impacts on spinner dolphins’ natural behaviors due to training and testing with 

explosives may occur within the small and resident population areas, they are unlikely to rise to the level 

of significant under NEPA nor would they be 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. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be minor to moderate, from which 

the individual dolphin would fully recover quickly. The potential for biological removal for the Oahu/4-

Islands stock is 3.3, where one PTS exposure is modeled. PTS, if it were to occur, could have minor longterm consequences for individuals.

Vessel Strike

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices), 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 strikes attributed to small boats and 

craft such as jet skis. Generally, odontocetes are more capable of physically avoiding a vessel strike and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-142

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

since some species occur in large groups, they are more easily seen when they are closer to the water 

surface. 

Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that are important to prevent 

collisions with marine mammals. As described in Section 2.3.3, Standard Operating Procedures, surface 

ships operated by or for the Navy, have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, 

when a ship or surfaced submarine is moving through the water (underway). Available literature 

suggests that based on their smaller body size, maneuverability, larger group sizes, and hearing 

capabilities, most odontocetes would be less likely to be struck by a Navy vessel than mysticetes. 

K.3.9.2 Kure and Midway Atolls Spinner Dolphins Small and Resident Population Area

The Kure and Midway Atolls Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area incorporate waters 

around Kure and Midway out to 10 NM and covering approximately 4,630 km2 of water space. It does 

not overlap with any of the settlement areas described in Section K.1.1.2 (Provisional 2015 Prohibited or 

Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area).

K.3.9.2.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

Kure and Midway Atolls are in the Hawaii Temporary OPAREA, which is composed of 2.1 million NM2 of 

sea and airspace north and west of Kauai used predominately for research, development and test 

activities. It is mostly used for missile defense testing, which is not a part of the Proposed Action.

Activities in the Temporary OPAREA that are covered in this EIS may include air, surface, and antisubmarine warfare activities. The training and testing activities that typically occur within the area 

include opportunistic training by individual ships transiting to and from the Western Pacific on 

deployment or occasional positioning of ships supporting testing or other events and are likely to occur 

in deeper waters of the large temporary operating area and would not overlap with the small and 

resident population area.

K.3.9.2.2 Kure and Midway Atolls Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area Mitigation 

Considerations

This biologically important area overlaps with the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, 

Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, and the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Kure and Midway Atolls biologically important area is seldom, if ever, exposed to any stressors 

during Navy training and testing and it is highly unlikely that any of activities associated with the 

Proposed Action would interact in any way with the shallow coastal areas around Kure and Midway 

Atolls that overlap with the small and resident population area. 

There are no predicted acoustic or explosives effects on spinner dolphins in the Kure and Midway Atolls 

Small and Resident Population Area as a result of quantitative acoustic modeling. The Navy does not 

propose an increase in activities in the monument or activities that are different from those currently 

conducted in this area. The proposed activities are consistent and compatible with other uses and the 

resource protection in this area. See Section 6.1.2.6.1 (Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument) for an analysis of the effects from Navy activities on the Monument resources.

K.3.9.3 Pearl and Hermes Reef Spinner Dolphins Small and Resident Population Area

The Pearl and Hermes Reef Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area incorporate waters 

around Pearl and Hermes Reef out to 10 NM covering approximately 2,100 km2 of water space. It does 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-143

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

not overlap with any of the settlement areas described in Section K.1.1.2 (Provisional 2015 Prohibited or 

Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area).

K.3.9.3.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

Pearl and Hermes Reef are in the Hawaii Temporary OPAREA, which is composed of 2.1 million square 

NM2 of sea and airspace north and west of Kauai used predominately for research, development, and 

test activities. It is mostly used for missile defense testing, which is not a part of the Proposed Action.

Activities in the Temporary OPAREA that are covered in this EIS may include air, surface, and antisubmarine warfare activities. The training and testing activities that typically occur within the area 

include opportunistic training by individual ships transiting to and from the Western Pacific on 

deployment or occasional positioning of ships supporting testing or other events. These activities are 

likely to occur in deeper waters of the large temporary operating area and would not overlap with the 

small and resident population area.

K.3.9.3.2 Pearl and Hermes Reef Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area Mitigation 

Considerations

This biologically important area is part of Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, Midway 

Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, and the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Pearl and Hermes Atolls biologically important area is seldom, if ever, exposed to any stressors 

during Navy training and testing and it is highly unlikely that any of activities associated with the 

Proposed Action would interact in any way with the shallow coastal areas around Pearl and Hermes 

Atolls that overlap with the small and resident population area. 

There are no predicted acoustic or explosive effects on spinner dolphins in the Pearl and Hermes Atolls 

Small and Resident Population Area as a result of quantitative acoustic modeling. The Navy does not 

propose an increase in activities in the monument or activities that are different from those currently 

conducted in this area. The proposed activities are consistent and compatible with other uses and the 

resource protection in this area. See Section 6.1.2.6.1 (Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument) for an analysis of the effects from Navy activities on the Monument resources.

K.3.9.3.3 Kauai and Niihau Spinner Dolphins Small and Resident Population Area

The Kauai and Niihau Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area incorporates waters around 

Kauai, Niihau, and Kaula Islet out to 10 NM, including two Humpback Whale Special Reporting Areas, 

one of which is part of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, and most of 

the Kaulakahi Channel between Kauai and Niihau. The area covers approximately 7,220 km2 of water 

space. It does not overlap with any of the settlement areas described in Section K.1.1.2 (Provisional 

2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area).

K.3.9.3.4 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Kaulakahi Channel contains shallow water portions of the Pacific Missile Range Facility, a multidimensional testing and training range that is a heavily used training and testing area. The Spinner 

Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area around Kauai and Niihau fully encompasses the Kingfisher 

Range, the Shallow Water Training Range, restricted areas R-3101 and R-3107, and overlaps most of the 

Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range. It also overlaps portions of special use airspace Warning 

Areas 188(A), 186, and all of W-187 (W-188[A], W-186, and W-187). 

The Pacific Missile Range Facility is the largest instrumented multi-environment test range in the world 

and includes land, sea, and air zones. The Battle Management Interoperability Center contains the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-144

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

operational systems necessary to communicate and coordinate the complex activities involved in livefire testing and training. The existing infrastructure is unique and irreplaceable, providing a full spectrum 

of range support, including radar, underwater instrumentation (e.g., bottom-mounted transducers and 

hydrophones), telemetry, electronic warfare, remote target command and control, communications, 

data display and processing and target⁄weapon launching and recovery facilities. The Barking Sands 

Tactical Underwater Range provides underwater tracking and communication for an area of 

approximately 100 NM2

, and the Shallow Water Training Range covers 80 NM2. The Kingfisher Range is a 

simulated underwater minefield of steel buoys that is used to test the kingfisher mine detection system 

and train operators.

Both the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range and the Shallow Water Training Range are regularly 

used for anti-submarine warfare, anti-submarine tracking and torpedo exercises, and anti-submarine

coordinated/integrated training, such as Submarine Commanders Certification and Rim of the Pacific.

The Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range is also specifically used for Naval Surface Fire Support. The

Shallow Water Training Range provides operators with a shallow-water environment to conduct 

shallow-water sonar proficiency training and readiness under realistic conditions on an 

instrumented range.

Mine laying events are designed to train forces to conduct offensive (deploy mines to tactical advantage 

of friendly forces) and defensive (deploy mines for protection of friendly forces and facilities) mine 

warfare events. Aerial mining lines are generally developed off the southwest coast of Kauai and the 

southeast coast of Niihau, in W-186 and W-188. Submarine mining events are conducted in W-188. Air 

operations are conducted within R3101. Non-explosive mine shapes may be released into the ocean 

during these training events. W-188 is used for a variety of air warfare and surface warfare exercises 

including missile and gunnery exercises. However, only the nearshore portions of W-188(A) and W-186 

overlap with the Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area around Kauai and Niihau. 

Kaula Islet, southwest of Niihau, is approximately 108 acres of land used by the Navy for fixed- and 

rotary-wing aircraft gunnery and inert ordnance target practice. W-187 and R-3107 surround Kaula Islet.

Activities there include bombing and gunnery exercises using non-explosive munitions.

The Pacific Missile Range Facility supports training, tactics development, and testing of air, surface, and 

subsurface weapons systems for the Navy. The instrumentation on the ranges yields a 10 ft. tracking 

accuracy, which is crucial for reconstruction, grading and feedback on events. This maximizes the value 

of available training and testing opportunities. Because of its unique infrastructure and unconstrained

range, it is also the lead range for a variety of testing events. Ongoing testing and evaluation programs 

include torpedo, torpedo defense, submarine and periscope detection, ship-defense systems, missile 

defense, and other miscellaneous programs (such as gunnery and special weapons tests).

The remainder of the Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area around Kauai and Niihau that 

lies outside of Kaulakahi Channel and Navy ranges is not commonly used for training and testing. None 

of the training and testing areas around Kauai and Niihau are within the Hawaiian Islands Humpback 

Whale National Marine Sanctuary.

K.3.9.3.5 Kauai and Niihau Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area Mitigation 

Considerations

The wide range of training and testing activities at the Pacific Missile Range Facility would be 

significantly less effective if conducted elsewhere without the feedback and communication provided by 

the range instrumentation. The combination of the existing range infrastructure and adjacent controlled 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-145

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

air, land, and sea space that include shallow water, a channel, and unconstrained deep water cannot be 

replicated in other locations. Events or portions of events that require quantitative evaluation or specific 

range support infrastructure in shallow water could not be conducted in other areas of the Hawaii 

Range Complex. Anti-submarine events and training could not be fully reconstructed and graded to 

determine outcomes, and Naval Surface Fire Support training directed at the adjacent land could not be 

fully quantified if these activities were conducted off the range. Shallow water testing events may 

specifically require the range support services and instrumentation provided by the ranges in order to 

meet their primary objectives. The Kingfisher Range is the only one of its kind in the Hawaii Range 

Complex; therefore, without access, the only option would be synthetic training and no opportunity to 

test the system against real targets. 

The population area covers the entirety of the Shallow Water Training Range and the vast majority of 

the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range. Confining activities to only the portion of the range that 

lies outside the population area would limit the available sea space to such an extent that most activities 

would be impossible. 

The use of inert exercise mines is generally limited to areas greater than 100 fathoms, or 600 ft. in 

depth. R-3101 is the only location designated in the Hawaii Range Complex for airborne mine laying.

Before dropping non-explosive exercise mines, the crew visually determines that the area is clear. 

Although the altitude at which non-explosive exercise mines are dropped varies, the potential for drift 

during descent generally favors release at lower altitudes, where visual searches for marine mammals 

are more effective. When the non-explosive exercise mine is released, a small parachute retards its 

entry into the ocean. The mine can be designed to float on the surface, near the surface, or to sink on a 

tether. Ultimately the mine sinks carrying the parachute with it. Standard Navy procedures are followed 

for the deployment of non-explosive mines from submarines. 

Kaula Islet is an invaluable site for conducting gunnery, bombing, and missile exercises using nonexplosive practice munitions, because the small islet is uninhabited and fully surrounded by restricted 

airspace, which makes it unique. It is particularly useful for smaller events because it is closer to Oahu, 

whereas Pohakuloa Training Area is used for larger combined events because it supports simultaneous 

ground force and aviation live-fire training.

Spinner dolphins are a commonly encountered odontocete species in the Pacific Missile Range Facility.

Animals within the Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area could be exposed to sound from 

sonar or other transducers and sound and energy from explosives, and some behavioral or temporary 

impacts could occur from the occasional use of mid-frequency active sonar and explosives during 

training and testing events at the Pacific Missile Range Facility. Despite the long history of Navy training 

and testing on these ranges, there is no evidence that decades of Navy activities have caused 

disturbance to natural behavioral patterns to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or 

significantly altered. The population of spinner dolphins show high site fidelity. 

As noted above, spinner dolphins in the Kauai and Niihau population have been monitored occasionally 

during Navy unit-level training and major training events such as the Rim of the Pacific exercise,

beginning in 2006 (HDR, 2010; Mobley & Deakos, 2015; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2006b);there have 

been no adverse impacts to the Kauai population observed from these training activities. The Navy has 

been training and testing in the area with the same basic systems in the Hawaiian Islands for over 40 

years and there is no evidence of any adverse impacts having occurred, and there are multiple lines of 

evidence demonstrating the population’s high site fidelity to the area. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-146

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Reducing or limiting Navy training and testing in the Kauai and Niihau area as part of geographic 

mitigation would not be practicable and would compromise personnel safety and reduce the 

effectiveness of training and testing. One of the primary purposes of the Navy’s instrumented range at 

Kauai is to facilitate a safe training and testing environment for surface vessels and submarines 

operating simultaneously by acoustically tracking event participants. The instrumented range also 

enhances the effectiveness of training and testing by enabling the managers overseeing the event to 

direct participants into specific tactical interactions. Navy training and testing events may require vessels 

to move around Kauai and Niihau and through the channel separating the islands as an integral part of 

tactical scenario. Training realism cannot be achieved if pieces of the ocean environment and nearshore 

waters around the islands of Kauai and Niihau are unavailable for full tactical consideration due to 

geographic mitigation. 

K.3.9.3.6 Oahu and 4-Islands Region Spinner Dolphins Small and Resident Population Area, and 

Settlement Areas 2-A through 2-D, and 1-B

The Oahu and 4-Islands Region Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area incorporate waters 

around Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe out to 10 NM covering over approximately 14,600 

km2 of water space. This population area overlaps with settlement areas 2-A through 2-D, and 1-B and

overlaps with Humpback Whale Special Reporting Areas and the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area. 

K.3.9.3.7 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The 4-Islands Region of the small and resident population area provides a unique training capability that 

does not exist elsewhere in the Hawaii Range Complex and is an ideal location for anti-submarine and 

mine warfare because of the bathymetry and bottom type. 

The 4-Islands Region provides an environment for anti-submarine warfare search, tracking and 

avoidance of opposing anti-submarine warfare forces. The bathymetry’s unique attributes provide an

unmatched opportunity to train in searching for submarines in shallow water. Littoral training allows 

units to continue to deploy improved sensors or tactics in littoral waters. In the Hawaii portion of the 

HSTT Study Area specifically, anti-submarine warfare training in shallow water is vitally important to the 

Navy since diesel submarines typically hide in that extremely noisy and complex marine environment 

(Arabian Gulf, Strait of Malacca, Sea of Japan, and the Yellow Sea all contain water less than 200 m 

deep). There is no other area in the this portion of the HSTT Study Area with the bathymetry and sound 

propagation analog to seas where Navy conducts real operations that this training could relocate to. The 

Navy cannot conduct realistic shallow water training exercises without training in and around the 4-

Islands Region. In addition, this area includes unique shallow water training opportunities for unit-level 

training, including opportunity to practice operations in littoral areas that are both shallow, and 

navigationally constrained, and in close proximity to deeper open ocean environments.

While submarines do not typically use mid-frequency active sonar, relying primarily on passive sonar 

(listening mode) to avoid detection from adversaries, submarines are required to train in counter 

detection tactics, techniques and procedures against threat surface vessels, airborne anti-submarine 

warfare units and other threat submarines using mid-frequency active sonar as part of both their 

perspective commanding officers qualification course and pre-deployment certification. The ability for 

surface vessels and air assets to simulate opposing forces, using use mid frequency active sonar when 

training with submarines, is critical to submarine crew training for deployed and wartime operations.

Surface vessels and air assets work with submarines in that area while conducting submarine 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-147

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Commanding Officer’s training scenarios that include extended shallow water operations at periscope 

depth, general surveillance missions in shallow water, shallow water weapons employment, close to 

shore navigation, shallow water minefield operations, and shallow water ship control. Such training 

evolutions are necessary for the Commanding Officer to learn the skills necessary, while protecting the 

vessel, to ensure the crews are capable of executing their mission.

The areas of deep water in the Hawaii Area Tracking System, a non-instrumented range located off the 

northwest coast of Kahoolawe, provide unique and necessary bathymetry to support submarine postmajor maintenance testing and certification. The Hawaii Area Tracking System is also used by submarine 

crews during Submarine Command Course certification training on anti-submarine warfare and surface 

warfare missions.

The Kahoolawe mine warfare range contains multiple bottom and tethered mine shapes in shallow 

water. Instrumentation includes submerged submarine positioning with Submerged Acoustic Navigation 

System buoys. 

Submarine Command Course training is conducted twice a year in Hawaii, in February and August (with 

approximately 3–5 days of active sonar use per event). Submarine Command Course training is an 

Integrated/Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare Training exercise. The 4-Islands Region is used for 

Submarine Command Course training as a location to train prospective Submarine Commanding Officers 

to operate in shallow water.

Consistent with the current HSTT settlement agreement which prohibits the use of in-water explosives 

within Areas 2-A through 2-D, and 1-B, which overlap with the Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident 

Population Area, this area has not typically been used for explosives training and testing. However, the 

area is a valuable training area for shallow water non-explosive torpedo training during the Submarine 

Command Course. All training in the 4-Islands Region is conducted using non-explosive munitions, and 

the Maui Basin north of Kahului has been used for shallow water non-explosive torpedo training. Nonexplosive exercise torpedo firing could also be scheduled in the area between Maui, Lanai, and 

Kahoolawe to be used only for summer classes (August). For the winter class (February) exercise 

torpedo firings will typically be north of Maui to avoid areas of high densities of humpback whales. This 

is the only location where the Navy can conduct very shallow water firings. These non-explosive 

torpedoes are recoverable.

Consistent with the current HSTT settlement agreement, mid-frequency sonar is not used during major 

training events in Areas 2-A and 2-C, and Navy agreed to limit the use of mid-frequency active sonar for 

training and testing activities during major training events to one Rim of the Pacific in 2016, one Rim of 

the Pacific in 2018; three Undersea Warfare Exercises per calendar year; and one Independent 

Destroyer Certification Exercise per calendar year in Area 1-B.

Littoral Combat Ship training and certification of the anti-submarine and mine warfare mission modules 

may require use of the Kahoolawe minefield’s shallow water in this area. And unit level anti-submarine 

warfare training during the basic phase is conducted within this area as is insertion and extraction 

utilizing small submersible vessels and small boats (rigid-hulled inflatable boats and zodiacs) conducted 

around the waters off Maui.

This area provides a unique and highly important shallow water training environment in which units can 

practice operations in littoral areas that are both shallow and navigationally constrained. This network 

of shallow water inter-island channels is unique within the Eastern and Mid Pacific training range 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-148

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

complexes. The area provides an unmatched opportunity for submarines to train in shallow water 

without the need to use active sonar during their searches. Training and testing in these littoral areas 

will allow fleet units to continue to deploy improved sensors and tactics in littoral waters into the future.

In general for the Hawaii Range Complex, pushing anti-submarine warfare training farther from land and 

out of the littorals would add transit time (increased fuel and loss of training time)

While Kaiwi Channel between Molokai and Oahu is not routinely used for training that involves strait 

transiting while protecting high-value units, this channel provides for opportunistic training within a 

channel environment for Navy ships based in Pearl Harbor. The Kaiwi Channel also overlaps partially 

with the Aloha submarine transit lane where some opportunistic mid-frequency active sonar and antisubmarine warfare training occurs when ships and submarines are present in this area. Training and 

testing activities using in-water explosives are not conducted Kaiwi Channel, as this area is not within 

Special Use Airspace. Overall, this area is characterized as an area of "low use" for mid-frequency 

active sonar.

The small and resident population area for pantropical spotted dolphins also overlaps with the Surface 

Ship Radiated Noise Measurement System west of the entrance to Pearl Harbor, which evaluates 

waterborne acoustic characteristics of Navy ships, which provides information to determine corrective 

actions to reduce a ship's acoustic noise, thus reducing vulnerability to undersea warfare threats.

The Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy Check Site Range off the west coast of Oahu is associated with 

in-situ electronic equipment that checks range and bearing accuracy for Navy ships to ensure equipment 

function and calibration. Systems that are checked include radars, passive sonars, and active sonars. The 

ship will conduct a series of “runs” on the range, each taking approximately 1.5 hours. Both active and 

passive sonar can be checked on a single run. During a run, the ship will approach the target, which 

could be a stationary underwater acoustic transducer located offshore or the shore station, making a 

slow turn to eventually track outbound from the target, and establishing a bearing to the target in use. 

This information is compared with the known bearing. During active sonar testing, range-to-target 

information is also evaluated.

The Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation Facility southwest of Oahu provides state-of-the-art test 

and evaluation of combat systems that radiate or receive electromagnetic energy. The range includes 

land based test facilities established to provide electromagnetic system test and evaluation services to 

afloat and shore commands. The facility’s services can be used for the development of new and 

upgraded systems, and provide a real-time evaluation of a system in an operational environment. Tests 

are conducted to evaluate ship, shore, and aircraft systems that emit or detect electronic emissions.

These systems include those used for radio communications, data transfer, navigation, radar, and 

systems that identify friend and foe. Either the platform being tested, the Shipboard Electronic Systems 

Evaluation Facility, or both will transmit specific electronic signals. The test equipment operated by the 

facility allows for a performance evaluation of the ship, shore, or aircraft system. Tests conducted by the 

facility fall into one of two broad categories: Quick Look and System Performance tests. Neither test 

uses ordnance or sonar.

Quick Look tests are generally conducted during transit to and from port, or while pier side at Pearl 

Harbor. These tests provide the ship a quick operational evaluation of the system(s) being tested to

detect anomalies or problems. System performance testing provides the ship with a more-detailed 

analysis and evaluation of the system(s) under test. System performance tests generally require longer 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-149

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

periods of dedicated testing and require the ship to maneuver in pre-defined geometries within a 

certain geographic area. 

There is relatively little tactical training sonar usage in areas overlapping the Spinner Dolphin Small and

Resident Population Area around Oahu, but opportunistic unit-level training can occur when ships are in 

the area. Sonar may be used in W-189, but only a small portion of W-189 overlaps with the population 

area. Sonar Maintenance and Systems Checks may be done pierside in Pearl Harbor or at sea.

The Naval Defensive Sea Area is a restricted area at Naval Station Pearl Harbor established by Executive 

Order 8143 of May 26, 1939 and controlled by the Navy. The Naval Defensive Sea Area encompasses 

areas where underwater training for training and testing activities would occur, specifically diving and 

salvage operations. The Naval Defensive Sea Area includes Pearl Harbor Channel, where activities 

include submarine navigation with sonar, sonar system maintenance and systems checks, and vessel 

operations. In-port activities like Civilian Port Defense – Homeland Security Anti-Terrorism/Force 

Protection Exercises, pier-side system checks, swimmer defense, and small boat operations occur in 

Pearl Harbor. Access to the area is restricted.

The Puuloa and Barbers Point Underwater Ranges and the Ewa Training Minefield are restricted areas 

used for mine neutralization and special warfare operations. Mine neutralization involves the detection, 

identification, evaluation, rendering safe, and disposal of mines and unexploded ordnance that 

constitutes a threat to ships or personnel. Mine neutralization training is conducted by a variety of air, 

surface, and sub-surface assets. Tactics for neutralizing ground or bottom mines involve a diver placing a 

specific amount of explosives which, when detonated underwater at a specific distance from a mine, 

results in neutralization of the mine. Floating, or moored, mines involve the diver placing a specific 

amount of explosives directly on the mine. The Navy deploys divers in very shallow water depths 

(10–40 ft.) to locate mines and obstructions. Additionally, the Puuloa Underwater Range is also used for 

diving and salvage operations and the Ewa Training Minefield is used by surface ships for mine 

avoidance training. 

Marine Corps Base Hawaii and Marine Corps Training Area Bellows are used for Amphibious Warfare 

Expeditionary Assault, mine neutralization, swimmer insertion/extraction, and special 

warfare operations.

Only a small, nearshore portion of W-189 overlaps with the Oahu and 4-Islands Region Spinner Dolphin 

Small and Resident Population Area. W-189 is used for both surface and air operations, specifically Air 

Combat Maneuver, during which no live ordnance are used, only chaff and flares. W-189 is routinely 

used by Navy MH-60 helicopters and Marine Corps rotary wing aircraft based out of Marine Corps Base 

Hawaii. The limited distance from land that rotary wing can travel because of fuel limitations and safety 

factors dictate the use of this area versus other areas. However, non-explosive gunnery and rockets and 

dipping sonar used during anti-submarine warfare training would likely occur further offshore in W-189, 

and not within the biologically important area around Oahu.

The Oahu and 4-Islands Region Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident population area also covers the 

shallow portions of the Alenuihaha Channel along the southeast coast of Maui. The Alenuihaha Channel 

offers a unique training capability that does not exist elsewhere in the Hawaii Range Complex and is an 

ideal location for strait transits using mid-frequency active sonar and combined Carrier Strike Group 

Operations. However, the coastal waters of the Oahu and 4-Islands Region population area do not 

extend across the channel and may only overlap with some portions of those operations. The 

Alenuihaha Channel is an ideal location for strait transits using mid-frequency active sonar to provide 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-150

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

the ability for an aircraft carrier to defend itself from submarine attack while transiting a strait is critical 

to its survival in forward operating areas (areas of deployment). The Alenuihaha Channel is an actual 

channel which serves as a proxy for these vital strait transits and provides valuable training realism.

The Alenuihaha Channel is adjacent to waters approaching Kawaihae Harbor, the point of amphibious 

insertion for forces proceeding to the live-fire range at Pohakuloa Training Area. The Pohakuloa Training 

Area is the only range in the Hawaii Range Complex that supports ground force and aviation live-fire

training. Training in this area allows for the integration of carrier strike group operations and 

amphibious landings. The Alenuihaha Channel allows sea, air, and land-based units to work in 

conjunction with one another in controlled airspace in close proximity to the Pohakuloa Training Area 

range, the only range of its kind in Hawaii. The area is located outside most of the civilian air traffic 

corridors approaching the Honolulu International Airport which is necessary to safely de-conflict with 

civilian air traffic. 

K.3.9.3.8 Oahu and 4-Islands Region Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area

Mitigation Considerations

Predicted effects on individuals to the Oahu and 4-Islands Region spinner dolphin population are 

expected to be behavioral in response to the use of sonar and other transducers (see Appendix E). As 

presented in Section 3.7.1.3.2.2 (Impact Ranges for Sonar and Other Transducers), behavioral impacts 

from a mid-frequency sonar source on a spinner dolphin could, theoretically, occur at distances of tens 

of nautical miles from that designated area. The Oahu portion of the designated Oahu and 4-Islands 

Region spinner dolphin area overlaps the Naval Defensive Sea Area, the Pearl Harbor Channel and 

harbor itself, underwater ranges at Puuloa and Barbers Point, the Ewa Training Minefield, the 

amphibious warfare training beaches and waters of Marine Corps Base Hawaii and Marine Corps 

Training Area Bellows, the Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy Check Site Range and Surface Ship 

Radiated Noise Measurement System off the west Oahu coast. All these areas and their use are critical 

to the Navy’s basic operations (such as access to Pearl Harbor), critical to the requirements (such as the 

shallow water diver training area at the Puuloa Underwater Range), and critical to the effectiveness of 

specific training requirements as detailed previously.

System checks at the Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy Check Site Range cannot be completed 

anywhere else because they require infrastructure on the seafloor and on the adjacent land. While some 

Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation testing can be completed while in port, more detailed analyses 

require specific maneuvering on the range. If these system checks could not be conducted Navy combat, 

communications, and navigational systems could go out of calibration without the operators’ 

knowledge. That could make Navy platforms unable to accurately resolve their targets, unable to 

correctly position themselves and increase the risk of collisions and grounding, or could make Navy ships 

more vulnerable to electronic warfare. Pier-side sonar testing cannot practically be done outside Pearl 

Harbor. Submarine navigation using sonar in the Pearl Harbor channel is required to exit port safely 

before the submarine leaves the area and submerges. 

Activities on the Puuloa and Barbers Point Underwater Ranges and the Ewa Training Minefield occur 

there because access is controlled, and because these areas are shallow and close to Oahu shore 

facilities for small boat access. Training and testing using in-water explosives within the Oahu and 4-

Islands Region Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area will only occur on designated 

underwater training ranges or Special Use Airspace. Flying or sailing those units and all their equipment 

to the Pacific Missile Range Facility for all of their required training would be impractical. The only 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-151

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Special Use Airspace that overlaps this population area is W-189, but most materials will be expended in 

deeper waters beyond the biologically important area. All training and testing outside of the ranges and 

W-189 (i.e., the entire 4-Islands Region portion of the biologically important area) is conducted using 

non-explosive munitions.

While Kaiwi Channel between Molokai and Oahu is not routinely used for training that involves strait 

transiting while protecting high-value units, this channel provides for opportunistic training within a 

channel environment for Navy ships based in Pearl Harbor. The Kaiwi Channel also overlaps partially 

with the Aloha submarine transit lane where some opportunistic mid-frequency active sonar and antisubmarine warfare training occurs when ships and submarines are present in this area. Overall, this area 

is characterized as an area of "low use" for mid-frequency active sonar.

There are no alternative locations to Pearl Harbor, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, shallow water areas of 

Oahu, and other associated Oahu water space such as the Fleet Operational Readiness Accuracy Check 

Site Range. When balanced with the practicability of implementing additional mitigations or altering

ongoing activities to avoid use of the Oahu portion of the spinner dolphin small and resident population 

area, establishing mitigation areas around Oahu would not be practicable without adversely affecting

military readiness.

Training effectiveness of the Submarine Commander’s Course certification training would be 

compromised if units were forced to adhere to year-round restrictions and prohibitions against using all 

mid-frequency active sonar in the 4-Islands Region area and units were instead forced to operate strictly 

on the Pacific Missile Range Facility ranges. The training value within the 4-Islands Region is much higher 

due to the challenging bathymetry.

Unit level anti-submarine warfare training within the 4-Islands Region area, because of its unique 

shallow water environment, would be difficult to replicate elsewhere within the Hawaii Range Complex. 

Such a shift in location would result in a loss of shallow water operating experience and would 

compromise a submarine crew’s ability to retain and improve their capabilities and to train with new 

emerging technologies.

However, since the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-9) overlaps partially with the 4-Islands 

Region Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area where surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar is restricted from November 15 to April 15 during the humpback whale 

reproductive season, implementing this additional mitigation would provide further protection to 

spinner dolphins in the small and resident area during that time of year. See Section K.2.2 (Mitigation 

Areas to be implemented) for details on proposed mitigation areas.

K.3.9.4 Hawaii Island Spinner Dolphins Small and Resident Population Area

The Hawaii Island Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area cover waters around the Hawaii

Island out to 10 NM covering over approximately 9,470 km2 of water space. This population area 

overlaps with portions of settlement areas 1-A through 1-E, and 2-E and the Humpback Whale Special 

Reporting Area along the northeast coast of Hawaii Island. 

K.3.9.4.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Alenuihaha Channel, as well as the waters north and west of Hawaii Island, provides a unique 

training capability that does not exist elsewhere in the Hawaiian Range Complex. The Alenuihaha 

Channel is an ideal location for strait transits using mid-frequency active sonar during training. The 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-152

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Alenuihaha Channel is an actual channel that provides a vital and realistic analog for similar straits or 

restricted maneuvering areas where the Navy operates worldwide, such as the East or South China seas. 

For example, transit training in the Alenuihaha Channel replicates these types of strait environments 

that meet the Navy’s requirement to deploy Naval forces to ensure the free flow of commerce and the 

freedom of navigation by combatting piracy or mine threats. Naval forces are required to train to 

counter a submarine threat before deployment – to ensure the first time a surface asset conducts antisubmarine warfare training in a strait prior to being deployed to the Straits of Hormuz or Malacca or 

similar areas. Additionally, this channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because 

there is a shallow trench running through part of the channel. There are few geographic areas that 

enable forces to do this type of training outside of the HSTT Study Area. 

The ability of an aircraft carrier to defend itself from submarine attack with all available assets while 

conducting straits transits is critical to its survival in forward operating areas. The channel is located 

outside most of the civilian air traffic corridors approaching the Honolulu International Airport which is 

necessary to safely de-conflict with civilian air traffic.

While there are other channels within the Hawaiian Range Complex, none provide the important 

attributes of the Alenuihaha Channel. Using other channels for strait transits could introduce additional 

problems. The additional distance of other available channels from Pohakuloa Training Area would 

result in training being segmented and could impact the realism of the training as well as increase time 

and fuel costs due to transiting further between training areas. The channel between Niihau and Kauai is 

also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add at least two days of transit during each 

Under Sea Warfare training exercise (time required to move through a different channel and reposition 

to operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). 

The channel between Oahu and Molokai is also acceptable from some mid-frequency active sonar 

training perspective, but it is also a significant civilian air corridor, and raises safety concerns for antisubmarine warfare aircraft flying in that channel. In addition, the channel between Nihau and Kauai is 

proximate to the Pacific Missile Range Facility instrumented range) which would result in problems deconflicting multiple activities and hazardous operations, raising safety concerns. The channel between 

Oahu and Molokai is located under a significant civilian air corridor, and its use would raise safety 

concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft flying in that channel during major training events. For 

these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still the most suitable for anti-submarine warfare training.

The Hawaii Island Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area is adjacent to waters approaching

Kawaihae Harbor, the point of amphibious insertion for forces proceeding to the range at Pohakuloa 

Training Area, which is the only range in the Hawaiian Range Complex that supports ground force and 

aviation live-fire training. Training in this area allows for the integration of carrier strike group 

operations and amphibious landings, working in conjunction within a controlled airspace west of Hawaii 

Island for military training near the Pohakuloa Training Area range. Carrier strike group training can 

include a full spectrum of the force ¬ various ships, submarines, aircraft, and Marine Corps forces – to 

train in the complex command, control operational coordination, and logistics functions designed to 

prepare forces for deployment. As an air to ground range, Pohakuloa Training Area supports carrier 

strike group activities near a channel and near large open water areas for strike group maneuvering and 

submarine activities. Mid-frequency active sonar conducted to support strike maneuver and protect 

high value units (e.g., carrier) as aircraft go to strike at Pohakuloa Training Area is vital. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-153

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad 

spectrum of naval and amphibious training. These areas provide a unique and irreplaceable capability 

within the Hawaiian Range Complex that allows naval forces to conduct realistic, integrated training in 

an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will be called to serve. Training and testing 

using in-water explosives are not typically conducted within the boundaries of the Hawaii Island Spinner 

Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area as this area is not a designated underwater training range 

nor is it within Special Use Airspace.

K.3.9.4.2 Hawaii Island Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area Mitigation 

Considerations

The designated Hawaii Island spinner dolphin biologically important area overlaps the Alenuihaha 

Channel and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor which are used for a broad spectrum of naval and 

amphibious training. As discussed above, these areas provide a unique capability within the Hawaii 

Range Complex that allows naval forces to conduct realistic, integrated training. Limiting or restricting 

mid-frequency active sonar training in the Alenuihaha Channel would force the separation or relocation 

of portions of Undersea Warfare training, Independent Deployer Certification training, Rim of the 

Pacific, and unit level training exercises to other channels in the Hawaiian OPAREAs further from the 

Pohakuloa Training Area range. Undersea Warfare certification training occurs up to 3 times per year; 

Rim of the Pacific occurs once every 2 years; Independent Deployer Certification training occurs once 

per year. Segmenting these training events over time and space would result in an unacceptable loss of 

realism, could result in increased safety risks, and would erode strike group readiness. Additionally, the 

small and resident population area does not extend across the channel, so only a portion of these 

activities may overlap with the biologically important area. 

The identified small and resident population area only overlaps with a very small portion of the Hawaii 

Range Complex and is located within nearshore waters where the Navy does not typically conduct 

activities that involve sonar or other transducers, especially more intense activities such as antisubmarine warfare training or major training events. However, animals within the Spinner Dolphin Small 

and Resident Population Area could be exposed to sound from sonar or other transducers and some 

behavioral or temporary impacts could occur from the occasional use of mid-frequency active sonar 

during Undersea Warfare training, Independent Deployer Certification training, and Rim of the 

Pacific training.

While geographic mitigation would not be practicable to implement across all of the identified 

biologically important areas for spinner dolphin given that the population areas encompass all shallow 

waters around all of the main Hawaiian Islands and parts of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, the Navy 

proposes to implement mitigation areas that overlap some portions of the Spinner Dolphins Small and 

Resident Population Areas in the nearshore areas around Hawaii Island as discussed below and in 

Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be implemented). While these mitigation areas are designed to 

provide additional protection for humpback whales, false killer whales and beaked whale species, these 

measures will also likely reduce the number and level of impacts to other species or stocks occurring 

within the area, including spinner dolphin. See Section K.2.4 (Mitigation Areas to be implemented) for 

details on these proposed mitigation areas.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-154

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

1. West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area – limits the amount of surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar during anti-submarine major training exercises year-round 

(Figure K.2-4)

2. West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area – restricts the use of in-water explosives during testing, 

unit-level training and major training exercises year-round (Figure K.2-8). 

3. East-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area – restricts surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency 

active sonar and all in-water explosives during testing, unit-level training and anti-submarine 

major training exercises year-round (Figure K.2-7)

As discussed in Section K.3.9.4.1 (Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing), due to the 

strategic importance of the Alenuihaha Channel, use of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active 

sonar training in the channel during portions of Undersea Warfare training, Independent Deployer 

Certification training, Rim of the Pacific, and unit level training and other exercises allows naval forces to 

train in an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will be called to serve. Establishing a 

mitigation area that would encumber access and limit unit-level training and major training exercises or 

testing within the Alenuihaha Channel would be impracticable to implement without impeding the 

effectiveness of military readiness.

K.3.9.5 Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Areas Mitigation Assessment

Navy quantitative analysis does not estimate any injury to spinner dolphins during training due to 

exposure to explosives or sonar. Spinner dolphins are most likely to respond to exposures to sonar and 

other transducers with short-term behavioral reactions and minor to moderate TTS.

While impacts on spinner dolphins’ natural behaviors due to training and testing with sonar and other 

transducers may occur within the small and resident population area, they are unlikely to rise to the 

level of significant under NEPA nor would they be 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. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be minor to moderate, from which 

the individual dolphin would fully recover quickly. One PTS due to explosives exposure is estimated in 

the Oahu-4-Islands region, where the potential for biological removal is 3.3, therefore impacts on the 

population are not anticipated.

The Navy balanced the need for the use of the area to meet training and testing requirements with the 

biological importance of the area to spinner dolphins and other species occurring in the area. The Navy 

determined that establishing mitigation areas would likely reduce the number and level of impacts to 

this species and other species or stock, including false killer whales, humpback whales, Cuvier and 

Blainville’s beaked whales, pygmy killer whales, dwarf sperm whales, melon-headed whales, shortfinned pilot whales and other dolphin species occurring within the area without compromising military

readiness. See Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be implemented) for details on these proposed 

mitigation areas:

1. In establishing the West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-4), the Navy 

would limit the number of major training exercises using surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar that could occur annually unless an increase in these activities is deemed 

necessary due to national security. 

2. In the West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (K.2-8), the Navy would not use any in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round. If a naval 

unit needs to use explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises in 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-155

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

this area for national security, permission shall be required from the delegated Command 

authority conducting the activity prior to their use in the Cautionary Area. 

3. The Navy would not use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round in the Eastside Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-7). Again, should national security require the use 

of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or in-water explosives in the area, 

permission shall be required from the delegated Command authority conducting the activity 

prior to their use in the Cautionary Area.

4. In the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-9), which overlaps the small and resident 

population area for spinner dolphins, the Navy would restrict the use of surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar from November 15 through April 15. Should national 

security present a requirement for using surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar 

during Navy training or testing in the Humpback Whale Cautionary Area, the Navy will require 

approval the U.S. Commander, Third Fleet or delegated SYSCOM authority, prior to its use in the 

Cautionary Area. 

While the Navy is proposing to establish mitigation areas adjacent to the Alenuihaha Channel, the 

environmental conditions presented by the Alenuihaha Channel cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the 

Hawaiian Islands. As discussed above in Section K.3.2.2.1 (Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training 

and Testing), due to the strategic importance of the Alenuihaha Channel, use of surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar training in the channel during portions of Undersea Warfare 

training, Independent Deployer Certification training, Rim of the Pacific, and unit level training and other 

exercises allows naval forces to train in an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will 

be called to serve. Balancing the needs of the area for this species and other species as well as the 

Navy’s need to access and use sonar in this area was considered. Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel 

and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad spectrum of naval and amphibious training. 

Additionally, this channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because there is a 

shallow trench running through part of the channel. Establishing a mitigation area measure that would 

impede access and limit unit-level training and major training exercises or testing within the Alenuihaha 

Channel or impede the free execution of Navy tactical and operational procedures for these events 

would be impracticable to implement without impacting the effectiveness of military readiness. 

While there are other channels within the Hawaiian Range Complex, none provide the important 

attributes of the Alenuihaha Channel. Using other channels for strait transits could introduce additional 

problems. The additional distance of other available channels from Pohakuloa Training Area would 

result in training being segmented and could impact the realism of the training as well as increasing fuel 

costs and time (e.g., adding at least two days of transit during each Under Sea Warfare training exercise) 

with multiple assets involved.

The West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area and the West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area 

do not overlap the Alenuihaha Channel and therefore, would not limit or restrict the use of that area 

during these critical training activities.

Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that are important to prevent whale 

collisions. As described in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), surface ships operated by or 

for the Navy, have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when a ship or 

surfaced submarine is moving through the water (underway). Available literature suggests that based on 

their smaller body size, maneuverability, larger group sizes, and hearing capabilities, most odontocetes 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-156

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

would be less likely to be struck by a Navy vessel than mysticetes. Generally, odontocetes (including 

spinner dolphins) 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’s standard operating procedures discussed in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures) 

and ongoing mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) are designed to avoid or reduce 

impacts to marine species and stocks throughout the Study Area. These measures would also limit the 

interaction between Navy vessels and humpback whales, further reducing the potential for vessel strikes 

in and outside of identified biologically important areas.

K.3.10 HAWAII ISLAND ROUGH-TOOTHED DOLPHINS SMALL AND RESIDENT POPULATION AREA

A single area off the west coast of Hawaii Island for the small and resident population of rough-toothed 

dolphins has been identified as biologically important (Figure K.2-18). The area covers approximately

7,170 km2 of water space off the west coast of Hawaii Island in water depths ranging from 38 m to over 

4,800 m (Baird et al., 2015a). The year-round area is triangular in shape and was delineated to 

encompass all sighting locations off the west coast of Hawaii (Baird et al., 2015a). As shown in Table 

K.1-1, and described in Section K.1.1.2, Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT 

Study Area, the Rough-toothed Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area overlaps with HSTT 

Settlement Areas 1-C through 1-E.

K.3.10.1General Biological Assessment

For a thorough description of the rough-toothed dolphins species, see Section 3.7.2.3.18 (Roughtoothed Dolphin [Steno bredanensis]).

This species is protected under the MMPA and 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

K.3.10.1.1 Biological Considerations Applicable to the Rough-toothed Dolphins Small and 

Resident Population Area

There is no evidence indicating that the rough-toothed dolphins migrate. Rough-toothed dolphin 

vocalizations have been detected during acoustic surveys in the eastern tropical Pacific (Oswald et al., 

2003). The rough-toothed dolphin is regarded as an offshore species that prefers deep water habitat, 

but the dolphins are also known to occur in waters with variable depths (Baird et al., 2015d; Gannier & 

West, 2005; Pittman et al., 2016). Rough-toothed dolphins rarely occur close to land, except around 

islands where the bathymetry drops-off steeply (Baird et al., 2015d; Davis et al., 1998; Gannier & West, 

2005; Lodi & Hetzel, 1999; Mignucci-Giannoni, 1998; Ritter, 2002). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-157

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-18: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area off Hawaii Island

Rough-toothed dolphins are well known in deep ocean waters off Hawaii but are also seen relatively 

frequently during nearshore surveys (Baird et al., 2008; Baird et al., 2015d; Barlow et al., 2008; Bradford 

et al., 2013; Carretta et al., 2015; Pitman & Stinchcomb, 2002; Shallenberger, 1981; Webster et al., 

2015). During the 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., 

2012; Forney et al., 2015). Over a 10-day nearshore survey effort off Kauai in 2014, rough-toothed 

dolphins were encountered on two occasions and seven of the eight 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 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 by some of those animals (Baird et al., 2008). 

Because there is 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., 2015a).

Unpublished data from small boat surveys off Hawaii Island between 2002–2014 have provided sighting 

locations and genetic evidence indicative of the resident population off Hawaii Island (Baird et al., 

2015a). Pittman et al. (2016) reported on sightings of 2,928 rough-toothed dolphins over 240 line 

transects conducted in both summer and winter from 1993 to 2013. The data were integrated from 

multiple sources and used to support spatially explicit predictive models of species occurrence in the 

Main Hawaiian Islands. While the results of the winter and summer models predicted highest 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-158

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

abundance in offshore waters with depths greater than 200 m, the predicted distribution from the 

winter model did not correspond as well with sightings data. The model predicted that waters around 

Oahu and Maui are areas of lower abundance, but there were a number of sightings in these areas, 

which contradicts the model-predicted distribution (Pittman et al., 2016). Sea surface temperature and 

current were two important environmental variables driving the winter model, which predicted highest 

relative abundance over the Hawaii seamounts on the western side of Hawaii Island. High relative 

abundance was also predicted in the Kaulakahi Channel between Kauai and Niihau, which, based on 

photo-identification data and genetic analysis has been hypothesized as a separate population 

(Albertson et al., 2011; Baird et al., 2008; Oleson et al., 2013; Pittman et al., 2016Baird, 2008). The 

summer model, driven by chlorophyll-a concentrations, predicted highest relative abundance in deep 

waters of the Kaulakahi Channel; off the west side of Oahu; the Kaiwi Channel and offshore of Halawa 

Bay, Molokai; Auau Channel; Alalakeiki Channel southeast of Kahoulawe; and off the west side of Hawaii 

Island off of Hanamalo Point and Keahole Point (Pittman et al., 2016).

The presence of rough-toothed dolphins has been surmised based on passive acoustic detection of lowfrequency whistles south of Oahu, and beyond the identified biologically important area (Klinck et al., 

2015). Between December 11, 2014 and January 26, 2015, a passive acoustic survey was conducted in 

the Hawaii Range Complex using an autonomous glider fitted with an acoustic receiver. The survey 

began and ended approximately 120 km south of Honolulu, Oahu, navigating a circular track through

deep ocean waters that intermittently crossed over or near multiple seamounts. Low-frequency whistles 

and clicks were detected and likely associated with four species based on the frequency characteristics 

of the whistles: false killer whale, short-finned pilot whale, melon-headed whale, and rough-toothed 

dolphin. The whistles were most often detected near bathymetric features (e.g., seamounts) (Figure 

K.2-11).

K.3.10.1.2 Stressor Analysis

Sonar and Other Transducers

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), rough-toothed dolphins in 

Hawaii may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training and testing 

activities throughout the year. Analysis for the entire Hawaii population estimates that all exposures 

result in behavioral reactions or TTS, and zero exposures resulting in PTS are anticipated. Navy training

and 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 

Hawaii 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 rough-toothed dolphin small and resident population area to acoustic stressors and some 

impacts on behavior could occur. 

Results from satellite tag data during training events using mid-frequency sonar off Kauai have not 

observed any large scale movements of rough-toothed dolphins as a result of exposure to sonar (Baird 

et al., 2017; Baird, W., et al., 2014). While impacts on rough-toothed dolphin natural behaviors due to 

training and testing with sonar and other transducers may occur within the small and resident 

population area, they unlikely to rise to the level of significant under NEPA nor would they be 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. Any TTS in the biologically important 

areas would be minor to moderate, from which the individual would fully recover quickly. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-159

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Explosives

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives) for rough-toothed dolphins, Navy training and 

testing activities that use explosives could occur year-round within the Hawaii Range Complex; however, 

most activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive munitions typically occur more than 

3 NM from shore in areas that are designated for explosive use. A single exposure to TTS and PTS for this 

species are estimated to occur throughout the entire HRC based on acoustic modeling for explosives. 

However, historical data suggests that explosive events are most likely to be scheduled at Puuloa 

Underwater Training Range, W-188, or KAPU HOT in W-192 south of Oahu (Figure K.3-3) for ease of 

scheduling, safety, instrumentation, and airspace concerns, all of which are outside the biologically 

important area for this species. Therefore, it is unlikely that TTS or PTS for these species would occur 

within the biologically important area for rough-toothed dolphins. Very few impacts on behavior were 

estimated to occur as a result of exposures to explosives. As discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2. (Impacts 

from Explosives), 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 of habitat due to training and testing with explosives are 

unlikely to occur within the small and resident population area.

Vessel Strike

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices), 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 strikes attributed to small boats and 

craft such as jet skis. Generally, 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. 

Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that are important to prevent 

collisions with marine mammals. As described in Section 2.3.3, Standard Operating Procedures, surface 

ships operated by or for the Navy, have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, 

when a ship or surfaced submarine is moving through the water (underway). Available literature 

suggests that based on their smaller body size, maneuverability, larger group sizes, and hearing 

capabilities, most odontocetes would be less likely to be struck by a Navy vessel than mysticetes. 

K.3.10.2Hawaii Island Rough-toothed Dolphins Small and Resident Population Area, and 

Settlement Areas 1-C through 1-E

The Hawaii Island Rough-toothed Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area identified in Baird et al. 

(2015b) incorporates the offshore approach into Kawaihae Harbor on the northwest coast of Hawaii 

Island; is overlapped by W-194 and Pele and Pele South Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace; and

overlaps with Settlement Areas 1-C through 1-E.

K.3.10.2.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Rough-toothed Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area incorporates the offshore approach 

into Kawaihae Harbor on the northwest coast of Hawaii Island. This small and resident population area 

west of Hawaii Island is overlapped by W-194 and Pele and Pele South Air Traffic Control Assigned 

Airspace which are necessary for carrier and expeditionary strike training into the Pohakuloa Training 

Area range. The waters west of Kawaihae Harbor are used for a broad spectrum of naval and 

amphibious training. These areas provide a unique capability within the Hawaii Range Complex that 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-160

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

allows naval forces to conduct realistic, integrated training in an environment that replicates the actual 

areas where they will be called to serve. The Hawaii Island is unique in that it is provides the only 

capable air-to-ground range able to conduct carrier and expeditionary strike group activities near a 

channel with unfettered access to the open ocean. Open ocean areas support strike group maneuvering, 

using mid-frequency active sonar to prosecute (detect/track) a submarine in the vicinity of a high value 

unit (e.g., carrier) as aircraft execute strikes into Pohakuloa Training Area. The area around Hawaii Island 

is also used by surface ships with anti-submarine warfare capability to train to clear the sea space from

any submarine threat before Marines go ashore at Kawaihae Harbor (part of Rim of the Pacific and 

Marine Corps unit level training scenarios). There are limited locations for amphibious landings in Hawaii 

due to existing environmental concerns. The west coast of Hawaii is one of the best locations for 

integrated joint marine amphibious operations into Pohakuloa Training Area, not only due to its close 

proximity to Pohakuloa Training Area, but because the approaches to those beaches are under 

controlled airspace.

Controlled airspace areas on the west side of Hawaii Island are important safe areas in which military 

aircraft operations are de-conflicted with civilian air traffic. The Navy uses W-194 and the Pele and Pele 

South Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace for Rim of the Pacific (every other year) and Undersea 

Warfare certification training (up to three times/year), and possibly the Independent Deployer 

Certification training once every year. The controlled airspace combined with access to the Pohakuloa 

Training Area range drives Undersea Warfare certification training to that particular location, by 

supporting the required extensive coordination with multiple air and sea assets. Driving military 

readiness activities further off shore would require longer transits—costing time and additional fuel, 

increasing safety risks, and eroding training realism.

Activities utilizing in-water explosives, such as underwater detonations, bombing or torpedo exercises, 

are not conducted in the nearshore waters within the Rough-toothed Dolphin Small and Resident 

Population Area since it is not within a designated underwater training range or within Special Use 

Airspace, typically necessary for in-water explosive usage. In-water explosives may be used further 

offshore in a portion of W-194 where it overlaps with the Rough-toothed Dolphin Small and Resident 

Population Area; however, explosives are most likely to occur offshore in W-188, or the range area 

designated KAPU HOT in W-192 south of Oahu (see the EIS/OEIS Chapter 2, Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives, Figures 2.1-2 and 2.1-4).

K.3.10.3Rough-toothed Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area Mitigation 

Assessment

The identified small and resident population area only takes up a small portion of the Hawaii Range 

Complex and is located within waters where the Navy typically conducts activities that involve sonar or 

other transducers during Undersea Warfare training, Independent Deployer Certification training, and 

Rim of the Pacific training.

Rough-toothed dolphin in Hawaii may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used 

during training and testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates the 

majority of exposures result in either behavioral reactions or TTS; PTS was not estimated from

exposures to sonar and other transducers under either Alternative.

The Navy proposes to continue to implement procedural mitigation measures throughout the HSTT 

Study Area during training and testing activities that use sonar and other transducers that prescribe 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-161

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

reducing the sound level or powering off sonar systems or transducers if marine mammals are sighted 

within the mitigation zones (see Chapter 5, Mitigation, for details).

The Navy balanced the need for the use of the area to meet training and testing requirements within the 

biological importance of the area to rough-toothed dolphin and other species. The Navy determined 

that establishing mitigation areas would likely reduce the number and level of impacts to this species 

and other species or stock, including killer whales, humpback whales, Cuvier and Blainville’s beaked 

whales, pygmy killer whales, dwarf sperm whales, melon-headed whales, short-finned pilot whales and 

other dolphin species occurring within the area without compromising military readiness. See Section 

K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) for details on these proposed mitigation areas:

1. In establishing the West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-4), the Navy 

would limit the number of major training exercises using surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar that could occur annually unless an increase in these activities is deemed 

necessary due to national security. 

2. In the West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (K.2-8), the Navy would not use any in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round. If a naval 

unit needs to use explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises in 

this area for national security, permission shall be required from the U.S. Commander, Third 

Fleet or SYSCOM conducting the activity prior to their use in the Cautionary Area. 

Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that are important to prevent whale 

collisions. As described in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures), surface ships operated by or 

for the Navy, have personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when a ship or

surfaced submarine is moving through the water (underway). Rough-toothed dolphins are known to be 

social like other dolphins and live in groups called pods. Typically there can be from 10 to 20 members of 

a pod yet as many as 300 members have been observed in Hawaii. This species of dolphin has also been 

seen interacting with others including the bottlenose dolphins and spinner dolphins. These social 

interactions can make pods of rough-toothed dolphins more readily observable and less vulnerable to a 

vessel strike.

The Navy’s standard operating procedures discussed in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures) 

and ongoing mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) are designed to avoid or reduce 

impacts to marine species and stocks throughout the Study Area. These measures would also limit the 

interaction between Navy vessels and odontocetes, further reducing the potential for vessel strikes in 

and outside of identified biologically important areas.

K.3.11 HAWAII ISLAND CUVIER’S BEAKED WHALE SMALL AND RESIDENT POPULATION AREA

An area covering approximately 23,590 km2 of water space surrounding the Hawaii Island has been 

identified as a year-round biologically important area for a small and resident population of Cuvier’s 

beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris) within the Hawaii Range Complex portion of the HSTT Study Area

(Baird et al., 2015b). The Cuvier's Beaked Whales Small and Resident Population Area is shown on Figure 

K.2-19. It is 70 km at its widest and wraps around the island of Hawaii in an irregular circle that reaches 

across the Alenuihaha Channel and into waters north of the Northeastern shore of Maui (Baird et al., 

2015a). The water depth of the area ranges from 159 m to 5,569 m below sea level. As shown in Table 

K.1-1, and described in Section K.1.1.2, (Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT 

Study Area), the Cuvier’s Whale Small and Resident Population Area overlaps in part with HSTT 

Settlement Areas 1-A through 1-D.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-162

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

The boundary of the area was delineated based on 581 satellite tag locations from 9 individuals 

(2 males, 7 females) that were tagged in five different years, indicating high degrees of site fidelity to the 

identified area (Baird et al., 2015a).

Figure K.2-19: Cuvier's Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population off Hawaii Island

K.3.11.1General Biological Assessment

For a thorough description of the Cuvier’s beaked whales species, see Section 3.7.2.3.24 of the HSTT 

EIS/OEIS. NMFS recognizes one Hawaiian stock of Cuvier’s beaked whales in Hawaii (Aschettino et al., 

2012; Carretta et al., 2017). 

K.3.11.1.1 Biological Considerations Applicable to the Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident 

Population Area

Cuvier’s beaked whales are regularly found in waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands (Baird et al., 

2013b; Baird et al., 2015b; Barlow, 2006; Baumann-Pickering et al., 2010; Bradford et al., 2013; Lammers 

et al., 2015b; Mobley, 2004; Oleson et al., 2013; Oleson et al., 2015; Shallenberger, 1981). During the 

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). In the Main Hawaiian Islands, sightings have been 

reported off Niihau and Kauai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii Island (Baird et al., 2009a; Baird et al., 2013b; 

Baird et al., 2015b; 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 behavior, along 

with their large size and visible blows, likely increases their visual detectability (Baird et al., 2013d). 

Passive acoustic monitoring around the Main Hawaiian Islands has also routinely recorded the presence 

of Cuvier’s beaked whales (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2010; Lammers et al., 2015b). Cuvier’s beaked 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-163

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

whales were not detected in a relative brief (47-day) acoustic survey south of the Hawaiian Islands in the 

winter of 2014–2015 (Klinck et al., 2015), which is consistent with the suggested seasonal pattern of 

Cuvier’s acoustic detections (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2014). Other data however, suggests Cuvier’s 

beaked whales use the area off Hawaii Island year-round rather than seasonally (McSweeney et al., 

2007)

The U.S. Navy has been funding monitoring in the Main Hawaiian Islands under the Pacific Fleet Marine 

Species Monitoring Program since 2006 (see www.marinespeciesmonitoring.us for detailed 

methodology and results). As detailed in the Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other 

Transducers), individual animals could show short term and minor to moderate responses to these 

acoustic stressors, although these reactions are very unlikely to lead to any costs or long-term 

consequences for individuals or populations. Photographic identification of individuals encountered 

multiple times in the same general locations over periods of time exceeding two decades in some cases 

has indicated long-term residency by individual Cuvier’s beaked whales in intensively used Navy training 

and testing areas in Hawaii (Baird et al., 2010a; Mahaffy et al., 2015b; McSweeney et al., 2007; Oleson et 

al., 2013) Schorr et al. (2008) and Southern California (Falcone et al., 2009; Schorr et al., 2014; Schorr et 

al., 2017). This documented long-term residency may suggest a lack of any long-term consequences 

from exposure to stressors associated with 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 on population growth rates and there are no data existing on 

the reproductive rates of populations inhabiting the Navy range areas as opposed to beaked whales 

from other areas. In that regard however, recent results from photo-identifications 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 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, but the present evidence for residence and reproductive 

success are indicative of a healthy population.

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., 2017). The current best available 

abundance estimate for the Hawaiian stock is 1,941, based on a 2010 shipboard line-transect survey of 

the Hawaiian Islands U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (Bradford et al., 2017; Carretta et al., 2017). Markrecapture analyses of photo-identified Cuvier’s beaked whales off the west side of the island of Hawai‘i 

from 2003 to 2006 indicated a relatively small population estimated to consist of approximately 

55 individuals (Baird et al., 2009b). Due to a relatively small survey effort in deep water, short tag 

attachment durations, and a lack of genetic analyses in areas of suitable habitat around the Main 

Hawaiian Islands, there has been no genetic assessment Cuvier’s beaked whales off the island of Hawaii 

to differentiate them as a genetically distinct populations (Baird et al., 2015b).

During surveys conducted from 1990 to 2006, photographic data documented 14 identified individuals 

that were seen in more than one year in an area to the west of Hawaii Island (McSweeney et al., 2007). 

This data indicated high site fidelity and residency by those animals. Satellite tracking locations of eight 

Cuvier’s beaked whales tagged off Hawaii Island between 2008 and 2011 and part of this resident 

population (Baird et al., 2013d; Oleson et al., 2013) are shown in Figure K.2-20 and demonstrate that 

while the majority of individuals spent most of their time off the west and southeast side of the island 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-164

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

some of these eight members of the population ranged well offshore beyond the slope of the island of 

Hawaii, across the Alenuihaha Channel to the slope off Kahoolawe and Maui, and north of Maui well 

away from Hawaii Island. 

Resightings of some individuals in the resident population have spanned at least 15 years, indicating 

long-term site fidelity to the area (Baird et al., 2010a; Baird et al., 2013b; Baird et al., 2013d; Mahaffy et 

al., 2015a; McSweeney et al., 2007; Schorr et al., 2008). Based on the combination of available 

photo-identification data, vessel sightings and survey effort, and tagging data, the existence of a small 

and resident population of individual Cuvier’s beaked whales was identified adjacent to the island of 

Hawaii (Baird et al., 2015b).

Source: Oleson et al. (2013)

Figure K.2-20: Satellite Tag Locations for Eight Cuvier’s Beaked Whales Tagged off Hawaii 

Island Between 2008 and 2011. 

Note: Although individuals’ fidelity to these waters may be known from re-sights over successive years, the overall 

range of the NMFS recognized stock is considered to extend out to the Exclusive Economic Zone within 

Hawaiian waters.

Cuvier’s beaked whales in Hawaii that are not part of the resident stock are likely to occasionally 

co-occur with the resident animals within the small and resident population area given the routine 

movement of Cuvier’s beaked whales documented elsewhere (Schorr et al., 2014) and their general 

presence in waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands (Baird et al., 2009b; Baird et al., 2013d; Baird et al., 

2015b; Barlow, 2006; Baumann-Pickering et al., 2010; Bradford et al., 2013; Lammers et al., 2015c; 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-165

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Mobley, 2004; Oleson et al., 2013; Shallenberger, 1981), the high sighting rate nearshore in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Bradford et al., 2017), the sighting off Niihau and Kauai, Lanai, Maui, 

and Hawaii Island (Baird et al., 2009b; Baird et al., 2013e; Baird et al., 2015d; Mobley, 2004; Oleson et 

al., 2013; Oleson et al., 2015; Shallenberger, 1981), and routine presence during passive acoustic 

monitoring (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2010; Lammers et al., 2015b). Based on some of this same data, it 

was previously proposed that NMFS recognize an Island-associated stock of Cuvier’s beaked whales 

within the Hawaiian Archipelago out to 70 km from shore (Oleson et al., 2013).

K.3.11.1.2 Stressor Analysis

Sonar and Other Transducers

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), beaked whales exposed to 

sonar or other transducers 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). Cuvier’s beaked whales 

commonly strand, and they are vulnerable to acoustic impacts (Cox et al., 2006; Frantzis et al., 2002; 

Southall et al., 2012). They have exhibited dive behavior in response to sonar. In 2014, the longest 

duration mammalian dive reported to date may have been in response to Naval sonar, or a normal dive, 

however the cause of the dive behavior is unknown (Schorr et al., 2014; Tyack et al., 2015). Quantitative 

acoustic analysis for the entire Hawaii population estimates that all exposures result in behavioral 

reactions or TTS and zero exposures resulting in PTS are anticipated.

Navy training and 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 Hawaii Range Complex; therefore, sonar use in this area would be infrequent and typically 

only last for a short duration. Most of the biologically important area is an area of low use for midfrequency active sonar with the exception of the Alenuihaha Channel, which is used for vital strait 

transit training during Rim of the Pacific, Undersea Warfare training, and Independent Deployer 

Certification and which must be transited to access Kawaihae Harbor during amphibious landing events. 

Some significant behavioral reactions to sonar are likely within the identified area; however, sound 

sources at ranges greater than a few tens of kilometers are less likely to lead to significant reactions.

Research and observations show that beaked whales exposed to sonar or other active acoustic avoid the 

area of the sound source to levels between 95 and 157 dB re 1 μPa, (McCarthy et al., 2011). 

Furthermore, in research done at the Navy's instrumented tracking range in the Bahamas, animals have 

been observed to leave the immediate area of the anti-submarine warfare training exercise, but return 

within a few days after the event ends. The Navy has been operating for decades on the U.S. Navy test 

and evaluation range in the Bahamas and at the Pacific Missile Range Facility north of Kauai Where 

populations of beaked whales continue to inhabit those intensively used ranges and appear to be stable 

(Falcone et al., 2009; E. E. Henderson et al., 2015; E. E. Henderson et al., 2015; Henderson et al., 2016; J. 

A. Hildebrand et al., 2009; R. A. Manzano-Roth et al., 2013{Baumann-Pickering, 2014 #7339; Schorr et 

al., 2014; Tyack et al., 2011). 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 research indicates beaked whales have been shown to leave an area where 

anthropogenic sound is present (Tyack et al., 2011).

Photographic evidence indicating re-sightings of individual Cuvier’s beaked whales suggests long-term 

site fidelity to the area west of the Island of Hawaii (McSweeney et al., 2007). This is an area that has 

been used for years to conduct anti-submarine warfare training during Rim of the Pacific and Under Sea 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-166

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Warfare Exercises (major training exercises involving multiple vessels and aircraft) {National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2007 #3751;U.S. Department of the Navy, 2009 #5647}. With the results from beaked 

whale monitoring and experimental exposure studies on the Navy’s instrumented range in the Bahamas 

(McCarthy et al., 2011; Tyack et al., 2011), there are now statistically strong data demonstrating that 

beaked whales tend to avoid both actual naval mid-frequency sonar in real anti-submarine warfare 

training scenarios as well as playbacks of killer whale vocalizations, and other anthropogenic sounds.

Tyack et al. (2011) report that, in reaction to sonar playbacks, most beaked whales stopped 

echolocation, made long slow ascent, and moved away from the sound. During an exercise using midfrequency sonar, beaked whales avoided the area at a distance from the sonar where the received level 

was “around 140 dB” (sound pressure level) and once the exercise ended, beaked whales re-inhabited 

the center of exercise area within 2–3 days (Tyack et al., 2011). The Navy has therefore adopted a 140 

dB re 1 μPa sound pressure level threshold for behavioral effects for all beaked whales. Since the 

development of the criterion, analysis of the data from the 2010 and 2011 field seasons of the Southern 

California Behavioral Responses Study have been published. The study, DeRuiter et al. (2013), provides 

similar evidence of Cuvier’s beaked whale sensitivities to sound based on two controlled exposures. Two 

whales, one in each season, were tagged and exposed to simulated mid-frequency active sonar at 

distances of 3.4–9.5 km. The 2011 Cuvier’s beaked whale was also incidentally exposed to 

mid-frequency active sonar from a distant naval exercise (approximately 118 km away with received 

levels calculated as 84-144 and 78-106 dB re 1 μPa root mean square) respectively, but the authors did 

not detect similar responses indicating that context of the exposures (e.g., source proximity, controlled 

source ramp-up) may have been a significant factor (DeRuiter et al., 2013b).

In 2010, a passive acoustic monitoring glider was deployed off of the west coast of Hawaii Island for 10

days in March 2010. Cuvier’s beaked whales were detected on three separate dives in the northern twothirds of the survey area near the edge of the widest part of the shelf south of Kailua-Kona, which is in 

the small and resident population area (Klinck et al., 2016). A winter survey using a passive acoustic 

recording glider in the Hawaii Range Complex south of Oahu to the Cross Seamount from December 

2014 to January 2015 found no passive acoustic detections of Cuvier’s beaked whales in the area. They 

are also more commonly detected in the Hawaii Range Complex during the fall months (Klinck et al., 

2015). The results of Navy surveys from 2010 to 2014 were used to estimate abundance of species in the 

region surrounding Niihau and Kaula Islands. They estimated that the population of Cuvier’s beaked 

whales was 4 and appear to be rare in this part of the Hawaii Range Complex (Lammers et al., 2015b).

Although the Navy proposes to continue use of mid-frequency active sonar throughout the Hawaii 

Range Complex, it is likely to be used more frequently and with more short-duration intensity by surface 

ships off Pacific Missile Range near Kauai and further offshore from the Island of Hawaii. 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 and testing activities would generally not have 

long-term consequences for individuals or populations as they return to areas shortly after 

sonar displacement.

The biologically important area for Cuvier’s beaked whale overlaps with the Hawaii Range Complex and 

active sonar is proposed for use throughout the area. An animals’ response to sonar in the biologically 

important area and the rest of the Hawaii Range Complex would be expected to be the same as the

results of the 2010 survey example provided above, in which the individuals decreased dive behavior 

during sonar and moved away from the acoustic source then returned days after the exercise. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-167

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

The Cuvier’s beaked whale stock is not ESA-listed and it is believed that biological removal of individuals 

would not impact the overall viability of the stock. Furthermore, monitoring and research data, albeit 

with small sample sizes, suggests that individual Cuvier’s beaked whales respond to U.S. Navy midfrequency active sonar in such a way that would reduce their use of a geographic area temporarily, with 

individuals returning within 2 to 3 days. 

Explosives

As indicated in Section 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives) the Navy does not generally train or test with 

explosives in the small and resident population area for Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Hawaii Range 

Complex off the west coast and encircling Hawaii Island. Cuvier’s beaked whales in the identified small 

and resident population area would not be exposed directly to sound or energy from explosives; 

therefore, impacts would not be anticipated within the Cuvier’s beaked whale small and resident 

population areas from training or testing with explosives.

Most activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive munitions typically occur more than 

3 NM from shore with the exception of underwater training ranges that are designated for explosive 

use. Historical data suggests that explosive events are most likely to be scheduled at Puuloa Underwater 

Range, W-188, or KAPU HOT south of Oahu in W-192 (Figure K.2-19) for ease of scheduling, safety, 

instrumentation, and airspace concerns. None of these ranges overlap with the Cuvier’s beaked whale 

small and resident population area. Standard mitigation is implemented during explosives training and 

testing which includes use of lookouts and mitigation zones (sized based on activity) making it unlikely 

that an animal at the surface would be affected.

Cuvier’s beaked whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year; however, long-term consequences for individuals or the small and 

resident population would not be expected.

Vessel Strike

There have been two Cuvier’s beaked whales documented in non-military vessel strikes (Aguilar, 2000; 

Van Waerebeek et al., 2007). However, evidence suggests that Cuvier’s beaked whales may be able to 

hear the low-frequency sounds of large vessels and thus avoid collision (Ketten, 1998). There is no 

evidence to suggest that Navy vessels have ever struck a Cuvier’s beaked whale. 

K.3.11.2Hawaii Island Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area, 

Settlement Areas 1-A through 1-D

K.3.11.2.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Alenuihaha Channel, as well as the waters north and west of Hawaii Island, provides a unique 

training capability that does not exist elsewhere in the Hawaiian Range Complex. The Alenuihaha 

Channel is an ideal location for strait transits using mid-frequency active sonar during training. The 

Alenuihaha Channel is an actual channel that provides a vital and realistic analog for similar straits or 

restricted maneuvering areas where the Navy operates worldwide, such as the East or South China seas. 

For example, transit training in the Alenuihaha Channel replicates these types of strait environments 

that meet the Navy’s requirement to deploy Naval forces to ensure the free flow of commerce and the 

freedom of navigation by combatting piracy or mine threats. Naval forces are required to train to 

counter a submarine threat before deployment – to ensure the first time a surface asset conducts antisubmarine warfare training in a strait prior to being deployed to the Straits of Hormuz or Malacca or 

similar areas. Additionally, this channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-168

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

there is a shallow trench running through part of the channel. There are few geographic areas that 

enable forces to do this type of training outside of the HSTT Study Area. 

The ability of an aircraft carrier to defend itself from submarine attack with all available assets while 

conducting straits transits is critical to its survival in forward operating areas. The channel is located 

outside most of the civilian air traffic corridors approaching the Honolulu International Airport which is 

necessary to safely de-conflict with civilian air traffic.

The channel is located adjacent to waters approaching Kawaihae Harbor, the point of amphibious

insertion for forces proceeding to the live-fire range at Pohakuloa Training Area. The Pohakuloa Training 

Area is the only range in the Hawaii Range Complex that supports ground force and aviation live-fire 

training. Training in this area allows for the integration of carrier strike group operations and 

amphibious landings. The Alenuihaha Channel allows sea, air, and land-based units to work in 

conjunction with one another in controlled airspace in close proximity to the Pohakuloa Training Area, 

the only range of its kind in Hawaii.

While there are other channels within the Hawaiian Range Complex, none provide the important 

attributes of the Alenuihaha Channel. Using other channels for strait transits could introduce additional 

problems. The additional distance of other available channels from Pohakuloa Training Area would 

result in training being segmented and could impact the realism of the training as well as increase time 

and fuel costs due to transiting further between training areas. The channel between Niihau and Kauai is 

also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add at least two days of transit during each 

Under Sea Warfare training exercise (time required to move through a different channel and reposition 

to operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). 

The channel between Oahu and Molokai is also acceptable from some mid-frequency active sonar 

training perspective, but it is also a significant civilian air corridor, and raises safety concerns for antisubmarine warfare aircraft flying in that channel. In addition, the channel between Nihau and Kauai is 

proximate to the Pacific Missile Range Facility instrumented range) which would result in problems deconflicting multiple activities and hazardous operations, raising safety concerns. The channel between 

Oahu and Molokai is located under a significant civilian air corridor, and its use would raise safety 

concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft flying in that channel during major training events. For 

these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still the most suitable for anti-submarine warfare training.

The waters west of Hawaii Island and those approaching Kawaihae Harbor, support a wide spectrum of 

naval training. The waters just offshore from Kawaihae Harbor are without equal in the Hawaiian Range 

Complex. The Hawaii Island Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area is adjacent to 

waters approaching Kawaihae Harbor, the point of amphibious insertion for forces proceeding to the 

live-fire range at Pohakuloa Training Area, which is the only live-fire range in the Hawaiian Range 

Complex that supports ground force and aviation live-fire training. Training in this area allows for the 

integration of carrier strike group operations and amphibious landings, working in conjunction within a 

controlled airspace west of Hawaii Island for military training near the Pohakuloa Training Area.

Hawaii Island is unique in that it is provides the only capable air-to-ground range able of conducting 

carrier and expeditionary strike group activities near a channel with unfettered access to the open 

ocean. Open ocean areas support strike group maneuvering, using mid-frequency active sonar to 

prosecute (detect/track) a submarine in the vicinity of a high value unit (e.g., carrier) as aircraft execute 

strikes into Pohakuloa Training Area. The area around Hawaii Island is also used by surface ships with 

anti-submarine warfare capability to train for clearing the sea space of any submarine threat before 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-169

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Marines go ashore at Kawaihae Harbor (part of Rim of the Pacific and Marine Corps unit-level training 

scenarios). There are limited locations for amphibious landings in Hawaii due to existing environmental 

concerns. The west coast of Hawaii is one of the best locations for integrated joint marine amphibious 

operations because of its close proximity to the Pohakuloa Training Area.

As an air to ground range, Pohakuloa Training Area supports carrier strike group activities near a channel 

and near large open water areas for strike group maneuvering and submarine activities. Mid-frequency 

active sonar conducted to support strike maneuver and protecting high value unit (carrier) as aircraft go 

to strike at Pohakuloa Training Area is vital. 

Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor must remain available 

for a broad spectrum of naval and amphibious training. These areas provide a unique and irreplaceable 

capability within the Hawaiian Range Complex that allows naval forces to conduct realistic, integrated 

training in an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will be called to serve.

Activities utilizing in-water explosives, such as underwater detonations, bombing or torpedo exercises, 

are not conducted in the nearshore waters within the Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident 

Population Area since it is not within a designated underwater training range or within Special Use 

Airspace, typically necessary for in-water explosive usage.

K.3.11.3Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area Mitigation 

Assessment

As demonstrated above, the sea and air space that encompasses the west side of Hawaii Island and the 

Alenuihaha Channel, including the Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area, provide 

high readiness value during Rim of the Pacific, Undersea Warfare certification training, Independent 

Deployer Certification training, and integrated amphibious warfare training. The designated Hawaii 

Island biologically important area covers over 5,000 NM2 of water space surrounding Hawaii Island. 

Satellite tracking data (Baird, Webster, Aschettino, et al., 2013; Oleson et al., 2013) has confirmed that 

members of this resident population have ranged well beyond the island of Hawaii, across the 

Alenuihaha Channel to the slope off Kahoolawe and Maui, and north of Maui, which is consistent with 

data on the species from Southern California indicating long distance movements may be routine 

(Schorr et al., 2014).

In general for the Hawaii Range Complex, pushing anti-submarine warfare training farther from land and

out of the littorals would add transit time (increased fuel and loss of training time) in addition to 

providing an environment less likely to be expected in operating areas during deployment. Loss of the 

shallow to deep transition would eliminate up/downslope exploitation and bottom bounce 

investigations, for example. Water space outside of Hawaii OPAREA can be subject to seasonal extremes 

making large sea states, decreasing training value. Lastly, pushing training and testing further from land 

increases the difficulty in air control reporting and coordination required to conduct integrated 

readiness activities.

While the identified small and resident population area only takes up a small portion of the Hawaii 

Range Complex, a portion of this area is located within waters where the Navy typically conducts

activities that involve sonar or other transducers during Undersea Warfare training, Independent 

Deployer Certification training, and Rim of the Pacific training. While Cuvier’s beaked whale in Hawaii 

may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training and testing activities 

throughout the year, the quantitative analysis estimates very few exposures resulting in behavioral 

reactions, TTS, or PTS due to exposure from sonar and other transducers throughout Hawaii Range 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-170

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Complex. Significant long-term impacts on Cuvier’s beaked whale natural behaviors or 

abandonment/avoidance of habitat due to training and testing with sonar and other transducers are 

unlikely to occur within the small and resident population area. 

Resightings of some individuals in the Hawaii Island resident population have spanned at least 15 years, 

indicating long-term site fidelity to the area. There are no indications that Navy training and testing has 

had any of adverse impacts on populations of Cuvier’s beaked whales in Hawaii or elsewhere in the HSTT 

Study Area. Predicted effects on individuals in the Hawaii Island Cuvier’s beaked whale population are 

expected to be behavioral in response to the use of sonar and other transducers (see Appendix E).

The Navy balanced the need for the use of the area to meet training and testing requirements with the 

biological importance of the area for Cuvier’s beaked whales. While significant long-term impacts on 

Cuvier’s beaked whale behaviors or mortality are not anticipated from the use of sonar or explosives 

during Navy activities within the Study Area, the Navy determined that establishing mitigation areas 

would likely reduce the number and level of impacts to this species and other species or stocks, 

including false killer whales, humpback whales, Blainville’s beaked whales, pygmy killer whales, dwarf 

sperm whales, melon-headed whales, short-finned pilot whales, and dolphin species occurring within 

the area without compromising military readiness. See Section K.2.4 (Mitigation Areas to be 

Implemented) for details on these proposed mitigation areas:

1. In establishing the West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-4), the 

Navy would limit the number of major training exercises using surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar that could occur annually unless an increase in 

these activities is deemed necessary due to national security. 

2. In the West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (K.2-8), the Navy would not use any inwater explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises yearround. If a naval unit needs to use explosives during testing, unit-level training and 

major training exercises in this area for national security, permission shall be required 

from the delegated Command authority conducting the activity prior to their use in the 

Cautionary Area. 

3. The Navy would not use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or inwater explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises yearround in the East-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-7). Again, should 

national security require the use of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active 

sonar or in-water explosives in the area, permission shall be required from the 

delegated Command authority conducting the activity prior to their use in the 

Cautionary Area.

As discussed in Section K.3.11.2.1 (Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing), adjacent 

to these areas, however, the environmental conditions presented by the Alenuihaha Channel cannot be 

duplicated elsewhere in the Hawaiian Islands. Due to the strategic importance of the Alenuihaha 

Channel, unrestricted use of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar training in the 

channel during portions of Undersea Warfare training, Independent Deployer Certification training, Rim 

of the Pacific, and unit-level training and other exercises allows naval forces to train in an environment 

that replicates the actual areas where they will be called to serve. Establishing a mitigation area 

measure that would impede access and limit unit-level training and major training exercises or testing 

within the Alenuihaha Channel would be impracticable to implement without impeding the 

effectiveness of military readiness.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-171

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

While there are other channels within the Hawaiian Range Complex, none provide the important 

attributes of the Alenuihaha Channel. Using other channels for strait transits could introduce additional 

problems. The additional distance of other available channels from Pohakuloa Training Area would 

result in training being segmented and could impact the realism of the training as well as increasing fuel 

costs and time (e.g., adding at least two days of transit during each Under Sea Warfare training exercise) 

with multiple assets involved.

The proposed West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area and the West and East-side Hawaii 

Island Cautionary Areas do not overlap the Alenuihaha Channel and therefore, would not limit or restrict 

the use of that area during these critical training activities. Explosives are not typically used in the 

channel so no exposures to Cuvier’s beaked whales from explosives would occur.

Beaked whales, including Cuvier’s beaked whales, are challenging to observe at sea due to their cryptic 

behavior, a low profile, long dive duration, and a small, inconspicuous blow at the water’s surface 

making them barely visible to observers. While Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels 

in ways that are important to prevent whale collisions, observing beaked whales at the surface by 

personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when a ship or surfaced submarine is 

moving through the water (underway), may be difficult - making beaked whales more vulnerable to 

vessel strikes than other large whale species. However, there have only been two reported non-Navy 

vessel strikes with beaked whales in the Study Area. Implementing the Navy’s Marine Species 

Awareness Training, beginning in 2006, along with other existing Navy mitigation measures intended to 

ensure that vessels avoid whales, correlates well with the reduction of strikes on large whales by Navy 

vessels in the last decade.

The Navy’s standard operating procedures discussed in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures) 

and ongoing mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) are designed to avoid or reduce 

impacts to marine species and stocks throughout the Study Area. These measures would also limit the 

interaction between Navy vessels and beaked whales, further reducing the potential for vessel strikes in 

and outside of identified biologically important areas.

K.3.12 HAWAII ISLAND BLAINVILLE’S BEAKED WHALE SMALL AND RESIDENT POPULATION AREA

An area with a small and resident population of Blainville’s beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) off 

the coast of Hawaii Island has been identified as a year-round biologically important area (Baird et al., 

2015b). The Hawaii Island Blainville's Beaked Whales Small and Resident Population Area is shown on 

Figure K.2-21 and is approximately 7,450 km2

. The water depth of the area ranges up to 4,816 m, with 

shallower water in the north and northwest portions of the area. This small and resident population 

area overlaps in part with HSTT Settlement Areas 1-A through 1-E, and 2-E discussed in Section K.1.1.2 

(Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area).

Population studies in Hawaii have demonstrated some evidence for residency (McSweeney et al., 2007).

The boundary of the small and resident population area (Figure K.2-21) is based on a minimum convex 

polygon around 1,809 locations from 10 individuals (4 males, 6 females) satellite tagged from 2006 to 

2011 (Baird et al., 2015a). This location of the area is based on photo-identification, vessel surveys, and 

tagging studies that show high site fidelity by a small sample size of individuals in the areas surveyed 

(Baird et al., 2015a). 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-172

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-21: Blainville's Beaked Whales Small and Resident Population off Hawaii Island

K.3.12.1General Biological Assessment

For a thorough description of the Blainville’s Beaked Whales species, see Section 3.7.2.3.26 ( Blainville’s 

Beaked Whale [Mesoplodon densirostris]).

The Blainville’s beaked whale is protected under the MMPA and is not listed under the ESA. In Hawaii,

NMFS recognizes one Hawaiian stock of Blainville’s beaked whale (Carretta et al., 2017). Blainville’s 

beaked whales are one of the most widely distributed of the distinctive toothed whales within the 

Mesoplodon genus (Jefferson et al., 2008; MacLeod & D'Amico, 2006). Blainville’s beaked whales are 

regularly found in Hawaiian waters (Baird et al., 2003; Baird et al., 2006; Barlow et al., 2004). The species 

is typically found elsewhere in areas where water depths exceed 3,280 ft. (1,000 m) along the 

continental slope (Barlow et al., 2006; Schorr et al., 2010).

K.3.12.1.1 Biological Considerations Applicable to the Blainville’s Beaked Whale Small and 

Resident Population Area

Blainville’s beaked whales are regularly found in Hawaiian waters both near shore and in the deep ocean 

portions of the Hawaiian Islands (Baird et al., 2003; Baird et al., 2004; Baird et al., 2005; Baird et al., 

2006; Baird et al., 2009b; Baird et al., 2010a; Baird et al., 2011b; Barlow et al., 2004; Barlow, 2006; 

Bradford et al., 2017; Henderson et al., 2016; Klinck et al., 2016; Manzano-Roth et al., 2016; McSweeney 

et al., 2007; Schorr et al., 2010). Blainville’s beaked whales have been detected off Oahu for prolonged 

periods annually and have been consistently observed with high site fidelity off the west coast of the 

Island of Hawaii (McSweeney et al., 2007). Blainville’s beaked whale vocalizations have also been 

routinely detected in acoustic monitoring in the Hawaiian Islands (Henderson et al., 2015a; Henderson 

et al., 2016; Lammers et al., 2015c; Manzano-Roth et al., 2016; Manzano-Roth et al., 2013; Rankin & 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-173

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Barlow, 2007) including during an acoustic monitoring glider survey that began approximately 120 km 

south of Oahu navigating a triangular track through deep ocean waters that intermittently crossed over 

or near seamounts as well as relatively featureless areas in between (Klinck et al., 2016). During the 

glider survey, sounds from Blainville’s beaked whales were detected in open ocean areas and at Brigham 

Seamount, but not at any of the other seamounts sampled along the glider’s route. 

Blainville’s beaked whales are the dominant beaked whale species that is acoustically detected on the 

Pacific Missile Range Facility. The results of Navy surveys from 2010 to 2014 were used to estimate the 

abundance of species in the region surrounding Niihau and Kaula Islands. They found that the 

population of Blainville’s beaked whales there was 12 and that they appear to be rare in this part of the 

Hawaii Range Complex (Lammers et al., 2015b). 

During six training events at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in 2011, 2012, and 2013, monitoring data 

from passive acoustic measurement devices showed that dives decreased when mid-frequency active 

sonar was in use by 50 percent or more on occasions in 2012 and 2013, and detections of Blainville’s 

beaked whales increased after mid-frequency active sonar events, but remained lower than they were 

before mid-frequency active sonar events occurred (Henderson et al., 2015b; Henderson et al., 2016; 

Manzano-Roth et al., 2016). Most dives that were recorded when mid-frequency active sonar was in use 

were measured on the edges or off the Pacific Missile Range Facility indicating that Blainville’s beaked 

whales may move away from the sonar source when it is active (Henderson et al., 2015b; Martin et al., 

2016).

A satellite tracking study of a Blainville’s beaked whales off the island of Hawaii generally found the 

movements of those whales to be restricted to the waters of the west and northwest side of the island 

(Baird et al., 2010a; Mahaffy et al., 2015b; Schorr et al., 2010). There were, however, exceptions as 

shown in Figure K.2-22, which documented a range overlap of resident Blainville’s beaked whales with 

wider ranging individuals and also documented the large distance that may be reflective of routine 

movements by some Blainville’s beaked whales in Hawaii (Baird, 2011). Subsequently, the tagged animal

moved a cumulative distance of 1,801 km and traveled 1,008 km from the site of tagging over a 40 

day period.

The tracked locations of Blainville’s beaked whales documented by satellite tag data as shown in the two 

figures, seem to indicate routine long-distance movements over relatively short periods of time. If this is 

the case then there are substantial implications for what should be considered a significant alteration of 

behavior and for how meaningful it is to an individual if they leave an area temporarily to avoid sound 

sources such as sonar or to avoid other anthropogenic activity. 

In 2010 a passive acoustic monitoring glider was deployed off of the Kona (west) Coast of the Island of 

Hawaii for 10 days in March. Blainville’s beaked whales were detected on four separate dives in the 

southern parts of the survey area near the edge of the widest part of the shelf south of Kailua-Kona, 

which is in the identified small and resident population area (Klinck et al., 2016). From 2011–2014 two 

Blainville’s beaked whales were tagged from one population off of Kauai, however, only one of the tags 

functioned and no dive data was collected. That individual, in February of 2014, spent approximately 

20.5 percent of the 8-day period it was tracked in the Pacific Missile Range Facility before swimming 

south to an area around Kaula Island southwest of Niihau (Figure K.2-23) (Baird et al., 2015d; Moretti & 

Baird, 2015). 

For the Hawaiian Islands, the currently available data precludes evaluation of population trends for 

Blainville’s beaked whales in the Hawaiian stock, which is estimated to consist of 2,872 individuals 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-174

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

(Carretta et al., 2017). Surveys conducted from 1986–2006 identified a total of 59 individuals, 20 of 

which were seen more than once with re-sightings of some individuals spanned 17 years, therefore 

documenting long-term site fidelity to the area by those individuals (Baird et al., 2013d; Mahaffy et al., 

2015a; McSweeney et al., 2007). The number of Blainville’s beaked whales in the small and resident 

population west of Hawaii using photographic data in a mark-recapture analysis estimated 140 

individuals (CV = 0.30) using the area off the island of Hawai‘i over a 4-year period (Baird et al., 2009b). 

The area with a small number of individuals demonstrating long-term high site fidelity based on photoidentification, vessel-based survey, and tagging studies was recognized as an important area for that 

small and resident population (Baird et al., 2015a). 

Although individuals’ fidelity to these waters may be known from re-sights over successive years, the 

overall range of the small and resident population as it extends beyond this area is unknown. Due to a 

relatively small survey effort in areas of suitable habitat elsewhere around the Main Hawaiian Islands, it 

is unknown whether additional areas or resident populations exist. No genetic assessment to 

differentiate Blainville’s beaked whales off the island of Hawaii from other areas has been conducted 

due to insufficient genetic sample sizes (Baird et al., 2015a).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-175

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.2-22: Satellite track of a Blainville’s beaked whale (tag HIMd 153) tagged in 2009 in 

the resident population area west of Hawaii Island.

Source: (Baird et al., 2015d)

Figure K.2-23: Satellite Tagged Blainville’s Beaked Whale Locations from February 

2014 Over an Eight-Day Period
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-176

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.3.12.1.2 Stressor Analysis

Sonar and Other Transducers

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.1.1 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), beaked whales exposed to 

sonar or other transducers 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). Blainville’s beaked whales 

have been shown to react to anthropogenic noise by avoidance (Tyack et al., 2011). In response to a 

simulated sonar signal and pseudorandom noise (a signal of pulsed sounds that are generated in a 

random pattern), a tagged whale ceased foraging at depth and slowly moved away from the source 

while gradually ascending toward the surface (Tyack et al., 2011). Quantitative acoustic analysis for the 

entire Hawaii population of beaked whales estimates that all exposures result in behavioral reactions or 

TTS, and zero exposures resulting in PTS are anticipated.

The U.S. Navy has been funding monitoring in the Main Hawaiian Islands under the U.S. Pacific Fleet 

Marine Species Monitoring Program since the mid-2000s (see www.marinespeciesmonitoring.us for 

detailed methodology and results). Since 2012, monitoring in the Hawaii Range Complex has occurred 

primarily off Kauai in order to utilize the instrumented hydrophone range at the Pacific Missile Range 

Facility for passive acoustic monitoring and analysis of marine mammal exposure and response to Navy 

training and testing. The Pacific Missile Range Facility is used for a variety of training and testing 

activities, including anti-submarine warfare training which requires use of hull-mounted mid-frequency 

active sonar. Since 2007, several days of marine mammal acoustic data have been obtained and 

archived from the Pacific Missile Range Facility hydrophones each month for future analysis. Submarine

Command Course occurs on the range twice a year and utilizes mid-frequency active sonar so it was 

chosen by U.S. Pacific Fleet as the focal training event for monitoring. Beginning in 2011, additional 

(classified) data have been archived from Submarine Command Course for post-exercise analysis of 

marine mammal exposure and response (Henderson et al., 2016; Manzano-Roth et al., 2016). 

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors), sound sources at ranges greater than a few tens of 

kilometers are less likely to lead to significant reactions. Therefore, some impacts on Blainville’s beaked 

whale natural behaviors could occur within the small and resident population area due to training with 

sonar and other transducers. Abandonment of the identified area is not expected to occur because the 

Navy has been training and testing in this area with sonar for decades and 17 years of data indicates

long-term site fidelity to the area by some individuals (Baird, Webster, Aschettino, et al., 2013; Mahaffy, 

Baird, et al., 2015b; McSweeney et al., 2007).

Tyack et al. (2011) report that, in reaction to sonar playbacks, most beaked whales stopped 

echolocation, made long slow ascent, and moved away from the sound. During an exercise using midfrequency sonar, beaked whales avoided the area at a distance from the sonar where the received level 

was “around 140 dB” (sound pressure level) and once the exercise ended, beaked whales re-inhabited 

the center of exercise area within 2–3 days (Tyack et al., 2011). The Navy has therefore adopted a 140 

dB re 1 μPa sound pressure level threshold for behavioral effects for all beaked whales. Findings from 

the Bahamas are consistent with those from Kauai where Blainville’s beaked whales tended to move 

away from the sonar source (Henderson et al., 2015b; Martin et al., 2016). Surveys suggest that 

Blainville’s beaked whales move to the southern portion of the Pacific Missile Range Facility during the 

months of February and August when large-scale training exercises (e.g., Submarine Command Course)

are more often scheduled to occur (Henderson et al., 2015a; Henderson et al., 2015b; Henderson et al., 

2016). During the remaining months their dives can be detected more broadly throughout the Pacific 

Missile Range Facility, even during small-scale training events using mid-frequency active sonar. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-177

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Henderson et al. (2015a) suggest that populations of beaked whales may habituate to sonar, explosive, 

and other acoustic activity if they are resident to the range areas, as Blainville’s beaked whales return to 

the Pacific Missile Range Facility even with regular use of the range for acoustic and explosive activities 

(Henderson et al., 2015b; Martin et al., 2016).

Explosives

As indicated in Section 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives), most activities that involve underwater 

detonations and explosive munitions typically occur more than 3 NM from shore with the exception of 

underwater training ranges that are designated for explosive use. Historical data suggests that explosive 

events are most likely to be scheduled at Puuloa Underwater Training Range, W-188, or KAPU HOT

south of Oahu in W-192 for ease of scheduling, safety, instrumentation, and airspace concerns. None of 

these areas are within the small and resident population area for Blainville’s beaked whales off the west 

coast of Hawaii Island. Therefore, Blainville’s beaked whales in the identified small and resident 

population area would not be exposed directly to sound or energy from explosives; therefore, impacts 

would not be anticipated within the area from training or testing with explosives.

Vessel Strike

There have been several species of Mesoplodon (toothed whales) documented in non-military vessel 

strikes, however none have specifically been identified as Blainville’s beaked whales (Van Waerebeek et 

al., 2007). Beaked whales are challenging to observe at sea due to their cryptic behavior, a low profile, 

and a small, inconspicuous blow at the water’s surface making them barely visible to observers. 

However, evidence suggests that Blainville’s beaked whales may be able to hear the low-frequency 

sounds of large vessels and thus avoid collision (Ketten, 1998). There is no evidence to suggest that Navy 

vessels have ever struck a Blainville’s beaked whale. It is therefore reasonable to assume that vessel 

strikes to Blainville’s beaked whales are very unlikely to occur. 

K.3.12.2Hawaii Island Blainville’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area, 

Settlement Areas 1-A through 1-E, and 2-E

K.3.12.2.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Alenuihaha Channel, as well as the waters north and west of Hawaii Island, provides a unique 

training capability that does not exist elsewhere in the Hawaiian Range Complex. The Alenuihaha 

Channel is an ideal location for strait transits using mid-frequency active sonar during training. The 

Alenuihaha Channel is an actual channel that provides a vital and realistic analog for similar straits or 

restricted maneuvering areas where the Navy operates worldwide, such as the East or South China seas. 

For example, transit training in the Alenuihaha Channel replicates these types of strait environments 

that meet the Navy’s requirement to deploy Naval forces to ensure the free flow of commerce and the 

freedom of navigation by combatting piracy or mine threats. Naval forces are required to train to 

counter a submarine threat before deployment – to ensure the first time a surface asset conducts antisubmarine warfare training in a strait prior to being deployed to the Straits of Hormuz or Malacca or 

similar areas. Additionally, this channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because 

there is a shallow trench running through part of the channel. There are few geographic areas that 

enable forces to do this type of training outside of the HSTT Study Area. 

The ability of an aircraft carrier to defend itself from submarine attack with all available assets while 

conducting straits transits is critical to its survival in forward operating areas. The channel is located 

outside most of the civilian air traffic corridors approaching the Honolulu International Airport which is 

necessary to safely de-conflict with civilian air traffic.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-178

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

It is located adjacent to waters approaching Kawaihae Harbor, the point of amphibious insertion for 

forces proceeding to the live-fire range at Pohakuloa Training Area. The Pohakuloa Training Area is the 

only range in the Hawaii Range Complex that supports ground force and aviation live-fire training. 

Training in this area allows for the integration of carrier strike group operations and amphibious 

landings. The Alenuihaha Channel allows sea, air, and land-based units to work in conjunction with one 

another in controlled airspace in close proximity to the Pohakuloa Training Area, the only range of its 

kind in Hawaii.

While there are other channels within the Hawaiian Range Complex, none provide the important 

attributes of the Alenuihaha Channel. Using other channels for strait transits could introduce additional 

problems. The additional distance of other available channels from Pohakuloa Training Area would 

result in training being segmented and could impact the realism of the training as well as increase time 

and fuel costs due to transiting further between training areas. The channel between Niihau and Kauai is 

also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add at least two days of transit during each 

Under Sea Warfare training exercise (time required to move through a different channel and reposition 

to operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). 

The channel between Oahu and Molokai is also acceptable from some mid-frequency active sonar 

training perspective, but it is also a significant civilian air corridor, and raises safety concerns for antisubmarine warfare aircraft flying in that channel. In addition, the channel between Nihau and Kauai is 

proximate to the Pacific Missile Range Facility instrumented range) which would result in problems deconflicting multiple activities and hazardous operations, raising safety concerns. The channel between 

Oahu and Molokai is located under a significant civilian air corridor, and its use would raise safety 

concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft flying in that channel during major training events. For 

these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still the most suitable for anti-submarine warfare training.

The Blainville’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area incorporates the offshore approach 

into Kawaihae Harbor on the northwest coast of Hawaii Island. This small and resident population area 

west of Hawaii Island is overlapped by W-194 and Pele and Pele South Air Traffic Control Assigned 

Airspace which are necessary for carrier and expeditionary strike training into the Pohakuloa Training 

Area range. 

Hawaii Island is unique in that it is provides the only capable air-to-ground range able of conducting

carrier and expeditionary strike group activities near a channel with unfettered access to the open 

ocean. Open ocean areas support strike group maneuvering, using mid-frequency active sonar to 

prosecute (detect/track) a submarine in the vicinity of a high value unit (e.g., carrier) as aircraft execute 

strikes into Pohakuloa Training Area. The area around Hawaii Island is also used by surface ships with 

anti-submarine warfare capability to train for clearing the sea space of any submarine threat before 

Marines go ashore at Kawaihae Harbor (part of Rim of the Pacific and Marine Corps unit-level training 

scenarios). There are limited locations for amphibious landings in Hawaii due to existing environmental 

concerns. The west coast of Hawaii is one of the best locations for integrated joint marine amphibious 

operations because of its close proximity to the Pohakuloa Training Area. 

Controlled airspace areas on the west side of Hawaii Island are important safe areas in which military 

aircraft operations are de-conflicted with civilian air traffic. The Navy uses W-194 and the Pele and Pele 

South Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace for Rim of the Pacific (every other year) and Undersea 

Warfare certification training (up to three times/year), and possibly the Independent Deployer 

Certification training (once every year). The controlled airspace combined with access to the Pohakuloa 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-179

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Training Area range drives Undersea Warfare certification training to that particular location, by 

supporting the required extensive coordination with multiple air and sea assets. 

Activities utilizing in-water explosives, such as underwater detonations, bombing or torpedo exercises, 

are not conducted in the nearshore waters within the Blainville’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident 

Population Area since it is not within a designated underwater training range or within Special Use 

Airspace, typically necessary for in-water explosive usage.

K.3.12.3Blainville’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area Mitigation 

Assessment

In general for the Hawaii Range Complex, pushing anti-submarine warfare training further from land and 

out of the littorals would add transit time (lost fuel and training time) in addition to providing an 

environment less likely to be expected in operating areas during deployment. Loss of the shallow to 

deep water transition would eliminate up/downslope exploitation and bottom bounce investigations for 

example. Water space outside of Hawaii OPAREA can be subject to seasonal extremes making large sea 

states, decreasing training value. Lastly, pushing operations further from land increases the difficulty in 

air control reporting and coordination required to conduct integrated readiness activities.

While the identified small and resident population area only takes up a small portion of the Hawaii 

Range Complex and is located within waters where the Navy occasionally conducts activities that involve 

mid-frequency active acoustic sonar during Undersea Warfare training, Independent Deployer 

Certification training, and Rim of the Pacific training, Blainville’s beaked whale in Hawaii may be exposed 

to sound during training and testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates 

very few exposures resulting in behavioral reactions and TTS; no PTS are anticipated due to exposure 

from sonar and other transducers for all beaked whale species across the entire Hawaii Range Complex.

Predicted effects on individuals in the Hawaii Island Blainville’s beaked whale population are expected to 

be behavioral in response to the use of sonar and other transducers (see Appendix E).

Passive acoustic records have indicated a reduction in Blainville’s beaked whale sound production 

around the locus of mid-frequency active sonar use during training, which has been assumed reflected 

an avoidance of the area in the vicinity of the sonar (E. E. Henderson et al., 2015; C. R. Martin et al., 

2016). Satellite tag location data has, however, suggested broad movements by Blainville’s beaked 

whales (in excess of 1,000 km) may be routine and in one case included movements over an 8-month

period onto a range where active sonar use was ongoing (Baird, 2011; Baird, Dilley, et al., 2015; D. J. 

Moretti & Baird, 2015). In short, there have been no demonstrated adverse impacts to any population of 

Blainville’s beaked whales as a result of Navy training.

The designated Hawaii Island biologically important area covers over 1,600 NM2 of water space along 

the western coast of Hawaii Island and part of the Alenuihaha Channel. Satellite tracking data (Baird, 

Webster, Aschettino, et al., 2013; Oleson et al., 2013) has demonstrated that members of this resident 

population have ranged well beyond the island of Hawaii (in excess of 1,000 km) which may be reflective 

of routine movements by some Blainville’s beaked whales in Hawaii (Baird, 2011).

Significant long-term impacts on Blainville’s beaked whale behaviors or mortality are not anticipated 

from the use of sonar or explosives during Navy activities within the Study Area; however, the Navy 

balanced the need for the use of the area to meet training and testing requirements with the biological 

importance of the area for Blainville’s beaked whales and other species. The Navy determined that 

establishing mitigation areas would likely reduce the number and level of impacts to this species and 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-180

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

other species or stock, including false killer whales, humpback whales, Cuvier’s beaked whales, pygmy 

killer whales, dwarf sperm whales, melon-headed whales, short-finned pilot whales and dolphin species 

occurring within the area without compromising military readiness. See Section K.2.4 (Mitigation Areas 

to be implemented) for details on these proposed mitigation areas:

1. In establishing the West-side Hawaii Island Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-4), the Navy 

would limit the number of major training exercises using surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar that could occur annually unless an increase in these activities is deemed 

necessary due to national security. 

2. In the West-side Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (K.2-8), the Navy would not use any in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round. If a naval 

unit needs to use explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises in 

this area for national security, permission shall be required from the delegated Command 

authority conducting the activity prior to their use in the Cautionary Area.

3. The Navy would not use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or in-water 

explosives during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year-round in the Eastside Hawaii Island Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-7). Again, should national security require the use 

of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or in-water explosives in the area, 

permission shall be required from the delegated Command authority conducting the activity 

prior to their use in the Cautionary Area.

While the Navy is proposing to establish mitigation areas adjacent to the Alenuihaha Channel, the 

environmental conditions presented by the Alenuihaha Channel cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the 

Hawaiian Islands. As discussed above in Section K.3.2.2.1 (Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training 

and Testing), due to the strategic importance of the Alenuihaha Channel, use of surface ship hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar training in the channel during portions of Undersea Warfare 

training, Independent Deployer Certification training, Rim of the Pacific, and unit level training and other 

exercises allows naval forces to train in an environment that replicates the actual areas where they will 

be called to serve. Balancing the needs of the area for this species and other species as well as the 

Navy’s need to access and use sonar in this area was considered. Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel 

and the waters west of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad spectrum of naval and amphibious training. 

Additionally, this channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because there is a 

shallow trench running through part of the channel. Establishing a mitigation area measure that would 

impede access and limit unit-level training and major training exercises or testing within the Alenuihaha 

Channel or impede the free execution of Navy tactical and operational procedures for these events 

would be impracticable to implement without impacting the effectiveness of military readiness. 

The channel between Niihau and Kauai is also acceptable from a training perspective, but this would add 

at least two days of transit, for example, during each Under Sea Warfare training exercise and disrupts 

the realism of the training (time required to move through a different channel and reposition to 

operating areas near Pohakuloa Training Area). If limited or restricted, use of the Alenuihaha Channel 

during a training event with multiple assets involved, the Navy, would be required to relocate mid 

training. While the channel between Oahu and Molokai is also acceptable from some mid-frequency 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-181

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

active sonar training perspective, this channel is already within a civilian air corridor, raising safety 

concerns for anti-submarine warfare aircraft. For these reasons, Alenuihaha Channel is still the most 

suitable for anti-submarine warfare training that enables forces to do this type of training prior to being 

deployed.

Balancing the needs of the area for this species and other species as well as the Navy’s need to access 

and use sonar in this area was considered. Access to both the Alenuihaha Channel and the waters west 

of Kawaihae Harbor is vital for a broad spectrum of naval and amphibious training. Additionally, this 

channel provides a unique acoustic and tactical environment because there is a shallow trench running 

through part of the channel. Establishing a mitigation area measure that would impede access and limit 

unit-level training and major training exercises or testing within the Alenuihaha Channel or impede the 

free execution of Navy tactical and operational procedures for these events would be impracticable to 

implement without impacting the effectiveness of military readiness.

Beaked whales, including Blainville’s beaked whales, are challenging to observe at sea due to their 

cryptic behavior, a low profile, and a small, inconspicuous blow at the water’s surface making them 

barely visible to observers. While Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that 

are important to prevent whale collisions, observing beaked whales at the surface by personnel assigned 

to stand watch at all times, day and night, when a ship or surfaced submarine is moving through the 

water (underway), may be difficult - making beaked whales more vulnerable to vessel strikes than other 

large whales. Implementing the Navy’s Marine Species Awareness Training, beginning in 2006, along 

with other existing Navy mitigation measures intended to ensure that vessels avoid whales, correlates 

well with the reduction of strikes on large whales by Navy vessels in the last decade.

The Navy’s standard operating procedures discussed in Section 2.3.3 (Standard Operating Procedures) 

and ongoing mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) are designed to avoid or reduce 

impacts to marine species and stocks throughout the Study Area. These measures would also limit the 

interaction between Navy vessels and beaked whales, further reducing the potential for vessel strikes in 

and outside of identified biologically important areas.

K.4 BIOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT AREAS WITHIN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PORTION OF THE 

HSTT STUDY AREA 

K.4.1 BLUE WHALE FEEDING AREAS

Blue whale feeding areas in the HSTT Study Area were developed through the Cetacean Density and 

Distribution Mapping Working Group process by encompassing the locations of blue whales observed 

feeding between 1986 and 2011 during small boat surveys (Calambokidis et al., 2015) (Figure K.3-1).

The area of overlap with the HSTT Study Area covers approximately 2,325 km2 of water space. As shown 

in Table K.1-1 and described in Section K.1.1.2, (Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within 

HSTT Study Area), these identified Blue Whale Feeding Areas overlap with HSTT Settlement Areas 3-A 

through 3-C, 4-A, and 4-C (Figure K.3-1). In addition, some of the Blue Whale Feeding Areas overlap with 

areas identified during negotiations with the California Coastal Commission, as discussed in Section 

K.1.1.3, (Areas Identified by the California Coastal Commission).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-182

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.3-1: Blue Whale Feeding Areas off the Southern California Coast

K.4.1.1 General Biological Assessment

For a thorough description of the blue whale species, see Section 3.7.2.2.2, (Blue Whale [Balaenoptera 

musculus]).

Since 2009, researchers have observed a northward shift in blue whale distribution including waters 

within the HSTT Study Area (Barlow, 2010; Calambokidis et al., 2009a; Calambokidis & Barlow, 2013; 

Carretta et al., 2017; Širović et al., 2015). Irvine et al (2014) deployed satellite tags on 171 blue whales 

off California between 1993 and 2008. The tagged whales ranged as far north as Alaska and far south as 

the tip of the Baja Peninsula, Mexico. The blue whale home range and core area in Southern California,

as defined from the tagging data by Irvine et al (2014), are centered to the north of San Miguel and 

Santa Cruz islands, which is far to the north of the HSTT Study Area. Irvine et al. (2014) calculated the 

relative amount of time blue whales spent in specific areas and adjusted the data to account for unequal 

satellite track durations among individual blue whales. In summary, previous data supporting the use of 

feeding areas by blue whales should be considered in context with more recent data indicating a general 

shift to the north, outside of the HSTT Study Area. The northward shift in blue whale feeding locations is 

likely driven by a northward shift in the availability of prey (Barlow, 2010; Calambokidis et al., 2009a; 

Calambokidis & Barlow, 2013; Carretta et al., 2017; Širović et al., 2015).

Blue whales are known to return seasonally to the same general areas where they have previously 

foraged and also opportunistically feed on concentrations of krill or other prey. Specific locations where 

prey are concentrated can vary seasonally and inter-annually and are driven by dynamic ocean 

conditions (e.g., shifts in large-scale current systems like the California Current) and ocean-atmosphere 

interactions (e.g., the El Nino Southern Oscillation cycle) that can affect much of the North Pacific basin, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-183

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

as well as small-scale, short-term events including isolated storms and upwelling. Recently analyzed 

tagging data indicate that blue whales generally forage in relatively small geographic areas for relatively 

short time periods (Mate et al., 2015b). For these reasons, delimited areas where blue whales have been 

observed feeding in the past may not provide an accurate prediction of where blue whales are currently 

feeding.

The most current information suggests that the blue whale 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 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., 2015). Rockwood et al. (2017) have suggested that death from vessel collisions may be a 

significant impediment to further population growth and recovery for blue whales, especially where the 

risk is highest on the U.S. west coast in the shipping lanes serving San Francisco and ports of Los 

Angeles/Long Beach.

K.4.1.1.1 Biological Considerations Applicable to all Blue Whale Feeding Areas

The results from blue whale tagging studies in 2014 and 2015 (Mate et al., 2016a) indicate blue whale 

feeding behavior was not limited to nor concentrated in designated blue whale feeding biologically 

important areas during those years. Unpublished results from continued tagging in the summer of 2016 

indicate a similar pattern of broad area movement along the entire U.S. West Coast and relatively low 

residency time for individual whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. 

According to Mate et al. (2016a), blue whales generally foraged in relatively small areas (median 7.6 

km2

) for time periods ranging from less than 1 hour to 20.5 hours (a median forage time of 4.5 hours) 

and then moved on to other locations across the region. The median distance between foraging areas

ranged from 6.5 to 27.7 km, and the maximum recorded distances between feeding areas was 211 km. A 

generalized feeding behavior of limited time in any one area and movements across relatively large 

distances (in comparison to the size of the areas designated as biologically important) between feeding 

areas suggests that blue whales are not wholly dependent on fixed, isolated foraging areas, rather their 

foraging behavior is better characterized as opportunistic and wide ranging, foraging on prey whenever 

and wherever concentrations are encountered.

Five additional biologically important blue whale feeding areas located north of the Southern California 

Bight and outside of the HSTT Study Area were identified in Calambokidis et al. (2015). Approximately 70

percent of the 8,244 sightings recorded from 1986 to 2011 within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone from 

California to Washington occurred in these additional areas. These data suggest that the majority of blue 

whale feeding behavior occurs far to the north of the HSTT Study Area (Figure K.3-2).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-184

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Sources: from (Irvine et al., 2014) as presented in (Mate et al., 2015b); new data for 2015-2015 from (Mate et al., 

2015b; Mate et al., 2016a)

Figure K.3-2: Comparison Of Home Ranges For Satellite Tagged Blue Whales (a) 1998–2008,

(b) 2014, and (c) 2015
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-185

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Feeding and animal occurrence may vary annually but, at the time of designation, Blue Whale Feeding 

Areas represented locations that had more consistent occurrence annually from June – October 

(Calambokidis et al., 2015). Currently, the habitat-based density models generated by the NMFS 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center are being updated to incorporate additional sightings data through 

2014 (Becker et al. in progress). A prediction of blue whale presence based on an aggregate multi-year 

average may not accurately represent their presence over a short time scale. The inter-annual variability 

in oceanographic conditions should be part of the consideration when establishing time-area 

management locations for feeding blue whales (Mate et al., 2016b). 

The Blue Whale Feeding Areas are areas where blue whales have been detected on line transit surveys 

(six surveys between 1991–2008 and one in 2014) and where concentrations of blue whales and feeding 

behavior have been observed (Calambokidis et al., 2015). The boundaries of the Blue Whale Feeding 

Areas were delineated by enclosing an area where habitat modeling (based on line transit survey data

from the various years) predicts a high density of blue whales (irrespective of any feeding behavior). 

Based on the average over multiple years, the delineated boundary of a feeding area represents the 

location where blue whales preferentially feed, but because the ephemeral and dynamic environmental 

factors associated with the presence of prey are not persistent in space and time, annual variation in 

blue whale occurrence in these areas has been evident (Calambokidis et al., 2015; Mate et al., 2016b).

There are several other areas where blue whales are known to feed outside of the Blue Whale Feeding 

Area, and it is likely that feeding occurs in other areas that are not yet identified. Short-to-medium 

duration dive behavior tags deployed on blue whales in 2014–2015 documented feeding lunges and 

searches in multiple areas of the HSTT Study Area as well as in areas outside of the Study Area (Mate et 

al, 2016a).

The San Diego Blue Whale Feeding Area is an area where concentrations of blue whales have been 

detected and feeding behavior has been observed (Calambokidis et al., 2015). Because the ephemeral 

and dynamic environmental factors associated with the presence of prey are not persistent in space and 

time, annual variation in blue whale occurrence in these areas has been evident (Calambokidis et al., 

2015; Mate et al., 2016a). In general, the entire 200–400 m bathymetric region from the Mexico border 

to Point Conception outside of the HSTT Study Area can support opportunist blue whale foraging. In a 

non-El Niño or La Niña year, typical oceanographic conditions result in a strengthened southern flow of 

the California Current and associated coastal upwelling. The increase in upwelling (i.e., more 

phytoplankton nutrients) is a strong driver for increased prey concentration (i.e., krill). These conditions, 

however, are more prevalent during the spring and, at latest, early summer and subject to disruption 

from El Niño, La Niña, and other climate change factors.

For example, between 2014 and 2015, a total of 46 blue whales were tagged at locations just to the 

north of the HSTT Study Area as well as within the Southern California portion HSTT Study Area. Those 

animals subsequently moved as far north as British Columbia and as far south as waters very close to the 

equator (Mate et al., 2016b). Although the timing of their seasonal presence in Southern California was 

the same between the two years, the distribution of the tagged animals in and around the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area differed significantly with the tagged animals in 2014 

distributed farther north, having larger home ranges and core areas, and shorter residency than in 2015 

(Mate et al., 2016b). In terms of movement behavior, blue whales displayed extensive area-restricted 

searching behavior while in the California Current Province (consistent with foraging activities in small 

areas), but it was reduced in 2014 compared to 2015. These inter-annual differences corresponded with 

the strong ocean temperature perturbations that took place off the west coast of North America in 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-186

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

2013–2015 and in 2015–2016 (Mate et al., 2016b). While habitat modeling has included data from 

similar periods of perturbation, such variability becomes part of the average; important inter-annual 

differences such as these are not reflected in the static Blue Whale Feeding Area boundaries. In 

analyzing these tagging data for cumulative home ranges and core use areas, all areas mapped and 

predicted by Mate et al. (2016) had consistently higher occurrence north of the HSTT Study Area.

Recent data shows that 22 blue whales were tagged in Southern California between August and 

September in 2014, 18 of which had locations with the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area (Mate et al., 2015b). Ten of the 18 blue whales had locations in the Santa Monica Bay to Long 

Beach Blue Whale Feeding Area (Mate et al., 2015b).

Lomac & Smultea (2016) conducted 18 one-week-long aerial surveys spanning October 2008 through 

May 2013, resulting in 70 blue whale sightings composed of 117 individuals. The survey transects 

included the San Diego Arc feeding area and encountered the expected concentration of blue whales at 

that location consistent with the designation of the feeding area.

The Tanner-Cortes Bank Blue Whale Feeding Area accounted for 0.6 percent of the 8,244 documented 

sightings within the Exclusive Economic Zone from California to Washington from 1986 to 2011 

(Calambokidis et al., 2015). Data from a number of years and sources (Calambokidis & Barlow, 2013; 

Calambokidis et al., 2009a; Douglas et al., 2014; Irvine et al., 2014; Mate et al., 2016b) consistently 

indicate large interannual variability in blue whale presence in small specific areas like the feeding areas 

and over shorter time scales such as those considered for Navy training and testing events.

The Tanner-Cortes Bank Blue Whale feeding area boundary was drawn by enclosing the locations of 52 

blue whales sighted during small boat surveys over a five-year period from 1986 to 2011 (Calambokidis 

et al., 2015). In general and since 2009, it has been recognized that there has been a northward shift in 

blue whale distribution including the waters of the HSTT Study Area (Barlow, 2010; Calambokidis & 

Barlow, 2013; Calambokidis et al., 2009a; Carretta et al., 2016; Sirovic et al., 2015). Based on satellite 

tags on 171 blue whales between 1993 and 2008, the blue whale home range and core area in Southern 

California derived by Irvine et al (2014) were both centered to the north of the northern Channel Islands 

(north of San Miguel and Santa Cruz), which is far to the north of the HSTT Study Area. Data from 22

blue whales tagged in Southern California between August and September in 2014, showed that 18 

spent time within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area with only one spending some 

time within the Tanner-Cortes Bank area (Mate et al., 2015). Cumulatively, for both the 2014 and 2015 

tracking efforts, only 4 out of 65 tagged blue whales occurred in or transited through Tanner-Cortes 

Bank accounting for <1 to 1 day (Mate et al., 2016a) (Figure K.3-3 and Figure K.3-4). These results are 

consistent with the location being over a single, very localized bathymetric feature where large and 

persistent prey aggregations may not develop every year or where they had in the past.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-187

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Source: Mate et al., 2016a

Figure K.3-3: Movements of 2014 and 2015 in the Eastern Pacific (top) Relative to the HSTT 

Study Area (bottom)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-188

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Source: Mate et al, 2016a

Figure K.3-4: The Limited Number of Tagged Blue Whale Transits Through Tanner-Cortes Bank

in 2014 and 2015

K.4.1.2 Stressor Analysis

Blue whales, including some that were feeding, have been documented reacting to anthropogenic 

stressors including vessels and a variety of underwater noise sources. Reactions to vessels include 

shallower dives accompanied by more frequent surfacing, and changes in calls associated with blue 

whale feeding behavior (Calambokidis et al., 2009b; Melcón et al., 2012). Data from passive recording 

devices was used to determine whether anthropogenic noises from vessels and sources in the midfrequency band, and explosions affected the certain types of calls from blue whales, including “D-calls” 

that are typically associated with blue whale foraging behavior (Melcón et al., 2012). It was found that 

calls changed and decreased in the presence of mid-frequency acoustic signals and conversely increased 

in the presence of vessel noise. In both cases, the calls returned to baseline when exposure to these 

sources of noise ceased. There was no significant change in blue whale calls during noise caused by 

explosions (Melcón et al., 2012). In response to simulated and real sonar sources, blue whales at the 

surface did not show a change in behavior in response to received levels between 90 and 179 dB re 

1 μPa, but deep feeding and non-feeding whales showed temporary reactions including cessation of 

feeding, generalized avoidance responses, and changes in dive behavior (Goldbogen et al., 2013; 

Goldbogen et al., 2014). In these cases, blue whales resumed normal behavior quickly after the 

cessation of the mid-frequency sound exposure (Goldbogen et al., 2013). 

Given it is unlikely that blue whales are always feeding in the most optimal location, that these whales 

are highly mobile, feed over large ranges and forage in bouts separated by many kilometers, any 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-189

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

disturbed blue whales could temporarily move to alternative foraging sites if a disturbance causes a 

change in their prior foraging locale. Evidence from tagged blue whales has indicated blue whale 

foraging is generally and widely dispersed across the offshore waters of Southern California (Mate et al., 

2016b). As a result, even temporary displacement from an initial foraging locality is not expected to 

impact the fitness of any individual animals given alternate foraging is likely to be available in close 

proximity (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). 

K.4.1.2.1 Sonar and Other Transducers

As detailed in Chapter 3.7 (Marine Mammals) Section 3.7.3.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other 

Transducers), blue whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers. Some of the blue 

whale feeding areas identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015) are not typical locations where significant 

anti-submarine warfare training occurs (insufficient area at water depth for large-scale events), for 

example, San Nicolas Island and Santa Monica Bay to Long Beach Feeding Areas. Quantitative acoustic 

modeling estimates most exposures will result in behavioral reactions and TTS., No PTS was estimated 

for this species from exposure to sonar or other transducers. Behavioral reactions are unlikely to rise to 

the level of significant under NEPA nor would they be 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. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be minor to 

moderate, from which the individual whale would fully recover quickly.

, Research discussed in in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers), 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 source is located directly on their migration route. Mysticetes 

disturbed while migrating could pause their migration or route around the disturbance. If disturbed 

while engaged in other activities such as feeding or reproductive behaviors, they 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 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.

Further, Navy training and testing activities have been occurring in and around the entire Southern 

California Range Complex for decades and there has been no evidence that the activities have caused 

blue whales to avoid feeding habitat over the long term. Animals in the biologically important areas will 

always likely experience exposure to some sonar from propagation from units well outside of the 

mitigation area. Individual blue whales spend only a small portion of their time feeding or transiting 

through the areas. Conversely, transiting and foraging movement may bring the same animals closer 

and through the feeding areas for opportunistic foraging on prey whenever and wherever 

concentrations are encountered, even when anti-submarine warfare training occurs. Consistent with 

previous NMFS consultations, the stressor analysis determined that acoustic stressors from Navy 

training or testing activities are not expected to result in population-level effects from behavioral 

responses (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). Therefore, significant impacts to blue whale 

feeding behaviors from use of sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within the identified 

blue whale feeding areas.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-190

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.4.1.2.2 Explosive Stressors

As discussed in) Section 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts from Explosive Stressors), blue whales may be exposed to 

sound or energy from explosions associated with training and testing activities. Navy training and testing

activities that use explosives could occur year-round within the Southern California portion of the HSTT 

Study Area; however, training and testing with explosives typically occurs only within small areas, which 

occur outside all of the blue whale feeding areas. Blue whales in the identified feeding area would not 

likely be exposed directly to sound or energy from explosives; therefore, impacts on feeding behaviors 

would not be anticipated within the identified blue whale feeding area from training or testing

with explosives.

K.4.1.2.3 Vessel Strike

As detailed in Section 3.7.3.4.1, (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices), vessel strikes have been 

documented for almost all of the mysticete species (Van der Hoop et al., 2015), including blue whales 

(Berman-Kowalewski et al., 2010; Calambokidis, 2012; Lammers et al., 2003; Van der Hoop et al., 2013; 

Van Waerebeek et al., 2007; Vanderlaan & Taggart, 2007). Generally, mysticetes (including blue whales) 

are not able maneuver to avoid vessels as compared to odontocetes. In addition, mysticetes do not 

typically aggregate in large groups and are therefore more 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.

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. In comparison to 

commercial vessel strikes, within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area over the last 

decade (from January 2007 to June 2017), the Navy has had only two whale vessel strikes, which both 

occurred in 2009 and involved fin whales. Implementing the Navy’s Marine Species Awareness Training, 

beginning in 2006, along with other existing Navy mitigation measures intended to ensure that vessels 

avoid whales, correlates well with the reduction of strikes on large whales by Navy vessels in the 

last decade.

K.4.1.2.4 Air Guns

No training activities use air guns. As discussed in Section 3.7.3.1 (Impacts from Air Guns), testing 

activities would include the use of single air guns in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area. Acoustic modeling predicts one blue whale behavioral reaction annually from the use of air guns 

during testing in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Single, small air guns are not 

capable of injuring marine mammals. 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 short-term and mild to moderate behavioral responses. Marine mammals engaged in 

activities such as feeding may be even more likely to ignore or tolerate potential disturbance created by 

air gun use and continue their natural behavior patterns and any response is likely to be short-term, 

minor behavioral responses. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-191

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.4.1.3 Santa Monica Bay to Long Beach Blue Whale Feeding Area, HSTT Settlement 

Area 3-C, and California Coastal Commission 3 NM Area 

The Santa Monica Bay to Long Beach Blue Whale Feeding Area is 1,187 km2 in area and approximately 

20 km at its widest point and 54 km long (Calambokidis et al., 2015). The area extends from the middle 

of Santa Monica Bay to Long Beach and is shaped like an irregular rectangle wrapping from the middle 

of the Santa Monica Bay around Point Vicente, encompassing the Point Vicente State Marine 

Conservation Area and Abalone Cove State Marine Conservation Area, and into Long Beach Harbor to 

Huntington Beach (Figure K.3-1). The area reaches a maximum depth of 892 meters (m) and is 

considered to be nearshore habitat. The area extends offshore into the Santa Pedro Channel, which 

separates Santa Catalina Island from the mainland. The southernmost portion of the Santa Monica to 

Long Beach feeding area extends approximately 5 NM into the northern portion of the HSTT Study Area 

above Santa Catalina Island. The Santa Monica Bay to Long Beach Feeding Area overlaps in part with 

HSTT Settlement Area 3-C and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) 3 NM Shore Area.

K.4.1.3.1 Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing

The Santa Monica to Long Beach Blue Whale Feeding Area mainly lies north and outside of the HSTT 

Study Area. Only a very small portion overlaps the HSTT study area. As such, this area is remote from the 

primary training areas within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area and does not 

contain any specific training related infrastructure, is outside of Special Use Airspace (W-291), and is not 

within any scheduled range area. As it is along the northern most edge of the HSTT Study Area, it is not 

an area where coordinated or major training exercises would typically occur. Vessels transiting between 

Naval Magazine Seal Beach and Naval Station San Diego would transit this area and may use surface ship 

hull-mounted mid-frequency sonar in unit level training opportunistically or maintenance. In-water 

explosives are not used within this area.

The Navy's continued access to the large unobstructed areas of open sea and air space required in 

support of modern training and testing and to operate safely without impeding the effectiveness of the 

training or testing, is becoming increasingly tenuous due to competition for space and conflicting uses.

Any future plans for fixed offshore facilities such as natural gas terminals, aquaculture projects, and 

wind energy could also erode training realism and value by further segmenting training space and 

creating additional avoidance zones. As (and if) additional restrictions are imposed within the Southern 

California Range Complex, the Santa Monica to Long Beach Blue Whale Feeding Area may be used with 

greater frequency.

Similar to training, the Santa Monica to Long Beach Blue Whale Feeding Area is not a primary testing 

location; however, the area may be used in the future to test endurance and navigation capabilities of 

autonomous unmanned vehicles where operation within littorals is a test parameter. In-water 

explosives are not used within this area during testing activities.

K.4.1.3.2 Santa Monica Bay to Long Beach Blue Whale Feeding Area and California Coastal 

Commission 3 NM Shore Area Mitigation Considerations

Some blue whale feeding behavior has been shown to be affected by sonar, vessel noise, and explosives. 

In these cases, blue whales resumed normal behavior quickly after the cessation of the exposure 

(Calambokidis, Oleson, et al., 2009; Goldbogen, Southall, et al., 2013; Melcón et al., 2012). Evidence 

from tagged blue whales has indicated blue whale foraging is generally and widely dispersed across the 

offshore waters of Southern California (B. R. Mate et al., 2016). If a feeding blue whale reacted by 

avoiding the vicinity of a Navy activity, any disturbed blue whales would temporarily move to alternative 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-192

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

foraging sites. It is also unlikely that blue whales are always feeding in the most optimal location – these 

whales are highly mobile, feed over large ranges and forage in bouts separated by many kilometers.

The Santa Monica Bay to Long Beach Blue Whale Feeding Area and California Coastal Commission 3 NM 

Shore Area are not part of the primary training areas within the Southern California portion of the HSTT 

Study Area. In addition, there is very little overlap of the biologically important area with the HSTT Study 

Area. Given this, geographic mitigations would not be effective in reducing adverse impacts as none are

anticipated since these areas are not generally used in training or testing involving sonar, explosives, 

or airguns.

K.4.1.4 San Nicolas Island Blue Whale Feeding Area, Settlement Area 4-A

The San Nicolas Island Blue Whale Feeding Area is 86 km2 in area and is approximately 7 km at its widest 

point and 18 km at its longest point (Calambokidis et al., 2015). The area is located less than 5 NM from 

San Nicolas Island’s northeast shoreline (Figure K.3-1). The area reaches a maximum depth of 942 m at 

the edge of the Santa Cruz Basin. The San Nicolas Island Blue Whale Feeding Area extends 

approximately 5 NM into the northern portion of the HSTT Study Area. The San Nicolas Island feeding 

area overlaps in part with HSTT Settlement Area 4-A.

K.4.1.4.1 Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing

The San Nicolas Island Blue Whale Feeding Area mainly lies north and outside of the HSTT Study Area.

While a small portion overlaps the HSTT Study Area, this portion of the San Nicolas Island Blue Whale 

Feeding Area does lie north of the heavily used Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range 

instrumented range.

While this area does not provide primary support to integrated/coordinated or major training exercises, 

the area north of the Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range and south of the San Nicolas 

Island Feeding Area could be used to support necessary safe separation between vessels and events on 

and around the Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range. No training or testing with 

explosives is conducted within the San Nicolas Island Blue Whale Feeding Area.

The Navy's continued access to the large unobstructed areas of open sea and air space required in 

support of modern training and testing and to operate safely without impeding the effectiveness of the 

training or testing, is becoming increasingly tenuous due to competition for space and conflicting uses.

Any future plans for fixed offshore facilities such as natural gas terminals, aquaculture projects, and 

wind energy could also erode training realism and value by further segmenting training space and 

creating additional avoidance zones. As (and if) additional restrictions are imposed within the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area, the San Nicolas Island Blue Whale Feeding Area may be used 

with greater frequency as it does possess complex and challenging bathymetry necessary to support 

anti-submarine warfare.

K.4.1.4.2 San Nicolas Island Blue Whale Feeding Area Mitigation Considerations

Some blue whale feeding behavior has been shown to be affected by sonar, vessel noise, and explosives. 

In these cases, blue whales resumed normal behavior quickly after the cessation of the exposure 

(Calambokidis, Oleson, et al., 2009; Goldbogen, Southall, et al., 2013; Melcón et al., 2012). Evidence 

from tagged blue whales has indicated blue whale foraging is generally and widely dispersed across the 

offshore waters of Southern California (B. R. Mate et al., 2016). If a feeding blue whale reacted by 

avoiding the vicinity of a Navy activity, any disturbed blue whales would temporarily move to alternative 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-193

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

foraging sites. It is also unlikely that blue whales are always feeding in the most optimal location – these 

whales are highly mobile, feed over large ranges and forage in bouts separated by many kilometers.

The San Nicolas Island blue whale feeding area overlap is at the northern edge of the HSTT Study Area 

and so while that location is not the focal point of training, it is northwest of the Southern California 

Anti-submarine Warfare Range off San Clemente Island and the location could be used to support 

necessary safe separation between vessels and events on and around that range. 

K.4.1.5 Tanner-Cortes Bank Blue Whale Feeding Area, Settlement Area 4-C 

The Tanner-Cortes Bank Blue Whale Feeding Area is 1,075 km2 in area and approximately 29 km at its 

widest point and 43 km long. The area is approximately 56 km off of the west coast of San Clemente 

Island and 167 km west of San Diego (Calambokidis et al., 2015) (Figure K.3-1) The designated TannerCortes Bank Blue Whale Feeding Area reaches a maximum depth of 1,232 m and has a minimum depth 

of just 2 m at Cortes Bank which may break the water surface under certain conditions. There are deep 

water areas in adjacent basins: Tanner Basin to the northwest, San Nicolas Basin to the northeast, and 

East Cortes Basin to the south of Tanner-Cortes Bank. The entire Tanner-Cortes Bank Blue Whale 

Feeding Area is within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area (Figure K.3-5 and Figure 

K.3-6).

Source: Mate et al. (2016a)

Figure K.3-5: Blue Whale Movements in 2014 and 2015 in the Eastern Pacific Relative to the 

HSTT Study Area 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-194

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Source: Mate et al. (2016a)

Figure K.3-6: The Limited Number of Tagged Blue Whale Transits Through Tanner-Cortes Bank

in 2014 and 2015

K.4.1.5.1 Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing

Tanner-Cortes Bank provides, and has provided, unique and irreplaceable training capability for unitlevel through Strike Group training and certification in the Southern California Range Complex.

The complex bathymetry of Tanner-Cortes Bank, off shore shallow/very shallow areas proximate to 

steep gradients and very deep waters where sound propagation profiles create a challenging acoustic 

environment, are not found elsewhere in the Southern California offshore region (Figure K.3-1). TannerCortes Bank replicates many of the areas where our sailors will be called upon to serve, protecting 

freedom of navigation while defending against ultra-quiet diesel electric submarines.

Tanner-Cortes Bank provides unique attributes and unmatched opportunity to train in searching for 

submarines in shallow water. Littoral training allows units to continue to deploy improved sensors or 

tactics in littoral waters in the future. In the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area

specifically, anti-submarine warfare training in shallow water is vitally important to the Navy since diesel 

submarines typically hide in that extremely noisy and complex marine environment (Arabian Gulf, Strait 

of Malacca, Sea of Japan, and the Yellow Sea all contain water less than 200 m deep). There is no other 

area in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area with the bathymetry and sound 

propagation analog to seas where Navy conducts real operations that this training could relocate to. The 

Navy cannot conduct realistic shallow water training exercises without training in and around TannerCortes Bank. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-195

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

In addition, this area includes unique shallow water training opportunities for unit-level trainings, 

including opportunity to practice operations in littoral areas that are both shallow, and navigationally 

constrained, and in close proximity to deeper, in-water instrumentation. Tanner and Cortes Bank’s

unique bathymetry offers Strike Groups integrated air, submarine, and surface vessel assets the unique 

training opportunity to navigate through restricted water space while providing protection to high value 

units (e.g., aircraft carriers). Mid-frequency active sonar would be used during these training events. 

Training and certifications are conducted throughout year in support of Pacific Command/Joint Staff 

ordered deployment requirements and multiple mission crew readiness.

During anti-submarine warfare events, submarine crews will need to train with surface vessels using 

mid-frequency active sonar as part of anti-submarine warfare tactics (e.g., tracking and torpedo 

exercises) and active sonar avoidance in shallow water and adjacent deep water. The unique 

bathymetry provides submarine commanders a complex seascape in which they can sharpen their skills 

of maintaining stealth while achieving mission goals. Conversely, surface ships, aircrews, and submarines 

benefit from this same challenging sea space to sharpen their skills in utilizing all of the tools available to 

them, including mid-frequency active sonar to detect, locate, track, and prosecute submarine threats.

The ability to perform this high value unit level and Integrated/Coordinated Anti-Submarine Warfare 

training year-round in support of deployment schedules and evolving world events, as well as during 

times of darkness, rough seas, inclement weather, and other difficult conditions help to ensure our 

sailors and aviators have the highest degree of proficiency necessary to prevail and survive any 

encounter with hostile threats.

Tanner-Cortes Bank presents an important anti-submarine and mine warfare training venue for unit 

level through integrated training where year-round access cannot be compromised. This area replicates 

areas encountered by surface ships in the Western Pacific today. For these reasons alone, access to this 

critical training venue cannot be compromised or limited in any way. Additionally, the Tanner -Cortes 

Bank possesses other attributes of importance to Anti-Submarine and Mine Warfare training:

A shallow water minefield training range containing multiple surveyed bottomed and tethered mine 

shapes in shallow water is located here. Existing instrumentation includes submerged submarine 

positioning with Submerged Acoustic Navigation System buoys. Given the bathymetry of real world 

threats and the proximity to the Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range deep water 

instrumented range (valued at $250M), Tanner-Cortes Bank has no equal for submarine mine 

countermeasure detection and maneuver training. This range supports submarine mine 

countermeasures training and certification training. 

An instrumented Shallow Water Training Range extension to the nearby Southern California Antisubmarine Warfare Range is planned for this area and has been approved by Deputy Assistant to the 

Secretary of the Navy and is supported by the 2009 Southern California Range Complex EIS/OEIS and 

Record of Decision. This Shallow Water Training Range extension supports U.S. Commander, Third Fleet 

long-standing requirement for a seamless deep-to-shallow water tracking and communication range. 

Installation is planned within the next decade.

Tanner-Cortes Bank is relatively close to San Diego homeports and other Southern California ranges 

areas which reduces fuel costs and transit times while maximizing time on the range available 

to training.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-196

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Tanner-Cortes Bank is within the Federal Aviation Administration approved Warning Area 291 (W-291), 

helping to ensure the safety of non-military air traffic, and providing training opportunities to fly 

unmanned aircraft systems as a force multiplying Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance asset.

Major training anti-submarine warfare training events focus on the "central" location of Tanner-Cortes 

Bank and the nearby Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range as units conduct other major 

training exercises in surrounding areas (east of San Clemente Island, within the Fleet Training Area 

[FLETA HOT). Being within W-291, surface training events utilizing explosive munitions could be 

conducted here. Similar to training, testing of anti-submarine and mine warfare systems depends on the 

complex and challenging environment found in Tanner-Cortes Bank. 

Some MH-60 helicopter testing currently occurs and will continue to occur under the Proposed Action 

within the Tanner-Cortes Bank Blue Whale Feeding Area. This testing generally occurs off the west coast 

in conjunction with Fleet activities, usually during an anti-submarine warfare training event, but may 

also be done as a stand alone anti-submarine testing activity. If the Tanner-Cortes Bank became 

excluded/restricted it would eliminate an important location for the testing program offices, increasing 

program costs, delaying program schedules, and delaying the delivery of weapon systems to the Fleet.

Additionally, testing within Tanner-Cortes Bank includes Surface Warfare Mission Package Testing

(medium caliber gun and missile/rocket testing), countermeasure testing, at-sea sonar testing, mine 

countermeasure mission package testing, and unmanned vehicle development and payload testing. 

Specifically, Torpedo (non-explosive) Testing is frequently conducted off San Clemente Island in the 

Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range, Shore Bombardment Area, and Tanner-Cortes Bank 

locations. Environmental parameters of the San Clemente Basin/Tanner-Cortes area are essential to 

completing torpedo (non-explosive) testing, and mine detection and mine countermeasure and 

neutralization testing. At-sea sonar testing is essential to ensuring systems are fully functional in a 

diverse open ocean environment, including waters near Tanner-Cortes Bank.

Both developmental and operational testing scenarios needed to fully test all systems. The ability to test 

the efficacy of systems in an area that reflects real world conditions must be preserved. Subsequently, 

restricting testing in realistic environments would impact the final evaluation of a system’s performance 

and could possibly result in delays in Fleet readiness.

K.4.1.5.2 Tanner-Cortes Bank Feeding Area Mitigation Considerations

The Navy has been training and testing in the area with the same basic systems in Southern California 

for over 40 years. Indications are that the blue whale population in the HSTT Study Area may have 

recovered from its status as an endangered species and that the population has been stable following 

the cessation of large scale commercial whaling (Campbell et al., 2015; Carretta et al., 2015; Monnahan, 

2013; Monnahan et al., 2014; Sirovic et al., 2015). 

Blue whale feeding behavior has been shown to be affected by sonar, vessel noise, and explosives. In 

these cases, blue whales resumed normal behavior quickly after the cessation of the exposure 

(Calambokidis, Oleson, et al., 2009; Goldbogen, Southall, et al., 2013; Melcón et al., 2012) and evidence 

from tagged blue whales has indicated blue whale foraging is generally and widely dispersed across the 

offshore waters of Southern California (B. R. Mate et al., 2016). 

While Navy training and testing activities have been occurring in and around the Tanner-Cortes Bank for 

decades, research conducted by Calambokidis and Mate, who observed feeding blue whales persisting 

in the Tanner-Cortes Bank, provides evidence that the activities have not caused blue whales to avoid 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-197

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

that habitat. In the case of the Eastern North Pacific Stock of blue whales, this species population is 

stable (Monnahan 2013; Monnahan et al. 2014a, 2015; Campbell et al. 2015; Carretta et al 2015; Širović 

et al. 2015) and is approaching or at the carrying capacity of the ecosystem (Monnahan 2013; 

Monnahan et al. 2014a, 2015). Blue whales are likely to have energy reserves sufficient to meet the 

demands of their normal behavioral patterns and an additional response to Navy activities, if there is 

any response at all. 

As noted earlier, the Tanner-Cortes Banks area is home to a large number of important training and 

testing activities that are essential to military readiness and the Navy meeting its Title 10 

responsibilities. Complete or even partial avoidance of the Tanner-Cortes Bank Blue Whale Feeding Area 

and the relocation of Navy training and testing activities would curtail Navy use of this critical and 

unique bathymetric feature, reducing the realism and effectiveness of training and testing activities. 

Furthermore, avoiding the area by relocating activities is not likely to significantly reduce impacts on 

blue whale feeding behavior given that research indicates that observed feeding blue whales persist in 

the Tanner-Cortes Bank, providing evidence that the Navy’s activities have not caused blue whales to 

abandon or avoid that habitat (Calambokidis et al. 2015, Mate et al., 2016a and b).

Navy training and testing events occur over extremely short time scales relative to the multi-year data 

supporting delineation of the biologically important areas. As a result of the dynamic presence or 

absence of prey in any one area and the associated response of blue whales to prey location, the 

seasonal avoidance of a statically bounded area such as the Tanner-Cortes Bank Blue Whale Feeding 

Area is unlikely to be effective at reducing impacts on blue whales, including blue whale feeding 

behavior. To account for the dynamic and variable presence of prey and feeding blue whales in the 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, the most effective mitigations are those that the 

Navy already employ based on the immediate and actual detected presence of the species in the 

location where an event will take place or is occurring.

The Tanner-Cortes Bank Feeding Area also overlaps in part with HSTT Settlement Area 4-C (Figure K.4-1). 

One condition imposed by Settlement Area 4-C states the Navy shall require, from June 1 through 

October 31, that all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe speeds so they can take 

proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and that the 

vessel can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. The 

intention of this condition is to reduce Navy vessel strikes on whales, however, the condition adds no 

additional procedures beyond the Navy’s current and longstanding standard operating procedures 

discussed in Section 2.3.3, (Standard Operating Procedures). Navy vessel strikes on whales are rare (see 

details presented in Appendix F) and none have occurred in the Tanner-Cortes Bank Feeding Area or the 

area defined through negotiations with the California Coastal Commission. The measure simply restates 

the vigilance a ship’s crew already applies to avoid a collision with any object (including a whale); there 

are no additional procedural measures or enhancements to existing procedures that would further 

reduce the potential for a vessel strike. Requiring Navy vessels to limit speeds to a pre-determined level 

would unacceptably impact mission readiness. As the likelihood of a Navy vessel striking a marine 

mammal is extremely low, the Navy will not implement mitigation that restricts vessel speed because 

Navy vessel operators need to learn to operate vessels as they would in real world combat situations 

(including being able to react to changing tactical situations and evaluate system capabilities). For some 

activities, vessels must maintain a certain speed to carry out the activity safely. For example, during 

flight operations, an aircraft carrier must maintain a certain wind speed over the deck to launch or 

recover aircraft. Depending on wind conditions, the aircraft carrier itself must travel at a certain speed 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-198

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

to generate the wind required to launch or recover aircraft. Vessel speed restrictions would prevent 

vessel operators from gaining skill proficiency, would prevent the Navy from properly testing vessel 

capabilities (e.g., full power propulsion testing during sea trials), and could significantly increase the 

time and fuel it takes to reach training and testing locations; therefore, the mitigation would have 

significant impacts on the Navy’s ability to train and test, and would prevent the Navy from meeting its 

mission requirements.

However, cautionary alerts such as seasonal notices informing vessels that certain species may be 

present in higher concentrations for feeding or may be migrating through an area may afford for a 

general heightened level of awareness, not only within a delimited biologically important area but also 

in the surrounding region where the behavior is also likely to occur. As discussed in K.2.3.4 (Awareness 

Notification Messages), the Navy proposes to issue seasonal large whale awareness notification 

messages to remind ships and aircraft to maintain extra vigilance during transit and to maintain safe 

speeds commensurate with operational timelines, training requirements, or logistic needs, and for 

safety of navigation to avoid interactions with large concentrations of blue whale in the near shore area 

out to 20 NM from the Southern California mainland from June to October.

As discussed in Section K.4.1.5.1(Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing), any 

geographic mitigation imposed for the Tanner-Cortes Bank Blue Whale Feeding Area would significantly 

impact Navy’s use of this critical and unique training area that cannot be replicated elsewhere in the 

Southern California and would not be practicable to implement or effectively further reduce adverse 

impacts on the blue whale population since none are anticipated. 

K.4.1.6 San Diego (Arc) Blue Whale Feeding Area; Settlement Areas 3-A through 3-C,

California Coastal Commission 3 NM Shore Area, and San Diego Arc Area

The San Diego Blue Whale Feeding Area is 984 km2 in area and approximately 50 km at its widest point 

and 25 km long. The area extends along the coast from Carlsbad Canyon to La Jolla Canyon, and offshore 

into the San Diego Trough (Calambokidis et al., 2015) (Figure K.3-1). Depth in the feeding area ranges 

from 15 m to 1,221 m. The entire San Diego Blue Whale Feeding Area overlaps with the HSTT Study 

Area. The San Diego Blue Whale Feeding Area overlaps in part with HSTT Settlement Areas 3-A through

3-C, and the California Coastal Commission 3 NM Shore Area and San Diego Arc Area.

K.4.1.6.1 Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing

The Blue Whale Feeding Area proximate to San Diego (also known as the San Diego Arc) is in close 

proximity to San Diego (a fleet concentration area for home ported naval vessels and home based 

helicopters). The area experiences a high volume of ongoing training and testing activities occurring in 

waters within and just west of the arc as an important training area within the Southern California

portion of the HSTT Study Area. Factors that support this include:

The San Diego Arc's complex acoustic oceanographic conditions present challenging, near shore training 

conditions. Unique bathymetric features make it an ideal and challenging location to conduct antisubmarine warfare in the nearshore environment. For example, the middle of the Arc transitions rapidly 

from shallower waters <200m depth to depths over 800m.

This OPAREA is supported by existing infrastructure to include personnel, piers, boats, and substantial 

communications networks.

Established training areas fall within, or are immediately proximate to the San Diego Arc:
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-199

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

• The Advance Research Projects Agency) training minefield is within the San Diego Arc. Mid- and 

high-frequency mine detection systems are used in this area. Future mine neutralization 

systems employing explosives could be used in this area. This range was established in an area 

with specific relatively shallow to deep bathymetry that is well suited for safe submarine 

navigation and training effectiveness. 

• The Imperial Beach minefield is located just south of the San Diego Arc. Explosive mine 

neutralization is conducted in this shallow water range. This minefield will be critical in 

supporting future training with Littoral Combat Ship Mine Warfare Mission Modules.

• Camp Pendleton and the near shore Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area are located 

north of the San Diego Arc. 

Established helicopter dipping locations within W-291 (Victor through Zulu) exist beyond the San Diego 

Arc. These are areas where helicopters can perform no-notice anti-submarine unit level training not 

requiring an instrumented range while remaining under the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Control 

Facility for enhanced safety-of-flight. Dipping boxes are as close to the air station as practical to limit 

transit time while still being encompassed by the warning area.

Naval Air Station North Island helicopters conduct extensive Search and Rescue operations in the Bravo, 

Charlie, and Delta Dip areas that lie within the Arc. These areas offer unique traffic avoidance by 

providing a designated operating area in uncontrolled airspace outside of W-291 yet within close 

proximity to Naval Air Station North Island.

Encinitas Naval Electronic Testing Area is used primarily for Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

testing activities.

W-291, special use airspace, begins just west of the San Diego Arc. W-291 overlays numerous 

established Southern California ranges and training venues. The sea space east and outside of W-291 

allows individual vessels the opportunity to conduct certain underway events, such as onboard system 

checks/drills, crew small arms qualifications, etc. outside of the heavily scheduled and utilized eastern 

portion of W-291.

The San Diego Arc training and testing activities rely on the attributes of this area (proximity to Naval 

Base San Diego, Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base Point Loma, and Marine Corps Base Camp 

Pendleton); proximity to established ranges such as the Imperial Beach minefield; and shallow, near 

shore bathymetry. Navy vessels departing San Diego must transit west though the San Diego Arc in 

route to the training venues located in the eastern the Southern California Range Complex OPAREA (e.g., 

Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, San Clemente Island, or north in route to training 

venues along the coast [see Figure K.3-1]). In order to support fleet deployments and emergent world 

events, transits through the arc as well as the training that occurs within and beyond the arc occurs 

year-round. Key training needs that can occur within or adjacent to the San Diego Arc during transits to 

and from San Diego as well as while at-sea include: 

• System Checks to ensure mid-frequency acoustic sonar systems are functioning properly while 

getting underway occur within the San Diego Arc. These events must occur close to port, they 

cannot be deferred until the vessel is well out to sea for safety reasons.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-200

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

• Object detection with mid-frequency acoustic sonar occurs within the San Diego Arc while ships 

are getting underway. Object detection is conducted in the relatively shallow approaches to 

harbors and ports.

• Unit level training in anti-submarine warfare (surface ship), are primarily events of opportunity 

that occur when submarines are transiting through the area.

• Helicopters conduct dipping sonar system checks in Dip Box Charlie. These checks are to ensure 

proper system operation while still relatively close to shore.

• Major training events conducting anti-submarine warfare is not typically performed in the San 

Diego Arc as most major training exercises (with the exception of major training exercise related 

mine warfare and amphibious events) occur further offshore and within W-291 and associated 

training areas.

• Submarines transiting through the San Diego Arc conduct anti-submarine warfare that involves 

active sonar use when surface ships are participating. This area provides additional opportunity 

for units to conduct anti-submarine warfare in relatively shallow water.

• Submarines transiting through the San Diego Arc conduct Intelligence, Surveillance, and 

Reconnaissance in a near shore, congested marine environment. This activity could involve the 

use of unmanned underwater vehicles and unmanned aerial systems. For submarines to 

conduct Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance against shore based locations, the 

submarines are required to be relatively close to shore.

• Vessels run "Q Routes" as part of mine warfare training while transiting north/south. Q Routes 

develop skills needed for ships to carefully negotiate though shallow water areas where naval 

mines are known to exist. Mid-frequency active sonar may be employed during these events. Q 

Routes must be established along a continuous stretch of shallow sea space, ideally beginning at 

port which makes a traverse up the coast ideal.

Mine warfare events associated with biennial Rim of the Pacific and Civilian Port Defense/Homeland 

Security training occur in the San Diego Arc as well as the ship channels east and within San Diego 

Harbor. Skills needed to ensure safe access to ports and harbors of national significance can only be 

acquired by training in the congested environment surrounding those ports. The importance of San 

Diego Harbor, as well as the fact that San Diego is home to many of the commands that support the 

mine warfare mission, makes this the ideal and logical location for this training.

Littoral Combat Ships located in San Diego will begin training in the near shore waters and established 

mine warfare ranges within the San Diego Arc with mine warfare (high-frequency acoustic sonar 

systems) and anti-submarine warfare mid-frequency active sonar mission packages once these 

capabilities are developed.

Other factors that may impact Navy use of the San Diego Arc include:

• Competing uses and conflicts: The Navy's continued access to the large unobstructed areas of 

open sea and air space required in support of modern training and testing is becoming 

increasingly tenuous due to competition for space and conflicting uses. Future plans for fixed 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-201

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

offshore facilities such as natural gas terminals, aquaculture projects, and wind energy could 

also erode training realism and value by further segmenting training space and creating 

additional avoidance zones. 

• Evolving training requirements: Increasing threats in the littoral regions such as silent diesel 

electric submarines and readily available naval mines compel us to develop systems, tactics, and 

capabilities to meet this challenge.

Future upgrades to hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar systems and introduction of the Littoral 

Combat Ship anti-submarine warfare mid-frequency active sonar and mine warfare mission modules will 

increase our littoral capabilities and the requirement to train in the near shore relatively shallow 

environment of the San Diego Arc. The ever present threat of naval mines has resulted in a coalescence 

of mine warfare capable forces and platforms in the San Diego Fleet Concentration area. As evidenced 

by Rim of the Pacific related mine warfare activity, San Diego is the Pacific Fleet’s primary venue of 

choice for mine warfare activities due to the availability of capable ranges and supporting commands 

such as Naval Expeditionary Combat Forces, Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams, and Coastal Riverine 

Group. The need for access to the near shore littoral environment will only increase over time.

Based on the above listed factors, the area of the San Diego Arc is demonstrated to provide high 

readiness value. If this area was to become restricted in any broadly defined way, needed capabilities 

would be lost and fleet readiness would be diminished.

Activities utilizing active acoustic sources are conducted in this area and in certain cases can only be 

conducted here:

• Helicopters stationed at Naval Air Station North Island will fly out to meet and train against 

transiting submarines. This training opportunity would be lost if the use of mid-frequency active 

sonar systems was prohibited in this area. Lost opportunities to conduct realistic training in this 

challenging near shore environment will erode anti-submarine warfare proficiency.

• Ships energize hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar systems to conduct system checks and 

maintenance after leaving port and while transiting through this area. Restricting mid-frequency 

active sonar systems use would force sailors to conduct these needed operational checks 

further out to sea, expending extra fuel and possibly creating a safety concern if a system failure 

was to occur far from port.

Mine detection requires the use of active acoustics, either ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active 

sonar systems or deployable high-frequency systems. Civilian port defense requires that approaches and 

channels be surveyed for the presence of naval mines. Restricting active acoustic sources would limit the 

ability to clear the approaches to San Diego Harbor. While this skill could be acquired at other ports, that 

would require unnecessary mobilization to remote areas and would diminish the experience of actually 

operating at the important Port of San Diego. The San Diego Arc fully overlays the Advance Research 

Projects Agency Minefield. Restricting active acoustic mine detection at this established range would 

render it useless. While other mine warfare ranges exist in the study area, notably the Tanner Bank 

range which is also located in a seasonal blue whale feeding area, they are either unsafe/unsuitable for 

submarine use (Imperial Beach) or would be unavailable to units transiting north-south from San Diego 

and would require additional transit.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-202

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

While not utilized for major training event anti-submarine warfare routinely, as the San Diego Arc is 

outside of W-291 where most major training events activities (except for major training event related 

mine warfare activities) occur, independent units do conduct unit level training activities in this area due 

to proximity to Naval Air Station North Island or opportunistically as submarines transit the area.

Activities utilizing explosives are very rare within the San Diego Arc:

• The San Diego Arc is outside of controlled airspace (W-291), therefore weapons firings is limited 

to small arms and crew service weapons conducted by ship/boat crews. These events typically 

involve non explosive rounds.

• Mine neutralization utilizes small explosive charges to disable or destroy targets. The 

introduction of the Littoral Combat Ship Mine Warfare mission module will include devices that 

contain explosives. Littoral Combat Ship crews will need to train in shallow water environments 

and will likely conduct explosive mine neutralization training in the Imperial Beach minefield, 

immediately adjacent to the San Diego Arc.

• Submarine launched devices that perform explosive mine neutralization may occur at the 

Advance Research Projects Agency Minefield. Restricting all use of explosives within the Arc 

would forfeit future ability to train with explosives within the minefield.

Naval vessels entering or leaving San Diego Bay routinely transit through and train within this area:

• Transiting to and from points north such as Camp Pendleton and Naval Weapons Station Seal 

Beach and Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme.

• Submarines conducting intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance training can occur here off 

San Diego.

• High value unit escort training can occur north to Camp Pendleton and throughout area.

• Vessels coming to/from San Diego North-South Block overlap area transiting to Silver Strand 

Training Range amphibious landing beaches.

Navy Special Operations Command utilizes small boats (rigid hull inflatable boats (RHIBs) and zodiacs) to 

and from Silver Strand Range Complex and the Naval Amphibious Base.

The San Diego Arc is an important area for Navy testing for many of the same reasons it is important for 

training. For example, the San Diego Arc provides unique combination of bathymetric and 

oceanographic conditions as well infrastructure for command and control for autonomous vehicle 

testing with various Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance payloads. Testing of systems and 

platforms intended for fleet use need to be tested in environments similar to those in which the Navy 

will both train and deploy. 

K.4.1.6.2 San Diego (Arc) Blue Whale Feeding Area Mitigation Considerations

Given its close proximity to San Diego, a fleet concentration area for naval vessels and helicopters, and 

the high volume of ongoing training and testing activities occurring in waters within and just west of the 

arc, broad restrictions in this area for certain training and testing activities involving active acoustics 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-203

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

sources or enforcing additional vessel transit measures, such as speed restrictions or restricting all hullmounted mid-frequency active sonar year-round, would negatively impact the fleet’s ability to deploy 

ready forces by:

• denying ready access to established capabilities and unique geographic features;

• increasing the safety risk to sailors and systems by forcing events to occur further offshore;

• creating inconsistency and artificiality as to how sailors develop skills, tactics and techniques 

while training for deployment (potentially segmenting and interrupting the continuity of training 

events); and

• inhibit the ability to test platforms and systems in real world conditions that mimic those where 

these would be employed

Avoiding the area by relocating most activities is not likely to significantly reduce impacts on blue whale 

feeding behavior; the persistence of blue whales observed feeding in areas where the Navy has been 

conducting activities for long periods of time provides evidence that the Navy’s activities have not 

caused blue whales to abandon or avoid that habitat (Calambokidis et al. 2015, Mate et al., 2016a and 

b). And, while there is no evidence of adverse impacts to the population, predicted effects on individuals 

in the population are expected to be behavioral in response to Navy activities (see Appendix E). Blue 

whale feeding behavior has been shown to be affected by sonar, vessel noise, and explosives. In these 

cases, blue whales resumed normal behavior quickly after the cessation of the exposure (Calambokidis, 

Oleson, et al., 2009; Goldbogen, Southall, et al., 2013; Melcón et al., 2012). Evidence from tagged blue 

whales has indicated blue whale foraging is generally and widely dispersed across the offshore waters of 

Southern California (B. R. Mate et al., 2016). 

Major anti-submarine warfare training exercises are not typically performed in the San Diego Arc. Most 

major training events occur further offshore and within W-291 and associated training areas. While the 

Navy does not routinely use this area for integrated anti-submarine major training exercises using 

surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar, the Navy would, however, need to retain this

capability in the event that the area is necessary for supporting integrated anti-submarine major training 

exercises using surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar during blue whale feeding season.

The San Diego Feeding Area overlaps in part or fully, in some cases, with HSTT Settlement Areas 3-A 

through 3-C (Figure K.4-1). Under the settlement agreement, a condition within Settlement Areas 3-A 

and 3-B prohibits the use of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar for training and testing activities 

during major training events and unit-level training from June 1 through October 31.

A condition for Settlement Area 3-B requires implementing a seasonal Protective Measure Assessment 

Protocol measure from June 1 through October 31 advising Commanding Officers that the area is blue 

whale habitat and that they should avoid conducting system checks within the area whenever 

practicable. System Checks to ensure mid-frequency active acoustic sonar systems are functioning 

properly while getting underway have historically occurred within the San Diego Arc. These events must 

occur close to port; they cannot be deferred until the vessel is well out to sea for safety reasons. System 

checks are necessary to conduct as ships leave port to ensure that systems are operating effectively. 

Waiting until ships move farther from pier locations would mean they would then need to transit farther 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-204

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

to return to the piers if systems were not working as intended, resulting in potential safety concerns,

adding fuel costs and time, while delaying training and testing.

The Navy does not intend to fully carry forward the specific settlement agreement procedures discussed 

above. However, the Navy recognizes the importance of certain areas for foraging blue whales, 

particularly during certain times of the year, primarily June through October within the 200–400 m 

bathymetric region from the Mexico border to Point Conception, as observed in Calambokidis et al., 

(2015). Under typical oceanographic conditions, a strengthened southern flow of the California Current 

and associated coastal upwelling is a strong driver for increased prey concentration (i.e., krill) which 

supports opportunist blue whale foraging within the San Diego Arc Blue Whale Feeding Area. Therefore,

the Navy proposes to implement mitigation areas within the San Diego Arc Blue Whale Feeding Area. 

The Navy balanced the need for training and testing in the area with the biological importance of the 

area for blue whales and determined that establishing mitigation areas would likely reduce the number 

and level of impacts to this species without compromising military readiness. See Section K.2.2 

(Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) for details on these proposed mitigation areas:

1. San Diego Arc Planning Awareness Area - the Navy would not conduct more than 3 large or 

medium integrated anti-submarine major training exercise using surface ship hull-mounted midfrequency active sonar per season, from June 1 through October 31 (Figure K.2-3). 

2. San Diego Arc Cautionary Area - the Navy would not use in-water explosives used in gunnery (lg. 

caliber), torpedo, bombing, and missile exercises (including 2.75” rockets) during testing, unitlevel training and major training exercises from June 1 to October 31 (Figure K.2-3). 

One other condition imposed in these Settlement Areas states the Navy shall require, from June 1 

through October 31, that all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe speeds so they can 

take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and that the 

vessel can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. The 

intention of this condition is to reduce Navy vessel strikes on whales. The agreed-upon measure is 

simply a restatement of ongoing vigilance a ship’s crew already applies to avoid a collision with any 

object (including a whale). Requiring Navy vessels to limit speeds to a pre-determined level would 

unacceptably impact mission readiness. As the likelihood of a Navy vessel striking a marine mammal is 

extremely low, the Navy will not implement mitigation that restricts vessel speed because Navy vessel 

operators need to learn to operate vessels as they would in real world combat situations (including 

being able to react to changing tactical situations and evaluate system capabilities). For some activities, 

vessels must maintain a certain speed to carry out the activity safely. For example, during flight 

operations, an aircraft carrier must maintain a certain wind speed over the deck to launch or recover 

aircraft. Depending on wind conditions, the aircraft carrier itself must travel at a certain speed to 

generate the wind required to launch or recover aircraft. Vessel speed restrictions would prevent vessel 

operators from gaining skill proficiency, would prevent the Navy from properly testing vessel capabilities 

(e.g., full power propulsion testing during sea trials), and could significantly increase the time and fuel it 

takes to reach training and testing locations; therefore, the mitigation would have significant impacts on 

the Navy’s ability to train and test, and would prevent the Navy from meeting its mission requirements.

The Navy will implement issuing cautionary alerts such as seasonal notices informing vessels that certain 

species may be present in higher concentrations for feeding or may be migrating through an area may 

afford for a general heightened level of awareness throughout the entire Southern California portion of 

the HSTT Study Area, as discussed below.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-205

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.4.1.7 Blue Whale Feeding Area Mitigation Assessment

Four of nine feeding areas for blue whales identified by Calambokidis et al. (2015b) 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. Navy training and testing 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 Study Area and animals in those areas will always 

likely experience exposure to some sonar from propagation from units well outside of the feeding area.

Training and testing activities rely heavily on areas within the Southern California portion of the HSTT 

Study Area because of their proximity to Naval Base San Diego, Naval Air Station North Island, Naval 

Base Point Loma, and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton; proximity to established ranges such as the 

Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, Tactical Maneuvering Areas, minefields; and 

shallow, near shore bathymetry. Avoiding the blue whale feeding areas by relocating activities is not 

likely to significantly reduce impacts on blue whale feeding behavior given that research indicates that 

observed feeding blue whales persisting in areas where the Navy have been conducting activities for 

long periods of time provides evidence that the Navy’s activities have not caused blue whales to 

abandon or avoid that habitat (Calambokidis et al. 2015, Mate et al., 2016a and b).

Furthermore, the dynamic presence or absence of prey in any one area and the associated response of 

blue whales to prey location, the seasonal avoidance of a statically bounded Blue Whale Feeding Area 

may not reflect the actual presence of feeding blue whales at any specific time. As a result, time-area 

avoidance mitigation may not account for the short-term dynamic presence or absence of species such 

as blue whales and may be unlikely to be effective at reducing impacts. On the day of training or testing 

event, when environmental conditions are different than the aggregate averaged conditions used in 

delimiting a biologically important area, avoidance of the area could inadvertently shift the Navy event 

exposures to locations outside the designated biologically important area and into areas where blue 

whales happen to be feeding. To account for the dynamic and variable presence of prey and feeding 

blue whales in the Southern California Range Complex, the most effective mitigations are those based 

on the immediate and actual detected presence of the species in the location where an event will be 

taking place or while it is occurring, as currently implemented in accordance with Navy established 

procedural mitigations.

While the Navy will continue to implement procedural mitigation measures that account for actual 

detected presence of blue whales in the location where an event will be taking place or while it is 

occurring, the Navy also recognizes some areas within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area as areas where concentrations of blue whales have been detected and feeding behavior has been 

observed (Calambokidis et al., 2015), such as the San Diego (Arc) Blue Whale Feeding Area. This area

due to typical oceanographic conditions resulting in coastal upwelling that increases phytoplankton 

nutrients as a strong driver for increased prey concentration (i.e., krill) is more likely to support 

opportunist blue whale foraging. The Navy determined that by establishing the following proposed 

mitigation areas, there was the potential to further avoid or reduce the number and level of impacts to 

blue whales and other species or stocks occurring within the biologically important area without 

compromising military readiness by reducing the effectiveness of training and testing or decreasing the 

safety of personnel. See Section K.2.2 (Proposed Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) for details on 

these proposed mitigation areas:
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-206

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

1. The Navy proposes to establish a San Diego Arc Planning Awareness Area (Figure K.2-1) where 

the Navy would not conduct more than 3 large or medium integrated anti-submarine major 

training exercises using surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar per season from 

June 1 through October 31. If naval units need to conduct additional major training exercises 

with surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar in this area for national security, the 

Navy would provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in the annual 

training and testing reports. 

2. The Navy would not use in-water explosives used in gunnery (lg. caliber), torpedo, bombing, and 

missile exercises (including 2.75” rockets) during testing, unit-level training and major training 

exercises in the San Diego Arc Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-3) from June 1 to October 31. If a 

naval unit needs to conduct gunnery exercises (lg. caliber), torpedo exercises, bombing 

exercises, and missile exercises (including 2.75” rockets) using in-water explosives in this area 

for national security during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises, permission 

shall be required from the delegated Command authority prior to their use in the Cautionary 

Area. The Navy would provide NMFS with advance notification and include the information in 

the annual training and testing reports. 

There is no evidence of adverse impacts to the population and predicted effects on individuals in the 

population are expected to be behavioral in response to Navy activities (see Appendix E) conducted 

within the Tanner-Cortes Bank Blue Whale Feeding Area. Establishing any additional mitigation areas 

within other Blue Whale Feeding Areas other than those proposed above and discussed in Section K.2.2

(Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) would either be impracticable to implement as they are adjacent 

to or within areas of high use and provide critical infrastructure or environmental conditions that are not 

easily replicated elsewhere, or are areas identified as low use by the Navy and adverse impacts to the 

feeding blue whales are not anticipated. Merely shifting the impacts on blue whales from the feeding 

areas to another area in relation would not necessarily be any more effective in reducing impacts. Over 

an annual or even seasonal basis, blue whales for instance integrate (i.e., forage, transit) the entire 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area as documented in 4-years of tagging data as 

discussed in Sections K.4.1.1 (General Biological Assessment) and K.4.1.5 (Tanner-Cortes Bank Blue 

Whale Feeding Area, Settlement Area 4-C). Blue whales occur year-round throughout the Study Area.

The Tanner-Cortes Bank Feeding Area overlaps with strategically important training and testing areas 

the Navy has been using for over 40 years. For reasons noted below, implementing geographic or 

temporal mitigation measures would not be practicable to implement due to the areas unique and 

irreplaceable training capability for unit level through Strike Group training and certification in the 

Southern California Range Complex.

The complex bathymetry of Tanner-Cortes Bank, off shore shallow/very shallow areas proximate to 

steep gradients and very deep waters create a challenging acoustic environment and are not found 

elsewhere in the Southern California offshore region (Figure K.4 1). Tanner-Cortes Bank replicates many 

of the areas where our sailors will be called upon to serve, protecting freedom of navigation while 

defending against ultra-quiet diesel electric submarines.

The bathymetry provides submarine commanders a complex seascape in which they can sharpen their 

skills of maintaining stealth while achieving mission goals. Conversely, surface ships, aircrews, and 

submarines benefit from this same challenging sea space to sharpen their skills in utilizing all of the tools 

available to them, including mid-frequency active sonar to detect, locate, track, and prosecute 

submarine threats. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-207

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

While blue whale feeding behavior has been shown to be affected by sonar, vessel noise, and 

explosives, blue whales resumed normal behavior quickly after the cessation of the exposure 

(Calambokidis, Oleson, et al., 2009; Goldbogen, Southall, et al., 2013; Melcón et al., 2012). Furthermore, 

evidence from tagged blue whales has indicated blue whale foraging is generally and widely dispersed 

across the offshore waters of Southern California (B. R. Mate et al., 2016) and it is unlikely that blue 

whales are always feeding in the most optimal location. Blue whales are highly mobile, feed over large 

ranges and forage in bouts separated by many kilometers, with disturbed blue whales temporarily move

to alternative foraging sites in the interim. 

The San Nicolas Island and Santa Monica Bay to Long Beach Blue Whale Feeding Area and California 

Coastal Commission 3 NM Shore Area are not part of the primary training areas within the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Given this, geographic mitigations would not be effective in 

reducing adverse impacts given these areas are not generally used in training involving sonar, 

explosives, or airguns.

Navy vessel strikes on whales are rare (see details presented in Appendix F) and none have occurred in 

the Blue Whale Feeding Areas or the area defined through negotiations with the California Coastal 

Commission. The measure simply restates the vigilance a ship’s crew already applies to avoid a collision 

with any object (including a whale); there are no additional procedural measures or enhancements to 

existing procedures that would further reduce the potential for a vessel strike. Requiring Navy vessels to 

limit speeds to a pre-determined level would unacceptably impact mission readiness. As the likelihood 

of a Navy vessel striking a marine mammal is extremely low, the Navy will not implement mitigation that 

restricts vessel speed because Navy vessel operators need to learn to operate vessels as they would in 

real world combat situations (including being able to react to changing tactical situations and evaluate 

system capabilities). For some activities, vessels must maintain a certain speed to carry out the activity 

safely. For example, during flight operations, an aircraft carrier must maintain a certain wind speed over 

the deck to launch or recover aircraft. Depending on wind conditions, the aircraft carrier itself must 

travel at a certain speed to generate the wind required to launch or recover aircraft. Vessel speed 

restrictions would prevent vessel operators from gaining skill proficiency, would prevent the Navy from 

properly testing vessel capabilities (e.g., full power propulsion testing during sea trials), and could 

significantly increase the time and fuel it takes to reach training and testing locations; therefore, the 

mitigation would have significant impacts on the Navy’s ability to train and test, and would prevent the 

Navy from meeting its mission requirements.

Further, existing protection measures have been very effective in mitigating the potential for ship strikes 

both within the San Diego Arc as well as worldwide. All surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed 

at safe speeds so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or 

disturbance, and that the vessel can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing 

circumstances and conditions. Unlike commercial vessels, Navy vessels are uniquely suited to detect 

marine mammals (forward bridge, dedicated lookouts) and are more likely to avoid strikes (highly 

maneuverable) and Navy sailors receive training specifically intended to sharpen their ability to sight 

marine mammals. Accordingly, ship strikes by naval vessels are exceedingly rare events. There has never 

been a Navy ship strike to blue whales or any other large whale species within the San Diego Arc. 

Seasonal restrictions/limitations on vessel speed would unnecessarily complicate the Navy's ability to 

conduct routine activities and would prevent vessel commanders from operating as necessary to ensure 

safety of navigation.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-208

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Implementing the Navy’s Marine Species Awareness Training, beginning in 2006, along with other 

existing Navy mitigation measures intended to ensure that vessels avoid whales, correlates well with the 

reduction of strikes on large whales by Navy vessels in the last decade. All Navy vessels already use 

extreme caution and proceed at a safe speed so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a 

collision with any sighted object or disturbance as standard operating procedures in addition to 

mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) to limit the interaction between Navy vessels 

and marine mammals, further reducing the potential for disturbance and direct strike to Mysticetes.

As mentioned above, issuing cautionary alerts such as seasonal notices informing vessels that certain 

species may be present in higher concentrations for feeding or may be migrating through an area may 

afford for a general heightened level of awareness. This measure is likely to be effective in reducing 

behavioral impacts or vessel strikes on marine mammal species or stocks not only within a delimited 

biologically important feeding area but also in the surrounding region where the behavior is also likely to 

occur and would be practical to implement without reducing the effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity or compromising personnel safety. The Navy proposes to issue seasonal large whale awareness 

notification messages to remind ships and aircraft to maintain extra vigilance during transit and to 

maintain safe speeds commensurate with operational timelines, training requirements, or logistic needs, 

and for safety of navigation to avoid interactions with large whales that may be vulnerable to vessel 

strikes, especially during seasonal, large concentrations of blue whales in the near shore area out to 20 

NM from the Southern California mainland from June to October, see Section K.2.3.4 (Awareness 

Notification Messages) for more details.

K.4.2 GRAY WHALE MIGRATION AND POTENTIAL PRESENCE AREAS

Calambokidis et al. (2015) identified a gray whale migration area off Southern California and overlapping 

with all the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area north of the border with Mexico (Figure 

K.3-7). This migration area covers approximately 22,300 km2 of water space within the HSTT Study Area. 

In the vicinity of San Nicolas Island and San Clemente Island, this migration area’s western boundary is 

located up to 150 km from mainland shoreline, which is farther offshore and to the west of the HSTT 

Study Area boundary. As a result, all of the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area that is 

north of the U.S. – Mexico border has been designated as a migration area or a potential presence area 

for gray whales during 10 months of the year (October through July). 

The migration area and potential presence area overlap with the provisional Settlement Areas 3-A 

through 3-C, Settlement Areas 4-A through 4-D, California Coastal Commission 3 NM Area, California 

Coastal Commission Channel Island Area, California Coastal Commission San Diego Arc, the portion of 

the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area, and two areas identified during the scoping process. Discussion of these overlapping areas is

presented in Section K.1.1.2 (Provisional 2015 Prohibited or Restricted Areas within HSTT Study Area ), 

Section K.1.1.3 (Areas Identified by the California Coastal Commission), and K.1.1.4 (Areas Identified 

During the NEPA Scoping Process).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-209

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.3-7: Gray Whale Migration Area off the Southern California Coast

K.4.2.1 General Biological Assessment

For a thorough description of the gray whales species, see Section 3.7.2.2.4, (Gray Whale [Eschrichtius 

robustus]; Eastern North Pacific Stock) and Section 3.7.2.2.5 (Gray Whale [Eschrichtius robustus]; 

Western North Pacific stock). The Western subpopulation is listed as endangered under the ESA. 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).

Most gray whales occurring along the U.S. west coast are from the Eastern subpopulation, with only a 

few individuals from the Western subpopulation thought to migrate along the coast to Mexico. In 

general, gray whales found along the west coast of North America migrate annually from their winter 

breeding grounds in nearshore Mexican waters to their summer feeding grounds off northern California, 

Oregon, Washington, Canada, and Arctic waters including the Okhotsk Sea off the coast of Russia’s 

Sakhalin Island (for additional details see Section 3.7.2.2.5.2, Habitat and Geographic Range). 

Given the importance of the gray whale migration behavior to the species, areas along the U.S. west 

coast were deemed to be biologically important for gray whale migration and were designated as such 

to help inform regulatory and management decisions and to minimize the impacts of anthropogenic 

activities on gray whale migration (Calambokidis et al., 2015; Ferguson et al., 2015b). As presented by 

Calambokidis et al. (2015) the spatial and temporal parameters of the gray whale migratory corridor 

along the U.S. west coast (including Alaska and Canada) are relatively well defined based on tagging 

studies, dedicated line-transect ship and aerial surveys for marine mammals, land-based counts, and 

observations from whale-watching operations and recreational and commercial fishermen. The timing 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-210

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

of the migration and the routes these gray whales take have been described as areas for the gray 

whales' migration “Southbound Phase,” “Northbound Phase A,” and “Northbound Phase B” and are 

shown Calambokidis et al. (2015) in Figure K.3-7. Each of the three migration area corridors also include 

an additional migration area potential presence buffer that extends 47 km from the U.S. west coast 

(Calambokidis et al., 2015). The gray whale migration corridors (Southbound, Northbound Phase A, 

Northbound Phase B, and the potential presence area) are cumulatively in use from October through 

July (Calambokidis et al., 2015; Ferguson et al., 2015b), 10 months annually spanning the entire U.S.

west coast. The timing of migration along U.S. coast and when the whales are present in the lower 

migration area that overlaps with the HSTT Study Area is variable, and the three phases are not always 

distinct, with factors such as climate change and the amount of sea ice cover in northern latitudes

influencing migration periods (Calambokidis et al., 2015; Salvadeo et al., 2015).

K.4.2.1.1 Biological Considerations Applicable to the Gray Whale Migration Area

The Gray Whale Migration Area (Calambokidis et al., 2015) overlapping with the Southern California 

portion of the HSTT Study Area are shown on Figure K.3-7. When characterizing the gray whale 

migration distance from the U.S. west coast, Bonnell and Dailey (1993) concluded that “about one-half” 

of all sightings occur within 15 km of the coast while Calambokidis et al. (2015) provide that “most gray 

whales” migrate within 10 km of the coast. This characterization and the designated separate migration 

corridors associated with phases of migration along the U.S. West Coast do not, however, apply to the 

ocean area consisting of the Southern California Bight south of Point Conception, which includes the 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Gray whales have been observed migrating through 

the offshore portion of the Southern California Bight as far as 200 km offshore (Bonnell & Dailey, 1993)

and far to the west of San Nicolas Island and San Clemente Island (Carretta et al., 2000; Jefferson et al., 

2014; Sumich & Show, 2011). Calambokidis et al. (2015) cite Bonnell and Dailey (1993) for the Southern 

California Bight portion of the Identified migration area, which described the migration “pathway” in the 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area as “broad and rather diffuse.” Sumich and Show 

(2011) note substantial year-to-year variability in the use of migration corridors in the Southern 

California Bight. Sumich and Show (2011) also report on unpublished data indicating “about 24 percent” 

of migrating gray whales use a nearshore migration route and indicated their survey results suggested 

an offshore preference by larger, presumably older whales, leaving fewer and apparently younger 

whales using that nearshore migration route.

As presented in Calambokidis et al. (2015) on Figure K.3-7 for the identified gray whale migration 

corridor, all three phases of migration “potentially use this lower migration area.” In the vicinity of San 

Nicolas Island and San Clemente Island, this lower migration area’s western boundary is located 

approximately up to 150 km from mainland shoreline, which is farther offshore and to the west of the 

HSTT Study Area boundary. All the water space between the lower migration area’s corridors in 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area are otherwise covered by the potential presence 

buffer area. As a result, all the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area that is north of the 

U.S/Mexico border has been designated by NMFS as a migration area for gray whales during 10 months 

of the year (October through July). 

While the Identified migration area has a southern boundary ending at a line drawn seaward from 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 (Aquatic Mammals, 2015a, 2015b, 

2015c; Ferguson et al., 2015b; Van Parijs et al., 2015b) regarding the limits to the designated biologically 

important areas). Survey data indicates that whales passing San Clemente Island head southeast in the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-211

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

direction of the mainland shore of Baja California in Mexican waters (Bonnell & Dailey, 1993; Sumich & 

Show, 2011). For the offshore migration corridors, Sumich and Show (2011) note substantial year-toyear variability between the number of whales using the offshore Santa Catalina corridor and the San 

Clemente corridor. Information provided by De Jesus et al. (2014) for waters off Ensenada, Mexico

(approximately 40 NM south of the U.S./Mexico border) indicated the migration corridor extending 

beyond 20 km (during very limited sampling, gray whales were observed at 22 km) from the coast but 

that most gray whales traveled within approximately 10 km of the shore. Although this suggests the 

migration corridor south of the border may be narrowing down from approximately 150 km in width to 

the south of San Clemente Island to as broad as 22 km in width at Ensenada, this is insufficient 

information to accurately determine where a representative migration corridor would be drawn. The 

migration areas were intended to be defined as “areas and times within a substantial portion of a 

species is known to migrate; the corridor is spatially restricted,” (Ferguson et al., 2015b; Van Parijs, 

2015). Since sufficient information is not known and a migration corridor has not been designated for 

waters south of the U.S./Mexico border within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, 

given the broad and rather diffuse lower migration area at the border lacking any spatially restriction, 

the year-to-year variability in the use of the corridors to the north, and absent any science to support 

further speculation, Navy cannot assume to create a spatially restricted corridor reflecting the areas and 

times within which a substantial portion of gray whales may migrate when south of the border. 

For the gray whale migration corridors along the U.S. west coast, southbound whales are expected from 

October–March, northbound Phase A from January–July (peaking April–July), northbound Phase B from 

March–July, and the potential presence during the cumulative October-July period (Calambokidis et al., 

2015). Bonnell and Dailey (1993) report that gray whales are not present in the Southern California Bight

from August through November. More recent aerial surveys have encountered gray whales in the 

Southern California portion of the Study Area as early as January (Carretta et al., 2000; Graham & 

Saunders, 2015; Smultea & Jefferson, 2014) and as late as June (Graham & Saunders, 2015). Passive 

acoustic monitoring in offshore sites within the Southern California Range Complex portion of the HSTT 

Study Area have detected gray whale calls in the months of December through May (Debich et al., 

2015a; Hildebrand et al., 2011). Monitoring in waters off Ensenada, Mexico indicate gray whales are 

present migrating south from the beginning of December and overlapping (in February and March) with 

the start of the northbound migration in which ends in the third week of May (De Jesus et al., 2014). 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. 

(2015b)) 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 findings, 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.

K.4.2.1.2 Stressor Analysis

Sonar and Other Transducers

Sonar and active acoustic transducers create underwater non impulsive energy potentially impacting 

gray whales and their migration behavior.

Quantitative modeling of acoustic effects as detailed in Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other 

Transducers), estimates behavioral effects and TTS to gray whales, with very few PTS estimated for this 

species from exposure to sonar and other transducers. Behavioral reactions are unlikely to rise to the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-212

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

level of significant under NEPA nor would they be 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. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be minor to moderate, from which 

the individual whale would fully recover quickly. This assessment is based on a general short-term 

presence of any individual gray whale within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area as 

the animal migrates back and forth from North Pacific or Arctic waters to Mexico. Any PTS is limited to a 

couple individuals, causing residual hearing loss with minor long-term consequences for an individual; 

however, it is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks.

Any exposure to sonar and other transducers would be highly infrequent given the small number of 

surface ships with hull-mounted sonar systems homeported in the HSTT Study Area. Furthermore, 

multiple years of Navy-funded passive acoustic monitoring (Debich et al., 2014) has documented low 

encounter rates between these vessels and marine mammals. 

Villegas-Amtmann et al. (2015) have noted that there are no significant energetic costs associated with 

gray whale migration, but speculate that disturbance along the migratory corridor due to increased 

human activities might increase migration costs. Navy assumes that such a disturbance along the 

migration corridor would have to be sustained over a long period or dramatically alter the migration 

path of a whale to have other than a negligible effect on a gray whale’s energy reserves, given they are 

sufficient for a migration that may cover as much as approximately 10,000 km over about two months. 

In addition to potential masking of distant Navy sound sources by commercial vessel transit noise, the 

Navy’s stand-off distance of 500 yards (457 m) and mitigation procedures (see Chapter 5, Mitigation, for 

details) are likely to further reduce the potential for any significant impact on gray whale migration 

should those animals be present and detected during a Navy training or testing activity. 

Additionally, the same hull-mounted active sonar systems present on ships homeported in the HSTT 

Study Area and elsewhere have been in common use for over 40 years. Gray whales have been 

migrating directly through the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area twice a year during 

the past 40 years and there has been no evidence of any disruption to gray whale migration caused by 

Navy training and testing activities. Additionally and during that time, gray whales in the Eastern North 

Pacific Stock have recovered to the point where they are no longer listed under the ESA. In short, there 

has been no evidence to suggest any effect, let alone any significant impact, to gray whale migration 

activity resulting from decades of Navy training and testing in Southern California involving the involving 

the use of sonar and other transducers. Reducing or avoiding use of active sonar and other transducers 

in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area that is north of the U.S/Mexico border (the 

identified migration area) or reducing use during the December through September (10 months of the 

year) timeframe when gray whales may be present in that area, would not be effective at further 

reducing impacts given the absence of any known science demonstrating an impact on gray whale 

migration activity from these acoustic stressors. In short, gray whale reactions to sonar are most likely to 

be short-term and mild to moderate. Therefore, significant impacts to gray whale migration behaviors 

from training with sonar and other transducers are unlikely to occur within the gray whale 

migration area. 

Explosives

Quantitative modeling of acoustic effects detailed in Section 3.7.3.2.2 (Impacts from Explosives)

estimates there may be TTS and a few PTS exposures to gray whales. Any TTS in the biologically 

important areas would be minor to moderate, from which the individual whale would fully recover 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-213

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

quickly. PTS would be limited to a couple individuals, causing residual hearing loss with minor long-term 

consequences for an individual; however, it is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the 

species or stocks. In the Southern California portion of the Study Area that overlaps with the gray whale 

migration area there should, however, be no significant impact to gray whale populations from these 

explosive stressors. This assessment is based on the following: a general short-term presence of any 

individual gray whale within the Southern California Range Complex portion of the HSTT Study Area as 

the animal migrates back and forth from North Pacific or Arctic waters to Mexico; any exposure to an 

explosive stressor would be highly infrequent as documented from multiple years of Navy-funded 

passive acoustic monitoring (Debich et al., 2014); variable individual unit level training schedules with 

prolonged periods of absence at sea between successive events; and the implementation of Navy 

mitigation measures for marine mammals sighted within prescribed mitigation zones from the location 

of the explosive stressor. See Chapter 5, (Mitigation), for details on mitigation measures already 

in place.

Vessel Strike

Vessel strikes have been documented for almost all of the mysticetes (Van der Hoop et al., 2015), 

including gray whales (Laist et al., 2001). Most training activities and many testing activities involve the 

use of vessels. Vessel strikes to marine mammals have not been associated with any specific training or 

testing activity in the past but were rather a limited, sporadic, and accidental result of Navy vessel

movements within the HSTT Study Area. Vessel movements can be widely dispersed throughout the 

HSTT Study Area but are concentrated near Naval Base San Diego; Silver Strand Training Complex; and 

Pearl Harbor, HI. Refer to Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices) for the estimated vessel use 

by range complex. 

There would be a higher likelihood of vessel strikes over sections of the continental shelf in the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area than in the Hawaii or transit corridor because of a higher 

concentration of vessel traffic and higher densities of some marine mammal species off Southern 

California. No predictable seasonal variation in Navy vessel traffic is expected; therefore, impacts from 

vessels, including physical disturbance and potential for strike, would depend on gray whale migration 

patterns in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. As indicated any physical 

disturbance from vessel transit is not expected to result in more than a momentary behavioral response. 

Air Guns 

No training activities use air guns. As discussed in Section 3.7.3.1 (Impacts from Air Guns), testing 

activities would include the use of single air guns in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area. Single, small air guns are not capable of injuring marine mammals. Marine mammals engaged in 

activities such as migrating may be more likely to ignore or tolerate potential disturbance created by air 

gun use 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 short-term and mild to moderate behavioral responses. Acoustic modeling predicts one 

gray whale behavioral reaction annually from the use of air guns during testing in the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area. It is unlikely that air gun noise would affect the migration

behaviors of gray whales beyond short-term, minor behavioral responses. 

K.4.2.1.3 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The portion of the Gray Whale Migration and Potential Presence Area within the HSTT Study Area 

extends over 100 mi. from the coastline and encompasses every primary training site within the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-214

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Spatially, migrating Gray whales may be present 

anywhere within Southern California. Temporally, Gray whales may be present most of the year, 

migrating north January through July and south October through March. While not illustrated or 

addressed in Ferguson et al. (2015b) it can also be assumed that these migration routes extend south of 

the U.S. border with Mexico regarding the geographic limits to the biologically important areas 

identification effort.

The training areas encompassed by the Gray whale area provide critical capabilities necessary to train 

naval forces. They include the following: the instrumented Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare 

Range; established helicopter sonar dipping areas, proximate to Naval Air Station North Island; Tanner 

Cortes Bank; a sonobuoy test area; three minefields; the Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area; and 

other complex bathymetric features necessary to challenge Anti-submarine skills. Further south of the 

U.S. border, the migration route overlaps the Tactical Maneuvering Areas and Missile Range Areas, given 

that the gray whales continue on these migration routes to their Baja California calving areas and return 

within the same areas. 

The waters offshore of Southern California have supported naval training and testing for decades and 

are used almost daily by naval forces to conduct all phases of training, from basic unit level events to 

complex major training exercises. Navy readiness depends on access to the training areas in close 

proximity to Fleet concentration areas.

As discussed above in Section K.4.2.1.1 (Biological Considerations Applicable to all Gray Whale Migration 

Areas), gray whales are may be present in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area during 

a 10-month timeframe (December through September). In addition, the migration area covers a 

significant portion of the Southern California portion of the Study Area The Navy cannot avoid or reduce 

the use of the entire Southern California portion of the Study Area, nor over the entire 10-month time 

from without severely impacting military readiness activities across this portion of the Study Area. The 

Navy’s operating tempo is designed to balance with each unit’s maintenance, material readiness, 

testing, and training with operational requirements. The scheduling of training and testing events in the 

HSTT Study Area are designed to maintain stability in cycles of training, testing, and maintenance in 

order to meet global force management presence requirements set forth by Congress while also 

complying with the statute (10 United States Code §991) mandating that military personnel are not 

deployed, or continued in a deployment, in excess of certain thresholds. As a result, deployment cycles 

drive timing of all certification training and major training exercises and are not coupled to specific time 

periods over an annual cycle In a similar manner, the testing schedules are driven by a number of factors 

including system development requirements, system upgrade timing, funding cycles, and additional 

factors which drive variable scheduling across any given year.

Given the operating tempo requirements for maintaining continual cycles of training and testing in the 

Southern California portion of the Study Area, rescheduling activities outside of the 10 months of the 

gray whale migration or reducing the number of training or testing activities during that migration 

season would not allow Navy to meet its readiness requirements. Similarly, Navy offshore instrumented 

ranges are typically used and scheduled for most of the year. There are no alternative instrumented 

ranges in the Southern California Range Complex and there is insufficient excess capacity to avoid or 

reschedule training and testing cycles at these locations to occur outside the 10-months of the year 

when gray whales are migrating through the area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-215

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.4.2.2 Gray Whale Migration Area Geographic Mitigation Assessment

As discussed in Section 3.7.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors), acoustic effects modeling indicates that exposure to 

acoustic stressors (sonar and other transducers, and airguns) or exposure to explosive stressors is not 

likely to significantly impact the migration of gray whales. Scientific data does not support a conclusion 

that significant impacts on gray whale migratory behavior are occurring from Navy activities, therefore

halting, reducing, or otherwise limiting the use of sonar and other transducers in the area when gray 

whales may be generally present would not be effective at reducing impacts on gray whale migration.

Navy training and testing require the use of the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area 

throughout the year. Restricting use of that area when gray whales are present would have significant 

impacts on the Navy mission and readiness requirements. Geographic mitigation would not be effective 

at reducing significant impacts on gray whale migration within the Southern California portion of the 

HSTT Study Area since none are occurring regardless of implementing mitigation. No additional 

mitigation requirements are reasonable or practicable given the absence of significant impacts on gray 

whale migration behavior in this area and considering the impact these requirements would have on the 

Navy’s mission and readiness requirements.

There are no indications that Navy activities would significantly affect the migration behavior of 

individuals, which was the purpose for the designation of the biologically important area. The gray 

whale migration area covers the entire Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area north of the 

border with Mexico during a 10-month timeframe (December through September). The Navy cannot 

avoid or reduce the use of this large portion Southern California waters without significant impact on 

Navy readiness and mitigation measures for that area would not be effective at reducing adverse 

impacts to the gray whale population. 

While gray whales are reported to be one of the most commonly struck species in California (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, unpublished data), there have been no known Navy ship strikes to gray whales 

in over 15 years. Implementing the Navy’s Marine Species Awareness Training in 2006, along with other 

existing Navy mitigation measures intended to ensure that vessels avoid whales, is likely responsible for 

the reduction of strikes to large whales by Navy vessels in the last decade. Existing protection measures 

have been very effective in mitigating the potential for ship strikes both within the Southern California 

portion of the Study Area as well as worldwide. All surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at 

safe speeds so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or 

disturbance, and so that the vessel can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing 

circumstances and conditions. Unlike commercial vessels, Navy vessels are uniquely suited to detect 

marine mammals (forward bridge, dedicated lookouts) and are more likely to avoid strikes (highly 

maneuverable) and Navy sailors receive training specifically intended to sharpen their ability to sight 

marine mammals. Accordingly, ship strikes by naval vessels are exceedingly rare events. Seasonal 

restrictions/limitations on vessel speed would unnecessarily complicate the Navy's ability to conduct 

routine activities and would prevent vessel commanders from operating as necessary to ensure safety 

of navigation.

Issuing cautionary alerts, such as seasonal notices informing vessels that certain species may be present 

in higher concentrations and may be migrating through an area, may afford for a general heightened 

level of awareness. This measure is likely to be effective in reducing behavioral impacts on marine 

mammal species or stocks not only within a delimited biologically important feeding area but also in the 

surrounding region where the behavior is also likely to occur. Furthermore, this measure is likely to be 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-216

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

effective where it is most practical to implement without reducing the effectiveness of the military 

readiness activity or compromising personnel safety. The Navy proposes to issue seasonal large whale 

awareness notification messages to remind ships and aircraft to maintain extra vigilance during transit 

and to maintain safe speeds commensurate with operational timelines, training requirements, or logistic 

needs, and for safety of navigation to avoid interactions with gray whales that may be vulnerable to 

vessel strikes, especially during seasonal migration in the near shore area out to 10 NM from the 

Southern California mainland from November to March, see K.2.3.4 (Awareness Notification Messages).

K.5 PROVISIONAL 2015 PROHIBITED OR RESTRICTED AREAS WITHIN HSTT STUDY AREA 

As discussed above in Section K.1.1.2, the Navy agreed to certain prohibitions or restrictions for some 

activities within the HSTT Study Area as a result of a settlement agreement and order signed in 2015. 

Many of these settlement areas overlap with biologically important areas for certain species’ behavior 

to some extent, as discussed in Sections K.3 and K.4. Where there is overlap between these settlement 

areas and an area which was designated as biologically important for certain species’ behavior, they are 

discussed and assessed above within the biologically important area assessment in which they overlap in 

order to reduce any redundancies and to provide context of the settlement areas when applicable. For 

prohibited or restricted areas within the HSTT Study Area that do not overlap with the biologically 

important areas assessed above in Sections K.3 and K.4, those area assessments are addressed 

separately below in this section.

K.5.1 SETTLEMENT AREAS WITHIN THE HAWAII PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Within the HSTT Study Area there are 16 locations (9 in Hawaii and 7 in Southern California) established 

as part of a 2015 settlement agreement and are analyzed and considered for their effectiveness in 

further reducing or avoiding environmental impacts to the species/stock or its habitat from a biological 

standpoint and are practicable to continue implementing.

As noted previously and under the terms of the settlement agreement in September 2015, the Navy 

agreed to prohibit or restrict certain hull-mounted active sonar and underwater explosives use and 

implement other operational requirements within defined areas in Hawaii during training and testing. 

These measures from the agreement were provisional until the December 24, 2018 expiration of the 

current HSTT MMPA Final Rule or the issuance of any superseding environmental compliance 

documents before that expiration date. These provisional settlement measures therefore form part of 

the baseline environmental conditions that exist within the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area. To 

understand the restrictions and prohibitions on activities incorporated into the settlement agreement, it 

is necessary to review the following set of definitions that apply to the terms of the agreement:

“In-Water Explosive” means a weapon containing an explosive-filled warhead or demolition charge 

purposefully detonated below the water’s surface. This definition specifically excludes devices

employing explosives with 5 lb. net explosive weight or less for non-weapon functions such as launch or 

ejection, or to actuate or perform internal functions.

“Mid-Frequency Active Sonar” means hull-mounted, mid-frequency active sonar (a sonar source 

producing signals from 1 to 10 kHz) on Navy surface vessels.

“Military Training Exercise” means a coordinated or strike group major training exercise that, for 

purposes of the Settlement Agreement, consists of: Integrated Anti-Submarine Warfare Course, 

Composite Training Unit Exercise, Joint Task Force Exercise, Sustainment Exercise; Undersea Warfare 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-217

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Exercise; Independent Deployer Certification Exercise; and Rim of the Pacific Exercise. Military training 

exercises include Unit-Level Training that may be conducted by military training exercise participants 

when an military exercise training is ongoing.

“System Checks” means the non-tactical use of mid-frequency active sonar for pre-operational testing, 

preventive or corrective maintenance, and during inspections by the Board of Inspection and Survey.

“Unit-Level Training” means single surface vessel training, or a combination of surface vessels and 

submarines or aircraft training, with the use of surface ship mid-frequency active sonar.

K.5.2 SETTLEMENT AREAS WITHIN THE HAWAII PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Within the Hawaii portion of the HSTT Study Area there are nine locations that were part of the 

provisional settlement agreement as noted in the following sections. References to other sections of this 

appendix are provided where geographic overlap occurs between the settlement area and a previously 

described biologically important area. Table K.1-1 also indicates which biologically important areas 

overlap spatially with settlement areas.

The nine settlement areas subdivided into five areas surrounding the Island of Hawaii: 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 

and 1-E, and four areas located between the islands of Maui, Lanai, and Molokai (Figure K.4-1). 

Figure K.4-1: Settlement Areas Within the Hawaii Portion of the HSTT Study Area

K.5.2.1 Settlement Area 1-A

Settlement Area 1-A overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in Section K.3:
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-218

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

• False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area: Main Hawaiian Islands Insular Stock (see 

Section K.2.5)

• Pygmy Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Areas (see Section K.2.5.1.3)

• Hawaii Island Short-finned Pilot Whales Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.7)

• Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.9)

• Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.10.5)

• Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.13)

• Blainville’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.14)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 1-A.

K.5.2.2 Settlement Area 1-B

Settlement Area 1-B overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in Section K.3:

• Northwest Hawaiian Island Humpback Whale Reproduction Area (see Section K.2.3.7)

• False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area: Main Hawaiian Islands Insular Stock (see 

Section K.2.5)

• Hawaii Island Short-finned Pilot Whales Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.7)

• Kohala Resident Melon-headed Whales Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.8)

• Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.9)

• Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.10.5)

• Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.13)

• Blainville’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.14)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 1-B.

K.5.2.3 Settlement Area 1-C

Settlement Area 1-C overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in Section K.3:

• Northwest Hawaiian Island Humpback Whale Reproduction Area (see Section K.2.3.7)

• False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area: Main Hawaiian Islands Insular Stock (see 

Section K.2.5)

• Dwarf Sperm Whale Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.4)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-219

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

• Pygmy Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Areas (see Section K.2.5.1.3)

• Hawaii Island Short-finned Pilot Whales Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.7)

• Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.9)

• Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.10)

• Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.10.5)

• Hawaii Island Rough-toothed Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.12)

• Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.13)

• Blainville’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.14)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 1-C.

K.5.2.4 Settlement Area 1-D

Settlement Area 1-D overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in Section K.3:

• Dwarf Sperm Whale Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.4)

• Pygmy Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Areas (see Section K.2.5.1.3)

• Hawaii Island Short-finned Pilot Whales Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.7)

• Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.9)

• Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.10)

• Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.11)

• Hawaii Island Rough-toothed Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.12)

• Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.13)

• Blainville’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.14)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 1-D.

K.5.2.5 Settlement Area 1-E and 2-E

Settlement Area 1-E and 2-E are located in nearshore waters along the northwest coastline of Hawaii 

Island. They are considerably smaller than the other settlement areas and overlaps with the nearshore 

portions of settlement areas 1-B and 1-C (Figure K.4-1). Settlement Area 1-E overlaps with the following 

biologically important areas as discussed in Section K.3:

• Dwarf Sperm Whale Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.4)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-220

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

• False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area: Main Hawaiian Islands Insular Stock (see 

Section K.2.5)

• Pygmy Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Areas (see Section K.2.5.1.3)

• Kohala Resident Melon-headed Whales Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.8)

• Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.9)

• Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.10)

• Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.11)

• Hawaii Island Rough-toothed Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.12)

• Blainville’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.14)

• Settlement Area 2-E overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in 

Section K.3:

• Dwarf Sperm Whale Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.4)

• False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area: Main Hawaiian Islands Insular Stock (see 

Section K.2.5)

• Pygmy Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Areas (see Section K.2.5.1.3)

• Kohala Resident Melon-headed Whales Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.8)

• Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.9)

• Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.10)

• Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.11)

• Blainville’s Beaked Whale Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.14)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 1-E and 2-E.

K.5.2.6 Settlement Area 2-A

Settlement Area 2-A overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in Section K.3:

• Southeast Oahu and Penguin Bank Humpback Whale Reproduction Area (see Section K.2.3.6)

• False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area: Main Hawaiian Islands Insular Stock (see 

Section K.3.1.1)

• Oahu Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.9.3.2)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-221

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

• Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area: Oahu and 4-Islands Region (see Section 

K.2.11.3.6)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 2-A.

K.5.2.7 Settlement Area 2-B

Settlement Area 2-B overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in Section K.3:

• 4-Islands Region and Penguin Bank Humpback Whale Reproduction Area (see Section K.2.3.6)

• 4-Islands Region Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section 

K.2.9.4)

• 4-Islands Region Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section 

K.2.10.3)

• Oahu and 4-Islands Region Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section 

K.2.11.3.6)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 2-B.

K.5.2.8 Settlement Area 2-C

Settlement Area 2-C overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in Section K.3:

• False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area: Main Hawaiian Islands Insular Stock (see 

Section K.3.1.1)

• 4-Islands Region Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section 

K.2.9.4)

• Oahu and 4-Islands Region Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section 

K.2.11.3.6)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 2-C.

K.5.2.9 Settlement Area 2-D

Settlement Area 2-D overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in Section K.3:

• False Killer Whale Small and Resident Population Area: Main Hawaiian Islands Insular Stock (see 

Section K.3.1.1)

• Oahu Common Bottlenose Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section K.2.9.3.2)

• Oahu and 4-Islands Region Spinner Dolphin Small and Resident Population Area (see Section 

K.2.11.3.6)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 2-D.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-222

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.5.3 NAVY REQUIREMENTS FOR AREA-SPECIFIC TRAINING AND TESTING IN THE HAWAII PORTION 

OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Navy training and testing requirements for the Hawaiian islands settlement areas are described in the 

referenced biologically important area descriptions above. For example, for a description of training and 

testing requirements overlapping with Settlement Area 2-D, please refer to the following subsections of 

the false killer whale biologically important area description: Section K.2.5.1.4, Section K.2.5.1.7, and 

Section K.2.5.2.1. The same or additional Navy training and testing requirements are described in the 

biologically important area descriptions for common bottlenose dolphin and spinner dolphin, as noted 

above for Settlement Area 2-D.

K.5.4 PROPOSED MITIGATION AREAS THAT OVERLAP THE HAWAII PORTION OF THE HSTT

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AREAS 

The Navy proposes to establish mitigation areas based on informed scientific data and are balanced with 

the operational training and testing needs of the Navy. These proposed mitigation areas are more 

protective of species than the 2015 HSTT Settlement Agreement areas. See Section K.2.2 (Mitigation 

Areas to be Implemented) for details on these proposed mitigation areas.

K.5.5 SETTLEMENT AREAS WITHIN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY 

AREA

Within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area there are seven locations that were part 

of the provisional settlement agreement as noted in the following sections. References to other sections 

of this appendix are provided where geographic overlap occurs between the settlement area and a 

previously described biologically important area. Table K.1-1 also indicates which biologically important 

areas overlap spatially with settlement areas.

The seven settlement areas are subdivided into two geographically distinct areas. Settlement areas 3-A, 

3-B, and 3-C are adjacent to the coast and extend seaward approximately 20 km from shore (Figure 

K.4-2). Settlement areas 4-A, 4-B, 4-C, and 4-D are located farther offshore in areas with varying 

bathymetry. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-223

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Figure K.4-2: Settlement Areas Within the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area

K.5.5.1 Settlement Area 3-A

Settlement Area 3-A overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in Section K.3

(Biologically Important Areas within the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area):

• San Diego Arc Blue Whale Feeding Area (see Section K.3.1.6)

• Gray Whale Migration Areas (see Section K.4.2)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 3-A.

K.5.5.2 Settlement Area 3-B

Settlement Area 3-B overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in Section K.4:

• San Diego Arc Blue Whale Feeding Area (see Section K.3.1.6)

• Gray Whale Migration Areas (see Section K.4.2)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 3-B.

K.5.5.3 Settlement Area 3-C

• Settlement Area 3-C overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in 

Section K.4:
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-224

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

• Santa Monica Bay to Long Beach Blue Whale Feeding Area (see Section K.3.1.3)

• Gray Whale Migration Areas (see Section K.4.2)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 3-C.

K.5.5.4 Settlement Area 4

K.5.5.4.1 Settlement Area 4-A

• Settlement Area 4-A overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in 

Section K.4:

• San Nicolas Island Blue Whale Feeding Area (see Section K.3.1.4)

• Gray Whale Migration Areas (see Section K.4.2)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 4-A.

K.5.5.4.2 Settlement Area 4-B

• Settlement Area 4-B overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in 

Section K.4:

• Gray Whale Migration Areas (see Section K.3.2)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 4-B.

K.5.5.4.3 Settlement Area 4-C

• Settlement Area 4-C overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in

Section K.4:

• Tanner-Cortes Bank Blue Whale Feeding Area (See Section K.3.1.5)

• Gray Whale Migration Areas (see Section K.4.2)

Please refer to those sections for a full assessment of Settlement Area 4-C.

K.5.5.4.4 Settlement Area 4-D

• Settlement Area 4-D overlaps with the following biologically important areas as discussed in 

Section K.4:

• Gray Whale Migration Areas (see Section K.3.2)

Please refer to this section for a full assessment of Settlement Area 4-D.

K.5.6 NAVY REQUIREMENTS FOR AREA-SPECIFIC TRAINING AND TESTING IN THE SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA

Navy training and testing requirements for the Southern California settlement areas are described in 

Section K.3.1.3.1, Section K.3.1.4.1, Section K.3.1.5.1, and Section K.3.1.6.1 in the blue whale biologically 

important area description and in Section K.3.2.1.3 in the gray whale biologically important area 

description.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-225

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.5.7 PROPOSED MITIGATION AREAS THAT OVERLAP THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT AREAS

The Navy proposes to establish mitigation areas based on informed scientific data and are balanced with 

the operational training and testing needs of the Navy. These proposed mitigation areas are more 

protective of species than the 2015 HSTT Settlement Agreement areas. See Section K.2.2 (Proposed 

Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) for details on these proposed mitigation areas.

K.6 AREAS IDENTIFIED BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

As discussed in Section K.1.1.3, the Navy agreed to recognize three areas within the California coastal 

zone (3 NM from shore) (Table K.1-1; Figure K.5-1) as low use areas for hull-mounted mid-frequency 

sonar during major training events and to provide annual notice to the California Coastal Commission of 

such usage. The Navy also agreed that for training in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area that involves a single underwater detonation greater than 20 pounds net explosive weight 

occurring between sunset and sunrise, the Navy shall provide California Coastal Commission post-event 

notice within 72 hours of the event. Many of these agreement areas overlap with biologically important 

areas for certain species’ behavior as discussed in Section K.3 (Biologically Important Areas within the 

Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area). Where there is overlap between the areas 

identified by the California Coastal Commission and an area which has been designated as biologically 

important for certain species’ behavior in Calambokidis et al. (2015), the reader is directed to the 

description of the area presented in Section K.3 (Biologically Important Areas within the Southern 

California Portion of the HSTT Study Area) to reduce redundancy and to put the development of the 

identified areas in the appropriate context. 

There are no reasonably foreseeable coastal effects on populations or stocks of marine mammals that 

may inhabit the California coastal zone. This finding for marine mammals in the coastal zone is 

consistent with the previous findings from NMFS concluding that Navy training and testing activities do 

not create conditions of chronic, continuous underwater noise and are unlikely to lead to more than 

temporary changes in habitat selection or are unlikely to lead to long-term hormonal or physiological 

stress responses in marine mammals (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). This conclusion has been 

supported by research conducted since 2006 by the Navy, non-Navy marine mammal scientists, and 

research institutions undertaking scientific monitoring and research in the Atlantic and Pacific where the 

Navy has been and proposes to continue training and testing. These same training and testing activities 

are similar if not identical to activities that have been occurring in the same locations for decades. There 

is no direct evidence in the Pacific suggesting Navy training and testing has had or may have any longterm consequences to blue whale populations, which is consistent with findings from NMFS (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). Research efforts and monitoring before, during, and after training and 

testing events have been implemented Navy-wide since 2006. The results of these efforts support the 

Navy’s and NMFS’ assessment that it is unlikely any impacts on populations of marine mammals, 

including blue whales, would have any long-term consequences as a result of continuing training and 

testing as described under the Proposed Action in the HSTT Study Area, including in the coastal zone. 

This assessment is based on four indicators from areas in the Pacific where Navy training and testing has 

been ongoing for decades: (1) evidence documenting or suggesting that the number of marine mammals 

in these locations has been increasing, (2) examples of documented presence and site fidelity of species 

and long-term residence by individual animals of some species, (3) use of training and testing areas for 

breeding and nursing activities, and (4) eight years of comprehensive monitoring data indicating a lack 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-226

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

of any observable effects to marine mammal populations as a result of Navy training and 

testing activities. 

Given that long-term consequences to blue whale populations are not reasonably foreseeable anywhere 

within the HSTT Study Area, including in the California coastal zone, it is not reasonably foreseeable that 

blue whales, which may periodically inhabit the California coastal zone during part of their lifecycle, 

would be subject to any effects within the coastal zone. As a result, prohibitions or restrictions to Navy 

training and testing activities within the 3 NM coastal zone are not likely to further reduce effects on 

species and stocks of blue whales or their habitat.

K.6.1 INTENDED SPECIES AND IMPACTS MITIGATED

The intention of the areas identified within the California coastal zone is to protect marine mammal 

species including coastal bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), blue whales, fin whales, and gray 

whales (Figure K.5-1). The 3 NM areas overlaps with the nearshore northern portion of the biologically 

important area for blue whale feeding; and the northbound, southbound, and potential presence 

biologically important areas for gray whale migration. A discussion on fin whales in the context of 

biologically important habitat off Southern California is provided in Section K.6.2.7 (Waters Just off the 

Mainland Shelf, Between the 200 m and 1,000 m Isobaths).

Figure K.5-1: California Coastal Commission Areas and Biologically Important Areas Within 

the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-227

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.6.2 SAN DIEGO ARC: AREA PARALLEL TO THE COASTLINE FROM THE GULF OF CALIFORNIA 

BORDER TO JUST NORTH OF DEL MAR

San Diego Arc overlaps with the following Biologically Important Areas as discussed in Section K.3

(Biologically Important Areas within the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area):

• San Diego Blue Whale Feeding Area (see Section K.3.1.6)

• Biological Considerations Applicable to all Gray Whale Migration Areas (see Section K.3.2.1.1)

K.6.2.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

Navy training and testing requirements in the San Diego Arc Area are described in Section K.3.1.6.1 and 

Section K.3.2.1.3.

K.6.3 3 NM SANTA BARBARA ISLAND AREA: AREA WITHIN 3 NM AROUND SANTA BARBARA 

ISLAND WITHIN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

The 3 NM area surrounding Santa Barbara Island overlaps with the following Biologically Important 

Areas as discussed in Section K.3 (Biologically Important Areas within the Southern California Portion of 

the HSTT Study Area):

• Biological Considerations Applicable to all Gray Whale Migration Areas (see Section K.3.2.1.1)

The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary consists of an area of 1,109 NM2 around Anacapa Island, 

Santa Cruz Island, Santa Rosa Island, San Miguel Island and, Santa Barbara Island to the south. Only 92 

NM2 of Santa Barbara Island, or about 8 percent of the sanctuary, occurs within the Southern California 

portion of the HSTT Study Area. For more information on the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

refer to Section 6.1.2.7.2 (Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary) in Chapter 6 (Other Regulatory 

Considerations) of the EIS/OEIS.

K.6.3.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

• Navy training and testing requirements in the San Diego Arc Area are described Section 

K.3.2.1.3. 

K.6.4 3 NM SHORE AREA: AREA WITHIN 3 NM FROM THE MAINLAND CALIFORNIA SHORELINE 

BETWEEN DEL MAR NORTHWARD TO THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA PORTION OF THE HSTT STUDY AREA

The 3 NM nearshore area along the California shoreline from Del Mar northward to the northern 

boundary of the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area overlaps with the following 

biologically important areas identified in (Calambokidis et al., 2015) as discussed in Section K.3

(Biologically Important Areas within the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area):

• San Diego Blue Whale Feeding Area (see Section K.3.1.6)

• Biological Considerations Applicable to all Gray Whale Migration Areas (see Section K.3.2.1.1)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-228

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.6.4.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

Navy training and testing requirements in the 3 NM Shore Area are described in Section K.3.1.6.1 and 

Section K.3.2.1.3.

K.6.5 PROPOSED MITIGATION AREAS WITHIN AREAS IDENTIFIED BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL

COMMISSION

The San Diego Arc overlaps the San Diego Blue Whale Feeding Area as discussed in Section K.4 

(Biologically Important Areas within the Southern California Portion of the HSTT Study Area). The Navy 

proposes to establish a San Diego Arc Planning Awareness Area and a San Diego Arc Cautionary Area. 

See Section K.4.1.6 (San Diego Blue Whale Feeding Area) for an assessment of the San Diego Blue Whale 

Feeding Area and Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be Implemented) for details on these proposed

mitigation areas.

In addition, the Navy is proposing to establish a Channel Island Sanctuary Cautionary Area (Figure K.2-4) 

surrounding Santa Barbara Island out to 6 NM, (the only Sanctuary area within the Southern California 

portion of the HSTT Study Area), to restrict the use of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active 

sonar and in-water explosives used in gunnery (all caliber), torpedo, bombing, and missile exercises 

(including 2.75” rockets) during testing, unit-level training and major training exercises year round.

If a naval unit needs to use surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or in-water explosives 

used in gunnery (all caliber), torpedo, bombing, and missile exercises (including 2.75” rockets) during 

testing, unit-level training and major training exercises in this area for national security, permission shall 

be required from the U.S. Commander, Third Fleet or delegated System Command authority prior to 

their use in the Cautionary Area. The Navy would also provide NMFS with advance notification and 

include the information in the annual training/testing exercise reports.

This measure provides additional protective measures for all protected marine species, including blue, 

gray, and fin whales in the Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary within the Southern California 

portion of the HSTT Study Area.

K.7 AREAS IDENTIFIED DURING THE NEPA SCOPING PROCESS

Comments received during the HSTT EIS/OEIS public scoping period included suggestions that the Navy 

avoid conducting activities in locations identified by the commenter as important marine mammal 

habitat or areas that should otherwise no longer be used during Navy training and testing activities 

because of the presence of particular marine mammals in the vicinity of the area. The comments 

identified locations in both the Hawaii and Southern California portions of the HSTT Study Area. A 

review and evaluation of the areas identified in the scoping comments is organized by geographic area 

in sections K.6.1 (Hawaii Scoping Comment Areas) and K.6.2 (Southern California Scoping Comment 

Areas). The scoping comment areas are evaluated below.

K.7.1 HAWAII SCOPING COMMENT AREAS

For the Hawaii Range Complex, the scoping comments present the generalization that seamounts are 

associated with productive fishing grounds, alter prey distributions and abundances, and therefore 

represent “important foraging habitat for top predators” including marine mammals. The scoping 

comment recommends that, “... the EIS assess the designation of a year-round management area to 

protect the seamount,” and particularly as it represents habitat for various beaked whale species. 

However, it is worth noting that none of the Navy’s proposed training or testing activities were 

identified as threats to seamount biodiversity or ecosystems by researchers. In general, seamount 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-229

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

research considers the primary threats to seamount ecosystems to include (1) pollution; (2) habitat 

destruction, degradation, and fragmentation; (3) fisheries overexploitation; and (4) invasive alien 

species (United Nations Development Project 2013).

K.7.1.1 General Biological Assessment of Seamounts in the Hawaii Portion of the Study 

Area

Seamounts have been traditionally defined as any extinct or active underwater volcano rising more than 

1 km above the seafloor(Kennett, 1982). With advances in ocean surveying, bathymetric features rising 

only 50–100 m above the seafloor may now be included as seamounts in some classifications (Kim & 

Wessel, 2011). Kvile et al (2014) report on a comprehensive effort to assess current knowledge of the 

world’s seamounts with the ultimate goal of collecting standardized data on seamounts and 

characterizing their ecological functions (Seamount Ecosystem Evaluation Framework 2016). Their 

analysis shows that seamounts are numerous, found throughout the world’s oceans, and that only a 

small percentage have been scientifically analyzed. The limited data highlights a general lack of 

knowledge and understanding of why some seamounts aggregate marine fauna and others do not. 

In Hawaiian waters, the physical characteristics of seamounts mentioned in the scoping comments have 

recently been measured with a relatively high degree of accuracy using multi-beam sonar; however,

with the exception of Cross Seamount, no research has been conducted to characterize the ecological 

productivity at these seamounts. Morphological characteristics as shown in Table K.1-1 and other

physical oceanographic conditions are critical to a seamount’s influence on biological productivity. In 

particular, the depth of the summit and surrounding area of a seamount is an important indicator of the 

potential for sustained primary production (i.e., photosynthesis by plants) and support for higher trophic 

level species (e.g., marine mammals). 

With regard to marine mammals, researchers have focused on seamounts having a summit that is within 

or near the euphotic zone (Hann et al., 2016; Morato et al., 2008). Of the seamounts listed in Table 

K.1-1, only the summit of Cross Seamount approaches the height of the euphotic zone; although 

(McDonald et al., 2009) note that only sunlight sufficient for vision actually reaches the summit. 

Seventeen other named seamounts were also identified for consideration given they, “... exhibit levels 

of productivity capable of supporting commercial fisheries,” according to the comment. However, the 

summits of these seamounts are much deeper (631 m to in excess of 3,000 m) and far below the depth 

considered by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council to sustain ground fish fisheries 

(Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 2009). Seamounts in the vicinity of biologically 

important areas identified for Cuvier’s beaked whales are shown in Figure K.2-19. 

While the physical characteristics of some seamounts have been linked to localized increases in 

biodiversity, which can aggregate pelagic predators and their prey (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2016b), 

the comment’s focus on seamounts generically as a generic class of bathymetric feature is too simplistic 

relative to the level of analysis needed to adequately evaluate seamounts and their association with 

productivity; see for example (Pitcher et al., 2007; Pitcher et al., 2010). In Hawaii, the Western Pacific 

Regional Fishery Management Council has designated all escarpments and slopes between 

approximately 40 m and 280 m as habitat areas of particular concern for fisheries (Western Pacific 

Regional Fishery Management Council, 2009).

Many bathymetric features (e.g., an escarpment, ridge, slope, bank, or seamount) have the potential to 

influence productivity, biodiversity, and potentially the presence of fishery resources or marine 

mammals; however, the complementary oceanographic conditions (e.g., ocean fronts) must also be 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-230

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

present for biological production (for example the escarpment off Hawaii Island’s Keahole Point 

(Heenehan et al., 2017a; Norris & Dohl, 1980). Therefore, a blanket generalization expressing the need 

to protect seamounts, or any similar type of generic bathymetric feature, is simply not useful or feasible 

given the wide variation in the morphological characteristics of these features and their limited and 

poorly understood potential to support biological productivity and biodiversity (Hann et al., 2016; 

Morato et al., 2008). The conditions necessary to support productivity in the ocean is also temporally 

dynamic and results from the complex interaction of seasonal temperature fluctuations as well as the 

variable occurrence of oceanic fronts, which, themselves, may be the oceanographic feature driving 

biological productivity above or near a seamount rather than the bathymetric feature (Morato et al., 

2015). A brief, general description of seamounts is therefore helpful for putting these scoping comments 

and the ecological role of seamounts into context. Furthermore, and given the extreme variation in 

features generically referred to as seamounts, any analysis of potential impacts on seamount 

ecosystems and the marine life that they support, must first take into account the inherent variation 

between different types of seamounts. 

Table K.7-1: Seamounts Identified in HSTT EIS/OEIS Scoping Comment

Seamount Name

Height of 

Seamount Above 

Seafloor (meters)

Depth of 

Summit 

(meters)

Depth 

around 

seamount

(meters)

Area 

(km2)

Max 

Width 

(km)

Max 

Length 

(km)

Cross 3,936 346 4,282 667 25 28

Pensacola 3,572 631 4,203 611 23 31

Bishop 4,020 756 4,776 720 27 31

McCall 3,535 877 4,412 1,634 29 60

Washington 3,077 929 4,006 488 21 25

Swordfish 3,875 969 4,844 892 32 27

Finch 3,830 1,026 4,856 747 27 30

Daly 3,362 1,243 4,605 397 23 24

Ellis 2,869 1,455 4,324 676 15 51

Jagger 3,083 1,555 4,638 930 25 46

Brigham 2,825 1,713 4,538 647 37 22

Perret 1,696 2,130 3,826 187 6 24

Palmer 2,354 2,168 4,522 259 16 16

Day 2,000 2,300 4,300 255 18 14

Dutton 1,933 2,592 4,525 267 16 23

Clark 1,268 2,705 3,973 93 20 8

Powers 1,545 2,883 4,428 109 15 10

Indianapolis 1,592 3,152 4,744 303 21 18

Source: 50 m Bathymetry Grid at http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/HMRG/multibeam/bathymetry.php

K.7.1.2 Cross Seamount 

The acoustic detections of beaked whales at Cross Seamount (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2014; 

McDonald et al., 2009) are part of the rationale stated in the scoping comments for recommending the 

designation of a year-round management area to protect seamounts. The comment identified the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-231

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

location of Cross Seamount simply by a set of coordinates, “... approximately 18°40' North latitude and 

158°1’ West longitude.” No bounded area or distance from this single geographic point was provided to 

characterize the biologically important habitat for which mitigation was recommended. Multi-beam 

sonar bathymetry data available from University of Hawaii indicates Cross Seamount extends over an 

area of approximately 670 km2

, has an elevation of 3,936 m above the seafloor, and comes within 346 m 

of the surface. Baumann-Pickering et al. (2014) identify the location of Cross Seamount as 18° 43.343” 

North latitude and 158° 15.221” West longitude.

Beaked whales produce sounds that are frequency modulated echolocation pulses, which are

species-specific. For beaked whales in Hawaii and the North Pacific, six of these species-specific

echolocation pulses are classifiable to the species while four of these beaked whale sounds types cannot

be assigned to a species (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2016a). Acoustic recording devices at Cross 

Seamount have documented the presence of sounds from beaked whales, and other marine mammal 

species-specific sounds at that location (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2010; Baumann-Pickering et al., 2014; 

Baumann-Pickering et al., 2016a; McDonald et al., 2009). Cross Seamount was highlighted in the 

comment as having “the greatest conservation priority” and as being particularly important for several 

species of beaked whales and possibly “a potentially rare or evolutionary distinct species of beaked

whale.” This concern over the beaked whales acoustically recorded at Cross Seamount as being “rare” or 

an “evolutionary distinct species” was based on speculation in an older reference (McDonald et al., 

2009) that has been superseded by more recent analysis of that same data by a team that included 

many of the same authors from the original publication (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2014). The more upto-date findings and hypothesis (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2014) is that the majority of beaked whale 

signals recorded at Cross Seamount from November 2005 to May 2006 (McDonald et al., 2009) were 

(the BWC pulse type) produced by ginkgo-toothed beaked whales. Ginkgo-toothed beaked whales have 

been found at various locations in the Indian Ocean and throughout the Pacific Ocean as far north as 

Japan and as far south as Southern Australia and New Zealand. As a result, ginkgo-toothed beaked 

whales should not considered rare or an evolutionary distinct species. To the south of the Hawaii 

portion of the HSTT Study Area, acoustic recordings from a seamount near the equator in the Northern 

Line Islands also encountered this same signal (the BWC pulse type) assigned to ginkgo-toothed beaked 

whales at Cross Seamount (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2016b). 

It is important to note that Cross Seamount is the only open ocean bathymetric feature in the area of 

the Hawaiian Islands where a passive acoustic monitoring device has been installed long-term for the 

purpose of detecting the presence of marine mammals. For example, some of the first acoustic sampling 

of bathymetrically featureless areas off Southern California detected many beaked whales over an 

abyssal plain and not associated with slope or seamount features, which counters a common 

misperception that beaked whales are primarily found over slope waters, in deep basins, or over 

seamounts (Griffiths & Barlow, 2016). Since the 2005-2006 Cross Seamount survey, a subsequent 

passive acoustic survey was conducted from December 11, 2014 and January 26, 2015 in the Hawaii 

Range Complex using an autonomous glider fitted with an acoustic receiver (Klinck et al., 2015). The

survey began and ended approximately 120 km south of Honolulu, Oahu, navigating a circular track

through deep ocean waters that intermittently crossed over or near multiple seamounts, including Cross 

Seamount, and relatively featureless areas in between. Sounds from Blainville’s beaked whales were 

detected in the open ocean areas and at Brigham Seamount, but not at Cross Seamount or any of the 

other seamounts sampled along the glider’s route. Sounds identified previously (Baumann-Pickering et 

al., 2014) as belonging to ginkgo-toothed beaked whales were detected at Cross Seamount but also at
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-232

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

four other locations not associated with any seamount or other known bathymetric feature (Klinck et al., 

2015). 

In summary for Cross Seamount, the available science indicates that the bathymetric feature is used as 

habitat for at least one species of beaked whale that has been tentatively identified as the 

ginkgo-toothed beaked whale. Data from acoustic sampling tracks in deep ocean areas indicate the 

species is also present in locations lacking bathymetric relief. Ginkgo-toothed beaked whales have been 

documented at various locations throughout the Pacific, and, although it is unlikely they are as 

numerous as Cuvier’s beaked whales are in Southern California or Blainville’s beaked whales are in 

Hawaii, ginkgo-toothed beaked whales should not be considered rare in the Pacific. The location of a 

bathymetric feature is not necessarily the driver for aggregating biological productivity and biodiversity, 

including the presence of marine mammals. At a seamount in the Northern Line Islands, researchers 

determined that sea surface temperature correlated with the seasonal presence or absence of particular 

beaked whale species (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2016b). The presence or behavior of other marine 

mammal species correlated with changes in oceanographic conditions, including surface salinity, sea 

surface height, and primary productivity (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2016b). While bathymetry can 

influence these conditions, changes in oceanographic conditions are not limited to fixed locations, such 

that a species influenced mainly by changes in sea surface temperature may or may not aggregate near 

a bathymetric feature, such as a seamount. Additional research including surveying for marine mammals 

in relation to a variety of oceanographic conditions, in areas with diverse bathymetry, and for longer 

durations that span seasons is needed to determine the range of habitat preferences for the species 

producing the BWC pulse type (most likely ginkgo-toothed beaked whales) and other beaked whales 

in Hawaii. 

K.7.1.2.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The general area and the unique bathymetry features found in W-194 beyond 32 NM from the west side 

of Hawaii Island, replicates operationally significant bathymetry encountered during deployments to 

both the Western Pacific and Middle East. Cross Seamount is in the open ocean area portion of the 

Hawaii OPAREA. Activities that may occur anywhere in the Hawaiian OPAREA include (for activity details 

see Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions): 

• Chaff Exercise

• Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure

• Air-to-Surface Gunnery Exercise

• Sea Bombing Exercise

• Sinking Exercise (will not occur on the Cross Seamount because Sinking Exercise requires depths 

of 6,000 ft. or greater)

• Surface Warfare and Anti-submarine Warfare Torpedo Exercise, Anti-submarine Warfare 

Tracking Exercise

• Anti-submarine Warfare major exercises and Integrated/Coordinated Anti-submarine Warfare 

training (e.g., Rim of the Pacific, Undersea Warfare)
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-233

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

• Electronic warfare operations

• Mine Countermeasure exercise

• Personnel insertion/extraction

It is unlikely that Cross Seamount would be used for independent unit-level training because it is 

impractically far from port. This portion of the Hawaii OPAREA is used for larger coordinated events like 

Undersea Warfare Exercise where the bathymetry is important to challenge operators and increase the 

realism and value of the training. For example, seamounts may represent fictional islands in a scenario 

to mimic real-world areas of interest. The relatively large group of seamounts in the open ocean south 

of the Main Hawaiian Islands offers challenging bathymetry in the open ocean far away from civilian 

vessel traffic and air lanes where ships, submarines, and aircraft are completely free to maneuver. Sonar 

may be used by a variety of platforms in support of anti-submarine warfare events and torpedo 

exercises. Commanding Officers may always conduct a number of opportunistic unit-level training 

activities concurrent with major exercises.

Cross Seamount is in the Luna Central Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace just south of Special Use 

Airspace W-193. Luna Central is available to extend the Special Use Airspace and is activated to provide 

more southern area airspace to W-193 when necessary. Major training events like Rim of the Pacific or 

Undersea Warfare Exercise may require activating Luna Central as an extension of W-193. Activities 

utilizing in-water explosives, such as underwater detonations, bombing exercises or torpedo exercises, 

will not usually be conducted in Luna Central unless it has been extended as Special Use Airspace.

Nearby seamounts include Indianapolis Seamount and Jagger seamount, located approximate 35 NM 

and 45.5 NM from the west side of Hawaii Island respectively, in W-194. As part of the arc of seamounts 

that include Cross Seamount they are important features for ships, air platforms, and submarines to 

execute realistic threat tactics. The loss of this geography could result in reduced training effectiveness 

for submarine, surface ship, and air crews. In order to effectively train in and around this unique 

bathymetry, operators must be able to freely search throughout the area surrounding the seamounts. In 

order to execute realistic anti-submarine warfare training, overlapping airspace and sea space is needed 

to simulate tactical prosecution. 

K.7.1.3 Hawaii Scoping Comment Areas Mitigation Assessment

At intensively used Navy instrumented ranges in waters surrounding Hawaii and off southern California, 

years of scientific findings have documented high densities of beaked whales and long-term (multi-year) 

residency by individual beaked whales (Baird et al., 2015d; Debich et al., 2015a; Debich et al., 2015b; 

Falcone et al., 2009; Falcone & Schorr, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014; Henderson et al., 2015b; Hildebrand et 

al., 2009; Lammers et al., 2015a; Manzano-Roth et al., 2013; Širović et al., 2016; Smultea & Jefferson, 

2014). This long-term scientific record suggests that Navy training and testing activities, including those 

that use sonar and explosives, do not deter beaked whales from inhabiting an area where these 

activities have been occurring for decades, including within the Hawaii Range Complex where a number 

of seamounts identified in the scoping comments are located (Table K.6-1). Considering that other 

oceanographic features or conditions, such as changes in sea surface temperature, have been shown to 

influence the behavior of beaked whales and other odontocetes (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2016b) and 

that these features are not necessarily linked to a particular seamount or seamounts in general, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-234

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

mitigation that limits activities at seamounts is not likely to increase the effectiveness of the Navy’s 

current mitigation measures.

This area was suggested for mitigation based on its rich pelagic biodiversity and high productivity and as 

foraging habitat for beaked whales. The recommendation also suggested that the Navy consider other 

nearby seamounts within the Hawaii Range Complex for habitat-based management measures given 

they are considered productive long-line fishing grounds for top predators. Cross Seamount is not in any 

way more important to Navy activities than any of the other surrounding seamounts, but it is centrally 

located in the middle of a group of seamounts, and potential mitigation restricting Navy activities (i.e., 

restricting vessel movement or the use of sonar) around Cross Seamount could inhibit free maneuver 

and the full implementation of tactics, techniques, and procedures, reducing the realism of events in 

that portion of the Hawaiian OPAREA. The collection of seamounts south of the Main Hawaiian Islands is 

the only group of seamounts in the Hawaii OPAREA, making it unique. While this area was suggested for 

multiple species, this appendix will consider mitigation using beaked whales as a proxy because they 

were specifically highlighted in the proposal and are one of the most sensitive marine mammal groups 

to human-made sound studied to date. 

Behavioral response research has demonstrated that beaked whales are sensitive to sound from sonars 

and usually avoid sound sources by 10 or more kilometers (see Chapter 3.7, (Marine Mammals).,. These 

are well beyond the ranges to TTS for mid-frequency cetaceans such as beaked whales. Therefore, 

impacts on beaked whales are most likely to be behavioral reactions (they may startle, break off feeding 

dives, and avoid the area of the sound source). 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. Significant behavioral reactions seem likely if beaked 

whales are exposed to anti-submarine sonar within a few tens of kilometers, especially for prolonged 

periods (a few hours or more). The types of coordinated anti-submarine warfare events and major 

training events that take places in this area involve multiple sonar systems and can last for a period of 

days, making significant responses more likely. 

Cross Seamount only takes up a very small portion of the Hawaii Range Complex and sonar use in this 

area would be relatively infrequent (Rim of the Pacific typically only occurs every two years, Undersea 

Warfare is only one to three times per year, and this area is not always used). No species of beaked 

whale are known to be resident on Cross Seamount. Some impacts on beaked whale natural behaviors 

could occur due to sonar and other transducers. However, abandonment of Cross Seamount by beaked 

whales is not expected to occur because the populations of beaked whales and other odontocetes on 

Navy fixed ranges that have been operating for decades appear to be stable.

Beaked whales currently number almost 17,000 individuals in the California, Oregon, and Washington 

and Hawaiian stocks. It is unlikely the same animal would have a significant behavioral response to sonar 

more than a few times per year due to exposure to sound from sonar. A few behavioral reactions in an 

individual animal within a given year, even if some are significant, are unlikely to have any long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors, long-term consequences for the species or 

stock would be unlikely. Therefore, it is not clear that additional mitigation for sonar or other 

transducers on Cross Seamount or other seamounts in the area would reduce impacts on beaked 

whales, or reduce the availability of prey for subsistence uses. Existing protective mitigations measures 

would likely reduce or avoid impacts on beaked whales feeding within this area. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-235

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Given the tens of kilometer ranges at which beaked whales avoid sonar, sound from sonar or other 

transducers nearby from outside a hypothetical mitigation zone could still expose animals foraging on 

Cross Seamount to acoustic stressors. A hypothetical mitigation zone[s] around Cross Seamount and 

possibly other nearby seamounts that would be large enough to preclude behavioral reactions could 

inappropriately segment the area available for realistic maneuvering and make training ineffective. 

Confining activities to only the portions of the area that lie outside hypothetical seamount mitigation 

zones could limit the sea space available to maneuver in a realistic way as required by tactics and to deconflict when multiple platforms are present. Ships require sea space for safety of navigation, 

appropriate stand-off ranges when deploying weapons, and to prevent mutual interference between 

sonar and electronic emissions. The Navy would not be able to stop training with sonar on all seamounts 

because Navy platforms must operate in a coordinated manner on similar bathymetry in the real world

Based on the best available science, beaked whales that may exhibit a significant behavioral reaction 

due to sonar and other active acoustics; however, behavioral reaction would not result in 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.” Neither NMFS nor the Navy 

anticipates that marine mammal strandings or mortality will result from the operation of sonar during 

Navy activities 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. 

Navy quantitative modeling does not estimate any non-auditory injury to beaked whales due to 

explosives across the HSTT Study area. Modeling estimates a single PTS across the HSTT Study Area due 

to exposure to sound and energy from explosions during training for each alternative. PTS could reduce 

an animal’s ability to detect biologically important sounds; however, a small threshold shift due to lowfrequency sound from an explosion is unlikely to affect the hearing range that beaked whales rely upon. 

Nevertheless, PTS could have minor long-term consequences for individuals. 

Odontocetes overall have shown little responsiveness to impulsive sounds although it is likely that 

beaked whales are more reactive than most other odontocetes. 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 of short duration, consisting of only a single or few closely timed explosions with a 

limited footprint, and usually consisting of a single target or 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. 

This minor consequence for individuals is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species or 

stocks. Given that this area is rarely used for in-water explosives training and testing, long-term 

consequences for the population would be unlikely. 

While the Navy will continue to implement procedural mitigation measures throughout the Study Area, 

implementing new geographic based mitigation measures in addition to ongoing procedural mitigation

measures within the vicinity of Cross Seamount would not be effective at reducing adverse impacts on 

beaked whales or other marine mammal populations. The Navy has been training and testing in the 

broad ocean area around Cross Seamount with the same basic systems for over 40 years and there is no 

evidence of any adverse impacts having occurred. In other locations and Navy ranges such as in 

Southern California and off the coast of Kauai where Navy training and testing is much more frequent 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-236

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

and intense in comparison to Cross Seamount, beaked whales and other marine mammals populations 

are thriving. The broad ocean area around Cross Seamount and the seamounts to the north are unique 

in that there are no similar broad ocean areas in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands that are not 

otherwise encumbered by commercial vessel traffic and commercial air traffic routes. In addition to this 

safety consideration, reducing or limiting Navy training and testing at or around Cross Seamount other 

seamounts in Hawaiian waters would not be practicable and would reduce the effectiveness of training 

and testing if pieces of the ocean environment are unavailable for full tactical consideration during Navy 

events. In summary, geographic mitigation would not reduce adverse impacts on any marine mammal 

population at Cross Seamount or other seamounts, and when balanced with the mitigation’s 

practicability, Navy alteration of ongoing activities in or avoidance of the area that was suggested during 

the scoping comment period is not warranted. 

K.7.2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCOPING COMMENT AREAS

The scoping comments suggested several geologic and oceanographic regions of the Southern California 

portion of the HSTT Study Area as potentially important for marine mammals (Table K.6-2). Each region

and the species identified in the comments is discussed in the sections below.

Table K.7-2: Scoping Comment Areas for Consideration within the Southern California Portion 

of the Study Area

Area Name Species and location summary Seasonality

San Nicolas Basin

Cuvier’s beaked whales - San Nicolas Basin; 

Tanner Canyon to the south and Santa Cruz Basin 

to the North

(not provided)

Catalina Basin Cuvier’s beaked whales - Catalina Basin (not provided)

Southern California Bight

Beaked whales - Southernmost edge of California 

Current, west of Tanner-Cortes Bank (approx. 

lat/long of Site E 32.75N, 119.46W)

(not provided)

Northern Catalina Basin

and San Clemente Basin

Perrin’s beaked whales –“southern-central waters 

of the bight”; northern Catalina Basin, including 

south-east of Santa Catalina Island, and the San 

Clemente Basin

(not provided)

Southern California waters just 

off the mainland shelf, between 

the 200 meter and 1,000 meter 

isobaths

Fin whales - off Southern California between 200 

m and 100 m isobaths

November through 

February

Notes: spp. = species, lat = latitude, long = longitude, N = North, W = West, HARP = High-frequency Acoustic Recording 

Package, m = meter(s). 

San Nicolas Basin and Catalina Basin (Figure K.6-1) were suggested in scoping comments as areas that 

should receive special protection to limit or reduce impacts on Cuvier’s beaked whales. Refer to Section 

K.7.2.1 (San Nicolas Basin) and Section K.7.2.2. (Santa Catalina Basin) for a brief description of each 

basin. Generally speaking, a basin can be described as a completely enclosed depression deeper than 

the surrounding seafloor, consequently basins are some of the deepest areas in the oceans 

(Kennett, 1982).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-237

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Cuvier’s beaked whales have been encountered in almost all areas of the Pacific where surveys have 

occurred, including deep, open-ocean areas (Hamilton et al., 2009). The Cuvier’s beaked whale is the 

most commonly encountered beaked whale off the west coast of the United States (Carretta et al., 

2017). 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). Research involving tagged Cuvier’s beaked 

whales in the Southern California Range Complex has documented movements in excess of hundreds of 

kilometers (Falcone et al., 2009; Falcone & Schorr, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014; Gassmann et al., 2015). 

Schorr et al. (2014) reported that five out of eight tagged whales journeyed approximately 250 km from 

their tag deployment location and one of these five made an extra-regional excursion over 450 km to 

the south to Mexico and back. 

Figure K.6-1: Basins in the Southern California Bight Referred to in Scoping Comments

During ship surveys conducted quarterly off Southern California from 2004 to 2008, there were only six 

beaked whale sightings; however, half of these were Cuvier’s beaked whales (Douglas et al., 2014). 

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). Cuvier’s beaked whales have also frequently been heard 

on passive acoustic recording devices in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area (Širović 

et al., 2016). 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. However this 

is not one of the areas designated as a “biologically important area” (Calambokidis et al., 2015). Acoustic 

sampling of bathymetrically featureless areas off Southern California detected many beaked whales over 

an abyssal plain and not associated with slope or seamount features, which counters a common 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-238

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

misperception that beaked whales are primarily found over slope waters, in deep basins, or over 

seamounts (Griffins and Barlow 2016).

Documented multi-year residency by Cuvier’s beaked whales at the Navy’s instrumented Southern 

California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, where sonar is frequently used (Falcone et al., 2009; Falcone 

& Schorr, 2012, 2014), would seem to indicate a lack of individual impacts, and considering the 

multi-year span, population-level impacts. Photo identification studies in the Southern California Range 

Complex have identified approximately 100 individual Cuvier’s beaked whales, with 40 percent having 

been seen in one or more prior years, and re-sightings occurring up to 7 years apart (Falcone & Schorr, 

2014). 

The area referred to as the “California Current” in the context of NMFS survey results for Cuvier’s 

beaked whales includes all waters along the U.S. west coast out to 300 NM from the shoreline and 

extending from the Washington State–Canada border in the north to the California–Mexico border in 

the south. The scoping comment suggested that “habitat-based management” for Cuvier’s beaked 

whales is necessary, because “... beaked whale populations in the California Current have shown 

significant, possibly drastic declines in abundance over the last twenty years,” with a citation to Moore 

and Barlow (2013). The authors of the cited study reporting the decline in the abundance over the years 

1991-2008 also documented high densities of beaked whales at the instrumented training range off San 

Clemente Island (which includes the San Nicolas Basin). The authors continued to note that the high 

densities of beaked whales specifically where the Navy has been training and testing for decades are 

obviously not consistent with a hypothesis that declining abundance may be due to Navy activities

(Moore & Barlow, 2013). Additionally, recent abundance estimates that include data from an additional 

survey conducted in 2014 suggest that there may be a change in the prior downward trend of beaked 

whale abundance off the U.S. west coast (Barlow, 2016). While the population trend for the entire U.S. 

west coast may be uncertain, multiple studies have indicated that the abundance of beaked whales 

remains high in waters surrounding Navy training and testing areas off southern California and

specifically in areas where Navy has been training and testing for decades. Results from passive acoustic 

monitoring have estimated regional Cuvier’s beaked whale densities in and around the Southern 

California Range Complex were higher than indicated by the 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; Širović et al., 2016; Smultea & Jefferson, 2014).

K.7.2.1 San Nicolas Basin

San Nicolas Basin is the low-lying area separating San Clemente Island along the basin’s southeast rim, 

Tanner Bank to the southwest, and San Nicolas Island located on the basin’s north rim (Figure K.6-1). 

The area of the basin is approximately 2,300 km2

. Depth in the San Nicolas Basin ranges from 

approximately 1,800 m at its deepest point to 1,500 m along the rim of the basin(National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2013). The basin is approximately 10 NM off the southern coast of San 

Nicolas Island and 5 NM from San Clemente Island’s west coast. The Navy’s underwater instrumented 

training and testing range, established in the 1980s, overlaps with the San Nicolas Basin.

The scoping comment regarding San Nicolas (“Nicholas” [sic]) Basin expresses concern over impacts on

the population of Cuvier’s beaked whales that inhabit the area off southern California, including San 

Nicolas Basin. As noted above in Section K.7.2 (Southern California Scoping Comment Areas), current

research and monitoring data indicate that the beaked whales have continued to inhabit the Navy’s 

instrumented range and surrounding area where activities using sonar have occurred for decades.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-239

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.7.2.1.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Cuvier's beaked whale habitat within the San Nicholas Basin overlaps the entire Southern California 

Anti-submarine Warfare instrumented range and Laser Training Ranges 1-5. The Southern California 

Anti-submarine Warfare Range is the premier high value anti-submarine warfare training and testing

area on the west coast. Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range is the only instrumented 

range along the west coast and is sited to support pre deployment training of San Diego (and Pacific 

Northwest) based units. Every deploying unit depends on the Southern California Anti-submarine 

Warfare Range to provide the highest level of training possible. The capability to record (score) training 

events provides the ability to "play back" the events after the exercise to indicate immediate feedback 

that greatly improves the value of the training to those participating. 

As U.S. surface active sonar capabilities improve, the ability to train surface ship crews in submarine 

detection, location, tracking, and prosecution will increase. In addition, submarine crews need to train 

with surface vessels in these areas using mid-frequency active sonar as part of their anti-submarine 

warfare tactics and active sonar avoidance in shallow water and the adjacent deep water. Submarine 

commanders and crew train to meet certification objectives. Their requirements evolve as other nation's 

surface active sonar technologies and capabilities improve and as those nations’ active sonar 

employment increases.

K.7.2.1.2 San Nicolas Basin Cuvier's beaked whales Mitigation Considerations

Complete or even partial avoidance of the San Nicolas Basin and the relocation of Navy training and 

testing activities would curtail Navy use of this critical and unique bathymetric feature, reducing the 

realism and effectiveness of training and testing activities. Furthermore, avoiding the area by relocating 

activities is not likely to significantly reduce impacts on Cuvier’s beaked whales since almost all suitable 

deep water habitats greater than 800 m in Southern California could conceivably contain detections of 

Cuvier’s beaked whales if monitored. The species is widely distributed within Southern California and 

across the Pacific. 

The Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range within the San Nicolas Basin has supported naval 

training for decades and is used routinely by naval forces to conduct valuable anti-submarine warfare 

training. The Navy depends on ready access to the Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range, 

making it unfeasible to limit access or activities within the Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare 

Range without impacting the effectiveness of the military readiness activities conducted in the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Relocating an instrumented range would be costly in addition 

to losing the unique bathymetric features the area offers along with its close proximity to San Clemente 

Island for collecting critical in-water track and communication data, and would result in degraded 

readiness and capability.

Beaked whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area may be exposed to sonar or 

other transducer’s used during training and testing activities throughout the year. However, the 

quantitative analysis estimates exposures resulting in behavioral reactions or TTS, and a single PTS 

exposure from sonar and other transducers under either Alternative for all beaked whale species in the 

overall Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Significant impacts on beaked whale natural 

behaviors or abandonment/avoidance of habitat due to training and testing with sonar and other 

transducers are unlikely to occur within beaked whale habitat.

Beaked whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area may be exposed to sound from 

explosives used during training and testing activities throughout the year. However, the quantitative 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-240

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

analysis estimates few exposures resulting in behavioral reactions or TTS, and a single PTS exposure 

from explosives under either Alternative for all beaked whale species in the overall Southern California 

portion of the HSTT Study Area. PTS could have minor long-term consequences for an individual; 

however, it is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks. 

While the Navy will continue to implement procedural mitigation measures throughout the Study Area, 

implementing new geographic based mitigation measures in addition to ongoing procedural mitigation 

measures within the vicinity of San Nicolas Basin would not be effective at reducing adverse impacts on 

beaked whales or other marine mammal populations. The Navy has been training and testing in and

around the San Nicolas Basin with the same basic systems for over 40 years and there is no evidence of 

any adverse impacts having occurred. There are no indications that Navy training and testing has had 

any adverse impacts on populations of Cuvier’s beaked whales in Southern California.

Navy ranges and infrastructure within the San Nicolas Basin are critical to the Navy’s training and testing 

mission and so it is unfeasible to limit or reduce access or preclude activities within the Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area. In summary, geographic mitigation would not effectively 

balance a reduction of biological impacts with an acceptable level of impact on military 

readiness activities.

K.7.2.2 Catalina Basin

The Catalina Basin separates San Clemente Island and Santa Catalina Island (Figure K.6-1). The rim of the 

basin is at approximately the 1,000 m isobath and the deepest parts near the center of the basin exceed 

1,300 m (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013). The basin forms part of the Outer 

Santa Barbara Channel and leads into the Gulf of Santa Catalina. A vessel traffic separation scheme for 

northbound and southbound commercial vessels moving through the San Pedro Channel passes over

the northeastern corner of the Santa Catalina Basin. The traffic separation scheme coordinates vessel 

traffic serving Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are two of the world’s largest and busiest ports. 

The comment states a concern that this population of Cuvier’s beaked whale is, “subject to regular 

acoustic disturbance due to the presence of the Shore Bombardment Area,” which is not correct. The 

Shore Bombardment Area is a naval gun impact area located on land, at the southern end of San 

Clemente Island. Based on a figure in the comment (labeled in part “SHOBA in red”), it is clear that the 

comment confuses the in-water administrative boundaries used for temporary exclusion of vessels for 

public safety, with the delineation of the area where Navy training and testing activity may occur. The 

in-water administrative boundary for the Shore Bombardment Area does not delineate the locations

where a ship firing at the land target is located and does not represent where gunfire rounds are 

targeted. Therefore, the Shore Bombardment Area would not result in underwater acoustic disturbance 

to Cuvier’s beaked whales located within the Catalina Basin.

As the comment correctly states, satellite telemetry data demonstrate a high degree of site fidelity to 

the Navy’s training and testing range, but this generalization was not specific to the Catalina Basin and 

does not note the small sample of only two animals that were tagged in the Catalina Basin (Falcone & 

Schorr, 2014). The researchers who did the tagging noted that movements of beaked whales into the 

Catalina Basin from elsewhere were “strikingly uncommon” (Falcone & Schorr, 2014). The frequent and 

nearly continuous transiting of larger commercial vessels through the shipping channel may explain why 

beaked whales do not routinely move between the Navy training and testing range and the Catalina 

Basin. It should also be noted that there was no indication in (Falcone & Schorr, 2014) that it is, “...likely 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-241

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

that a small and resident population of Cuvier's beaked whales also resides in the Santa Catalina Basin” 

as the comment incorrectly indicates.

As noted in Section K.7.2 (Southern California Scoping Comment Areas),a high degree of site fidelity to 

the Navy’s training and testing range and long-term residency of many individuals, indicate that beaked 

whales have continued to inhabit areas where Navy activities using sonar have occurred for decades. 

K.7.2.2.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Cuvier's beaked whale habitat within the Catalina Basin is located between Santa Catalina Island and 

San Clemente Island and overlaps with Settlement Area 4-B.

The Catalina Basin remains a unique, critical training area used for strait transit training during 

integrated events incorporating surface, air, subsurface, and Unmanned Aircraft Systems. 

Sonobuoy quality assurance testing only occurs in a portion of this area because the in-water 

instrumentation extends to collecting and processing equipment located on San Clemente Island. 

The basin is important because of the extensive, long-term support infrastructure established on San 

Clemente Island. 

The area overlaps three (of eight) sections of the federal Safety Zone (33 Code of Federal Regulations

165.1141). Safety zone rulemaking designations not easily altered.

The area is important for unit level training because of its proximity to San Diego Bay and Southern 

California Anti-submarine Warfare Range. 

Situated between San Clemente Island and Santa Catalina Island, the Catalina Basin underlies a 

restricted path for surface vessel maneuver, while at the same time providing excellent bathymetric 

configurations for submarines to mask their presence during strait transit training. In addition, proximity 

to the ultra-high-frequency relay stations on San Clemente Island is mandatory for operating unmanned 

aircraft systems in conjunction with strait transit training.

K.7.2.2.2 Catalina Basin Cuvier's Beaked Whales Mitigation Considerations

Complete avoidance of the Catalina Basin would be unfeasible because it could result in excessive transit 

time and fuel costs to relocate the events and could severely degrade critical pre-deployment training in 

preparation for real world threats to naval personnel and assets. To move the activities to other 

locations could result in a greater concentration of activity in areas that already have heavy training 

schedules.

Avoiding the area by relocating activities is not likely to significantly reduce impacts on Cuvier’s beaked 

whales since almost all suitable deep water habitats greater than 800 m in Southern California could 

conceivably contain Cuvier’s beaked whales and there is no evidence that the Catalina Basin is home to 

any higher concentration of Cuvier’s beaked whales than any other suitable habitat. 

Beaked whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area may be exposed to sonar or 

other transducer’s used during training and testing activities throughout the year. However, the 

quantitative analysis estimates exposures resulting in behavioral reactions or TTS, and a single PTS 

exposure from sonar and other transducers for all beaked whale species in the overall Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Significant impacts on beaked whale natural behaviors or 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-242

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

abandonment/avoidance of habitat due to training and testing with sonar and other transducers are 

unlikely to occur within beaked whale habitat. Any TTS in the biologically important areas would be 

minor to moderate, from which the individual whale would fully recover quickly.

Beaked whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area may be exposed to sound and 

energy from explosives used during training and testing activities throughout the year. However, the 

quantitative analysis estimates only a few exposures resulting in behavioral reactions or TTS, and a 

single PTS exposure from explosives under either Alternative for all beaked whale species in the overall 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. PTS could have minor long-term consequences for 

an individual; however, it is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks. 

Despite the acknowledged difficulty in sighting beaked whales, Navy vessels are uniquely suited to 

detect marine mammals (forward bridge, dedicated lookouts) and are more likely to avoid strikes (highly 

maneuverable) and Navy sailors receive training specifically intended to sharpen their ability to sight 

marine mammals. Further, all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe speeds so they 

can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and that 

the vessel can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions 

(see Section 2.3.3, Standard Operating Procedures in Chapter 2, Description of Proposed Action 

and Alternatives).

While the Navy will continue to implement procedural mitigation measures throughout the Study Area, 

implementing new geographic based mitigation measures in addition to ongoing procedural mitigation 

measures within the vicinity of Catalina Basin would not be effective at reducing adverse impacts on 

beaked whales or other marine mammal populations. The Navy has been training and testing in and

around the Catalina Basin with the same basic systems for over 40 years and there is no evidence of any 

adverse impacts having occurred. There are no indications that Navy training and testing has had any of 

adverse impacts on populations of Cuvier’s beaked whales in Southern California. The main source of

anthropogenic noise in the Catalina Basin is associated with commercial vessel traffic concentrated in 

the San Pedro Channel that runs next to Catalina Island and leads to and from the ports of Los 

Angeles/Long Beach.

The Catalina Basin are critical to the Navy’s training and testing mission and so it is unfeasible to limit or 

reduce access or preclude activities within that water space in the Southern California portion of the 

HSTT Study Area. In summary, geographic mitigation would not effectively balance a reduction of 

biological impacts with an acceptable level of impact on military readiness activities.

K.7.2.3 Southernmost Edge of California Current, West of Tanner-Cortes Bank

This area, also referred to in the same scoping comments as “southern offshore waters, west of 

Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range and Tanner and Cortes Banks,” cannot be precisely 

delineated given the broad nature of the generalized area described in the comment. This general area 

being referred to is also assumed to contain the monitoring sites noted in the cited reference (BaumannPickering et al., 2015b) and described by the authors in the cited reference as well as related in related 

papers as, “... 17 sites across the region, from Point Conception to an area south of San Diego, in a 

variety of bathymetries and distances from shore” (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2014; Baumann-Pickering 

et al., 2015a; Baumann-Pickering et al., 2015b). Tanner Bank and Cortes Bank are located west of the 

San Nicolas Basin and south of San Nicolas Island (Figure K.6-1). Both banks rise to within 20 m of the 

surface depending on oceanographic conditions (e.g., tides, wave heights) and are a component of the 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-243

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

biologically important areas designated for blue whale feeding (see Section K.4.1.5 [Tanner-Cortes Bank 

Blue Whale Feeding Area]) and overlap with Settlement Area 4-C (see Section K.5.3.4.9 [Settlement Area 

4-C]). Between 60 and 90 km west of the two banks, the seafloor drops precipitously to nearly 4,000 

m(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013). 

The California Current is a large-scale oceanic current forming the eastern boundary of the North Pacific 

Gyre. The current can broadly be defined as extending along the U.S. west coast from the Washington 

State–Canada border in the north to the California–Mexico border in the south and from nearshore out 

to 300 NM. At its southern extent the California Current divides and feeds into the North Equatorial 

Current which flows west along the equator (Pickard & Emery, 1990). The position of the California 

Current, including the location of its southern boundary, changes seasonally as well as inter-annually 

with large scale phenomena like the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The 

fluctuating nature of a current, which is often defined in terms of changes or gradients in ocean 

properties such as sea surface temperate and salinity, would make it very difficult to delineate a specific 

geographic area based on the position of the California Current.

The scoping comment interprets the research findings of (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2015b), including 

the presence of acoustic detections, rates of acoustic detections, estimated “small” abundance, and 

daily averages, as support for designating the area as biologically important. The authors of the research

cited in the scoping comment specifically warned in a related publication that, “...caution should be used 

to not over-interpret the results” and that, “Relative site presence also should not be directly related to 

abundance” (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2014).

As described above in Section K.7.2 (Southern California Scoping Comment Areas),the Navy’s monitoring 

program, which has been specifically focused on determining what impacts if any may be occurring to 

beaked whales, has supported a substantive research effort for many years in the Navy’s Southern 

California Range Complex and coordinated with similar efforts in adjoining waters. The scoping 

comment refers to the total number of passive recording hours from multiple sites in the range complex 

and incorrectly characterizes the data as “evidence based on 28 years of acoustic data,” when in fact the 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring record reported in the reference cited in the comment (Baumann-Pickering 

et al., 2014) represents data collected from 2006 through 2013. The comment concludes that the large 

scope of the data available for the areas studied and the number of beaked whales encountered us 

sufficient to determine “the importance of this area.” However, no similar research with a comparable 

level of effort has been conducted for the remainder of the U.S. west coast, and very little has been 

conducted elsewhere in the world. As described in Section K.7.2 (Southern California Scoping Comment 

Areas), and based on NMFS survey data, Cuvier’s beaked whales have been found in almost all areas of 

the Pacific, including open-ocean areas, and the species is the most commonly encountered beaked 

whale off the west coast of the United States (Carretta et al., 2017; Hamilton et al., 2009). 

K.7.2.3.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The seasonal Cuvier's beaked whale habitat within the southernmost edge of the California 

Current/Bight, west of Tanner-Cortes Bank, is located within the heavily used western portion of the 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area and west of the instrumented Southern California 

Anti-submarine Warfare Range, all of which are high value training venues for anti-submarine warfare

training (See K.4.1.5.1 (Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing) for a complete 

discussion on the use of Tanner-Cortes Bank for training and testing requirements).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-244

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Naval units routinely use this area (similar to areas within the Santa Catalina Basin to the east and 

Tanner Canyon to the south) to set up complex anti-submarine warfare events prior to commencing into 

the Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range. Units also perform sonar maintenance and 

system checks prior to the event. Explosives are not routinely used in this area.

K.7.2.3.2 Southernmost edge of California Current/Bight, west of Tanner-Cortes Bank Cuvier's 

beaked whales Mitigation Considerations

The area identified as the southernmost edge of the California Current, west of Tanner-Cortes Bank, is 

adjacent to the Navy’s most important anti-submarine and mine warfare training venue for unit level 

through integrated training where year-round access cannot be compromised. Segmenting large areas, 

such as the southernmost edge of California Current/Bight, west of Tanner-Cortes Bank within the 

heavily utilized western portion of the Southern California Range Complex, would result in degrading 

high-value anti-submarine warfare training. This would also result in unnecessary crowding of inherently 

hazardous naval activities into ever decreasing available sea space, potentially increasing safety risks. 

Loss of these areas will result in lost training opportunities, reduced or loss of access to important range 

features such as complex bathymetry and range infrastructure, and ultimately degraded readiness and 

capability. It is unfeasible to limit access or activities within the southernmost edge of California Current, 

west of Tanner and Cortes Banks as Navy readiness would be impacted.

Furthermore, avoiding the area by relocating activities is not likely to significantly reduce impacts on 

Cuvier’s beaked whales since almost all suitable deep water habitats greater than 800 m in Southern 

California could conceivably contain detections of Cuvier’s beaked whales if monitored. The species is 

widely distributed within Southern California and across the Pacific.

Beaked whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area may be exposed to sonar or 

other transducer’s used during training and testing activities throughout the year. However, the 

quantitative analysis estimates exposures resulting in behavioral reactions or TTS, and a single PTS 

exposure from sonar and other transducers under either Alternative for all beaked whale species in the 

overall Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Significant impacts on beaked whale natural 

behaviors or abandonment/avoidance of habitat due to training and testing with sonar and other 

transducers are unlikely to occur within beaked whale habitat.

Beaked whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area may be exposed to sound from 

explosives used during training and testing activities throughout the year. However, the quantitative 

analysis estimates few exposures resulting in behavioral reactions or TTS, and a single PTS exposure 

from explosives under either Alternative for all beaked whale species in the overall Southern California 

portion of the HSTT Study Area. PTS could have minor long-term consequences for an individual; 

however, it is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks. 

Despite the acknowledged difficulty in sighting beaked whales, Navy vessels are uniquely suited to 

detect marine mammals (forward bridge, dedicated lookouts) and are more likely to avoid strikes (highly 

maneuverable) and Navy sailors receive training specifically intended to sharpen their ability to sight 

marine mammals. Further, all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe speeds so they 

can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and that 

the vessel can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions 

(see Section 2.3.3, Standard Operating Procedures, in Chapter 2, Description of Proposed Action 

and Alternatives).
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-245

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

While the Navy will continue to implement procedural mitigation measures throughout the Study Area, 

implementing new geographic based mitigation measures in addition to ongoing procedural mitigation 

measures within the southernmost edge of the California Current, west of Tanner-Cortes Bank would 

not be effective at reducing adverse impacts on beaked whales or other marine mammal populations. 

The Navy has been training and testing in and around the Catalina Basin with the same basic systems for 

over 40 years and there is no evidence of any adverse impacts having occurred. There are no indications 

that Navy training and testing has had any of adverse impacts on populations of Cuvier’s beaked whales 

in Southern California.

The area identified as the southernmost edge of the California Current west of Tanner-Cortes Bank is 

adjacent to the Navy’s most important anti-submarine and mine warfare training venue for unit level 

through integrated training where year-round access cannot be compromised. Geographic mitigation 

precluding, reducing or otherwise changing Navy’s ongoing training and testing in this vital location 

would not reduce adverse impacts on any marine mammal population. In summary, geographic 

mitigation would not effectively balance a reduction of biological impacts with an acceptable level of 

impact on military readiness activities.

K.7.2.4 Tanner Canyon

K.7.2.4.1 Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing

The Cuvier's beaked whale habitat within the Tanner Canyon is located within the heavily used western 

portion of the HSTT Study Area, south of the instrumented Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare 

Range and Tanner-Cortes Bank and west of Fleet Training Area HOT, all of which are high value 

training venues.

Units routinely use this area (similar to areas within the Santa Catalina Basin to the east and the Santa 

Cruz Basin to the north) to set up complex anti-submarine warfare events prior to commencing into the 

Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range. Additionally:

• A shallow water minefield training range containing multiple surveyed bottomed and tethered 

mine shapes in shallow water is located adjacent to Tanner Canyon. Existing instrumentation 

includes submerged submarine positioning with Submerged Acoustic Navigation System buoys. 

Given the bathymetry of real world threats and the proximity to the Southern California 

Submarine Warfare Range deep water instrumented range (valued at $250M). 

• An instrumented Shallow Water Training Range extension to the nearby Southern California 

Anti-submarine Warfare Range is planned for this area and has been approved by Deputy 

Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy and is supported by the 2009 Southern California Range 

Complex EIS/OEIS and Record of Decision. This Shallow Water Training Range extension 

supports U.S. Commander, Third Fleet long-standing requirement for a seamless deep-toshallow water tracking and communication range. Installation is planned within the 

next decade.

• Aircraft, submarine and surface vessel assets train to protect a high value unit (carrier). 

• Tanner Banks Mine Warfare Range is adjacent to this area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-246

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

• Anti-submarine warfare training and testing using active acoustic and explosive sonobuoys 

occurs in this area.

The bathymetry and bottom type provides a unique propagation environment in this area-shallow water 

surrounded by deep water basin- is similar to East China Sea, and provides as an analog to areas Navy 

assets would operate in when deployed. 

K.7.2.4.2 Tanner Canyon Cuvier's beaked Whales Mitigation Considerations

Tanner Canyon is adjacent to the Navy’s most important anti-submarine and mine warfare training 

venue for unit level through integrated training where year-round access cannot be compromised. This 

area replicates areas encountered by surface ships in the Western Pacific today and includes areas they 

will be called on to operate in support of Pacific Command and Central Command in the future. There is 

no other area in the Southern California Range Complex with the bathymetry and sound propagation 

analog to seas where Navy conducts real operations that this training could relocate to.

Complete or even partial avoidance of Tanner Canyon would curtail Navy use of this critical and unique 

bathymetric feature, reducing the realism and effectiveness of training and testing activities. 

Furthermore, avoiding the area by relocating activities is not likely to significantly reduce impacts on 

Cuvier’s beaked whales since almost all suitable deep water habitats greater than 800 m in Southern 

California could conceivably contain detections of Cuvier’s beaked whales if monitored. The species is 

widely distributed within Southern California and across the Pacific.

Beaked whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area may be exposed to sonar or 

other transducer’s used during training and testing activities throughout the year. However, the 

quantitative analysis estimates exposures resulting in behavioral reactions or TTS, and a single PTS 

exposure from sonar and other transducers under either Alternative for all beaked whale species in the 

overall Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Significant impacts on beaked whale natural 

behaviors or abandonment/avoidance of habitat due to training and testing with sonar and other 

transducers are unlikely to occur within beaked whale habitat.

Beaked whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area may be exposed to sound from 

explosives used during training and testing activities throughout the year. However, the quantitative 

analysis estimates few exposures resulting in behavioral reactions or TTS, and a single PTS exposure 

from explosives under either Alternative for all beaked whale species in the overall Southern California 

portion of the HSTT Study Area. PTS could have minor long-term consequences for an individual; 

however, it is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks. 

Despite the acknowledged difficulty in sighting beaked whales, Navy vessels are uniquely suited to 

detect marine mammals (forward bridge, dedicated lookouts) and are more likely to avoid strikes (highly 

maneuverable) and Navy sailors receive training specifically intended to sharpen their ability to sight 

marine mammals. Further, all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe speeds so they 

can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and that 

the vessel can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions 

(see Section 2.3.3, Standard Operating Procedures, in Chapter 2, Description of Proposed Action 

and Alternatives). 

While the Navy will continue to implement procedural mitigation measures throughout the Study Area, 

implementing new geographic based mitigation measures in addition to ongoing procedural mitigation 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-247

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

measures within Tanner Canyon would not be effective at reducing adverse impacts on beaked whales 

or other marine mammal populations. The Navy has been training and testing in and around the Tanner 

Canyon with the same basic systems for over 40 years and there is no evidence of any adverse impacts 

having occurred. There are no indications that Navy training and testing has had any of adverse impacts 

on populations of Cuvier’s beaked whales in Southern California.

The area identified as Tanner Canyon is adjacent to the Navy’s most important anti-submarine and mine 

warfare training venue for unit level through integrated training where year-round access cannot be 

compromised. In summary, geographic mitigation would not effectively balance a reduction of biological 

impacts with an acceptable level of impact on military readiness activities

K.7.2.5 Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Habitat Areas Mitigation Assessment

Training and testing activities rely heavily on areas within the Southern California Range Complex 

because of their proximity to Naval Base San Diego, Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base Point 

Loma, San Clemente Island, and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton as well as proximity to established 

ranges such as the Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range, Tactical Maneuvering Areas, and 

minefields.

Avoiding the Cuvier’s beaked whale habitat areas by relocating activities is not likely to significantly 

reduce impacts on Cuvier’s beaked whale given almost all suitable deep water habitats greater than 

800 m in Southern California could conceivably contain detections of Cuvier’s beaked whales if 

monitored. The species is widely distributed within Southern California and across the Pacific. Further, 

passive acoustic monitoring indicates that Cuvier’s beaked whale are persisting in areas where the Navy 

has been conducting activities for long periods of time and provides evidence that the Navy’s activities

on the Southern California Anti-Submarine Warfare Range have not caused Cuvier’s beaked whale to 

abandon or avoid that habitat (Falcone and Schorr, 2014).

Only limited population information exists for beaked whales including numbers of animals, populations 

vs. subpopulations determination, and residency time for individual animals. The science of passive 

acoustic monitoring is perfectly positioned to answer some questions on occurrence and seasonality, 

but cannot as yet address all fundamental population parameters. Furthermore, while passive acoustic 

monitoring within Southern California has been ongoing for 28 years, with many sites funded by the 

Navy, not all sites have been consecutively monitored for each year. For instance, Site E was not 

monitored over 28 years. Site E was only monitored from September 2006 through July 2009 (slightly 

less than three years). During this period, only 14 percent of the monitoring days recorded had Cuvier’s 

beaked whale detections (Baumann- Pickering et al. 2014). Site E was also a test site for 63 days from 

December 2010 through February 2011. For the latest period deployed, Site E was therefore only 

monitored for approximately 18 percent of a single year between 2010 and 2011. During this test of a 

passive acoustic array capable of tracking, Gassman et al. (2015) reported detection of only three 

Cuvier’s beaked whales over six separate encounter and time intervals of 10–33 minutes. In conclusion, 

this limited duration (< 3 years prior to 2010 and 63 days prior to 2011) may or may not be reflective of 

current beaked whale distributions within Southern California as of 2016 and into the future. 

Furthermore, using passive acoustic only for the detection of beaked whales without additional 

population parameters can only determine relative occurrence which could be highly variable over 

sub regions. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-248

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

The Navy continues to fund additional passive acoustic field monitoring for beaked whales in Southern 

California, as well as research advancements for density derivation from passive acoustic data. Falcone 

et al. (2017) combined tagged data recorded from 16 tagged Cuvier’s beaked whales during two 

different types of sonar. The tagged whales, in heavily used areas where the Navy is training and testing 

under current harassment authorizations, were opportunistically exposed to sonar throughout the tag 

deployments, lasting up to several months. The data included numerous exposures to ship and 

helicopter sonar at estimated source-to-whale distances as short as 1.8 km (horizontal distance). Whales 

responded primarily by extending the durations of their dives, surfacings, and foraging intervals, effects 

which increased with proximity. While deep dives, shallow dives, and intervals tended to be longer in 

association with mid-frequency active sonar, Falcone et al. (2017) reported no evidence of stranding or 

acute mortality. The tagged Cuvier’s beaked whales did exhibit stronger behavior changes to helicopter 

sonar than to ship sonar at similar distances (and presumably much lower received levels), suggesting 

that source distance and usage context are likely as, if not more, important than received level alone for 

predicting effects. Cumulatively, considering all lines of evidence (population study, passive acoustic 

data) including parallel passive acoustic work that has not detected any change in beaked whale 

vocalizations rates across the past 5-years for the same group, while reacting to sonar, there are no 

indications of an overall significant individual risk or significant population risk. This study has been 

going on for almost 10 years now, and continues to be ongoing.

Beaked whales, including Cuvier’s beaked whales, are challenging to observe at sea due to their cryptic, 

skittish behavior, low profile, and small, inconspicuous blow at the water’s surface, making them barely 

visible to observers. While Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that are 

important to prevent whale collisions, observing beaked whales at the surface by personnel assigned to 

stand watch at all times, day and night, when a ship or surfaced submarine is moving through the water 

(underway), may be difficult - making beaked whales more vulnerable to vessel strikes than other 

large whales. 

Despite the acknowledged difficulty in sighting beaked whales, Navy vessels are uniquely suited to 

detect marine mammals (forward bridge, dedicated lookouts) and are more likely to avoid strikes (highly 

maneuverable) and Navy sailors receive training specifically intended to sharpen their ability to sight 

marine mammals. Further, all Navy vessels use extreme caution and proceed at a safe speed so they can 

take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance as standard 

operating procedures in addition to mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) to limit the 

interaction between Navy vessels and marine mammals, further reducing the potential for disturbance 

and direct strike to marine mammals. Existing protection measures have been very effective in 

mitigating the potential for ship strikes both within the HSTT Study Area as well as worldwide.

Accordingly, ship strikes by naval vessels are exceedingly rare events. Seasonal restrictions/limitations 

on vessel speed would unnecessarily complicate the Navy's ability to conduct routine activities and 

would prevent vessel commanders from operating as necessary to ensure safety of navigation.

Overall, geographic mitigation for beaked whales in Southern California would not be effective in 

reducing adverse impacts to beaked whale populations (given multiple indications that none are 

occurring) and would not be practicable to implement because of the significant impacts to safety and 

the effectiveness of Navy training and testing activities. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-249

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

K.7.2.6 Northern Catalina Basin and the San Clemente Basin

This area, also characterized in scoping comments as “southern-central waters of the Bight,” was 

suggested as biologically important habitat for Perrin's beaked whale. Catalina Basin is described in 

Section K.7.2.2 (Catalina Basin). The northern portion of the basin is located west of Santa Catalina 

Island and the San Pedro Channel, which serves the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles (Figure K.6-1). 

The San Clemente Basin extends south from San Clemente Island for approximately 60 km beyond the 

United States – Mexico border. The basin is deeper than 1,800 m in many places and is interrupted by 

several banks that rise to between 1,000 and 500 m from the surface (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2013).

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, 1989). While this 

stranding pattern suggests an eastern North Pacific Ocean distribution, the actual extent of the Perrin’s 

beaked whale distribution is unknown (Dalebout et al., 2002). It is likely the species occurs primarily in 

the eastern North Pacific where depths exceed 1,000 m (MacLeod & Mitchell, 2006). Mesoplodon

beaked whales (to which the Perrin's beaked whale species belongs) 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 that may 

possibly be produced by Perrin’s beaked whale since it is otherwise unidentified (Baumann-Pickering et 

al., 2015b; Debich et al., 2015b{Baumann-Pickering, 2014 #7339)}. 

The references provided in the scoping comment (Baumann-Pickering et al., 2014; Baumann-Pickering et 

al., 2015b) do not mention the subject of “biologically important habitat” and referencing that research 

does not indicate that the findings provide support for the area as being “biologically important.” Part of 

the rationale expressed in the comment for the area needing protection was that Perrin’s beaked whale, 

“...has been found nowhere outside Southern California and may be unique to the region.” This scoping 

comment assertion fails to consider that there has been little if any research in the eastern North Pacific 

south of the Mexico border and outside of the areas where Navy funded research in the Southern 

California Range Complex has provided most of the acoustic monitoring data from the Southern 

California Bight. The species is only known from strandings decades ago so there can be no certainty 

that the Southern California Bight or that the northern Catalina Basin and the San Clemente Basin

represents remarkable or otherwise important habitat for the species. Furthermore, the scoping 

comment does not provide any identified impacts on the Perrin’s beaked whales that the proposed 

“time-area management” and “restrictions” would be aimed to address.

K.7.2.6.1 Navy Requirements for Area-Specific Training and Testing

The Northern Catalina Basin and waters southeast of Santa Catalina Island are located within the heavily 

used eastern portion of the Southern California Range Complex. Anti-submarine warfare such as strait 

transits (transit within constricted space between two land masses, San Clemente and Santa Catalina 

Islands) occur here. As this area is in close proximity to San Diego and the instrumented Southern 

California Anti-submarine Warfare Range, it is an important venue for unit level training as well as more 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-250

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

complex anti-submarine warfare events which migrate into the Southern California Anti-submarine 

Warfare Range or support amphibious landings at the Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area. Range 

infrastructure on San Clemente Island, such as divert airfields, supports safe and effective training within 

this area. Explosives are not typically used within these areas.

The Santa Catalina Basin remains a unique, critical training area used for strait transit training during 

integrated events incorporating surface, air, subsurface, and Unmanned Aircraft Systems. 

The basin is important because of the extensive, long-term support infrastructure established on San 

Clemente Island. 

The area overlaps three (of eight) sections of the federal Safety Zone (33 Code of Federal Regulations

165.1141). Safety zone rulemaking designations not easily altered.

The area is important for unit level training because of its proximity to San Diego Bay and Southern 

California Anti-submarine Warfare Range. 

Situated between San Clemente Island and Santa Catalina Island, the Santa Catalina Basin underlies a 

restricted path for surface vessel maneuver, while at the same time providing excellent bathymetric 

configurations for submarines to mask their presence during strait transit training. In addition, proximity 

to the UHF relay stations on San Clemente Island is mandatory for operating Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

in conjunction with strait transit training.

K.7.2.6.2 Northern Catalina Basin and Waters Southeast of Catalina Island Perrin's Beaked Whale 

Habitat Mitigation Considerations

Complete avoidance of any portion of the Santa Catalina Basin and the waters southeast Catalina Island 

would be unfeasible and could result in the expenditure of potentially up to an additional 40 NM transit 

time and fuel costs to relocate the events and could severely degrade critical pre-deployment training in 

preparation for real world threats to naval personnel and assets. To move the activities to other 

locations could result in a greater concentration of activity in areas that already have heavy 

training schedules. 

Beaked whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area may be exposed to sonar or 

other transducer’s used during training and testing activities throughout the year. However, the 

quantitative analysis estimates exposures resulting in behavioral reactions or TTS, and a single PTS 

exposure from sonar and other transducers under either Alternative for all beaked whale species in the 

overall Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Significant impacts on beaked whale natural 

behaviors or abandonment/avoidance of habitat due to training and testing with sonar and other 

transducers are unlikely to occur within beaked whale habitat.

Beaked whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area may be exposed to sound from 

explosives used during training and testing activities throughout the year. However, the quantitative 

analysis estimates few exposures resulting in behavioral reactions or TTS, and a single PTS exposure 

from explosives under either Alternative for all beaked whale species in the overall Southern California 

portion of the HSTT Study Area. PTS could have minor long-term consequences for an individual; 

however, it is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks. 

Beaked whales, including Perrin’s beaked whales, are challenging to observe at sea due to their cryptic, 

skittish behavior, low profile, and small, inconspicuous blow at the water’s surface, making them barely 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-251

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

visible to observers. While Navy vessels operate differently from commercial vessels in ways that are 

important to prevent whale collisions, observing beaked whales at the surface by personnel assigned to 

stand watch at all times, day and night, when a ship or surfaced submarine is moving through the water 

(underway), may be difficult—making beaked whales more vulnerable to vessel strikes than other 

large whales. 

Despite the acknowledged difficulty in sighting beaked whales, Navy vessels are uniquely suited to 

detect marine mammals (forward bridge, dedicated lookouts) and are more likely to avoid strikes (highly 

maneuverable) and Navy sailors receive training specifically intended to sharpen their ability to sight 

marine mammals. Further, all Navy vessels use extreme caution and proceed at a safe speed so they can 

take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance as standard 

operating procedures in addition to mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) to limit the 

interaction between Navy vessels and marine mammals, further reducing the potential for disturbance 

and direct strike to marine mammals. Existing protection measures have been very effective in 

mitigating the potential for ship strikes both within the HSTT Study Area as well as worldwide. Unlike 

commercial vessels, ship strikes by naval vessels are exceedingly rare events. Seasonal 

restrictions/limitations on vessel speed would unnecessarily complicate the Navy's ability to conduct 

routine activities and would prevent vessel commanders from operating as necessary to ensure safety 

of navigation.

While the Navy will continue to implement procedural mitigation measures throughout the Study Area, 

implementing new geographic based mitigation measures within northern Catalina Basin and waters 

southeast of Catalina Island would not be effective at reducing adverse impacts on beaked whales or 

other marine mammal populations. The Navy has been training and testing in and around northern 

Catalina Basin and waters southeast of Catalina Island with the same basic systems for over 40 years and 

there is no evidence of any adverse impacts having occurred. There are no indications that Navy training 

and testing has had any of adverse impacts on populations of beaked whales in Southern California. The 

main source of anthropogenic noise in the northern Catalina Basin and waters southeast of Catalina 

Island is associated with commercial vessel traffic concentrated into the northbound and southbound 

lanes of the San Pedro Channel that runs next to Catalina Island and leads to and from the ports of Los 

Angeles/Long Beach.

The waters in and around northern Catalina Basin and waters southeast of Catalina Island are critical to 

the Navy’s training and testing mission and so it is unfeasible to limit or reduce access or preclude 

activities within that water space in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. In summary, 

geographic mitigation would not effectively balance a reduction of biological impacts with an acceptable 

level of impact on military readiness activities.

K.7.2.6.3 San Clemente Basin

Navy Requirements for Area Specific Training and Testing

The San Clemente Basin includes the largest concentration of air-to-surface live-fire/ordnance training in 

the Southern California Range Complex which is scheduled in the Fleet Training Area HOT. The basin 

encompasses a significant portion of Fleet Training Area Hot and the Quick Draw Areas (QDA 1-4). Airto-Surface Gunnery Exercises are conducted by Naval Air Station North Island rotary-wing aircraft 

against stationary targets because of the close proximity to the San Diego Fleet Concentration area. The 

San Clemente Basin is located within the W-291 area which provides aircraft separation, and the ability 

to de-conflict surface vessel with non-participating entities (military or civilian). Additionally, its close 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-252

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

location allows for rapid deployment of Naval Air Station North Island based search-and-rescue assets in 

the case of a downed helicopter.

San Clemente Basin Mitigation Considerations

Segmenting large areas, such as the San Clemente Basin, within the heavily utilized portion of the 

Southern California Range Complex for air-to-surface live-fire/ordnance training would result in 

degrading high value training. This would also result in unnecessary crowding of inherently hazardous 

naval activities into ever decreasing available sea space, potentially increasing safety risks.

Complete or even partial avoidance of the San Clemente Basin would curtail Navy use of this critical 

training area. Furthermore, avoiding the area by relocating activities is not likely to significantly reduce

impacts on beaked whales since almost all suitable deep water habitats greater than 800 m in Southern 

California could conceivably contain detections of beaked whales if monitored.

Beaked whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area may be exposed to sonar or 

other transducer’s used during training and testing activities throughout the year. However, the 

quantitative analysis estimates exposures resulting in behavioral reactions or TTS, and a single PTS 

exposure from sonar and other transducers under either Alternative for all beaked whale species in the 

overall Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Significant impacts on beaked whale natural 

behaviors or abandonment/avoidance of habitat due to training and testing with sonar and other 

transducers are unlikely to occur within beaked whale habitat.

Beaked whales in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area may be exposed to sound from 

explosives used during training and testing activities throughout the year. However, the quantitative 

analysis estimates few exposures resulting in behavioral reactions or TTS, and a single PTS exposure 

from explosives under either Alternative for all beaked whale species in the overall Southern California 

portion of the HSTT Study Area. PTS could have minor long-term consequences for an individual; 

however, it is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks. 

Despite the acknowledged difficulty in sighting beaked whales, Navy vessels are uniquely suited to 

detect marine mammals (forward bridge, dedicated lookouts) and are more likely to avoid strikes (highly 

maneuverable) and Navy sailors receive training specifically intended to sharpen their ability to sight 

marine mammals. Further, all surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe speeds so they 

can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and that 

the vessel can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions 

(see Section 2.3.3, Standard Operating Procedures, in Chapter 2, Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives).

While the Navy will continue to implement procedural mitigation measures throughout the Study Area, 

implementing new geographic based mitigation measures in addition to ongoing procedural mitigation 

measures within the San Clemente Basin would not be effective at reducing adverse impacts on beaked 

whales or other marine mammal populations. The Navy has been training and testing in and around the 

San Clemente Basin with the same basic systems for over 40 years and there is no evidence of any 

adverse impacts having occurred. There are no indications that Navy training and testing has had any of 

adverse impacts on populations of Cuvier’s beaked whales in the San Clemente Basin or any of 

Southern California.

The area identified as San Clemente Basin is adjacent to the Navy’s most important anti-submarine and 

mine warfare training venue for unit level through integrated training where year-round access cannot 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-253

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

be compromised. Geographic mitigation precluding, reducing or otherwise changing Navy’s ongoing 

training and testing in this vital location would not reduce adverse impacts on any marine mammal 

population. In summary, geographic mitigation would not effectively balance a reduction of biological 

impacts with an acceptable level of impact on military readiness activities.

K.7.2.7 Waters Just off the Mainland Shelf, Between the 200 m and 1,000 m Isobaths

Scoping comments recommended that for the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, “the 

waters between the 200 m and 1000 m isobaths2 be assessed for time-area management so that, at 

minimum, ship-strike risk-reduction measures for fin whales can be implemented during the months of 

November through February.” The area referred to is an expansive area including waters over much of 

the continental shelf and the seaward extension of the shelf referred to as the continental borderland 

where numerous islands and banks are interspersed resulting in a complex and irregular bathymetry 

(Figure K.6-1). Water depth ranges from 0 m along the shoreline of islands to well over 1,000 m in 

adjacent ocean basins (Kennett, 1982; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013). 

Delineating specific areas within the continental borderland that range from 200 m to 1,000 m in depth 

would create a disconnected array of areas isolated between islands, shallow banks, and deep

water basins.

The comment’s suggested use of depth as a metric to be considered for ship-strike risk-reduction 

measures is not supported by science. The basis for the suggested depth distribution was research 

where sampling of the outer waters of the Southern California Bight did not occur consistently in 

relationship to the nearshore waters (Falcone & Schorr, 2014). Tagging and survey data have, however, 

shown fin whales to be present at distances of up to 356 km from the mainland coast (Falcone & Schorr, 

2014) and over a much broader range of depths than 200 m to 1,000 m (Barlow, 2016; Falcone & Schorr, 

2014; Mate et al., 2015a; Mate et al., 2016a). This is consistent with a previous review of the scientific 

data regarding fin whale behavior and distribution, which did not establish any biologically important 

areas for fin whales in southern California or anywhere along the U.S. west coast, “... due to limited or 

conflicting information” (Calambokidis et al., 2015).

The comment contends that fin whales are “at particular risk of ship-strike on the naval range” given 

they feed at shallow depths and “they have been known to be struck by vessels in the recent past.” 

Rockwood et al. (2017) have suggested that death from vessel collisions may be a significant 

impediment to further population growth and recovery for blue whales, especially where the risk is 

highest on the U.S. west coast in the shipping lanes serving San Francisco and ports of Los Angeles/Long 

Beach. In general, there is nothing inherently different in the waters off the Southern California that 

would result in fin whales being “at particular risk” within the Southern California portion of the HSTT 

Study Area from Navy activities. There is, however, a traffic separation scheme that overlaps the 

northeastern corner of the Study Area and is used by commercial vessels to coordinate northbound and 

southbound travel through the San Pedro Channel and to the very busy ports of Long Beach and Los 

Angeles. The separation scheme concentrates commercial vessel traffic into designated lanes for safe 

transit. Fin whales that enter those lanes may be at higher risk of a vessel strike due to the

concentration of large commercial vessels into a relatively confined route. Navy vessels engaged in 

 2 Also referred to in the scoping comment as, “... waters just off the mainland shelf, between the 200 m and 

1000 m isobaths.”
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-254

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

training and testing activities do not use the traffic separation scheme and would not contribute to the 

concentration of large vessels in the area.

While fin whales do occur in the southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, their distribution is 

certainly not limited to Southern California. Between 2008 and 2015, 73 fin whales were satellite tagged 

to track movements over weeks to months (Falcone & Schorr, 2014; Mate et al., 2015a; Mate et al., 

2016a). The tagged fin whales ranged up the U.S. west coast as far north as the Olympic Peninsula, 

Washington and south as far as Baja California, Mexico. For the southern California portion of the HSTT 

Study Area, the tagging data indicated that the whales spent more time in the northern portion of the 

Southern California Bight, to the north of the Southern California Range Complex, than in areas to the 

south (Falcone & Schorr, 2014; Mate et al., 2015a; Mate et al., 2016a). This distribution pattern is 

consistent with survey-based estimates of fin whale densities off the Southern California coast, which

indicate that the highest seasonal density occurs during summer and fall in the area south of the 

Channel Islands (San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz islands) and west of San Nicolas Island, which is 

at the northern boundary of the southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area (Becker et al., 2016; 

Calambokidis et al., 2015).

The comment also specified a five month timeframe (November through February) over which 

geographic-based measures should be considered. This timeframe seems out of synch with the seasonal 

distribution of fin whales off southern California, as described in multiple studies (Debich et al., 2015a; 

Falcone & Schorr, 2014; Širović et al., 2015; Širović et al., 2016; Smultea & Jefferson, 2014). Research 

and monitoring off southern California indicates a year-round presence of fin whales in the region across 

seasons and years, with the highest densities occurring in summer and fall (Becker et al., 2016; 

Calambokidis et al., 2015). Between 1992 and 2012, 49 fin whales were re-sighted off southern 

California in up to five different years and across multiple seasons (Falcone et al., 2011; Falcone & 

Schorr, 2014). 

While fin whales may have been struck by commercial or other non-Navy vessels “in the recent past” 

(details regarding where, when, or by what kind of vessel resulted in the fin whale strike mentioned in 

the comment were not provided), there has not been a strike on a fin whale by a U.S. Navy vessel in the

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area since 2009. Even though there has been a

documented increase in the fin whale population inhabiting the area (Barlow, 2016; Moore & Barlow, 

2011; Smultea & Jefferson, 2014), there has been no increase in the number of whale strikes. 

Implementation of the Navy’s Marine Species Awareness Training beginning in 2006, along with other 

existing Navy mitigation measures intended to ensure that vessels avoid whales, may have contributed 

to the reduction of strikes on large whales by Navy vessels in the last decade and to fin whales in the

area since 2009.

K.7.2.7.1 Navy Requirements for Fin Whale Area-Specific Training and Testing

Portions of the area identified in the comment as fin whale habitat in the waters between the 200 m 

and 1,000 m isobaths, extend over heavily utilized areas within the Southern California portion of the 

HSTT Study Area and encompass many of the primary training sites within the Southern California Range 

Complex. Spatially, the training areas encompassed by the fin whale habitat areas with potential higher 

abundance provide critical capabilities necessary to train naval forces. They include the following: the 

instrumented Southern California Anti-submarine Warfare Range; established helicopter sonar dipping 

areas, proximate to Naval Air Station North Island, Tanner-Cortes Bank, a sonobuoy test area, a
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-255

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

minefield, the Camp Pendleton Amphibious Assault Area, Fleet Training Area HOT, and other complex 

bathymetric features necessary to challenge anti-submarine warfare skills.

The waters offshore of Southern California have supported naval training and testing for decades and 

are used almost daily by naval forces to conduct all phases of training, from basic unit level events to 

complex major training exercises. Navy readiness depends on access to the training areas in close 

proximity to Fleet concentration areas. Segmenting large areas within the heavily utilized Southern 

California portion of the HSTT Study Area for training and testing would result in degrading high value 

training and testing. This would also result in unnecessary crowding of inherently hazardous naval 

activities into ever decreasing available sea space, potentially increasing safety risks.

K.7.2.8 Fin Whale Area Mitigation Assessment

Based on years of NMFS and Navy monitoring in Southern California, there appears to be a constant 

presence of fin whales in the region across seasons and years. Of interest, in terms of the 200-1,000 m 

isobaths, more tagged reporting locations occurred off the Palos Verdes Peninsula and the Los

Angeles/Long Beach commercial shipping ports in fall, with both areas north of and outside of the 

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area. Compared to the fin whale habitat areas found 

north of the HSTT Study Area, there were not as many tag locations in the similar isobath region off San 

Diego associated with the Navy range area. 

The Navy will continue to implement procedural mitigation measures throughout the Study Area, 

although implementing new geographic based mitigation measures in addition to procedural mitigation 

measures within “waters just off the mainland shelf between the 200 m and 1,000 m isobaths” would 

not be practicable to implement without impeding military readiness. Mitigation area measures are not 

likely to be effective at reducing adverse impacts on the fin whale population given multiple lines of 

evidence that the population is thriving and no population level impacts are occurring (see also National 

Marine Fisheries Service (2015)). The Navy has been training and testing in the waters of Southern 

California with the same basic systems for over 40 years and there is no evidence of any adverse impacts 

having occurred. There has been a documented increase in the fin whale population inhabiting the area 

(Barlow, 2016; Moore & Barlow, 2011; Smultea & Jefferson, 2014). Moore and Barlow (2011) predicted 

continued increases in fin whale numbers over the next decade, and suggested that fin whale densities 

are reaching “current ecosystem limits.” Those findings and the continued trend in the population is 

consistent with the highest-yet abundances of fin whales in the most recent 2014 survey (Barlow, 2016).

The only Navy vessel strikes to any large whale species over the last ten years were two fin whales 

struck in 2009. Neither of these locations were close to shore occurring <50 NM from shore and within

the 200-1,000 m isobaths, or associated with coastal shipping lanes. There have been no Navy vessel

strikes to fin whales in Southern California since those occurring in 2009 and since the Navy began 

implementing the Marine Species Awareness Training. Existing protection measures have been very 

effective in mitigating the potential for ship strikes both within the Southern California portion of the 

HSTT Study Area as well as worldwide. All surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe 

speeds so they can take proper and effective action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or 

disturbance, and that the vessel can be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing 

circumstances and conditions. Unlike commercial vessels, Navy vessels are uniquely suited to detect 

marine mammals (forward bridge, dedicated lookouts) and are more likely to avoid strikes (highly 

maneuverable) and Navy sailors receive training specifically intended to sharpen their ability to sight 

marine mammals. Accordingly, ship strikes by naval vessels are exceedingly rare events. Seasonal 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-256

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

restrictions/limitations on vessel speed would unnecessarily complicate the Navy's ability to conduct 

routine activities and would prevent vessel commanders from operating as necessary to ensure safety 

of navigation.

All surface vessels use extreme caution and proceed at safe speeds so they can take proper and effective 

action to avoid a collision with any sighted object or disturbance, and that the vessel can be stopped 

within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions (see Section 2.3.3 Standard 

Operating Procedures in Chapter 2 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives). 

As discussed in Section K.2.3.4 (Awareness Notification Messages), the Navy will issue awareness 

notification messages from November to May to alert ships and aircraft to the possible presence of 

concentrations of fin whales out to 20 NM within the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area. In order to maintain safety of navigation and to avoid interactions with large whales during 

transits, vessels will be instructed to remain vigilant to the presence of this whale species, that when 

concentrated seasonally, may become vulnerable to vessel strikes. Lookouts will use the information 

from the awareness notification messages to assist their visual observations of mitigation zones and to 

aid in implementing procedural mitigation.

The Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area is vital to Navy training and testing. Geographic 

mitigation precluding, reducing or otherwise changing Navy’s ongoing training and testing in this broad 

portion off Southern California would have an unacceptable level of impact on military readiness 

activities when balanced against the effectiveness in reducing biological impacts to fin whales. However, 

fin whales occurring within the San Diego Arc Planning Awareness (Figure K.2.-3) and Cautionary Areas 

(Figure K.2-5) from June 1 to October 31, would be afforded some additional protections from the 

limited use of surface ship hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar or explosives during anti-submarine 

major training exercises, as discussed in Section K.2.2 (Mitigation Areas to be implemented).

K.7.2.9 Summary of Southern California Scoping Comment Areas Mitigation 

Assessment

There has been over a decade of research focused on investigating Navy impacts on beaked whales, 

particularly within the Navy’s Southern California Range Complex. As noted in the sections above, 

several years of research indicate that beaked whales seem to occur at higher densities and have a 

longer than expected residency on the Navy’s training and testing areas off Southern California. Given 

that Cuvier’s beaked whales routinely undertake extensive movements of several hundred kilometers, 

beaked whales reacting to and leaving the vicinity of a Navy training or testing activity would seem to be 

within the variation of their otherwise normal movements as documented by tagging data.

These results do not support the need for “habitat-based management” on the Navy’s ranges to address 

impacts on the Cuvier’s beaked whale population given that no population-level impacts from Navy 

training and testing activities are evident. Documented identification and multi-year residency by over 

100 individual Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Southern California Range Complex seems to counter the 

notion that the whales are affected by Navy activities and argues against the suggestion that 

implementing some type of habitat-based management would benefit the population of Cuvier’s beaked 

whales in southern California waters. The continued presence of the whales supports an assessment 

that the Navy’s ongoing mitigation measures are effective and that additional mitigation as suggested in 

the scoping comments is not merited.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-257

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

Navy vessels represent only a very small portion of the total amount of (primarily commercial) vessel

traffic in the vicinity of the Catalina Basin, Santa Cruz Basin, and the San Pedro Channel transiting over

these areas to access the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Therefore, any additional mitigation by 

the Navy (beyond their ongoing mitigation measures) would likely be insignificant compared to the 

commercial stressors. In addition, most likely these species have become habituated to high levels of 

ambient sound within the vicinity of areas of high vessel traffic. 

Perrin’s beaked whale is known only from a few strandings spanning decades, so there can be no 

certainty that the Southern California Bight or the northern Catalina Basin and the San Clemente Basin 

represent biologically important habitat for the species. Without more data on the habitat preferences 

and seasonal occurrence of Perrin’s beaked whales it is unreasonable to assume that some type of 

seasonal and geographic mitigation would be effective at protecting the species. There has not been a 

vessel strike on a fin whale by a U.S. Navy vessel in the Southern California portion of the HSTT Study 

Area since 2009. Even though there has been a documented increase in the fin whale population 

inhabiting the area (Barlow, 2016; Moore & Barlow, 2011; Smultea & Jefferson, 2014), there has been 

no increase in the number of whale strikes. Implementation of the Navy’s Marine Species Awareness 

Training, along with other existing Navy mitigation measures intended to ensure that vessels avoid 

whales, correlates well with the reduction of strikes on large whales by Navy vessels in the last decade 

and to fin whales in the area since 2009. It is not clear how additional geographic and seasonal 

mitigation broadly covering areas where depths range from 200 m to 1,000 m would be implemented, 

nor is it clear how it would increase the effectiveness of ongoing mitigation measures. 

Overall, the various suggested geographic mitigation areas in the waters of Southern California would 

not be effective in reducing impacts to marine species given that scientific data and research indicates 

there are no known adverse impacts on populations inhabiting those waters from Navy activities. The 

Navy balanced the need for these areas for training and testing with the importance of the areas for 

these species and determined that implementing migration areas across broad regions within the

Southern California portion of the HSTT Study Area, would not be practicable to implement because of 

the existing Navy infrastructure and training areas in the vicinity of the adjacent Naval Base and other 

Department of Defense facilities in the Southern California area.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-258

Appendix K Geographic Mitigation Assessment

This page intentionally left blank.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-259

References

REFERENCES

Aguilar, A. (2000). Population biology, conservation threats and status of Mediterranean striped 

dolphins (Stenella coeruleoalba). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 2(1), 17–26. 

Albertson, G. R., M. Oremus, R. W. Baird, K. K. Martien, M. M. Poole, R. L. Brownell, F. Cipriano, & S. 

Baker. (2011). Staying close to home: Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals insular population 

structure for the pelagic dolphin Steno bredanensis.

Ampela, K., J. R. Mobley, Jr., M. W. Richie, J. A. Rivers, & R. K. Uyeyama. (2015). Aerial and Ground-based 

Shoreline Surveys for Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in the Hawaii Range Complex: SCC 12-13 

August 2013 (Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific for Commander, U.S. 

Pacific Fleet under Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, CTO KB22, issued to HDR, Inc.). Honolulu, 

HI: HDR, Inc.

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. 

Aquatic Mammals. (2015c). Letter of Introduction to the Biologically Important Areas Issue. Aquatic 

Mammals, 41(1), 128. 

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. 

Baird, R. W., D. J. McSweeney, D. L. Webster, A. M. Gorgone, & A. D. Ligon. (2003). 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., D. L. Webster, D. J. McSweeney, A. D. Ligon, & G. S. Schorr. (2005). 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., G. S. Schorr, D. L. Webster, D. J. McSweeney, & S. D. Mahaffy. (2006). 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, S. D. Mahaffy, D. J. McSweeney, G. S. Schorr, & A. D. Ligon. (2008). 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., A. M. Gorgone, D. J. McSweeney, A. D. Ligon, M. H. Deakos, D. L. Webster, G. S. Schorr, K. K. 

Martien, D. R. Salden, & S. D. Mahaffy. (2009a). Population structure of island-associated 

dolphins: Evidence from photo-identification of common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) in the Main Hawaiian Islands. Marine Mammal Science, 25(2), 251–274. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-260

References

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. (2009b). 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., G. Schorr, D. L. Webster, D. J. McSweeney, B. Hanson, & R. D. Andrews. (2010a). 

Movements and habitat use of Cuvier's and Blainville's beaked whales in Hawaii: results from 

satellite tagging in 2009/2010. La Jolla, CA.

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. 

Baird, R. W. (2011). Short Note: Open-Ocean Movements of a Satellite-Tagged Blainville’s Beaked Whale 

(Mesoplodon densirostris): Evidence for an Offshore Population in Hawai‘i? Aquatic Mammals, 

37(4), 506–511. 

Baird, R. W., G. S. Schorr, D. L. Webster, S. D. Mahaffy, J. M. Aschettino, & T. Cullins. (2011a). 

Movements and spatial use of satellite-tagged odontocetes in the western main Hawaiian 

Islands: results of field work undertaken off Oahu in October 2010 and Kauai in February 2011

(Annual progress report under Grant No. N00244-10-1-0048). Olympia, WA: Cascadia Research 

Collective.

Baird, R. W., G. S. Schorr, D. L. Webster, S. D. Mahaffy, D. J. McSweeney, M. B. Hanson, & R. D. Andrews. 

(2011b). 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., G. S. Schorr, D. L. Webster, D. J. McSweeney, M. B. Hanson, & R. D. Andrews. (2011c). 

Movements of two satellite-tagged pygmy killer whales (Feresa attenuata) off the island of 

Hawaii. Marine Mammal Science, 27(4), E332–E337. 

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., 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. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-261

References

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. (2014). Movements and Habitat Use of Dwarf and Pygmy Sperm Whales using RemotelyDeployed LIMPET Satellite Tags. Olympia, WA: Cascadia Research Collective.

Baird, R. W., S. M. Jarvis, D. L. Webster, B. K. Rone, J. A. Shaffer, S. D. Mahaffy, A. M. Gorgone, & D. J. 

Moretti. (2014a). 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., M. S. W., D. L. Webster, & B. L. Southall. (2014b). Assessment of Modeled Received Sound 

Pressure Levels and Movements of Satellite-Tagged Odontocetes Exposed to Mid-Frequency 

Active Sonar at the Pacific Missile Range Facility: February 2011 through February 2013.

Baird, R. W., D. Cholewiak, D. L. Webster, G. S. Schorr, S. D. Mahaffy, C. Curtice, J. Harrison, & S. M. Van 

Parijs. (2015a). 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. (2015b). 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. (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.

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, Z. Swaim, H. J. Foley, D. B. Anderson, & A. J. Read. (2016a). Spatial use by 

odontocetes satellite tagged off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina in 2015. Final report. Virginia 

Beach, VA.

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. (2016b). Final Report: Odontocete Studies on the Pacific Missile Range 

Facility in February 2015: Satellite-Tagging, Photo-Identification, and Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring (Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific under HDR Environmental, Operations 

and Construction, Inc. Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, CTO KB28). Olympia, WA: HDR Inc.

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. (2016c). 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, 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-262

References

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. Honolulu, HI: Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, 

Hawaii under Contract N62470-10-D-3011 Task Order KB28 issued to HDR, Inc.

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., M. C. Ferguson, W. F. Perrin, L. Ballance, T. Gerrodette, G. Joyce, C. D. MacLeod, K. Mullin, D. 

L. Palka, & G. Waring. (2006). Abundance and densities of beaked and bottlenose whales (family 

Ziphiidae). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 7(3), 263–270. 

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. (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.

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., 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. A. Hildebrand, & T. Yack. (2015a). Modeling of Habitat and Foraging Behavior 

of Beaked Whales in the Southern California Bight.

Baumann-Pickering, S., J. S. Trickey, M. A. Roch, & S. M. Wiggins. (2015b). Relative densities and spatial 

distribution of beaked whales in southern California. Scripps Institution of Oceanography – U.C. 

San Diego and San Diego State University.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-263

References

Baumann-Pickering, S., A. Sirovic, J. A. Hildebrand, J. S. Trickey, A. Meyer-Löbbecke, S. M. Wiggins, M. A. 

Roch, & M. A. McDonald. (2016a). Progress Report on the Application of Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring Data for Assessing the Potential Impact of Mid-Frequency Active Sonar on Whales

(MPL Technical Memorandum #605). Honolulu, HI: Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

Baumann-Pickering, S., J. S. Trickey, S. M. Wiggins, & E. M. Oleson. (2016b). Odontocete occurrence in 

relation to changes in oceanography at a remote equatorial Pacific seamount. Marine Mammal 

Science. 

Becker, E. A., K. A. Forney, D. G. Foley, & J. Barlow. (2012). 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, 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. 

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. 

Bettridge, S., C. S. Baker, J. Barlow, P. J. Clapham, M. Ford, D. Gouveia, D. K. Mattila, R. M. Pace, 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,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

National Marine Fisheries Service,

Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Bonnell, M. L., & M. D. Dailey. (1993). Marine Mammals. In M. D. Dailey, D. J. Reish & J. W. Anderson 

(Eds.), Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation (pp. 604–682). 

Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

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., & 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., 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. 

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 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-264

References

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. M. Oleson, M. F. McKenna, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2009b, 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. (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. (2015). 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.

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. 

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., 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.

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. (2014). U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessment (NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SWFSC-532). La Jolla, CA: 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., 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. 

(2017). U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2016 (NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMFS-SWFSC-561). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

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. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-265

References

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. 

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. 

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. 

De Jesus, M., G. Heckel, J. M. Breiwick, & S. B. Reilly. (2014). Migration timing and distance from shore of 

southbound eastern Pacific gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) off Ensanada, Baja California, 

Mexico. Marine Mammal Science, 30(2), 674–690. 

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.

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. (2013). First direct measurements of 

behavioural responses by Cuvier’s beaked whales to mid-frequency active sonar. Biology Letters, 

9, 201–223. 

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. (2014). 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. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-266

References

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.

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.

Falcone, E. A., G. S. Schorr, S. L. Watwood, S. L. DeRuiter, A. N. Zerbini, R. D. Andrews, R. P. Morrissey, & 

D. J. Moretti. (2017). Diving behaviour of Cuvier's beaked whales exposed to two types of 

military sonar. Royal Society Open Science, 4(170629), 1–21. 

Farak, A. M., M. W. Richie, J. A. Rivers, & R. K. Uyeyama. (2011). Cruise Report, Marine Species 

Monitoring and Lookout Effectiveness Study Submarine Commanders Course 11-1 and Undersea 

Warfare Exercise February 2011, Hawaii Range Complex. Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific 

Fleet.

Ferguson, M. C., C. Curtice, & J. Harrison. (2015a). Biologically important areas for cetaceans within U.S. 

waters - Gulf of Alaska region. Aquatic Mammals, 41(1), 65–78. 

Ferguson, M. C., C. Curtice, J. Harrison, & S. M. Van Parijs. (2015b). 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. 

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., 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. 

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. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-267

References

Frantzis, A., J. C. Goold, E. K. Skarsoulis, M. I. Taroudakis, & V. Kandia. (2002). Clicks from Cuvier’s 

beaked whales, Ziphius cavirostris (L). The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 112(1), 34. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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., A. K. Stimpert, S. L. DeRuiter, J. Calambokidis, A. S. Friedlaender, G. S. Schorr, D. J. 

Moretti, P. L. Tyack, & B. L. Southall. (2014). Using accelerometers to determine the calling 

behavior of tagged baleen whales. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 217(Pt 14), 2449–2455. 

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

Hann, C. H., T. D. Smith, & L. G. Torres. (2016). A sperm whale's perspective: The importance of 

seasonality and seamount depth. Marine Mammal Science. 

Hartel, E. F., R. Constantine, & L. G. Torres. (2015). Changes in habitat use patterns by bottlenose 

dolphins over a 10-year period render static management boundaries ineffective. Aquatic 

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 25(5), 701–711. 

HDR. (2010). RIMPAC 2010 Marine Species Monitoring. Pearl Harbor, HI: U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

HDR. (2011). Koa Kai-11 Marine Species Monitoring Surveys (Vessel-and Aerial-based monitoring 

surveys).

Heenehan, H. L., D. W. Johnston, S. M. Van Parijs, L. Bejder, & J. A. Tyne. (2016a). Acoustic response of 

Hawaiian spinner dolphins to human disturbances. Paper presented at the Meetings on 

Acoustics, Dublin Ireland.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-268

References

Heenehan, H. L., J. A. Tyne, L. Bejder, S. M. Van Parijs, & D. W. Johnston. (2016b). 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. 

Heenehan, H. L., S. M. Van Parijs, L. Bejder, J. A. Tyne, & D. W. Johnston. (2017a). Using acoustics to 

prioritize management decisions to protect coastal dolphins: A case study using Hawaiian 

spinner dolphins. Marine Policy, 75, 84–90. 

Heenehan, H. L., S. M. Van Parijs, L. Bejder, J. A. Tyne, B. L. Southall, H. Southall, & D. W. Johnston. 

(2017b). Natural and anthropogenic events influence the soundscapes of four bays on Hawaii 

Island. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 

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). 

Hildebrand, J., H. Bassett, S. Baumann, G. Campbell, A. Cummins, S. Kerosky, M. Melcon, K. Merkens, L. 

Munger, M. Roch, L. Roche, A. Simonis, & S. Wiggins. (2011). High Frequency Acoustic Recording 

Package Data Summary Report January 31, 2010 - March 26, 2010 SOCAL 37, Site N (Scripps 

Whale Acoustics). La Jolla, CA: Scripps Marine Physical Laboratory.

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).

Hill, M. C., E. M. Oleson, & K. Andrews. (2010). New Island-Associated Stocks for Hawaiian Spinner 

Dolphins (Stenella longirostris): Rationale and New Stock Boundaries. Pacific Islands Fisheries 

Science Center.

Irvine, L. M., B. R. Mate, M. H. Winsor, D. M. Palacios, S. J. Bograd, D. P. Costa, & H. Bailey. (2014). 

Spatial and Temporal Occurrence of Blue Whales off the U.S. West Coast, with Implications for 

Management. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e102959. 

Jefferson, T. A., M. A. Webber, & R. L. Pitman. (2008). Marine Mammals of the World: A Comprehensive 

Guide to their Identification. London, UK: Elsevier.

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.

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. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-269

References

Kennett, J. P. (1982). Marine Geology. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.

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.

Kim, S.-S., & P. Wessel. (2011). New global seamount census from altimetry-derived gravity data. 

Geophysical Journal International, 186(2), 615–631. 

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 (2016). [Question about humpbacks in glider data].

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.

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. 

Lammers, M. O., A. A. Pack, & L. Davis. (2003). Historical evidence of whale/vessel collisions in Hawaiian 

waters (1975—Present).

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., M. Howe, L. M. Munger, & E. Nosal. (2015a). Acoustic Monitoring of Dolphin 

Occurrence and Activity in the Virginia Capes MINEX W-50 Range 2012–2014: Preliminary 

Results. 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 

Orders 03 and 43, issued to HDR Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia. 23 March 2015.

Lammers, M. O., L. M. Munger, J. N. Oswald, & T. M. Yack. (2015b). Passive Acoustic Monitoring of 

Cetaceans in the Hawaii Range Complex Using Ecological Acoustic Recorders (EARs) (Prepared 

for Commander, Pacific Fleet. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific Pearl 

Harbor, HI, under Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, Task Orders KB14 and KB22, issued to HDR 

Inc.). Honolulu, HI: Oceanwide Science Institute.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-270

References

Lammers, M. O., L. M. Munger, J. N. Oswald, & T. M. Yack. (2015c). Passive Acoustic Monitoring of 

Cetaceans in the Hawaii Range Complex Using Ecological Acoustic Recorders (EARs). Pearl 

Harbor, HI: U.S Navy Pacific Fleet.

Lodi, L., & B. Hetzel. (1999). Rough-toothed dolphin, Steno bredanensis, feeding behaviors in Ilha Grande 

Bay, Brazil. Biociências, 7(1), 29–42. 

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. 

Mahaffy, S. D., R. W. Baird , D. J. McSweeney, D. L. Webster , & G. S. Schorr. (2015a). Group structure 

and mating strategies of Cuvier's (Ziphius cavirostris) and Blainville's (Mesoplodon densirostris) 

beaked whales off the island of Hawaii [Poster]. Paper presented at the Society for Marine 

Mammalogy 21st biennial conference of the biology of marine mammals, San Francisco, CA. 

Mahaffy, S. D., R. W. Baird , D. J. McSweeney, D. L. Webster , & G. S. Schorr. (2015b). Group structure 

and mating strategies of Cuvier's (Ziphius cavirostris) and Blainville's (Mesoplodon densirostris) 

beaked whales off the island of Hawaii.

Mahaffy, S. D., R. W. Baird, D. J. McSweeney, D. L. Webster, & G. S. Schorr. (2015c). 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. 

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.

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.

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. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-271

References

Mate, B. R., D. M. Palacios, L. M. Irvine, B. A. Lagerquist, T. Follett, M. H. Winsor, & C. Hayslip. (2015b). 

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. (2016a). 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. (2016b). Baleen (Blue & Fin) Whale Tagging and Analysis in Support of Marine 

Mammal Monitoring Across Multiple Navy Training Areas, Preliminary Summary. Pearl Harbor, 

Hawaii: U.S. Pacific Fleet.

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.

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., 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. APPEA Journal, 40(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. McCabe. (2000b). Marine seismic surveys—A study of environmental 

implications. Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Association Journal, 692–708. 

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. 

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. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-272

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.

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). 

Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A. (1998). Zoogeography of cetaceans off Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

Caribbean Journal of Science, 34(3–4), 173–190. 

Miller, P. J. O., N. Biassoni, A. Samuels, & P. L. Tyack. (2000). Whale songs lengthen in response to sonar. 

Nature, 405(6789), 903. 

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. Spitz, & R. Grotefendt. (2001). 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., & 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., & 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.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-273

References

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.

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. 

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. 

Morato, T., D. A. Varkey, C. Damaso, M. Machete, M. Santos, R. Prieto, R. S. Santos, & T. J. Pitcher. 

(2008). Evidence of a seamount effect on aggregating visitors. Marine Ecological Progress Series, 

357, 23–32. 

Morato, T., P. I. Miller, D. C. Dunn, S. J. Nicol, J. Bowcott, & P. N. Halpin. (2015). A perspective on the 

importance of oceanic fronts in promoting aggregation of visitors to seamounts. Fish and 

Fisheries. 

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. Newport, RI: Cascadia Research Collective

Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

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.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2012). Annual Landings by Species for Hawaii As Of 10 January 2012.

Retrieved from http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webpls/mf_lndngs_grp.data_in

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. (2016a). Protective Regulations for Hawaiian Spinner Dolphins Under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Federal Register, 81(164), 57854–57876. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-274

References

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016b). 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. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016c). Enhancing Protections for Hawaiian Spinner Dolphins to 

Prevent Disturbance; Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Regulatory Impact Review.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2017). Finding of No Significant Impact for the Proposed Issuance of 

an Incidental Harassment Authorization to the US Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base to Take Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Conducting Maritime Weapon Systems Evaluation Program Operational 

Testing within the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range. Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2013). NOAA/NOS and USCGS Seabed Descriptions 

from Hydrographic Surveys 

Retrieved from https://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry/

Norris, K. S., & T. P. Dohl. (1980). Behavior of the Hawaiian spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris. Fishery 

Bulletin, 77(4), 821–849. 

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. 

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).

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. 

Pickard, G. L., & W. J. Emery. (1990). Descriptive Physical Oceanography: An Introduction (5th ed.). 

Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Pitcher, T. J., T. Morato, P. J. B. Hart, M. R. Clark, N. Haggan, & R. S. Santos. (2007). The depths of 

ignorance: an ecosystem evaluation framework for seamount ecology, fisheries and 

conservation. In T. J. Pitcher, T. Morato, P. J. B. Hart, M. R. Clark, N. Haggan & R. S. Santos (Eds.), 

Seamounts: Ecology, Conservation and Management. Fish and Aquatic Resources Series (pp. 

476–488). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Pitcher, T. J., T. Morato, K. Stocks, & C. M. C. (2010). Seamount Ecosystem Evaluation Framework (SEEF): 

a tool for global seamount research and data synthesis. Oceanography, 23(1), 123–125. 

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.
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-275

References

Pitman, R. L., & C. Stinchcomb. (2002). Rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) as predators of 

mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus). Pacific Science, 56(4), 447–450. 

Pittman, S. J., A. J. Winship, M. Poti, B. P. Kinlan, J. B. Leirness, R. W. Baird, J. Barlow, E. A. Becker, K. A. 

Forney, M. C. Hill, J. Mobley, P. I. Miller, & E. M. Oleson. (2016). Chapter 6: Marine Mammals. In 

B. M. Costa & M. S. Kendall (Eds.), Marine Biogeographic Assessment of the Main Hawaiian 

Islands. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. OCS Study BOEM 2016-035 and NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 214

(pp. 227–265). Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration.

Psarakos, S., D. L. Herzing, & K. Marten. (2003). Mixed-species associations between Pantropical spotted 

dolphins (Stenella attenuata) and Hawaiian spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) off Oahu, 

Hawaii. Aquatic Mammals, 29, 390–395. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Rockwood, R. C., J. Calambokidis, & J. Jahncke. (2017). High mortality of blue, humpack and fin whales 

from modeling of vessel collisions on the U.S. West Coast suggests population impacts and 

insufficient protection. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0183052. 

Rossman, S., E. B. McCabe, N. B. Barros, H. G. Gandhi, P. H. Ostrom, C. A. Stricker, & R. S. Wells. (2015). 

Foraging habits in a generalist predator: Sex and age influence habitat selection and resource 

use among bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Marine Mammal Science, 31(1), 155–168. 

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. 

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. 

Schorr, G. S., R. W. Baird, M. B. Hanson, D. L. Webster, D. J. McSweeney, & R. D. Andrews. (2008). 

Movements of the first satellite-tagged Cuvier's and Blainville's beaked whales in Hawaii (Report 

prepared under Contract No. AB133F-07-SE-3706 to Cascadia Research Collective, Olympia, 

WA). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Schorr, G. S., R. W. Baird, M. B. Hanson, D. L. Webster, D. J. McSweeney, & R. D. Andrews. (2010). 

Movements of satellite-tagged Blainville's beaked whales off the island of Hawaii. Endangered 

Species Research, 10, 203–213. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-276

References

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.

Shallenberger, E. W. (1981). The Status of Hawaiian Cetaceans. Kailua, HI: Manta Corporation.

Shoemaker, M., T. Moll, K. Ampela, & T. Jefferson. (2014). Final Cruise Report, Marine Species 

Monitoring & Lookout Effectiveness Study, Koa Kai, January 2014, Hawaii Range Complex. U.S. 

Navy Pacific Fleet.

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. 

Širović, A., A. Rice, E. Chou, J. Hildebrand, S. Wiggins, & M. A. Roch. (2015). 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.

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., & 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. 

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”) (SOCAL-11 Project Report). U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

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. 

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. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-277

References

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. 

Tyack, P. L., J. Calambokidis, A. Friedlaender, J. Goldbogen, & B. Southall. (2015). Formal Comment on 

Schorr GS, Falcone EA, Moretti DJ, Andrews RD (2014) First Long- Term Behavioral Records from 

Cuvier’s Beaked Whales (Ziphius cavirostris) Reveal Record-Breaking Dives. PLoS ONE 9(3): 

e92633. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092633. PLoS ONE, 10(12), e0142287. 

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., N. R. Loneragan, D. W. Johnston, K. H. Pollock, R. Williams, & L. Bejder. (2016). Evaluating 

monitoring methods for cetaceans. Biological Conservation, 201, 252–260. 

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 the Navy. (2006a). 2006 Supplement to the 2002 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 

Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Navy.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2006b). 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. (2017). Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. Space and Naval Warfare System Command, 

Pacific.

Van Cise, A. M., P. A. Morin, R. W. Baird, A. R. Lang, K. M. Robertson, S. J. Chivers, R. L. J. Brownell, & K. 

K. Martien. (2016). Redrawing the map: mtDNA provides new insight into the distribution and 

diversity of short-finned pilot whales in the Pacific Ocean. Marine Mammal Science, 32(4), 

1177–1199. 

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. 
Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS October 2017

K-278

References

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.). (2015a). Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans 

within U.S. waters. Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue), 41(1), 128. 

Van Parijs, S. M., C. Curtice, & M. C. E. Ferguson. (2015b). Biologically important areas for cetaceans 

within U.S. waters. 

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. 

Villegas-Amtmann, S., L. K. Schwarz, J. L. Sumich, & D. P. Costa. (2015). A bioenergetics model to 

evaluate demographic consequences of disturbance in marine mammals applied to gray whales. 

Ecosphere, 6(10), 1–19. 

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. 

(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).

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. 

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

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (2009). Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaii 

Archipelago. Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.

Zoidis, A. M., K. S. Lomac-MacNair, A. E. Chomos-Betz, A. J. Day, & S. A. McFarland. (2014). Effects of sex, 

seasonal period, and sea state on calf behavior in Hawaiian humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae). Aquatic Mammals, 40(1), 44–58.