Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement

United States Department of the Navy June 2017

Volume II
Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement

Volume II

United States Department of the Navy

June 2017
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

i 

Table of Contents 

Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

3.4 Invertebrates .......................................................................................................... 3.4-1

3.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3.4-3

3.4.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 3.4-3

3.4.2.1 General Background ........................................................................... 3.4-3

3.4.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species ............................................ 3.4-13

3.4.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act .................... 3.4-27

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3.4-37

3.4.3.1 Acoustic Stressors ............................................................................. 3.4-37

3.4.3.2 Explosive Stressors ............................................................................ 3.4-59

3.4.3.3 Energy Stressors ................................................................................ 3.4-66

3.4.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ........................................ 3.4-71

3.4.3.5 Entanglement Stressors .................................................................... 3.4-93

3.4.3.6 Ingestion Stressors .......................................................................... 3.4-103

3.4.3.7 Secondary Stressors ........................................................................ 3.4-111

3.4.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Invertebrates ............................................3.4-116

3.4.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................ 3.4-116

3.4.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................ 3.4-117

3.4.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative ...................................................................................... 3.4-117

3.4.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations ........................................................ 3.4-118

List of Figures 

Figure 3.4-1: Critical Habitat Areas for Elkhorn and Staghorn Coral Within the Study Area ................ 3.4-17

Figure 3.4-2: Prediction of Distance to 90 Percent Survivability of Marine Invertebrates 

Exposed to an Underwater Explosion (Young, 1991) ...................................................... 3.4-60
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ii

Table of Contents 

List of Tables 

Table 3.4-1: Status and Presence of Endangered Species Act-Listed and Species of Concern 

Invertebrate Species in the Study Area ........................................................................... 3.4-13

Table 3.4-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Marine Invertebrates in the Atlantic Fleet Training 

and Testing Study Area .................................................................................................... 3.4-28
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-1 

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4 INVERTEBRATES

INVERTEBRATES SYNOPSIS

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

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

the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1):

 Acoustics: Invertebrates could be exposed to noise from the proposed training and testing 

activities. However, available information indicates that invertebrate sound detection is primarily 

limited to low frequency (less than 1 kilohertz [kHz]) particle motion and water movement that 

diminishes rapidly with distance from a sound source. The expected impact of noise on 

invertebrates is correspondingly diminished and mostly limited to offshore surface layers of the 

water column where only zooplankton, squid, and jellyfish are prevalent mostly at night when 

training and testing occur less frequently. Offshore waters are considered to occur beyond areas 

near land where nutrients and habitat structures are typically more prevalent and often result in 

increased invertebrate abundance. Exceptions occur at nearshore and inland locations where 

occasional pierside sonar, air gun, or pile driving actions occur near relatively resilient soft 

bottom or artificial substrate communities. Because the number of individuals affected would be 

small relative to population numbers, population-level impacts are unlikely. 

 Explosives: Explosives produce pressure waves that can harm invertebrates in the vicinity of 

where they typically occur: mostly offshore surface waters where zooplankton, squid, and 

jellyfish are prevalent mostly at night when training and testing do not typically occur. Offshore 

waters occur beyond areas near land where nutrients and habitat structures are typically more 

prevalent and often result in increased invertebrate abundance. Exceptions occur where 

explosives are used on the bottom within nearshore or inland waters on or near sensitive hard 

bottom communities. Soft bottom communities are resilient to occasional disturbances. Due to 

the relatively small number of individuals affected, population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Energy: The proposed action produces electromagnetic and high-energy laser energies that 

briefly affect a very limited area of water, based on the relatively weak magnetic fields and 

mobile nature of the stressors. Whereas some invertebrate species can detect magnetic fields, 

the effect has been documented at much higher field strength than what the proposed action 

generates. Though high-energy lasers can damage invertebrates, the effects are limited to 

surface waters where relatively few invertebrates species occur (e.g., zooplankton, squid, 

jellyfish) mostly at night when actions do not typically occur and only where the target is missed. 

Due to the relatively small number of individuals that may be affected, population-level impacts 

are unlikely.

Continued on the next page...
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-2 

3.4 Invertebrates 

Continued from the previous page...

 Physical Disturbance and Strike: Invertebrates could experience physical disturbance and strike 

impacts from vessels and in-water devices, military expended materials, seafloor devices, and 

pile driving. Most risk occurs offshore (away from areas near land where increased nutrient 

availability and habitat complexity may result in increased invertebrate abundance) and near the 

surface where relatively few invertebrates occur, and at night when actions are not typically 

occurring. The majority of expended materials are used in areas far from nearshore and inland

bottom areas where invertebrates are the most abundant. Exceptions occur for actions taking 

place within inland and nearshore waters over primarily soft bottom communities, such as 

related to vessel transits, inshore and nearshore vessel training, nearshore explosive ordnance 

disposal, operation of bottom-crawling seafloor devices, and pile driving. Invertebrate 

communities in affected soft bottom areas are naturally resilient to occasional disturbances. 

Accordingly, population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Entanglement: Invertebrates could be entangled by various expended materials (wires, cables, 

decelerators/parachutes, biodegradable polymer). Most entanglement risk occurs in offshore 

areas where invertebrates are relatively less abundant. Offshore waters occur beyond areas near 

land where nutrients and habitat structures are typically more prevalent and often result in 

increased invertebrate abundance. The risk of entangling invertebrates is minimized by the 

typically rigid nature of the expended structures (e.g., wires, cables), although 

decelerators/parachutes have mesh that could pose a risk to invertebrates large and slow 

enough to be entangled (e.g., jellyfish). Deep water coral could also be entangled by drifting 

decelerators/parachutes, but a coincidence is highly unlikely given the extremely sparse 

coverage of corals in the deep ocean. Accordingly, population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Ingestion: Small expended materials and material fragments pose an ingestion risk to some 

invertebrates. However, most military expended materials are too large to be ingested, and 

many invertebrate species are unlikely to consume an item that does not visually or chemically 

resemble its natural food. Exceptions occur for materials fragmented by explosive charges or 

weathering in nearshore or inland locations where filter- or deposit-feeding invertebrates are 

more abundant relative to offshore waters. Furthermore, the vast majority of ingestible 

materials in the ocean originate from non-military sources. Accordingly, population-level impacts 

are unlikely.

 Secondary: Secondary impacts on invertebrates are possible via changes to habitats (sediment or 

water) and to prey availability due to explosives, explosives byproducts, unexploded munitions, 

metals, and toxic expended material components. Other than bottom-placed explosives, the 

impacts are mostly in offshore waters where invertebrates are less abundant. The impacts of 

occasional bottom-placed explosives is mostly limited to nearshore soft bottom habitats that 

recover quickly from disturbance. Explosive byproducts are rapidly diluted by vast quantities of 

relatively clean seawater and further they are mostly common seawater constituents. 

Contamination from unexploded munitions is likely inconsequential because the material has 

low solubility in seawater and is slowly delivered to the water column. Heavy metals and 

chemicals such as unspent propellants can reach harmful levels around stationary range targets 

but are not likely in vast open waters where proposed action targets are typically mobile or 

temporarily stationary. Accordingly, overall impacts of secondary stressors on widespread 

invertebrate populations are not likely. Impacts due to decreased availability of prey items (fish 

and other invertebrates) would likely be undetectable. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-3 

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides the analysis of potential impacts on invertebrates found in the Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area (Study Area). This section provides an introduction to the species 

that occur in the Study Area. 

The affected environment provides the context for evaluating the effects of the Navy training and 

testing activities on invertebrates. Because invertebrates occur in all habitats, activities that interact 

with the water column or the bottom could potentially impact many species and individuals, including 

microscopic zooplankton (e.g., invertebrate larvae, copepods, protozoans) that drift with currents, larger 

invertebrates living in the water column (e.g., jellyfish, shrimp, squid), and benthic invertebrates that 

live on or in the seafloor (e.g., clams, corals, crabs, worms). Because many benthic animals have limited 

mobility compared to pelagic species, activities that contact the bottom generally have a greater 

potential for impact. Activities that occur in the water column generally have a lesser potential for 

impact due to dispersion and dilution associated with currents and water depth, as well as the greater 

mobility of open water invertebrates large enough to resist drifting with the current or remaining within 

an impact area. 

The following subsections provide brief introductions to the major taxonomic groups and Endangered 

Species Act (ESA)-listed species of marine invertebrates that occur in the Study Area. The National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) maintains a 

website that provides additional information on the biology, life history, species distribution (including 

maps), and conservation of invertebrates. 

3.4.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Three subsections are included in this section. General background information is given in Section 

3.4.2.1 (General Background), which provides summaries of habitat use, movement and behavior, sound 

sensing and production, and threats that affect or have the potential to affect natural communities of 

marine invertebrates within the Study Area. Species listed under the ESA are described in Section 3.4.2.2

(Endangered Species Act-Listed Species). General types of marine invertebrates that are not listed under 

the ESA are reviewed in Section 3.4.2.3 (Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act). 

3.4.2.1 General Background 

Invertebrates, which are animals without backbones, are the most abundant life form on Earth, with 

marine invertebrates representing a large, diverse group with approximately 367,000 species described 

worldwide to date (World Register of Marine Species Editorial Board, 2015). However, it is estimated 

that most existing species have not yet been described (Mora et al., 2011). The total number of 

invertebrate species that occur in the Study Area is unknown, but is likely to be many thousands. The 

results of a research effort to estimate the number of marine invertebrate species in various areas 

identified over 3,000 species in the Northeast U.S. large marine ecosystem and over 10,000 species in 

the Gulf of Mexico (Fautin et al., 2010). Invertebrate species vary in their use of abiotic habitats and 

some populations are threatened by human activities and other natural changes, especially endangered 

species. 

Marine invertebrates are important ecologically and economically, providing an important source of 

food, essential ecosystem services (coastal protection, nutrient recycling, food for other animals, habitat 

formation), and income from tourism and commercial fisheries (Spalding et al., 2001). The health and 

abundance of marine invertebrates are vital to the marine ecosystem and the sustainability of the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-4 

3.4 Invertebrates 

world’s fisheries (Pauly et al., 2002). Economically important invertebrate groups that are fished, 

commercially and recreationally, for food in the United States include crustaceans (e.g., shrimps, 

lobsters, and crabs), bivalves (e.g., scallops, clams, and oysters), echinoderms (e.g., sea urchins and sea 

cucumbers), and cephalopods (e.g., squids and octopuses) (Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations, 2005; Morgan & Chuenpagdee, 2003; Pauly et al., 2002). Marine invertebrates or the 

structures they form (e.g., shells and coral colonies) are harvested for many purposes including jewelry, 

curios, and the aquarium trade. In addition, some marine invertebrates are sources of chemical 

compounds with potential medical applications. Natural products have been isolated from a variety of 

marine invertebrates and have shown a wide range of therapeutic properties, including anti-microbial, 

antioxidant, anti-hypertensive, anticoagulant, anticancer, anti-inflammatory, wound healing and 

immune modulation, and other medicinal effects (De Zoysa, 2012). 

3.4.2.1.1 Habitat Use 

Marine invertebrates live in all of the world’s oceans, from warm shallow waters to cold deep waters. 

They inhabit the bottom and water column in all the large marine ecosystems (West Greenland, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast United States (U.S.) Continental Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) and open ocean areas (Labrador Current, Gulf 

Stream, and North Atlantic Gyre) in the Study Area (Brusca & Brusca, 2003). The Study Area extends 

from the bottom up to the mean high tide line (often termed mean high water in literature). The 

description of habitat use in this section pertains to common marine invertebrates found in the different 

habitats. The abiotic (nonliving) components of all habitat types are addressed in Section 3.5 (Habitats), 

and marine vegetation components are discussed in Section 3.3 (Vegetation). This section also identifies 

marine invertebrates that form persistent habitats, which are considered to be structures that do not 

quickly disintegrate or become incorporated into soft or intermediate substrate after the death of the 

organism (e.g., crab shells). The principal habitat-forming invertebrates are corals and shellfish species 

(e.g., oysters, mussels). In a strict sense, individual invertebrates with hard shells (e.g., molluscs), outer 

skeletons (e.g., crabs), tubes (e.g., annelid worms), or cavities (e.g., sponges) also may be habitatforming, providing attachment surfaces or living spaces for other organisms. 

Marine invertebrate distribution in the Study Area is influenced by habitat (e.g., abiotic substrate, 

topography, biogenic [formed by living organisms] features), ocean currents, and physical and water 

chemistry factors such as temperature, salinity, and nutrient content (Levinton, 2009). Distribution is 

also influenced by distance from the equator (latitude) and distance from shore. In general, the number 

of marine invertebrate species (species richness) increases toward the equator (Cheung et al., 2005; 

Macpherson, 2002). Species richness and overall abundance is typically greater in coastal water habitats 

compared to the open ocean due to the increased availability of food and protection that coastal 

habitats provide. 

The diversity and abundance of Arthropoda (e.g., crabs, lobsters, and barnacles) and Mollusca (e.g., 

snails, clams, and squid) is highest on the bottom over the continental shelf due to high productivity and 

availability of complex habitats relative to typical soft bottom habitat of the deep ocean (Karleskint et 

al., 2006). Organisms occurring in the bathyal and abyssal zones of the ocean are generally small and 

have sparse populations (Nybakken, 1993). The deep ocean has a limited food supply for sedentary 

deposit or filter feeders. The only areas of the deep ocean known to be densely populated are 

hydrothermal vents and cold seeps (refer to Section 3.5, Habitats, for additional information on these 

features).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-5 

3.4 Invertebrates 

Sandy coastal shores are dominated by species that are adapted to living in shifting substrates, many of 

which are highly mobile and can burrow. Common invertebrates in these habitats include mole crabs 

(Emerita talpoida), coquina clams (Donax variabilis), and a variety of isopods, amphipods, snails, and 

worms (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 1996a; Tewfik et al., 2016). Inland soft shores consist of mud flats and sand flats that 

occur in areas sheltered from strong currents and waves. Soft shore habitats may support a wide variety 

of invertebrate species including amphipods, decapods, snails, bivalves, worms, and echinoderms 

(Dineen, 2010; South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 1996b). Habitat-forming invertebrates such as eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) may 

occur in coastal flats. 

Intermediate (e.g., cobble, gravel) and rocky shores provide habitat for a variety of marine invertebrates 

(e.g., sea anemones, barnacles, chitons, limpets, mussels, urchins, sea stars, sponges, tunicates, and 

various worms). Rocky intertidal invertebrates may be attached or free living/mobile, and use various 

feeding strategies (filter-feeders, herbivores, carnivores, scavengers). Many invertebrates occurring in 

rocky intertidal zones are preyed upon by fish, birds, and other invertebrates. This particular habitat 

does not coincide with any of the proposed actions and will therefore not be discussed further. 

However, hard artificial structures such as pier pilings and seawalls can have a similar community of 

invertebrates that are in close proximity to some of the proposed actions. 

Vegetated habitats, such as kelp forests in nearshore subtidal habitats, seagrasses found in sheltered 

inland or nearshore waters, and floating Sargassum aggregations in nearshore and offshore locations, 

support a wide variety of marine invertebrate species. Kelp (primarily Laminaria species) occurs in the 

North Atlantic portion of the Study Area, with the southern limit considered to be Long Island Sound 

(Steimle & Zetlin, 2000). A large number of invertebrate species may be associated with this vegetated 

habitat. For example, kelp habitats in the Gulf of Maine support a variety of amphipods, isopods, 

shrimps, crabs, lobsters, sea stars, hydroids, and tunicates (Woodward, 2012). Seagrasses may support 

numerous worms, sea cucumbers, crabs, molluscs, and anemones, among other taxa. Seagrasses 

provide a rich source of food for many invertebrates, primarily in the form of epiphytes (non-parasitic 

plants that grow on other plants) (Florida Museum of Natural History, 2016). Approximately 

145 invertebrate species representing a wide range of taxa have been identified in association with

floating Sargassum algae (Trott et al., 2011). Ten of these species are thought to be endemic to 

Sargassum habitats (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 2002).

Rocky reefs and other rocky habitats may occur in subtidal zones. Invertebrate species composition 

associated with rocky subtidal habitats may be influenced by depth, size, and structural complexity of 

the habitat. Hundreds of invertebrate species may occur in rocky habitats, which provide attachment 

sites for sessile (attached to the bottom) species such as barnacles, bryozoans, limpets, sea anemones, 

sea fans, sponges, and tunicates, among others. Other invertebrates move about or shelter in crevices, 

including crustaceans (e.g., crabs, lobsters), echinoderms (e.g., brittle stars, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, 

sea stars), and molluscs (e.g., snails, nudibranchs, sea hares, octopus). 

Shallow-water coral reefs are formed by individual corals with symbiotic, structure-forming algae that 

require both light and a mean annual water temperature greater than about 64 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) 

(National Ocean Service, 2016a; Nybakken, 1993). Shallow-water coral reefs are found on hard substrate 

in southern and southeastern portions of the Study Area. Shallow-water coral reefs occur in the 

southern part of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, throughout the Caribbean Sea Large 

Marine Ecosystem, and in the southern part of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-6 

3.4 Invertebrates 

Ecosystem. In addition to the presence of many individual corals, coral reefs also support hundreds of 

other marine invertebrate species, including representatives of most taxa. Researchers compiled historic 

and recent information on the amount of hard reef structure covered by living corals at 90 reef locations 

in the wider Caribbean Sea (primarily shallow reefs in water depths of 1 to 20 meters [m]) (Jackson et 

al., 2014). Average coral coverage on the hard reef structure is estimated to be approximately 14 to 

17 percent, down from approximately 35 percent during the period of 1970 to 1983. Coverage declined 

in 75 percent of surveyed locations, including the Upper Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas areas. Shallowwater coral reefs may contain ESA-listed coral species, and changes in overall coral coverage provides a 

context for subsequent discussion of these species Section 3.4.2.2 (Endangered Species Act-Listed 

Species). 

Deep-water corals occur in water depths where there is low or no light penetration and therefore 

typically lack symbiotic algae. As such, deep-water corals do not form biogenic reefs, but rather form 

mounds of intermediate (cobble-sized) substrate termed “lithoherms” over hard bottom areas

(Lumsden et al., 2007). Differences in water clarity and the resulting light penetration at various 

locations affect the specific depth at which deep-water corals are found. However, in general, deepwater species are considered to occur at depths below 50 m (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration & National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), 2016; National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service, 2008). Stony corals require calcium carbonate in the form 

of aragonite or calcite to build their supporting structures, which they obtain from seawater where 

carbonate is in solution. Combinations of temperature and pressure result in a boundary, often called 

the saturation depth, below which aragonite and calcite tend to dissolve. Therefore, corals (and other 

invertebrates) occurring below this boundary have difficulty forming persistent structures that contain 

calcium carbonate, and the aragonite saturation boundary imposes a depth limit for coral occurrence. 

The depth of the saturation boundary varies in different locations, ranging from about 200 to 3,000 m. 

Accordingly, deep-water corals are found in the depth range of about 50 to 3,000 m (Bryan & Metaxas, 

2007; Lumsden et al., 2007; Quattrini et al., 2015; Tittensor et al., 2009), which confines them to the 

Coastal Large Marine Ecosystems and seamounts. Four taxa of deep-water corals are known in the Study 

Area, including stony corals, black coral, gorgonians, and hydrocorals. The two dominant species are 

ivory tree coral (Oculina varicosa) and Lophelia pertusa. Deep-water corals generally attach to hard or 

intermediate substrates exposed to strong currents that provide a steady supply of plankton (algae and 

small animals that drift in the water) to feed on, and that reduce sedimentation that would inhibit 

colonization and growth of these slow-growing species (Bryan & Metaxas, 2007; Tsao & Morgan, 2005). 

Chemosynthetic communities may support a relatively high biomass of marine invertebrates. Instead of 

using photosynthesis driven by sunlight, chemosynthetic organisms derive energy from chemicals 

originating from the earth’s crust. The primary types of habitats supporting chemosynthetic 

communities are hydrothermal vents and cold seeps. Hydrothermal vents form when seawater 

permeates downward through the earth’s crust and upper mantle, becomes superheated, and removes 

minerals and chemicals from the crust. The heated fluid may then rise through fissures in the crust and 

reach cold ocean water at the seafloor, where metals and other minerals precipitate out to form 

mounds or chimneys. Communities of microbes, such as bacteria, may colonize these structures and use 

chemicals occurring in the fluid (primarily hydrogen sulfide or methane) to make energy. The microbes 

may then become the base of a food web that contains invertebrates such as crabs, clams, mussels, 

worms, snails, and shrimp (Ross et al., 2012; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 2015). Cold seeps 

are similar to hydrothermal vents, but the fluid exiting the crust is cooler, typically moves at a slower 

rate, and may spread over a larger area. Methane hydrates (ice-like structures that contain methane) 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-7 

3.4 Invertebrates 

are associated with some chemosynthetic communities. Cold seeps are generally associated with hard 

substrate on offshore shelf breaks, submarine canyons, seamounts, and along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge; 

refer to Section 3.5 (Habitats) for spatial information on the habitats typically occupied by 

chemosynthetic communities. 

Only seamounts and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge reside outside of the Coastal Large Marine Ecosystems, in 

the abyssal zone. Although chemosynthetic communities have not been well studied off the U.S. Atlantic 

coast in the past, the number of known and potential sites has increased substantially due to recent 

investigations. Whereas hydrothermal vents are primarily located in geologically active areas (e.g., 

seamounts, Mid-Atlantic Ridge), cold seeps have been documented off Massachusetts, Maryland, 

Virginia, and South Carolina (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013; National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration Ocean Explorer, 2010, 2012, 2013). Over 500 seeps have been 

identified at upper portions of the continental slope between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and 

Georges Bank, Maine, many of which are associated with submarine canyons (Skarke et al., 2014). 

Multiple areas containing chemosynthetic communities and methane hydrates have been documented 

within the Exclusive Economic Zone off the northeastern United States (Quattrini et al., 2015). 

Hydrocarbon seeps are widespread in the Atlantic Ocean basin, including the Gulf of Mexico (Fisher et 

al., 2007). Seep communities in the Gulf are typically dominated by mussels, polychaete tube worms, 

and clams (Ross et al., 2012), although numerous other taxa may be present. Communities located in 

water depths of less than 1,000 m off Louisiana are considered the most intensively studied and well 

understood seep communities in the world (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 2014). There are 

relatively few bioherms in the northern Gulf of Mexico; most deep-sea corals are found on existing hard 

substrata. Hundreds of mounds and ridges have been identified along the continental slope off western 

Florida (Ross et al., 2017). Many of these features that occur in water depths above 525 m appear to be 

colonized by deep-water corals (primarily L. pertusa) and sponges. A rocky scarp running north-to-south 

along the slope for at least 229 kilometers (km) also supports corals, although at a lower abundance 

than on the mounds and ridges. 

3.4.2.1.2 Movement and Behavior 

Marine benthic and epibenthic (animals that live on the surface of the substrate) invertebrates may be 

sessile, sedentary (limited mobility), or highly mobile (but typically slower than large vertebrate 

animals). Several beach invertebrates (e.g., sand crabs, polychaete worms) recruit to beaches during 

spring and summer and seasonally move to shallow nearshore waters during late fall and winter. Some 

subtidal epibenthic invertebrates undergo seasonal onshore-offshore migrations associated with 

reproduction. 

Pelagic marine invertebrates include plankton (organisms that do not swim or generally cannot swim 

faster than water currents) and nekton (active swimmers that can generally swim faster than water 

currents). Plankton animals commonly undergo daily migrations to surface waters at dusk and return to 

deeper waters at dawn. This includes small, microscopic zooplankton and larvae, larger crustaceans 

(e.g., small shrimp), and jellyfish. Planktonic organisms vary in their swimming abilities, ranging from 

weak (e.g., larvae) to substantial (e.g., box jellyfish). Nekton such as prawns, shrimps, and squid have 

relatively strong swimming ability, although they are typically slower than most vertebrate animals. 

3.4.2.1.3 Sound Sensing and Production 

In general, organisms may detect sound by sensing either the particle motion or pressure component of 

sound, or both (refer to Appendix D, Acoustic Primer, for an explanation of these sound components). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-8 

3.4 Invertebrates 

Aquatic invertebrates probably do not detect pressure since many are generally the same density as 

water and few, if any, have air cavities that would respond to pressure (Budelmann, 1992a; Popper et 

al., 2001). Marine invertebrates are generally thought to perceive sound via either external sensory hairs 

or internal statocycts. Many aquatic invertebrates have ciliated “hair” cells that may be sensitive to 

water movements, such as those caused by currents or water particle motion very close to a sound 

source (Budelmann, 1992a, 1992b; Mackie & Singla, 2003). This may allow sensing of nearby prey or 

predators, or help with local navigation. Detection of particle motion is thought to occur in mechanical 

receptors found on various body parts (Roberts et al., 2016). Aquatic invertebrates that are able to 

sense local water movements with ciliated cells include cnidarians, flatworms, segmented worms, 

urochordates (tunicates), molluscs, and arthropods (Budelmann, 1992a, 1992b; Popper et al., 2001). 

Crustaceans in particular seem to have extensive occurrence of these structures. The sensory 

capabilities of adult corals are largely limited to detecting water movement using receptors on their 

tentacles (Gochfeld, 2004), and the exterior cilia of coral larvae likely help them detect nearby water 

movements (Vermeij et al., 2010). 

Some aquatic invertebrates have specialized organs called statocysts that enable an animal to determine 

orientation, balance, and, in some cases, linear or angular acceleration. Statocysts allow the animal to 

sense movement and may enable some species, such as cephalopods and crustaceans, to be sensitive to 

water particle movements associated with sound or vibration (Hu et al., 2009; Kaifu et al., 2008; 

Montgomery et al., 2006; Normandeau Associates, 2012; Popper et al., 2001). Because any acoustic 

sensory capabilities, if present, are apparently limited to detecting the local particle motion component 

of sound (Edmonds et al., 2016), and because water particle motion near a sound source falls off rapidly 

with distance, aquatic invertebrates are probably limited to detecting nearby sound sources rather than 

sound caused by pressure waves from distant sources. 

In addition to hair cells and statocysts that allow some marine invertebrates to detect water particle 

motion, some species also have sensory organs called chordotonal organs that can detect substrate 

vibrations. Chordotonal organs are typically attached to connective tissue of flexible appendages such as 

antennae and legs (Edmonds et al., 2016). The structures are connected to the central nervous system 

and can detect some movements or vibrations that are transmitted through substrate. 

Available information indicates that aquatic invertebrates are primarily sensitive to low-frequency 

sounds. Both behavioral and auditory brainstem response studies suggest that crustaceans may sense 

sounds up to 3 kilohertz (kHz), but greatest sensitivity is likely below 200 hertz (Hz) (Goodall et al., 1990; 

Lovell et al., 2005; Lovell et al., 2006). Most cephalopods (e.g., octopus and squid) likely sense lowfrequency sound below 1 kHz, with best sensitivities at lower frequencies (Budelmann, 1992a; Mooney 

et al., 2010; Packard et al., 1990). A few cephalopods may sense frequencies up to 1.5 kHz (Hu et al., 

2009). Squid did not respond to playbacks of odontocete ultrasonic echolocation clicks, likely because 

these clicks were outside of squid hearing range (Wilson et al., 2007). Although information on the 

frequency range of the clicks was not provided, ultrasonic sound typically refers to high frequency 

sounds above the limit of human hearing (greater than about 20 kHz). Similarly, squid did not respond to 

killer whale echolocation clicks ranging from 199 to 226 decibels referenced to 1 micropascal (dB re 1 

μPa) (Wilson et al., 2007) (refer to Appendix D, Acoustic Primer, for an explanation of this and other 

acoustic terms). The frequency of the clicks was not provided. However, killer whale echolocation clicks 

have been reported to be mostly between 45 and 80 kHz (Au et al., 2004). Some researchers have 

suggested sensitivity to sounds of higher frequencies in some species, although study results are 

inconclusive. European spiny lobsters (Palinurus elephas), some of which were exposed to predators, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-9 

3.4 Invertebrates 

were found to produce ultrasound signals up to about 75 kHz (Buscaino et al., 2011). The investigators 

speculated that the signals might have an anti-predator function or might be used in intraspecific 

communication, although these functions (particularly communication) were considered hypothetical. 

The results of another study suggest that European spiny lobsters likely use acoustic signals to aggregate 

(frequency was not specified, although lobsters in the study produced sounds of up to 30 kHz) (Filiciotto 

et al., 2014). However, information currently available indicates that invertebrates are likely sensitive 

only to local water movement and to low frequency particle accelerations generated in their close 

vicinity (Normandeau Associates, 2012). 

Although many types of aquatic invertebrates produce sound and at least some species have the ability 

to detect low-frequency particle motion, little is known about the use of sound or whether all sound 

production is purposeful or merely incidental in some cases (Hawkins et al., 2015; Normandeau 

Associates, 2012). Some invertebrates have structures that appear to be designed specifically for sound 

production, and the results of various studies (summarized in the following paragraphs) indicate that 

sound is used for communication or other behaviors in some species. For example, it has been 

suggested by numerous researchers that the larvae of some marine species (e.g., crustaceans, molluscs, 

and corals) use sound cues for directional orientation (Budelmann, 1992a, 1992b; Montgomery et al., 

2006; Popper et al., 2001). 

Aquatic invertebrates may produce and use sound in territorial behavior, to detect or deter predators, 

and in reproduction (Popper et al., 2001). Some crustaceans produce sound by rubbing or closing hard 

body parts together (Au & Banks, 1998; Heberholz & Schmitz, 2001; Latha et al., 2005; Patek & Caldwell, 

2006). The snapping shrimp chorus makes up a significant portion of the ambient noise in many 

locations (Au & Banks, 1998; Cato & Bell, 1992; Heberholz & Schmitz, 2001). Each snapping shrimp click 

is up to 215 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (root mean square [rms] is implied, but the authors did not explicitly 

state sound pressure level [SPL] or peak SPL), with a peak around 2 to 5 kHz. Some crustaceans, such as 

the American lobster (Homarus americanus) and California mantis shrimp (Hemisquilla californiensis), 

may also produce sound by muscle contraction near the antennae or carapace (Henninger & Watson, 

2005; Patek & Caldwell, 2006). Spiny lobsters typically produce low-frequency rasps by moving a 

structure at the base of the antennae over a rigid file (Buscaino et al., 2011). Other crustaceans make 

low-frequency rasping or rumbling noises, perhaps used in defense or territorial display (Patek & 

Caldwell, 2006; Patek et al., 2009), or perhaps used incidental to a visual display. The aquatic isopod 

Cymodoce japonica produces sound by rubbing body parts together (Nakamachi et al., 2015). 

Reef noises, such as fish pops and grunts, sea urchin grazing (around 1 kHz), parrotfish grazing, and 

snapping shrimp noises (around 5 kHz) (Radford et al., 2010), may be used as a cue by some aquatic 

invertebrates. Nearby reef noises were observed to affect movements and settlement behavior of coral 

and crab larvae (Jeffs et al., 2003; Radford et al., 2007; Stanley et al., 2010; Vermeij et al., 2010), 

although chemical cues and substrate color are also used by some species (Foster & Gilmour, 2016). 

Larvae of other crustacean species, including pelagic and nocturnally emergent species that benefit from 

avoiding coral reef predators, appear to avoid reef noises (Simpson et al., 2011). Detection of reef noises 

is likely limited to short distances. Low-frequency sound pressure and particle motion have been 

measured near a coral reef off Maui, Hawaii (Kaplan & Mooney, 2016). Results indicate that adult 

cephalopod species would not be able to detect the low level of particle acceleration at the 

measurement point nearest the reef (50 m). The specific particle acceleration levels detected by marine 

invertebrate larvae are unknown, but the authors suggest that invertebrate larvae would be unlikely to 

detect particle acceleration at distances beyond 150 m at this reef. Playback of reef sounds increased 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-10

3.4 Invertebrates 

the settlement rate of eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) larvae (Lillis et al., 2013). Green-lipped 

mussel (Perna canaliculus) larvae settlement rate increased when exposed to underwater noise 

produced by a ferry (Wilkens et al., 2012). 

3.4.2.1.4 General Threats 

General threats to marine invertebrates include overexploitation and destructive fishing practices 

(Halpern et al., 2008; Jackson et al., 2001; Kaiser et al., 2002; Miloslavich et al., 2011; Pandolfi et al., 

2003), habitat degradation resulting from pollution and coastal development (Cortes N. & Risk, 1985; 

Downs et al., 2009; Mearns et al., 2011), disease (Porter et al., 2001), invasive species (Bryant et al., 

1998; Galloway et al., 2009; Wilkinson, 2002), oil spills (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2010b), global climate change and ocean acidification (Hughes et al., 2003), and possibly 

human-generated noise (Brainard et al., 2011; Vermeij et al., 2010). A relatively new threat to marine 

invertebrates is bioprospecting, which is the collection of organisms in pursuit of new compounds for 

development of pharmaceutical products (Radjasa et al., 2011). Coastal waters of the entire Study Area 

are subject to intense bioprospecting, although the overall impacts may be minimal (Hunt & Vincent, 

2006). 

Compared to many other invertebrate taxa, the threats to corals and oysters are well-studied. 

Numerous natural and human-caused stressors may affect corals, including thermal stress, disease, 

tropical storms, coastal development and pollution, erosion and sedimentation, tourism/recreation, 

fishing, trade in coral and live reef species, vessel anchoring or groundings, marine debris, predation, 

invasive species, military and other security-related activities, and hydrocarbon exploration (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008a, 2008b; Sakashita & Wolf, 2009). Coral bleaching, which 

occurs when corals expel the symbiotic algae living in their tissues, is a stress response to changes in 

environmental parameters such as temperature or light. A widespread bleaching event occurred 

throughout the Caribbean Sea, extending to Florida and the Gulf of Mexico, in 2005 (Wilkinson & Souter, 

2008). More recently, bleaching occurred in portions of the Caribbean Sea and off the coast of Florida in 

2015 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016c). In 2016, a mass die-off of corals and 

other invertebrates (e.g., sponges, urchins, brittle stars, and clams) was documented in the Flower 

Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary in the Gulf of Mexico (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2016a, 2016b). The cause of the die-off is currently unknown. A large disease outbreak 

was documented in numerous coral species off southeastern Florida in 2014 (Precht et al., 2016). 

Primary threats to deep-water or cold-water corals include bottom fishing, hydrocarbon exploration, 

cable and pipeline placement, and waste disposal (e.g., discarded or lost rope and fishing equipment, 

dredged sediments) (Freiwald et al., 2004). Threats to oysters include habitat degradation (due to fishing 

practices, terrestrial runoff, coastal development, dredging, and vessel strikes), predation, and disease 

(Eastern Oyster Biological Review Team, 2007). Overharvesting is currently considered only a minor 

threat. 

Threats related to water quality, marine debris, and climate change are further described in the 

subsections below. 

3.4.2.1.4.1 Water Quality 

Invertebrates may be affected by changes in water quality resulting from pollution, sedimentation, and 

waste discharge. Stormwater runoff and point source discharges associated with coastal development 

may introduce pollutants into bays and other nearshore coastal areas. The pollutants may degrade 

sediment and water quality, which in turn can impact marine invertebrate communities. Sedimentation 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-11

3.4 Invertebrates 

may result from activities such as dredging, which can affect sensitive species such as some corals 

(Erftemeijer et al., 2012). In addition to dredging, erosion due to storm runoff may cause changes in the 

frequency or magnitude of sedimentation in areas in proximity to ocean outfalls, estuarine inlets, and 

major river discharges. 

Ship discharges may affect water quality and invertebrates associated with the impacted water. 

Discharged materials include sewage, bilge water, graywater, ballast water, and solid waste (e.g., food 

and garbage). Discharges may originate from military, commercial, and recreational vessels. Under 

provisions of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department 

of Defense (DoD) have developed Uniform National Discharge Standards to address discharges from U.S. 

military vessels. Refer to Section 3.2.1.2.2 (Federal Standards and Guidelines) for more information on 

water quality, including Uniform National Discharge Standards. 

Marine invertebrates can be impacted by exposure to oil due to runoff from land, natural seepage, or 

accidental spills from offshore drilling or tankers (White et al., 2012). Reproductive and early life stages 

are especially sensitive to oil exposure. Factors such as oil type, quantity, exposure time, and season can 

affect the toxicity level. Experiments using corals indicate that oil exposure can result in death, 

decreased reproductive success, altered development and growth, and altered behavior (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010b; White et al., 2012). For example, investigations 

conducted between 2011 and 2014 near the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico 

found continuing evidence of injury to gorgonian octocoral colonies (Etnoyer et al., 2016). 

3.4.2.1.4.2 Climate Change 

The primary concerns of climate change in the context of impacts to marine invertebrates include 

increased water temperature, ocean acidification, increased frequency or intensity of cyclonic storm 

events, and sea level rise. 

Increases in ocean temperature can lead to coral stress, bleaching, and mortality (Lunden et al., 2014). 

Bleaching of corals and other invertebrates that contain symbiotic algae in their tissues (e.g., some 

anemones and clams) is often tied to atypically high sea temperatures (Lough & van Oppen, 2009; 

National Ocean Service, 2016b). Bleaching events have increased in frequency in recent decades. Coral 

bleaching on a global scale has occurred during the summers of 2014, 2015, and 2016 (Eakin et al., 

2016). In addition to elevated sea temperatures, atypically low sea temperatures may also cause 

mortality to corals and most other reef organisms (Colella et al., 2012; Lirman et al., 2011; National 

Ocean Service, 2016b), suggesting that widening climate extremes could cause more coral bleaching. 

Response to thermal stress may differ across species or within different environmental contexts, with 

some species or taxa being more tolerant than others (Bahr et al., 2016; Guest et al., 2016; Hoadley et 

al., 2015). For example, in the Caribbean Sea, while numerous stony corals may be negatively affected 

by increased water temperature, some gorgonian corals have been found to persist or increase in 

abundance under similar conditions (Goulet et al., 2017). 

Ocean acidification has the potential to reduce calcification and growth rates in species with calcium 

carbonate skeletons, including shellfish (e.g., clams, oysters), corals, and sponges (Cohen et al., 2009), 

and crustose coralline algae that contain calcite in their cell walls (Roleda et al., 2015). Many species 

within these taxa are important structure-building organisms. In addition to corals and shellfish, 

acidification may also affect weakly calcified taxa such as lobsters and sea cucumbers (Small et al., 2016; 

Verkaik et al., 2016). Some climate change models predict that the depth below which corals are unable 

to form calcium carbonate skeletons will become shallower as the oceans acidify and temperatures 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-12

3.4 Invertebrates 

increase, potentially decreasing the occurrence and habitat-forming function of corals and other 

invertebrates. Deep-sea scleractinian stony corals could be particularly vulnerable due to habitat loss 

and decreased larvae dispersal (Miller et al., 2011). However, a recent study of successive generations of 

shallow-water reef-building corals exposed to increased water temperature and acidification suggests 

some corals may be able to tolerate rapidly changing environmental conditions better than previously 

thought (Putnam & Gates, 2015). In addition to physical effects, increased acidity may result in 

behavioral changes in some species. For example, acidification of porewater was found to affect 

burrowing behavior and juvenile dispersal patterns of the soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria) (Clements et 

al., 2016), and increased acidity caused a reduction in the loudness and number of snaps in the snapping 

shrimp Alpheus novaezelandiae (Rossi et al., 2016). As discussed for thermal stress, some coral species 

may be more tolerant of changing acidity levels than others (Bahr et al., 2016). 

Although the potential effects that climate change could have on future storm activity is uncertain, 

numerous researchers suggest that rising temperatures could result in little change to the overall 

number of storms, but that storm intensity could increase (Voiland, 2013). Increased storm intensity 

could result in increased physical damage to individual corals and reefs constructed by the corals (which 

support numerous other invertebrate taxa), overturning of coral colonies, and a decrease in structural 

complexity (due to disproportionate breakage of branching species) (Heron et al., 2008; The Nature 

Conservancy, 2015). However, large storms such as hurricanes may also have positive impacts on corals, 

such as lowering the water temperature and removing less resilient macroalgae from reef structures, 

which can overgrow corals. 

Sea level rise could affect invertebrates by modifying or eliminating habitat, particularly estuarine and 

intertidal habitats bordering steep and artificially hardened shorelines (Fujii, 2012). It is possible that 

intertidal invertebrates would colonize newly submerged areas over time if suitable habitat is present. 

Coral reef growth may be able to keep pace with sea level rise because accretion rates of individual 

corals are generally greater than projected potential rates of sea level rise (The Nature Conservancy, 

2016). Corals are currently subjected to tidal fluctuations of up to several meters (The Nature 

Conservancy, 2015; U.S. Geological Survey, 2016). However, the overall net accretion rate of coral reefs 

may be much slower than the rate of individual corals, decreasing the overall ability of reefs to keep 

pace with rising water levels. In addition, the compounding effect of other stressors (e.g., ocean 

acidification) is unknown. In an evaluation of threats to corals previously petitioned for listing under the 

ESA, sea level rise was considered a low to medium influence on extinction risk (Brainard et al., 2011). 

Additional concerns include the potential for changes in ocean circulation patterns that affect the 

planktonic food supply of filter- and suspension-feeding invertebrates (e.g., corals) (Etnoyer, 2010). An 

increase in the future incidence of diseases in marine organisms is also theorized (Harvell et al., 2002). In 

addition, there is concern that cumulative effects of threats from fishing, pollution, and other human 

disturbance may reduce the tolerance of corals to global climate change (Ateweberhan & McClanahan, 

2010; Ateweberhan et al., 2013). 

3.4.2.1.4.3 Marine Debris 

Marine debris (especially plastics) is a threat to many marine ecosystems, particularly in coastal waters 

adjacent to urban development. Microplastics (generally considered to be particles less than 

5 millimeters [mm] in size), which may consist of degraded fragments of larger plastic items or 

intentionally manufactured items (e.g., abrasive plastic beads found in some personal care products or 

used in blast-cleaning), are of concern because of their durability and potential to enter marine food 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-13

3.4 Invertebrates 

webs (Setala et al., 2016). Field and laboratory investigations have documented ingestion of 

microplastics by marine invertebrates including bivalve molluscs; crustacean arthropods such as 

lobsters, shore crabs, and amphipods; annelid lugworms; and zooplankton (Browne et al., 2013; Setala 

et al., 2014; Von Moos et al., 2012; Watts et al., 2014). While animals with different feeding modes have 

been found to ingest microplastics, laboratory studies suggest that filter-feeding and deposit feeding 

benthic invertebrates are at highest risk (Setala et al., 2016). Refer to Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water 

Quality) for a more detailed discussion of marine debris and the associated effects on water quality. 

3.4.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species 

As shown in Table 3.4-1, there are eight species of invertebrates listed as Threatened or Species of 

Concern under the ESA in the Study Area. Seven coral species listed as threatened are discussed in 

Sections 3.4.2.2.1 (Elkhorn Coral [Acropora palmata]) through Section 3.4.2.2.7 (Rough Cactus Coral 

[Mycetophyllia ferox]). Ivory tree coral (Oculina varicosa) is a species of concern. Species of concern are 

those for which the National Marine Fisheries Service has some concern regarding status and threats, 

but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list them under the ESA. The 

species of concern designation does not impose any procedural or substantive requirements under the 

ESA. Until recently, the queen conch (Lobatus gigas, formerly Strombus gigas) was also listed as a 

species of concern. However, in 2014, NMFS announced that listing the queen conch under the ESA is 

not warranted (Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List the Queen Conch as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

79 Federal Register 65628–65643 [November 5, 2014]).

In this section, corals are discussed in terms of individual coral polyps or early life stages, where “coral” 

is defined as follows: Species of the phylum Cnidaria, including all species of the orders Antipatharia 

(black corals), Scleractinia (stony corals), Gorgonacea (horny corals), Stolonifera (organ pipe corals and 

others), Alcyonacea (soft corals), and Helioporacea (blue coral) of the class Anthozoa; and all species of 

the families Milleporidea (fire corals) and Stylastreridae (stylasterid hydrocorals) of the class Hydrozoa. 

NMFS has identified the overall primary factors contributing to decline of coral species listed under the 

ESA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, 2015). The factors are disease 

outbreaks; habitat degradation and modification due to sedimentation; increased predation; hurricanes; 

pollution; alien species; invasive green algae; limited distribution; damage from mechanical fishing gear, 

anchors, fish pots, divers, and swimmers; and coral bleaching.

Table 3.4-1: Status and Presence of Endangered Species Act-Listed and 

Species of Concern Invertebrate Species in the Study Area 

Species Name and Regulatory Status Location in Study Area1

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name

Endangered 

Species Act Listing

Open 

Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystem Inland Waters

Elkhorn coral Acropora 

palmata Threatened None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

Florida Bay and 

Biscayne Bay

Staghorn coral Acropora 

cervicornis Threatened None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

Florida Bay and 

Biscayne Bay
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 3.4-1: Status and Presence of Endangered Species Act-Listed and 

Species of Concern Invertebrate Species in the Study Area (continued) 

3.4-14

3.4 Invertebrates 

Species Name and Regulatory Status Location in Study Area1

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name

Endangered 

Species Act Listing

Open 

Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystem Inland Waters

Lobed star 

coral

Orbicella 

annularis Threatened None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

Florida Bay and 

Biscayne Bay

Boulder star 

coral

Orbicella 

franksi Threatened None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

Florida Bay and 

Biscayne Bay

Mountainous 

star coral

Orbicella 

faveolata Threatened None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

Florida Bay and 

Biscayne Bay

Pillar coral Dendrogyra 

cylindrus Threatened None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

Florida Bay and 

Biscayne Bay

Rough cactus 

coral

Mycetophyll

ia ferox Threatened None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

Biscayne Bay

Ivory tree coral Oculina 

varicosa

Species of 

Concern None

Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S.

Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea

None

1 Presence in the Study Area is characterized by biogeographic units: open-ocean oceanographic features (Labrador Current, 

Gulf Stream, and North Atlantic Gyre) or by coastal waters of large marine ecosystems (Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, and West 

Greenland Shelf) in the Study Area.

3.4.2.2.1 Elkhorn Coral (Acropora palmata) 

3.4.2.2.1.1 Status and Management 

Elkhorn coral is listed as a threatened species under the ESA, and critical habitat has been designated. 

The critical habitat designation identifies the physical or biological features essential to the species’

conservation as “substrate of suitable quality and availability to support larval settlement and 

recruitment, and reattachment and recruitment of asexual fragments.” For purposes of this definition, 

“substrate of suitable quality and availability” means natural consolidated hard substrate or dead coral 

skeleton that is free from fleshy or turf macroalgae cover and sediment cover (Endangered and 

Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals, 73 Federal Register

72210–72241 [November 26, 2008]). This definition applies to depths from mean low water to 30 m. No 

other essential features were sufficiently definable. The critical habitat designation for elkhorn coral 

applies to staghorn coral as well (see Section 3.4.2.2.2, Staghorn Coral [Acropora cervicornis]). While 

most shallow-water coral habitat in the Study Area falls within the definition of critical habitat for 

elkhorn and staghorn coral, the United States contains only about 10 percent of all potential critical 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-15

3.4 Invertebrates 

habitat in the Caribbean (Bryant et al., 1998). Exemptions from critical habitat designations include a 

small zone around Naval Air Station Key West and a small area within the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range. The exemption for Naval Air Station Key West was granted in 

accordance with a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act that allows such exemptions for 

installations with approved Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans. The exemption for the 

South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility was granted for national security reasons [73 Federal 

Register 229: 72210–72241, November 26, 2008]. However, ESA protection is not limited to critical 

habitat designations; the species and where it might occur are also protected via regulatory consultation 

requirements. 

The species’ four areas of critical habitat are the Florida area (1,329 square miles [mi2]), the Puerto Rico 

area (1,383 mi2), the St. John/St. Thomas area (121 mi2), and the St. Croix area (126 mi2) (see 

Figure 3.4-1). Areas adjacent to the Naval Air Station Key West and within the footprint of the South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range include areas that meet the definition of elkhorn 

critical habitat. However, areas within 50 yards of the shore of Naval Air Station Key West and a small 

portion of the nearshore footprint of the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range 

(combined total of 5.5 mi2) have been exempted from the critical habitat designation (Endangered and 

Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals, 73 Federal Register

72210–72241 [November 26, 2008]). 

3.4.2.2.1.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Elkhorn coral is typically found on outer reef crests and slopes with exposure to wave action at depths of 

1 to 20 m (3 to 66 feet [ft.]), although it has been reported as deep as 30 m (98 ft.) (Aronson et al., 

2008a; Boulon et al., 2005). The optimal water temperature range for elkhorn coral is 77 to 84 °F, and it 

requires a salinity range of 34 to 37 parts per thousand (Aronson et al., 2008a; Boulon et al., 2005; 

Goreau & Wells, 1967). Elkhorn coral inhabits shallow waters with high oxygen content and low nutrient 

levels (Spalding et al., 2001). Clear, shallow water allows the coral sufficient sunlight exposure to 

support zooxanthellae (symbiotic photosynthetic organisms; analogous to plants living inside the 

animals). Elkhorn coral primarily inhabits the seaward margins of reefs where appropriate conditions are 

more likely to occur (Ginsburg & Shinn, 1964). 

Elkhorn corals are typically found in the southeastern part of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine 

Ecosystem, the northern part of the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem, and the southern part of 

the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Elkhorn coral distribution in the Study 

Area extends from southeastern Florida through the Florida Keys, and surrounds Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands (Aronson et al., 2008a). Elkhorn coral is known to occur in portions of the South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range (Gilliam & Walker, 2011) and the Key West Range 

Complex. Two colonies of elkhorn coral occur in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary in 

the Gulf of Mexico, but this area is not included in designated elkhorn critical habitat (Endangered and 

Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for Threatened Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals, 73 Federal Register 

72210–72241 [November 26, 2008]). Although the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary is 

located in the Gulf of Mexico, it does not intersect a training or testing range and would not likely be 

directly impacted. Therefore, this area is excluded from further analysis. 

3.4.2.2.1.3 Population Trends 

Elkhorn coral is in the Acroporidae family of corals. A review of quantitative data of Acroporidae in the 

wider Caribbean area, including the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas, indicates a greater than 97 percent 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-16

3.4 Invertebrates 

reduction of Acroporidae coverage since the 1970s with peak declines in the 1980s (Boulon et al., 2005; 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). Multiple stressors, including disease, increased water

temperature, decreased breeding population, loss of recruitment habitat, and sedimentation, may be 

affecting the recovery of this species. The current range of Acroporidae is considered to be the same as 

the historical range, despite the more than 97 percent reduction of individual (Bruckner, 2003; 

Rothenberger et al., 2008). 

Research on the population status of elkhorn coral in particular indicates a drastic decline. Surveys of 

Carysfort Reef (1974 to 1982) and Molasses Reef (1981 and 1986) revealed slight declines or stable 

colonies (Jaap et al., 1988). It was not until the observation of a 93 percent decrease of coral in Looe Key 

(1983 to 2000) that the elkhorn coral populations mirrored the substantial decline of other coral species 

such as staghorn coral (Miller et al., 2002). Continued long-term monitoring in the Florida Keys and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands has found that elkhorn coral remains at less than 1 percent of all corals on reefs 

(Rothenberger et al., 2008), and the species’ continued decline since 2004 is attributed principally to 

fragmentation, disease, and predation (Williams & Miller, 2011). Notwithstanding the additional focus 

provided by the 2006 decision to list elkhorn coral as threatened, the population has continued to 

decline by 50 percent or more, recruitment failure has been observed, and genetic studies have shown 

that approximately half of all colonies are clones, which reduces the number of genetically 

distinguishable individuals. 

Elkhorn coral can reproduce sexually by spawning (once each year in August or September) (Boulon et 

al., 2005), or asexually by fragmentation (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010). Although 

fragmentation of adult colonies helps maintain high growth rates (from 4 to 11 centimeters (cm) 

[approximately 2 to 4 inches (in.)] per year), fragmentation reduces the reproductive potential of 

elkhorn coral by delaying the production of eggs and sperm for 4 years after the damage occurs (Lirman, 

2000). Furthermore, large intact colonies produce proportionally more gametes than small colonies 

(such as new colonies started from fragmentation) because tissue at growing portions of the base and 

branch tips is not fertile (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). During sexual reproduction, eggs and 

sperm immediately float to the sea surface where multiple embryos can develop from the 

fragmentation of a single embryo. Developing larvae travel at or near the sea surface for up to several 

weeks (Boulon et al., 2005) before actively seeking specific micro-habitats suitable for growth. Maturity 

is reached between 3 and 8 years, the average generation time is 10 years, and longevity is likely longer 

than 10 years based on average growth rates and size (Wallace, 1999). Combined with a severely 

reduced population, these factors restrict the species’ capacity for recovery.

3.4.2.2.1.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Predators of corals include sea stars, snails, and fishes (e.g., parrotfish and damselfish) (Boulon et al., 

2005; Roff et al., 2011). The marine snail, Coralliophila abbreviata, and the bearded fireworm 

(Hermodice carunculata), are the primary predators on elkhorn coral (Boulon et al., 2005). 

Corals feed on zooplankton, which are small organisms that inhabit the ocean water column. Corals 

capture prey with tentacles armed with stinging cells that surround the mouth or by employing a mucusnet to catch suspended prey. In addition to capturing prey, these corals also acquire nutrients through 

their symbiotic relationship with zooxanthellae. The coral host provides nitrogen in the form of waste to 

the zooxanthellae, and the zooxanthellae provide organic compounds produced by photosynthesis (the 

process by which sunlight is used to produce food) to the host (Brusca & Brusca, 2003; Schuhmacher & 

Zibrowius, 1985). Zooxanthellae also provide corals with their characteristic color. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-17

3.4 Invertebrates 

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; FL: Florida; NAS: Naval Air Station; OPAREA: Operating Area; UNDET: Underwater Detonation 

Figure 3.4-1: Critical Habitat Areas for Elkhorn and Staghorn Coral Within the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-18

3.4 Invertebrates 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-19

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4.2.2.1.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Elkhorn coral is more susceptible to disease than many other Caribbean corals (Pandolfi et al., 2003) 

(Patterson et al., 2002; Porter et al., 2001). In particular, elkhorn coral is susceptible to a disease named 

“white pox” or “acroporid serratiosis” caused by a human fecal bacterium (Serratia marcescens). The 

bacterium is present in other coral species, but causes disease only in elkhorn coral (Sutherland et al., 

2011). Discharge of sewage from all oceangoing vessels therefore has the potential to expose elkhorn 

coral to this bacterium. Navy vessel discharges are managed according to established Uniform National 

Discharge Standards (refer to Section 3.2.1.2.2, Federal Standards and Guidelines, for more 

information). Elkhorn coral is also susceptible to the same suite of stressors that generally threaten 

corals (Section 3.4.2.1.4, General Threats). 

NMFS evaluated the population’s demographic, spatial structure, and vulnerability factors to determine 

whether the species was likely to have an “...extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for 

recovery...” by 2100 (Brainard et al., 2011). Elements that contribute to elkhorn coral’s threatened listing 

are: high vulnerability to ocean warming, ocean acidification and disease, high vulnerability to 

sedimentation and elevated nutrient levels, uncommon abundance, decreasing trend in abundance, low 

relative recruitment rate, restricted geographic range, concentrated in the Caribbean, and inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms. 

3.4.2.2.2 Staghorn Coral (Acropora cervicornis) 

3.4.2.2.2.1 Status and Management 

Staghorn coral is designated as a threatened species under the ESA. Staghorn coral shares the four areas 

of designated critical habitat with elkhorn coral, as well as the two exemptions at Navy facilities (refer to 

Section 3.4.2.2.1.1, Status and Management, for information on critical habitat for these two species). 

Exemptions from critical habitat designations include a small zone around Naval Air Station Key West 

and a small area within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range. The exemption for 

Naval Air Station Key West was granted in accordance with a provision of the National Defense 

Authorization Act that allows such exemptions for installations with approved Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plans. The exemption for the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility was 

granted for national security reasons [73 Federal Register 229: 72210–72241, November 26, 2008]. 

3.4.2.2.2.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Staghorn coral is commonly found in lagoons and the upper to mid-reef slopes, at depths of 1 to 20 m 

(3 to 66 ft.), and requires a salinity range of 34 to 37 parts per thousand (Aronson et al., 2008e; Boulon 

et al., 2005) (refer to Section 3.4.2.2.1.2, Habitat and Geographic Range, as habitat information provided 

for elkhorn coral applies to staghorn coral as well). 

In the Study Area, staghorn distribution extends south from Palm Beach, Florida and along the east coast 

to the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas (Jaap, 1984), in the southern part of the Gulf of Mexico Large 

Marine Ecosystem, the northern part of the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem, and the southern 

part of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Staghorn coral is known to occur 

in portions of the Key West Range Complex (Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed 

Listing Determinations for 82 Reef-Building Coral Species; Proposed Reclassification of Acropora palmate 

and Acropora cervicornis from Threatened to Endangered, 77 Federal Register 73219–73262 [December 

7, 2012]).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-20

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4.2.2.2.3 Population Trends 

Most population monitoring of shallow-water corals is focused on the Florida Keys, which straddle three 

large marine ecosystems: Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico. Because 

the Florida Keys comprise their own ecological subregion, most reports categorize coral data as Floridian 

versus Caribbean rather than distinguishing populations on one side of these artificial boundaries. 

Research on the population status of staghorn coral indicates a drastic decline throughout the Caribbean 

that peaked in the 1980s. At four long-monitored reefs in the Florida Keys, staghorn coral cover 

decreased as follows: 

 18 percent on Carysfort Reef (1974 to 1982) (Dustan & Halas, 1987) 

 96 percent on Molasses Reef (1981 to 1986) (Jaap et al., 1988) 

 98 percent on Looe Key (1983 to 2000) (Causey et al., 2002) 

 80 to 98 percent in the Dry Tortugas (Davis, 1982) 

Continued long-term monitoring in the Florida Keys and the U.S. Virgin Islands has found that staghorn 

coral remains at 2 percent or less of all corals on reefs, a fraction of its former abundance (Boulon et al., 

2005; Rothenberger et al., 2008) (refer to Section 3.4.2.2.1.3, Population Trends, for general population 

and abundance information regarding acroporid corals). Staghorn coral grown in “nurseries” to assist 

recovery programs had substantially higher survival rates after a catastrophic cold-water bleaching 

event in 2010, suggesting that restoration projects have potential for success (Schopmeyer et al., 2011). 

This same 2010 cold-water event killed an average of 15 percent of staghorn colonies at monitored reefs 

in the Florida Keys, a substantial decline in this remnant population (Lirman et al., 2011; National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012a). Since the 2006 decision to list staghorn coral as 

threatened, some populations have continued to decline by 50 percent or more, and reliance on asexual 

fragmentation as a source of new colonies is not considered sufficient to prevent extinction 

(Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Listing Determinations for 82 Reef-Building 

Coral Species; Proposed Reclassification of Acropora palmate and Acropora cervicornis from Threatened 

to Endangered, 77 Federal Register 73219–73262 [December 7, 2012]).

Growth rates for this species range from approximately 1 to 5 in. per year (Boulon et al., 2005). 

Reproductive strategies and characteristics are not materially different from elkhorn coral (Section 

3.4.2.2.1.3, Population Trends). 

3.4.2.2.2.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Predators of corals include sea stars, snails, and fishes (e.g., parrotfish and damselfish) (Boulon et al., 

2005; Roff et al., 2011). The marine snail, Coralliophila abbreviata (Grober-Dunsmore et al., 2006), and 

the bearded fireworm, are the primary predators on staghorn coral. Staghorn coral feeding strategies 

and symbioses are not materially different than those described for elkhorn coral (Section 3.4.2.2.1.4, 

Predator and Prey Interactions).

3.4.2.2.2.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Staghorn coral has no species-specific threats. It is susceptible to the same suite of stressors that 

generally threaten corals (Section 3.4.2.2.1.5, Species-Specific Threats). However it is more susceptible 

to disease such as white band disease (Patterson et al., 2002; Porter et al., 2001), even though other 

diseases also can impact staghorn coral survival (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). A white band 

type II disease which is linked with the bacterial infection, Vibrio carchariae (also referred to as V. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-21

3.4 Invertebrates 

charchariae or V. harveyi; (Gil-Agudelo et al., 2006)), has also been described. A transmissible disease 

that caused rapid tissue loss in staghorn corals in the Florida Keys was described in 2003 (Williams & 

Miller, 2005). Similar to white pox in A. palmata, the disease manifested with irregular multifocal tissue 

lesions with apparently healthy tissue remaining in between. Ciliate infections have also been 

documented at several locations in the Caribbean (Croquer et al., 2006). 

NMFS evaluated the population’s demographic, spatial structure, and vulnerability factors to determine 

whether the species was likely to have an “...extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for 

recovery...” by 2100 (Brainard et al., 2011). Elements that contribute to staghorn coral’s threatened 

status include high vulnerability to ocean warming, ocean acidification and disease, high vulnerability to 

sedimentation and elevated nutrient levels, uncommon abundance, decreasing trend in abundance, low 

relative recruitment rate, restricted geographic range, and inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms. 

3.4.2.2.3 Lobed Star Coral (Orbicella annularis) 

3.4.2.2.3.1 Status and Management 

Lobed star coral (Orbicella [formerly Montastraea] annularis) is listed as threatened under the ESA. 

Orbicella annularis, boulder star coral (Orbicella franksi) and mountainous star coral (Orbicella 

faveolata) have partially overlapping morphological characteristics, particularly in northern sections of 

their range, making identification less certain than for most other Caribbean corals. While there now is 

reasonable acceptance that these are three separate and valid species, decades of taxonomic 

uncertainty and difficult field identification have led many to consider these a single species complex. 

Consequently, many long-term monitoring data sets and previous ecological studies did not distinguish 

among the three species, instead pooling them together as “M. annularis complex” or “M. annularis

sensu lato” (Brainard et al., 2011; Jaap et al., 2002; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

2012b; Somerfield et al., 2008). 

3.4.2.2.3.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Lobed star coral has been reported from depths of 0.5 to 20 m (2 to 66 ft.) (Brainard et al., 2011; 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012b). Orbicella species, including lobed star coral, 

occur in most reef habitat types, although less commonly on the reef flat and in the shallow zones 

formerly dominated by elkhorn coral (Brainard et al., 2011; Goreau, 1959; National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2012b). Orbicella species are key reef-builders. They are known throughout 

the Caribbean, Bahamas, and the Flower Garden Banks, but are uncommon or possibly absent from 

Bermuda. 

Within the Study Area, lobed star coral is typically found in the southern and southeastern parts of the 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, the northern part of the Caribbean Sea Large Marine 

Ecosystem, and the southern part of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. 

Lobed star coral range includes most portions of the Study Area where shallow-water coral reefs occur. 

The principal areas of coincidence between lobed star coral habitat and the Study Area are near Puerto 

Rico and south Florida. Lobed star coral is known to occur in the South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range, adjacent to the Naval Air Station Key West, and the Key West Range Complex. 

However, some of this geographic range information is based on ecological studies that identified the

O. annularis complex rather than specifying O. annularis in particular. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-22

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4.2.2.3.3 Population Trends 

Lobed star coral in the U.S. Virgin Islands declined 72 percent during the years from 1988 to 1999 

(Edmunds & Elahi, 2007). Declines between 40 and 60 percent were recorded in Puerto Rico, and 80 to 

95 percent declines were observed in Florida between the late 1970s and 2003 (Aronson et al., 2008c; 

Brainard et al., 2011). However, because many studies in Puerto Rico and Florida did not reliably 

distinguish between the three species, these changes in abundance should be assumed to apply 

generally to the O. annularis species complex (Brainard et al., 2011). In addition to these declines, the 

remnant population of O. annularis in the Florida Keys was decimated by the 2010 cold-water bleaching 

event that killed about 56 percent of all O. annularis colonies at monitored reefs (Lirman et al., 2011). 

All three of the O. annularis complex species are hermaphroditic, spawning over 4 to 8 nights after the 

late summer full moon (typically September and October) (Brainard et al., 2011; Caribbean Marine 

Biological Institute, 2011). Buoyant gametes are fertilized at the surface. Larval development is typically 

3 to 8 days and larvae are relatively small (Brainard et al., 2011; Caribbean Marine Biological Institute, 

2011). Fertilization success is low and recruitment rates are extremely low, on the order of 1 per 

10 square meters (m2) every 10 years (Brainard et al., 2011). Asexual reproduction by fragmentation is 

occasionally successful, but in general, reproduction rates of this species are extremely low (Aronson et 

al., 2008c; Brainard et al., 2011). Genetic studies of boulder star coral found that populations in the 

eastern and western Caribbean are relatively genetically distinct, suggesting that regional differences in 

population trends or regulations for corals may influence their populations’ genetic diversity (Foster et 

al., 2012). 

Growth rates are approximately 1 cm per year for colonies at depths of less than 12 m (39 ft.) and 

growth rates decrease sharply as depth increases (Brainard et al., 2011). Slow growth coupled with low 

recruitment rates contribute to the three O. annularis complex species’ vulnerability to extinction

(Brainard et al., 2011). 

3.4.2.2.3.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Lobed star coral is much less susceptible to predation by snails than the Acropora species, and although 

preyed on by parrotfish, the species is not targeted (Brainard et al., 2011; Roff et al., 2011). Lobed star 

coral, as well as other species of Orbicella, is susceptible to yellow band disease (Closek et al., 2014). 

Yellow band disease progresses slowly, but can cause large die-offs over the course of several seasons. 

The disease is known to affect several other types of coral and is pervasive in the Caribbean (Closek et 

al., 2014). Lobed star coral feeding strategies and symbioses are not materially different than those 

described for elkhorn coral (Section 3.4.2.2.1.4, Predator and Prey Interactions).

3.4.2.2.3.5 Species-Specific Threats 

All three species of the O. annularis complex are highly susceptible to thermal bleaching, both warm and 

cool extremes (Brainard et al., 2011; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012a). 

Recently, lobed star coral and mountainous star coral (O. faveolata) were found to have higher 

susceptibility to coral bleaching than many other species (van Hooidonk et al., 2012). Among the 

25 coral species assessed after a 2010 cold-water bleaching event in Florida, O. annularis was the most 

susceptible to mortality by a factor of almost two (Lirman et al., 2011). Otherwise, this coral has no 

species-specific threats, and is susceptible to the same suite of stressors that generally threaten corals 

(Section 3.4.2.1.4, General Threats). Disease and pollution (e.g., nutrients, herbicides, and pesticides) 

are the most damaging of the general threats (Brainard et al., 2011; Hughes et al., 2003; Pandolfi et al., 

2005). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-23

3.4 Invertebrates 

NMFS evaluated the population’s demographic, spatial structure, and vulnerability factors to determine 

whether the species was likely to have an “...extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for 

recovery...” by 2100 (Brainard et al., 2011). Elements that contribute to lobed star coral’s threatened

status are: susceptibility to ocean temperature shifts, disease, sedimentation, elevated nutrient levels, 

and ocean acidification; susceptibility to trophic effects of fishing; inadequate existing regulatory 

mechanisms to address global threats; threats by human impacts; decreasing trend in abundance; low 

relative recruitment rate; narrow overall distribution (based on narrow geographic distribution and 

moderate depth distribution); the concentration of the species in the Caribbean; and shifts to small size 

classes via fission and partial mortality of older, larger colonies (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2014). 

3.4.2.2.4 Boulder Star Coral (Orbicella franksi) 

3.4.2.2.4.1 Status and Management 

Boulder star coral is designated as a threatened species under the ESA. 

This species, previously identified as Montastraea franksi, is part of the O. annularis complex (identified 

in Section 3.4.2.2.3, Lobed Star Coral [Orbicella annularis]), which also includes lobed star coral and 

mountainous star coral. 

3.4.2.2.4.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Boulder star coral is found at least as deep as 50 m (164 ft.) (Brainard et al., 2011), and is found in most 

reef environments. The O. annularis complex has been reported to at least 70 to 90 m (230 to 295 ft.), 

though only O. faveolata and O. franksi are likely to occur at these depths. The species is found in 

Bermuda but otherwise its geographic range is not materially different from O. annularis. 

Boulder star coral is known to occur in the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, 

adjacent to Naval Air Station Key West, and the Key West and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. 

However, some of this geographic range information is based on ecological studies that identified the O. 

annularis complex rather than specifying O. franksi in particular. 

3.4.2.2.4.3 Population Trends 

This species information is assumed not to be materially different from lobed star coral; however, 

differences may be masked since many ecological studies collected data at the O. annularis complex 

level rather than specifying O. franksi in particular. 

3.4.2.2.4.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

This species information is assumed not to be materially different from lobed star coral; however, 

differences may be masked since many ecological studies collected data at the O. annularis complex 

level rather than specifying O. franksi in particular. 

3.4.2.2.4.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Boulder star coral was less susceptible to mortality after a 2010 cold-water bleaching event in Florida 

than any of its congeners by at least a factor of three (Lirman et al., 2011). Otherwise, susceptibility to 

threats is not assumed to be materially different from lobed star coral. However, differences may be 

masked because many ecological studies identified the O. annularis complex rather than specifying O. 

franksi in particular. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-24

3.4 Invertebrates 

NMFS evaluated the population’s demographic, spatial structure, and vulnerability factors to determine 

whether the species was likely to have an “...extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for 

recovery...” by 2100 (Brainard et al., 2011). Elements that contribute to boulder star coral’s threatened 

status are: high susceptibility to ocean warming, disease, elevated nutrient levels, ocean acidification, 

and sedimentation; susceptibility to trophic effects of fishing; inadequate existing regulatory 

mechanisms to address global threats; threats by human impacts; decreasing trend in abundance; slow 

growth rate; low relative recruitment rate; moderate overall distribution (based on narrow geographic 

distribution and wide depth distribution); restriction to the Caribbean; and shifts to small size classes via 

fission and partial mortality of older, larger colonies (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014). 

3.4.2.2.5 Mountainous Star Coral (Orbicella faveolata) 

3.4.2.2.5.1 Status and Management 

Mountainous star coral is designated as a threatened species under the ESA. 

The species was previously identified as Montastraea faveolata. Boulder star coral is part of the O. 

annularis complex (identified in Section 3.4.2.2.3.1, Status and Management), which also includes lobed 

star coral and boulder star coral. 

3.4.2.2.5.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Mountainous star coral occurs from 0.5 m (2 ft.) to at least as deep as 40 m (131 ft.) (Brainard et al., 

2011), and like O. annularis it is more commonly found in the shallower portions of this range. The O. 

annularis complex has been reported to at least 70 to 90 m (230 to 295 ft.), though only O. faveolata

and O. franksi are likely to occur at these depths. This species is found in Bermuda but otherwise its 

geographic range is not materially different from O. annularis. 

Mountainous star coral is known to occur in the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing 

Range, adjacent to the Naval Air Station Key West, and the Key West Range Complex. However, some of 

this geographic range information is based on ecological studies that identified the O. annularis complex 

rather than specifying O. faveolata in particular. 

3.4.2.2.5.3 Population Trends 

This species information is assumed not to be materially different from lobed star coral; however, 

differences may be masked since many ecological studies collected data at the O. annularis complex 

level rather than specifying O. faveolata in particular. 

3.4.2.2.5.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

This species information is assumed not to be materially different from lobed star coral; however, 

differences may be masked since many ecological studies collected data at the O. annularis complex 

level rather than specifying O. faveolata in particular. 

3.4.2.2.5.5 Species-Specific Threats 

This species information is assumed not to be materially different from lobed star coral; however, 

differences may be masked since many ecological studies collected data at the O. annularis complex 

level rather than specifying O. faveolata in particular. 

NMFS evaluated the population’s demographic, spatial structure, and vulnerability factors to determine 

whether the species was likely to have an “...extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for 

recovery...” by 2100 (Brainard et al., 2011). Elements that contribute to mountainous star coral’s 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-25

3.4 Invertebrates 

threatened status are: high susceptibility ocean warming, disease, sedimentation and elevated nutrient 

levels; susceptibility to trophic effects of fishing; inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms to address 

global threats; decreasing trend in abundance; low relative recruitment rate; late reproductive maturity; 

moderate overall distribution with concentration in areas of high human impact; and shifts to small size 

classes via fission and partial mortality of older, larger colonies (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2014). 

3.4.2.2.6 Pillar Coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus) 

3.4.2.2.6.1 Status and Management 

Pillar Coral is designated as a threatened species under the ESA. 

3.4.2.2.6.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Pillar coral most frequently occurs at depths of 3 to 8 m (10 to 26 ft.) but has been documented at 

depths of 1 to 25 m (3 to 82 ft.) (Brainard et al., 2011; National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2012a). It is found on rocky outcrops in areas of high wave activity (Marhaver et al., 

2015). It is known to occur in south Florida as far north as Broward County and from one colony in 

Bermuda, but is not known to occur at the Flower Garden Banks or elsewhere in the northern or 

western Gulf of Mexico. 

Within the Study Area, pillar corals are typically found in the southern and southeastern parts of the 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, the northern part of the Caribbean Sea Large Marine 

Ecosystem, and the southern part of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Pillar 

coral range includes most portions of the Study Area where shallow-water coral reefs occur. The 

principal areas of coincidence between pillar coral habitat and the Study Area are near Puerto Rico and 

south Florida. Pillar coral is known to occur in portions of the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility 

Testing Range, adjacent to the Naval Air Station Key West, and the Key West Range Complex. 

3.4.2.2.6.3 Population Trends 

Pillar coral is both rare and conspicuous (due to its growth form). It has a limited habitat preference and 

colonies are often dispersed and isolated throughout the habitat range (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2014). Because pillar coral colonies have been killed by warm and cold water bleaching, disease, 

and physical damage, it has been assumed that this rare species is in decline. In general, pillar coral is 

too rare for meaningful trends in abundance to be detected by typical reef monitoring programs 

(Brainard et al., 2011). However, recent studies on reproductive strategies and life history have shown 

low sexual recruitment rates and slow growth, adding further population and genetic diversity concerns 

for the species (Marhaver et al., 2015). 

Growth rates for this species are typically 8 mm (0.3 in.) per year, though rates up to 20 mm (0.8 in.) per 

year have been reported (Brainard et al., 2011). Pillar coral spawns, and the first observation of 

spawning activity was recorded in August 2012, 3 to 4 days after a full moon. Further studies found this 

spawning activity to be consistent through 2014 (Marhaver et al., 2015). The rate of sexual reproduction 

is likely to be low because the species is so rare and colonies are gonochoric (i.e., a colony is either male 

or female); male and female colonies are unlikely to be in close enough proximity for reliable 

fertilization. For this reason, no juveniles of pillar coral have been observed in the past several decades, 

and fragmentation seems to be the only successful mode of reproduction for this species (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012b). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-26

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4.2.2.6.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Predators of this species seem to be few, and though the corallivorous fireworm (Hermodice 

carunculata) feeds on diseased pillar coral, it does not seem to be a major predator (Brainard et al., 

2011). A species of sea urchin (Diadema antillarum) has been known to cause partial mortality at the 

base of pillar coral colonies (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014). Pillar coral is distinctive among 

Caribbean corals because its tentacles are extended for feeding on zooplankton during the day, while 

most other corals’ tentacles are retracted during the day (Boulon et al., 2005; Brainard et al., 2011). 

Pillar coral feeding strategies and symbioses are not materially different than those described for 

elkhorn coral (Section 3.4.2.2.1.4, Predator and Prey Interactions).

3.4.2.2.6.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Pillar coral has no species-specific threats. It is susceptible to the same suite of stressors that generally 

threaten corals (Section 3.4.2.1.4, General Threats); however, it was historically more susceptible to 

exploitation by the curio trade (Brainard et al., 2011). Low population density and separation of male 

and female colonies are the principal threats to the species (Brainard et al., 2011; National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2012b). 

NMFS evaluated the population’s demographic, spatial structure, and vulnerability factors to determine 

whether the species was likely to have an “...extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for 

recovery...” by 2100 (Brainard et al., 2011). Elements that contribute to pillar coral’s threatened status 

are: susceptibility to ocean warming, disease, acidification, elevated nutrient levels, sedimentation, and 

trophic effects of fishing; inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms to address global threats; threats 

by human impacts; rare general range-wide abundance; low relative recruitment rate; narrow overall 

distribution (based on narrow geographic distribution and moderate depth distribution); and restriction 

to the Caribbean (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014). 

3.4.2.2.7 Rough Cactus Coral (Mycetophyllia ferox) 

3.4.2.2.7.1 Status and Management 

Rough cactus coral is designated as a threatened species under the ESA. 

3.4.2.2.7.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Rough cactus coral is known to occur as deep as 80 to 90 m (Brainard et al., 2011; National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2012b). Though reported to commonly occur at depths of 5 to 30 m (16 to 

98 ft.) (Aronson et al., 2008d), this could be an artifact of scuba diver-based survey intensity, which 

decreases dramatically below 30 m (98 ft.). Rough cactus coral occurs in patch and fore reef habitat 

types, generally in lower energy parts of the reef (Brainard et al., 2011; National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2012b). It is known from throughout the Caribbean and southern Gulf of 

Mexico, but is absent from the Flower Garden Banks, Bermuda, and the southeast United States north 

of south Florida (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014). 

Within the Study Area, rough cactus coral is typically found in the southern and southeastern parts of 

the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, the northern part of the Caribbean Sea Large Marine 

Ecosystem, and the southern part of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. 

Rough cactus coral range includes most portions of the Study Area where shallow-water coral reefs 

occur. The principal areas of coincidence between rough cactus coral habitat and the Study Area are 

near Puerto Rico and south Florida. Rough cactus coral is known to occur in the South Florida Ocean 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-27

3.4 Invertebrates 

Measurement Facility Testing Range, adjacent to the Naval Air Station Key West, and the Key West 

Range Complex. 

3.4.2.2.7.3 Population Trends 

Though probably never abundant, rough cactus coral in the Florida Keys has declined by at least 

80 percent since 1996 and perhaps by much more since the 1970s (Brainard et al., 2011). The 

abundance of rough cactus coral has been estimated to be at least hundreds of thousands of colonies in 

the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014). 

Rough cactus coral is a hermaphroditic brooder, releasing fully-developed larvae in the late winter 

(February to March) (Aronson et al., 2008b). Recruitment rates are extremely low or absent, as 

evidenced by observation of anchor-damaged site in the U.S. Virgin Islands over a 10-year period 

(Brainard et al., 2011). No colonies of rough cactus coral were observed to recruit to the site despite the 

presence of adults on an adjacent reef (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014). 

3.4.2.2.7.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Rough cactus coral is not known to be particularly susceptible to predators (Brainard et al., 2011), and 

feeding strategies and symbioses are not materially different than those described for elkhorn coral 

(Section 3.4.2.2.1.4, Predator and Prey Interactions).

3.4.2.2.7.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Though not especially susceptible to mortality from warm-water bleaching (Brainard et al., 2011; Lough 

& van Oppen, 2009), 15 percent of Mycetophyllia species were killed after a cold-water bleaching event 

in Florida (Lirman et al., 2011). Some coral diseases are characterized by the white-colored bands or pox 

they cause, but are otherwise difficult to discriminate (Porter et al., 2001). While diseases such as “white 

plague” do not seem to be species-specific (Porter et al., 2001), rough cactus coral in the Florida Keys 

has been particularly susceptible to this type of disease (Brainard et al., 2011). 

NMFS evaluated the population’s demographic, spatial structure, and vulnerability factors to determine 

whether the species was likely to have an “...extremely high risk of extinction with little chance for 

recovery...” by 2100 (Brainard et al., 2011). Elements that contribute to rough cactus coral’s 

(Mycetophyllia ferox) threatened status are: high susceptibility to disease; susceptibility to ocean 

warming, acidification, trophic effects of fishing, elevated nutrient levels, and sedimentation; 

inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms to address global threats; threats by human impacts; rare 

general range-wide abundance; decreasing trend in abundance; low relative recruitment rate; moderate 

overall distribution (based on narrow geographic distribution and wide depth distribution); and 

restriction to the Caribbean (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2014). 

3.4.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act 

Thousands of invertebrate species occur in the Study Area; however, the only species with ESA status 

are seven coral species listed as threatened and one coral species designated as a species of concern. 

The variety of species spans many taxonomic groups (taxonomy is a method of classifying and naming 

organisms). Many species of marine invertebrates are commercially or recreationally fished as seafood. 

Several species are federally managed as part of fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. 

Marine invertebrates are classified within major taxonomic groups, generally referred to as a phylum. 

Major invertebrate phyla—those with greater than 1,000 species (Roskov et al., 2015; World Register of 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-28

3.4 Invertebrates 

Marine Species Editorial Board, 2015)—and the general zones they inhabit in the Study Area are listed in 

Table 3.4-2. Vertical distribution information is generally shown for adults; the larval stages of most of 

the species occur in the water column. In addition to the discrete phyla listed, there is a substantial 

variety of single-celled organisms, commonly referred to as protozoan invertebrates, that represent 

several phyla (Kingdom Protozoa in Table 3.4-2). Throughout the invertebrates section, organisms may 

be referred to by their phylum name or, more generally, as marine invertebrates. 

Table 3.4-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Marine Invertebrates in the Atlantic Fleet Training 

and Testing Study Area 

Major Invertebrate Groups1 Presence in the Study Area2

Common Name

(Classification)3 Description4 Open Ocean Areas

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inland 

Waters

Foraminifera, 

radiolarians, ciliates

(Kingdom Protozoa)

Benthic and planktonic singlecelled organisms; shells typically 

made of calcium carbonate or 

silica.

Water column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Sponges 

(Porifera)

Mostly benthic animals; sessile 

filter feeders; large species have 

calcium carbonate or silica 

structures embedded in cells to 

provide structural support.

Bottom Bottom Bottom

Corals, anemones, 

hydroids, jellyfish 

(Cnidaria)

Benthic and pelagic animals 

with stinging cells; sessile corals 

are main builders of coral reef 

frameworks.

Water column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Flatworms

(Platyhelminthes)

Mostly benthic; simplest form 

of marine worm with a 

flattened body.

Water column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Ribbon worms

(Nemertea)

Benthic marine worms with an 

extendable, long tubularshaped extension (proboscis) 

that helps capture food.

Water column, 

bottom Bottom Bottom

Round worms 

(Nematoda)

Small benthic marine worms; 

free-living or may live in close 

association with other animals.

Water column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Segmented worms 

(Annelida)

Mostly benthic, sedentary to 

highly mobile segmented 

marine worms (polychaetes); 

free-living and tube-dwelling 

species; predators, scavengers, 

herbivores, detritus feeders, 

deposit feeders, and filter or 

suspension feeders.

Bottom Bottom Bottom
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

Table 3.4-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Marine Invertebrates in the Atlantic Fleet Training 

and Testing Study Area (continued) 

3.4-29

3.4 Invertebrates 

Major Invertebrate Groups1 Presence in the Study Area2

Common Name

(Classification)3 Description4 Open Ocean Areas

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inland 

Waters

Bryozoans 

(Bryzoa)

Small, colonial animals with 

gelatinous or hard exteriors 

with a diverse array of growth 

forms; filter feeding; attached 

to a variety of substrates 

(e.g., rocks, plants, shells or 

external skeletons of 

invertebrates.

Bottom Bottom Bottom

Cephalopods, 

bivalves, sea snails, 

chitons

(Mollusca)

Soft-bodied benthic or pelagic 

predators, filter feeders, 

detritus feeders, and herbivore 

grazers; many species have a 

shell and muscular foot; in some 

groups, a ribbon-like band of 

teeth is used to scrape food off 

rocks or other hard surfaces.

Water column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Shrimp, crabs, 

lobsters, barnacles, 

copepods 

(Arthropoda)

Benthic and pelagic predators, 

herbivores, scavengers, detritus 

feeders, and filter feeders; 

segmented bodies and external 

skeletons with jointed 

appendages. 

Water column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Water 

column, 

bottom

Sea stars, sea 

urchins, sea 

cucumbers 

(Echinodermata)

Benthic animals with 

endoskeleton made of hard 

calcareous structures (plates, 

rods, spicules); five-sided radial 

symmetry; many species with 

tube feet; predators, 

herbivores, detritus feeders, 

and suspension feeders.

Bottom Bottom Bottom

1 Major species groups (those with more than 1,000 species) are based on the World Register of Marine Species (World 

Register of Marine Species Editorial Board, 2015) and Catalogue of Life (Roskov et al., 2015).

2 Presence in the Study Area includes open ocean areas; large marine ecosystems; and bays, rivers, and estuaries. 

Occurrence on or within seafloor (bottom or benthic) or water column (pelagic) pertains to juvenile and adult stages; 

however, many phyla may include pelagic planktonic larval stages. 

3 Classification generally refers to the rank of phylum, although Protozoa is a traditionally recognized group of several phyla 

of single-celled organisms (e.g., historically referred to as Kingdom Protozoa, which is still retained in some references, 

such as in the Integrated Taxonomic Information System).

4 benthic = a bottom-dwelling organism associated with seafloor or substrate; planktonic = an organism (or life stage of an 

organism) that drifts in pelagic (water) environments; nekton = actively swimming pelagic organism.

Additional information on the biology, life history, and conservation of marine invertebrates can be 

found on the websites maintained by the following organizations: 

 NMFS, particularly for ESA-listed species and species of concern 

 United States Coral Reef Task Force 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-30

3.4 Invertebrates 

 MarineBio Conservation Society 

3.4.2.3.1 Foraminifera, Radiolarians, Ciliates (Kingdom Protozoa) 

Foraminifera, radiolarians, and ciliates are miniscule singled-celled organisms, sometimes forming 

colonies of cells, belonging to the kingdom Protozoa (Appeltans et al., 2010; Castro & Huber, 2000a). 

They are found in the water column and on the bottom of the world’s oceans, and while most are 

microscopic, some species grow to approximately 20 cm (Hayward et al., 2016). In general, the 

distribution of foraminifera, radiolarians, and ciliates is patchy, occurring in regions with favorable 

growth conditions. 

Foraminifera form diverse and intricate shells out of calcium carbonate, organic compounds, or sand or 

other particles cemented together (University of California Berkeley, 2010d). The shells of foraminifera 

that live in the water column eventually sink to the bottom, forming soft bottom sediments known as 

foraminiferan ooze. Foraminifera feed on diatoms and other small organisms. Their predators include 

copepods and other zooplankton. 

Radiolarians are microscopic zooplankton that form shells made of silica. Radiolarian ooze covers large 

areas of soft bottom habitat on the ocean floor (Pearse et al., 1987; University of California Berkeley, 

2010e). Many radiolarian species contain symbiotic dinoflagellates (a type of single-celled organism) or 

algae. Radiolarians may also trap small particles or other organisms (e.g., diatoms) that drift in the water 

column. 

Ciliates are protozoans with small hair-like extensions that are used for feeding and movement. They are 

a critical food source for primary consumers and are considered important parasites of many marine 

invertebrates. Ciliates feed on bacteria and algae, and some species contain symbiotic algae. 

3.4.2.3.2 Sponges (Phylum Porifera) 

Sponges include approximately 8,550 marine species worldwide and are classified in the Phylum Porifera 

(Van Soest et al., 2012; World Register of Marine Species Editorial Board, 2015). Sponges are bottomdwelling, multicellular animals that can be best described as an aggregation of cells that perform 

different functions. Sponges are largely sessile, and are common throughout the Study Area at all 

depths. Sponges are typically found on intermediate bottoms (unconsolidated substrate that is mostly 

gravel or cobble-sized) to hard bottoms, artificial structures, and biotic reefs. Sponges reproduce both 

sexually and asexually. Water flow through the sponge provides food and oxygen, and removes wastes 

(Pearse et al., 1987; University of California Berkeley, 2010b). This filtering process is an important 

coupler of processes that occur in the water column and on the bottom (Perea-Bla ́zquez et al., 2012). 

Many sponges form calcium carbonate or silica spicules or bodies embedded in cells to provide 

structural support (Castro & Huber, 2000b; Van Soest et al., 2012). Sponges provide homes for a variety 

of animals including shrimp, crabs, barnacles, worms, brittle stars, sea cucumbers, and other sponges 

(Colin & Arneson, 1995a). Within the western Atlantic coral reef and related ecosystems, there are 

117 genera of sponges (Spalding et al., 2001). Some sponge species are harvested commercially. For 

example, the sheepswool sponge (Hippiospongia lachne) and yellow sponge (Cleona celata) are 

commercially harvested in Florida waters located in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem (Stevely 

& Sweat, 2008). 

Most sponges do not form reefs because their skeletons do not persist intact after the colony’s death. 

However, the skeletal structure of a few hexactinellid sponge species may form reefs or mounds. 

Sponge reefs are currently only known off the western coast of Canada. Hexactinellid sponges were 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-31

3.4 Invertebrates 

documented on bottom features along the shelf break and on Mytilus Seamount in the Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, but reef structures were not reported (Quattrini et al., 2015). 

Known threats to reef-building sponges are physical strike and disturbance from anthropogenic activities 

(Whitney et al., 2005). 

3.4.2.3.3 Corals, Hydroids, Jellyfish (Phylum Cnidaria) 

There are over 10,000 marine species within the phylum Cnidaria worldwide (World Register of Marine 

Species Editorial Board, 2015), although there is taxonomic uncertainty within some groups (Veron, 

2013). Cnidarians are organized into four classes: Anthozoa (corals, sea anemones, sea pens, sea 

pansies), Hydrozoa (hydroids and hydromedusae), Scyphozoa (true jellyfish), and Cubozoa (box jellyfish, 

sea wasps). Individuals are characterized by a simple digestive cavity with an exterior mouth surrounded 

by tentacles. Microscopic stinging capsules known as nematocysts are present (especially in the 

tentacles) in all cnidarians and are a defining characteristic of the phylum. The majority of species are 

carnivores that eat zooplankton, small invertebrates, and fishes. However, many species suspension 

feed on plankton and dissolved organic matter, or contain symbiotic dinoflagellate algae (zooxanthellae) 

that produce nutrients by photosynthesis (Brusca & Brusca, 2003; Dubinsky & Berman-Frank, 2001; 

Lough & van Oppen, 2009; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration & NOAA’s Coral Reef 

Conservation Program, 2016). Representative predators of cnidarians include sea slugs, snails, crabs, sea 

stars, coral- and jellyfish-eating fish, and marine turtles. Cnidarians may be solitary or may form 

colonies. 

Cnidarians have many diverse body shapes, but may generally be categorized as one of two basic forms: 

polyp and medusa. The polyp form is tubular and sessile, attached at one end with the mouth 

surrounded by tentacles at the free end. Corals and anemones are examples of the polyp form. The 

medusa form is bell- or umbrella-shaped (e.g., jellyfish), with tentacles typically around the rim. The 

medusa form generally is pelagic, although there are exceptions. Many species alternate between these 

two forms during their life cycle. All cnidarian species are capable of sexual reproduction, and many 

cnidarians also reproduce asexually. The free-swimming larval stage is usually planktonic, but is benthic 

in some species. 

A wide variety of cnidarian species occur throughout the Study Area at all depths and in most habitats, 

including hard and intermediate shores; soft, intermediate, and hard bottom; aquatic vegetation beds; 

and artificial substrates. Some cnidarians form biotic habitats that harbor other animals and influence 

ecological processes, the primary examples being shallow-water and deep-water corals. 

ESA-listed coral species are primarily associated with shallow-water coral reefs. In the Study Area, 

shallow-water coral reefs occur in the southern part of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, 

throughout the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem, and in the southern part of the Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, including southeast Florida and the Bahamas (Spalding et al., 

2001). In the central and eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, coral reefs occur in 

the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (not part of the Study Area), Pulley Ridge Ecological 

Reserve, Dry Tortugas Ecological Reserve, and Florida Keys (Monaco et al., 2008; Spalding et al., 2001; 

U.S. Department of the Navy, 2007; U.S. Geological Survey, 2013). In the Southeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, shallow-water coral reefs occur throughout the Florida Keys and 

southeast Florida (Burke & Maidens, 2004). Reefs also occur in the Caribbean Sea Large Marine 

Ecosystem surrounding Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Several Caribbean coral species are listed 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-32

3.4 Invertebrates 

under the ESA (Sections 3.4.2.2.1, Elkhorn Coral [Acropora palmata] to Section 3.4.2.2.7, Rough Cactus 

Coral [Mycetophyllia ferox]). 

Corals that are associated with tropical shallow reefs and temperate rocky habitats are vulnerable to a 

range of threats, including fishing impacts, pollution, erosion/sedimentation, coral harvesting, vessel 

damage, temperature increase, and climate change. Fishing practices such as blast fishing and trapping 

may be particularly destructive to coral reefs. In addition, removal of herbivorous fishes may result in 

overgrowth of coral reefs by algae (DeMartini & Smith, 2015). Corals associated with shallow-water 

reefs in the Florida Keys and some areas of the Caribbean have been substantially degraded by human 

activities and other factors. Threats are further discussed in Section 3.4.2.1.4 (General Threats) and in 

the individual descriptions of ESA-listed coral species. Because corals are slow growing and can survive 

for hundreds of years (Love et al., 2007; Roberts & Hirshfield, 2003), recovery from damage could take 

many years. Corals that occur in association with shallow-water coral reefs are protected by Executive 

Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection, and managed by the Coral Reef Task Force (Executive Order 13089: 

Coral Reef Protection, 63 Federal Register 32701–32703 [June 16, 1998]). The Navy is the DoD 

representative to the United States Coral Reef Task Force and also carries out the Coral Reef Protection 

Implementation Plan (Lobel & Lobel, 2000). 

Deep-water corals are azooxanthellate (lack symbiotic algae) and thus do not form consolidated 

biogenic substrate, but rather form mounds of intermediate substrate over hard bottom areas. Deepwater coral taxa in the Study Area include stony corals, black corals, gold corals, gorgonians, true soft 

corals, sea pens (Pennatulaceans), and calcified hydroids (Stylasterids) (Brooke & Schroeder, 2007; Lutz 

& Ginsburg, 2007; Packer et al., 2007; Ross & Nizinski, 2007). Up to 24 coral species were identified in 

various habitats in deep areas (water depths of approximately 500 to 3,000 m) from the Gulf of Maine 

to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Quattrini et al., 2015). However, two species, ivory tree coral and 

Lophelia pertusa, are the most common off the Atlantic coast. Due to their occurrence in areas that lack 

water temperatures sufficient to support coralline algae (which form the hard consolidated material of 

biogenic reefs), these corals do not build reef structures but either occur as a layer on hard rocky 

substrate or form lithoherms. 

Ivory tree coral distribution in the Study Area includes the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem at depths of 30 to 150 m, but extensive reefs are 

known only offshore of the central east coast of Florida (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2010a). Lophelia pertusa reefs occur throughout the Study Area at depths of 200 to 

800 m, with the exception of the West Greenland Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and the Labrador 

Current Open Ocean Area (though Freiwald et al. (2004) suggest that this is not a true absence but 

rather reflects insufficient survey intensity) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010c; 

Reed et al., 2006). Although Lophelia pertusa is uncommon in the vicinity of the Grand Banks, extensive 

soft coral gardens occur at depths of 600 to 1,300 m (Murillo et al., 2011). Relative to other parts of the 

Study Area, Lophelia pertusa distribution in the vicinity of Navy training areas of the Jacksonville Range 

Complex is exceptionally well mapped (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2009). In the Jacksonville 

Operating Area (OPAREA), deep-water corals are found along the continental slope between 200 and 

1,000 m (Reed et al., 2006). Communities of Lophelia pertusa have also been found to inhabit substrate 

at relatively shallow depths of 180 to 250 m off the coast of northeastern Florida in the Jacksonville 

Range Complex (Ross et al., 2015; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010a). Deep-water corals are likely 

absent from the open ocean biogeographic zone due to their occurrence below the aragonite saturation 

zone (in the case of stony corals) and the scarcity of planktonic food in the abyssal zone (Morris et al., 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-33

3.4 Invertebrates 

2013). An exception could be the seamounts located seaward of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf 

Large Marine Ecosystem. The results of habitat suitability modeling of seamounts located in less than 

2,500 m water depth and rising at least 1,000 m off the bottom suggest the potential for deep-water 

corals to occur at seamounts located off the northeast U.S. continental shelf (Tittensor et al., 2009), 

which is consistent with the observation of corals on Mytilus Seamount in the Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (Quattrini et al., 2015). 

The greatest threat to deep-water coral is physical strike and disturbance resulting from human 

activities. Deep corals are susceptible to physical disturbance due to the branching and fragile growth 

form of some species, slow growth rate (colonies can be hundreds of years old), and low reproduction 

and recruitment rates. For example, studies of the of the black coral Leiopathes glaberrima in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico suggest that bathymetry and water circulation patterns could limit larval 

dispersal and recovery in the event of a large disturbance (Cardona et al., 2016). Fishing activities, 

particularly trawling, are the primary threats to deep corals (Brooke & Schroeder, 2007; National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010a; Packer et al., 2007; Reed et al., 2007; Ross & Nizinski, 

2007). It has been estimated that only about 10 percent of ivory tree coral habitat remains intact off 

Florida’s eastern coast, presumably due mostly to trawling (Koenig et al., 2005). Marine debris, including 

a fishing trap, fishing line, balloon remnants, and ribbon, was observed either lying on or wrapped 

around deep-sea corals (Quattrini et al., 2015). Other potential human-caused threats to deep-water 

corals include hydrocarbon exploration and extraction, petroleum contamination, cable and pipeline 

installation, and other various bottom-disturbing activities (Brooke & Schroeder, 2007; Chuenpagdee et 

al., 2003; Packer et al., 2007; Parrish & Baco, 2007; Ross & Nizinski, 2007). Natural threats consist of 

sedimentation and bioerosion of the substrate. 

3.4.2.3.4 Flatworms (Phylum Platyhelminthes) 

Flatworms include between 12,000 and 20,000 marine species worldwide (World Register of Marine 

Species Editorial Board, 2015) and are the simplest form of marine worm (Castro & Huber, 2000b). The 

largest single group of flatworms are parasites commonly found in fishes, seabirds, and marine 

mammals (Castro & Huber, 2000b; University of California Berkeley, 2010c). The life history of parasitic 

flatworms plays a role in the regulation of populations of the marine vertebrates they inhabit. Ingestion 

by the host organism is the primary dispersal method for parasitic flatworms. Parasitic forms are not 

typically found in the water column outside of a host organism. The remaining groups are non-parasitic 

carnivores, living without a host. A large number of flatworm species from numerous families are found 

in various habitats throughout the Study Area. Several species of wrasses and other reef fish prey on 

flatworms (Castro & Huber, 2000a, 2000b). 

3.4.2.3.5 Ribbon Worms (Phylum Nemertea) 

Ribbon worms include over 1,300 marine species worldwide (World Register of Marine Species Editorial 

Board, 2015). Ribbon worms, with their distinct gut and mouth parts, are more complex than flatworms 

(Castro & Huber, 2000b). A unique feature of ribbon worms is the extendable proboscis (an elongated, 

tubular mouth part), which can be ejected to capture prey, to aid in movement, or for defense (Brusca & 

Brusca, 2003). Most ribbon worms are active, bottom-dwelling predators of small invertebrates such as 

annelid worms and crustaceans (Brusca & Brusca, 2003; Castro & Huber, 2000a). Some are scavengers 

or symbiotic (parasites or commensals). Some ribbon worms are pelagic, with approximately 100 pelagic 

species identified from all oceans (Roe & Norenburg, 1999). Pelagic species generally drift or slowly 

swim by undulating the body. Ribbon worms exhibit a variety of reproductive strategies, including direct 

development with juveniles hatching from egg cases and indirect development from planktonic larvae
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-34

3.4 Invertebrates 

(Brusca & Brusca, 2003). In addition, many species are capable of asexual budding or regeneration from 

body fragments. Ribbon worms have a relatively small number of predators, including some birds, 

fishes, crabs, molluscs, squid, and other ribbon worms (McDermott, 2001). Ribbon worms are found 

throughout the Study Area. They occur in most marine environments, although usually in low 

abundances. They occur in embayments; soft, intermediate, and rocky shores and subtidal habitats of 

coastal waters; and deep-sea habitats. Some are associated with biotic habitats such as mussel clumps, 

coral reefs, kelp holdfasts, seagrass beds, and worm burrows (Thiel & Kruse, 2001). Approximately 

50 species of ribbon worms are known along the Atlantic coast of North America (Encyclopedia of Life, 

2017), and 24 species are known from Florida and the Virgin Islands (Aguilar, 2009; Correa, 1961). 

Approximately 40 species of nemerteans occur in the Gulf of Mexico (Norenburg, 2009). 

3.4.2.3.6 Round Worms (Phylum Nematoda) 

Round worms include over 7,000 marine species (World Register of Marine Species Editorial Board, 

2015). Round worms are small and cylindrical, are abundant in sediment habitats such as soft to 

intermediate shores and soft to intermediate bottoms, and can also be found in host organisms as 

parasites (Castro & Huber, 2000b). Round worms are some of the most widespread marine 

invertebrates, with population densities of up to 1 million or more organisms per square meter of 

sediment (Levinton, 2009). This group has a variety of food preferences, including algae, small 

invertebrates, annelid worms, and organic material from sediment. Like parasitic flatworms, parasitic 

nematodes play a role in regulating populations of other marine organisms by causing illness or 

mortality. Species in the family Anisakidae infect marine fish, and may cause illness in humans if fish are 

consumed raw without proper precautions (Castro & Huber, 2000b). Round worms are found 

throughout the Study Area. 

3.4.2.3.7 Segmented Worms (Phylum Annelida) 

Segmented worms include approximately 12,000 marine species worldwide in the phylum Annelida, 

although most marine forms are in the class Polychaeta (World Register of Marine Species Editorial 

Board, 2015). Polychaetes are the most complex group of marine worms, with a well-developed 

respiratory and gastrointestinal system (Castro & Huber, 2000b). Different species of segmented worms 

may be highly mobile or burrow in the bottom (soft to intermediate shore or bottom habitats) (Castro & 

Huber, 2000a). Polychaete worms exhibit a variety of life styles and feeding strategies, and may be 

predators, scavengers, deposit-feeders, filter-feeders, or suspension feeders (Jumars et al., 2014). The 

variety of feeding strategies and close connection to the bottom make annelids an integral part of the 

marine food web (Levinton, 2009). Burrowing and agitating the sediment increases the oxygen content 

of bottom sediments and makes important buried nutrients available to other organisms. This allows 

bacteria and other organisms, which are also an important part of the food web, to flourish on the 

bottom. Benthic polychaetes also vary in their mobility, including sessile attached or tube-dwelling 

worms, sediment burrowing worms, and mobile surface or subsurface worms. Some polychaetes are 

commensal or parasitic. Many polychaetes have planktonic larvae. 

Polychaetes are found throughout the Study Area inhabiting rocky, sandy, and muddy areas of the 

bottom, vegetated habitats, and artificial substrates. Some are associated with biotic habitats such as 

mussel clumps, coral reefs, and worm burrows. Some species of worms build rigid (e.g., Diopatra spp.)

or sand-encrusted (Phragmatapoma spp.) tubes, and aggregations of these tubes form a structural 

habitat. Giant tube worms (Riftia pachyptila) are chemosynthetic (using a primary production process 

without sunlight) reef-forming worms living on hydrothermal vents of the abyssal oceans. Their 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-35

3.4 Invertebrates 

distribution is poorly known in the Study Area, although hydrothermal vents are more likely to occur in 

association with seamounts and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. 

The reef-building tube worm (Phragmatopoma caudata, synonymous with P. lapidosa) constructs 

shallow-water worm reefs in some portions of the Study Area (Read & Fauchald, 2012). Large 

pseudocolonies of worms (formed from large numbers of individual larvae that settle in close proximity 

and undergo fusion to form complex habitats) develop relatively smooth mounds up to 2 m high (Zale & 

Merrifield, 1989). In the Study Area, the species is particularly common in the Southeastern U.S. 

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem along Florida’s east coast, at depths up to 2 m; however, 

colonies are found infrequently to depths of 100 m in areas with strong currents (South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, 1998; Zale & Merrifield, 1989). 

3.4.2.3.8 Bryozoans (Phylum Bryozoa) 

Bryozoans include approximately 6,000 marine species worldwide (World Register of Marine Species 

Editorial Board, 2015). They are small box-like, colony-forming animals that make up the “lace corals.” 

Colonies can be encrusting, branching, or free-living. Bryozoans may form habitat similar in complexity 

to sponges (Buhl-Mortensen et al., 2010). Bryozoans attach to a variety of surfaces, including 

intermediate and hard bottom, artificial structures, and algae, and feed on particles suspended in the 

water (Hoover, 1998b; Pearse et al., 1987; University of California Berkeley, 2010a). Bryozoans are of 

economic importance for bioprospecting (the search for organisms for potential commercial use in 

pharmaceuticals). As common biofouling organisms, bryozoans also interfere with boat operations and 

clog industrial water intakes and conduits (Hoover, 1998b; Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council, 2001). Bryozoans occur throughout the Study Area but are not expected at depths 

beyond the continental slope (Ryland & Hayward, 1991). Habitat-forming species are most common on 

temperate continental shelves with relatively strong currents (Wood et al., 2012). 

3.4.2.3.9 Squid, Bivalves, Sea Snails, Chitons (Phylum Mollusca) 

The phylum Mollusca includes approximately 45,000 marine species worldwide (World Register of 

Marine Species Editorial Board, 2015). These organisms occur throughout the Study Area, including 

open ocean areas, at all depths. Sea snails and slugs (gastropods), clams and mussels (bivalves), chitons 

(polyplacophorans), and octopus and squid (cephalopods) are examples of common molluscs in the 

Study Area. Snails and slugs occur in a variety of soft, intermediate, hard, and biogenic habitats. Chitons 

are typically found on hard bottom and artificial structures from the intertidal to littoral zone but may 

also be found in deeper water and on substrates such as aquatic plants. Many molluscs possess a 

muscular organ called a foot, which is used for mobility. Many molluscs also secrete an external shell 

(Castro & Huber, 2000b), although some molluscs have an internal shell or no shell at all (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015). Sea snails and slugs eat fleshy algae and a variety of 

invertebrates, including hydroids, sponges, sea urchins, worms, other snails, and small crustaceans, as 

well as detritus (Castro & Huber, 2000b; Colin & Arneson, 1995b; Hoover, 1998c). Clams, mussels, and 

other bivalves are filter feeders, ingesting suspended food particles (e.g., phytoplankton, detritus) 

(Castro & Huber, 2000b). Chitons, sea snails, and slugs use rasping tongues, known as radula, to scrape 

food (e.g., algae) off rocks or other hard surfaces (Castro & Huber, 2000a; Colin & Arneson, 1995b). 

Squid and octopus are active swimmers at all depths and use a beak to prey on a variety of organisms 

including fish, shrimp, and other invertebrates (Castro & Huber, 2000b; Hoover, 1998c; Western Pacific 

Regional Fishery Management Council, 2001). Octopuses mostly prey on fish, shrimp, eels, and crabs 

(Wood & Day, 2005). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-36

3.4 Invertebrates 

Important commercial, ecological, and recreational species of molluscs in the Study Area include: 

Atlantic scallop (Placopecten megallanicus), Atlantic surfclam (Spisula solidissima), ocean quahog 

(Arctica islandica), and several squid species (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 2016; New 

England Fishery Management Council, 2013; Voss & Brakoniecki, 1985). Some mollusc species, 

principally bivalves, are habitat-forming organisms, forming sedentary invertebrate beds and biotic 

reefs. Examples include mussels of the genus Mytilus, found in intertidal areas, and the genus 

Bathymodiolus, which occur at deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Oysters in general, and principally the 

eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), may form extensive reefs, or beds, in estuarine waters of the 

Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Oyster reefs are highly productive habitats in inter-tidal or shallow 

subtidal ecosystems, providing many of the same habitat values as coral reefs. 

3.4.2.3.10 Shrimp, Crab, Lobster, Barnacles, Copepods (Phylum Arthropoda) 

Shrimp, crabs, lobsters, barnacles, and copepods are animals with an exoskeleton, which is a skeleton on 

the outside of the body (Castro & Huber, 2000b), and are classified as crustaceans in the Phylum 

Arthropoda. The exoskeletons are made of a polymer called chitin, similar to cellulose in plants, to which 

the animals add other compounds to achieve flexibility or hardness. There are over 57,000 marine 

arthropod species, with about 53,000 of these belonging to the subphylum Crustacea (World Register of 

Marine Species Editorial Board, 2015). These organisms occur throughout the Study Area at all depths. 

Crustaceans may be carnivores, omnivores, predators, or scavengers, preying on molluscs (primarily 

gastropods), other crustaceans, echinoderms, small fishes, algae, and seagrass (Waikiki Aquarium, 

2009a, 2009b; Waikiki Aquarium & University of Hawaii-Manoa, 2009; Western Pacific Regional Fishery 

Management Council, 2009). Barnacles and some copepods are filter feeders, extracting algae and small 

organisms from the water (Levinton, 2009). Copepods may also be parasitic, affecting most phyla of 

marine animals (Walter & Boxshall, 2017). As a group, arthropods occur in a wide variety of habitats. 

Shrimp, crabs, lobsters, and copepods may be associated with soft to hard substrates, artificial 

structures, and biogenic habitats. Barnacles inhabit hard and artificial substrates. 

Important commercial, ecological, and recreational species of the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and 

Gulf of Mexico include various crab species (e.g., red crab [Chaceon quinquedens] and golden crab 

[Chaceon fenneri]), shrimp species (e.g., white shrimp [Litopenaeus setiferus] and royal red shrimp 

[Pleoticus robustus], and spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 

2015; New England Fishery Management Council, 2010; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 

2016). The American lobster (Homarus americanus) is a commercially and recreationally important 

crustacean that has increased dramatically in population due, in part, to successful fishery management 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012). 

3.4.2.3.11 Sea Stars, Sea Urchins, Sea Cucumbers (Phylum Echinodermata) 

Organisms in this phylum include over 7,000 marine species, such as sea stars, sea urchins, and sea 

cucumbers (World Register of Marine Species Editorial Board, 2015). Asteroids (e.g., sea stars), 

echinoids (e.g., sea urchins), holothuroids (e.g., sea cucumbers), ophiuroids (e.g., brittle stars and basket 

stars), and crinoids (e.g., feather stars and sea lilies) are symmetrical around the center axis of the body 

(Mah & Blake, 2012). Echinoderms occur at all depth ranges from the intertidal zone to the abyssal zone 

and are almost exclusively benthic, potentially found on all substrates and structures. Most echinoderms 

have separate sexes, but a few species of sea stars, sea cucumbers, and brittle stars have both male and 

female reproductive structures. Many species have external fertilization, releasing gametes into the 

water to produce planktonic larvae, but some brood their eggs and release free-swimming larvae (Mah 

& Blake, 2012; McMurray et al., 2012). Many echinoderms are either scavengers or predators on sessile 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-37

3.4 Invertebrates 

organisms such as algae, stony corals, sponges, clams, and oysters. Some species, however, filter food 

particles from sand, mud, or water (Hoover, 1998a). Predators of echinoderms include a variety of fish 

species (e.g., triggerfish, eels, rays, sharks), crabs, shrimps, octopuses, birds, and other echinoderms (sea 

stars). 

Echinoderms are found throughout the Study Area. An important commercial echinoderm species in the 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem is the green sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus 

drobachiensis) (Maine Department of Marine Resources, 2010), although this species is not federally 

managed. 

3.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section evaluates how and to what degree the activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) potentially impact invertebrates known to occur within the Study 

Area. Table 2.6-1 (Proposed Training Activities per Alternative) through Table 2.6-4 (Office of Naval 

Research Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative) present the proposed training and testing activity 

locations for each alternative (including number of activities). General characteristics of all Navy 

stressors were introduced in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for Analysis), and living resources’ 

general susceptibilities to stressors were introduced in Section 3.0.3.6 (Biological Resource Methods). 

The stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, and location within the Study Area. The stressors 

analyzed for invertebrates are: 

 Acoustics (sonar and other transducers; air guns; pile driving; vessel noise; weapons noise) 

 Explosives 

 Energy (in-water electromagnetic devices; high-energy lasers) 

 Physical disturbance and strikes (vessels and in-water devices; military expended materials; 

seafloor devices; pile driving) 

 Entanglement (wires and cables; decelerators/parachutes; biodegradable polymers) 

 Ingestion (military expended materials - munitions; military expended materials other than 

munitions) 

 Secondary stressors (impacts to habitat; impacts to prey availability) 

The analysis includes consideration of the mitigation that the Navy will implement to avoid potential 

impacts on invertebrates from explosives, and physical disturbance and strikes. Mitigation for 

invertebrates will be coordinated with NMFS through the ESA consultation process. 

3.4.3.1 Acoustic Stressors 

Assessing whether sounds may disturb or injure an animal involves understanding the characteristics of 

the acoustic sources, the animals that may be near the sound, and the effects that sound may have on 

the physiology and behavior of those animals. Marine invertebrates are likely only sensitive to water 

particle motion caused by nearby low-frequency sources, and likely do not sense distant or mid- and 

high-frequency sounds (Section 3.4.2.1.3, Sound Sensing and Production). Compared to some other taxa 

of marine animals (e.g., fishes, marine mammals), little information is available on the potential impacts 

on marine invertebrates from exposure to sonar and other sound-producing activities (Hawkins et al., 

2015). Historically, many studies focused on squid or crustaceans and the consequences of exposures to 

broadband impulsive air guns typically used for oil and gas exploration. More recent investigations have 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-38

3.4 Invertebrates 

included additional taxa (e.g., molluscs) and sources, although extensive information is not available for 

all potential stressors and impact categories. The following Background sections discuss the currently 

available information on acoustic effects to marine invertebrates. These effects range from physical 

injury to behavioral or stress response. Aspects of acoustic stressors that are applicable to marine 

organisms in general are presented in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects 

from Acoustic and Explosive Activities). 

3.4.3.1.1 Background 

A summary of available information related to each type of effect is presented in the following sections. 

Some researchers discuss effects in terms of the acoustic near field and far field. The near field is an area 

near a sound source where considerable interference between sound waves emerging from different 

parts of the source is present. Amplitude may vary widely at different points within this acoustically 

complex zone, and sound pressure and particle velocity are generally out of phase. The far field is the 

distance beyond which sound pressure and particle velocity are in phase, all sound waves appear to 

originate from a single point, and pressure levels decrease predictably with distance. The boundary 

between the near and far field is frequency-dependent, with the near field extending further at lower 

frequencies. It has been estimated that the near field for a sound of 500 Hz (intensity not specified) 

would extend about 3 m from the source (Myberg, 2001). 

3.4.3.1.1.1 Injury 

Injury refers to the direct effects on the tissues or organs of an animal due to exposure to pressure 

waves or particle motion. Available information on injury to invertebrates resulting from acoustic 

sources pertains mostly to damage to the statocyst, an organ sensitive to water particle motion and 

responsible for balance and orientation in some invertebrates. A few studies have also investigated 

effects to appendages and other organs. 

Researchers have investigated the effects of American lobsters exposed to air gun firings in an aquarium 

and in the field (Payne et al., 2007). Lobsters in the aquarium were placed about 3.5 m from the air guns 

and exposed to sound levels of about 200 dB (peak-to-peak). Caged lobsters in the field were located 

2 m from the air guns and were exposed to higher-intensity sound levels (about 230 dB peak-to-peak). 

No physical damage to appendages and no effects on balance or orientation (indicating no damage to 

statocysts) were observed in any lobsters. No visible evidence of damage to hepatopancreata (digestive 

glands) or ovaries were found. Caged snow crabs (Chionoecetes opilio) were exposed to repeated air gun 

firings in the field (Christian et al., 2003). Crabs exposed to a single air gun were placed at depths of 2 to 

15 m, while crabs exposed to air gun arrays were placed at depths of 4 to 170 m. Air guns were fired 

during multiple sessions, with each session consisting of a firing every 10 seconds for 33 minutes. Peak 

received levels were up to 207 dB re 1 μPa and 187 decibels referenced to 1 squared micropascal (dB re 

1 μPa2) (single gun), and 237 dB re 1 μPa and 175 dB re 1 μPa2 (array). Post-experimental examination 

showed no physical damage to statocycts, hepatopancreata, heart muscle or surrounding tissue, 

carapace, or appendages. As a comparison, air guns operated at full capacity during Navy activities 

would produce a SPL of approximately 206 dB re 1 μPa rms and a sound exposure level (SEL) of 185 to 

196 dB re 1 μPa2-s at a distance 1 m from the air gun. Air guns are also operated at less than full 

capacity, decreasing the sound levels produced. 

In three instances, seismic air gun use has been hypothesized as the cause of giant squid strandings. This 

was based on the proximity in time and space of the squid and operating seismic vessels and, in two of 

the events, to physical injuries considered consistent with exposure to impulsive acoustic waves (Guerra 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-39

3.4 Invertebrates 

et al., 2004; Guerra & Gonzales, 2006; Leite et al., 2016). However, because the animals were not 

observed at the time of potential impact, the cause of the injuries and strandings cannot be stated 

conclusively. 

Physiological studies of wild captured cephalopods found progressive damage to statocysts in squid and 

octopus species after exposure to 2 hours of low frequency (50 to 400 Hz) sweeps (100 percent duty 

cycle) at SPL of 157 to 175 dB re 1 μPa (André et al., 2011; Sole et al., 2013). It is noted that the animals 

were in the near field (distance was not specified in the report, but animals were likely within a few to 

several feet of the sound source based on the experiment description) where there is significant particle 

motion. In a similar experiment designed to control for possible confounding effects of experimental 

tank walls, common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) were exposed to 2 hours of low-frequency sweeps 

(100 to 400 Hz; 100 percent duty cycle with a 1-second sweep period) in an offshore environment (Sole 

et al., 2017) (Sole et al., 2017). Sounds were produced by a transducer located near the surface, and 

caged experimental animals were placed at depths between 7 and 17 m. Received sound levels ranged 

from 139 to 142 dB re 1 μPa2. Maximum particle motion of 0.7 meter per squared second was recorded 

at the cage nearest the transducer (7.1 m between source and cage). Progressive damage to sensory 

hair cells of the statocycts were found immediately after and 48 hours after sound exposure, with the 

severity of effects being proportional to distance from the transducer. The authors suggest that wholebody vibrations resulting from particle motion were transmitted to the statocysts, causing damage to 

the structures. Statocyst damage was also found in captive individuals of two jellyfish species 

(Mediterranean jellyfish [Cotylorhiza tuberculata] and barrel jellyfish [Rhizostoma pulmo]) under the 

same exposure parameters (50 to 400 Hz sweeps; 2 hour exposure time; 100 percent duty cycle with a 

1-secong sweep period; approximately 157 to 175 dB re 1 μPa received SPL) (Sole et al., 2016). In the 

context of overall invertebrate population numbers, most animals exposed to similar sound levels during 

Navy activities would be in the far field, and exposure duration would be substantially less than 2 hours. 

This limited information suggests that the potential for statocyst damage may differ according to the 

type of sound (impulsive or continuous) or among invertebrate taxa (e.g., crustaceans and 

cephalopods). Therefore, a definitive statement on potential impacts to invertebrates in general is 

unsupported. Although invertebrate occurrence varies based on location, depth, season, and time of 

day (for example, the rising of the deep scattering layer which contains numerous invertebrate taxa), 

individuals could be present in the vicinity of impulsive or non-impulsive sounds produced by Navy 

activities. Estimation of invertebrate abundance at any particular location would generally not be 

feasible, but there is a general pattern of higher abundances in relatively productive estuarine and 

nearshore waters. The number of individuals affected would be influenced by sound sensing capabilities. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.2.1.3 (Sound Sensing and Production), invertebrate acoustic sensing is 

probably limited to the particle motion component of sound. Water particle motion is most detectable 

near a sound source and at lower frequencies, which likely limits the range at which invertebrates can 

detect sound. 

3.4.3.1.1.2 Physiological Stress 

Stress response consists of one or more physiological changes (e.g., production of certain hormones) 

that help an organism cope with a stressor. However, if the magnitude or duration of the stress 

response is too great or too prolonged, there can be negative consequences to the organism. 

Physiological stress is typically evaluated by measuring the levels of relevant biochemicals. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-40

3.4 Invertebrates 

The results of two investigations of physiological stress in adult invertebrates caused by impulsive noise 

varied by species. Some biochemical stress markers and changes in osmoregulation were observed in 

American lobsters exposed to air gun firings at distances of approximately 2 to 4 m from the source 

(Payne et al., 2007). Increased deposits of carbohydrates suggesting possible stress response were noted 

in digestive gland cells 4 months after exposure. Conversely, repeated air gun exposures caused no 

changes in biochemical stress markers in snow crabs located from 2 to 170 m from the source (Christian 

et al., 2003). 

Several investigations of physiological reactions of captive adult invertebrates exposed to boat noise 

playback and other continuous noise have been conducted. Continuous exposure to boat noise playback 

resulted in changes to some biochemical levels indicating stress in common prawns (Palaemon serratus, 

Pennant 1777) (30 minutes exposure to sound levels of 100 to 140 dB re 1 μPa rms) and European spiny 

lobsters (30 minutes exposure to sound levels up to 125 dB re 1μPa rms) (Celi et al., 2015; Filiciotto et 

al., 2014; Filiciotto et al., 2016). Increased oxygen consumption, potentially indicating stress, was found 

in shore crabs exposed to ship-noise playback of 148 to 155 dB re 1 μPa for 15 minutes (Wale et al., 

2013b). Red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) exposed to 30-minute continuous acoustic sweeps 

(frequency range of 0.1 to 25 kHz, peak amplitude of 148 dB rms at 12 kHz) showed changes in some 

biochemical levels indicating stress (Celi et al., 2013). Captive sand shrimp (Crangon crangon) exposed to 

low-frequency noise (30 to 40 dB above ambient) continuously for 3 months demonstrated decreases in 

growth rate and reproductive rate (Lagardère, 1982). 

In addition to experiments on adult invertebrates, some studies have investigated the effects of

impulsive and non-impulsive noise (air guns, boat noise, turbine noise) on invertebrate eggs and larvae. 

Data on similar effects resulting from sonar are currently unavailable. Developmental delays and body 

malformations were reported in New Zealand scallop (Pecten novaezelandiae) larvae exposed to seismic 

air gun playbacks at frequencies of 20 Hz to 22 kHz with SPL of 160 to 164 dB re 1 μPa (Aguilar de Soto et 

al., 2013). Although uncertain, the authors suggested physiological stress as the cause of the effects. 

Larvae in the relatively small (2 m diameter) experimental tank were considered close enough to the 

acoustic source to experience particle motion, which would be unlikely at the same pressure levels in 

the far field. Playbacks occurred once every 3 seconds and the larvae were periodically examined over 

the course of 90 hours. Snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) eggs located in 2 m water depth and exposed to 

repeated firings of a seismic air gun (peak received SPL was 201 dB re 1 μPa) had slightly increased 

mortality and apparent delayed development (Christian et al., 2003). However, dungeness crab 

(Metacarcinus magister) zoeae were not affected by repeated exposures to an air gun array (maximum 

distance of about 62 ft. slant distance) (Pearson et al., 1994), and exposure of southern rock lobster 

(Jasus edwardsii) eggs to air gun SELs of up to 182 dB re 1 μPa2-s did not result in embryonic 

developmental effects (Day et al., 2016). An investigation of the effects of boat noise playback on the 

sea hare (Stylocheilus striatus) found reduced embryo development and increased larvae mortality, but 

no effect on the rate of embryo development (Nedelec et al., 2014). Specimens were exposed to boatnoise playback for 45 seconds every 5 minutes over a 12-hour period. Continuous playback of simulated 

underwater tidal and wind turbine sounds resulted in delayed metamorphosis in estuarine crab larvae 

(Austrohelice crassa and Hemigrapsus crenulatus) that were observed for up to about 200 hours (Pine et 

al., 2016). 

Overall, the results of these studies indicate the potential for physiological effects in some (but not all) 

adult invertebrates exposed to air guns near the source (about 2 to 4 m) and to boat and other 

continuous noise for durations of 15 to 30 minutes or longer. Larvae and egg development effects were 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-41

3.4 Invertebrates 

reported for impulsive (distance from source of about 2 m) and non-impulsive noise exposures of 

extended duration (intermittently or continuously for several to many hours) and for air gun playback 

and field exposure, although air gun noise had no effect in one study. Exposure to continuous noise such 

as vessel operation during Navy training or testing events would generally occur over a shorter duration 

and sound sources would be more distant. Adverse effects resulting from short exposure times have not 

been shown experimentally. A range to effects was not systematically investigated for air gun use. 

Experiments using playback of air gun and boat noise were conducted in relatively small tanks where 

particle motion (which decreases rapidly with distance) could have been significant. Marine invertebrate 

egg and larval abundance is high relative to the number of adults, and eggs and larvae are typically 

subject to high natural mortality rates. These factors decrease the likelihood of population-level effects 

resulting from impacts to eggs and larvae. 

3.4.3.1.1.3 Masking 

Masking occurs when one sound interferes with the detection or recognition of another sound. Masking 

can limit the distance over which an organism can communicate or detect biologically relevant sounds. 

Masking can also potentially lead to behavioral changes. 

Comparatively little is known about how marine invertebrates use sound in their environment. Some 

studies show that crab, lobster, oyster, and coral larvae and post-larvae may use nearby reef sounds 

when in their settlement phase. Orientation and movement toward reef sounds was found in larvae 

located at 60 to 80 m from a sound source in open water, and in experimental tanks (distance from the 

sound source was about 150 cm in one laboratory study) (Radford et al., 2007; Stanley et al., 2010; 

Vermeij et al., 2010). The component of reef sound used is generally unknown, but an investigation 

found that low frequency sounds (200 to 1,000 Hz) produced by fish at dawn and dusk on a coral reef 

were the most likely sounds to be detectable a short distance from the reef (Foster et al., 2012) (Kaplan 

& Mooney, 2016). Similarly, lobed star coral larvae were found to have increased settlement on reef 

areas with elevated sound levels, particularly in the frequency range of 25 to 1,000 Hz (Lillis et al., 2016). 

Mountainous star coral larvae in their settlement phase were found to orient toward playbacks of reef 

sounds in an experimental setup, where received sound levels were about 145 to 149 dB re 1 μPa and 

particle acceleration was about 9 x 10-8 meters per second (Vermeij et al., 2010). Playback speakers 

were located approximately 1 to 2 m from the larvae, although the authors suggest marine 

invertebrates may also use sound to communicate and avoid predators (Popper et al., 2001). Crabs 

(Panopeus species) exposed to playback of predatory fish vocalizations reduced foraging activity, 

presumably to avoid predation risk (Hughes et al., 2014). The authors suggest that, due to lack of 

sensitivity to sound pressure, crabs are most likely to detect fish sounds when the fish are nearby. 

Anthropogenic sounds could mask important acoustic cues such as detection of settlement cues or 

predators, and potentially affect larval settlement patterns or survivability in highly modified acoustic 

environments (Simpson et al., 2011). Low-frequency sounds could interfere with perception of lowfrequency rasps or rumbles among crustaceans, particularly when conspecific sounds are produced at 

the far end of the hearing radius. Navy activities occurring relatively far from shore would produce 

transient sounds potentially resulting in only intermittent, short-term masking, and would be unlikely to 

impact the same individuals within a short time. Training and testing activities would generally not occur 

at known reef sites within the probable reef detection range of larvae. Impacts could be more likely in 

locations where anthropogenic noise occurs frequently within the perceptive range of invertebrates 

(e.g., pierside locations in estuaries). There are likely many other non-Navy noise sources present in such 

areas. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-42

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4.3.1.1.4 Behavioral Reactions 

Behavioral reactions refer to alterations of natural behaviors due to exposure to sound. Most 

investigations involving invertebrate behavioral reactions have been conducted in relation to air gun 

use, pile driving, and vessel noise. Studies of air gun impacts on marine invertebrates have typically been 

conducted with equipment used for seismic exploration, and the limited results suggest responses may 

vary among taxa (crustaceans and cephalopods). Snow crabs placed 48 m below a seismic air gun array 

did not react behaviorally to repeated firings (peak received SPL was 201 dB re 1 μPa) (Christian et al., 

2003). Studies of commercial catch of rock lobsters (Panulirus cygnus) and multiple shrimp species in the 

vicinity of seismic prospecting showed no long-term adverse effects to catch yields, implying no 

detectable long-term impacts on abundance from intermittent anthropogenic sound exposure over long 

periods (Andriguetto-Filho et al., 2005; Parry & Gason, 2006). Conversely, squid have exhibited various 

behavioral reactions when exposed to impulsive noise such as air gun firing (McCauley et al., 2000a; 

McCauley et al., 2000b). Some squid showed strong startle responses, including inking, when exposed to 

the first shot of broadband sound from a nearby seismic air gun (received SEL of 174 dB re 1 μPa rms). 

Strong startle response was not seen when sounds were gradually increased, but the squid exhibited 

alarm responses at levels above 156 dB re 1 μPa rms (McCauley et al., 2000a; McCauley et al., 2000b). 

Southern reef squids (Sepioteuthis australis) exposed to air gun noise displayed alarm responses at 

levels above 147 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Fewtrell & McCauley, 2012). 

Pile driving produces sound pressure that moves through the water column and into the substrate, 

which may therefore affect pelagic and benthic invertebrates. Impact pile driving produces a repetitive 

impulsive sound, while vibratory pile extraction produces a nearly continuous sound at a lower source 

level. Although few investigations have been conducted regarding impacts to invertebrates resulting 

from impact pile driving and extraction, the effects are likely similar to those resulting from other 

impulsive and vibrational (e.g., drilling) sources. When an underwater sound encounters the substrate, 

particle motion can be generated, resulting in vibration. Invertebrates may detect and respond to such 

vibrations. Playback of impact pile driving sound (137 to 152 dB re 1 μPa peak to peak) in the water 

column near chorusing snapping shrimp resulted in an increase in the snap number and amplitude 

(Spiga, 2016). When exposed to playback of broadband impulsive pile driving sound of 150 dB SEL, 

Japanese carpet shell clams (Ruditapes philippinarum) exhibited reduced activity and valve closing, while 

Norway lobsters (Nephrops norvegicus) repressed burying, bioirrigation, and locomotion activity (Solan 

et al., 2016). Brittlestars (Amphiura filiformis) included in the experiment exhibited no overall 

statistically detectable behavioral changes, although the authors note that a number of individuals 

exhibited changes in the amount of sediment reworking activity. Invertebrates exposed to vibrations of 

5 to 410 Hz (which is a proxy for the effects of vibratory pile removal) at various particle acceleration 

amplitudes in the substrate of a holding tank for 8-second intervals exhibited behavioral reactions 

ranging from valve closure (common mussel [Mytilus edulis]) to antennae sweeping, changes in 

locomotion, and exiting the shell (common hermit crab [Pagurus bernhardus]) (Roberts et al., 2015; 

Roberts et al., 2016). Sensitivity was greatest at 10 Hz and at particle acceleration of 0.1 meter per 

squared second. The authors analyzed data on substrate acceleration produced by pile driving in a river 

and found levels that would be detectable by the hermit crabs at 17 and 34 m from the source. 

Measurements were not available for other distances or in marine environments. Similarly, underwater 

construction-related detonations of about 14-pound (lb.) charge weight (presumably in fresh water) 

resulted in substrate vibrations 297 m from the source that would likely be detected by crabs. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-43

3.4 Invertebrates 

Common prawns and European spiny lobsters exposed to 30 minutes of boat noise playback in 

frequencies of 200 Hz to 3 kHz (sound levels of approximately 100 to 140 dB SPL [prawns] and 75 to 

125 dB SPL [lobsters]) showed behavioral responses including changes in movement velocity, and 

distance moved, as well as time spent inside a shelter (Filiciotto et al., 2014; Filiciotto et al., 2016). 

Common cuttlefish exposed to playback of underwater ferry engine noise for 3.5 minutes (maximum 

sound level of about 140 dB re 1 μPa SPL) changed color more frequently, swam more, and raised their 

tentacles more often than control specimens or individuals exposed to playback of wave sounds (Kunc 

et al., 2014). Shore crabs (Carcinus maenas) exposed to ship noise playback did not exhibit changes in 

the ability or time required to find food, but feeding was often suspended during the playback (Wale et 

al., 2013a). Japanese carpet shell clams and Norway lobsters exposed to playback of ship noise for 

7 days at received levels of 135 to 140 dB re 1 μPa exhibited reactions such as reduced activity, 

movement, and valve closing (Solan et al., 2016). Brittlestars (A. filiformis) included in the study showed 

no overall statistically detectable behavioral changes, although individual animals were affected. 

Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) did not respond to a research vessel approaching at 2.7 knots (source 

level below 150 dB re 1 μPa) (Brierley et al., 2003). 

A limited number of studies have investigated behavioral reactions to non-impulsive noise other than 

that produced by vessels. Red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) exposed to 30-minute continuous 

acoustic sweeps (frequency range of 0.1 to 25 kHz, peak amplitude of 148 dB rms at 12 kHz) exhibited 

changes in social behaviors (Celi et al., 2013). Caribbean hermit crabs (Coenobita clypeatus) delayed 

reaction to an approaching visual threat when exposed to continuous noise (Chan et al., 2010a; Chan et 

al., 2010b). The delay potentially put them at increased risk of predation, although the studies did not 

address possible simultaneous distraction of predators. 

The results of these studies indicate that invertebrates of at least some taxa would respond behaviorally 

to various levels of sound and substrate vibration produced within their detection capability. 

Comprehensive investigations of the range to effects of different sound and vibration sources and levels 

are not available. However, sound source levels for Navy pile diving and air gun use are within the range 

of received levels that have caused behavioral effects in some species. Analysis of pile driving noise for a 

previous Elevated Causeway System training event found that a sound level of 150 dB SEL, a level found 

to cause behavioral reactions in clams and lobsters (Solan et al., 2016), extended 3.4 km from the 

source. The low-frequency component of vessel noise would likely be detected by some invertebrates, 

although the number of individuals affected would be limited to those near enough to a source to 

experience particle motion. 

3.4.3.1.2 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Many non-impulsive sounds associated with training and testing activities would be produced by sonar. 

Other transducers include items such as acoustic projectors and countermeasure devices. Most marine 

invertebrates do not have the capability to sense sound pressure; however, some are sensitive to 

nearby low-frequency sounds, such as could be approximated by some low-frequency sonars. As 

described in Section 3.4.2.1.3 (Sound Sensing and Production), invertebrate species detect sound 

through particle motion, which diminishes rapidly from the sound source. Therefore, the distance at 

which they may detect a sound is probably limited. Most activities using sonar or other transducers 

would be conducted in deep-water, offshore areas of the Study Area and are not likely to affect most 

benthic invertebrate species (including ESA-listed coral species), although invertebrates in the water 

column could be affected. However, portions of the range complexes and testing ranges overlap 

nearshore waters of the continental shelf, and it is possible that sonar and other transducers could be 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-44

3.4 Invertebrates 

used and affect benthic invertebrates in these areas. Sonar is also used in shallow water during pierside 

testing and maintenance testing. 

Invertebrate species generally have their greatest sensitivity to sound below 1 to 3 kHz (Kunc et al., 

2016) and would therefore not be capable of detecting mid- or high-frequency sounds, including the 

majority of sonars, or distant sounds in the Study Area. Studies of the effects of continuous noise such 

as boat noise, acoustic sweeps, and tidal/wind turbine sound (information specific to sonar use was not 

available) on invertebrates have found statocyst damage, elevated levels of biochemicals indicative of 

stress, changes in larval development, masking, and behavioral reactions under experimental conditions 

(see Section 3.4.3.1.1, Background). Noise exposure in the studies generally lasted from a few minutes 

to 30 minutes. The direct applicability of these results is uncertain because the duration of sound 

exposure in many of the studies is greater than that expected to occur during Navy activities, and factors 

such as environmental conditions (captive versus wild conditions) may affect individual responses (Celi 

et al., 2013). Individuals of species potentially susceptible to statocyst damage (e.g., some cephalopods) 

could be physically affected by nearby noise. Available research has shown statocyst damage to occur 

after relatively long-duration exposures (2 hours), which would be unlikely to occur to individual 

invertebrates due to transiting sources and potential invertebrate movement. An exception is pierside 

sonar testing and maintenance testing, where invertebrates (particularly sessile or slow-moving taxa 

such as bivalve molluscs, hydroids, and marine worms) could be exposed to sound for longer time 

periods compared to at-sea activities. Some studies also indicate the potential for impacts to 

invertebrate larval development resulting from exposure to non-impulsive noise (continuous or 

intermittent exposures over time periods of 12 to 200 hours) although, similar to stress effects, sonar 

has not specifically been studied. Masking could affect behaviors such as larvae settlement, 

communication, predator avoidance, and foraging in mollusc, crustacean, and coral species. 

3.4.3.1.2.1 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 1, marine invertebrates would be exposed to low-, mid-, and high-frequency sonar 

and sound produced by other transducers during training activities. These activities could occur 

throughout the Study Area, including all range complexes except the Key West Range Complex, where 

the majority of shallow-water coral habitat is located. The locations and number of activities proposed 

for training under Alternative 1 are shown in Table 2.6-1 (Proposed Training Activities per Alternative) of 

Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives). Sounds produced during training are 

described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.1 (Sonar and Other Transducers).

Invertebrates would likely only sense low-frequency sonar or the low frequency component of nearby 

sounds associated with other transducers. Sonar and other transducers are often operated in deep 

water, where impacts would be more likely for pelagic species than for benthic species. Most individuals 

would not be close enough to the most intense sound level to experience impacts to sensory structures 

such as statocysts. Any marine invertebrate that detects low-frequency sound produced during training 

activities may alter its behavior (e.g., change swim speed, move away from the sound, or change the 

type or level of activity). Given the limited distance to which marine invertebrates are sensitive to 

sound, only a small number of individuals relative to overall population sizes would likely have the 

potential to be impacted. Because the distance over which most marine invertebrates are expected to 

detect any sounds is limited and because most sound sources are transient or intermittent (or both), any 

physiological effects, masking, or behavioral responses would be short-term and brief. Without 

prolonged exposures to nearby sound sources, adverse impacts to individual invertebrates are not 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-45

3.4 Invertebrates 

expected, and there would therefore be no effects at the population level. Sonar and other sounds may 

result in brief, intermittent impacts to individual marine invertebrates and groups of marine 

invertebrates close to a sound source, but they are unlikely to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or 

reproduction of marine invertebrate populations or subpopulations. 

Training activities using sonar and other tranducers would not intersect the Key West Range Complex 

and would therefore not impact ESA-listed coral species. In addition, training activities would not occur 

in elkhorn and staghorn critical habitat that is designated in shallow waters along southern Florida and 

around Puerto Rico. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training 

activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical 

habitat. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 1, marine invertebrates could be exposed to low-, mid-, and high-frequency acoustic 

sources during testing activities. Testing activities using sonar and other transducers could occur 

throughout the Study Area, including all range complexes; at Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, 

Newport Testing Range; Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range; South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range; and pierside at Navy ports (Little Creek, Virginia; 

Kings Bay, Georgia; and Port Canaveral, Florida), naval shipyards, and Navy-contractor shipyards. The 

locations and number of activities proposed for testing under Alternative 1 are shown in Tables 2.6-2, 

2.6-3, and 2.6-4 (respectively, Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Sea Systems Command, and Office of 

Naval Research Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative) of Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action 

and Alternatives). Sounds produced during testing are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.1 (Sonar and Other 

Transducers).

Invertebrates would likely only sense low-frequency sonar or the low frequency component of nearby 

sounds associated with other transducers. Sonar and other transducers are often operated in deep 

water, where impacts would be more likely for pelagic species than for benthic species. Therefore, most 

individuals would not be close enough to the most intense sound level to experience impacts to sensory 

structures such as statocysts. Any marine invertebrate that senses nearby or low-frequency sounds 

could react behaviorally. However, given the limited distance to which marine invertebrates are 

sensitive to sound, only a small number of individuals would likely be impacted. With the exception of 

pierside sonar testing, most sound sources are transient, and any physiological or behavioral responses 

or masking would be short-term and brief. During pierside testing, invertebrates could be exposed to 

sound for longer time periods compared to at-sea testing. Pierside testing events generally occur over 

several hours of intermittent use. Sessile species or species with limited mobility located near pierside 

activities would be exposed multiple times. Species with greater mobility could potentially be exposed 

multiple times, depending on the time between testing events and the activity of individual animals. The 

limited information available suggests that sessile marine invertebrates repeatedly exposed to sound 

could experience physiological stress or react behaviorally (e.g., shell closing). However, recent survey 

work by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science suggests large populations of oysters inhabit Navy piers 

in the Chesapeake Bay that have persisted despite a history of sonar use in the area (Horton, 2016). In 

general, during use of sonar and other transducers, impacts would be more likely for sessile or limitedmobility taxa (e.g., sponges, bivalve molluscs, and echinoderms) than for mobile species (e.g., squids). 

Overall, given the limited distance to which marine invertebrates are sensitive to sound and the 

transient or intermittent nature (or both) of most sound sources, sonar and other sounds may result in 

brief, intermittent impacts to individual marine invertebrates and groups of marine invertebrates close 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-46

3.4 Invertebrates 

to a sound source. The number of individuals affected would likely be small relative to overall 

population sizes. Sonar and other sounds are unlikely to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or 

reproduction of marine invertebrate populations or subpopulations. 

Testing activities using sonar and other transducers are not proposed in ESA-listed elkhorn and staghorn 

critical habitat designated in shallow waters along southern Florida and around Puerto Rico. Pierside 

sonar testing at Port Canaveral would not result in sound exposure to shallow-water corals. Sonar would 

be used during testing activities at the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range and 

could therefore expose corals to underwater sound. However, activities using low-frequency sonar 

would not be conducted within the coastal zone (3 nautical miles [NM] from shore), and coral exposure 

would therefore not be expected. The distribution of corals in the South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range is limited to a relatively narrow band very close to shore. In general, sound 

exposure would be temporary, from primarily mobile sources, and ESA-listed corals would therefore not 

be subjected to prolonged sonar exposure in any portion of the Study Area. Pursuant to the ESA, the use 

of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on ESA-listed coral species because of the following: 

 Prolonged pierside sonar testing would not intersect the distribution of shallow-water coral 

species in the Study Area. 

 Testing of sonar and other transducers from mobile platforms in mostly deeper water (away 

from areas where ESA-listed corals would most likely occur) would result in a temporary 

exposure only very close to the near surface sources affecting primarily pelagic invertebrates. 

Effects to benthic corals would not be expected. Although coral larvae may occur near the 

surface, brief exposure to a transient source would result in no detectable behavioral or 

physiological impacts, including larvae settlement. 

 Corals are only known to be able to detect low-frequency sounds, meaning only low-frequency 

sonar would have the potential for coral detection. However, in the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range, low-frequency sonar would not be used within 3 NM of 

shore, and coral exposure would therefore not be expected. 

3.4.3.1.2.2 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 2, marine invertebrates would be exposed to low-, mid-, and high-frequency sonar 

and sound produced by other transducers during training activities. The location of training activities 

would be the same as those described for Alternative 1, and are shown in Table 2.6.1 (Proposed Training 

Activities per Alternative) of Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives). Sounds 

produced during training are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.1 (Sonar and Other Transducers).

Potential impacts to invertebrates would be similar to those discussed for training activities under 

Alternative 1. The only difference in sonar and other transducer use between Alternatives 1 and 2 is that 

the number of sonar hours used would be greater under Alternative 2 (Table 3.0-2, Sonar and 

Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed). While the types of expected impacts to any individual 

invertebrate or group of invertebrates capable of detecting sonar or other sounds produced during 

training activities would remain the same, more animals would likely be affected. Most individuals 

would not be close enough to the most intense sound level to experience impacts to sensory structures 

such as statocysts. Sonar and other sounds could result in stress, masking, or behavioral effects to 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-47

3.4 Invertebrates 

marine invertebrates occurring close to a sound source. These effects would generally be short-term 

and brief, and a small number of individuals would be affected relative to overall population sizes. 

Physiological or behavioral effects resulting from sonar and other sounds are unlikely to impact survival, 

growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate populations or subpopulations. 

Training activities using sonar and other transducers would not intersect the Key West Range Complex 

and would therefore not impact ESA-listed coral species. In addition, training activities would not occur 

in elkhorn and staghorn critical habitat that is designated in shallow waters along southern Florida and 

around Puerto Rico. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training 

activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical 

habitat. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 2, marine invertebrates would be exposed to low-, mid-, and high-frequency acoustic 

sources during testing activities. The location of testing activities using sonar and other transducers 

would be the same as those described for Alternative 1 and are shown in Tables 2.6-2, 2.6-3, and 2.6-4 

(respectively, Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Sea Systems Command, and Office of Naval Research 

Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative) of Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives). Sounds produced during testing are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.1 (Sonar and Other 

Transducers).

Potential impacts to invertebrates would be similar to those discussed for testing activities under 

Alternative 1. The only difference in sonar and other transducer use between Alternatives 1 and 2 is that 

the number of sonar hours used would be greater under Alternative 2 (Table 3.0-2, Sonar and 

Transducer Sources Quantitatively Analyzed). The increase is associated with mid-frequency and highfrequency sonar, which is probably outside the detection capability of most marine invertebrates. While 

the types of expected impacts to any individual invertebrate or group of invertebrates capable of 

detecting sonar or other sounds produced during testing activities would remain the same, more 

animals could potentially be affected. Most individuals would not be close enough to the most intense 

sound level to experience impacts to sensory structures such as statocysts. Sonar and other sounds 

could result in stress, masking, or behavioral effects to marine invertebrates occurring close to a sound 

source. These effects would generally be short-term and brief, and a small number of individuals would 

be affected relative to overall population sizes. Physiological or behavioral effects resulting from sonar 

and other sounds are unlikely to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate 

populations or subpopulations. Testing activities using sonar and other transducers are not proposed in 

ESA-listed elkhorn and staghorn critical habitat designated in shallow waters along southern Florida and 

around Puerto Rico. Pierside sonar testing at Port Canaveral would not result in sound exposure to 

shallow-water corals. Sonar would be used during testing activities at the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range. However, activities using low-frequency sonar would not be 

conducted within the coastal zone (3 NM from shore), and coral exposure would therefore not be 

expected because the distribution of corals in the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing 

Range is limited to a relatively narrow band very close to shore. In general, sound exposure would be 

temporary, from primarily mobile sources, and ESA-listed corals would therefore not be subjected to 

prolonged sonar exposure in any portion of the Study Area. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and 

other transducers during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESAlisted coral species because of the following: 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-48

3.4 Invertebrates 

 Prolonged pierside sonar testing would not intersect the distribution of shallow-water coral 

species in the Study Area. 

Testing of sonar and other transducers from mobile platforms in mostly deeper water (away from 

shallow areas where ESA-listed corals would most likely occur) would result in a temporary exposure 

only very close to the near surface sources affecting primarily pelagic invertebrates. Effects to benthic 

corals would not be expected. Although coral larvae may occur near the surface, brief exposure to a 

transient source would result in no detectable behavioral or physiological impacts, including larvae 

settlement. 

Corals are only known to be able to detect low-frequency sounds, meaning only low-frequency sonar 

would have the potential for coral detection. However, in the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility 

Testing Range, low-frequency sonar would not be used within three NM of shore, and coral exposure 

would therefore not be expected. 

3.4.3.1.2.3 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under the No Action Alternative for Training 

and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., sonar and other transducers) would 

not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities. 

3.4.3.1.3 Impacts from Air Guns 

Air guns produce shock waves that are somewhat similar to those produced by explosives (see Section 

3.4.3.2.1, Impacts from Explosives) but of lower intensity and slower rise times. An impulsive sound is 

generated when pressurized air is released into the surrounding water. Some studies of air gun impacts 

on marine invertebrates have involved the use of an array of multiple seismic air guns, although arrays 

are not used during Navy activities. The volume capacity of air guns used for Navy testing (60 cubic 

inches at full capacity) is generally within the volume range of single air guns used in seismic exploration 

(typically 20 to 800 cubic inches). However, seismic air guns are used in arrays with a total volume of 

several thousands of cubic inches, which is far more than would be associated with any Navy activities. 

Generated impulses would have short durations, typically a few hundred milliseconds. The root-meansquared SPL and SEL at a distance of 1 m from the air gun would be approximately 200 to 210 dB re 1 

μPa and 185 to 195 dB re 1 μPa2-s, respectively. 

The results of studies of the effects of seismic air guns on marine invertebrates, described in detail in 

Section 3.4.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors), suggest possible differences between taxonomic groups and life 

stages. Physical injury has not been reported in adult crustaceans (crabs, shrimp, and lobsters) exposed 

to seismic air guns at received levels comparable to the source level of Navy air guns operated at full 

capacity. Evidence of physiological stress was not found in crabs exposed to sound levels up to 187 dB re 

1 μPa2. However, stress response was reported for lobsters located about 3.5 m from the source, where 

particle motion was likely detectable. While behavioral reaction to air guns has not been documented 

for crustaceans, squid have exhibited startle and alarm responses at various sound levels. Squid have 

shown startle response at received levels of 156 to 174 dB re 1 μPa rms (distance from sound source is 

unclear but presumed to be 30 m based on experimental description), although the reactions were less 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-49

3.4 Invertebrates 

intense when ramp-up procedures (beginning with lower-intensity sound and progressing to higher 

levels) were used. In one study, onset of alarm response occurred at 147 dB re 1 μPa2-s; distance from 

the source was not provided. Developmental effects to crab eggs and scallop larvae zoeae were found at 

received levels of 210 and 164 dB 1 μPa SPL (about 7 ft. from the source). Conversely, crab zoeae 

located 62 ft. from an air gun source showed no developmental effects. Air gun use could also result in 

substrate vibration, which could cause behavioral effects in nearby benthic invertebrates. 

3.4.3.1.3.1 Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

There would be no air gun use associated with training activities. Therefore, air guns are not analyzed in 

this subsection. 

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Air guns would be used in the Northeast, Gulf of Mexico, and Virginia Capes Range Complexes, the Naval 

Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division and Naval Underwater Warfare Center, Newport, Testing 

Ranges, and pierside at Newport, Rhode Island (Section 3.0.3.3.1.2, Air Guns; Table A.3.2.7.7, Appendix 

A). Sounds produced by air guns are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.2 (Air Guns).

Compared to offshore areas, air gun use at pierside locations would potentially affect a greater number 

of benthic and sessile invertebrates due to proximity to the bottom and structures that may be 

colonized by invertebrates (e.g., pilings). Invertebrates such as sponges, hydroids, worms, bryozoans, 

bivalves, snails, and numerous types of crustaceans and echinoderms could be exposed to sound. Air 

gun use in offshore areas has greater potential to affect pelagic invertebrates such as jellyfish and squid. 

Available information indicates that injury to crustacean species would not be expected. Potential injury 

to squid species located very near the source has been suggested but not demonstrated. It is unlikely 

that air guns would affect egg or larvae development due to the brief time that they would be exposed 

to impulsive sound (a few hundred milliseconds per firing). However, activities conducted at pierside 

locations could potentially expose the same individuals to impulsive sound, particularly sessile species or 

species with limited mobility. Air gun use in offshore areas would be unlikely to affect the same 

individuals. Some number of invertebrates of various taxa exposed to air gun noise could experience a 

physiological stress response and would likely show startle reactions or short-term behavioral changes. 

For example, squid exposed to air gun noise would probably react behaviorally (e.g., inking, jetting, or 

changing swim speed or location in the water column), as these behaviors were observed in animals 

exposed to sound levels lower than the source levels of Navy air guns (distance from the source 

associated with these reactions was not provided). The results of one study suggests that affected 

individuals may exhibit less intense reactions when exposed to multiple air gun firings (McCauley et al., 

2000a). In shallow water where air gun firing could cause sediment vibration, nearby benthic 

invertebrates could react behaviorally (e.g., shell closing or changes in foraging activity). Adult 

crustaceans may be less affected than other life stages. 

Sound and sediment vibrations caused by air gun events would be brief, although multiple firings would 

occur per event. In addition, testing activities would be conducted infrequently. Although some 

individuals would be affected, the number would be small relative to overall population sizes, and 

activities would be unlikely to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of marine 

invertebrate populations or subpopulations. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-50

3.4 Invertebrates 

Testing activities involving air guns would not occur in the Key West Range Complex or South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, and would not intersect elkhorn or staghorn coral critical 

habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of air guns during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

3.4.3.1.3.2 Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

There would be no air gun use associated with training activities. Therefore, air guns are not analyzed in 

this subsection. 

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with air gun use would be the same 

under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.1.3.1 (Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1) for 

a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. 

Testing activities involving air guns would not occur in the Key West Range Complex or South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, and would not intersect elkhorn or staghorn coral critical 

habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of air guns during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

3.4.3.1.3.3 Impacts from Air Guns Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Air Guns Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed testing activities in the 

Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., air guns) would not be introduced into the marine 

environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain 

unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.4.3.1.4 Impacts from Pile Driving 

Pile driving and removal involves both impact and vibratory methods. Impact pile driving produces 

repetitive, impulsive, broadband sound with most of the energy in lower frequencies where 

invertebrate hearing sensitivity is greater. Vibratory pile removal produces nearly continuous sound at a 

lower source level. See Section 3.0.3.3.1.3, Pile Driving, for a discussion of sounds produced during 

impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal. 

Impacts on invertebrates resulting from pile driving and removal are considered in the context of 

impulsive sound and substrate vibration. Impact pile driving produces a pressure wave that is 

transmitted to the water column and the sediment (Reinhall & Dahl, 2011). The pressure wave may 

cause vibration within the sediment. Most acoustic energy would be concentrated below 1,000 Hz, 

which is within the general sound sensing range of invertebrates. Available information indicates that 

invertebrates may respond to particle motion and substrate vibration produced by pile driving or 

removal. As discussed in Section 3.4.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors), recent investigations have found effects to 

crustacean and mollusc species resulting from pile driving noise playback and substrate vibration 

(Roberts et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2016; Solan et al., 2016; Spiga, 2016). Responses include changes in 

chorusing (snapping shrimp), valve closing (clams and mussels), and changes in activity level (clams, 

lobsters, and hermit crabs). However, no statistically detectable changes were observed in brittlestars, 

suggesting that impacts may vary among taxa or species. While one study was conducted in a sheltered 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-51

3.4 Invertebrates 

coastal area (Spiga, 2016), the others used small experimental tanks with maximum dimension of about 

20 inches. Therefore, many of the effects were observed very close to the sound sources. Navy scientists 

are in the early stages of observing the response of marine life to pile driving in their unconfined 

environment using an adaptive resolution imaging sonar that allows observations in low visibility 

estuarine waters. Samples acquired to date include the response (or lack thereof) of various crabs to 

Navy pile driving in the Mid-Atlantic region. 

3.4.3.1.4.1 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 1, pile driving and removal associated with elevated causeway system placement 

would occur once per year in the nearshore and surf zone at one of the following locations: Virginia 

Capes Range Complex (Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek, Virginia or Joint Expeditionary Base Fort 

Story, Virginia) or Navy Cherry Point Range Complex (Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina) 

(Section 3.0.3.3.1.3, Pile Driving). Marine invertebrates in the area around a pile driving and vibratory 

removal site would be exposed to multiple impulsive sounds and other disturbance intermittently over 

an estimated 20 days during installation and 10 days during removal. Invertebrates could be exposed to 

impact noise for a total of 60 minutes per 24-hour period during installation, and could be exposed to 

noise and substrate vibration for a total of 36 minutes per day during pile removal. It may be theorized 

that repeated exposures to impulsive sound could damage the statocyst of individuals of some taxa 

(e.g., crustaceans and cephalopods); however, experimental data on such effects are not available. 

Exposure to impulsive sound and substrate vibration would likely cause behavioral reactions in 

invertebrates located in the water column or on the bottom for some distance from the activities. For 

example, a sound level of 150 dB SEL, which was found to cause behavioral reactions in clams and 

lobsters, was modeled at 3.4 km from the source for pile driving during a previous event. Reactions such 

as valve closure or changes in activity could affect feeding, and auditory masking could affect other 

behaviors such as communication and predator avoidance. Repetitive impulses and substrate vibration 

may also cause short-term avoidance of the affected area by mobile invertebrates. Available 

experimental results do not provide estimates of the distance to which such reactions could occur. 

Although some number of individuals would experience physiological and behavioral effects, the 

activities would occur intermittently (one event occurring intermittently over approximately 30 days per 

year) in very limited areas and would be of short duration (maximum of 60 minutes per 24-hour period). 

Therefore, the number of invertebrates affected would be small compared to overall population 

numbers. Pile driving and removal activities would be unlikely to impact survival, growth, recruitment, 

or reproduction of marine invertebrate populations or subpopulations. 

ESA-listed coral species and critical habitat do not occur in areas proposed for pile driving. Pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of pile driving during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

There would be no pile driving or removal associated with testing activities. Therefore, pile driving is not 

analyzed in this subsection. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-52

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4.3.1.4.2 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with pile driving and removal would be 

the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.1.4.1 (Impacts from Pile Driving Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. 

ESA-listed coral species and critical habitat do not occur in areas proposed for pile driving. Pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of pile driving during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

There would be no pile driving or removal associated with testing activities. Therefore, pile driving is not 

analyzed in this subsection. 

3.4.3.1.4.3 Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training activities in the 

AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., pile driving) would not be introduced into the marine 

environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain 

unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.4.3.1.5 Impacts from Vessel Noise 

As described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.4 (Vessel Noise), naval vessels (including ships and small craft) produce 

low-frequency, broadband underwater sound that ranges over several sound levels and frequencies. 

Some invertebrate species would likely be able to detect the low-frequency component of vessel noise. 

Several studies, described in detail in Section 3.4.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors), have found physiological and 

behavioral responses in some invertebrate species in response to playback of vessel noise, although one 

study found no reaction by krill to an approaching vessel. Physiological effects included biochemical 

changes indicative of stress in crustacean species, decreased growth and reproduction in shrimp, and 

changes in sea hare embryo development. It is also possible that vessel noise may contribute to masking 

of relevant environmental sounds, such as predator detection or reef sounds. Low-frequency reef 

sounds are used as a settlement cue by the larvae of some invertebrate species. Behavioral effects 

resulting from boat noise playback have been observed in various crustacean, cephalopod, and bivalve 

species and include shell closing and changes in feeding, coloration, swimming, and other movements. 

Exposure to other types of non-impulsive noise (and therefore potentially relevant to vessel noise 

effects), including continuous sweeps and underwater turbine noise playback, has resulted in statocyst 

damage (squid and octopus), physiological stress, effects to larval development, and behavioral 

reactions. Noise exposure in several of the studies using boat and other continuous noise sources 

occurred over a duration of 3.5 to 30 minutes to captive individuals unable to escape the stimulus. In 

other studies, noise playback ranged from hours to days (and up to 3 months in one investigation) of 

continuous or intermittent exposure. Given the duration of exposure, direct applicability of the results 

to Navy training and testing activities is uncertain for mobile species. However, it is possible that 

invertebrates in the Study Area that are exposed to vessel noise could exhibit similar reactions. 

While commercial vessel traffic and associated noise is relatively steady over time, Navy traffic is 

episodic in the ocean. Activities involving vessel movements occur intermittently and are variable in 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-53

3.4 Invertebrates 

duration, ranging from a few hours to a few weeks. Vessels engaged in training and testing may consist 

of a single vessel involved in unit-level activity for a few hours or multiple vessels involved in a major 

training exercise that could last a few days within a given area. In the East Coast Exclusive Economic 

Zone, Navy ships are estimated to contribute only roughly 1 percent of the total large vessel broadband 

energy noise (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011). However, the percentage of Naval vessel traffic in port areas 

with Naval installations, such as Norfolk and Mayport, is probably greater than 1 percent. 

3.4.3.1.5.1 Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 1, naval vessels would be used during many of the proposed activities, and naval 

vessel noise associated with training could occur in all of the range complexes and inland waters 

throughout the Study Area. Activities that occur in the offshore component of the Study Area may last 

from a few hours to a few weeks, and vessels would generally be widely dispersed. However, exposure 

to naval vessel noise would be greatest in the areas of highest naval vessel traffic, which generally 

occurs in the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Noise exposure would be particularly 

concentrated near naval port facilities, especially around and between the ports of Norfolk, Virginia, and 

Jacksonville, Florida. Activities that occur in inland waters can last from a few hours to up to 12 hours of 

daily movement per vessel per activity, and can involve speeds greater than 10 knots. Vessels that 

would operate within inland waters are generally smaller than those in offshore waters (small craft less 

than 50 ft.). Vessel movements in the inland waters of the Study Area occur on a more regular basis than 

the offshore activities, and generally occur in more confined waterways (primarily in the Lower 

Chesapeake Bay and James River). Information on the number and location of activities using vessels, as 

well as the number of hours of operation for inland waters, is provided in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels 

and In-Water Devices). 

Any marine invertebrate capable of sensing sound may alter its behavior or experience masking of other 

sounds if exposed to vessel noise. Because the distance over which most marine invertebrates are 

expected to detect sounds is limited and because most vessel noise is transient or intermittent (or both), 

most behavioral reactions and masking effects from Navy activities would likely be short term, ceasing 

soon after Navy vessels leave an area. An exception would be areas in and around port navigation 

channels and inland waters that receive a high volume of ship or small craft traffic, where sound 

disturbance would be more frequent. The relatively high frequency and intensity of vessel traffic in 

many inshore training areas may have given organisms an opportunity to adapt behaviorally to a noisier 

environment. For example, recent survey work by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science suggests that 

large populations of oysters inhabit Navy piers in the Chesapeake Bay that have persisted despite a 

history of chronic vessel noise (Horton, 2016). Without prolonged exposure to nearby sounds, 

measurable impacts are not expected. In general, intermittent vessel noise produced during training 

activities may briefly impact some individuals, but exposures are not expected to impact survival, 

growth, recruitment, or reproduction of marine invertebrate populations or subpopulations. 

Concentrated vessel operation in areas such as port navigation channels could result in repeated noise 

exposure and chronic physiological or behavioral effects to individuals of local invertebrate 

subpopulations, particularly sessile species, located near the sound source. However, relative to 

population sizes, impacts to subpopulations would not have measureable effects to invertebrate 

populations overall. 

Some adults of ESA-listed corals could potentially detect the low-frequency component of nearby vessel 

noise, although there are no studies of the effects of vessel noise on corals. Coral larvae exposed to 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-54

3.4 Invertebrates 

vessel noise near a reef could experience temporary masking and brief disruption of settlement cues. 

Mapped areas of shallow water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks would be 

avoided during precision anchoring, explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities. In 

addition, mapped areas of shallow water coral reefs would be avoided during explosive and nonexplosive gunnery, missile, and bombing activities. Avoidance of these areas would decrease vessel 

transit and associated vessel noise through areas supporting shallow-water corals, including ESA-listed 

staghorn and elkhorn corals. Vessel noise would not affect the physical components designated critical 

habitat for elkhorn coral and staghorn coral. Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise produced during training 

activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical 

habitat. 

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 1, naval vessels would be used during many of the proposed activities, and naval 

vessel noise associated with testing could occur in all of the range complexes and testing ranges 

throughout the Study Area, and in some inland waters. However, exposure to naval vessel noise would 

be greatest in the areas of highest naval vessel traffic, which generally occurs in the Virginia Capes and 

Jacksonville Range Complexes. Noise exposure would be particularly concentrated near naval port 

facilities, especially around and between the ports of Norfolk, Virginia, and Jacksonville, Florida. 

Information on the number and location of activities using vessels, as well as the number of hours of 

operation for inland waters, is provided in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices). 

Any marine invertebrate capable of sensing sound may alter its behavior or experience masking of other 

sounds if exposed to vessel noise. Because the distance over which most marine invertebrates are 

expected to detect sounds is limited and because most vessel noise is transient or intermittent (or both), 

most behavioral reactions and masking effects from Navy activities would likely be short-term, ceasing 

soon after Navy vessels leave an area. An exception would be areas in and around port navigation 

channels and inland waters that receive a high volume of ship or small craft traffic, where sound 

disturbance would be more frequent. The relatively high frequency and intensity of vessel traffic in 

many inshore areas may have given organisms an opportunity to adapt behaviorally to a noisier 

environment. For example, recent survey work by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science suggests that 

large populations of oysters inhabit Navy piers in the Chesapeake Bay that have persisted despite a 

history of chronic vessel noise (Horton, 2016). Without prolonged exposure to nearby sounds, 

measurable impacts are not expected. In general, intermittent vessel noise produced during testing 

activities may briefly impact some individuals, but exposures are not expected to impact survival, 

growth, recruitment, or reproduction of marine invertebrate populations or subpopulations. 

Concentrated vessel operation in areas such as port navigation channels could result in repeated noise 

exposure and chronic physiological or behavioral effects to individuals of local invertebrate 

subpopulations, particularly sessile species, located near the sound source. However, relative to 

population sizes, impacts to subpopulations would not have measureable effects to invertebrate 

populations overall. 

Some adults of ESA-listed corals could potentially detect the low-frequency component of nearby vessel 

noise, and coral larvae exposed to vessel noise near a reef could experience temporary masking and 

brief disruption of settlement cues. Mapped areas of shallow water coral reefs, live hard bottom, 

artificial reefs, and shipwrecks would be avoided during numerous types of activities, which would 

decrease vessel transit and associated vessel noise through areas supporting shallow-water corals. 

Vessel noise would not affect the physical components of designated critical habitat for elkhorn coral 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-55

3.4 Invertebrates 

and staghorn coral. Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise produced during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

3.4.3.1.5.2 Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 2, potential impacts to invertebrates resulting from vessel noise associated with 

training activities would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. Vessel use in the 

Study Area would increase by a very small amount (about 1 percent) due to differences in the number of 

events such as Composite Training Unit Exercises. However, the increase would not result in substantive 

changes to the potential for or types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.1.5.1 (Impacts 

from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential impacts. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.1.5.1 (Impacts from Vessel Noise under Alternative 1), pursuant to the ESA, 

vessel noise produced during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on 

ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 2, potential impacts to invertebrates resulting from vessel noise associated with 

testing activities would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. Vessel use in the 

Study Area would increase by a very small amount (less than 1 percent). However, the increase would 

not result in substantive changes to the potential for or types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer to 

Section 3.4.3.1.5.1 (Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential impacts. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.1.5.1 (Impacts from Vessel Noise under Alternative 1), pursuant to the ESA, 

vessel noise produced during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on 

ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

3.4.3.1.5.3 Impacts from Vessel Noise Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., vessel noise) would not be introduced 

into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either 

remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.4.3.1.6 Impacts from Aircraft Noise 

Aircraft and missile overflight noise is not applicable to invertebrates due to the very low transmission of 

sound pressure across the air/water interface and will not be analyzed further in this section. 

3.4.3.1.7 Impacts from Weapons Noise 

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 (Weapon Noise), noise associated with weapons firing and the impact 

of non-explosive munitions could occur during training or testing events. In-water noise would result 

from naval gunfire (muzzle blast), bow shock waves from supersonic projectiles, missile and target 

launch, and vibration from a blast propagating through a ship’s hull. In addition, larger non-explosive 

munitions could produce low-frequency impulses when striking the water, depending on the size, 

weight, and speed of the object at impact. Small- and medium-caliber munitions would not produce 

substantial impact noise. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-56

3.4 Invertebrates 

Underwater sound produced by weapons firing, launch, and impact of non-explosive practice munitions 

would be greatest near the surface and would attenuate with depth. However, the potential for in-air 

weapons noise to impact invertebrates would be small. Much of the energy produced by muzzle blasts 

and flying projectiles is reflected off the water surface. As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 (Weapon 

Noise), sound generally enters the water only in a cone beneath the blast or projectile trajectory (within 

13 to 14 degrees of vertical for muzzle blast noise, and 65 degrees for projectile shock waves). An SEL of 

180 to 185 dB re 1 μPa2-s was measured at water depth of 5 ft. directly below the muzzle blast of the 

largest gun analyzed, at the firing position closest to the water. Different weapons and angles of fire 

would produce less sound in the water. Bow waves from supersonic projectiles produce a brief “crack” 

noise at the surface, but transmission of sound into the water is minimal. Launch noise fades rapidly as 

the missile or target moves downrange and the booster burns out. Hull vibration from large-caliber 

gunfire produces only a small level of underwater noise. For example, analysis of 5-inch gun firing found 

that energy transmitted into the water by hull vibration is only 6 percent of that produced by the muzzle 

blast. Compared to weapons firing, launches, and hull vibration, impulsive sound resulting from nonexplosive practice munition strikes on the water surface could affect a somewhat larger area, though far 

less than an explosive blast. Underwater sound would generally be associated only with relatively large 

munitions impacting at high speed. 

Based on the discussion above, invertebrates would likely only be affected by noise produced by muzzle 

blasts and impact of large non-explosive practice munitions. Impacts would likely be limited to pelagic 

invertebrates, such as squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton, located near the surface. Injury and 

physiological stress has not been found in limited studies of invertebrates exposed to impulsive sound 

levels comparable to those produced beneath the muzzle blast of a 5-inch gun. Behavioral reactions 

have not been found in crustaceans, but have been observed for squid species. While squid could 

display short-term startle response, behavioral reactions in response to sound is not known for jellyfish 

or zooplankton. Zooplankton may include gametes, eggs, and larval forms of various invertebrate 

species, including corals. Although prolonged exposure to repeated playback of nearby impulsive sound 

(air guns) has resulted in developmental effects to larvae and eggs of some invertebrate species, brief 

exposure to a single or limited number of muzzle blasts or munition impacts would be unlikely to affect 

development. Other factors would limit the number and types of invertebrates potentially affected. 

Most squid are active near the surface at night, when most weapons firing and launch do not occur. 

Weapons firing and launch typically occurs greater than 12 NM from shore, which would substantially 

limit the sound level reaching the bottom. Therefore, impacts to benthic invertebrates (e.g., bivalve 

molluscs, worms, and crabs) are unlikely. 

3.4.3.1.7.1 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 1, invertebrates would be exposed to noise primarily from weapons firing and impact 

of non-explosive practice munitions during training activities. Noise associated with these activities 

could be produced throughout the Study Area, including when ships are in transit, but would typically be 

concentrated in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range 

Complexes. Noise associated with large caliber weapons firing and the impact of non-explosive practice 

munitions or kinetic weapons would typically occur at locations greater than 12 NM from shore. Small 

caliber weapons firing could occur throughout the Study Area. 

Noise produced by these activities would consist of a single or several impulses over a short period. 

Impulses resulting from muzzle blasts and non-explosive practice munitions impact would likely affect 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-57

3.4 Invertebrates 

only individuals near the surface, and are not likely to result in injury. Some invertebrates may exhibit 

startle reactions (e.g., abrupt changes in swim speed or direction). For example, based on observed 

reactions to other impulsive sounds (air guns), squid located near the surface in the vicinity of a firing 

event could show startle reactions such as inking or jetting. Impacts of non-explosive practice munitions 

could affect a comparatively larger volume of water and associated invertebrates. The number of 

organisms affected would depend on the area exposed and the invertebrate density. Squid and 

zooplankton are typically more abundant near the surface at night, when most weapon firing would not 

occur. In addition, most weapons firing would take place in offshore waters, decreasing the potential for 

impacts to benthic invertebrates and coral eggs and larvae. 

Impacts would be of brief duration and would be limited to a relatively small volume of water near the 

surface. Compared to overall population sizes, it is expected that only a small number of pelagic 

invertebrates (e.g., squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton) would be exposed to weapons firing and impact 

noise. Squid and zooplankton would be less abundant during the day, when weapons firing typically 

occurs, and jellyfish are not known to react to sound. The activities would be unlikely to impact survival, 

growth, recruitment, or reproduction of marine invertebrate populations or subpopulations. 

ESA-listed coral species and designated critical habitat would not likely be exposed to noise from 

weapons firing, launch, and impact of non-explosive practice munitions during training activities 

because those activities are generally conducted in offshore waters where shallow-water corals do not 

typically occur. Noise produced at the surface or as a result of vessel hull vibration would be unlikely to 

cause physiological or behavioral responses in corals due to their limited sound detection range. Noise 

produced by weapons firing, launch, and impact of non-explosive practice items would not affect the 

characteristics of elkhorn coral and staghorn coral critical habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise 

produced during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed 

coral species or critical habitat. 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 1, invertebrates would be exposed to noise primarily from weapons firing and impact 

of non-explosive practice munitions during testing activities. Testing activities would be concentrated in 

the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range 

Complexes, and could also occur in the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City testing range. Noise 

associated with large caliber weapons firing and the impact of non-explosive practice munitions or 

kinetic weapons would typically occur at locations greater than 12 NM from shore. Small caliber 

weapons firing could occur throughout the Study Area. 

 Noise produced by these activities would consist of a single or several impulses over a short period. 

Impulses resulting from muzzle blasts and non-explosive practice munitions impact would likely affect 

only individuals near the surface, and are not likely to result in injury. Some invertebrates may exhibit 

startle reactions (e.g., abrupt changes in swim speed or direction). For example, based on observed 

reactions to other impulsive sounds (air guns), squid located near the surface in the vicinity of a firing 

event could show startle reactions such as inking or jetting. Impacts of non-explosive practice munitions 

could affect a comparatively larger volume of water and associated invertebrates. The number of 

organisms affected would depend on the area exposed and the invertebrate density. Squid and 

zooplankton are typically more abundant near the surface at night, when most weapon firing would not 

occur. In addition, most weapons firing would take place in offshore waters, decreasing the potential for 

impacts to benthic invertebrates and coral eggs and larvae. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-58

3.4 Invertebrates 

Impacts would be of brief duration and would be limited to a relatively small volume of water near the 

surface. Compared to overall population sizes, it is expected that only a small number of pelagic 

invertebrates (e.g., squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton) would be exposed to weapons firing and impact 

noise. Squid and zooplankton would be less abundant during the day, when weapons firing typically 

occurs, and jellyfish are not known to react to sound. The activities would be unlikely to impact survival, 

growth, recruitment, or reproduction of marine invertebrate populations or subpopulations. 

Testing activities would be conducted in the Key West Range Complex, where ESA-listed corals (and 

associated coral eggs and larvae) and elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat occur. However, ESAlisted coral species and designated critical habitat would not likely be exposed to noise from weapons 

firing, launch, and impact of non-explosive practice munitions during testing activities because those 

activities are generally conducted in offshore waters where shallow-water corals do not typically occur. 

Noise produced at the surface or as a result of vessel hull vibration would be unlikely to cause 

physiological or behavioral responses in corals due to their limited sound detection range. Noise 

produced by weapons firing, launch, and impact of non-explosive practice items would not affect the 

characteristics of elkhorn coral and staghorn coral critical habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise 

produced during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed 

coral species or critical habitat. 

3.4.3.1.7.2 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with weapons firing, launch, and nonexplosive practice munition impact noise for training activities would be the same under Alternatives 1 

and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.1.5.1 (Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of 

impacts on invertebrates. 

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise produced during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 2, the location of testing activities would be the same as those described for 

Alternative 1, and potential impacts to invertebrates would be similar (refer to Section 3.4.3.1.5.1, 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1). The only difference between Alternatives 1 and 2 is 

that the number of munitions used would be greater under Alternative 2. While the types of expected 

impacts to any individual invertebrate or group of invertebrates capable of detecting sounds produced 

during testing activities would remain the same, more animals could be affected. Compared to overall 

population sizes, it is expected that only a small number of pelagic invertebrates (e.g., squid, jellyfish, 

and zooplankton) would be exposed. Squid and zooplankton would be less abundant near the surface 

during the day, when weapons firing typically occurs, and jellyfish are not known to react to sound. The 

activities would be unlikely to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of marine 

invertebrate populations or subpopulations. 

ESA-listed coral species and designated critical habitat would not likely be exposed to noise from 

weapons firing, launch, and impact of non-explosive practice munitions during testing activities because 

those activities are generally conducted in offshore waters where shallow-water corals do not typically 

occur. Noise produced at the surface or as a result of vessel hull vibration would be unlikely to cause 

physiological or behavioral responses in corals due to their limited sound detection range. Noise 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-59

3.4 Invertebrates 

produced by weapons firing, launch, and impact of non-explosive practice munitions would not affect 

the characteristics of elkhorn coral and staghorn coral critical habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, weapons 

noise produced during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESAlisted coral species or critical habitat. 

3.4.3.1.7.3 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., weapons firing, launch, and nonexplosive practice impact noise) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, 

baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve 

slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.4.3.1.7 Summary of Potential Acoustic Impacts 

Invertebrates would be exposed to potential acoustic stressors resulting from sonar and other 

transducers; pile driving; air guns; weapons firing, launch, and non-explosive practice munition impact 

noise; and vessel noise. Based on currently available information, invertebrates would only sense water 

particle motion near a sound source and at low frequencies, which limits the range to which individuals 

would respond. The potential for injury would be limited to invertebrates occurring very close to an 

impulsive sound such as an air gun. Impacts would primarily consist of physiological stress or behavioral 

reactions. Most sound exposures would occur in offshore areas and near the surface, where pelagic 

species such as squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton would be affected. Squid and some zooplankton species 

do not typically occur at the surface during the day, when most Navy activities would take place. Overall, 

there would be comparatively fewer impacts to benthic species. Exceptions would include pierside sonar 

and air gun use, and concentration of vessel operation in certain areas, where sessile or sedentary 

individuals could be repeatedly exposed to acoustic stressors. Most sound exposures would be brief and 

transient and would affect a small number of individuals relative to overall population sizes. 

3.4.3.2 Explosive Stressors 

Background 

Aspects of explosive stressors that are applicable to marine organisms in general are presented in 

Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities). 

Explosions produce pressure waves with the potential to cause injury or physical disturbance due to 

rapid pressure changes, as well as loud, impulsive, broadband sounds. Impulsive sounds are 

characterized by rapid pressure rise times and high peak pressures (Appendix D, Acoustic Primer). 

Potential impacts on invertebrates resulting from the pressure wave and impulsive sound resulting from 

a detonation are discussed in this section. When explosive munitions detonate, fragments of the 

weapon are thrown at high velocity from the detonation point, which can injure or kill invertebrates if 

they are struck. However, the friction of the water quickly slows these fragments to the point where 

they no longer pose a threat. The small range of effects due to fragments would result in a negligible 

impact on invertebrate populations. Therefore, the potential for fragmentation to impact invertebrates 

is not discussed further in this analysis. 

Explosions may impact invertebrates at the water surface, in the water column, or on the bottom. The 

potential for impacts is influenced by typical detonation scenarios and invertebrate distribution. The 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-60

3.4 Invertebrates 

majority of explosions would occur in the air or at the surface, with relatively few at the bottom 

(Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions), which would decrease the potential for impacts to benthic 

species. Surface explosions typically occur during the day at offshore locations more than 12 NM from 

shore. There is a general pattern of higher invertebrate abundance in relatively productive estuarine and 

nearshore waters, which decreases the overall number of invertebrates potentially exposed to 

detonation effects. In addition, many of the invertebrates that occur near the surface (e.g., squid and 

numerous zooplankton species) typically move up in the water column at night, making them less 

vulnerable to explosions at the surface occurring predominantly during the day. 

In general, an explosion may result in direct trauma and mortality due to the associated rapid pressure 

changes. For example, gas-containing organs such as the swim bladder in many fish species and the 

lungs of marine mammals are subject to rapid contraction and overextension (potentially causing 

rupture) when exposed to explosive shock waves. Most marine invertebrates lack air cavities and are 

therefore comparatively less vulnerable to damaging effects of pressure waves. Limited studies of 

crustaceans have examined mortality rates at various distances from detonations in shallow water 

(Aplin, 1947; Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, 1948; Gaspin et al., 1976). Similar studies of molluscs 

have shown them to be more resistant than crustaceans to explosive impacts (Chesapeake Biological 

Laboratory, 1948; Gaspin et al., 1976). Other invertebrates, such as sea anemones, polychaete worms, 

isopods, and amphipods, were observed to be undamaged in areas near detonations (Gaspin et al., 

1976). Data from these experiments were used to develop curves that estimate the distance from an 

explosion beyond which at least 90 percent of certain adult benthic marine invertebrates would survive, 

depending on the weight of the explosive (Young, 1991) (Figure 3.4-2). For example, 90 percent of crabs 

would survive a 200-lb. explosion if they are greater than about 350 ft. away from the source. Similar 

information on the effects of explosions to planktonic invertebrates and invertebrate larvae is not 

available. 

Figure 3.4-2: Prediction of Distance to 90 Percent Survivability 

of Marine Invertebrates Exposed to an Underwater Explosion (Young, 1991) 

Charges detonated in shallow water or near the bottom, including explosive munitions disposal charges 

and some explosions associated with mine warfare, could kill and injure marine invertebrates on or near 

the bottom, depending on the species and the distance from the explosion. Taxonomic groups typically 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-61

3.4 Invertebrates 

associated with the bottom, such as sponges, marine worms, crustaceans, echinoderms, corals, and 

molluscs, could be affected. Net explosive weight (NEW) for these types of activities is relatively low. 

Most detonations occurring on or near the bottom would have a NEW of 60 lb. or less, although some 

explosives would be up to 3,625 lb. NEW. Based on the estimates shown on Figure 3.4-2, most benthic 

marine invertebrates beyond approximately 275 ft. from a 60-lb. blast would survive. The potential 

mortality zone for some taxa (e.g., shrimp, lobsters, worms, amphipods) would be substantially smaller. 

A blast near the bottom could disturb sessile invertebrates such as mussels and hard substrate suitable 

for their colonization. A blast in the vicinity of hard corals could cause direct impact to coral polyps or 

early life-stages of pre-settlement corals, or fragmentation and siltation of the corals. For example, in 

one study, recovery from a single small blast directly on a reef took 5 to 10 years (Fox & Caldwell, 2006). 

Impacts to benthic invertebrates in deeper water would be infrequent because most offshore 

detonations occur in the air or at the surface. Benthic invertebrates in the abyssal zone (generally 

considered to be deeper than about 6,000 ft.) seaward of the coastal large marine ecosystems are 

sparsely distributed and tend to be concentrated around hydrothermal vents and cold seeps. These 

topographic features are typically associated with steep or high-relief areas of the continental shelf 

break (e.g., canyons, outcrops) or open ocean (e.g., seamounts, Mid-Atlantic Ridge). 

The results of a series of underwater surveys of a Navy bombing range in the Pacific Ocean (Farallon De 

Medinilla) conducted from 1999 to 2012 generally indicated there were few adverse impacts to benthic 

invertebrates (Smith & Marx, 2016). Although Farallon De Medinilla is a land range, bombs and other 

munitions occasionally strike the water. A limited number of observations of explosion-related effects 

were reported, and the results are summarized here to provide general information on the types of 

impacts that may occur. The effects are not presumed to be broadly applicable to Navy training and 

testing activities. During the 2010 survey, it was determined that a blast of unknown size (and therefore 

of unknown applicability to proposed training and testing activities) along the waterline of a cliff ledge 

caused mortality to small oysters near the impact point. Corals occurring within 3 m of the affected 

substrate were apparently healthy. A blast crater on the bottom that was 5 m in diameter and 50 cm

deep, presumably resulting from a surface detonation, was observed during one survey in water depth 

of 12 m. Although it may be presumed that corals or other invertebrates located within the crater 

footprint would have been damaged or displaced, evidence of such impacts was not observed. The blast 

occurred in an area of sparse coral coverage and it is therefore unknown whether coral was present in 

the crater area prior to the blast. 

The applicability of the mortality distance estimates shown on Figure 3.4-2 to invertebrates located in 

the water column is unknown. However, detonations that occur near the surface release a portion of 

the explosive energy into the air rather than the water, reducing impacts to invertebrates in the water 

column. In addition to effects caused by a shock wave, organisms could be killed or injured in an area of 

cavitation that forms near the surface above a large underwater detonation. Cavitation is where the 

reflected shock wave creates a region of negative pressure followed by a collapse, or water hammer 

(see Appendix D, Acoustic Primer). The number of organisms affected by explosions at the surface or in 

the water column would depend on the size of the explosive, the distance of organisms from the 

explosion, and the specific geographic location within the Study Area. As discussed previously, many 

invertebrates that occur near the surface (e.g., squid and zooplankton) typically move up in the water 

column at night, making them less vulnerable to explosions during the day, when most Navy activities 

involving detonations occur. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-62

3.4 Invertebrates 

Marine invertebrates beyond the range of mortality or injurious effects may detect the impulsive sound 

produced by an explosion. At some distance, impulses lose their high pressure peak and take on 

characteristics of non-impulsive acoustic waves. Invertebrates that detect impulsive or non-impulsive 

sounds may experience stress or exhibit behavioral reactions in response to the sound (see Section 

3.4.3.1.1, Background). Repetitive impulses during multiple explosions, such as during a surface firing 

exercise, may be more likely to cause avoidance reactions. However, the distance to which invertebrates 

are likely to detect sounds is limited due to their sensitivity to water particle motion caused by nearby 

low-frequency sources. Sounds produced in water during training and testing activities, including 

activities that involve multiple impulses, occur over a limited duration. Any auditory masking, in which 

the sound of an impulse could prevent detection of other biologically relevant sounds, would be very 

brief. 

3.4.3.2.1 Impacts from Explosives 

3.4.3.2.1.1 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 1, marine invertebrates would be exposed to surface and underwater explosions and 

associated underwater impulsive sounds from high-explosive munitions (including bombs, missiles, 

torpedoes, and naval gun shells), mines, and demolition charges. Explosives would be used throughout 

the Study Area, but most typically in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems and in the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area. The only 

underwater explosions that would occur on or near the bottom in the Key West Range Complex would 

result from use of 5- to 20-lb. charges. A discussion of explosives, including explosive source classes, is 

provided in Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). The largest source class proposed for training under 

Alternative 1 is E12 (650 to 1,000 lb. NEW), used during bombing exercises (air-to-surface) and sinking 

exercises. 

In general, explosive events would consist of a single explosion or a few smaller explosions over a short 

period, and would occur infrequently over the course of a year. With the exception of mine warfare, 

demolition, and a relatively small number of other training events that occur in shallow water close to 

shore (typically in the same locations that are regularly disturbed), most detonations would occur in 

water depths greater than 200 ft. (but still at the surface) and greater than 3 NM from shore. As water 

depth increases away from shore, benthic invertebrates would be less likely to be impacted by 

detonations at or near the surface. Relatively few invertebrates occur at or near the surface and consist 

primarily of squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton. Squid and zooplankton are typically active near the surface 

at night, when most explosions do not occur. In addition, detonations near the surface would release a 

portion of their explosive energy into the air, reducing the potential for impacts to pelagic invertebrates. 

Mine warfare activities are typical examples of activities involving detonations on or near the bottom in 

nearshore waters. Invertebrates in these areas are adapted to frequent disturbance from storms and 

associated sediment redistribution. Studies of the effects of large-scale sediment disturbance such as 

dredging and sediment borrow projects have found recovery of benthic communities over a period of 

weeks to years (Posey & Alphin, 2002; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012). Recovery time is variable 

and may be influenced by multiple factors, but is generally faster in areas dominated by sand and 

moderate to strong water movement. The area of bottom habitat disturbed by explosions would be less 

than that associated with dredging or other large projects, and would occur mostly in soft bottom areas 

that are regularly disturbed by natural processes such as water currents and waves. It is therefore 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-63

3.4 Invertebrates 

expected that areas affected by detonations would rapidly be recolonized (potentially weeks) by the 

surrounding invertebrate community. Craters resulting from detonations in the soft bottom would be 

filled and smoothed by waves and long-shore currents over time, resulting in no permanent change to 

bottom profiles that could affect invertebrate species assemblages. The time required to fill craters 

would depend on the size and depth, with deeper craters likely filling more slowly (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2001). The amount of bottom habitat impacted by explosions would be a very small 

percentage of the habitat available in the Study Area. As discussed in Section 3.5.3.2.1.1 (Impacts from 

Explosives Under Alternative 1), the total bottom area potentially disturbed by explosions over a 5-year 

period would be 44.2 acres. Of this total, less than 0.6 percent of available hard, intermediate, and soft 

habitat type would be affected, and less than 0.01 percent of hard bottom would be impacted. This 

affected area occurs within the context of over 100 million acres of undersea space encompassed by the 

range complexes associated with mine neutralization training activities (Gulf of Mexico, Jacksonville, Key 

West, Navy Cherry Point, and Virginia Capes Range Complexes).

Many corals and hard bottom invertebrates are sessile, fragile, and particularly vulnerable to shock 

wave impacts. Many of these organisms are slow-growing and could require decades to recover (Precht 

et al., 2001). However, most explosions would occur at or near the water surface and offshore, reducing 

the likelihood of bottom impacts on shallow-water corals. 

In summary, explosives produce pressure waves that can harm invertebrates in the vicinity of where 

they typically occur: mostly offshore surface waters where only zooplankton, squid, and jellyfish are 

prevalent mostly at night when testing activities do not typically occur. Exceptions occur where 

explosives are used on the bottom within nearshore or inland waters on or near sensitive hard bottom 

communities that are currently not mapped or otherwise protected; shallow-water coral reefs are 

protected from such explosions whereas other hard bottom communities are protected to the extent 

they are included in current mitigation measures. Soft bottom communities are resilient to occasional 

disturbances. Accordingly, the overall impacts of explosions on widespread invertebrate populations 

would not likely be detectable. Although individual marine invertebrates would likely be injured or killed 

during an explosion, the number of invertebrates affected would be small relative to overall population 

sizes, and activities would be unlikely to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of marine 

invertebrate populations or subpopulations. 

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigation to avoid impacts from explosives on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the 

Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization 

activities within a specified distance of shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and 

shipwrecks. The mitigation will consequently also help avoid potential impacts on invertebrates that 

inhabit these areas, including several areas inhabited by ESA-listed coral species. 

Due to the mitigation described above, the probability of shallow-water corals being exposed to 

detonation effects is low. Exposure would occur only if explosions inadvertently occurred near 

unmapped coral reefs or other substrate potentially supporting shallow-water corals. Although such a 

scenario is unlikely, there is a small potential for exposure. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives 

during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed coral species. Explosives 

would not be used on the bottom within designated critical habitat for ESA-listed elkhorn and staghorn 

coral. Therefore, there would be no effect to critical habitat. The Navy will consult with the NMFS, as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-64

3.4 Invertebrates 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 1, marine invertebrates could be exposed to surface and underwater explosions from 

high-explosive munitions (including bombs, missiles, torpedoes, and naval gun shells), mines, demolition 

charges, explosive sonobuoys, and ship shock trial charges. Explosives would be used throughout the 

Study Area, but most typically in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems and in the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area. 

The largest source classes proposed for testing under Alternative 1 would be used in the Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, or 

in the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area during ship shock trials in the Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, or Gulf of 

Mexico Range Complexes. Large ship shock trials could use charges up to source class E17 (14,500 to

58,000 lb. NEW), while small ship shock trials could use charges up to source class E16 (7,250 to 14,500 

lb. NEW). Each full ship shock trial would use up to four of these charges in total (each one detonated 

about a week apart, although smaller charges may be detonated on consecutive days). Use of explosives 

is described in Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors).

In general, explosive events would consist of a single explosion or a few smaller explosions over a short 

period, and would occur infrequently over the course of a year. With the exception of mine warfare, 

demolition charges, and line charge testing events that occur in shallow water close to shore (typically in 

the same locations that are regularly disturbed), most detonations would occur in water depths greater 

than 200 ft. (but still at the surface) and greater than 3 NM from shore. Ship shock charges would occur 

off the continental shelf in water greater than 600 ft. As water depth increases away from shore, 

benthic invertebrates would be less likely to be impacted by detonations at or near the surface. 

Relatively few invertebrates occur at or near the surface and consist primarily of squid, jellyfish, and 

zooplankton. Squid and zooplankton are typically active near the surface at night, when most explosions 

do not occur. In addition, detonations near the surface would release a portion of their explosive energy 

into the air, reducing the potential for impacts to pelagic invertebrates. 

Mine warfare activities are typical examples of activities involving detonations on or near the bottom in 

nearshore waters. Invertebrates in these areas are adapted to frequent disturbance from storms and 

associated sediment redistribution. Studies of the effects of large-scale sediment disturbance such as 

dredging and sediment borrow projects have found recovery of benthic communities over a period of 

weeks to years (Posey & Alphin, 2002; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012). Recovery time is variable 

and may be influenced by multiple factors, but is generally faster in areas dominated by sand and 

moderate to strong water movement. The area of bottom habitat disturbed by explosions would be less 

than that associated with dredging or other large projects, and would occur mostly in soft bottom areas 

that are regularly disturbed by natural processes such as water currents and waves. It is therefore 

expected that areas affected by detonations would rapidly be recolonized (potentially weeks) by the 

surrounding invertebrate community. Craters resulting from detonations in the soft bottom would be 

filled and smoothed by waves and long-shore currents over time, resulting in no permanent change to 

bottom profiles that could affect invertebrate species assemblages. The time required to fill craters 

would depend on the size and depth, with deeper craters likely filling more slowly (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2001). The amount of bottom habitat impacted by explosions would be a very small 

percentage of the habitat available in the Study Area. 

In summary, explosives produce pressure waves that can harm invertebrates in the vicinity of where 

they typically occur: mostly offshore surface waters where only zooplankton, squid, and jellyfish are 

prevalent mostly at night when testing activities do not typically occur. Exceptions occur where 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-65

3.4 Invertebrates 

explosives are used on the bottom within nearshore or inland waters on or near sensitive hard bottom 

communities that are currently not mapped or otherwise protected; shallow-water coral reefs are 

protected from such explosions whereas other hard bottom communities are protected to the extent 

they are included in current mitigation measures. Soft bottom communities are resilient to occasional 

disturbances. Accordingly, the overall impacts of explosions on widespread invertebrate populations 

would not likely be detectable. Although individual marine invertebrates would likely be injured or killed 

during an explosion, the number of invertebrates affected would be small relative to overall population 

sizes, and activities would be unlikely to impact survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of marine 

invertebrate populations or subpopulations. 

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigation to avoid impacts from explosives on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the 

Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization 

activities within a specified distance of shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and 

shipwrecks. The mitigation will consequently also help avoid potential impacts on invertebrates that 

inhabit these areas, including several areas inhabited by ESA-listed coral species. 

The only in-water explosions in the Key West Range Complex, where ESA-listed corals are known to 

occur, would result from sonobuoys and torpedoes. Due to the mitigation described above, the 

probability of shallow-water corals being exposed to detonation effects is low. Exposure would occur 

only if explosions inadvertently occurred near unmapped coral reefs or other substrate potentially 

supporting shallow-water corals. Although unlikely, there is a small potential for exposure. Pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect ESAlisted coral species and designated critical habitat. The Navy will consult with the NMFS, as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.4.3.2.1.2 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with explosives would be the same 

under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.2.1.1 (Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1) 

for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.2.1.1 (Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1), pursuant to the ESA, 

the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed 

coral species. There would be no effect to designated elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. The 

Navy will consult with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with explosives would be the same 

under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.2.1.1 (Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1) 

for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.2.1.1 (Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1), pursuant to the ESA, 

the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed 

coral species and designated critical habitat. The Navy will consult with the NMFS, as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-66

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4.3.2.1.3 Impacts from Explosives Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Explosives Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Explosive stressors would not be introduced into the marine 

environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain 

unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.4.3.3 Energy Stressors 

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of energy stressors that can occur during 

training and testing activities within the Study Area. This section includes analysis of the potential 

impacts from: (1) in-water electromagnetic devices, (2) in-air electromagnetic devices, and (3) highenergy lasers. Aspects of energy stressors that are applicable to marine organisms in general are 

presented in Section 3.0.3.6.2 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Energy-Producing 

Activities). 

3.4.3.3.1 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices 

Several different types of electromagnetic devices are used during training and testing activities. 

Information on the types of activities that use in-water electromagnetic devices is provided in Appendix 

B (Activity Stressor Matrices). 

Little information is available regarding marine invertebrates’ susceptibility to electromagnetic fields. 

Magnetic fields are not known to control spawning or larval settlement in any invertebrate species. 

Existing information suggests sensitivity to electric and magnetic fields in at least three marine 

invertebrate phyla: Mollusca, Arthropoda, and Echinodermata (Lohmann et al., 1995; Lohmann & 

Lohmann, 2006; Normandeau et al., 2011). A possible magnetic sense has been suggested in jellyfish as 

well, although this has not been demonstrated experimentally (Fossette et al., 2015). Much of the 

available information on magnetic field sensitivity of marine invertebrates pertains to crustaceans. For 

example, a magnetic compass sense has been demonstrated in the spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) 

(Lohmann et al., 1995; Lohmann & Lohmann, 2006), and researchers suggest subtle behavioral response 

to magnetic fields of about 1 millitesla (1,000 microtesla) in the Dungeness crab and American lobster 

(Homarus americanus) (Woodruff et al., 2013). A review of potential effects of undersea power cables 

on marine species provides a summary of numerous studies of the sensitivity of various invertebrate 

species to electric and magnetic fields (Normandeau et al., 2011). Electric field sensitivity is reported in 

the summary for only two freshwater crayfish species, while magnetic field sensitivity is reported for 

multiple marine invertebrate species, including molluscs, crustaceans, and echinoderms. Sensitivity 

thresholds range from 300 to 30,000 microtesla, depending on the species. Most responses consisted of 

behavioral changes, although non-lethal physiological effects were noted in two sea urchin species in a 

30,000 microtesla field (embryo development) and a marine mussel exposed to 300 to 700 microtesla 

field strength (cellular processes). Marine invertebrate community structure was not found to be 

affected by placement of energized underwater power cables with field strengths of 73 to 

100 microtesla (Love et al., 2016). Effects to eggs of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus and to brine 

shrimp (Artemia spp.) cysts have been reported at relatively high magnetic field strengths (750 to 

25,000 microtesla) (Ravera et al., 2006; Shckorbatov et al., 2010).The magnetic field generated by the 

Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep (a typical electromagnetic device used in Navy training 

and testing) is about 2,300 microtesla at the source. Field strength drops quickly with distance from the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-67

3.4 Invertebrates 

source, decreasing to 50 microtesla at 4 m, 5 microtesla at 24 m, and 0.2 microtesla at 200 m from the 

source. Therefore, temporary disruption of navigation and directional orientation is the primary impact 

considered in association with magnetic fields. 

Studies of the effects of low-voltage direct electrical currents in proximity to marine invertebrates 

suggest a beneficial impact to at least some species at appropriate current strength. American oysters 

(Crassostrea virginica) and various stony and soft corals occurring on substrates exposed to low-voltage 

currents (between approximately 10 and 1,000 microamperes) showed increased growth rates and 

survival (Arifin et al., 2012; Goreau, 2014; Jompa et al., 2012; Shorr et al., 2012). It is thought that the 

benefits may result from a combination of more efficient uptake of calcium and other structure-building 

minerals from the surrounding seawater, increased cellular energy production, and increased pH near 

the electrical currents. The beneficial effects were noted in a specific range of current strength; higher 

or lower currents resulted in either no observable effects or adverse effects. The moderate voltage and 

current associated with the Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep are not expected to result in 

adverse effects to invertebrates. In addition, due to the short-term, transient nature of electromagnetic 

device use, there would be no beneficial effects associated with small induced electrical currents in 

structures colonized by invertebrates. 

3.4.3.3.1.1 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training 

Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices), under Alternative 1, training 

activities involving in-water electromagnetic devices would occur in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry 

Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. A small number of activities could also occur in 

any of 13 inland water locations (Table 3.0-14, Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters 

Including In-Water Electromagnetic Devices). 

The impact of electromagnetic devices to marine invertebrates would depend upon the sensory 

capabilities of a species and the life functions that its magnetic or electric sensory systems support 

(Normandeau et al., 2011). The primary potential effect would be temporary directional disorientation 

for individuals encountering a human-produced magnetic field. For example, an individual could be 

confused or change its movement direction while exposed to a field. However, a limited number of 

studies suggest other effects such as changes in embryo development are possible within relatively 

strong fields for an extended time (10 to 150 minutes). Electromagnetic devices used in Alternative 1 

would only affect marine invertebrates located within a few feet of the source. In addition, most 

electromagnetic devices are mobile and would produce detectable magnetic fields for only a short time 

at any given location. Further, due to the exponential drop in field strength with distance, it is unlikely 

that benthic invertebrates such as lobsters and crabs would be affected. For example, operation of the 

Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep in 13 ft. water depth would produce field strength at the 

bottom that is an order of magnitude lower than any field strength associated with behavioral or 

physiological effects in the available study reports. Therefore, exposed species would be those typically 

found in the water column such as jellyfish, squid, and zooplankton, and mostly at night when squid and 

zooplankton have migrated up in the water column. Although a small number of invertebrates would be 

exposed to electromagnetic fields, exposure is not expected to yield any lasting effects on the survival, 

growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at the population level. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-68

3.4 Invertebrates 

In-water electromagnetic devices would not be used in the Key West Range Complex and would 

therefore not expose ESA-listed coral species to electromagnetic fields. There is no overlap of 

electromagnetic device use in the Key West Range Complex with designated critical habitat for elkhorn 

and staghorn coral. Therefore, electromagnetic devices would not affect elkhorn and staghorn coral 

critical habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training 

activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical 

habitat. 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices), under Alternative 1, testing 

activities involving in-water electromagnetic devices would occur within the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry 

Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. In addition, activities would occur at the Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Testing Range, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing 

Range, South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, and one inland water location 

The impact of electromagnetic devices to marine invertebrates would depend upon the sensory 

capabilities of a species and the life functions that it’s magnetic or electric sensory systems support 

(Normandeau et al., 2011). The primary potential effect would be temporary directional disorientation 

for individuals encountering a human-produced magnetic field. For example, an individual could be 

confused or change its movement direction while exposed to a field. However, a limited number of 

studies suggest other effects such as changes in embryo development are possible within relatively 

strong fields for an extended time (10 to 150 minutes). Electromagnetic devices used in Alternative 1 

would only affect marine invertebrates located within a few feet of the source. In addition, most 

electromagnetic devices are mobile and would produce detectable magnetic fields for only a short time 

at any given location. Further, due to the exponential drop in field strength with distance, it is unlikely 

that benthic invertebrates such as lobsters and crabs would be affected. For example, operation of the 

Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep in 13 ft. water depth would produce field strength at the 

bottom that is an order of magnitude lower than any field strength associated with behavioral or 

physiological effects in the available study reports. Therefore, exposed species would be those typically 

found in the water column such as jellyfish, squid, and zooplankton, and mostly at night when squid and 

zooplankton have migrated up in the water column. Although a small number of invertebrates would be 

exposed to electromagnetic fields, exposure is not expected to yield any lasting effects on the survival, 

growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at the population level. 

ESA-listed coral species occur in the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range and would 

have the potential to be exposed to electromagnetic fields, but the exposure from predominantly 

mobile sources would be very temporary and unlikely based on the narrow band of coral distribution in 

the testing range and navigation hazard presented by coral reefs that could be close enough to surface 

for exposure The electromagnetic devices used to trigger mines during testing activities are towed by 

helicopters near the surface and away from potential obstructions. Portions of the range are exempt 

from designation of elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. In addition, electromagnetic devices 

would not affect important characteristics of critical habitat. The available research on the effects of 

electromagnetic energy on invertebrates suggests there would be no meaningful impact on 

invertebrates, including ESA-listed coral species even in the highly unlikely event of exposure for a 

prolonged duration. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during testing 

activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical 

habitat. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-69

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4.3.3.1.2 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training 

Activities 

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with in-water electromagnetic devices 

would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.3.1.1 (Impacts from In-Water 

Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.3.1.1 (Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 

1), pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities as 

described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with in-water electromagnetic devices 

would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.3.1.1 (Impacts from In-Water 

Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.3.1.1 (Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 

1), pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during testing activities as 

described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

3.4.3.3.1.3 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under the No Action 

Alternative 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under the No Action Alternative for 

Training and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various energy stressors (e.g., in-water electromagnetic devices) would 

not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities. 

3.4.3.3.2 Impacts from In-Air Electromagnetic Devices 

In-air electromagnetic devices are not applicable to invertebrates because of the lack of transmission of 

electromagnetic radiation across the air/water interface and will not be analyzed further in this section. 

3.4.3.3.3 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers 

This section analyzes the potential impacts of high-energy lasers on invertebrates. As discussed in 

Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers), high-energy laser weapons are designed to disable surface targets, 

rendering them immobile. The primary concern is the potential for an invertebrate to be struck with the 

laser beam at or near the water’s surface, where extended exposure could result in injury or death. 

Marine invertebrates could be exposed to the laser only if the beam misses the target. Should the laser 

strike the sea surface, individual invertebrates at or near the surface, such as jellyfish, floating eggs, and 

larvae could potentially be exposed. The potential for exposure to a high-energy laser beam decreases 

rapidly as water depth increases and with time of day, as many zooplankton species migrate away from 

the surface during the day. Most marine invertebrates are not susceptible to laser exposure because 

they occur beneath the sea surface. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-70

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4.3.3.3.1 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers), under Alternative 1, training activities involving high-energy 

lasers would occur within the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Invertebrates that do 

not occur at or near the sea surface would not be exposed due to the attenuation of laser energy with 

depth. Surface invertebrates such as squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton (which may include invertebrate 

larvae) exposed to high-energy lasers could be injured or killed, but the probability is low based on the 

relatively low number of events, very localized potential impact area of the laser beam, and the 

temporary duration of potential impact (seconds). Activities involving high-energy lasers are not 

expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or 

reproduction of invertebrate species at the population level because of the relatively small number of 

individuals that could be impacted. 

Training activities that include high-energy lasers would not be conducted in areas where ESA-listed 

coral species or designated critical habitat occur. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers 

during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral 

species or critical habitat. 

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers), under Alternative 1, testing activities involving high-energy 

lasers would occur within the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. In addition, activities would occur within the Naval Undersea Warfare 

Center, Newport Testing Range, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range, and South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range. Most activities would occur in the Virginia Capes 

Range Complex. 

Invertebrates that do not occur at or near the sea surface would not be exposed due to the attenuation 

of laser energy with depth. Surface invertebrates such as squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton (which may 

include invertebrate larvae) exposed to high-energy lasers could be injured or killed, but the probability 

is low based on the relatively low number of events, very localized potential impact area of the laser 

beam, and the temporary duration of potential impact (seconds). Activities involving high-energy lasers 

are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, 

or reproduction of invertebrate species at the population level because of the relatively small number of 

individuals that could be impacted. 

ESA-listed coral species occur in the Key West Range Complex and South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range. High-energy lasers would not impact adult corals because the laser intensity 

would attenuate in the water column and would likely be undetectable to benthic species. Potential for 

impacts would be associated with eggs or larvae of ESA-listed coral species that could occur at the 

surface. Any eggs or larvae exposed could be injured or killed. As discussed above for invertebrates in 

general, the probability of impacting coral eggs or larvae is low based on the relatively low number of 

events, very localized potential impact area of the laser beam, and the temporary duration of potential 

exposure (seconds). High-energy lasers would not affect important characteristics of designated elkhorn 

and staghorn critical habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during testing activities 

as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-71

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4.3.3.3.2 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with high-energy lasers would be the 

same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.3.3.1 (Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.3.1.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1), pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would 

have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with high-energy lasers would be the 

same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.3.3.1 (Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.3.3.1 (Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1), pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would 

have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

3.4.3.3.3.3 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. High-energy laser use is not a part of ongoing Navy activities in the 

Study Area and this energy stressor would not be introduced into the marine environment under the No 

Action Alternative. Therefore, no change in baseline conditions of the existing environment would occur. 

3.4.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors 

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of physical disturbance and strike 

stressors that could result from Navy training and testing activities within the Study Area. For a list of 

locations and numbers of activities that may cause physical disturbance and strikes refer to Section 

3.0.3.3.4 (Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors). Aspects of physical disturbance and strike stressors 

that are applicable to marine organisms in general are presented in Section 3.0.3.6.3 (Conceptual 

Framework for Assessing Effects from Physical Disturbance or Strike). The physical disturbance and 

strike stressors that may impact marine invertebrates include: (1) vessels and in-water devices, 

(2) military expended materials, (3) seafloor devices, and (4) pile driving. 

Most marine invertebrate populations extend across wide areas containing hundreds or thousands of 

discrete patches of suitable habitat. Sessile invertebrate populations may be connected by complex 

currents that carry adults and young from place to place. Impacts to such widespread populations are 

difficult to quantitatively evaluate in terms of Navy training and testing activities that occur 

intermittently and in relatively small patches in the Study Area. Sedentary invertebrate habitats, such as 

hard bottom, cover enormous areas (Section 3.5, Habitats). In this context, a physical strike or 

disturbance would impact individual organisms directly or indirectly, but not to the extent that viability 

of populations or common species would be impacted. 

With few exceptions, activities involving vessels and in-water devices are not intended to contact the 

bottom due to potential damage to equipment and the resulting safety risks for vessel personnel. The 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-72

3.4 Invertebrates 

potential for strike impact and disturbance of benthic or habitat-forming marine invertebrates would 

result from amphibious activities, bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles, military expended 

materials, seafloor devices, and pile driving. For environmental and safety reasons, amphibious landings 

and other nearshore activities would avoid areas where corals are known to occur. 

With the exception of habitat-forming benthic taxa (e.g., corals, sea pens, sponges), most small 

invertebrate populations recover quickly from non-extractive disturbance. Many large invertebrates, 

such as crabs, shrimps, and clams, undergo massive disturbance during commercial and recreational 

harvests, storms, or beach restoration activities. Invertebrates that occur in the high-energy surf zone 

are typically resilient to dynamic processes of sediment erosion and accretion, although some 

community effects may occur due to rapid and relatively large-scale changes such as those associated 

with beach renourishment projects (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001). 

Biogenic habitats such as shallow coral reefs, deep-water coral, and sponge communities may take 

decades to regrow following a strike or disturbance (Jennings & Kaiser, 1998; Precht et al., 2001). In softbottom areas, recovery of benthic invertebrate populations after substantial human disturbance 

depends on factors such as size of the area disturbed, bottom topography, hydrodynamics of the 

affected area, seasonality of the disturbance, and the size and typical growth rate of affected species. 

Most studies of the effects of beach sand nourishment projects (which a proxy for impacts due to 

amphibious landings) have reported initial decline in benthic invertebrate populations due to burial and 

increased turbidity (which may affect filter-feeding capability), but subsequent recovery over time scales 

of weeks to years (Posey & Alphin, 2002; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001, 2012; Wilber et al., 2009). 

Recovery is typically greatest at nourishment sites when there is a close match in grain size between the 

existing and supplied sediment. However, species composition may be altered in the recolonized area, 

and overall invertebrate biomass may not recover for many years. Researchers found that trawling off 

the California coast resulted in no statistical difference in the abundance of sessile or mobile benthic 

invertebrates (Lindholm et al., 2013). However, repeated and intense bottom fishing disturbance can 

result in a shift from communities dominated by relatively high-biomass individuals towards dominance 

by high abundance of small-sized organism (Kaiser et al., 2002). If activities are repeated at the same 

site, the benthic invertebrate community composition could be altered over time (years), especially for 

sessile invertebrates (e.g., coral). Some bottom-disturbing activities, such as mine countermeasures and 

neutralization training and testing, precision anchoring, and placement of the elevated causeway 

system, may occur in the same locations or near the same locations yearly. 

3.4.3.4.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices 

Vessels 

The majority of the training and testing activities under all the alternatives involve vessels. For a 

discussion of the types of activities that use vessels and where they are used, refer to Appendix B 

(Activity Stressor Matrices). See Table 3.0-16 (Representative Vessel Types, Lengths, and Speeds) for a 

representative list of Navy vessel types, lengths, and speeds. Figure 3.0-11 (Relative Distribution of U.S. 

Navy Vessel Traffic in AFTT Study Areas) depicts the relative intensity of Navy vessel use in the Study 

Area. 

Vessels could impact adults and other life stages of marine invertebrates by directly striking organisms,

or by disturbing the water column or sediments (Bishop, 2008). Species that occur at or near the surface 

(e.g., jellyfish, squid) would have the potential to be exposed to direct vessel strikes. Exposure to 

propeller-generated turbulence was found to result in mortality in a zooplankton species (the copepod 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-73

3.4 Invertebrates 

Acartia tonsa) located near the surface (Bickel et al., 2011). However, many pelagic invertebrates such 

as squid and zooplankton move away from the surface during the day. Many vessel hulls have a 

hydrodynamic shape, and pelagic marine invertebrates are therefore generally disturbed, rather than 

struck, as the water flows around a vessel. Zooplankton are ubiquitous in the water column and typically 

experience high mortality rates. 

In addition to zooplankton and possibly adult invertebrates, vessel hull strikes and propeller cavitation 

and turbulence could displace, damage, injure, or kill invertebrate eggs and larvae in the upper portion 

of the water column throughout the Study Area. For example, turbulent water was found to decrease 

successful fertilization and resulted in abnormal development and low survival in eggs of the broadcast 

spawning purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) (Mead & Denny, 1995). In some areas, 

vessels could transit through water containing coral gametes, eggs, embryonic stages, or planula larvae 

of broadcast spawning species. These life stages would be most likely to occur in the Caribbean Sea, Gulf 

of Mexico, and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems. Eggs of cluster coral 

(Acropora millepora) were found to disintegrate into irregular groups or individual blastomeres when 

subjected to even very light shearing forces and turbulence (Heyward & Negri, 2012). Such dissociation 

can be beneficial through creation of more juveniles, but may also cause mortality. Early embryonic 

development of broadcast spawning coral species has reportedly been affected by handling of captivereared embryos (Guest et al., 2010). Although the available information indicates that developmental 

stages of numerous invertebrate species could be physically impacted, broadcast-spawning 

invertebrates produce very high numbers of eggs and planktonic larvae that typically experience high 

mortality rates under normal conditions (Nybakken, 1993). Any impacts resulting from Navy vessel 

operation would be biologically insignificant by comparison.

Invertebrates on or near the bottom could also be affected by sediment disturbance, or direct strike 

during amphibious landings. The average water depth of the OPAREAs in the Study Area is 3,650 ft. 

Propeller wash (water displaced by propellers used for propulsion) of even the deepest draft vessels 

operated over the continental shelf is likely indistinguishable from the water motion associated with 

periodic storm events, and vessel operation in deeper waters beyond the shelf break would not affect 

the bottom. Therefore, the potential for vessels to disturb invertebrates on or near the bottom would 

occur mostly during nearshore and inshore training or testing activities, and along dredged navigation 

channels. Few sources of information are available on the impact of non-lethal chronic vessel 

disturbance to marine invertebrates. One study of seagrass-associated marine invertebrates, such as 

amphipods and polychaetes, found that chronic disturbance from vessel wakes resulted in the long-term 

displacement of some marine invertebrates from the impacted shallow-water area (Bishop, 2008). 

However, invertebrates that typically occur in areas associated with nearshore or inshore activities, such 

as shorelines, are highly resilient to vessel disturbance. They are regularly disturbed by natural processes 

such as high-energy waves and longshore currents, and generally recover quickly. Potential exceptions 

include sessile or encrusting invertebrates (primarily oysters) that occur along sheltered shorelines that 

are subject to a high frequency of boat propeller- or wake-induced erosion (Grizzle et al., 2002; Zabawa 

& Ostrom, 1980). Increased erosion of shoreline banks or suspension of bottom sediments may cause 

turbidity that settles on oysters and causes the oysters to ingest more non-food particles. 

Non-amphibious vessels avoid contact with the bottom in order to prevent damage to the vessels and 

benthic habitat that supports encrusting organisms. The encrusting organisms (e.g., hard corals) living 

on hard substrate in the ocean are exposed to strong currents under natural conditions and would not 

likely be affected by propeller wash. Many activities occur in offshore areas, although small-caliber 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-74

3.4 Invertebrates 

gunnery exercises, blank firing, and smoke grenade use may occur proximate to Navy homeports in 

Jacksonville, Florida and Norfolk, Virginia. Many Navy vessel movements in nearshore waters are 

concentrated in established channels and ports or predictable transit corridors, and shallow-water 

vessels typically operate in defined boat lanes with sufficient depths to avoid propeller or hull strikes on 

the bottom. Exceptions include small vessel training in navigable inland waters, where propeller 

movement may disturb sediments and associated benthic invertebrate communities in sheltered areas. 

Activities that occur in inland waters can last from a few hours to up to 12 hours of daily movement per 

vessel per activity, and can involve speeds greater than 10 knots. Vessel movements in the inland waters 

of the Study Area occur on a more regular basis than the offshore activities, and generally occur in more 

confined waterways (primarily in the Lower Chesapeake Bay and James River). Information on the 

number and location of activities using vessels, as well as the number of hours of operation for inland 

waters, is provided in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices). 

The only source of shallow-water vessel movement in the Study Area with known direct impacts to 

benthic invertebrates is amphibious landings, which are conducted in the Navy Cherry Point and 

Jacksonville Range Complexes (Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions). Amphibious vessels would 

contact the bottom in the surf zone during amphibious assault and amphibious raid operations. Benthic 

invertebrates of the surf zone, such as mole crabs, clams, and polychaete worms, within the disturbed 

area could be displaced, injured, or killed during amphibious operations. Burrowing species such as 

ghost shrimp are present on many beaches, and individuals in relatively shallow burrows located just 

above harder sand layers could be injured or killed if amphibious vessels compress the sand above them. 

Passage of amphibious vessels could cause some elevated turbidity in the nearshore zone seaward of 

the surf zone. However, the sediment along landing beaches is constantly being reworked by nearshore 

wave energy and, to a lesser extent (although more frequently than disturbance caused by amphibious 

landings), storm events. Benthic invertebrates inhabiting these areas are adapted to a naturally 

disturbed environment and are expected to rapidly re-colonize similarly disturbed areas by immigration 

and larval recruitment. Studies indicate that benthic communities of high-energy sandy beaches recover 

relatively quickly (typically within 2 to 7 months) following beach nourishment. Researchers found that 

the macrobenthic (visible organisms on the bottom) community required between 7 and 16 days to 

recover following excavation and removal of sand from a 200 m2 quadrant from the intertidal zone of a 

sandy beach (Schoeman et al., 2000). The impacts of amphibious vehicle operations on benthic 

communities would therefore likely be minor, short-term, and local. 

Other than organisms occurring at amphibious landing sites, invertebrates that occur on the bottom, 

including shallow-water corals, organisms associated with hard bottom, and deep-water corals, are not 

likely to be exposed to vessel strikes. Propeller movement has the potential to disrupt sediments that 

could affect shallow-water corals and hard bottom communities. However, shallow-water corals do not 

occur along the shoreline adjacent to the Navy Cherry Point or Jacksonville Range Complexes, where 

amphibious landings are conducted. Therefore, corals would not likely be affected by vessel 

movements. 

In-Water Devices 

Some of the training and testing activities under all the action alternatives involve the use of in-water 

devices such as remotely operated vehicles, unmanned surface vehicles, unmanned underwater 

vehicles, motorized autonomous targets, and towed devices. For a discussion of the types of activities 

that use in-water devices, see Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices). See Table 3.0-20 (Representative 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-75

3.4 Invertebrates 

Types, Sizes, and Speeds of In-Water Devices) for the types, sizes, and speeds of representative Navy inwater devices used in the Study Area. 

In-water devices can operate from the water’s surface to the benthic zone. The devices could potentially 

impact marine invertebrates by directly striking organisms or by disturbing the water column. As 

discussed for vessel use, most invertebrates in the water column would be disturbed, rather than struck, 

as water flows around a device due to the hydrodynamic shape. In addition, in-water devices are smaller 

than most Navy vessels, decreasing the surface area in which invertebrates could be struck. The 

potential for direct strike is reduced for some types of devices because they are operated at relatively 

low speeds (e.g., unmanned underwater vehicles, which are typically operated at speeds of 1 to 

15 knots). Unmanned surface vehicles are operated at the greatest speeds (up to 50 knots or more) and 

therefore have greater potential to strike invertebrates. However, relatively few invertebrates occur at 

the surface and consist mostly of squid, jellyfish, and zooplankton. Squid and many zooplankton species 

move away from the surface during the day (Nybakken, 1993), when unmanned surface vehicles are 

typically operated. In-water devices do not normally collide with invertebrates on the bottom because 

the devices are operated in relatively deep water and contact with the bottom is avoided. Devices 

operated very near the bottom could potentially disturb sediments and associated invertebrates 

through propeller wash. However, such disturbance would be infrequent and would affect a small area, 

and disturbed areas would be quickly reoccupied by benthic invertebrates. 

As discussed for vessels, zooplankton and invertebrate eggs and larvae could be displaced, damaged, 

injured, or killed by propeller wash or turbulence resulting from water flow around in-water devices. 

Effects due to turbulence would generally increase with increasing speed of the device. Many 

zooplankton species migrate away from the surface during the day, decreasing the potential for impacts 

in the upper portions of the water column. Zooplankton and planktonic eggs and larvae can be abundant 

in the water column and typically experience high mortality rates. The number of individuals affected 

would be small in comparison to overall populations, and the affected species generally exhibit rapid 

growth and recovery rates. 

3.4.3.4.1.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

The number and location of activities that include vessels is shown in Table 3.0-17 (Number and 

Location of Activities Including Vessels) and Table 3.0-18 (Number and Location of Activities in Inland 

Waters Including Vessels), and the number and location of activities that include in-water devices is 

shown in Table 3.0-21 (Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices) and Table 3.0-22

(Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters Including In-Water Devices). The majority of Navy 

training activities include vessels, while a lower number of activities include in-water devices. As 

indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), vessel operation would be widely 

dispersed throughout the Study Area, but would be more concentrated near ports, naval installations, 

and range complexes. The majority of vessel use would occur in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, 

and Jacksonville Range Complexes. In particular, Navy training vessel traffic would be concentrated in 

the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem near Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, 

Virginia, and in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem near Naval Station 

Mayport in Jacksonville, Florida. Vessel operation in inland waters would occur in numerous areas but 

would be concentrated in the Lower Chesapeake Bay and James River. Amphibious landings would be 

restricted to designated beaches. There is no seasonal differentiation in Navy vessel use. Large vessel 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-76

3.4 Invertebrates 

movement primarily occurs within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, with the majority of the traffic 

moving between Naval Stations Norfolk and Mayport. 

Similar to vessel operation, activities involving in-water devices could be widely dispersed throughout 

the Study Area, but would be more concentrated near naval ports, piers, and ranges. Training activities 

would occur in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine 

Ecosystems, as well as the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area. However, most events would occur within the 

Virginia Capes Range Complex. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices), invertebrates located at 

or near the surface could be struck or disturbed by vessels, and invertebrates throughout the water 

column could be similarly affected by in-water devices. There would be a higher likelihood of vessel and 

in-water device strikes over the continental shelf than in the open ocean portions of the Study Area 

because of the concentration of activities in those areas. However, direct strikes would generally be 

unlikely for most species. Exceptions would include amphibious landings, where vessels contact the 

bottom and may directly impact invertebrates. Organisms inhabiting these areas are expected to rapidly 

re-colonize disturbed areas. Other than during amphibious landings, purposeful contact with the bottom 

would be avoided. The potential to disturb invertebrates on or near the bottom would occur mostly 

during vessel nearshore and onshore training activities, and along dredged navigation channels. 

Invertebrates that typically occur in areas associated with nearshore or onshore activities, such as 

shorelines, are highly resilient to vessel disturbance. Potential exceptions include sessile invertebrates 

that occur along sheltered shorelines that are subject to vessel-induced erosion. Propeller wash and 

turbulent water flow could damage or kill zooplankton and invertebrate gametes, eggs, embryonic 

stages, or larvae. Zooplankton, larvae, and other invertebrate life stages are abundant in the water 

column and impacts would be biologically insignificant by comparison. Overall, the area exposed to 

vessel and in-water device disturbance would be a very small portion of the surface and water column in 

the Study Area, and only a small number of individuals would be affected compared to overall 

abundance. Therefore, the impact of vessels and in-water devices on marine invertebrates would be 

inconsequential. Activities are not expected to yield any lasting effects on the survival, growth, 

recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at the population level. 

Species that do not occur near the surface within the Study Area, including all ESA-listed coral species, 

would not be exposed to vessel or in-water device strikes. There is no overlap of vessels or in-water 

devices within designated critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn coral (Section 3.4.2.2.1.1, Status and 

Management) because the vessels and devices are not expected to contact the bottom during training 

activities. Amphibious vehicles are an exception, but elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat does not 

include locations where amphibious vehicles come in contact. In-water devices would not be used in the 

Key West Range Complex. Therefore, vessels and in-water devices would not affect elkhorn and 

staghorn coral critical habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during 

training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or 

critical habitat. 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

The number and location of activities that include vessels is shown in Table 3.0-17 (Number and 

Location of Activities Including Vessels) and Table 3.0-18 (Number and Location of Activities in Inland 

Waters Including Vessels), and the number and location of activities that include in-water devices is 

shown in Table 3.0-21 (Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices) and Table 3.0-22 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-77

3.4 Invertebrates 

(Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters Including In-Water Devices). As indicated in Section 

3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), vessel operation would be widely dispersed throughout the 

Study Area, but would be more concentrated near ports, naval installations, testing ranges, and range 

complexes. Vessel movements would occur throughout the Study Area but would be concentrated in 

the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Similarly, as indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 

(Vessels and In-Water Devices), in-water devices would be used throughout the Study Area but would 

be concentrated in the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes, and the Naval Undersea 

Warfare Center, Newport Testing Range. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices), invertebrates located at 

or near the surface could be struck or disturbed by vessels, and invertebrates throughout the water 

column could be similarly affected by in-water devices. There would be a higher likelihood of vessel and 

in-water device strikes over the continental shelf than in the open ocean portions of the Study Area 

because of the concentration of activities in those areas. However, direct strikes would generally be 

unlikely for most species, particularly for benthic invertebrates due to the absence of amphibious 

landings. Purposeful contact with the bottom would be avoided. Propeller wash and turbulent water 

flow could damage or kill zooplankton and invertebrate gametes, eggs, embryonic stages, or larvae. 

Zooplankton, larvae, and other invertebrate life stages are abundant in the water column and impacts 

would be biologically insignificant by comparison. Overall, the area exposed to vessel and in-water 

device disturbance is a very small portion of the surface and water column in the Study Area, and only a 

small number of individuals would be affected compared to overall abundance. The impact of vessels 

and in-water devices on marine invertebrates would be inconsequential. Activities are not expected to 

yield any lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at 

the population level. 

Species that do not occur near the surface within the Study Area, including all ESA-listed coral species, 

would not be exposed to vessel or in-water device strikes. Although some activities would be conducted 

in the Key West Range Complex and South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, there 

would be no overlap of vessels or in-water devices with designated critical habitat for elkhorn and 

staghorn coral (Section 3.4.2.2.1.1, Status and Management) because the vessels and devices do not 

contact the bottom. Amphibious landings are not associated with testing activities. Pursuant to the ESA, 

the use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would 

have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

3.4.3.4.1.2 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 2, potential impacts to invertebrates resulting from vessels and in-water devices 

associated with training activities would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. 

There would be a very small increase in vessel and in-water device use in the Study Area. However, the 

difference would not result in substantive changes to the potential for or types of impacts on 

invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.1.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential impacts. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.1.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1), 

pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-78

3.4 Invertebrates 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 2, potential impacts to invertebrates resulting from vessels and in-water devices 

associated with testing activities would be similar to those discussed for activities under Alternative 1. 

There would be a very small increase in vessel and in-water device use in the Study Area. However, the 

difference would not result in substantive changes to the potential for or types of impacts on 

invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.1.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.1.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1), 

pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

3.4.3.4.1.3 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training 

and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., vessels and inwater devices) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of 

the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.4.3.4.2 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets 

Impacts from aircraft and aerial targets are not applicable to invertebrates because marine 

invertebrates do not occur in airborne environments and will not be analyzed further in this section. 

Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials) for potential disturbance from 

fragments of aircraft and aerial targets. 

3.4.3.4.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials 

This section analyzes the strike potential to invertebrates from the following categories of military 

expended materials: (1) all sizes of non-explosive practice munitions, (2) fragments from high-explosive 

munitions, (3) expendable targets and target fragments, and (4) expended materials other than 

munitions, such as sonobuoys, expended bathythermographs, and torpedo accessories. For a discussion 

of the types of activities that use military expended materials, refer to Appendix B (Activity Stressor 

Matrices). For information on where they are used and how many exercises would occur under each 

alternative, see Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) and Section 

3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials). Analysis of all potential impacts of military expended 

materials (disturbance, strike, shading, and abrasion) on invertebrates, including ESA-listed coral species 

and designated critical habitat (elkhorn and staghorn coral), is included in this section. Potential impacts 

of military expended materials resulting from entanglement and ingestion are discussed in Sections 

3.4.3.5 (Entanglement Stressors) and Section 3.4.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors). 

Military expended materials are deposited throughout the Study Area. However, the majority of military 

expended materials are deposited within established range complexes and testing ranges. These areas 

of higher military expended materials deposition are generally located away from the coastline on the 

continental shelf and slope and beyond (e.g., abyssal plain). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-79

3.4 Invertebrates 

Physical disturbance or strikes by military expended materials on marine invertebrates is possible at the 

water’s surface, through the water column, and at the bottom. However, disturbance or strike impacts 

on marine invertebrates by military expended materials falling through the water column are not very 

likely because military expended materials do not generally sink rapidly enough to cause strike injury. 

Exposed invertebrates would likely experience only temporary displacement as the object passes by. 

Therefore, the discussion of military expended materials disturbance and strikes will focus on items at 

the water’s surface and on the bottom. 

Potential impacts to invertebrates generally consist of physical trauma, stress or behavioral responses, 

abrasion, and shading. Military expended materials may injure or kill invertebrates by directly striking 

individuals, causing breakage (particularly for species with exoskeletons or that build structures), 

crushing, or other physical trauma. Direct strike may result from the initial impact, or may occur after 

items fall through the water column and settle onto invertebrates or are moved along the bottom by 

water currents or gravity. Expended items may also bury or smother organisms although, depending on 

the size of the expended item relative to the animal, some mobile invertebrates may be able to move or 

dig out from underneath an item. In addition to physical strike, military expended materials may disturb 

individuals and cause them to change locations, behaviors, or activities. Disturbance could therefore 

result in impacts such as briefly increased energy expenditure, decreased feeding, and increased 

susceptibility to predation. Expended items could also cause increased turbidity that could affect filterfeeding species, although such impacts are likely to be localized and temporary. Expended items that 

come to rest on or near corals could cause abrasion or shading (in the case of corals that host symbiotic 

algae) that reduces photosynthesis in the algae, although these effects are unlikely based on the 

mitigation measures in place for shallow water coral reefs where symbiotic algae are present. Abrasion 

refers to scraping or wearing down of a supporting structure or hard body part (e.g., coral skeleton, 

shell) through repeated impact to the same individual or structure. Abrasion would generally be 

associated with military expended materials such as flexible materials (e.g., wires or cords) that become 

fixed in a location for some time but that are moved repeatedly over sessile invertebrates by water 

currents. 

Military expended materials that impact the water surface could directly strike zooplankton, the 

gametes, embryos, and larvae of various invertebrate species (including ESA-listed corals), and a small 

number of adult invertebrates (e.g., squid, jellyfish, swimming crabs). However, many zooplankton and 

squid are absent from the surface water column during the day when most training and testing activities 

occur. Inert military expended materials also have the potential to impact the water and produce a large 

impulse which could disturb nearby invertebrates. Potential impacts to invertebrates resulting from 

impulsive sound and shock waves are discussed in Section 3.4.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors) and Section 

3.4.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). In addition to direct strike of invertebrates and production of impulsive 

sound, surface water impacts could affect water conditions. Physical disruption of the water column is a 

localized, temporary impact and would be limited to a small area (within a radius of tens of meter) 

around the impact point, persisting for a few minutes. 

Compared to surface waters and offshore areas, a greater number of macroinvertebrates typically 

occurs on the bottom and closer to shore. Benthic species of numerous marine invertebrate taxa may 

occur in areas affected by military expended materials, including sponges, cnidarians, worms, bryozoans, 

molluscs, arthropods, and echinoderms. However, some of the most sensitive benthic species (e.g., 

corals) are more likely to occur on hard bottom, reefs, and other hard substrates. Shallow-water corals 

are protected by mitigation measures from most activities that generate military expended materials. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-80

3.4 Invertebrates 

Military expended materials that impact the bottom may affect invertebrates by strike (including injury 

or mortality), disturbance, burial, abrasion, or shading within the footprint of the item (the area of 

substrate physically covered by the item). Military expended materials may also cause physiological or 

behavioral reactions to individual invertebrates outside the footprint of the items. After items come to 

rest on the bottom, continued impacts are possible if the items are mobilized by currents or waves and 

damage benthic invertebrates as they move. Turbidity may also occur as water flows around deposited 

items. However, these impacts would generally cease when the military expended materials are 

incorporated into the seafloor by natural encrustation or burial processes, or become otherwise 

immobilized. 

Sessile marine invertebrates and infauna (organisms attached to the bottom or living in the sediments) 

are generally more susceptible to military expended material disturbance and strike than benthic 

species with the ability to move relatively quickly over the bottom. Some susceptible species have fragile 

structures and sensitive body parts that could be damaged or covered by military expended materials 

(e.g., hydroids, sponges, soft corals). Military expended materials could also break hard structures such 

as coral skeletons and mussel beds. Shallow- and deep-water corals that build complex or fragile 

structures could be particularly susceptible to breakage or abrasion. Such structures are resistant to 

physical forces typical of ambient conditions (e.g., water currents), but not as resilient to other types of 

physical disturbance involving greater force. Decelerators/parachutes would be unlikely to be carried by 

currents onto reef structures due to the typical offshore locations of use and the sink rate of the items. 

Expended items may provide new colonization sites for benthic invertebrates Researchers found that 

military expended materials in a bombing range became covered by sedentary reef invertebrates over 

time (Smith & Marx, 2016). However, invertebrate species composition on artificial substrates may 

differ from that of the surrounding natural community. 

Potential impacts to shallow-water corals, invertebrates associated with hard bottom habitat, or deepwater corals present the greatest risk of long-term damage compared with other bottom communities 

because: (1) many corals and hard bottom invertebrates are sessile, fragile, and particularly vulnerable; 

(2) many of these organisms grow slowly and could require decades to recover; and (3) military 

expended materials are likely to remain exposed on hard bottom communities whereas shifting 

sediment patterns would tend to bury military expended materials in soft bottom communities. The 

probability of striking deep-water corals or invertebrates located on hard bottom habitat is low, given 

their low percent cover on suitable habitat (see Section 3.5.2.1.2, Bottom Habitats, for a discussion of 

hard bottom habitat). For example, deep-water coral was present on less than 5 percent of coral rubble 

mounds found beyond the shelf break in the Jacksonville Range Complex (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2010b). 

A few investigations have been conducted to determine the presence and, in some cases, possible 

impacts of military expended materials on the bottom. The results of multi-year underwater surveys at a 

military bombing range in the Mariana Archipelago (Pacific Ocean) provide an example of potential 

impacts resulting from expended munitions. Water areas were not targeted at this range; bottom 

impacts occurred only when the target land mass was missed or the munition bounced off the land into 

the water. The surveys found no overall long-term adverse impacts to corals or other invertebrates due 

to expended items, despite several decades of use (Smith & Marx, 2016). Numerous intact bombs and 

fragments were observed on the bottom. Inert 500-lb. bombs were found to disturb a bottom area of 

17 m2 each, although specific damage to invertebrates, if any, was not described. It may be presumed 

that invertebrates within this footprint could have been killed, injured, damaged, or displaced. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-81

3.4 Invertebrates 

Expended items, once settled in place, appeared to become encrusted with marine growth and pose no 

substantial long-term threat to invertebrates. The condition of corals indicated a healthy environment, 

with no apparent change in species composition, distribution, size, or stress indicators. However, the 

results of several other studies indicate that sessile invertebrate communities growing on artificial 

substrate such as the expended munitions are often different than those growing on natural substrate 

(Burt et al., 2009; Macreadie et al., 2011; Perkol-Finkel et al., 2006; Steimle & Zetlin, 2000). A remotely 

operated vehicle survey of deep portions of the Jacksonville Range Complex reported only two exposed 

items of military expended materials in about 37,800 m of survey line distance (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2010a, 2011). However, it is important to note that the survey was not designed to document 

MEM and these were only the items photographed using still frames. Another extensive remotely 

operated vehicle survey along the continental shelf break and canyons in the northeast and mid-Atlantic 

region found marine debris in 81 percent of individual dives, but the items did not include any visible 

military expended materials (Quattrini et al., 2015). Underwater surveys of bottom areas off the Gulf 

coast of Florida with a presumably high potential for military expended materials (based on reported 

obstructions by fishermen) found no items of military origin, suggesting that expended materials may be 

widely distributed or may become covered by sediments (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013). In a 

deep-sea trawl survey of the northern Gulf of Mexico, items of military origin were found (artillery shells 

and a missile), but were among the least-frequently encountered types of debris (Wei et al., 2012). 

Military Expended Materials - Munitions 

Military expended materials that are munitions and that are associated with training activities include 

small-, medium-, and large-caliber projectiles, bombs, missiles, rockets, and grenades. Fragments of 

exploded munitions are also included because they can result in impacts on invertebrates that are 

similar to smaller intact munitions. Military expended materials associated with testing activities are the 

same except that there are no grenades. Navy training and testing activities in the Study Area include 

firing a variety of weapons and using a variety of non-explosive training and testing rounds, including 

small-, medium-, and large-caliber projectiles. Large-caliber projectiles are primarily used in the open 

ocean beyond 20 NM from shore. Direct strike from bombs, missiles, and rockets would result in types 

of impacts similar to those of projectiles. However, they are larger than most projectiles and are likely to 

produce a greater number of fragments. Bombs, missiles, and rockets are designed to explode within 

about 3 ft. of the sea surface, where marine invertebrates larger than zooplankton are relatively 

infrequent. 

Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions 

Military expended materials other than munitions associated with training and testing activities include 

a large number of items such as aerial countermeasures, targets (surface and aerial), mine shapes, ship 

hulk, decelerators/parachutes, acoustic countermeasures, sonobuoys, and other materials including 

torpedo accessories, concrete slugs, markers, bathythermographs, and endcaps and pistons. Some 

expended materials are recovered, including torpedoes, unmanned aerial systems, some targets, mine 

shapes, metal plates, and bottom placed instruments. Expended materials associated with training and 

testing activities are similar but include additional items such as flares, subsurface targets, and exploding 

sonobuoys and mines. Recovered items are also used during some training and testing activities. 

Chaff, which consists of aluminum-coated glass fibers, may be transported great distances by the wind, 

beyond the areas where they are deployed before contacting the sea surface. These materials contact 

the sea surface and bottom with very little kinetic energy, and their low buoyant weight makes them an 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-82

3.4 Invertebrates 

inconsequential strike and abrasion risk. Therefore, chaff is not considered to be a potential strike and 

disturbance stressor. 

During a sinking exercise, aircraft, ship, and submarine crews deliver munitions on a surface target, 

which is a clean, deactivated ship that is deliberately sunk using multiple weapon systems. Sinking 

exercises occur in specific open ocean areas, outside of the coastal range complexes. Habitat-forming 

invertebrates are likely absent where sinking exercises are planned because the activity occurs in depths 

greater than the range for shallow-water and many deep-water coral species (approximately 3,000 m) 

and away from typical locations for hydrothermal vent or cold seep communities (e.g., seamounts, MidAtlantic Ridge) (Cairns, 2007). It is unlikely that deep-sea hard corals could be impacted by a sinking ship 

hulk or fragments of a hulk due to their lack of occurrence below depths of about 3,000 m (the depth of 

the aragonite saturation boundary; see Section 3.4.2.1.1, Habitat Use). 

Decelerators/parachutes of varying sizes are used during training and testing activities and may be 

deployed from aircraft or vessels. Similar to other marine debris such as derelict fishing gear, 

decelerators/parachutes may kill or injure sessile benthic invertebrates due to covering/shading or 

abrasion. Activities that expend sonobuoy and air-launched torpedo decelerators/parachutes generally 

occur in relatively deep water away from the shore. Because they are in the air and water column for a 

time span of minutes, it is improbable that a decelerator/parachute deployed over deep water could 

travel far enough to affect shallow-water species (e.g., shallow-water corals). In addition, 

decelerators/parachutes expended over deep offshore areas may impact deep-water invertebrates 

(particularly sessile species) by disturbance, strikes, burial, smothering, or abrasion. For example, a 

decelerator/parachute could cover a sponge or deep-water coral and impair filter feeding. 

3.4.3.4.3.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

As indicated in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses), under 

Alternative 1, areas with the greatest amount of expended materials are expected to be the Northeast 

and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems, and the Gulf Stream 

Open Ocean Area—specifically within the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key 

West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, and in other AFTT areas. In addition, military expended 

materials would be deposited at five inland water locations. Offshore areas with the highest number of 

acres impacted by military expended materials would include the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range 

Complexes, and areas used for sinking exercises. Expended materials in inland waters would include 

items such as concrete slugs, flares, marine markers, mine shapes, and non-explosive small-caliber 

munitions. Most items expended in inland waters would occur in the James River and tributaries, Lower 

Chesapeake Bay, and Port Canaveral, Florida. 

Military expended materials (munitions and items other than munitions) have the potential to impact 

invertebrates at the water surface and on the bottom throughout the Study Area. As described in detail 

in Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials), impacts may include injury or mortality 

due to direct strike or burial, disturbance, and indirect effects such as increased turbidity. The potential 

for direct strikes of pelagic zooplankton and squid at the surface would be minimized by their decreased 

occurrence in surface waters during the day when activities typically occur. 

As described in the discussion of proportional analysis in Section 3.5.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military 

Expended Materials Under Alternative 1), the total bottom area affected by all military expended 

materials in all training areas would be about 82 acres annually. This represents only thousandths of 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-83

3.4 Invertebrates 

1 percent of available bottom habitat in any range complex. The area impacted by bottom type would 

be 7.5 acres (hard substrate), 6.0 acres (intermediate substrate), 63.0 acres (soft substrate), and 

5.5 acres (unknown substrate).The substrate types and associated invertebrate assemblages within the 

estimated total of disturbed area are difficult to predict, as discussed in Appendix F (Military Expended 

Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses). Activities occurring at depths of less than about 3,000 m 

may impact deep-water corals, particularly in the Jacksonville Range Complex where ivory tree coral is 

apparently more abundant. However, activities conducted in relatively deep water throughout the Study 

Area have the potential to impact hard bottom communities, including deep-water corals, as well as 

invertebrates within all other habitat types. Consequences could include damage, injury, or mortality as 

a result of projectiles, munitions, or other items. Decelerators/parachutes, wires, and cables could also 

impact benthic communities if they are mobilized by water currents, although it is expected that most 

such materials would become buried, encrusted, or otherwise immobilized over time and would not 

continue to impact individual invertebrates or invertebrate assemblages. Impacts would be most 

pronounced if all the materials expended within the applicable depth range were deposited on areas of 

hard substrate supporting long-lived, sessile organisms such as deep-water corals, because it may be 

assumed that many of the benthic invertebrates present in the impact area footprint would be killed, 

injured, displaced, or disturbed by the expended materials. In addition, some previously undisturbed 

bottom area would be affected by activities in subsequent years. Conversely, impacts would be less if 

the materials were deposited on soft-bottom areas containing invertebrate communities that recover 

relatively quickly from disturbance. Although hard substrate potentially supporting deep-water corals 

and other invertebrate communities is present on the continental shelf break and slope in at least some 

areas in water depths less than 3,000 m, a scenario of all expended materials being deposited on such 

substrate is unrealistic. A low percentage of deep substrate on the continental shelf is suitable for hard 

bottom communities and, based on the results of limited investigation, a low percentage of this 

available hard substrate may be inhabited by deep-water corals or other invertebrate species (Harter et 

al., 2009; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010a). It is expected that most of the bottom type affected 

would be soft substrate (Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses). 

Therefore, although it is possible for a portion of expended items to impact hard substrate and 

associated sensitive invertebrate communities, the number of exposed individuals would not likely 

affect the overall viability of populations or species. 

The impact of military expended materials on marine invertebrates is likely to cause injury or mortality 

to individuals of soft-bodied species that are smaller than the military expended materials. Zooplankton 

could therefore be impacted by most military expended materials. Impacts to populations would likely 

be inconsequential because the number of individuals affected would be small relative to known 

population sizes, the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to the area of both suitable 

and occupied habitats, the activities are dispersed such that few individuals would likely be exposed to 

more than one event, and exposures would be localized and would cease when the military expended 

material becomes part of the bottom (e.g., buried or encrusted with sessile organisms). However, as 

discussed previously, research has shown that sedentary/sessile invertebrate communities growing on 

artificial substrate are often different than those found on natural substrates. Activities involving 

military expended materials are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting effects on the 

survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at the population level. 

Potentially impacted invertebrates include ESA-listed corals and species associated with sensitive 

habitats such as shallow- and deep-water reefs and hard bottom. Most shallow-water corals in the Study 

Area occur within or adjacent to the Key West Range Complex, and all ESA-listed coral species occur 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-84

3.4 Invertebrates 

within the Range Complex. Critical habitat for elkhorn coral and staghorn coral also occurs in the Key 

West Range Complex, although small areas around Naval Air Station Key West are excluded from 

designation (Section 3.4.2.2.1.1, Status and Management). Training activities involving military 

expended materials in the Key West Range Complex could therefore impact ESA-listed corals by direct 

strike and could expose substrate to disturbances that could degrade the quality, and potentially the 

quantity, of elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. Important elements of critical habitat consist of 

hard substrates. Wires and cables could kill or injure corals due to abrasion. 

Military expended materials used in the Key West Range Complex are mostly medium-caliber 

projectiles, decelerators/parachutes, chaff and flares, flare o-rings, endcaps, and pistons. Recovered 

items consist of aerial targets and drones. Chaff and flares have minimal to no potential to substantially 

affects corals. With the exception of mine neutralization and countermeasures training, materials are 

primarily expended far from shore. Most weapons firing takes place in offshore waters away from the 

source of coral eggs and larvae. Decelerator/parachute interactions are unlikely because they are 

generally expended in water deeper than 600 ft. and would most likely not travel far enough to impact 

shallow-water species. It is also noted that, in a ruling on potentially listing numerous coral species 

under the ESA, NMFS considered human-induced physical damage such as exposure to military 

expended material strikes to be a “negligible to low-importance” threat to coral species and was not 

cited as a factor when considering listing under the ESA (Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants: Proposed Listing Determinations for 82 Reef-Building Coral Species; Proposed Reclassification of 

Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis from Threatened to Endangered, 77 Federal Register 73219–

73262 [December 7, 2012]). 

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigation to avoid impacts from military expended materials on seafloor resources in mitigation areas 

throughout the Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct gunnery activities within a specified 

distance of shallow-water coral reefs. The mitigation will consequently also help avoid potential impacts 

on invertebrates that inhabit these areas, including areas inhabited by shallow-water corals. 

As discussed above, potential impacts to shallow-water corals would be minimized by the offshore 

location of many activities involving expended materials, and by mitigation that would result in 

avoidance of areas potentially supporting corals for many activities. Although the likelihood of impacts is 

correspondingly diminished, there is some potential for corals to be exposed. Pursuant to the ESA, the 

use of military expended materials during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

ESA-listed coral species and may affect designated critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn coral. The 

Navy will consult with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

As indicated in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses), under 

Alternative 1, areas that involve the use of expended materials include the Northeast and Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems and the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically 

within the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico 

Range Complexes, and three Testing Ranges (Naval Underwater Warfare Center, Newport, Naval Surface 

Warfare Center, Panama City Division, and South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility). 

Military expended materials (munitions and items other than munitions) have the potential to impact 

invertebrates at the water surface and on the bottom throughout the Study Area. As described in detail 

in Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials), impacts may include injury or mortality 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-85

3.4 Invertebrates 

due to direct strike or burial, disturbance, and indirect effects such as increased turbidity. The potential 

for direct strikes of pelagic zooplankton and squid at the surface would be minimized by their decreased 

occurrence in surface waters during the day. 

As described in the discussion of proportional analysis in Section 3.5.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military 

Expended Materials Under Alternative 1), the total bottom area affected by all military expended 

materials in all testing areas would 70.5 acres annually. This represents only thousandths of 1 percent of 

available bottom habitat in any range complex. The area impacted by bottom type would be 6.5 acres 

(hard substrate), 6.5 acres (intermediate substrate), 57.0 acres (soft substrate), and 0.5 acre (unknown 

substrate). The substrate types and associated invertebrate assemblages within the estimated total of 

disturbed area is difficult to predict, as discussed in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct 

Strike Impact Analyses). Activities occurring at depths of less than about 3,000 m may impact deepwater corals, particularly in the Jacksonville Range Complex where ivory tree coral is apparently more 

abundant. However, activities conducted in relatively deep water throughout the Study Area have the 

potential to impact hard bottom communities, including deep-water corals, as well as invertebrates 

within all other habitat types. Consequences could include damage, injury, or mortality as a result of 

projectiles, munitions, or other items. Decelerators/parachutes, wires, and cables could also impact 

benthic communities if they are mobilized by water currents, although it is expected that most such 

materials would become buried, encrusted, or otherwise immobilized over time and would not continue 

to impact individual invertebrates or invertebrate assemblages. Impacts would be most pronounced if 

all the materials expended within the applicable depth range were deposited on areas of hard substrate 

supporting long-lived, sessile organisms such as deep-water corals, because it may be assumed that 

many of the benthic invertebrates present in the impact area footprint would be killed, injured, 

displaced, or disturbed by the expended materials. In addition, some previously undisturbed bottom 

area would be affected by activities in subsequent years. Conversely, impacts would be less if the 

materials were deposited on soft-bottom areas containing invertebrate communities that recover 

relatively quickly from disturbance. Although hard substrate potentially supporting deep-water corals 

and other invertebrate communities is present on the continental shelf break and slope in at least some 

areas in water depths less than 3,000 m, a scenario of all expended materials being deposited on such 

substrate is unrealistic. A low percentage of deep substrate on the continental shelf is suitable for hard 

bottom communities and, based on the results of limited investigation, a low percentage of this 

available hard substrate may be inhabited by deep-water corals or other invertebrate species (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2010a). It is expected that most of the bottom type affected would be soft 

substrate (Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses). Therefore, 

although it is possible for a portion of expended items to impact hard substrate and associated sensitive 

invertebrate communities, the number of exposed individuals would not likely affect the overall viability 

of populations or species. 

The impact of military expended materials on marine invertebrates is likely to cause injury or mortality 

to individuals, particularly soft-bodied organisms that are smaller than the military expended materials. 

Zooplankton could therefore be impacted by most military expended materials. Impacts to populations 

would likely be inconsequential because the number of individuals affected would be small relative to 

known population sizes, the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to the area of both 

suitable and occupied habitats, the activities are dispersed such that few individuals would likely be 

exposed to more than one event, and exposures would be localized and would cease when the military 

expended material becomes part of the bottom (e.g., buried or encrusted with sessile organisms). 

However, as discussed previously, research has shown that sedentary/sessile invertebrate communities 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-86

3.4 Invertebrates 

growing on artificial substrate are often different than those found on natural substrates. Activities 

involving military expended materials are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting effects 

on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at the population level. 

Military expended materials used for testing in the Key West Range Complex consist of various sizes of 

projectiles (including a small number of non-explosive missiles), chaff cartridges, targets (air, surface, 

and subsurface), bathythermographs, sabots, explosive sonobuoys, and decelerators/parachutes. 

Recovered items consist of torpedoes, unmanned aerial systems, and various types of targets. Military 

expended materials utilized within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range include 

projectiles, acoustic countermeasures, anchors, bathythermographs, torpedo accessories, and sabots. 

Materials are primarily expended far from shore. Most weapons firing takes place in offshore waters 

away from the source of coral eggs and larvae. Decelerator/parachute interactions are unlikely because 

they are generally expended in water deeper than 600 ft. and would most likely not travel far enough to 

impact shallow-water species. 

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigation to avoid impacts from military expended materials on seafloor resources in mitigation areas 

throughout the Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct gunnery activities within a specified 

distance of mapped shallow-water coral reefs. The mitigation will consequently also help avoid potential 

impacts on invertebrates that inhabit these areas, including areas inhabited by shallow-water corals. 

As discussed above, potential impacts to shallow-water corals would be minimized by the offshore 

location of many activities involving expended materials, and by mitigation that would result in 

avoidance of areas potentially supporting corals for many activities. Although the likelihood of impacts is 

correspondingly diminished, there is some potential for corals to be exposed. Pursuant to the ESA, the 

use of military expended materials during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

ESA-listed coral species activities and may affect designated elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. 

The Navy will consult with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.4.3.4.3.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

The locations of training activities using military expended materials would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. The total area affected for all training activities combined would increase by less 

than 1 acre under Alternative 2, and therefore the potential impacts would be similar between the two 

alternatives. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1) 

for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1), 

pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed coral species and may affect designated elkhorn coral and staghorn 

coral critical habitat. The Navy will consult with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

The locations of testing activities using military expended materials would be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. The total area affected for all testing activities combined would increase by less 

than 1 acre under Alternative 2, and therefore the potential impacts would be similar between the two 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-87

3.4 Invertebrates 

alternatives. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1) 

for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1), 

pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed coral species and may affect designated elkhorn coral and staghorn 

coral critical habitat. The Navy will consult with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard. 

3.4.3.4.3.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under the No Action Alternative for Training 

and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., military 

expended materials) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline 

conditions of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after 

cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.4.3.4.4 Impacts from Seafloor Devices 

For a discussion of the types of activities that use seafloor devices, where they are used, and how many 

activities would occur under each alternative, see Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices). Seafloor 

devices include items that are placed on, dropped on, or moved along the substrate for a specific 

purpose, and include mine shapes, anchor blocks, anchors, bottom-placed instruments, bottom-crawling 

unmanned underwater vehicles, and bottom placed targets that are recovered (not expended). 

Placement or deployment of seafloor devices would cause disturbance, injury, or mortality to marine 

invertebrates within the footprint of the device. However, the number of individuals affected would be 

small compared to overall population numbers. These items could potentially break hard substrate and 

associated biogenic habitats (e.g., hard coral skeletons). However, the number of individuals affected 

would be small compared to overall population numbers. Objects placed on the bottom may attract 

invertebrates, or provide temporary attachment points for invertebrates. Some invertebrates attached 

to the devices would be removed from the water when the devices are recovered. A shallow depression 

may remain for some time in the soft bottom sediment where an anchor was dropped, potentially 

altering the suitability of the affected substrate for benthic invertebrates temporarily (possibly months). 

Seafloor devices may also disturb marine invertebrates outside the footprint of the device, and would 

cause temporary (possibly hours to days) local increases in turbidity and sedimentation near the 

bottom, along with some changes in scouring/deposition patterns in higher current areas with soft 

bottom. Sedimentation can smother sessile invertebrates, while turbidity may affect respiratory organs 

or impair the ability of filter-feeding invertebrates to obtain food (e.g., by clogging their feeding 

structures or diluting the amount of food in the surrounding volume of water). However, the brief 

episodes of minor turbidity associated with Navy seafloor devices would be very localized and the 

effects do not change the substrate type. Compared to overall populations, relatively few individuals 

would be affected. 

Precision anchoring, and the associated potential impacts, is qualitatively different than other seafloor 

devices because the activity involves repeated disturbance of the same soft bottom areas. Precision 

anchoring may result in temporary and localized disturbances to water column and bottom habitats. 

Anchor impact on the bottom would likely crush a small number of benthic invertebrates. Bottom 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-88

3.4 Invertebrates 

disturbance would result in localized sedimentation and turbidity, which could smother invertebrates or 

affect respiration or feeding. Turbidity would quickly dissipate (i.e., minutes to hours) following the 

exercise, and many soft bottom invertebrates are burrowing organisms that would be unaffected by 

shallow burial. Although precision anchoring occurs in soft-bottom areas, where invertebrate 

populations are generally resilient to disturbance, invertebrates in designated anchorage areas may be 

prevented from fully recovering due to frequent and long-term use, and benthic composition may be 

changed compared to historical conditions. 

3.4.3.4.4.1 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices), under Alternative 1, seafloor devices would occur 

in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, as well as the Gulf 

Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically within the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key 

West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. Most activities using seafloor devices are conducted in the 

Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes. In addition, seafloor devices 

would occur in all inland water locations, but primarily in the Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River and 

tributaries, and Narragansett Bay. 

Seafloor devices are either stationary or move very slowly along the bottom and pose little threat to 

highly mobile organisms such as crabs and shrimp, with the exception of individuals that might be struck 

as an item settles on the bottom. Sessile or less mobile benthic organisms such as sponges, sea snails, 

and echinoderms would be more likely to be impacted. As discussed above in Section 3.4.3.4.4 (Impacts 

from Seafloor Devices), impacts may include injury or mortality due to direct strike, disturbance, 

smothering, and impairment of respiration or filter-feeding due to increased sedimentation and 

turbidity. Impacts to invertebrates resulting from movement of the devices through the water column 

before they contact the bottom would likely consist of only temporary displacement as the object 

passes by. 

Although intentional placement of seafloor devices on bottom structure is avoided, activities occurring 

at depths less than about 3,000 m may inadvertently impact deep-water corals, other invertebrates 

associated with hard bottom, and other marine invertebrate assemblages. However, most activities 

involving seafloor devices (e.g., anchors for mine shapes, light salvage targets) are typically conducted in 

the nearshore ocean far from deep sea corals. Most seafloor devices are operated in the nearshore 

environment on bottom habitats suitable for deployment and retrieval (e.g., soft or intermediate 

bottom). Activities in all the affected range complexes, and particularly the Jacksonville Range Complex 

(where ivory tree coral is more abundant) have the potential to impact hard bottom and deep-water 

corals. Consequences of strikes could include damage, injury, or mortality for each device, mooring, or 

anchor. Hard substrate potentially supporting deep-water corals and other invertebrate communities is 

present on the continental shelf break and slope. A low percentage of deep substrate on the continental 

shelf is suitable for hard bottom communities. Based on the results of limited investigation, a low 

percentage of available hard substrate may be inhabited by deep-water corals or other invertebrate 

species (Harter et al., 2009; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010a). The number of organisms affected 

would not result in impacts to the viability of invertebrate populations. 

During precision anchoring, impact of the anchor on the bottom would likely crush a relatively small 

number of benthic invertebrates. Effects associated with turbidity and sedimentation would be 

temporary and localized. Precision anchoring would occur from 9 to 710 times per year in the same 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-89

3.4 Invertebrates 

general location, depending on the specific range complex. Therefore, although invertebrates in soft 

bottom areas are generally resilient to disturbance, community composition may be chronically 

disturbed at anchoring sites that are used repeatedly. However, the impact is likely to be 

inconsequential and not detectable at the population level for species occurring in the region near the 

anchoring locations. 

In summary, the impact of seafloor devices on mostly soft bottom invertebrates is likely to cause injury 

or mortality to some individuals, but impacts to populations would be inconsequential because the area 

exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to the area of both suitable and occupied habitats, 

and the activities are generally dispersed such that few individuals would likely be exposed to more than 

one event (although seafloor device use is concentrated in some areas such as anchorages and mine 

ranges). In addition, exposures would be localized and temporary, and the organisms most frequently 

impacted would be burrowing soft bottom invertebrates that are relatively resilient to localized 

sediment disturbance. Activities involving seafloor devices are not expected to yield any behavioral 

changes or lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species 

at the population level. 

The Navy will implement mitigation that includes not conducting precision anchoring (except in 

designated anchorages) within the anchor swing circle of shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, 

artificial reefs, and shipwrecks to avoid potential impacts from seafloor devices on seafloor resources in 

mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). 

This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on invertebrates that inhabit these areas, 

including areas inhabited by shallow-water coral species. 

A relatively small number of activities involving seafloor devices would be conducted in the Key West 

Range Complex, where all ESA-listed coral species, as well as designated elkhorn coral and staghorn 

coral critical habitat, occur. Bottom-disturbing activities have the potential to impact protected coral 

species and critical habitat. Recovered instruments would most likely be placed on soft substrates, 

where shallow-water corals do not occur. Impacts to shallow-water corals would be limited to instances 

where seafloor devices were inadvertently used in areas of unknown hard substrate that is colonized by 

corals. Although unlikely, there is some potential for corals to be exposed. Pursuant to the ESA, the use 

of seafloor devices during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed coral 

species and may affect designated elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. The Navy will consult with 

the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices), under Alternative 1, the use of seafloor devices 

would occur in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, the Gulf of 

Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems, and the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically within the 

Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range 

Complexes; Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range, Naval Surface Warfare 

Center, Panama City Division Testing Range, and the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing 

Range; and other AFTT areas. In addition, seafloor devices would be used in two inland water locations: 

Little Creek and Norfolk, Virginia. 

Seafloor devices are either stationary or move very slowly along the bottom and pose little threat to 

highly mobile organisms such as crabs and shrimp, with the exception of individuals that might be struck 

as an item settles on the bottom. Sessile or less mobile benthic organisms such as sponges, sea snails, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-90

3.4 Invertebrates 

and echinoderms would be more likely to be impacted. As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.4 (Impacts from 

Seafloor Devices), impacts may include injury or mortality due to direct strike, disturbance, smothering, 

and impairment of respiration or filter-feeding due to increased sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts to 

invertebrates resulting from movement of the devices through the water column before they contact 

the bottom would likely consist of only temporary displacement as the object passes by. 

In testing areas where bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles are used, benthic organisms 

would be exposed to strike and disturbance in the relatively small area transited by the vehicles. 

Potential consequences of a strike by bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles would be 

dependent upon the type of benthic invertebrate encountered. Within the Naval Undersea Warfare 

Center Division, Newport Testing Range and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division 

Testing Range where primarily soft bottom habitats are present, impacts would consist primarily of 

disturbance; burrowing invertebrates are unlikely to be injured or killed due to the pressure exerted by 

bottom-crawling vehicles. The largest unmanned underwater vehicle weighs 92 lb. out of the water and 

has a footprint of 4.8 square feet. Assuming, worst case, that the unmanned underwater vehicle’s 

buoyant weight is 92 lb., it exerts a pressure of only 0.133 lb. per square inch. Few benthic marine 

invertebrates would be injured by this pressure level, particularly over soft sediments, which would 

compress under the invertebrate and relieve some of the pressure being exerted by the crawler. 

Although intentional placement of seafloor devices on bottom structure is avoided, activities occurring 

at depths less than about 3,000 m may inadvertently impact deep-water corals, other invertebrates 

associated with hard bottom, and other marine invertebrate assemblages. Activities in the Northeast, 

Virginia Capes, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, and particularly the Jacksonville Range Complex, 

have the potential to impact hard bottom and deep-water corals. However, most activities involving 

seafloor devices (e.g., anchors for mine shapes, bottom crawlers) are typically conducted in the 

nearshore ocean far from deep sea corals. Most seafloor devices are operated in the nearshore 

environment, away from shallow-water corals and on bottom habitats suitable for deployment and 

retrieval (e.g., soft or intermediate bottom). Consequences of a strike could include damage, injury, or 

mortality for each device, mooring, or anchor. Hard substrate potentially supporting deep-water corals 

and other invertebrate communities is present on the continental shelf break and slope. A low 

percentage of deep substrate on the continental shelf is suitable for hard bottom communities. Based 

on the results of limited investigations, a low percentage of available hard substrate may be inhabited 

by deep-water corals or other invertebrate species (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010a). Individual 

organisms would not likely be affected directly or indirectly to the extent that the viability of 

populations or species would be impacted. 

The impact of seafloor devices on mostly soft bottom invertebrates is likely to cause injury or mortality 

to some individuals, but impacts to populations would be inconsequential because the area exposed to 

the stressor is extremely small relative to the area of both suitable and occupied habitats, and the 

activities are generally dispersed such that few individuals would likely be exposed to more than one 

event (although seafloor device use is concentrated in some areas such as anchorages and mine ranges). 

In addition, exposures would be localized and temporary, and the organisms most frequently impacted 

would be burrowing soft bottom invertebrates that are relatively resilient to localized sediment 

disturbance. Activities involving seafloor devices are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or 

lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at the 

population level. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-91

3.4 Invertebrates 

All ESA-listed coral species occur in the Key West Range Complex and the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range and would have the potential to be exposed to seafloor devices. 

While critical habitat for staghorn and elkhorn coral has been designated in the Key West Range 

Complex and within part of the shallow (less than 30 m) nearshore portion of the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range, testing activities that involve the use of seafloor devices mainly 

occur offshore in deeper water. Furthermore, the use of seafloor devices is not likely to intersect with 

hard substrate. 

The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from seafloor devices on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, as discussed in 

Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). For example, the Navy will use real-time 

geographic information system and global positioning system (along with remote sensing verification) 

during deployment, installation, and recovery of anchors and mine-like objects to avoid impacts on 

shallow-water coral reefs and live hard bottom. This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential 

impacts on invertebrates that occur in these areas. 

Based on the preceding discussion, impacts to shallow-water corals would be limited to instances where 

seafloor devices were inadvertently used in areas of unknown hard substrate that is colonized by corals. 

Although unlikely, there is some potential for corals to be exposed. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of 

seafloor devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed coral 

species and may affect designated elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. The Navy will consult with 

the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.4.3.4.4.2 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

The locations, number and type of training activities, and potential effects associated with seafloor 

devices would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.4.1 (Impacts from 

Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.4.1 (Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1), pursuant to the 

ESA, the use of seafloor devices during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect 

ESA-listed coral species and may affect designated elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. The Navy 

will consult with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

The locations and type of testing activities using seafloor devices would be the same under Alternatives 

1 and 2. There would be a very small increase in the number of testing activities using seafloor devices. 

However, the increase would not result in substantive changes to the potential for or the types of 

impacts on invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.4.1 (Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 

1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.4.1 (Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1), pursuant to the 

ESA, the use of seafloor devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect ESAlisted coral species and may affect designated elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat. The Navy will 

consult with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-92

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4.3.4.4.3 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., seafloor devices) 

would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities. 

3.4.3.4.5 Impacts from Pile Driving 

In this section, impacts to invertebrates resulting from pile driving and vibratory pile extraction are 

considered in the context of injury, mortality, or displacement that may occur due to physical strikes and 

disturbance. Pile driving produces impulsive sound that may also affect invertebrates. Impacts 

associated with impulsive sound are discussed with other acoustic stressors in Section 3.4.3.1.4 (Impacts 

from Pile Driving). 

Installation and removal of piles could crush or injure invertebrates due to direct physical impact. Direct 

impacts would be most likely for sessile or slow-moving species such as bivalve molluscs, worms, and 

echinoderms. Individuals located near the activities but not directly impacted could be disturbed and 

show behavioral reactions (e.g., fleeing from the area, valve closure, changes in activity). Behavioral 

reactions require energy expenditure and may result in additional effects such as feeding disruption or 

increased exposure to predators. 

Bottom disturbance resulting from pile installation and removal would result in sediment displacement 

and turbidity. Suspended sediment particles may affect respiratory organs or impair the ability of filterfeeding invertebrates to obtain food (e.g., by clogging their feeding structures or diluting the amount of 

food in the surrounding volume of water). 

3.4.3.4.5.1 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 1, one event involving pile driving and removal would occur annually in the nearshore 

and surf zone at one of the following locations: Virginia Capes Range Complex (Joint Expeditionary Base 

Little Creek, Virginia or Joint Expeditionary Base Fort Story, Virginia) or Navy Cherry Point Range 

Complex (Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina) (Section 3.0.3.3.1.3, Pile Driving). Each 

annual event would consist of intermittent disturbance over an estimated 20 days during installation 

and 10 days during removal. Invertebrates could be exposed to impact noise for a total of 60 minutes 

per 24-hour period during installation, and could be exposed to noise and substrate vibration for a total 

of 36 minutes per day during pile removal. 

Invertebrates could be crushed, injured, displaced, or react behaviorally as a result of pile installation 

and removal. In addition, turbidity could affect respiration and feeding in some individuals. However, 

this activity occurs along high energy beaches where organisms are resilient to frequent sediment 

disturbance. During the relatively short duration that piles are in the water (less than 2 weeks per year), 

limited colonization of the piles by fast-growing, sedentary invertebrates would likely occur. For 

example, the planktonic young of sedentary invertebrates such as mussels, hydroids, bryozoans, sea 

squirts, and sponges could use the piles for attachment. Adults of mobile species such as crabs could use 

the piles for foraging or refuge. Removal of the piles would result in mortality to limited-mobility and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-93

3.4 Invertebrates 

attached sessile species, and displacement and possibly injury to more mobile species. Compared to 

overall population size, only a very small number of individuals would be affected. In addition, pile 

driving events would occur infrequently (once per year), and impacts to the sandy substrate would be 

recoverable. Effects to overall invertebrate populations would not be discernable. 

ESA-listed coral species and critical habitat do not occur in areas proposed for pile driving. Pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of pile driving during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

There would be no pile driving or vibratory pile extraction associated with testing activities. Therefore, 

pile driving is not analyzed in this subsection. 

3.4.3.4.5.2 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

The locations, number of training events, and potential effects associated with pile driving and vibratory 

pile extraction would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.4.5.1 (Impacts from 

Pile Driving Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on invertebrates. 

ESA-listed coral species and critical habitat do not occur in areas proposed for pile driving. Pursuant to 

the ESA, the use of pile driving during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

There would be no pile driving or vibratory pile extraction associated with testing activities. Therefore, 

pile driving is not analyzed in this subsection. 

3.4.3.4.5.3 Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training activities in the 

AFTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., pile driving) would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing 

activities. 

3.4.3.5 Entanglement Stressors 

This section analyzes the potential entanglement impacts of the various types of expended materials 

used by the Navy during training and testing activities within the Study Area. Included are potential 

impacts from wires and cables, decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymer. Aspects of 

entanglement stressors that are applicable to marine organisms in general are presented in Section 

3.0.3.6.4 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Entanglement). In this section, only 

potential impacts of these items as entanglement stressors are discussed. Abrasion and 

covering/shading impacts on sessile benthic invertebrates are discussed with physical impacts in Section 

3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials). 

Marine invertebrates are likely less susceptible than vertebrates to entanglement, as illustrated by the 

fact that fishing nets which are designed to take pelagic marine invertebrates operate by enclosing or 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-94

3.4 Invertebrates 

entrapping rather than entangling (Chuenpagdee et al., 2003). However, entanglement may be possible 

for some species and some expended items. A survey of marine debris entanglements found that 

marine invertebrates accounted for 16 percent of all animal entanglements (Ocean Conservancy, 2010). 

The same survey cites potential entanglement in military items only in the context of waste-handling 

aboard ships, and not for military expended materials. The potential for a marine invertebrate to 

become entangled in wires, cables, decelerators/parachutes, or biodegradable polymer is considered 

remote. The materials generally do not have the characteristics required to entangle marine species. 

Wires and cables are essentially rigid lines. Sonobuoy components may include plastic mesh and a float 

unit. Although mesh items have increased potential for entangling marine animals in general, and 

invertebrates can become entangled in nets (Ocean Conservancy, 2010), invertebrates are not 

particularly susceptible to entanglement in these items. Decelerators/parachutes have large openings 

between the cords separating the decelerator/parachute fabric from the release mechanism. There is no 

plausible scenario in which decelerator/parachute cords would tighten around and hold a mobile 

invertebrate. Decelerators/parachutes sink slowly through the water column, although many have 

weights attached to their lines to speed their sinking. Invertebrates in the water column with limited 

mobility (e.g., jellyfish, zooplankton) could be trapped in decelerator/parachute fabric as it sinks. The 

potential effects of decelerators/parachutes covering sessile invertebrate species on the bottom is 

discussed in Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials). 

3.4.3.5.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables 

Fiber optic cables, torpedo guidance wires, sonobuoy wires, and expendable bathythermograph wires 

would be expended during training and testing activities. For a discussion of the types of activities that 

use wires and cables, see Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices). 

A marine invertebrate could become temporarily entangled and escape unharmed, be held tightly 

enough that it could be injured during its struggle to escape, be preyed upon while entangled, or starve 

while entangled. The probability of these outcomes cannot be predicted because interactions between 

invertebrate species and entanglement hazards are not well known. However, it is unlikely that an 

invertebrate would become entangled in wires or cables. The items would be essentially linear after 

deployment, as they sink through the water column. Once the items reach the bottom, they could be 

moved into different shapes by water currents, but the items are resistant to coiling, and the possibility 

of an invertebrate being ensnared is remote. The wires and cables would eventually become buried in 

sediment or encrusted by marine growth, which would eliminate or further reduce the entanglement 

potential. The small number of most items that would be expended across the Study Area would result 

in an extremely low rate of potential encounter for marine invertebrates. However, a comparatively 

large number of sonobuoy wires would be expended. 

3.4.3.5.1.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 1, fiber optic cables, guidance wires, sonobuoy wires, and bathythermograph wires 

would be expended during sinking exercises, anti-submarine warfare activities, torpedo exercises, and 

various mine warfare and countermeasures exercises in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems as well as the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Gyre Open Ocean Areas –

specifically within the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico 

Range Complexes, and within the Sink Exercise Area. The majority of expended items would be 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-95

3.4 Invertebrates 

sonobuoy wires, and most of the sonobuoy wires would be expended in the Jacksonville Range Complex. 

The number of wires and cables expended in other areas is substantially lower. 

All locations of wire and cable use potentially coincide with deep-water corals and other invertebrates 

associated with hard bottom areas in water depths less than 3,000 m. Items used in the Jacksonville 

Range Complex in particular could potentially coincide with deep-water corals and hard bottom habitat, 

although the portion of suitable substrate occupied by living coral is very low and coincidence with such 

low densities of linear materials is unlikely. 

Given the number of wires and cables used compared to invertebrate population numbers, most marine 

invertebrates would not be exposed to a wire or cable. The impact of wires and cables on marine 

invertebrates is not likely to cause injury or mortality to individuals because of the rigid, linear nature of 

the material. Impacts to individuals and populations would be inconsequential because the area 

exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to most marine invertebrates’ ranges, the activities 

are dispersed such that few individuals would likely be exposed to more than one event, and exposures 

would be localized. In addition, marine invertebrates are not particularly susceptible to entanglement 

stressors, as most would avoid entanglement and simply be temporarily disturbed. Activities involving 

wires and cables are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting effects on the survival, 

growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at individual or population levels. 

No activities using fiber optic cables, guidance wires, sonobuoy wires, or bathythermograph wires would 

occur in the Key West Range Complex. Therefore, there would therefore be no overlap of wires and 

cables with ESA-listed corals or critical habitat. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during 

training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or 

critical habitat. 

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 1, activities that expend fiber optic cables, guidance wires, sonobuoy wires, and 

bathythermograph wires would occur in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems, as well as the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—

specifically within the Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, and 

the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center 

Division, Newport Testing Range, and the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range. The 

majority of expended items would be sonobuoy wires. Sonobuoy wires would be expended in all the 

range complexes but would be concentrated in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, and Jacksonville Range 

Complexes. 

All locations of fiber optic cable, guidance wire, and sonobuoy wire use potentially coincide with deepwater corals and other invertebrates associated with hard bottom areas in water depths less than 

3,000 m. Items used in the Jacksonville Range Complex in particular could potentially coincide with 

deep-water corals and hard bottom habitat, although the portion of suitable substrate occupied by 

living coral is very low and coincidence with such low densities of linear materials is unlikely. 

Given the number of wires and cables used compared to invertebrate population numbers, most marine 

invertebrates would not be exposed to a wire or cable. The impact of wires and cables on marine 

invertebrates is not likely to cause injury or mortality to individuals because of the rigid, linear nature of 

the material. Impacts to individuals and populations would be inconsequential because the area 

exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to most marine invertebrates’ ranges, the activities 

are dispersed such that few individuals would likely be exposed to more than one event, and exposures 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-96

3.4 Invertebrates 

would be localized. In addition, marine invertebrates are not particularly susceptible to entanglement 

stressors, as most would avoid entanglement and simply be temporarily disturbed. Activities involving 

wires and cables are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting effects on the survival, 

growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at individual or population levels. 

All ESA-listed coral species, as well as designated critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn coral, occur 

within the Key West Range Complex and South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range. A 

total of over 4,000 combined types of wires and cables would be expended annually in the Key West 

Range Complex, and a total of 70 would be expended in the South Florida Ocean Measurement Testing 

Range. Whereas some of these materials are associated with anti-submarine warfare and torpedo 

testing in deeper water seaward of typical shallow-water coral occurrence, many sonobuoy wires are 

associated with sonobuoy lot testing in Key West. However, it is not expected that corals would be 

affected by entanglement in wires or cables because there is no likely scenario in which an individual 

coral (adult polyp, egg, or larva) would be ensnared by a wire or cable and suffer adverse effects such as 

restricted movement. Potential impacts to corals, including ESA-listed species, would primarily be 

associated with covering, shading, breakage, and abrasion. These impacts are discussed in the context of 

physical disturbance and strike in Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials). Elkhorn 

and staghorn coral critical habitat consists of exposed hard substrate or dead coral skeleton. There is no 

mechanism for entanglement stressors to affect these characteristics. Therefore, entanglement 

stressors would not degrade the quality of elkhorn or staghorn coral critical habitat. Pursuant to the 

ESA, the use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

3.4.3.5.1.2 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 2, the locations and types of potentially entangling expended items used would be 

the same as Alternative 1. There would be a small increase in the number of sonobuoy wires and 

bathythermograph wires expended. Most of the increase would be due to the addition of sonobuoy 

wire expenditures in the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex. The additional items would represent an overall 

increase of less than 3 percent in the total number of items expended. The difference is not expected to 

result in substantive changes to the potential for or types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer to Section 

3.4.3.5.1.1 (Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential 

entanglement impacts resulting from wires and cables associated with training activities. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.5.1.1 (Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1), pursuant to the 

ESA, the use of wires and cables during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have 

no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 2, the locations and types of potentially entangling expended items used would be 

the same as Alternative 1. There would be a small increase in the number of fiber optic cables and 

sonobuoy wires expended. Use of fiber optic cables would increase in the Virginia Capes Range Complex 

and Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range; sonobuoy wire use would 

increase in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes. The 

additional items would represent an overall increase of less than 2 percent of the total amount of 

materials expended. The difference is not expected to result in substantive changes to the potential for 

or types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.5.1.1 (Impacts from Wires and Cables Under 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-97

3.4 Invertebrates 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential entanglement impacts resulting from wires and cables 

associated with testing activities. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.5.1.1 (Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1), pursuant to the 

ESA, the use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

3.4.3.5.1.3 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various entanglement stressors (e.g., wires and cables) would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing 

activities. 

3.4.3.5.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes 

Decelerators/parachutes of varying sizes are used during training and testing activities. For a discussion 

of the types of activities that use decelerators/parachutes and the physical characteristics of these 

expended materials, see Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes). Aircraft-launched sonobuoys, 

lightweight torpedoes, submarine warfare training targets, and other devices deployed from aircraft or 

vessels use decelerators/parachutes that are made of cloth and nylon, and many have weights attached 

to the lines for rapid sinking. At water impact, the decelerator/parachute assembly is expended, and it 

sinks away from the unit. The decelerator/parachute assembly may remain at the surface for 5 to 

15 seconds before the decelerator/parachute and its housing sink to the bottom, where it becomes 

flattened. Because they are in the air and water column for a time span of minutes, it is unlikely that a 

decelerator/parachute deployed in areas greater than 3 NM from the shore could travel far enough to 

affect shallow-water corals, including ESA-listed coral species. Movement of the decelerator/parachute 

in the water or along the bottom may break more fragile invertebrates such as deep-water corals which 

would also reduce suitable hard substrate for encrusting invertebrates. Deep-water coral species 

potentially occur everywhere that decelerator/parachute use occurs. Corals (shallow-water and deepwater) are susceptible to entanglement in decelerators/parachutes, but the principal mechanisms of 

damage are shading, abrasion, and breakage (refer to Section 3.4.3.4.3, Impacts from Military Expended 

Materials, for a discussion of these impacts). On a large enough spatial and temporal scale, these 

impacts could affect a sufficient number of individuals to reduce the extent of coral coverage. However, 

available studies suggest a very low percentage of suitable habitat is occupied by deep sea corals, 

making coincidence with entangling parachutes very unlikely. Refer to the affected environment section 

for details on the study results. In addition to corals, other sessile benthic invertebrates such as sponges, 

anemones, and hydrozoans could be affected by damage, burial, smothering, or abrasion. 

A decelerator/parachute or attached lines sinking through the water column is unlikely to affect pelagic 

invertebrates. The lines would result in only temporary displacement of individuals. Most pelagic 

invertebrates would be too small to be ensnared, and the lines would be relatively straight as the 

decelerator/parachute descends, making entanglement of larger invertebrates such as jellyfish or squid 

highly unlikely. In addition, there are large openings between the cords. The decelerator/parachute 

mesh is solid, permitting only microscopic animals to pass through it. Some individuals of relatively slowmoving species (e.g., jellyfish, swimming crabs) could therefore be caught in a billowed 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-98

3.4 Invertebrates 

decelerator/parachute as it sinks. However, although they are often weighted, decelerators/parachutes 

float relatively slowly through the water column (potential time span of minutes), and would likely 

impact few individuals larger than zooplankton. Any individuals trapped within the 

decelerator/parachute as it sinks may escape, or may remain enclosed for some time and experience 

potential effects similar to those described for cables and wires (e.g., injury, starvation). 

3.4.3.5.2.1 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 1, activities involving decelerator/parachute use would occur in the Northeast, 

Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Key West Range Complexes, and in other AFTT 

areas. The vast majority of expended items would be small decelerators/parachutes; only a small 

number of medium and large decelerators/parachutes would be used. Most large 

decelerators/parachutes would be expended in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville 

Range Complexes, but a small number would also be expended in the Key West Range Complex. 

Decelerator/parachute lines could temporarily displace invertebrates in the water column but would be 

unlikely to ensnare individuals. Decelerator/parachute mesh could envelop invertebrates as the item 

sinks through the water column. Envelopment would primarily be associated with zooplankton, 

although other relatively slow-moving invertebrates such as jellyfish and swimming crabs could be 

caught in a billowed decelerator/parachute. Ensnared individuals may be injured or killed, or may 

eventually escape. Decelerators/parachutes on the bottom could cover benthic invertebrates, but some 

would likely be able to move away from the item. It is highly unlikely that an individual invertebrate 

would be ensnared by a decelerator/parachute on the bottom and suffer adverse effects. 

Decelerators/parachutes could break or abrade deep-water corals. These impacts are discussed in 

Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials) in the context of physical disturbance and 

strike. 

The vast majority of marine invertebrates would not encounter a decelerator/parachute. The impact of 

decelerators/parachutes on marine invertebrates is not likely to cause injury or mortality to individuals, 

and impacts would be inconsequential because the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small 

relative to most marine invertebrates’ ranges, the activities are dispersed such that few individuals 

would likely be exposed to more than one event, and exposures would be localized. The surface area of 

decelerators/parachutes expended across the Study Area is extremely small compared to the relatively 

low percentage of suitable substrate inhabited by deep-sea coral species, resulting in a low risk of 

coincidence. In addition, marine invertebrates are not particularly susceptible to entanglement 

stressors, as most would avoid entanglement and simply be temporarily disturbed. The number of 

individuals affected would be inconsequential compared to overall invertebrate population numbers. 

Activities involving decelerators/parachutes are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting 

effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at individual or 

population levels. 

A very low number of decelerators/parachutes (eight large decelerators/parachutes) would be 

expended in the Key West Range Complex, where all ESA-listed coral species and elkhorn and staghorn 

critical habitat occurs. In addition, ESA-listed coral species and elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat 

occurs in other AFTT areas (Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem). Decelerators/parachutes are 

typically expended in deep, offshore waters, where shallow-water corals are unlikely to occur. Impacts 

to ESA-listed corals could potentially occur if decelerators/parachutes were expended in areas of 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-99

3.4 Invertebrates 

unmapped reef or hard bottom habitat. Decelerators/parachutes would not be expected to drift into 

nearshore areas due to the sink rate of the assembly. Coral eggs or larvae could be caught in a 

decelerator/parachute as it strikes the water surface and sinks, although microscopic organisms may be 

able to pass through the mesh. Individual coral polyps that are attached to hard structure would not 

likely be entangled in the context of being ensnared and experiencing subsequent effects such as 

restricted movement. Impacts would be associated with covering, shading, and abrasion that could 

occur to individuals or groups of individuals if a decelerator/parachute became entangled on hard 

structure. These impacts are discussed in the context of physical disturbance and strike in Section 

3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials). Elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat consists 

of exposed hard substrate or dead coral skeleton. There is no mechanism for entanglement stressors to 

affect these characteristics. Therefore, entanglement stressors would not degrade the quality of elkhorn 

or staghorn coral critical habitat. 

Based on the discussion above, pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during training 

activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed coral species. The use of 

decelerators/parachutes would have no effect on designated critical habitat for elkhorn coral or 

staghorn coral. The Navy will consult with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that 

regard. 

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 1, activities involving decelerators/parachute use would occur in the Northeast, 

Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, and in 

the Naval Underwater Warfare Center, Newport, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City, and South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Ranges. The vast majority of expended items would be 

small decelerators/parachutes. Only a low number of medium decelerators/parachutes would be used, 

and no large parachutes would be expended. Most decelerators/parachutes would be expended in the 

Northeast, Virginia Capes, and Jacksonville Range Complexes. 

Decelerator/parachute lines could temporarily displace invertebrates in the water column but would be 

unlikely to ensnare individuals. Decelerator/parachute mesh could envelop invertebrates as the item 

sinks through the water column. Envelopment would primarily be associated with zooplankton, 

although other relatively slow-moving invertebrates such as jellyfish and swimming crabs could be 

caught in a billowed decelerator/parachute. Ensnared individuals may be injured or killed, or may 

eventually escape. Decelerators/parachutes on the bottom could cover benthic invertebrates, but some 

would likely be able to move away from the item. It is highly unlikely that an individual invertebrate 

would be ensnared by a decelerator/parachute on the bottom and suffer adverse effects. 

Decelerators/parachutes could break or abrade deep-water corals. These impacts are discussed in 

Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials) in the context of physical disturbance and 

strike. 

The vast majority of marine invertebrates would not encounter a decelerator/parachute. The impact of 

decelerators/parachutes on marine invertebrates is not likely to cause injury or mortality to individuals, 

and impacts would be inconsequential because the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small 

relative to most marine invertebrates’ ranges, the activities are dispersed such that few individuals 

would likely be exposed to more than one event, and exposures would be localized. The surface area of 

decelerators/parachutes expended across the Study Area is extremely small compared to the relatively 

low percentage of suitable substrate inhabited by deep-sea coral species, resulting in a low risk of 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-100 

3.4 Invertebrates 

coincidence. In addition, marine invertebrates are not particularly susceptible to entanglement 

stressors, as most would avoid entanglement and simply be temporarily disturbed. The number of 

individuals affected would be inconsequential compared to overall invertebrate population numbers. 

Activities involving decelerators/parachutes are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting 

effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of invertebrate species at individual or 

population levels. 

A total of approximately 4,000 decelerators/parachutes (almost all of which would be small) would be 

expended in the Key West Range Complex and South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range, 

where all ESA-listed coral species and elkhorn and staghorn critical habitat occur. 

Decelerators/parachutes are typically expended in deep, offshore waters, where shallow-water corals 

are unlikely to occur. Impacts to shallow-water corals could potentially occur if decelerators/parachutes 

were expended in areas of unmapped reef or hard bottom habitat. Decelerators/parachutes would not 

be expected to drift into nearshore areas potentially supporting corals due to the sink rate. Coral eggs or 

larvae could be caught in a decelerator/parachute as it strikes the water surface and sinks, although 

microscopic organisms may be able to pass through the mesh. Individual coral polyps that are attached 

to hard structure would not likely be entangled in the context of being ensnared and experiencing 

subsequent effects such as restricted movement. However, individuals or groups of individuals could be 

impacted by covering, shading, and abrasion if a decelerator/parachute became entangled on the reef 

structure. These impacts are discussed in the context of physical disturbance and strike in Section 

3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials). Elkhorn and staghorn coral critical habitat consists 

of exposed hard substrate or dead coral skeleton. There is no mechanism for entanglement stressors to 

affect these characteristics; impacts due to breakage of hard structures are discussed in Section 

3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials). Therefore, entanglement stressors would not 

degrade the quality of elkhorn or staghorn coral critical habitat. 

Based on the discussion above, pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during testing 

activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed coral species. The use of 

decelerators/parachutes would have no effect on designated critical habitat for elkhorn coral or 

staghorn coral. The Navy will consult with the NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that 

regard. 

3.4.3.5.2.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 2, the locations and number of decelerators/parachutes expended would be the same 

as Alternative 1, with one exception. Under Alternative 2, small decelerators/parachutes would be 

expended in the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex. This would result in 785 additional 

decelerators/parachutes expended, which represents an increase of less than 2 percent compared to 

Alternative 1. The difference is not expected to result in substantive changes to the potential for or 

types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.5.2.1 (Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes 

Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential entanglement impacts resulting from 

decelerators/parachutes associated with training activities. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.5.2.1 (Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1), 

pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed coral species. The use of decelerators/parachutes would have no 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-101 

3.4 Invertebrates 

effect on designated critical habitat for elkhorn coral or staghorn coral. The Navy will consult with the 

NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 2, the locations of activities using decelerators/parachutes would be the same as 

Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, there would be a small increase in the number of small 

decelerators/parachutes used. An additional 780 small decelerators/parachutes would be expended 

throughout the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes. The 

difference represents an increase of about 2 percent and would not be expected to result in substantive 

changes to the potential for or types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.5.2 (Impacts 

from Decelerators/Parachutes) for a discussion of potential entanglement impacts resulting from 

decelerators/parachutes associated with testing activities. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.5.2.1 (Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1), 

pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed coral species. The use of decelerators/parachutes would have no 

effect on designated critical habitat for elkhorn coral or staghorn coral. The Navy will consult with the 

NMFS, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.4.3.5.2.3 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Training Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various entanglement stressors (e.g., decelerators/parachutes) would 

not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities. 

3.4.3.5.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer 

Biodegradable polymer is an expended item constructed of high molecular weight polymers. For a 

discussion of the types of activities that use biodegradable polymer material and the physical 

characteristics of these expended materials, see Section 3.0.3.3.5.3 (Biodegradable Polymer). Although 

it is unlikely that most invertebrates would become entangled in the biodegradable polymer material, 

entanglement risk would be conceivable for relatively large invertebrates that occur in the water column 

(e.g., jellyfish and squid). The material would degrade into small pieces within a few days to a few 

weeks, after which time the entanglement potential would cease. Impacts to pelagic invertebrates 

would most likely be limited to temporary displacement as the biodegradable polymer material floats 

past an animal. Entanglement impacts to benthic species are not expected due to the relatively rapid 

degradation of the items. 

3.4.3.5.3.1 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

There would be no use of biodegradable polymer associated with training activities. Therefore, 

biodegradable polymer is not analyzed in this subsection. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-102 

3.4 Invertebrates 

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 1, a small number of activities would involve the use of biodegradable polymer in the 

Northeast, Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, and in the Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range. It is conceivable that relatively large pelagic 

invertebrates such as jellyfish would be temporarily entangled, although the probability is low due to 

the polymer design. The most likely effect would be temporary displacement as the material floats past 

an animal. Impacts to benthic species would not be expected. Activities involving biodegradable polymer 

would not yield any behavioral changes or lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or 

reproduction of invertebrate species at individual or population levels. 

Biodegradable polymer would be used in the Key West Range Complex and could therefore potentially 

be transported by water currents to areas occupied by ESA-listed corals or into elkhorn and staghorn 

coral critical habitat. However, the polymer material would be expected to remain buoyant until 

substantial degradation occurs and would have little potential for entanglement of sessile corals. Coral 

larvae in the water column would not be entangled due to their small size relative to the polymer 

material. Degraded polymer material would not damage or decrease the value of critical habitat. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of biodegradable polymer during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

3.4.3.5.3.2 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

There would be no use of biodegradable polymer associated with training activities. Therefore, 

biodegradable polymer is not analyzed in this subsection. 

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

The locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with biodegradable polymer use 

would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.5.3.1 (Impacts from Biodegradable 

Polymer Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of the potential impacts of biodegradable polymer on 

invertebrates. 

Biodegradable polymer would be used in the Key West Range Complex and could therefore potentially 

be transported by water currents to areas occupied by ESA-listed corals or into elkhorn and staghorn 

coral critical habitat. However, the polymer material would be expected to remain buoyant until 

substantial degradation occurs and would have little potential for entanglement of sessile corals. Coral 

larvae in the water column would not be entangled due to their small size relative to the polymer 

material. Degraded polymer material would not damage or decrease the value of critical habitat. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of biodegradable polymer during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species or critical habitat. 

3.4.3.5.3.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed testing activities in the AFTT 

Study Area. Biodegradable polymer is not a part of ongoing Navy activities in the Study Area and this 

entanglement stressor would not be introduced into the marine environment under the No Action 

Alternative. Therefore, no change in baseline conditions of the existing environment would occur. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-103 

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4.3.6 Ingestion Stressors 

This section analyzes the potential ingestion impacts of the various types of military expended materials 

used by the Navy during training and testing activities within the Study Area, which may be broadly 

categorized as munitions and materials other than munitions. Aspects of ingestion stressors that are 

applicable to marine organisms in general are presented in Section 3.0.3.6.5 (Conceptual Framework for 

Assessing Effects from Ingestion). The Navy expends the following types of materials that could become 

ingestion stressors during training and testing in the Study Area: non-explosive practice munitions 

(small- and medium-caliber), fragments from high-explosives, fragments from targets, chaff, flare 

casings (including plastic end caps and pistons), and small decelerators/parachutes. Very few 

invertebrates are large enough to ingest intact small- and medium-caliber munitions; potential impact 

resulting from these items would be limited to a few taxa such as squid and octopus. Other military 

expended materials such as targets, large-caliber projectiles, intact training and testing bombs, guidance 

wires, sonobuoy tubes, and marine markers are too large for any marine invertebrate to consume and 

are eliminated from further discussion. 

Expended materials could be ingested by marine invertebrates in all large marine ecosystems and open 

ocean areas. Ingestion could occur at the surface, in the water column, or at the bottom, depending on 

the size and buoyancy of the expended object and the feeding behavior of the animal. Floating material 

is more likely to be eaten by animals that may feed at or near the water surface (e.g., jellyfish, squid), 

while materials that sink to the bottom present a higher risk to both filter-feeding sessile (e.g., sponges) 

and bottom-feeding animals (e.g., crabs). Marine invertebrates are universally present in the water 

column, on the bottom, and within bottom sediments, but the majority of individuals (based on species 

richness and abundance) are smaller than a few millimeters (e.g., zooplankton, most roundworms, and 

most arthropods). Most military expended materials and fragments of military expended materials are 

too large to be ingested by marine invertebrates, and relatively large predatory or scavenging individuals 

are unlikely to consume an item that does not visually or chemically resemble food (Koehl et al., 2001; 

Polese et al., 2015). Many arthropods such as blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) and spiny lobster are 

known to discriminate between palatable and unpalatable food items inside the mouth, so in a strict 

sense, only items that are passed into the interior digestive tract should be considered to be ingested 

(Aggio et al., 2012). If expended material is ingested by marine invertebrates, the primary risk is 

blockage in the digestive tract. Most military expended materials are relatively inert in the marine 

environment, and are not likely to cause injury or mortality via chemical effects (see Section 3.4.3.7, 

Secondary Stressors, for more information on the chemical properties of these materials). However, 

pollutants (e.g., heavy metals and volatile organic compounds) may accumulate on the plastic 

components of some military expended materials. Plastic debris pieces collected at various locations in 

the North Pacific Ocean had polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and pesticides associated with them (Rios 

et al., 2007). Relatively large plastic pieces could be ingested by some species. However, filter- or 

deposit-feeding invertebrates have the greatest potential to ingest small plastic items, and any 

associated pollutants could harm the individual animal or subsequently be incorporated into the food 

chain. 

The potential for marine invertebrates to encounter fragments of ingestible size increases as the military 

expended materials degrade into smaller fragments over months to decades. Intact munitions, 

fragments of munitions, and other items could degrade into metal and plastic pieces small enough to be 

consumed by indiscriminate feeders, such as some marine worms. Deposit-feeding, detritus-feeding, 

and filter-feeding invertebrates such as amphipods, polychaete worms, zooplankton, and mussels have 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-104 

3.4 Invertebrates 

been found to consume microscale plastic particles (microplastics) that form from the breakdown of 

larger plastic items (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014; 

Wright et al., 2013a). Ingestion by these types of organisms is the most likely pathway for degraded 

military expended materials to enter the marine food web. Transfer of microplastic particles to higher 

trophic levels was demonstrated in one experiment (Setala et al., 2014). Ingestion of microplastics may 

result in physical effects such as internal abrasion and gut blockage, toxicity due to leaching of 

chemicals, and exposure to attached pollutants. Potentially harmful bacteria may also grow on 

microplastic particles (Kirstein et al., 2016). In addition, consumption of microplastics may result in 

decreased consumption of natural foods such as algae (Cole et al., 2013). Microplastic ingestion by 

marine worms was shown in one study to result in lower energy reserves (Wright et al., 2013a). 

Microplastic ingestion has been documented in numerous marine invertebrates (e.g., mussels, worms, 

mysid shrimp, bivalve molluscs, zooplankton, and scleractinian corals (Cole et al., 2013; Hall et al., 2015; 

Setala et al., 2016; Wright et al., 2013b). In an experiment involving pelagic and benthic marine 

invertebrates with different feeding methods, all species exposed to microplastic particles ingested 

some of the items (Setala et al., 2016). Deposit-feeding worms and an amphipod species ingested the 

fewest particles, while bivalves and free-swimming crustaceans ingested higher amounts. Ingestion of 

plastic particles may result in negative physical and chemical effects to invertebrates, although 

invertebrates are generally able to discharge these particles from the body. Overall population-level 

effects across a broad range of species are currently uncertain (Kaposi et al., 2014; Wright et al., 2013b). 

Biodegradable polymer materials used during marine vessel stopping activities degrade relatively quickly 

as a result of microbial actions or enzymes. The material breaks down into small pieces within days to 

weeks, and degrades into particles small enough to dissolve in the water within weeks to months. 

Molecules formed during degradation can range from complex to simple products, depending on 

whether the polymers are natural or synthetic (Karlsson & Albertsson, 1998). Items of ingestible size 

would therefore be produced throughout the breakdown process. However, the products are 

considered environmentally benign and would be dispersed quickly to undetectable concentrations. 

The most abundant military expended material of ingestible size is chaff. The materials in chaff are 

generally nontoxic in the marine environment except in quantities substantially larger than those any 

marine invertebrate would likely encounter as a result of Navy training and testing activities. Chaff fibers 

are composed of an aluminum alloy coating on glass fibers of silicon dioxide (Section 3.0.3.3.6.3, Military 

Expended Materials Other Than Munitions). Chaff is similar in form to fine human hair, and is somewhat 

analogous to the spicules of sponges or the siliceous cases of diatoms (Spargo et al., 1999). Many 

invertebrates ingest sponges, including the spicules, without suffering harm (Spargo et al., 1999). 

Marine invertebrates may occasionally encounter chaff fibers in the marine environment and may 

incidentally ingest chaff when they ingest prey or water. Literature reviews and controlled experiments 

suggest that chaff poses little environmental risk to marine organisms at concentrations that could 

reasonably occur from military training and testing (Arfsten et al., 2002; Spargo et al., 1999). Studies 

were conducted to determine the effects of chaff ingestion on various estuarine invertebrates occurring 

near a site of frequent chaff testing in Chesapeake Bay (Schiff, 1977). American oysters (various life 

stages), blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), blue mussels (Mytilus edulis), and the polychaete worm Nereis 

succinea were force fed a chaff-and-food mixture daily for a few weeks at concentrations 10 to 

100 times the predicted exposure level in the Bay. Although some mortality occurred in embryonic 

oyster larvae from 0 to 48 hours, the authors suggest confounding factors other than chaff (e.g., 

contaminated experimental water) as the cause. The authors reported no statistically significant 

mortality or effects on growth rate for any species. Because many invertebrates (e.g., crabs, shrimp) 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-105 

3.4 Invertebrates 

actively distinguish between food and non-food particles, the experimental design represents an 

unrealistic scenario with respect to the amount of chaff consumed. An investigation of sediments in 

portions of Chesapeake Bay exposed to aluminized chaff release for approximately 25 years found no 

significant increase in concentration compared to samples collected 3.7 km from the release area 

(Wilson et al., 2002). 

As described in Section 3.4.2 (Affected Environment), many thousands of marine invertebrate species 

inhabit the Study Area. Most available literature regarding the effects of debris ingestion on marine 

invertebrates pertains to microplastics (Goldstein & Goodwin, 2013; National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014; Wright et al., 2013a). Discussion of potential consumption 

of larger items is typically focused on fishes, reptiles, mammals, and birds. Consequently, it is not 

feasible to speculate in detail on which invertebrates in which locations might ingest all types of military 

expended materials. Despite the potential impacts, it is reasonable to conclude that relatively large 

military expended materials would not be intentionally consumed by actively foraging invertebrates 

unless they are attracted by other cues (e.g., visual cues such as flashing metal bits that squid might 

attack). Passively-feeding invertebrates (e.g., shellfish, jellyfish) may accidently ingest small particles by 

filtration or incidental adhesion to sticky mucus. The potential impact on invertebrates is decreased 

somewhat by the typical locations of high invertebrate population densities and Navy training and 

testing activities. Increased invertebrate densities are associated with the highest densities of 

microscopic plant food, which are typically located in nearshore waters in closer proximity to nutrient 

sources or in areas where upwelling tends to occur. Conversely, activities that generate military 

expended materials occur mostly seaward of nearshore water. Small deposit-feeding, detritus-feeding, 

and filter-feeding invertebrates would be most likely to ingest small items such as degraded plastic 

particles, although lobsters reportedly may also ingest microplastics (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014). Though ingestion is possible in some circumstances, due 

to the overall size and composition of military expended materials, impacts on populations would likely 

not be detectable. 

Important physical and biological characteristics of ESA-listed coral species are defined in Section 

3.4.2.2.1.2 (Habitat and Geographic Range), and generally include any hard substrate suitable for 

settlement. There is no established mechanism for ingestion stressors to affect important characteristics 

of this critical habitat and the discussion of potential consequences to critical habitat will not be carried 

forward. Potential impacts of military expended material on corals and critical habitat are discussed and 

analyzed as a physical impact in Section 3.4.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials). 

3.4.3.6.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions 

Ingestion of intact military expended materials that are munitions is not likely for most types of 

expended items because they are too large to be ingested by most marine invertebrates. Though 

ingestion of intact munitions or large fragments is conceivable in some circumstances (e.g., a relatively 

large invertebrate such as an octopus or lobster ingesting a small-caliber projectile), such a scenario is 

unlikely due to the animal’s ability to discriminate between food and non-food items. Indiscriminate 

deposit- and detritus-feeding invertebrates such as some marine worms could potentially ingest 

munitions fragments that have degraded to sediment size. In addition, metal particles in the water 

column may be taken up by suspension feeders (e.g., copepods, mussels) (Chiarelli & Roccheri, 2014; 

Griscom & Fisher, 2004). Although most metals do not technically dissolve in water, many react with 

water to form a soluble compound, and researchers often discuss these compounds in terms of 

dissolved metals. Investigations of silver ingestion by marine invertebrates found that the metal is less 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-106 

3.4 Invertebrates 

toxic when dissolved in water (Brix et al., 2012), and an investigation of metals in a nearshore area 

heavily influenced by industrial activities found that concentrations were substantially greater in the 

sediment than in the water column (Bazzi, 2014). The results of these studies suggest that suspensionfeeding invertebrates could be less susceptible to impacts than invertebrates that might consume metal 

particles directly from the sediment. 

3.4.3.6.1.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Training 

Activities 

Under Alternative 1, military expended materials from munitions associated with training activities that 

could potentially be ingested include non-explosive practice munitions (small-caliber) and fragments 

from high-explosives. These items could be expended throughout most of the Study Area but would be 

concentrated in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Small caliber 

casings would also be expended in some inland waters locations, primarily in the James River and 

tributaries and Lower Chesapeake Bay. The number and locations of activities that expend potentially 

ingestible materials are provided in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact 

Analyses). A general discussion of the characteristics of ingestible materials is provided in Section 

3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors). 

It is possible but unlikely that invertebrates would ingest intact munitions. Deposit- and detritus-feeding 

invertebrates could potentially ingest munitions fragments that have degraded to sediment size, and 

dissolved metals may be taken up by suspension feeders. Impacts on individuals are unlikely, and 

impacts on populations would probably not be detectable. 

The Navy will implement mitigation (e.g., not conducting gunnery activities within a specified distance of 

shallow-water coral reefs) to avoid potential impacts from military expended materials on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor 

Resources). This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on invertebrates that feed on 

shallow-water coral reefs. 

All ESA-listed coral species occur in the Key West Range Complex. Military expended materials used in 

the Key West Range Complex consist of small- and medium-caliber non-explosive projectiles and a small 

number of missiles. The only potential impact to ESA-listed corals would be associated with ingestion of 

metal particles that are suspended in the water column or that may have been consumed by 

zooplankton on which the corals feed. With the exception of mine neutralization and countermeasures 

training, materials are primarily expended far from shore. Most weapons firing takes place in offshore 

waters away from shallow-water corals. The potential for corals to ingest degraded metal particles is 

considered remote. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials that are munitions 

during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral 

species. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Testing 

Activities 

Under Alternative 1, military expended materials from munitions associated with testing activities that 

could potentially be ingested include non-explosive practice munitions (small-caliber) and fragments 

from high-explosives. These items could be expended throughout most of the Study Area but would be 

concentrated in the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes. The number and locations of 

activities that expend potentially ingestible materials are provided in Appendix F (Military Expended 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-107 

3.4 Invertebrates 

Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses). A general discussion of the characteristic of ingestible 

materials in provided in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors). 

It is possible but unlikely that invertebrates would ingest intact munitions. Deposit- and detritus-feeding 

invertebrates could potentially ingest munitions fragments that have degraded to sediment size, and 

dissolved metals may be taken up by suspension feeders. Impacts on individuals are unlikely, and 

impacts on populations would probably not be detectable. 

The Navy will implement mitigation (e.g., not conducting gunnery activities within a specified distance of 

shallow-water coral reefs) to avoid potential impacts from military expended materials on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor 

Resources). This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on invertebrates that feed on 

shallow-water coral reefs. 

All ESA-listed coral species occur in the Key West Range Complex and South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range. Military expended materials used in the Key West Range Complex would consist 

of small- and medium-caliber non-explosive projectiles, in addition to high-explosive items (torpedoes, 

explosive sonobuoys, large-caliber projectiles). A very small number of explosive projectiles would be 

used in the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range. As discussed for training activities, 

the only potential ingestion impact to ESA-listed corals would be associated with ingestion of metal 

particles that are suspended in the water column or that may have been consumed by zooplankton on 

which the corals feed. Materials are primarily expended far from shore. Most weapons firing takes place 

in offshore waters away from shallow-water corals. The potential for corals to ingest degraded metal 

particles is considered remote. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials that are 

munitions during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed 

coral species. 

3.4.3.6.1.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Training 

Activities 

The types and locations of expended military munitions used would be the same under Alternatives 1 

and 2. Refer to Section 3.4.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under 

Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential ingestion impacts resulting from expended military munitions 

associated with training activities. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under 

Alternative 1), pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials that are munitions during 

training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Testing 

Activities 

The locations and types of expended military munitions would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

There would be an increase in the number of fragments resulting from high explosives under Alternative 

2, primarily associated with about 6,000 additional large projectiles expended in the Virginia Capes 

Range Complex. However, this increase would not be expected to result in substantive changes to the 

potential for or types of impacts on invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military 

Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential ingestion impacts 

resulting from expended military munitions associated with testing activities. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-108 

3.4 Invertebrates 

As discussed in Section3.4.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under 

Alternative 1), pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials that are munitions during 

testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species. 

3.4.3.6.1.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under the No Action 

Alternative 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under the No Action Alternative for 

Training and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various ingestion stressors (e.g., military expended materials - 

munitions) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the 

existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.4.3.6.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions 

Military expended materials other than munitions include a large number of items such as aerial 

countermeasures, targets (surface and aerial), mine shapes, ship hulk, small decelerators/parachutes, 

acoustic countermeasures, sonobuoys, and other various materials including torpedo accessories, 

concrete slugs, markers, bathythermographs, and endcaps and pistons. Some expended materials are 

recovered, including torpedoes, unmanned aerial systems, some targets, mine shapes, metal plates, and 

bottom placed instruments. Most expendable items, such as targets and target fragments, would sink to 

the bottom, while materials such as Styrofoam or degraded plastic particles could persist at the surface 

or in the water column for some time. Ingestion is not likely for most military expended materials 

because they are too large to be consumed by most marine invertebrates. Though ingestion of intact 

items on the bottom is conceivable in some circumstances (e.g., a relatively large invertebrate such as 

an octopus or lobster ingesting a small target fragment), such a scenario is unlikely due to the animal’s 

ability to discriminate between food and non-food items. Similarly, it is unlikely that an invertebrate at 

the surface or in the water column would ingest a relatively large expended item as it floats or sinks 

through the water column. 

Degradation of plastic materials could result in microplastic particles being released into the marine 

environment over time. Eventually, deposit-feeding, detritus-feeding, and filter-feeding invertebrates 

could ingest these particles, and there is potential for some of the particles to be transferred up trophic 

levels. Ingestion of plastic particles may result in negative physical and chemical effects to invertebrates. 

Invertebrates outside the Study Area could encounter microplastic particles if plastic items drift with 

ocean currents. Currently, overall population-level effects across a broad range of invertebrate species 

are uncertain (Kaposi et al., 2014). Navy training and testing activities would result in a small amount of 

plastic particles introduced to the marine environment compared to other sources, as many military 

expended materials are not composed of plastic. Non-military items are associated with the vast 

majority of marine debris by volume and ingestion potential (Kershaw et al., 2011). 

Marine invertebrates may occasionally encounter chaff fibers in the marine environment and 

incidentally ingest chaff when they ingest prey or water. Literature reviews and controlled experiments 

suggest that chaff poses little environmental risk to marine organisms at concentrations that could 

reasonably occur from military training and testing (Arfsten et al., 2002; Spargo et al., 1999). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-109 

3.4 Invertebrates 

3.4.3.6.2.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under 

Alternative 1 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1 for 

Training Activities 

Under Alternative 1, a variety of potentially ingestible military expended materials would be released to 

the marine environment by Navy training activities, including target fragments, chaff, canisters, and flare 

casings. These items could be expended throughout the Study Area, including all range complexes, other 

AFTT areas, and inland waters. A comparatively low number of items would be expended in most inland 

waters, although a relatively large quantity of items (primarily flares, o-rings, and compression pads) 

would occur in the James River and tributaries. The number and locations of activities that expend 

potentially ingestible materials are provided in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct 

Strike Impact Analyses). A general discussion of the characteristics of ingestible materials is provided in 

Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors). 

Most invertebrates would not be able to ingest most intact expended items. Ingestion would be limited 

to small items such as chaff, and fragments of larger items such as targets. Deposit- and detritus-feeding 

invertebrates could potentially ingest small items that have degraded to sediment size, and suspended 

metals may be taken up by suspension feeders. In addition, small plastic pieces may be consumed by a 

wide variety of invertebrates with diverse feeding methods in the water column or on the bottom 

(detritivores, planktivores, deposit-feeders, filter-feeders, and suspension-feeders). Adverse effects due 

to metal pieces on the bottom or in the water column are unlikely. Microplastic particles could affect 

individuals. Although the potential effects on invertebrate populations due to microplastic ingestion are 

currently uncertain, Navy activities would result in a small amount of plastic particles introduced to the 

marine environment compared to other sources. Overall, impacts on invertebrate populations due to 

military expended materials other than munitions would probably not be detectable. 

All ESA-listed coral species occur in the Key West Range Complex. Military expended materials used in 

the Key West Range Complex consist of chaff, flares, endcaps, pistons, targets, and large 

decelerators/parachutes. Whereas sinking materials would become unavailable to corals, floating 

materials (e.g., flare compression pads) would degrade over time and release suspended particles in the 

water column. Materials are primarily expended far from shore where shallow-water corals are not 

encountered, and it is unlikely that coral polyps or larvae would be impacted by ingestion of small 

fragments of expended items in the water column. There is potential for corals to ingest very small 

particles of degraded plastic items suspended in the water column. However, no information is currently 

available that indicates adverse effects to coral health resulting from plastic ingestion. The vast majority 

of plastic waste in the ocean originates from non-military sources. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of 

military expended materials other than munitions during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral species. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1 for 

Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 1, a variety of potentially ingestible military expended materials would be released to 

the marine environment by Navy testing activities, including target fragments, chaff, concrete slugs, 

sabots, and various other items. These items could be expended throughout most of the Study Area. 

However, expended materials other than munitions would not occur in inland waters during testing 

activities. The number and locations of activities that expend potentially ingestible materials are 

provided in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses). A general 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-110 

3.4 Invertebrates 

discussion of the characteristics of ingestible materials is provided in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion 

Stressors). 

Most invertebrates would not be able to ingest most intact expended items. Ingestion would be limited 

to small items such as chaff, and fragments of larger items. Deposit- and detritus-feeding invertebrates 

could potentially ingest small items that have degraded to sediment size, and suspended metals may be 

taken up by suspension feeders. Small plastic pieces may be consumed by invertebrates with a wide 

diversity of feeding methods in the water column or on the bottom. In addition, products resulting from 

the breakdown of biodegradable polymer would be introduced to the water column. The types of 

invertebrates that could ingest these particles would vary as the material degrades into smaller particles 

with increasing amount of time in the water. Adverse effects due to metal pieces on the bottom or in 

the water column are unlikely. Microplastic particles could affect individuals. Although the potential 

effects on invertebrate populations due to microplastic ingestion are currently uncertain, Navy activities 

would result in a small amount of plastic particles introduced to the marine environment compared to 

other sources. Overall, impacts on invertebrate populations due to military expended materials other 

than munitions would probably not be detectable. 

All ESA-listed coral species occur in the Key West Range Complex and South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range. Chaff, targets, mine shapes, and other items would be expended in these areas. 

Whereas sinking materials would become unavailable to corals, floating materials would degrade over 

time and release suspended particles in the water column. Materials are primarily expended far from 

shore where shallow-water corals are not encountered, and it is unlikely that coral polyps or larvae 

would be impacted by ingestion of small fragments of expended items in the water column. There is 

potential for corals to ingest very small particles of degraded plastic items suspended in the water 

column. However, no information is currently available that indicates adverse effects to coral health 

resulting from plastic ingestion. The vast majority of plastic waste in the ocean originates from nonmilitary sources. Pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions 

during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral 

species. 

3.4.3.6.2.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under 

Alternative 2 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2 for 

Training Activities 

Under Alternative 2, the locations and types of military expended materials used would be the same as 

those of Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, there would be an increase in the number of some items 

expended, such as targets, sonobuoys, bathythermograph equipment, and small decelerators or 

parachutes. This relatively small increase in the total number of items expended would not be expected 

to result in substantive changes to the type or degree of impacts to invertebrates. Refer to Section 

3.4.3.6.2.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1) for a 

discussion of potential ingestion impacts resulting from military expended materials other than 

munitions associated with training activities. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.6.2.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions 

Under Alternative 1), pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions 

during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral 

species. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-111 

3.4 Invertebrates 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2 for 

Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 2, the locations and types of military expended materials used would be the same as 

those of Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, there would be a slight increase in the number of some 

items expended, such as sonobuoys, mines, and small decelerators/parachutes. This small increase in 

the total number of items expended would not be expected to result in substantive changes to the type 

or degree of impacts to invertebrates. Refer to Section 3.4.3.6.2.1 for a discussion of potential ingestion 

impacts resulting from military expended materials other than munitions associated with testing 

activities. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions 

Under Alternative 1), pursuant to the ESA, the use of military expended materials other than munitions 

during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no effect on ESA-listed coral 

species. 

3.4.3.6.2.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under the No 

Action Alternative 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under the No Action 

Alternative for Training and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various ingestion stressors (e.g., military expended materials other 

than munitions) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions 

of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.4.3.7 Secondary Stressors 

This section analyzes potential impacts on marine invertebrates exposed to stressors indirectly through 

impacts on their habitat (sediment or water quality) or prey. Sediments and water are also primary 

constituents of marine invertebrate habitat, and clear distinctions between direct habitat impacts and 

indirect impacts to individual invertebrates are difficult to maintain. The assessment of potential water 

and sediment quality stressors refers to previous sections (Section 3.2, Sediments and Water Quality), 

and addresses specific activities in local environments that may affect invertebrate habitats. The terms 

“indirect” and “secondary” do not imply reduced severity of environmental consequences, but instead

describe how the impact may occur in an organism or its ecosystem. Stressors from Navy training and 

testing activities that could pose indirect impacts to marine invertebrates via habitat or prey include: 

(1) explosives, (2) explosives byproducts and unexploded munitions, (3) metals, and (4) chemicals. 

Secondary or indirect stressors may impact benthic and pelagic invertebrates, gametes, eggs, and larvae 

by changes to sediment and water quality. Physical and biological features of ESA-listed elkhorn and 

staghorn coral critical habitat are defined in Section 3.4.2.2.1.2 (Habitat and Geographic Range). These 

characteristics can be summarized as any hard substrate of suitable quality and availability to support 

settlement, recruitment, and attachment at depths from mean low water to 30 m. Physical or biological 

features were not formally defined for these species. Exemptions from critical habitat designations 

include a small zone around Naval Air Station Key West, and a small area within the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range (Section 3.4.2.2.1.1, Status and Management). However, exemption 

does not preclude analysis of ESA-listed coral species. Impacts to hard substrate would not result from 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-112 

3.4 Invertebrates 

the introduction of metal, plastic, or chemical substances into the water column. Potential impacts are 

associated with physical effects such as breakage or covering of hard surfaces. 

Explosives 

Secondary impacts to invertebrates resulting from explosions at the surface, in the water column, or on 

the bottom would be associated with changes to habitat structure and effects to prey species. Most 

explosions on the bottom would occur in soft bottom habitat and would displace some amount of 

sediment, potentially resulting in cratering. However, water movement would redistribute the affected 

sediment over time. A small amount of sediment would be suspended in the water column temporarily 

(turbidity), but would resettle to the bottom. There would be no overall reduction in the surface area or 

volume of sediment available to benthic species that occur on the bottom or within the substrate. 

Activities that inadvertently result in explosions on or near hard bottom habitat or reefs could break 

hard structures and reduce the amount of colonizing surface available to encrusting organisms (e.g., 

corals, sponges). 

Explosions in the water column or on the bottom could impact invertebrate prey species. At least some 

species of most invertebrate taxa prey upon other invertebrate species, with prey items ranging in size 

from zooplankton to relatively large shrimps and crabs. Therefore, in a strict sense, mortality to most 

invertebrate species resulting from an explosion may represent a reduction in prey to other invertebrate 

species. A few invertebrates such as squid and some jellyfish prey upon fish, although jellyfish capture 

fish passively rather than through active pursuit. Therefore, fish mortality resulting from an explosion 

would reduce the number of potential prey items for invertebrates that consume fish. In addition to 

mortality, fish located near a detonation would likely be startled and leave the area, temporarily 

reducing prey availability until the affected area is repopulated. 

Many types of invertebrates (e.g., worms, crustaceans, sea stars) are scavengers that would feed on any 

vertebrate or invertebrate animal that is killed or significantly impaired by an explosion. Therefore, 

scavenging invertebrates that are not killed or injured themselves could benefit from physical impacts to 

other animals resulting from explosions in the water column or on the bottom. 

Explosives Byproducts and Unexploded Munitions 

High-order explosions consume most of the explosive material, leaving only small or residual amounts of 

explosives and combustion products. Many combustion products are common seawater constituents. 

All combustion products are rapidly diluted by ocean currents and circulation (see Section 3.2.3.1, 

Explosives and Explosives Byproducts). Explosives byproducts from high-order detonations present no 

indirect stressors to marine invertebrates through sediment or water. Low-order detonations and 

unexploded munitions present an elevated potential for effects on marine invertebrates. Deposition of 

undetonated explosive materials into the marine environment can be reasonably estimated by the 

known failure and low-order detonation rates of high-explosives (Section 3.2.3.1, Explosives and 

Explosives Byproducts). Explosive materials not completely consumed during a detonation from 

munitions disposal and mine clearing training are collected after the activities are completed; therefore, 

potential impacts are likely inconsequential and not detectable for these activities. 

Exposure to various explosive materials in sediments and in the water column water may result in lethal 

and sub-lethal effects to invertebrates at relatively high concentrations. The type and magnitude of 

effects appear to be different among various invertebrate species and are also influenced by the type of 

explosive material and physical characteristics of the affected water and sediment. For example, lethal 

toxicity has been reported in some invertebrate species (e.g., the amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius), 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-113 

3.4 Invertebrates 

while mortality has not been found in other species, even when exposed to very high concentrations 

(e.g., the polychaete worm Neanthes arenaceodentata) (Rosen & Lotufo, 2005). Exposure to waterborne explosive materials has been found to affect reproduction or larval development in bivalve, sea 

urchin, and polychaete worm species (Lotufo et al., 2013). Invertebrates on the bottom may be exposed 

to explosive materials by ingesting contaminated sediment particles, in addition to being exposed to 

materials in the overlying water column or in voids in the sediment (for burrowing invertebrates). 

However, toxicity and other sub-lethal effects have often been associated with exposure levels 

(explosive material concentrations) that are unlikely to occur in marine or estuarine waters of the Study 

Area. 

Indirect impacts of explosives and unexploded munitions on marine invertebrates via sediment are 

possible near the munitions. Rosen and Lotufo (2010) exposed mussels and deposit-feeding amphipods 

and polychaete worms to levels of trinitrotoluene (i.e., TNT) and royal demolition explosive potentially 

associated with a breached munition or low-order detonation. The authors found concentrations in the 

sediment above toxicity levels within about an inch of the materials, although no statistical increase in 

mortality was observed for any species. No toxicity occurred in the water column. Explosive material in 

the marine environment is readily degraded via several biotic and abiotic pathways, as discussed in 

Section 3.2.3.1 (Explosives and Explosives Byproducts). The results of studies of explosive material 

deposition at munitions disposal sites and active military water ranges suggest that explosives and 

explosives residues pose little risk to fauna living in direct contact with munitions, and that sediment is 

not a significant sink for these materials (Kelley et al., 2016; Koide et al., 2016; Smith & Marx, 2016). 

Munitions constituents and degradation products would likely only be detectable only within a few feet 

of a degrading munition, and the range of toxicity could be less (inches). It has been suggested that 

toxicity risk to invertebrates in realistic exposure scenarios is negligible (Lotufo et al., 2013). Indirect 

impacts of explosives and unexploded munitions on marine invertebrates via water are likely to be 

inconsequential and not detectable. Most explosives and explosive degradation products have relatively 

low solubility in seawater. This means that dissolution occurs extremely slowly, and harmful 

concentrations of explosives and degradation products are not likely to accumulate except within 

confined spaces. Also, the low concentration of materials delivered slowly into the water column is 

readily diluted by ocean currents and would be unlikely to concentrate in toxic levels. Filter feeders such 

as sponges or some marine worms in the immediate vicinity of degrading explosives may be more 

susceptible to chemical byproducts. While marine invertebrates may be adversely impacted by the 

indirect effects of degrading explosives via water, this is unlikely in realistic scenarios. 

Impacts on marine invertebrates, including zooplankton, eggs, and larvae, are likely only within a very 

small radius of the munition (potentially inches). These impacts may continue as the munition degrades 

over decades (Section 3.2.3.1, Explosives and Explosives Byproducts). Because most munitions are 

deployed as projectiles, multiple unexploded or low-order detonations would not likely accumulate on 

spatial scales as small as feet to inches; therefore, potential impacts are likely to remain local and widely 

separated. Explosives, explosives byproducts, and unexploded munitions would therefore generally not 

be present in these habitats. 

Metals 

Certain metals and metal-containing compounds are harmful to marine invertebrates at various 

concentrations above background levels (e.g., cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc, copper, 

manganese, and many others) (Chan et al., 2012; Negri et al., 2002; Wang & Rainbow, 2008). For 

example, physiological effects in crabs, limpets, and mussels due to copper exposure were reported 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-114 

3.4 Invertebrates 

(Brown et al., 2004), although the effects were found at concentrations substantially higher than those 

likely to be encountered due to Navy expended materials. Metals are introduced into seawater and 

sediments as a result of training and testing activities involving vessel hulks, targets, munitions, and 

other military expended materials (see Section 3.2.3.3, Metals). Some effects due to metals result from 

the concentrating effects of bioaccumulation, which is not discussed in this section. Bioaccumulation 

issues are discussed in the Ecosystem Technical Report for the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) 

Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2012). Secondary effects may occur 

when marine invertebrates are exposed by contact with the metal, contact with trace amounts in the 

sediment or water (e.g., from leached metals), and ingestion of contaminated sediments. Ingested 

metals are toxic at substantially lower effective concentrations than metals dissolved or suspended in 

the water (Brix et al., 2012). 

Because metals tend to precipitate out of seawater and often concentrate in sediments, potential 

adverse indirect impacts are much more likely via sediment than water (Zhao et al., 2012). Despite the 

acute toxicity of some metals (e.g., hexavalent chromium or tributyltin), concentrations above sediment 

levels generally considered to correlate with biological effects are rarely encountered even in previous 

Navy training areas such as Vieques, Puerto Rico, where deposition of metals from Navy activities is very 

high (Section 3.2.3.3, Metals). Researchers sampled areas associated with Vieques in which live 

ammunition and weapons were used and found generally low concentrations of metals in the sediment 

(Pait et al., 2010). Comparison with guidelines suggested by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s National Status and Trends Program showed that average metal concentrations were 

below threshold effects levels for all constituents except copper, and were below probable effects levels 

for all constituents. The concentration of munitions at Vieques is substantially greater than would occur 

in the AFTT Study Area. Evidence from a number of studies indicates metal contamination is very 

localized (Briggs et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 2016; Koide et al., 2016). Impacts to invertebrates, eggs, or 

larvae would likely be limited to exposure in the sediment within a few inches of the object. 

Concentrations of metals in sea water are orders of magnitude lower than concentrations in marine 

sediments. Marine invertebrates probably would not be indirectly impacted by Navy-derived toxic 

metals via the water, or via sediment near the object (e.g., within a few inches) because such impacts 

would be local and widely separated. Concentrations of metals in water are not likely to be high enough 

to cause injury or mortality to marine invertebrates. Metals may accumulate in marine vegetation and 

phytoplankton (Bilgrami & Kumar, 1997; Karthick et al., 2012). High concentrations could affect the 

health of these organisms and result in decreased availability as an invertebrate food source. However, 

due to the low concentration of metals likely to occur in the water column or in sediments resulting 

from Navy activities, effects would likely be undetectable.

Chemicals 

Several Navy training and testing activities introduce potentially harmful chemicals into the marine 

environment, primarily propellants and combustion products, other fuels, polychlorinated biphenyls, 

other chemicals associated with munitions, and simulants (Section 3.2.3.2, Chemicals Other Than 

Explosives). Ammonium perchlorate (a rocket and missile propellant) is the most common chemical 

used. Perchlorate is known to occur naturally in nitrate salts, such as from Chile, and it may be formed 

by atmospheric processes such as lightning and reactions between ozone and sodium chloride in the air 

(associated with evaporated seawater) (Dasgupta et al., 2005; Sijimol & Mohan, 2014; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2014). Perchlorate may impact metabolic processes in plants and 

animals. Effects have been found in earthworms and aquatic (freshwater) insects (Smith, 2002; 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-115 

3.4 Invertebrates 

Srinivasan & Viraraghavan, 2009), although effects specific to marine invertebrates are unknown. Other 

chemicals with potential for adverse effects to invertebrates include some propellant combustion 

products such as hydrogen cyanide and ammonia. 

Potential impacts to sediments and seawater resulting from use of chemicals are discussed in Section 

3.2.3.2 (Chemicals Other Than Explosives). Rockets and missiles are highly efficient at consuming 

perchlorate and other propellants (over 99.9 percent of perchlorate is typically consumed). Additionally, 

perchlorate does not readily absorb into sediments, potentially reducing the risk to deposit- and 

detritus-feeding invertebrates. Overall, analysis concludes that impacts to sediments and water quality 

would be minimal for several reasons. The size of the area affected is large, and chemicals would 

therefore not be concentrated. Most propellant combustion byproducts are benign, and those of 

concern (e.g., hydrogen cyanide) would be quickly diluted. Most propellants are consumed during 

normal operations, and the failure rate of munitions using propellants and other combustible materials 

is low. Most byproducts of torpedo fuel occur naturally in seawater, and most torpedoes are recovered 

after use. In addition, most constituents are readily degraded by biotic and abiotic processes. 

Concentrations of chemicals in sediment and water are not likely to cause injury or mortality to marine 

invertebrates, gametes, eggs, or larvae. 

3.4.3.7.1 Impacts on Habitat 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.7 (Secondary Stressors), impacts on invertebrate habitat resulting from 

explosives, explosives byproducts, unexploded munitions, metals, and chemicals would be minor overall 

and the possibility of population-level impacts on marine invertebrates is remote. Explosions would 

temporarily disturb soft bottom sediments and could potentially damage hard structures, but the effects 

would likely be undetectable at the population or subpopulation level. Individuals could be killed, 

injured, or experience physiological effects due to exposure to metals and chemical materials (including 

explosives materials) in the water column or on the bottom, but these effects would be very localized. 

The number of individuals affected would be small compared to overall population numbers. 

Deposition of metal materials would provide new hard substrate that could be colonized by encrusting 

invertebrates (e.g., sponges, barnacles, hydrozoans, corals). The increased area of artificial hard habitat 

could therefore provide a benefit to some invertebrate species. However, invertebrate communities on 

artificial substrate may be different than those found in adjacent natural substrate. 

Explosions would not occur on known hard bottom areas. Therefore, impacts to habitat potentially 

supporting ESA-listed corals would be limited to activities that are inadvertently conducted on or near 

unknown habitat areas. Any impacts to hard structure could reduce the amount of adequate substrate 

available to ESA-listed corals. Hard substrate is considered an essential physical feature of elkhorn coral 

and staghorn coral critical habitat. Due to the possibility of inadvertent impacts to hard structure, 

explosions may affect ESA-listed coral species and critical habitat. The Navy will consult with the NMFS, 

as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.4.3.7.2 Impacts on Prey Availability 

As discussed in Section 3.4.3.7 (Secondary Stressors), impacts on invertebrate prey availability resulting 

from explosives, explosives byproducts, unexploded munitions, metals, and chemicals would likely be 

negligible overall and population-level impacts on marine invertebrates are not expected. Because 

individuals of many invertebrate taxa prey on other invertebrates, mortality resulting from explosions or 

exposure to metals or chemical materials would reduce the number of invertebrate prey items available. 

A few species prey upon fish, and explosions and exposure to metals and chemical materials could result 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-116 

3.4 Invertebrates 

in a minor reduction in the number of fish available. However, as discussed in Section 3.6.3.7 (Secondary 

Stressors), explosive materials, metals, and chemicals would have a negligible effect on fishes. 

Therefore, secondary effects to invertebrates due to reduced fish prey availability are unlikely. Any 

vertebrate or invertebrate animal killed or significantly impaired by Navy activities could potentially 

represent an increase in food availability for scavenging invertebrates. None of the effects described 

above would likely be detectable at the population or subpopulation level. 

Pursuant to the ESA, potential effects to prey availability would have no effect on ESA-listed coral 

species. 

3.4.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON INVERTEBRATES

3.4.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 

As described in Section 3.0.3.5 (Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Multiple Stressors), this section 

evaluates the potential for combined impacts of all stressors from the proposed action. The analysis and 

conclusions for the potential impacts from each of the individual stressors are discussed in the sections 

above. Stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities do not typically occur in isolation 

but rather occur in some combination. For example, mine neutralization activities include elements of 

acoustic, physical disturbance and strike, entanglement, ingestion, and secondary stressors that are all 

coincident in space and time. An analysis of the combined impacts of all stressors considers the 

potential consequences of additive stressors and synergistic stressors, as described below. This analysis 

makes the assumption that the majority of exposures to stressors are non-lethal, and instead focuses on 

consequences potentially impacting the organism’s fitness (e.g., physiology, behavior, reproductive 

potential). 

There are generally two ways that a marine invertebrate could be exposed to multiple additive 

stressors. The first would be if an invertebrate were exposed to multiple sources of stress from a single 

event or activity within a single testing or training event (e.g., a mine warfare event may include the use 

of a sound source and a vessel). The potential for a combination of these impacts from a single activity 

would depend on the range to effects of each of the stressors and the response or lack of response to 

that stressor. Most of the activities proposed under Alternative 1 generally involve the use of moving 

platforms (e.g., ships, torpedoes) that may produce one or more stressors; therefore, if an invertebrate 

were within the potential impact range of those activities, it may be impacted by multiple stressors 

simultaneously. Individual stressors that would otherwise have minimal to no impact, may combine to 

have a measurable response. However, due to the wide dispersion of stressors, speed of the platforms, 

and general dynamic movement of many training and testing activities, it is unlikely that a pelagic or 

mobile marine invertebrate would occur in the potential impact range of multiple sources or sequential 

exercises. Impacts would be more likely to occur to sessile and slow-moving species, and in areas where 

training and testing activities are concentrated (e.g., in the vicinity of Naval Stations Norfolk and 

Mayport, the gunnery box in the Jacksonville Range Complex, the Undersea Warfare Training Range, and 

the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division and Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, 

Newport Testing Ranges). 

Secondly, an invertebrate could be exposed to multiple training and testing activities over the course of 

its life. It is unlikely that mobile or migratory marine invertebrates that occur within the water column 

would be exposed to multiple activities during their lifespan because they are relatively short-lived, and 

most Navy training and testing activities impact small, widely-dispersed areas, often during the day 

when many pelagic invertebrates have migrated away from the surface. It is much more likely that 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-117 

3.4 Invertebrates 

stationary organisms or those that only move over a small range (e.g., corals, sponges, worms, and sea 

urchins) would be exposed to multiple stressors for a prolonged duration. A few activities occur at a 

fixed point (e.g., port security training, pierside sonar testing), and could potentially affect the same 

sessile or sedentary individual invertebrates. However, due to invertebrate distribution and lifespan, few 

individuals compared to overall population size would likely be affected repeatedly by the same 

stressor, and the impacts would be mostly non-lethal. Other Navy activities may occur in the same 

general area (e.g., gunnery activities), but do not occur at the same specific point each time and would 

therefore be unlikely to affect the same individual invertebrates. 

Multiple stressors may also have synergistic effects. For example, although it has been suggested that 

military activities contribute substantially to coral decline, global impacts are driven primarily by 

synergistic impacts of pollution, overfishing, climate change, sedimentation, and naturally occurring 

stressors such as predator outbreaks and storms, among other factors (Ban et al., 2014; Muthukrishnan 

& Fong, 2014). As discussed in the analyses above, marine invertebrates are not particularly susceptible 

to energy, entanglement, or ingestion stressors resulting from Navy activities; therefore, the potential 

for Navy stressors to result in additive or synergistic consequences is most likely limited to acoustic, 

physical strike and disturbance, and secondary stressors. The potential synergistic interactions of 

multiple stressors resulting from Navy activities are largely speculative, and without data on the specific 

combination of multiple stressors, impacts are difficult to predict in any meaningful way. Even for 

shallow-water corals, an exceptionally well-studied resource, predictions of the consequences of 

multiple stressors are semi-quantitative and generalized predictions remain qualitative (Hughes & 

Connell, 1999; Norström et al., 2009). 

Although potential impacts on marine invertebrate species from training and testing activities under 

Alternative 1 may include injury and mortality, in addition to other effects such as physiological stress, 

masking, and behavioral effects, the impacts are not expected to lead to long-term consequences for 

invertebrate populations or subpopulations. The number of invertebrates impacted is expected to be 

small relative to overall population sizes, and would not be expected to yield any lasting effects on the 

survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of any invertebrate species. The potential impacts 

anticipated on ESA-listed species from Alternative 1 are summarized in Section 3.4.5 (Endangered 

Species Act Determinations). For a discussion of cumulative impacts, see Chapter 4 (Cumulative 

Impacts). For a discussion of mitigation, see Chapter 5 (Mitigation).

3.4.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 

Training and testing activities proposed under Alternative 2 would represent an increase over what is 

proposed for Alternative 1. However, this increase is not expected to substantially increase the potential 

for impacts over what is analyzed for Alternative 1. The analysis presented in Section 3.4.4.1 (Combined 

Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1) would similarly apply to Alternative 2. The combined 

impacts of all stressors for training and testing activities under Alternative 2 are not expected to have 

deleterious impacts on the fitness of any individuals or long-term consequences to populations of 

marine invertebrates. 

3.4.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the AFTT Study Area. All stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-118 

3.4 Invertebrates 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing 

activities. 

3.4.5 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT DETERMINATIONS

As described in the subsections above, some Navy training and testing activities may affect ESA-listed 

coral species and may affect designated elkhorn coral and staghorn coral critical habitat. The Navy will 

consult with NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. The outcome of those 

consultations pursuant to ESA will be described in the Final AFTT EIS/OEIS.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-119 

3.4 References 

References 

Aggio, J. F., R. Tieu, A. Wei, & C. D. Derby. (2012). Oesophageal chemoreceptors of blue crabs, 

Callinectes sapidus, sense chemical deterrents and can block ingestion of food. The Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 215(10), 1700–1710. 

Aguilar, A. (2009). Fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 433–437). Amsterdam, Netherlands: 

Academic Press. 

Aguilar de Soto, N., N. Delorme, J. Atkins, S. Howard, J. Williams, & M. Johnson. (2013). Anthropogenic 

noise causes body malformations and delays development in marine larvae. Scientific Reports, 

3(2831). 

André, M., M. Solé, M. Lenoir, M. Durfort, C. Quero, A. Mas, A. Lombarte, M. van der Schaar, M. LopezBejar, M. Morell, S. Zaugg, & L. Houégnigan. (2011). Low-frequency sounds induce acoustic 

trauma in cephalopods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 

Andriguetto-Filho, J. M., A. Ostrensky, M. R. Pie, U. A. Silva, & W. A. Boeger. (2005). Evaluating the 

impact of seismic prospecting on artisinal shrimp fisheries. Continental Shelf Research, 25, 1720–

1727. 

Aplin, J. A. (1947). The effect of explosives on marine life. California Fish and Game, 33, 23–30. 

Appeltans, W., P. Bouchet, G. A. Boxshall, K. Fauchald, D. P. Gordon, B. W. Hoeksema, G. C. B. Poore, R. 

W. M. van Soest, S. Stöhr, T. C. Walter, & M. J. Costello. (2010). World Register of Marine 

Species. 

Arfsten, D., C. Wilson, & B. Spargo. (2002). Radio Frequency Chaff: The Effects of Its Use in Training on 

the Environment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 53, 1–11. 

Arifin, L., A. Bakti, A. Virgota, L. P. A. Damayanti, T. H. U. Radiman, A. Retnowulan, Hernawati, A. Sabil, & 

D. Robbe. (2012). Biorock Reef Restoration in Gili Trawangan, North Lombok, Indonesia. In T. J. 

Goreau & R. K. T. Trench (Eds.), Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration (pp. 59–

80). CRC Press. 

Aronson, R., A. Bruckner, J. Moore, B. Precht, & E. Weil. (2008a). Acropora palmata. International Union 

for Conservation of Nature 2009. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of 

Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/133006/0 

Aronson, R., A. Bruckner, J. Moore, B. Precht, & E. Weil. (2008b). Mycetophyllia ferox, Rough Cactus 

Coral. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T133356A3705165. Retrieved from 

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T133356A3705165.en 

Aronson, R., A. Bruckner, J. Moore, B. Precht, & E. Weil. (2008c). Montastraea annularis. International 

Union for Conservation of Nature 2010. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List 

of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/133134/0 

Aronson, R., A. Bruckner, J. Moore, B. Precht, & E. Weil. (2008d). Mycetophyllia ferox. International 

Union for Conservation of Nature 2010. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List 

of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/133356/0 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-120 

3.4 References 

Aronson, R., A. Bruckner, J. Moore, B. Precht, & E. Weil. (2008e). Acropora cervicornis. International 

Union for Conservation of Nature 2009. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List 

of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/133381/0 

Ateweberhan, M., & T. R. McClanahan. (2010). Relationship between historical sea-surface temperature 

variability and climate change-induced coral mortality in the western Indian Ocean. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 60(7), 964–970. 

Ateweberhan, M., D. A. Feary, S. Keshavmurthy, A. Chen, M. H. Schleyer, & C. R. C. Sheppard. (2013). 

Climate change impacts on coral reefs: Synergies with local effects, possibilities for acclimation, 

and management implications. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 

Au, W. W. L., & K. Banks. (1998). The acoustics of the snapping shrimp Synalpheus parneomeris in 

Kaneohe Bay. Journal of Acoustical Society of America,, 103(1), 7. 

Au, W. W. L., J. K. B. Ford, J. K. Horne, & K. A. N. Allman. (2004). Echolocation signals of free-ranging 

killer whales (Orcinus orca) and modeling of foraging for chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(2), 901–909. 

Bahr, K. D., P. L. Jokiel, & K. S. Rodgers. (2016). Relative sensitivity of five Hawaiian coral species to high 

temperature under high-pCO2 conditions. Coral Reefs. 

Ban, S. S., N. A. J. Graham, & S. R. Connolly. (2014). Evidence for multiple stressor interactions and 

effects on coral reefs. Global Change Biology, 20, 681–697. 

Bazzi, A. O. (2014). Heavy metals in seawater, sediments and marine organisms in the Gulf of Chabahar, 

Oman Sea. Journal of Oceanography and Marine Science, 5(3), 20–29. 

Bickel, S. L., J. D. Malloy Hammond, & K. W. Tang. (2011). Boat-generated turbulence as a potential 

source of mortality among copepods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 

401(1–2), 105–109. 

Bilgrami, K. S., & S. Kumar. (1997). Effects of copper, lead and zinc on phytoplankton growth. Biologia 

Plantarum, 39(2), 315–317. 

Bishop, M. J. (2008). Displacement of epifauna from seagrass blades by boat wake. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 354(1), 111–118. 

Boulon, R., M. Chiappone, R. Halley, W. Jaap, B. Keller, B. Kruczynski, M. Miller, & C. Rogers. (2005). 

Atlantic Acropora Status Review Document Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Southeast Regional Office. 

Brainard, R. E., C. Birkeland, C. M. Eakin, P. McElhany, M. W. Miller, M. Patterson, & G. A. Piniak. (2011). 

Status Review Report of 82 Candidate Coral Species Petitioned Under the U.S. Endangered 

Species Act (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-27). Honolulu, HI: National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. 

Brierley, A. S., P. G. Fernandes, M. A. Brandon, F. Armstrong, N. W. Millard, S. D. McPhail, P. Stevenson, 

M. Pebody, J. Perrett, M. Squires, D. G. Bone, & G. Griffiths. (2003). An investigation of 

avoidance by Antarctic krill of RRS James Clark Ross using the Autosub-2 autonomous 

underwater vehicle. Fisheries Research, 60, 569–576. 

Briggs, C., S. M. Shjegstad, J. A. K. Silva, & M. H. Edwards. (2016). Distribution of chemical warfare agent, 

energetics, and metals in sediments at a deep-water discarded military munitions site. Deep Sea 

Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 63–69. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-121 

3.4 References 

Brix, K., P. Gillette, A. Pourmand, T. Capo, & M. Grosell. (2012). The effects of dietary silver on larval 

growth in the echinoderm, Lytechinus variegatus. Archives of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology, Online, 1–6. 

Brooke, S., & W. W. Schroeder. (2007). State of the U.S. Deep Coral Ecosystems in the Northern Gulf of 

Mexico Region: Florida Straits to Texas. In S. E. Lumsden, T. F. Hourigan, A. W. Bruckner & G. 

Dorr (Eds.), The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States (Vol. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum CRCP-3, pp. 271–306). Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

Brown, R. J., T. S. Galloway, D. Lowe, M. A. Browne, A. Dissanayake, M. B. Jones, & M. H. Depledge. 

(2004). Differential sensitivity of three marine invertebrates to copper assessed using multiple 

biomarkers. Aquatic Toxicology, 66, 267–278. 

Browne, M. A., S. J. Niven, T. S. Galloway, S. J. Rowland, & R. C. Thompson. (2013). Microplastic Moves 

Pollutants and Additives to Worms, Reducing Functions Linked to Health and Biodiversity. 

Current Biology, 23, 2388–2392. 

Bruckner, A. W. (2003). Proceedings of the Caribbean Acropora Workshop: Potential Application of the 

U.S. Endangered Species Act as a Conservation Strategy. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. 

Brusca, R. C., & G. J. Brusca. (2003). Phylum Cnidaria Invertebrates (pp. 219–283). Sunderland, MA: 

Sinauer Associates, Inc. 

Bryan, T. L., & A. Metaxas. (2007). Predicting suitable habitat for deep-water gorgonian corals on the 

Atlantic and Pacific Continental Margins of North America. Marine Ecology Press Series, 330, 

113–126. 

Bryant, D., L. Burke, J. McManus, & M. Spalding. (1998). Reefs at Risk: A Map Based Indicator of Threats 

to the Word's Coral Reefs (pp. 56). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. 

Budelmann, B. U. (1992a). Hearing in nonarthropod invertebrates. In D. B. Webster, R. R. Fay & A. N. 

Popper (Eds.), Evolutionary Biology of Hearing (pp. 141–155). New York, NY: Springer Verlag. 

Budelmann, B. U. (1992b). Hearing by Crustacea. In D. B. Webster, R. R. Fay & A. N. Popper (Eds.), 

Evolutionary Biology of Hearing (pp. 131–139). New York, NY: Springer Verlag. 

Buhl-Mortensen, L., A. Vanreusel, A. J. Gooday, L. A. Levin, I. G. Priede, P. Buhl-Mortensen, H. 

Gheerardyn, N. J. King, & M. Raes. (2010). Biological structures as a source of habitat 

heterogeneity and biodiversity on the deep ocean margins. Marine Ecology, 31(1), 21–50. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. (2014). Investigations of Chemosynthetic Communities on the 

Lower Continental Slope of the Gulf of Mexico, Volume I: Final Report and Volume II: Appendix. 

Burke, L., & J. Maidens. (2004). Reefs at Risk in the Caribbean. Washington, DC: World Resources 

Institute. 

Burt, J., A. Bartholomew, P. Usseglio, A. Bauman, & P. F. Sale. (2009). Are artificial reefs surrogates of 

natural habitats for corals and fish in Dubai, United Arab Emirates? Coral Reefs, 28, 663–675. 

Buscaino, G., F. Filiciotto, M. Gristina, A. Bellante, G. Buffa, V. Di Stefano, V. Maccarrone, G. Tranchida, 

C. Buscaino, & S. Mazzola. (2011). Acoustic behavior of the European spiny lobster Palinurus 

elephas. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 441, 177–184. 

Cairns, S. D. (2007). Deep-Water Corals: An Overview with Special Reference to Diversity and 

Distribution of Deep-Water Scleractinian Corals. Bulletin of Marine Science, 81(3), 311–322. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-122 

3.4 References 

Cardona, Y., D. V. Ruiz-Ramos, I. B. Baums, & A. Bracco. (2016). Potential Connectivity of Coldwater Black 

Coral Communities in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. PLoS ONE, 11(5), 25. 

Caribbean Marine Biological Institute. (2011). Coral Spawning Dates 2011 and Observations from 2010. 

Retrieved from 

http://www.researchstationcarmabi.org/images/stories/file/Mark%20PDFs/SPAWNING%20PRE

DICTIONS%202011.pdf 

Castro, P., & M. E. Huber. (2000a). Marine prokaryotes, protists, fungi, and plants Marine Biology (3rd 

ed., pp. 83–103). McGraw-Hill. 

Castro, P., & M. E. Huber. (2000b). Marine animals without a backbone Marine Biology (3rd ed., pp. 

104–138). McGraw-Hill. 

Cato, D. H., & M. J. Bell. (1992). Ultrasonic Ambient Noise in Australian Shallow Waters at Frequencies up 

to 200 kHz. Ascot Vale, Victoria, Australia: Materials Research Laboratory. 

Causey, B., J. Delaney, E. Diaz, D. Dodge, J. Garcia, J. Higgins, B. Keller, R. Kelty, W. Jaap, C. Matos, G. 

Schmahl, C. Rogers, M. Miller, & D. Turgeon. (2002). Status of coral reefs in the U.S. Caribbean 

and Gulf of Mexico: Florida,Texas, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Navassa. In C. Wilkinson (Ed.), 

Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2002 (pp. 251–276). Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. 

Celi, M., F. Filiciotto, D. Parrinello, G. Buscaino, M. A. Damiano, A. Cuttitta, S. D'Angelo, S. Mazzola, & M. 

Vazzana. (2013). Physiological and agonistic behavioural response of Procambarus clarkii to an 

acoustic stimulus. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 216, 709–718. 

Celi, M., F. Filiciotto, M. Vazzana, V. Arizza, V. Maccarrone, M. Ceraulo, S. Mazzola, & G. Buscaino. 

(2015). Shipping noise affecting immune responses of European spiny lobster (Palinurus 

elephas). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 93, 113–121. 

Chan, A. A. Y. H., P. Giraldo-Perez, S. Smith, & D. T. Blumstein. (2010a). Anthropogenic noise affects risk 

assessment and attention: the distracted prey hypothesis. Biology Letters, 6(4), 458–461. 

Chan, A. A. Y. H., W. D. Stahlman, D. Garlick, C. D. Fast, D. T. Blumstein, & A. P. Blaisdell. (2010b). 

Increased amplitude and duration of acoustic stimuli enhance distraction. Animal Behaviour, 80, 

1075–1079. 

Chan, I., L. C. Tseng, S. Ka, C. F. Chang, & J. S. Hwang. (2012). An experimental study of the response of 

the Gorgonian Coral Subergorgia suberosa to polluted seawater from a former coastal mining 

site in Taiwan. Zoological Studies, 51(1), 27–37. 

Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. (1948). Effects of Underwater Explosions on Oysters, Crabs and Fish: a 

Preliminary Report. (Publication No. 70). Solomon Islands, MD. 

Cheung, W., J. Alder, V. Karpouzi, R. Watson, V. Lam, C. Day, K. Kaschner, & D. Pauly. (2005) Patterns of 

Species Richness in the High Seas. 

Chiarelli, R., & M. C. Roccheri. (2014). Marine Invertebrates as Bioindicators of Heavy Metal Pollution. 

Open Journal of Metal, 4, 93–106. 

Christian, J. R., A. Mathieu, D. H. Thomson, D. White, & R. A. Buchanan. (2003). Effect of seismic energy 

on snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio) (Environmental Research Funds Report). Calgary, Alberta. 

Chuenpagdee, R., L. E. Morgan, S. M. Maxwell, E. Norse, & D. Pauly. (2003). Shifting gears: assessing 

collateral impacts of fishing methods in U.S. waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 

1(10), 517–524. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-123 

3.4 References 

Clements, J. C., K. D. Woodard, & H. L. Hunt. (2016). Porewater acidification alters the burrowing 

behavior and post-settlement dispersal of juvenile soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria). Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 477, 103–111. 

Closek, C. J., S. Sunagawa, M. K. DeSalvo, Y. M. Piceno, T. Z. DeSantis, E. L. Brodie, M. X. Weber, C. R. 

Voolstra, G. L. Anderson, & M. Medina. (2014). Coral transcriptome and bacterial community 

profiles reveal distinct Yellow Band Disease states in Orbicella faveolata. The ISME Journal, 8, 

2411–2422. 

Cohen, A. L., D. C. McCorkle, S. de Putron, G. A. Gaetani, & K. A. Rose. (2009). Morphological and 

compositional changes in the skeletons of new coral recruits reared in acidified seawater: 

Insights into the biomineralization response to ocean acidification. Geochemistry Geophysics 

Geosystems, 10(7), 1–12. 

Cole, M., P. Lindeque, E. Fileman, C. Halsband, R. Goodhead, J. Moger, & T. S. Galloway. (2013). 

Microplastic Ingestion by Zooplankton. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(12), 6646–

6655. 

Colella, M., R. Ruzicka, J. Kidney, J. Morrison, & V. Brinkhuis. (2012). Cold-water event of January 2010 

results in catastrophic benthic mortality on patch reefs in the Florida Keys. Coral Reefs, 1–12. 

Colin, P. L., & A. C. Arneson. (1995a). Sponges: Phylum Porifera Tropical Pacific Invertebrates: A Field 

Guide to the Marine Invertebrates Occurring on Tropical Pacific Coral Reefs, Seagrass Beds and 

Mangroves (pp. 17–62). Beverly Hills, CA: Coral Reef Press. 

Colin, P. L., & A. C. Arneson. (1995b). Molluscs: Phylum Mollusca Tropical Pacific Invertebrates: A Field 

Guide to the Marine Invertebrates Occurring on Tropical Pacific Coral Reefs, Seagrass Beds and 

Mangroves (pp. 157–200). Beverly Hills, CA: Coral Reef Press. 

Correa, D. D. (1961). Nemerteans From Florida And Virgin Islands. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf 

and Caribbean, 11(1), 1–44. 

Cortes N., J., & M. J. Risk. (1985). A reef under siltation stress: Cahuita, Costa Rica. Bulletin of Marine 

Science, 36(2), 339–356. 

Croquer, A., C. Bastidas, & D. Lipscomb. (2006). Folliculinid ciliates: a new threat to Caribbean corals? 

Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 69, 75–78. 

Dasgupta, P. K., P. K. Martinelango, W. A. Jackson, T. A. Anderson, K. Tian, R. W. Tock, & S. Rajagopalan. 

(2005). The Origin of Naturally Occurring Perchlorate: The Role of Atmospheric Processes. 

Environmental Science and Technology, 39(6), 1569–1575. 

Davis, G. E. (1982). A Century of Natural Change in Coral Distribution at the Dry Tortugas: A Comparison 

of Reef Maps from 1881 and 1976. Bulletin of Marine Science, 32(2), 608–623. 

Day, R. D., R. D. McCauley, Q. P. Fitzgibbon, & J. M. Semmens. (2016). Seismic air gun exposure during 

early-stage embryonic development does not negatively affect spiny lobster Jasus edwardsii

larvae (Decapoda:Palinuridae). Scientific Reports, 6(22723), 9. 

De Zoysa, M. (2012). Medicinal Benefits of Marine Invertebrates: Sources for Discovering Natural Drug 

Candidates. Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, 65, 153–169. 

DeMartini, E. E., & J. E. Smith. (2015). Effects of fishing on the fishes and habitat of coral reefs In C. Mora 

(Ed.), Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Dineen, J. (2010). Indian River Lagoon Species Inventory: Tidal Flat Habitats. Retrieved from 

http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Tidal_Flats.htm 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-124 

3.4 References 

Downs, C. A., E. Kramarsky-Winter, C. M. Woodley, A. Downs, G. Winters, Y. Loya, & G. K. Ostrander. 

(2009). Cellular pathology and histopathology of hypo-salinity exposure on the coral Stylophora 

pistillata. Science of the Total Environment, 407(17), 4838–4851. 

Dubinsky, Z., & I. Berman-Frank. (2001). Uncoupling primary production from population growth in 

photosynthesizing organisms in aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic Sciences, 63, 4–17. 

Dustan, P., & J. C. Halas. (1987). Changes in the reef-coral community of Carysfort reef, Key Largo, 

Florida: 1974 to 1982. Coral Reefs, 6(2), 91–106. 

Eakin, C. M., G. Liu, A. M. Gomez, J. L. De La Cour, S. F. Heron, W. J. Skirving, E. F. Geiger, K. V. Tirak, & A. 

E. Strong. (2016). Global Coral Bleaching 2014–2017. Reef Encounter, 31, 20–26. 

Eastern Oyster Biological Review Team. (2007). Status review of the eastern oyster (Crassostrea 

virginica) (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/SPO-88). 

Edmonds, N. J., C. J. Firmin, D. Goldsmith, R. C. Faulkner, & D. T. Wood. (2016). A review of crustacean 

sensitivity to high amplitude underwater noise: Data needs for effective risk assessment in 

relation to UK commercial species. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 108, 5–11. 

Edmunds, P. J., & R. Elahi. (2007). The demographics of a 15-year decline in cover of the Caribbean reef 

coral Montastraea annularis. Ecological Monographs, 77(1), 3–18. 

Encyclopedia of Life. (2017). Nemertea: Ribbon Worms. Retrieved from 

http://eol.org/pages/2855/details 

Erftemeijer, P. L. A., B. Riegl, B. W. Hoeksema, & P. A. Todd. (2012). Environmental impacts of dredging 

and other sediment disturbances on corals: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64, 1737–1765. 

Etnoyer, P. J. (2010). Deep-sea Corals on Seamounts. Oceanography, 23(1), 128–129. 

Etnoyer, P. J., L. N. Wickes, M. Silva, J. D. Dubick, L. Balthis, E. Salgado, & I. R. MacDonald. (2016). Decline 

in condition of gorgonian octocorals on mesophotic reefs in the northern Gulf of Mexico: before 

and after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Coral Reefs, 35, 77–90. 

Fautin, D., P. Dalton, L. S. Incze, J. Leong, C. Pautzke, A. Rosenberg, P. Sandifer, G. Sedberry, J. W. 

Tunnell, I. Abbott, R. E. Brainard, M. Brodeur, L. E. Eldredge, M. Feldman, F. Moretzsohn, P. S. 

Vroom, M. Wainstein, & N. Wolff. (2010). An Overview of Marine Biodiversity in United States 

Waters. PLoS ONE, 5(8). 

Fewtrell, J. L., & R. D. McCauley. (2012). Impact of air gun noise on the behaviour of marine fish and 

squid. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(5), 984–993. 

Filiciotto, F., M. Vazzana, M. Celi, V. Maccarrone, M. Ceraulo, G. Buffa, V. Di Stefano, S. Mazzola, & G. 

Buscaino. (2014). Behavioural and biochemical stress responses of Palinurus elephas after 

exposure to boat noise pollution in tank. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 84(1–2), 104–114. 

Filiciotto, F., M. Vazzana, M. Celi, V. Maccarrone, M. Ceraulo, G. Buffa, V. Arizza, G. de Vincenzi, R. 

Grammauta, S. Mazzola, & G. Buscaino. (2016). Underwater noise from boats: Measurement of 

its influence on the behaviour and biochemistry of the common prawn (Palaemon serratus, 

Pennant 1777). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 478, 24–33. 

Fisher, C., H. Roberts, E. Cordes, & B. Bernard. (2007). Cold Seeps and Associated Communities of the 

Gulf of Mexico. Oceanography, 20(4), 118–129. 

Florida Museum of Natural History. (2016). Life In Seagrasses. Retrieved from 

https://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/southflorida/habitats/seagrasses/life/ 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-125 

3.4 References 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2005). Fishery Country Profile: United States 

of America. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/fcp/en/FI_CP_US.pdf 

Fossette, S., A. C. Gleiss, J. Chalumeau, T. Bastian, C. D. Armstrong, S. Vandenabeele, M. Karpytchev, & 

G. C. Hays. (2015). Current-Oriented Swimming by Jellyfish and Its Role in Bloom Maintenance. 

Current Biology, 25, 342–347. 

Foster, N. L., C. B. Paris, J. T. Kool, I. B. Baums, J. R. Stevens, J. A. Sanchez, C. Bastidas, C. Agudelo, P. 

Bush, O. Day, R. Ferrari, P. Gonzalez, S. Gore, R. Guppy, M. A. McCartney, C. McCoy, J. Mendes, 

A. Srinivasan, S. Steiner, M. J. A. Vermeij, E. Weil, & P. J. Mumby. (2012). Connectivity of 

Caribbean coral populations: complementary insights from empirical and modelled gene flow. 

Mol Ecol. 

Foster, T., & J. P. Gilmour. (2016). Seeing red: Coral larvae are attracted to healthy-looking reefs. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 559, 65–71. 

Fox, H. E., & R. L. Caldwell. (2006). Recovery from Blast Fishing on Coral Reefs: A Tale of Two Scales. 

Ecological Applications, 16(5), 1631–1635. 

Freiwald, A., J. H. Fosså, A. Grehan, T. Koslow, & J. M. Roberts. (2004). Cold-water Coral Reefs: Out of 

Sight—No Longer Out of Mind. Cambridge, UK: United Nations Environmental Program World 

Conservation Monitoring Center. 

Fujii, T. (2012). Climate Change, Sea-level Rise, and Implications for Coastal and Estuarine Shoreline 

Mamagement with Particular Reference to the Ecology of Intertidal Benthic Macrofauna in NW 

Europe. Biology, 1, 597–616. 

Galloway, S. B., A. W. Bruckner, & C. M. E. Woodley. (2009). Coral Health and Disease in the Pacific: 

Vision for Action. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Gaspin, J. B., M. L. Wiley, & G. B. Peters. (1976). Experimental Investigations of the Effects of Underwater 

Explosions on Swimbladder Fish, II: 1975 Chesapeake Bay Tests. Silver Spring, MD: White Oak 

Laboratory. 

Gil-Agudelo, D. L., G. W. Smith, & E. Weil. (2006). The white band disease type II pathogen in Puerto 

Rico. Revista De Biologia Tropical, 54 (Supplement 3), 59–67. 

Gilliam, D. S., & B. K. Walker. (2011). Benthic Habitat Characterization for the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility (SFOMF) - Protected Stony Coral Species Assessment 

Ginsburg, R. N., & E. A. Shinn. (1964). Distribution of the reef building community in Florida and The 

Bahamas. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 48, 527. 

Gochfeld, D. J. (2004). Predation-induced morphological and behavioral defenses in a hard coral: 

Implications for foraging behavior of coral-feeding butterflyfishes. Marine Ecology-Progress 

Series, 267, 145–158. 

Goldstein, M. C., & D. S. Goodwin. (2013). Gooseneck barnacles (Lepas spp.) ingest microplastic debris in 

the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. PeerJ 1:e184. 

Goodall, C., C. Chapman, & D. Neil. (1990). The Acoustic Response Threshold of the Norway Lobster, 

Nephrops norvegicus (L.), in a Free Sound Field. In K. Weise, W. D. Krenz, J. Tautz, H. Reichert & 

B. Mulloney (Eds.), Frontiers in Crustacean Neurobiology (pp. 106–113). Basel, Boston, Berlin: 

Birkhauser Verlag. 

Goreau, T. F. (1959). The ecology of Jamaican coral reefs I. Species composition and zonation. Ecology, 

40(1), 67–90. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-126 

3.4 References 

Goreau, T. F., & J. W. Wells. (1967). The shallow-water scleractinia of Jamaica: Revised list of species and 

their vertical distribution range. Bulletin of Marine Science, 17(2), 442–453. 

Goreau, T. J. (2014). Electrical Stimulation Greatly Increases Settlement, Growth, Survival, and Stress 

Resistance of Marine Organisms. Natural Resources, 5, 527–537. 

Goulet, T. L., K. P. Shirur, B. D. Ramsby, & R. Iglesias-Prieto. (2017). The effects of elevated seawater 

temperatures on Caribbean gorgonian corals and their algal symbionts, Symbiodinium spp. PLoS 

ONE, 12(2), 21. 

Griscom, S. B., & N. S. Fisher. (2004). Bioavailability of Sediment-bound Metals to Marine Bivalve 

Molluscs: An Overview. Estuaries, 27(5), 826–838. 

Grizzle, R. E., J. R. Adams, & L. J. Walters. (2002). Historical Changes in Intertidal Oyster (Crassostrea 

virginica) Reefs in a Florida Lagoon Potentially Related to Boating Activities. Journal of Shellfish 

Research, 21(2), 749–756. 

Grober-Dunsmore, R., V. Bonito, & T. K. Frazer. (2006). Potential inhibitors to recovery of Acropora 

palmata populations in St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 321, 123–

132. 

Guerra, A., A. F. Gonzalez, F. Rocha, J. Gracia, & M. Vecchione. (2004). Calamares gigantes varados. 

Investigacion y Ciencia, 35–37. 

Guerra, A., & A. F. Gonzales. (2006). Severe injuries in the giant squid, Architeuthis dux, stranded after 

seismic explorations. International Workshop: Impacts of seismic survey activities on whales and 

other marine biota, 32–36. 

Guest, J., M. Heyward, M. Omori, K. Iwao, A. Morse, & C. Boch. (2010). Rearing coral larvae for reef 

rehabilitation. In A. J. Edwards (Ed.), Reef Rehabilitation Manual (pp. 73–98). St. Lucia, Australia: 

The Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management Program. 

Guest, J. R., J. Low, K. Tun, B. Wilson, C. Ng, D. Raingeard, K. E. Ulstrup, J. T. I. Tanzil, P. A. Todd, T. C. Toh, 

D. McDougald, L. M. Chou, & P. D. Steinberg. (2016). Coral community response to bleaching on 

a highly disturbed reef. Scientific Reports, 6(20717). 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. (2015). Species Listed in the Fishery Management Plans of 

the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Revised July 21, 2015. 

Hall, N. M., K. L. E. Berry, L. Rintoul, & M. O. Hoogenboom. (2015). Microplastic ingestion by 

scleractinian corals. Marine Biology, 162, 725–732. 

Halpern, B. S., S. Walbridge, K. A. Selkoe, C. V. Kappel, F. Micheli, C. D'Agrosa, J. F. Bruno, K. S. Casey, C. 

Ebert, H. E. Fox, R. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H. S. Lenihan, E. M. P. Madin, M. T. Perry, E. R. Selig, M. 

Spalding, R. Steneck, & R. Watson. (2008). A global map of human impact on marine 

ecosystems. Science, 319, 948–952. 

Harter, S. L., M. M. Ribera, A. N. Shepard, & J. K. Reed. (2009). Assessment of fish populations and 

habitat on Oculina Bank, a deep-sea coral marine protected area off eastern Florida. Fishery 

Bulletin, 107(2), 195–206. 

Harvell, C. D., C. E. Mitchell, J. R. Ward, S. Altizer, A. P. Dobson, R. S. Ostfeld, & M. D. Samuel. (2002). 

Climate Warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota. Science, 296, 2158–2162. 

Hawkins, A. D., A. E. Pembroke, & A. N. Popper. (2015). Information gaps in understanding the effects of 

noise on fishes and invertebrates. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 25, 39–64. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-127 

3.4 References 

Hayward, B. W., T. Cedhagen, M. Kaminski, & O. Gross. (2016). World Foraminifera Database. Retrieved 

from http://www.marinespecies.org/foraminifera/ 

Heberholz, J., & B. Schmitz. (2001). Signaling via water currents in behavioral interactions of snapping 

shrimp (Alpheus heterochaelis). Biological Bulletin, 201, 6–16. 

Henninger, H. P., & W. H. Watson, III. (2005). Mechanisms underlying the production of carapace 

vibrations and associated waterborne sounds in the American lobster, Homarus americanus. The 

Journal of Experimental Biology, 208, 3421–3429. 

Heron, S., J. Morgan, M. Eakin, & W. Skirving. (2008). Hurricanes and Their Effects on Coral Reefs. 

Chapter 3. In: Wilkinson, C., Souter, D. (2008). Status of Caribbean coral reefs after bleaching and 

hurricanes in 2005. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, and Reef and Rainforest Research 

Centre, Townsville, 152 p. 

Heyward, A. J., & A. P. Negri. (2012). Turbulence, Cleavage, and the Naked Embryo: A Case for Coral 

Clones. Science, 335, 1064. 

Hoadley, K. D., D. T. Pettay, A. G. Grottoli, W.-J. Cai, T. F. Melman, V. Schoepf, X. Hu, Q. Li, H. Xu, Y. 

Wang, Y. Matsui, J. H. Baumann, & M. E. Warner. (2015). Physiological response to elevated 

temperature and pCO2 varies across four Pacific coral species: Understanding the unique 

host+symbiont response. Scientific Reports, 5:18371, 1–15. 

Hoover, J. P. (1998a). Echinoderms: Phylum Echinodermata Hawai'i's Sea Creatures: A Guide to Hawai'i's 

Marine Invertebrates (pp. 290–335). Honolulu, HI: Mutual Publishing. 

Hoover, J. P. (1998b). Bryozoans: Phylum Byrozoa (or Ectoprocta) Hawai'i's Sea Creatures: A Guide to 

Hawai'i's Marine Invertebrates (pp. 87–91). Honolulu, HI: Mutual Publishing. 

Hoover, J. P. (1998c). Hawaii's Sea Creatures A Guide to Hawaii's Marine Invertebrates. Korea: Mutual 

Publishing. 

Horton, T. (2016, September 8, 2016). Stealth reefs and the Navy's big guns, Suffolk News-Herald. 

Hu, M. Y., H. Y. Yan, W. S. Chung, J. C. Shiao, & P. P. Hwang. (2009). Acoustically evoked potentials in two 

cephalopods inferred using the auditory brainstem response (ABR) approach. Comparative 

Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A, 153, 278–283. 

Hughes, A. R., D. A. Mann, & D. L. Kimbro. (2014). Predatory fish sounds can alter crab foraging behavior 

and influence bivalve abundance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 281(20140715). 

Hughes, T. P., & J. H. Connell. (1999). Multiple stressors on coral reefs: A long-term perspective. 

Limnology and Oceanography, 44(3, part 2), 932–940. 

Hughes, T. P., A. H. Baird, D. R. Bellwood, M. Card, S. R. Connolly, C. Folke, R. Grosberg, O. HoeghGuldberg, J. B. C. Jackson, J. Kleypas, J. M. Lough, P. Marshall, M. Nystrom, S. R. Palumbi, J. M. 

Pandolfi, B. Rosen, & J. Roughgarden. (2003). Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience 

of coral reefs. Science, 301, 929–933. 

Hunt, B., & A. C. J. Vincent. (2006). Scale and sustainability of marine bioprospecting for 

pharmaceuticals. Ambio, 35(2), 57–64. 

Jaap, W. C. (1984). The ecology of the South Florida coral reefs: A community profile (Southwest Florida 

Shelf Coastal Ecological Characterization ). Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Jaap, W. C., J. C. Halas, & R. G. Muller. (1988). Community dynamics of stony corals (Millerporina and 

Scleractinia) at Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, Florida during 1981-1986 (Proceedings of 

the 6th International Coral Reef Symposium). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-128 

3.4 References 

Jaap, W. C., J. W. Porter, J. L. Wheaton, C. Beaver, K. E. Hackett, M. J. Lybolt, M. K. Callahan, J. Kidney, S. 

Kupfner, C. Torres, & K. Sutherland. (2002). Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project 

(CREMP), 2002 Executive Summary. Florida Marine Research Institute. 

Jackson, J. B. C., M. X. Kirby, W. H. Berger, K. A. Bjorndal, L. W. Botsford, B. J. Bourque, R. H. Bradbury, R. 

Cooke, J. M. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, T. P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C. B. Lange, H. S. Lenihan, J. M. 

Pandolfi, C. H. Peterson, R. S. Steneck, M. J. Tegner, & R. R. Warner. (2001). Historical 

overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, 293. 

Jackson, J. B. C., M. K. Donovan, K. L. Cramer, & V. V. Lam. (2014). Status and Trends of Caribbean Coral 

Reefs: 1970–2012. Gland, Switzerland: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, International 

Union for the COnservation of Nature. 

Jeffs, A., N. Tolimieri, & J. C. Montgomery. (2003). Crabs on cue for the coast: The use of underwater 

sound for orientation by pelagic crab stages. Marine Freshwater Resources, 54, 841–845. 

Jennings, S., & M. J. Kaiser. (1998). The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. In J. H. S. Blaxter, A. J. 

Southward & P. A. Tyler (Eds.), Advances in Marine Biology (Vol. 34, pp. 201–352). Academic 

Press. 

Jompa, J., Suharto, E. M. Anpusyahnur, P. N. Dwjja, J. Subagio, I. Alimin, R. Anwar, S. Syamsuddin, T. 

Heni, U. Radiman, H. Triyono, R. A. Sue, & N. Soeyasa. (2012). Electrically Stimulated Corals in 

Indonesia Reef Restoration Projects Show Greatly Accelerated Growth Rates. In T. J. Goreau & R. 

K. T. Trench (Eds.), Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration (pp. 47–58). Boca 

Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

Jumars, P. A., K. M. Dorgan, & S. M. Lindsay. (2014). Diet of Worms Emended: An Update of Polychaete 

Feeding Guilds. Annual Review of Marine Science, 7, 497–520. 

Kaifu, K., T. Akamatsu, & S. Segawa. (2008). Underwater sound detection by cephalopod statocyst. 

Fisheries Science, 74, 781–786. 

Kaiser, M. J., J. S. Collie, S. J. Hall, S. Jennings, & I. R. Poiner. (2002). Modification of marine habitats by 

trawling activities: Prognosis and solutions. Fish and Fisheries, 3(2), 114–136. 

Kaplan, M. B., & T. A. Mooney. (2016). Coral reef soundscapes may not be detectable far from the reef. 

Scientific Reports, 6(31862), 1–10. 

Kaposi, K. L., B. Mos, B. P. Kelaher, & S. A. Dworjanyn. (2014). Ingestion of Microplastic Has Limited 

Impact on a Marine Larvae. Environmental Science and Technology, 48, 1638–1645. 

Karleskint, G., Jr. , R. Turner, & J. W. Small, Jr. (2006). Introduction to Marine Biology (2nd ed.). Belmont, 

CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. 

Karlsson, S., & A. C. Albertsson. (1998). Biodegradable Polymers and Environmental Interaction. Polymer 

Engineering and Science, 38(8), 1251–1253. 

Karthick, P., R. S. Sankar, T. Kaviarasan, & R. Mohanraju. (2012). Ecological implications of trace metals in 

seaweeds: Bio-indication potential for metal contamination in Wandoor, South Andaman Island. 

Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research, 38, 227–231. 

Kelley, C., G. Carton, M. Tomlinson, & A. Gleason. (2016). Analysis of towed camera images to determine 

the effects of disposed mustard-filled bombs on the deep water benthic community off south 

Oahu. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-129 

3.4 References 

Kershaw, P., S. Katsuhiko, S. Lee, J. Samseth, & D. Woodring. (2011). Plastic Debris in the Ocean. In T. 

Goverse & S. Bech (Eds.), United Nations Environment Programme Yearbook 2011: Emerging 

Issues in our Global Environment. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme. 

Kirstein, I. V., S. Kirmizi, A. Wichels, A. Garin-Fernandez, R. Erler, M. Loder, & G. Gerdts. (2016). 

Dangerous hitchhikers? Evidence for potentially pathogenic Vibrio spp. on microplastic particles. 

Marine Environmental Research, 120, 1–8. 

Koehl, M. A. R., J. R. Koseff, J. P. Crimaldi, M. G. McCay, T. Cooper, M. B. Wiley, & P. A. Moore. (2001). 

Lobster Sniffing: Antennule Design and Hydrodynamic Filtering of Information in an Odor Plume. 

Science, 294, 1948–1951. 

Koenig, C. C., A. N. Shepard, J. K. Reed, F. C. Coleman, S. D. Brooke, J. Brusher, & K. M. Scanlon. (2005). 

Habitat and Fish Populations in the Deep-Sea Oculina Coral Ecosystem of the Western Atlantic. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium, 41, 795–805. 

Koide, S., J. A. K. Silva, V. Dupra, & M. Edwards. (2016). Bioaccumulation of chemical warfare agents, 

energetic materials, and metals in deep-sea shrimp from discarded military munitions sites off 

Pearl Harbor. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 53–62. 

Kunc, H. P., G. N. Lyons, J. D. Sigwart, K. E. McLaughlin, & J. D. R. Houghton. (2014). Anthropogenic Noise 

Affects Behavior across Sensory Modalities. The American Naturalist, 184(4). 

Kunc, H. P., K. E. McLaughlin, & R. Schmidt. (2016). Aquatic noise pollution: implications for individuals, 

populations, and ecosystems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 283(20160839). 

Lagardère, J. P. (1982). Effects of noise on growth and reproduction of Crangon crangon in rearing tanks. 

Marine Biology, 71, 177–185. 

Latha, G., S. Senthilvadivu, R. Venkatesan, & V. Rajendran. (2005). Sound of shallow and deep water 

lobsters: Measurements, analysis, and characterization (L). The Journal of Acoustical Society of 

America, 117, 2720–2723. 

Leite, L., D. Campbell, L. Versiani, J. Anchieta, C. C. Nunes, & T. Thiele. (2016). First report of a dead giant 

squid (Architeuthis dux) from an operating seismic vessel. Marine Biodiversity Records, 9(26), 1–

3. 

Levinton, J. S. (2009). Marine Biology: Function, Biodiversity, Ecology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press. 

Lillis, A., D. B. Eggleston, & D. R. Bohnenstiehl. (2013). Oyster Larvae Settle in Response to HabitatAssociated Underwater Sounds. PLoS ONE, 8(10), 1–10. 

Lillis, A., D. Bohnenstiehl, J. W. Peters, & D. Eggleston. (2016). Variation in habitat soundscape 

characteristics influences settlement of a reef-building coral. PeerJ, 4:e2557. 

Lindholm, J., M. Gleason, D. Kline, L. Clary, S. Rienecke, & M. Bell. (2013). Central Coast Trawl Impact 

and Recovery Study: 2009–2012 Final Report. A Report to the California Ocean Protection 

Council. 

Lirman, D. (2000). Fragmentation in the branching coral Acropora palmata (Lamarck): Growth, 

survivorship, and reproduction of colonies and fragments. Journal of Experimental Marine 

Biology and Ecology, 251, 41–57. 

Lirman, D., S. Schopmeyer, D. Manzello, L. J. Gramer, W. F. Precht, F. Muller-Karger, K. Banks, B. Barnes, 

E. Bartels, A. Bourque, J. Byrne, S. Donahue, J. Duquesnel, L. Fisher, D. Gilliam, J. Hendee, M. 

Johnson, K. Maxwell, E. McDevitt, J. Monty, D. Rueda, R. Ruzicka, & S. Thanner. (2011). Severe 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-130 

3.4 References 

2010 cold-water event caused unprecedented mortality to corals of the Florida reef tract and 

reversed previous survivorship patterns. PLoS ONE, 6(8). 

Lobel, L. K., & P. Lobel. (2000). Coral Reef Protection Implementation Plan. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Defense, U.S. Department of the Navy, U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. 

Lohmann, K. J., N. D. Pentcheff, G. A. Nevitt, G. D. Stetten, R. K. Zimmer-Faust, H. E. Jarrard, & L. C. Boles. 

(1995). Magnetic orientation of spiny lobsters in the ocean: Experiments with undersea coil 

systems. Journal of Experimental Biology, 198(10), 2041–2048. 

Lohmann, K. J., & C. M. F. Lohmann. (2006). Sea turtles, lobsters, and oceanic magnetic maps. Marine 

and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 39(1), 49–64. 

Lotufo, G. R., G. Rosen, W. Wild, & G. Carton. (2013). Summary Revire of the Aquatic Toxicology of 

Munitions Constituents. (ERDC/EL TR-13-8). 

Lough, J. M., & M. J. H. van Oppen. (2009). Coral Bleaching: Patterns, Processes, Causes and 

Consequences. In M. J. H. van Oppen & J. M. Lough (Eds.), Coral Bleaching (Vol. Ecological 

Studies 205). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. 

Love, M. S., M. M. Yoklavich, B. A. Black, & A. H. Andrews. (2007). Age of Black Coral (Antipathes 

dendrochristos) Colonies, with Notes on Associated Invertebrate Species. Bulletin of Marine 

Science, 80(2), 391–400. 

Love, M. S., M. M. Nishimoto, S. Clark, & A. S. Bull. (2016). Renewable Energy in situ Power Cable 

Observation. (OCS Study 2016-008). Camarillo, California. 

Lovell, J. M., M. M. Findlay, R. M. Moate, & H. Y. Yan. (2005). The hearing abilities of the prawn, 

Palaemon serratus. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A, 140, 89–100. 

Lovell, J. M., R. M. Moate, L. Christiansen, & M. M. Findlay. (2006). The relationship between body size 

and evoked potentials from the statocysts of the prawn, Palaemon serratus. Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 209, 2480–2485. 

Lumsden, S. E., T. F. Hourigan, A. W. Bruckner, & G. Dorr. (2007). The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of 

the United States: 2007. (NOAA Technical Memorandum CRCP-3). Silver Spring, MD: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Lunden, J. J., C. G. McNicholl, C. R. Sears, C. L. Morrison, & E. E. Cordes. (2014). Acute survivorship of the 

deep-sea coral Lophelia pertusa from the Gulf of Mexico under acidification, warming, and 

deoxygenation. Frontiers in Marine Science, 1(Article 79). 

Lutz, S. J., & R. N. Ginsburg. (2007). State of Deep Coral Ecosystems in the Caribbean Region: Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In S. E. Lumsden, T. F. Hourigan, A. W. Bruckner & G. Dorr (Eds.), The 

State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States (pp. 307–365). Silver Spring, MD: National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Mackie, G. O., & C. L. Singla. (2003). The capsular organ of Chelyosoma productum (Ascidiacea: 

Corellidae): A new tunicate hydrodynamic sense organ. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 61, 45–

58. 

Macpherson, E. (2002). Large-scale species-richness gradients in the Atlantic ocean. Proceeding of the 

Royal Society of Biology, 269(1501), 1715–1720. 

Macreadie, P. I., A. M. Fowler, & D. J. Booth. (2011). Rigs-to-reefs: Will the deep sea benefit from 

artificial habitat? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(8), 455–461. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-131 

3.4 References 

Mah, C. L., & D. B. Blake. (2012). Global diversity and phylogeny of the Asteroidea (Echinodermata). PLoS 

ONE, 7(4), e35644–e35644. 

Maine Department of Marine Resources. (2010). Green sea urchins. Coastal Fishery Research Priorities.

Retrieved from http://www.maine.gov/dmr/research/sea_urchins.htm 

Marhaver, K. L., M. J. A. Vermeij, & M. M. Medina. (2015). Reproductive natural history and successful 

juvenile propagation of the threatened Caribbean Pillar Coral Dendrogyra cylindurs. BioMed 

Central Ecology, 15(9), 1–11. 

McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, A. J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M. N. Jenner, J. D. Penrose, R. I. T. Prince, A. Adhitya, 

J. Murdoch, & K. McCabe. (2000a). Marine seismic surveys—A study of environmental 

implications. Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Association Journal, 692–708. 

McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, A. J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M. N. Jenner, J. D. Penrose, R. I. T. Prince, A. Adhitya, 

J. Murdoch, & K. A. McCabe. (2000b). Marine Seismic Surveys: Analysis and Propagation of Airgun Signals; and Effects of Air-gun Exposure on Humpback Whales, Sea Turtles, Fishes and Squid. 

Western Australia: Centre for Marine Science and Technology. 

McDermott, J. J. (2001). Status of the Nemertea as prey in marine ecosystems. Hydrobiologia, 456(1), 7–

20. 

McMurray, S., J. Vicente, K. Jabanoski, & T. Lewis. (2012). Spawning of the basket star, Astrophyton 

muricatum, in the Bahamas. Coral Reefs, 1, 1. 

Mead, K. S., & M. W. Denny. (1995). The Effects of Hydrodynamic Shear Stress on Fertilization and Early 

Development of the Purple Sea Urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. The Biological Bulletin, 

188, 46–56. 

Mearns, A. J., D. J. Reish, P. S. Oshida, T. Ginn, & M. A. Rempel-Hester. (2011). Effects of Pollution on 

Marine Organisms. Water Environment Research, 83(10), 1789–1852. 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (2016). Draft Amendment 17 to the Atlantic Surfclam and 

Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan. 

Miller, K. J., A. A. Rowden, A. Williams, & V. Ha ̈ussermann. (2011). Out of Their Depth? Isolated Deep 

Populations of the Cosmopolitan Coral Desmophyllum dianthus May Be Highly Vulnerable to 

Environmental Change. PLoS ONE, 6(5). 

Miller, M., A. S. Bourque, & J. A. Bohnsack. (2002). An analysis of the loss of acroporid corals at Looe 

Key, Florida, U.S.A.: 1983–2000. Coral Reefs, 21(2), 179–182. 

Miloslavich, P., E. Klein, J. M. Díaz, C. E. Hernández, G. Bigatti, L. Campos, F. Artigas, J. Castillo, P. E. 

Penchaszadeh, P. E. Neill, A. Carranza, M. V. Retana, J. M. Díaz de Astarloa, M. Lewis, P. Yorio, 

M. L. Piriz, D. Rodríguez, Y. Yoneshigue-Valentin, L. Gamboa, & A. Martín. (2011). Marine 

Biodiversity in the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of South America: Knowledge and Gaps. PLoS ONE, 

6(1), e14631. 

Mintz, J. D., & R. J. Filadelfo. (2011). Exposure of Marine Mammals to Broadband Radiated Noise

(Specific Authority N0001-4-05-D-0500). 

Monaco, M. E., J. Waddell, A. Clarke, C. Caldow, C. F. G. Jeffrey, & S. Pittman. (2008). Status of the coral 

reef ecosystem in the U.S. Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico: Florida, Flower Garden Baks, Puerto 

Rico, Navassa and USVI In C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2008 (pp. 225–

238). Townsville, Australia: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest 

Research Centre. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-132 

3.4 References 

Montgomery, J. C., A. Jeffs, S. D. Simpson, M. Meekan, & C. Tindle. (2006). Sound as an orientation cue 

for the pelagic larvae of reef fishes and decapod crustaceans. Adv Mar Biol, 51, 143–196. 

Mooney, T. A., R. T. Hanlon, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, P. T. Madsen, D. R. Ketten, & P. E. Nachtigall. 

(2010). Sound detection by the longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) studied with auditory evoked 

potentials: Sensitivity to low-frequency particle motion and not pressure. Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 213, 3748–3759. 

Mora, C., D. P. Tittensor, S. Adl, A. G. B. Simpson, & B. Worm. (2011). How Many Species Are There on 

Earth and in the Ocean? PLoS Biol, 9(8). 

Morgan, L. E., & R. Chuenpagdee. (2003). Shifting Gears Addressing the Collateral Impacts of Fishing 

Methods in U.S. Waters PEW Science Series on Conservation and the Environment (pp. 52). 

Morris, K. J., P. A. Tyler, D. G. Masson, V. I. A. Huvenne, & A. D. Rogers. (2013). Distribution of cold-water 

corals in the Whittard Canyon, NE Atlantic Ocean. Deep-Sea Research II, 92, 136–144. 

Murillo, F. J., P. Durán Muñoz, A. Altuna, & A. Serrano. (2011). Distribution of deep-water corals of the 

Flemish Cap, Flemish Pass, and the Grand Banks of Newfoundland (Northwest Atlantic Ocean): 

Interaction with fishing activities. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68(2), 319–332. 

Muthukrishnan, R., & P. Fong. (2014). Multiple anthropogenic stressors exert complex, interactive 

effects on a coral reef community. Coral Reefs, 33, 911–921. 

Myberg, A. A. (2001). The acoustical biology of elasmobranchs. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 60, 31–

45. 

Nakamachi, T., H. Ishida, & N. Hirohashi. (2015). Sound Production in the Aquatic Isopod Cymodoce 

japonica (Crustacea: Peracarida). The Biological Bulletin, 229(2), 167–172. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010). Elkhorn Coral (Acropora palmata). National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Office of Protected Species, Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/elkhorn.htm. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2012). Ecosystem Status Report for the Northeast Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem–2011. (Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 12-07). Woods Hole, 

MA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Ecosystem Assessment Program. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2014). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Listing 

Determinations on Proposal to List 66 Reef-Building Coral Species and To Reclassify Elkhorn and 

Staghorn Corals. Federal Register, 50(223), 53852. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015). Recovery Plan. Elkhorn Coral (Acropora palmata) and 

Staghorn Coral (A. cervicornis). St. Petersburg, FL: Southeast Regional Office. 

National Ocean Service. (2016a, Swptember 2, 2016). Where Are Reef Building Corals Found. Retrieved 

from http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_corals/coral05_distribution.html 

National Ocean Service. (2016b, March 17, 2016). What is coral bleaching? , Retrieved from 

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral_bleach.html 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2008a, March 25, 2008). Corals: Anthropogenic 

Threats to Coral Reefs. Retrieved from 

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral09_humanthreats.html 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-133 

3.4 References 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2008b, March 25, 2008). Corals: Natural Threats to 

Coral Reefs. Retrieved from 

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral08_naturalthreats.html 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2010a). Ivory Tree Coral, Oculina varicosa. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2010b). Oil Spills in Coral Reefs. Planning & 

Response Considerations. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2010c). Implementation of the Deep Sea Coral 

Research and Technology Program 2008–2009. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA’s Coral Reef 

Conservation Program and National Marine Fisheries Service - Office of Habitat Conservation 

Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/2010_deepcoralreport.pdf. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2012a). Supplemental Information Report on Status 

Review Report and Draft Management Report for 82 Coral Candidate Species.: Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/11/docs/final_corals_spplmntl_info_reprt.pdf. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2012b). Management Report for 82 Corals Status 

Review under the Endangered Species Act: Existing Regulatory Mechanisms and Conservation 

Efforts. NOAA Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2012/05/docs/full_doc_corals_draft_mangmt_report.pdf. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2013, July 12, 2013). Okeanos Explorer. 

Chemosynthetic Communities and Gas Hydrates at Cold Seeps South of Nantucket. Retrieved 

from http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/explorations/ex1304/logs/july12/july12.html 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2015, 07/27/2015). Invertebrates and Plants. 

Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/ 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016a). Investigation of East Flower Garden Bank 

coral die-off continues amid new coral bleaching event. Retrieved from 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/news/sep16/investigation-of-coral-die-off-continues-amidbleaching-event.html 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016b). NOAA scientists report mass die-off of 

invertebrates at East Flower Garden Bank in Gulf of Mexico. Retrieved from 

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/news/jul16/noaa-scientists-report-mass-die-off-of-invertebratesat-east-flower-garden-bank.html 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016c, 02/23/2016). El Nino prolongs longest global 

coral bleaching event. Retrieved from http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/el-ni-o-prolongslongest-global-coral-bleaching-event 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, & National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 

(NCCOS). (2016, February 25, 2016). Deep-Sea Coral Ecosystems. Retrieved from 

https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/research/scem/coral/deep_coral 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, & NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program. (2016, 

June 6, 2016). Coral Facts. Retrieved from http://coralreef.noaa.gov/education/coralfacts.html 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. (2015, January 27, 2015). Invertebrates and 

Plants. Office of Proteced Resources. Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/ 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-134 

3.4 References 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service. (2008). Habitat Connections: Deep 

Sea Corals. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2014). Report on the 

Occurrence of Health Effects of Anthropogenic Debris Ingested by Marine Organisms. Silver 

Spring, MD. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ocean Explorer. (2010, August 25, 2010). Mission 

Plan–Windows to the Deep: Exploration of the Blake Ridge. Retrieved from 

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03windows/background/plan/plan.html 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ocean Explorer. (2012, August 26, 2012). Baltimore 

cold seeps re-discovered!! , Retrieved from 

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/12midatlantic/logs/aug26/aug26.html 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ocean Explorer. (2013, May 8, 2013). Discovery of a 

New Deep Chemosynthetic Community. Retrieved from 

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/13midatlantic/logs/may8/may8.html 

Nedelec, S. L., A. N. Radford, S. D. Simpson, B. Nedelec, D. Lecchini, & S. C. Mills. (2014). Anthropogenic 

noise playback impairs embryonic development and increases mortality in a marine 

invertebrate. Scientific Reports, 4(5891), 1–4. 

Negri, A. P., L. D. Smith, N. S. Webster, & A. J. Heyward. (2002). Understanding ship-grounding impacts 

on a coral reef: potential effects of anti-foulant paint contamination on coral recruitment. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44, 111–117. 

New England Fishery Management Council. (2010). Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery Management Plan. 

New England Fishery Management Council. (2013). Framework 24 to the Scallop Fishery Management 

Plan and Framework 49 to the Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. 

Norenburg, J. L. (2009). Nemertea of the Gulf of Mexico. In D. L. Felder & D. K. Camp (Eds.), Gulf of 

Mexico - Origins, Waters, and Biota (pp. 553–558). College Station, TX: Texas A&M University 

Press. 

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (2012). Effects of Noise on Fish, Fisheries, and Invertebrates in the U.S. 

Atlantic and Arctic from Energy Industry Sound-Generating Activities. Bedford, NH: United States 

Department of the Interior. 

Normandeau, E., T. Tricas, & A. Gill. (2011). Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on 

Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific Outer Continental 

Shelf Region. 

Norström, A. V., M. Nyström, J. Lokrantz, & C. Folke. (2009). Alternative states on coral reefs: Beyond 

coral-macroalgal phase shifts. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 376, 293–306. 

Nybakken, J. W. (1993). Marine Biology, an Ecological Approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins 

College Publishers. 

Ocean Conservancy. (2010). Trash Travels: From Our Hands to the Sea, Around the Globe, and Through 

Time (International Coastal Cleanup Report). Ocean conservancy. 

Packard, A., H. E. Karlsen, & O. Sand. (1990). Low frequency hearing in cephalopods. Journal of 

Comparative Physiology A, 166, 501–505. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-135 

3.4 References 

Packer, D. B., D. Boelke, V. Guida, & L.-A. McGee. (2007). State of Deep Coral Ecosystems in the 

Northeastern US Region: Maine to Cape Hatteras. In S. E. Lumsden, T. F. Hourigan, A. W. 

Bruckner & G. Dorr (Eds.), The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States (pp. 195–

232). Silver Spring, MD. 

Pait, A. S., A. L. Mason, D. R. Whitall, J. D. Christensen, & S. I. Hartwell. (2010). Chapter 5: Assessment of 

chemical contaminants in sediments and corals in Vieques (An ecological characterization of the 

marine resources of Vieques, Puerto Rico). Silver Spring, MD: NOAA MCCOS 110. 

Pandolfi, J. M., R. H. Bradbury, E. Sala, T. P. Hughes, K. A. Bjorndal, R. G. Cooke, D. McArdle, L. 

McClenachan, M. J. H. Newman, G. Paredes, R. R. Warner, & J. B. C. Jackson. (2003). Global 

trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science, 301, 955–958. 

Pandolfi, J. M., J. B. C. Jackson, N. Baron, R. H. Bradbury, H. M. Guzman, T. P. Hughes, C. V. Kappel, F. 

Micheli, J. C. Ogden, H. P. Possingham, & E. Sala. (2005). Are U.S. coral reefs on the slippery 

slope to slime? Science, 307(5716), 1725–1726. 

Parrish, F. A., & A. R. Baco. (2007). State of Deep Coral Ecosystems in the U.S. Pacific Islands Region: 

Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific Territories. In S. E. Lumsden, T. F. Hourigan, A. Bruckner & D. G. 

Wand (Eds.), The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States (Vol. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum CRCP-3, pp. 155–194). Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

Parry, G. D., & A. Gason. (2006). The effect of seismic surveys on catch rates of rock lobsters in western 

Victoria, Australia. Fisheries Research, 79, 272–284. 

Patek, S. N., & R. L. Caldwell. (2006). The stomatopod rumble: Low frequency sound production in 

Hemisquilla californiensis. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 39(2), 99–111. 

Patek, S. N., L. E. Shipp, & E. R. Staaterman. (2009). The acoustics and acoustic behavior of the California 

spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus). The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 125(5), 3434–

3443. 

Patterson, K. L., J. W. Porter, K. B. Ritchie, S. W. Polson, E. Mueller, E. C. Peters, D. L. Santavy, & G. J. 

Smith. (2002). The etiology of white pox, a lethal disease of the Caribbean elkhorn coral,

Acropora palmata. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(13), 8725–8730. 

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guenette, T. J. Pitcher, U. R. Sumaila, C. J. Walters, R. Watson, & D. Zeller. 

(2002). Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature, 418(6898), 689–695. 

Payne, J. F., C. A. Andrews, L. L. Fancey, A. L. Cook, & J. R. Christian. (2007). Pilot Study on the Effects of 

Seismic Air Gun Noise on Lobster (Homarus Americanus). 

Pearse, V., J. Pearse, M. Buchsbaum, & R. Buchsbaum. (1987). Living Invertebrates. Palo Alto, CA: 

Boxwood Press. 

Pearson, W. H., J. R. Skalski, S. D. Sulkin, & C. I. Malme. (1994). Effects of seismic energy releases on the 

survival and development of zoeal larvae of dungeness crab (Cancer magister). Marine 

Environment Research, 38, 93–113. 

Perea-Bla ́zquez, A., S. K. Davy, & J. J. Bell. (2012). Estimates of Particulate Organic Carbon Flowing from 

the Pelagic Environment to the Benthos through Sponge Assemblages. PLoS ONE, 7(1). 

Perkol-Finkel, S., N. Shashar, & Y. Benayahu. (2006). Can artificial reefs mimic natural reef communities? 

The roles of structural features and age. Marine Environmental Research, 61, 121–135. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-136 

3.4 References 

Pine, M. K., A. J. Jeffs, & C. A. Radford. (2016). Effects of Underwater Turbine Noise on Crab Larval 

Metamorphosis The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II, Advances in Experimental Medicine and 

Biology (Vol. 875, pp. 847–852). 

Polese, G., C. Bertapelle, & A. Cosmo. (2015). Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction. General 

and Comparative Endocrinology, 210, 55–62. 

Popper, A. N., M. Salmon, & K. W. Horch. (2001). Acoustic detection and communication by decapod 

crustaceans. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 187, 83–89. 

Porter, J. W., P. Dustan, W. C. Jaap, K. L. Patterson, V. Kosmynin, O. W. Meier, M. E. Patterson, & M. 

Parsons. (2001). Patterns of spread of coral disease in the Florida Keys. Hydrobiologia, 460, 1–

24. 

Posey, M., & T. Alphin. (2002). Resilience and Stability in an Offshore Benthic Community: Responses to 

Sediment Borrow Activities and Hurricane Disturbance. Journal of Coastal Research, 18(4), 685–

697. 

Precht, W. F., R. B. Aronson, & D. W. Swanson. (2001). Improving scientific decision-making in the 

restoration of ship-grounding sites on coral reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science, 69(2), 1001–1012. 

Precht, W. F., B. E. Gintert, M. L. Robbart, R. Fura, & R. Woesik. (2016). Unprecedented Disease-Related 

Coral Mortality in Southeastern Florida. Scientific Reports, 6(31374), 11. 

Putnam, H. M., & R. D. Gates. (2015). Preconditioning in the reef-building coral Pocillopora damicornis

and the potential for trans-generational acclimatization in coral larvae under future climate 

change conditions. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 218, 2365–2372. 

Quattrini, A. M., M. S. Nizinski, J. D. Chaytor, A. W. J. Demopoulos, E. B. Roark, S. C. France, J. A. Moore, 

T. Heyl, P. J. Auster, B. Kinlan, C. Ruppel, K. P. Elliott, B. R. C. Kennedy, E. Lobecker, A. Skarke, & 

T. M. Shank. (2015). Exploration of the Canyon-Incised Continental Margin of the Northeastern 

United States Reveals Dynamic Habitats and Diverse Communities. PLoS ONE, 10(10). 

Radford, C. A., A. G. Jeffs, & J. C. Montgomery. (2007). Directional swimming behavior by five species of 

crab postlarvae in response to reef sound. Bulletin of Marine Science, 2(80), 369–378. 

Radford, C. A., J. A. Stanley, C. T. Tindle, J. C. Montgomery, & A. G. Jeffs. (2010). Localised coastal 

habitats have distinct underwater sound signatures. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 401, 21–29. 

Radjasa, O. K., Y. M. Vaske, G. Navarro, H. C. Vervoort, K. Tenney, R. G. Linington, & P. Crews. (2011). 

Highlights of marine invertebrate-derived biosynthetic products: Their biomedical potential and 

possible production by microbial associants. Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry, 19(22), 6658 –

6674. 

Ravera, S., C. Falugi, D. Calzia, I. M. Pepe, I. Panfoli, & A. Morelli. (2006). First Cell Cycles of Sea Urchin 

Paracentrotus lividus Are Dramatically Impaired by Exposure to Extremele Low-Frequency 

Electromagnetic Field. Biology of Reproduction, 75, 948–953. 

Read, G., & K. Fauchald. (2012, 13 November 2011). Phragmatopoma caudata Krøyer in Mörch, 1863. 

World Polychaeta database. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species. Retrieved 

from http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=330550 

Reed, J. K., D. C. Weaver, & S. A. Pomponi. (2006). Habitat and fauna of deep-water Lophelia pertusa

coral reefs off the southeastern U.S.: Blake Plateau, Straits of Florida, and Gulf of Mexico. 

Bulletin of Marine Science, 78(2), 343–375. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-137 

3.4 References 

Reed, J. K., C. C. Koenig, & A. N. Shepard. (2007). Impacts of bottom trawling on a deep-water Oculina 

coral ecosystem off Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science, 81(3), 481–496. 

Reinhall, P. G., & P. H. Dahl. (2011). Underwater Mach wave radiation from impact pile driving: Theory 

and observation. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 130(3), 1209–1216. 

Rios, L. M., C. Moore, & P. R. Jones. (2007). Persistent organic pollutants carried by synthetic polymers in 

the ocean environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54, 1230–1237. 

Roberts, L., S. Cheesman, T. Breithaupt, & M. Elliott. (2015). Sensitivity of the mussel Mytilus edulis to 

substrate-borne vibration in relation to anthropogenically generated noise. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 538, 185–195. 

Roberts, L., S. Cheesman, M. Elliott, & T. Breithaupt. (2016). Sensitivity of Pagurus bernhardus (L.) to 

substrate-borne vibration and anthropogenic noise. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 

Ecology, 474, 185–194. 

Roberts, S., & M. Hirshfield. (2003). Deep sea corals: Out of sight, but no longer out of mind. Frontiers in 

Ecology & the Environment, 2(3), 123–130. 

Roe, P., & J. L. Norenburg. (1999). Observations on depth distribution, diversity and abundance of 

pelagic nemerteans from the Pacific Ocean off California and Hawaii. Deep-Sea Research, 46(1), 

1201–1220. 

Roff, G., M. H. Ledlie, J. C. Ortiz, & P. J. Mumby. (2011). Spatial patterns of parrotfish corallivory in the 

Caribbean: The importance of coral taxa, density and size. PLoS ONE, 6(12), e29133–e29133. 

Roleda, M. Y., C. E. Cornwall, Y. Feng, C. M. McGraw, A. M. Smith, & C. L. Hurd. (2015). Effect of Ocean 

Acidification and pH FLuctuations on the Growth and Devekopment of Coralline Algal Recruits, 

and an Associated Benthic Algal Assemblage. PLoS ONE, 10(e0140394), 1–19. 

Rosen, G., & G. R. Lotufo. (2005). Toxicity and Fate of Two Munitions Constituents in SPiked Sediment 

Exposures with the Marine Amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry, 24(11), 2887–2897. 

Rosen, G., & G. R. Lotufo. (2010). Fate and effects of composition B in multispecies marine exposures. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 9999(12), 1–8. 

Roskov, Y., L. Abucay, T. Orrell, D. Nicolson, T. Kunze, A. Culham, N. Bailly, P. Kirk, T. Bourgoin, R. E. 

DeWalt, W. Decock, & A. De Weaver. (2015). Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 2015 Annual 

Checklist. [Digital Resource]. ISSN 2405-8858. Retrieved July 6, 2015 

http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2015/ 

Ross, S. W., & M. S. Nizinski. (2007). State of Deep Coral Ecosystems in the U.S. Southeast Region: Cape 

Hatteras to Southeastern Florida. In S. E. Lumsden, T. F. Hourigan, A. W. Bruckner & G. Dorr 

(Eds.), The State of Deep Coral Ecosystems of the United States (pp. 233–270). Silver Spring, MD. 

Ross, S. W., A. W. J. Demopoulos, C. A. Kellogg, C. L. Morrison, M. S. Nizinski, C. L. Ames, T. L. Casazza, D. 

Gualtieri, K. Kovacs, J. P. McClain, A. M. Quattrini, A. Y. Roa-Varón, & A. D. Thaler. (2012). 

Deepwater Program: Studies of Gulf of Mexico Lower Continental Slope Communities Related to 

Chemosynthetic and Hard Substrate Habitats. (Open-File Report 2012-1032, 301 p.). Reston, VA. 

Ross, S. W., S. Brooke, A. M. Quattrini, M. Rhode, & J. C. Watterson. (2015). A deep-sea community, 

including Lophelia pertusa, at unusually shallow depths in the western North Atlantic Ocean off 

northeastern Florida. Marine Biology. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-138 

3.4 References 

Ross, S. W., M. Rhode, & S. Brooke. (2017). Deep-sea coral and hardbottom habitats on the west Florida 

slope, eastern Gulf of Mexico. Deep–Sea Research I, 120, 14–28. 

Rossi, T., S. D. Connell, & I. Nagelkerken. (2016). Silent oceans: ocean acidification impoverishes natural 

soundscapes by altering sound production of the world’s noisiest marine invertebrate. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 283(20153046), 7. 

Rothenberger, P., J. Blondeau, C. Cox, S. Curtis, W. S. Fisher, V. Garrison, Z. Hillis-Starr, C. F. G. Jeffrey, E. 

Kadison, I. Lundgren, W. J. Miller, E. Muller, R. Nemeth, S. Paterson, C. Rogers, T. Smith, A. 

Spitzack, M. Taylor, W. Toller, J. Wright, D. Wusinich-Mendez, & J. Waddell. (2008). The State of 

Coral Reef Ecosystems of the U.S. Virgin Islands. In J. E. Waddell & A. M. Clarke (Eds.), The State 

of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States (pp. 29–73). 

Silver Spring, MD: [NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical 

Memorandum NOS NCCOS 73. NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment’s 

Biogeography Team. 

Ryland, J. S., & P. J. Hayward. (1991). Marine Flora and Fauna of the Northeastern United States. Erect 

Bryozoa. (NOAA Technical Report NMFS 99). 

Sakashita, M., & S. Wolf. (2009). Petition to List 83 Coral Species under the Endangered Species Act. San 

Francisco, CA: Center for Biological Diversity. 

Schiff, S. C. (1977). Effects of Aluminized Fiberglass on Representative Chesapeake Bay Marine 

Organisms. 

Schoeman, D. S., A. McLachlan, & J. E. Dugan. (2000). Lessons from a disturbance experiment in the 

intertidal zone of an exposed sandy beach. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 50(6), 869–884. 

Schopmeyer, S. A., D. Lirman, E. Bertels, J. Byrne, D. S. Gilliam, J. Hunt, M. E. Johnson, E. A. Larson, K. 

Maxwell, K. Nedimeyer, & C. Walter. (2011). In Situ Coral Nurseries Serve as Genetic 

Repositories for Coral Reef Restoration after an Extreme Cold-Water Event. Restoration Ecology. 

Schuhmacher, H., & H. Zibrowius. (1985). What is hermatypic? A redefinition of ecological groups in 

corals and other organisms. Coral Reefs, 4(1), 1–9. 

Setala, O., V. Fleming-Lehtinen, & M. Lehtiniemi. (2014). Ingestion and transfer of microplastics in the 

planktonic food web. Environmental Pollution, 185, 77–83. 

Setala, O., J. Norkko, & M. Lehtiniemi. (2016). Feeding type affects microplastic ingestion in a coastal 

invertebrate community. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 102, 95–101. 

Shckorbatov, Y., I. Rudneva, V. Pasiuga, V. Grabina, N. Kolchigin, D. Ivanchenko, O. Kazanskiy, V. Shayda, 

& O. Dumin. (2010). Electromagnetic field effects on Artemia hatching and chromatin state. 

Central European Journal of Biology, 5(6), 785–790. 

Shorr, J., J. Cervino, C. Lin, R. Weeks, & T. J. Goreau. (2012). Electrical Stimulation Increases Oyster 

Growth and Survival in Restoration Projects. In T. J. Goreau & R. K. Trench (Eds.), Innovative 

Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration (pp. 151–160). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

Sijimol, M. R., & M. Mohan. (2014). Environmental impacts of perchlorate with special reference to 

fireworks - a review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186, 7203–7210. 

Simpson, S. D., A. N. Radford, E. J. Tickle, M. G. Meekan, & A. G. Jeffs. (2011). Adaptive avoidance of reef 

noise. PLoS ONE, 6(2). 

Skarke, A., C. Ruppel, M. Kodis, D. Brothers, & E. Lobecker. (2014). Widespread methane leakage from 

the sea floor on the northern US Atlantic margin. Nature Geoscience, 7, 657–661. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-139 

3.4 References 

Small, D. P., P. Calosi, D. Boothroyd, S. Widdicombe, & J. I. Spicer. (2016). The sensitivity of the early 

benthic juvenile stage of the European lobster Homarus gammarus (L.) to elevated pCO2 and 

temperature. Marine Biology, 163(53). 

Smith, P. N. (2002). Perchlorate in the Environment: Ecological Considerations: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment. 

Smith, S. H., & D. E. Marx, Jr. (2016). De-facto marine protection from a Navy bombing range: Farallon 

De Medinilla, Mariana Archipelago, 1997 to 2012. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 102(1), 187–198. 

Solan, M., C. Hauton, J. A. Godbold, C. L. Wood, T. G. Leighton, & P. White. (2016). Anthropogenic 

sources of underwater sound can modify how sediment-dwelling invertebrates mediate 

ecosystem properties. Scientific Reports, 6(20540). 

Sole, M., M. Lenoir, M. Durfort, M. Lopez-Bejar, A. Lombarte, & M. Andre. (2013). Ultrastructural 

Damage of Loligo vulgaris and Illex coindetii statocysts after Low Frequency Sound Exposure. 

PLoS ONE, 8(10). 

Sole, M., M. Lenoir, J. M. Fontuno, M. Durfort, M. van der Schaar, & M. Andre. (2016). Evidence of 

Cnidarians sensitivity to sound after exposure to low frequency noise underwater sources. 

Scientific Reports, 6(37979). 

Sole, M., P. Sigray, M. Lenoir, M. Van der Schaar, E. Lalander, & M. Andre. (2017). Offshore exposure 

experiments on cuttlefish indicate received sound pressure and particle motion levels associated 

with acoustic trauma. Scientific Reports, 7(45899), 1–13. 

Somerfield, P. J., W. C. Jaap, K. R. Clarke, M. Callahan, K. Hackett, J. Porter, M. Lybolt, C. Tsokos, & G. 

Yanev. (2008). Changes in coral reef communities among the Florida Keys, 1996–2003. Coral 

Reefs, 27, 951–965. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (1998). Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: 

Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Coucil. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (2002). Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Sargassum 

Habitat of the South Atlantic Region. Second Revised Final. Including a Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, & Social 

Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (2016). Species Managed by the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council. Revised June 2016. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

(1996a). Ecological characterization of Otter Island, South Carolina: A prototype for interactive 

access to coastal management information. Intertidal Estuarine Subsystem: The Intertidal 

Beach. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and US Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center and National 

Geophysical Data Center. NOAA CSC /7-96/001. Retrieved from 

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4274965/FID2292/HTMLS/ecosy

s/ecology/intbeach.htm#top 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

(1996b). Ecological characterization of Otter Island, South Carolina: A prototype for interactive 

access to coastal management information. Intertidal Estuarine Subsystem: Flats - The 

Unvegetated Intertidal. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and US Department of 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-140 

3.4 References 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center and 

National Geophysical Data Center. NOAA CSC /7-96/001. Retrieved from 

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4274965/FID2292/HTMLS/ecosy

s/ecology/flats.htm#top 

Spalding, M. D., C. Ravilious, & E. P. Green. (2001). World Atlas of Coral Reefs. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 

Spargo, B. J., T. L. Hullar, S. L. Fales, H. F. Hemond, P. Koutrakis, W. H. Schlesinger, & J. G. Watson. 

(1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff. Naval Research Laboratory. 

Spiga, I. (2016). Acoustic response to playback of pile-driving sounds by snapping shrimp The Effects of 

Noise on Aquatic Life II, Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology (Vol. 875, pp. 1081–

1088). 

Srinivasan, A., & T. Viraraghavan. (2009). Perchlorate: Health Effects and Technologies for Its Removal 

from Water Resources. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 6, 

1418–1442. 

Stanley, J. A., C. A. Radford, & A. G. Jeffs. (2010). Induction of settlement in crab megalopae by ambient 

underwater reef sound. Behavioral Ecology, 21(3), 113–120. 

Steimle, F. W., & C. Zetlin. (2000). Reef Habitats in the Middle Atlantic Bight: Abundance, Distribution, 

Associated Biological Communities, and Fishery Resource Use. Marine Fisheries Review, 62(2), 

24–42. 

Stevely, J., & D. Sweat. (2008). Exploring the Potential and Protecting the Resource: Florida's Marine 

Sponges. Florida Sea Grant College Program. 

Sutherland, K. P., S. Shaban, J. L. Joyner, J. W. Porter, & E. K. Lipp. (2011). Human pathogen shown to 

cause disease in the threatened eklhorn coral, Acropora palmata. PLoS ONE, 6(8), e23468. 

Tewfik, A., S. S. Bell, K. S. McCann, & K. Morrow. (2016). Predator Diet and Trophic Position Modified 

with Altered Habitat Morphology. PLoS ONE, 11(1). 

The Nature Conservancy. (2015, August 25, 2015). Reef Resilience. Changes in Storm Patterns. Retrieved 

from http://www.reefresilience.org/coral-reefs/stressors/climate-and-ocean-change/changesin-storm-patterns/ 

The Nature Conservancy. (2016, August 30, 2016). Reef Resilience: Sea-level Rise. Retrieved from 

http://www.reefresilience.org/coral-reefs/stressors/climate-and-ocean-change/sea-level-rise/ 

Thiel, M., & I. Kruse. (2001). Status of the Nemertea as predators in marine ecosystems. Hydrobiologia, 

456, 21–32. 

Tittensor, D. P., A. R. Baco, P. E. Brewin, M. R. Clark, M. Consalvey, J. Hall-Spencer, A. A. Rowden, T. 

Schlacher, K. I. Stocks, & A. D. Rogers. (2009). Predicting global habitat suitability for stony corals 

on seamounts. Journal of Biogeography, 36, 1111–1128. 

Trott, T. M., S. A. McKenna, J. M. Pitt, A. Hemphill, F. W. Ming, P. Rouja, K. M. Gjerde, B. Causey, & S. A. 

Earle. (2011, November 1-5, 2010). Efforts to Enhance Protection of the Sargasso Sea. Paper 

presented at the Proceedings of the 63rd Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, San Juan, 

Puerto Rico. 

Tsao, F., & L. E. Morgan. (2005). Corals That Live On Mountaintops. In L. M. Tooker, L. E. Morgan & M. 

Pizer (Eds.), Current: The Journal of Marine Ecology (Vol. 4, pp. 9–11). 21. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2001). Environmental Effects of Beach Nourishment Projects. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-141 

3.4 References 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2012). New York and New Jersey Harbor Deepening Project: 2012 Benthic 

Recovery Report. (Contract #: W912DS-11-D-0008 – Task Order # 5). 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2007). Marine Resource Assessment for Southeastern Florida and the 

AUTEC-Andros Operating Areas, Final Report. (Contract # N62470-02-D-9997, CTO 0034). 

Norfolk, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2009). Jacksonville Range Complex Final Environmental Impact 

Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS). 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010a). JAX OPAREA USWTR Bottom Mapping and Habitat 

Characterization, Jacksonville, Florida (Contract # N62470-08-D-1008/ TO 0028). NAVFAC 

Atlantic Biological Resource Services. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010b). JAX OPAREA USWTR Bottom Mapping and Habitat 

Characterization, Florida. Final Cruise Report. Norfolk, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command Atlantic Retrieved from https://164.223.10.96/marlinrepository/26708/. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011). CC Range Bottom Mapping and Habitat Characterization, Florida. 

Final Cruise Report. (NAVFAC Atlantic Biological Resource Services 

Contract # N62470-08-D-1008/TO 0029). Norfolk, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012). Ecosystem Technical Report for the Atlantic Fleet Training and 

Testing (AFTT) Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 

Atlantic Division, Retrieved from https://aftteis.com/default.aspx. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013). Military Expended Material (MEM) Shrimp Fisheries Study in the 

U.S. South Atlantic and Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Newport, RI: Naval Undersea Warfare Center 

Division. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Techhnical Fact Sheet: Perchlorate. (EPA 505-F-14-003). 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

U.S. Geological Survey. (2013, May 6, 2013). Pulley Ridge. Coastal and Marine Geology Program.

Retrieved from http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/pulley-ridge/ 

U.S. Geological Survey. (2016, April 19, 2016). Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change Impacts to Reefs. 

Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center. Retrieved from 

http://coralreefs.wr.usgs.gov/climatechg.html 

University of California Berkeley. (2010a). Introduction to the Bryozoa: "Moss animals". Retrieved from 

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bryozoa/bryozoa.html 

University of California Berkeley. (2010b). Introduction to the Porifera. Retrieved from 

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/porifera/porifera.html 

University of California Berkeley. (2010c). Introduction to the Platyhelminthes. Retrieved from 

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/platyhelminthes/platyhelminthes.html 

University of California Berkeley. (2010d). Introduction to the Foraminifera. Retrieved from 

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html 

University of California Berkeley. (2010e). Radiolaria: Life history and ecology. Retrieved from 

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/protista/radiolaria/rads.html 

van Hooidonk, R. J., D. P. Manzello, J. Moye, M. Brandt, J. C. Hendee, C. McCoy, & C. Manfrino. (2012). 

Coral bleaching at Little Cayman, Cayman Islands 2009. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 

Online(0), n/a-n/a. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-142 

3.4 References 

Van Soest, R. W. M., N. Boury-Esnault, J. Vacelet, M. Dohrmann, D. Erpenbeck, N. J. De Voogd, N. 

Santodomingo, B. Vanhoorne, M. Kelly, & J. N. A. Hooper. (2012). Global Diversity of Sponges 

(Porifera). PLoS ONE, 7(4), 1–23. 

Verkaik, K., J. Hamel, & A. Mercier. (2016). Carry-over effects of ocean acidification in a cold-water 

lecithotrophic holothuroid. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 557, 189–206. 

Vermeij, M. J. A., K. L. Marhaver, C. M. Huijbers, I. Nagelkerken, & S. D. Simpson. (2010). Coral larvae 

move toward reef sounds. PLoS ONE, 5(5), e10660. 

Veron, J. (2013). Overview of the taxonomy of zooxanthellate Sceractinia. Zoological Journal of the 

Linnean Society, 169, 485–508. 

Voiland, A. (2013, March 5, 2013). In a Warming World, Storms May Be Fewer but Stronger. Retrieved 

from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page1.php 

Von Moos, N., P. Burkhardt-Holm, & A. Kohler. (2012). Uptake and Effects of Microplastics on Cells and 

Tissue of the Blue Mussel Mytilus edulis L. after an Experimental Exposure. Environmental 

Science and Technology, 46, 11327–11335. 

Voss, G. L., & T. F. Brakoniecki. (1985). Squid Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Atlantic 

Coasts of the United States. 

Waikiki Aquarium. (2009a, September 2009). Marine life profile: Ghost crab. Retrieved from 

http://www.waquarium.org/marinelifeprofiles_ed.html 

Waikiki Aquarium. (2009b). Hawaiian slipper lobsters. Marine Life Profile. Retrieved from 

http://www.waquarium.org 

Waikiki Aquarium, & University of Hawaii-Manoa. (2009). Hawaiian spiny lobster. Marine Life Profile.

Retrieved from http://www.waquarium.org 

Wale, M. A., S. D. Simpson, & A. N. Radford. (2013a). Noise negatively affects foraging and antipredator 

behaviour in shore crabs. Animal Behaviour, 86, 111–118. 

Wale, M. A., S. D. Simpson, & A. N. Radford. (2013b). Size-dependent physiological responses of shore 

crabs to single and repeated playback of ship noise. Biology Letters, 9(20121194). 

Wallace, C. (1999). Staghorn corals of the world: A revision of the coral genus Acropora (pp. 438). 

Collingsworth, Australia: CSIRO. 

Walter, T. C., & G. Boxshall. (2017, February 22, 2017). World of Copepods database. Retrieved from 

http://www.marinespecies.org/copepoda/ 

Wang, W. X., & P. S. Rainbow. (2008). Comparative approaches to understand metal bioaccumulation in 

aquatic animals. Comparative Biochemistry Physiology, Part C, 148(4), 315–323. 

Watts, A. J. R., C. Lewis, R. M. Goodhead, S. J. Beckett, J. Moger, C. R. Tyler, & T. Galloway. (2014). 

Uptake and retention of microplastics by the shore crab Carcinus maenas. Environmental 

Science and Technology, Just Accepted Manuscript. 

Wei, C., G. T. Rowe, C. C. Nunnally, & M. K. Wicksten. (2012). Anthropogenic "Litter" and macrophyte 

detritus in the deep Northenr Gulf of Mexico. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64, 966–973. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (2001). Final Fishery Management Plan for Coral 

Reef Ecosystems of the Western Pacific Region. Honolulu, HI. 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. (2009). Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Hawaii 

Archipelago. Honolulu, HI: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-143 

3.4 References 

White, H. K., P.-Y. Hsing, W. Cho, T. M. Shank, E. E. Cordes, A. M. Quattrini, R. K. Nelson, R. Camilli, A. W. 

J. Demopoulos, C. R. German, J. M. Brooks, H. H. Roberts, W. Shedd, C. M. Reddy, & C. R. Fisher. 

(2012). Impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on a deep-water coral community in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Online. 

Whitney, F., K. Conway, R. Thomson, V. Barrie, M. Krautter, & G. Mungov. (2005). Oceanographic habitat 

of sponge reefs on the Western Canadian Continental Shelf. Continental Shelf Research, 25(2), 

211–226. 

Wilber, D., D. Clarke, G. Ray, & R. Dolah. (2009). Lessons Learned from Biological Monitoring of Beach 

Nourishment Projects. Western Dredging Association. 

Wilkens, S. L., J. A. Stanley, & A. G. Jeffs. (2012). Induction of settlement in mussel (Perna canaliculus) 

larvae by vessel noise. Biofouling, 28(1), 65–72. 

Wilkinson, C. (2002). Executive Summary. In C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2002

(pp. 7–31). Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network.

Wilkinson, C., & D. Souter. (2008). Status of Caribbean Coral Reefs after Bleaching and Hurricanes in 

2005: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, 

Townsville. 

Williams, D., & M. Miller. (2011). Attributing mortality among drivers of population decline in Acropora 

palmata in the Florida Keys (U.S.A.). Coral Reefs, 1–14. 

Williams, D. E., & M. W. Miller. (2005). Coral disease outbreak: pattern, prevalence and transmission in 

Acropora cervicornis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 301, 119–128. 

Wilson, C. D., D. P. Arfsten, R. L. Carpenter, W. K. Alexander, & K. R. Still. (2002). Effect of Navy Chaff 

Release on Aluminun Levels in an Area of the Chesapeake Bay. Ecotoxicology and Environmental 

Safety, 52, 137–142. 

Wilson, M., R. T. Hanlon, P. L. Tyack, & P. T. Madsen. (2007). Intense ultrasonic clicks from echolocating 

toothed whales do not elicit anti-predator responses or debilitate the squid, Loligo pealeii. 

Biology Letters, 3, 225–227. 

Wood, A. C. L., P. K. Probert, A. A. Rowden, & A. M. Smith. (2012). Complex habitat generated by marine 

bryozoans: A review of its distribution, structure, diversity, threats and conservation. Aquatic 

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 

Wood, J. B., & C. Day. (2005, 16 June 2006). CephBase. Retrieved from http://www.cephbase.utmb.edu/ 

Woodruff, D. L., V. I. Cullinan, A. E. Copping, & K. E. Marshall. (2013). Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on 

Fish and Invertebrates (Task 2.1.3: Effects of Aquatic Organisms, Fiscal Year 2012 Progress 

Report). 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. (2015, 2015). Life at Vents & Seeps. Retrieved from 

https://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/life-at-vents-seeps 

Woodward, S. L. (2012, 2012). Biomes of the World. Kelp Forests and Beds. Retrieved from 

https://php.radford.edu/~swoodwar/biomes/?page_id=834 

World Register of Marine Species Editorial Board. (2015). Towards a World Register of Marine Species. 

Retrieved from http://www.marinespecies.org/about.php 

Wright, S. L., D. Rowe, R. C. Thompson, & T. S. Galloway. (2013a). Microplastic ingestion decreases 

energy reserves in marine worms. Current Biology. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.4-144 

3.4 References 

Wright, S. L., R. C. Thompson, & T. S. Galloway. (2013b). The physical impacts of microplastics on marine 

organisms: A review. Environmental Pollution, 178, 483–492. 

Young, G. A. (1991). Concise Methods for Predicting the Effects of Underwater Explosions on Marine Life. 

Silver Spring, MD: Naval Surface Warfare Center. 

Zabawa, C., & C. Ostrom. (1980). Final Report on the Role of Boat Wakes in Shore Erosion in Anne 

Arundel County, Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 

Zale, A. V., & S. G. Merrifield. (1989). Species profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of 

Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida)—Reef-Building Tube Worm. (Species Profiles: 

Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates). U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Zhao, S., C. Feng, W. Quan, X. Chen, J. Niu, & Z. Shen. (2012). Role of living environments in the 

accumulation characteristics of heavy metals in fishes and crabs in the Yangtze River Estuary, 

China. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

i 

Table of Contents 

Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

3.5 Habitats .................................................................................................................. 3.5-1

3.5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3.5-1

3.5.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 3.5-3

3.5.2.1 General Background........................................................................... 3.5-3

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3.5-28

3.5.3.1 Acoustic Stressors ............................................................................. 3.5-28

3.5.3.2 Explosive Stressors ........................................................................... 3.5-28

3.5.3.3 Energy Stressors ............................................................................... 3.5-36

3.5.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ........................................ 3.5-36

3.5.3.5 Entanglement Stressors .................................................................... 3.5-58

3.5.3.6 Ingestion Stressors ........................................................................... 3.5-58

3.5.3.7 Secondary Stressors ......................................................................... 3.5-58

3.5.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Habitats ...................................................... 3.5-58

3.5.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 .................. 3.5-58

3.5.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 .................. 3.5-59

3.5.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative ........................................................................................ 3.5-59

List of Figures 

Figure 3.5-1: Bottom Types Within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas .................................................................................... 3.5-9

Figure 3.5-2: Bottom Types Within the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas .................................................................................. 3.5-11

Figure 3.5-3: Bottom Types Within the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem ................................ 3.5-13

Figure 3.5-4: Bottom Types Within the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem ................................ 3.5-15

Figure 3.5-5: Artificial Structures Within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas .................................................................................. 3.5-19

Figure 3.5-6: Artificial Structures Within the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas .................................................................................. 3.5-21

Figure 3.5-7: Artificial Structures Within the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem ........................ 3.5-23

Figure 3.5-8: Artificial Structures Within Western Portion of the Gulf of Mexico Large 

Marine Ecosystem ............................................................................................................3.5-25
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ii

Table of Contents 

Figure 3.5-9: Alternative 1 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives by Substrate Type 

for Training and Testing Compared to Total Vulnerable Habitat Within the 

Range Complexes of the Large Marine Ecosystems Within the Study Area .................... 3.5-32

Figure 3.5-10 Alternative 2 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives by Substrate Type 

for Training and Testing Compared to Total Vulnerable Habitat Within the 

Range Complexes of the Large Marine Ecosystems Within the Study Area .................... 3.5-34

Figure 3.5-11: A Marine Marker Observed in an Area Dominated by Coral Rubble on the 

Continental Slope ............................................................................................................. 3.5-40

Figure 3.5-12: An Unidentified, Non-Military Structure on Hardbottom ............................................. 3.5-40

Figure 3.5-13: A 76-millimeter Cartridge Casing on Softbottom and a Blackbelly Rosefish 

(Helicolenus dactylopterus) Using the Casing for Protection When Disturbed .............. 3.5-41

Figure 3.5-14: Military Expended Material Functioning as Habitat ...................................................... 3.5-42

Figure 3.5-15: Alternative 1 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended Materials 

by Substrate Type for Testing and Training Compared to Total Habitat Within 

the Study Area ................................................................................................................. 3.5-46

Figure 3.5-16: Alternative 2 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended Materials 

by Substrate Type for Training and Testing Compared to Total Vulnerable 

Habitat Within the Range Complexes of the Large Marine Ecosystems Within 

the Study Area ................................................................................................................. 3.5-52

Figure 3.5-17: Alternative 1 – Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives and 

Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within the Study Area ................ 3.5-60

Figure 3.5-18: Alternative 2 – Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives and 

Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within the Study Area ................ 3.5-62

List of Tables 

Table 3.5-1: Habitat Types Within the Large Marine Ecosystems and Open Ocean of the 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area .................................................................. 3.5-2

Table 3.5-2: Percent Coverage of Abiotic Substrate Types in Large Marine Ecosystems and 

the Atlantic Basin/Abyssal Zone of the AFTT Study Area .................................................. 3.5-7

Table 3.5-3: Number of Artificial Structures Documented in Large Marine Ecosystems of the 

AFTT Study Area ............................................................................................................... 3.5-17

3 PLACEH OLDER[H EADIN G 1]
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-1 

3.5 Habitats 

3.5 HABITATS

3.5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides the analysis of potential impacts on marine and estuarine nonliving (abiotic) 

substrates found in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area (Study Area). This section 

provides an introduction to the abiotic habitats that occur in the Study Area. The following sections 

describe the abiotic habitats in greater detail (Section 3.5.2, Affected Environment) and evaluate the 

potential impacts of testing and training activities on abiotic habitats (Section 3.5.3, Environmental 

Consequences). A summary of the potential impacts on abiotic habitats for each alternative is provided 

in Section 3.5.4 (Summary of Potential Impacts on Habitats). 

The Study Area covers a range of marine and estuarine habitats, each supporting communities of 

organisms that may vary by season and location. The intent of this section is to cover abiotic habitat 

features and impacts that are not addressed in the individual living resources chapters. The water 

column and bottom substrate provide the necessary habitats for living resources, including those that 

form biotic habitats such as aquatic plant beds and coral reefs, which are discussed in other sections 

HABITATS SYNOPSIS

The United States Department of the Navy considered all potential stressors that abiotic substrate as a 

habitat for marine life could potentially be exposed to from the Proposed Action. The following 

conclusions have been reached for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1):

 Acoustics: Acoustic stressors are not applicable to habitats, due to the fact that habitats do not 

have hearing capabilities, and are not analyzed further in this section.

 Explosives: Most of the high-explosive military expended materials would detonate at or near 

the water surface. The surface area of bottom substrate affected would be a tiny fraction of the 

total training and testing area available in the Study Area.

 Energy: Energy stressors are not applicable to habitats because of the lack of sensitivity of 

habitats and are not analyzed further in this section.

 Physical Disturbance and Strike: Most seafloor devices would be placed in areas that would 

result in minor and temporary bottom substrate impacts. Once on the seafloor and over time, 

military expended material would be buried by sediment, corroded from exposure to the marine 

environment, or colonized by benthic organisms. The surface area of bottom substrate affected 

over the short-term would be a tiny fraction of the total training and testing area available in the 

Study Area.

 Entanglement: Entanglement stressors are not applicable because habitats do not have the 

ability to become “entangled” by materials. The potential for expended material to cover a 

substrate is discussed under the physical disturbance and strike stressor.

 Ingestion: Ingestion stressors are not applicable because habitats lack the ability to ingest; 

therefore, ingestion stressors are not analyzed for habitats.

 Secondary stressors: Secondary stressors are not applicable to habitats, as they are not 

susceptible to impacts from secondary stressors, and are not analyzed further in this section.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-2 

3.5 Habitats 

(e.g., Section 3.3, Vegetation; Section 3.4, Invertebrates). The potential for training or testing to impact 

the chemical quality of abiotic habitat is addressed in a separate chapter (Section 3.2, Sediments and 

Water Quality). Potential impacts to organisms and biotic habitats are covered in their respective 

resource sections. Potential impacts to the water column are not addressed in this section, because the 

effects would not be associated with a change in habitat type but rather would be limited to changes in 

water quality, which are addressed in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). Therefore this section 

only addresses impacts to habitat substrate. 

Table 3.5-1 presents the types of habitats discussed in this section in relation to the open ocean areas; 

large marine ecosystems; and bays, estuaries, and rivers in which they occur. Habitat types are derived 

from Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979), 

which includes a basic classification of intertidal shores, subtidal bottoms, and associated substrates. 

Whereas there are many classification systems spanning a range of spatial dimensions and granularity 

(Allee et al., 2000; Cowardin et al., 1979; Howell et al., 2010; Kendall et al., 2001; United Nations 

Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2009; Valentine et al., 2005), there are basically three 

types of abiotic substrates based on the grain size of unconsolidated material: “soft bottom” (e.g., sand, 

mud), “intermediate” (e.g., cobble, gravel), and “hard bottom” (e.g., bedrock, boulders). 

Spatial and temporal variation in abiotic substrate is created by the interplay of underlying geology, 

currents, and water quality at a location. The modified classification system provided in Table 3.5-1

starts at the subsystem level (e.g., intertidal shores/subtidal bottoms) and focuses analysis on a 

modified class level (e.g., soft shores/bottoms, intermediate shores/bottoms, hard shores/bottom) 

differentiating non-living substrates from the living structures on the substrate. Living structures on the 

substrate are termed biotic habitats, and include wetland shores, aquatic plant beds (i.e., attached 

macroalgae, rooted vascular plants), sedentary invertebrate beds, and reefs (e.g., corals, oysters). 

Table 3.5-1: Habitat Types Within the Large Marine Ecosystems and Open Ocean of the 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area 

Substrate Type Subtypes (Examples) Open 

Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems Bays, Estuaries, and Rivers

Intertidal Shores

Soft Shores Beach, Tidal Delta/Flat – All All

Intermediate Shores

Cobble/Gravel, Mixed

–

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

All

Hard Shores 

Rocky Intertidal

–

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Caribbean 

Sea

Bath, ME; Portsmouth Naval 

Shipyard; Kittery, ME; coastal 

southern New England waters; 

Naval Submarine Base New 

London; Groton, CT

Subtidal Bottoms

Soft bottoms Channel, Flat, Shoal All All All

Intermediate Bottom Cobble/Gravel, Mixed All All All

Hard bottom Rocky Subtidal All All All

Intertidal Shore or Subtidal Bottom

Artificial Structures 

Artificial reefs, ship 

wrecks, oil/gas platforms, 

bulkheads, and piers

All All All
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-3 

3.5 Habitats 

The physical characteristics of substrates, whether they are unconsolidated and soft or hard and rocky, 

are key factors in structuring sedentary biological communities (Nybakken, 1993). The difference 

between substrates represents a viable target for the best available mapping technology (i.e., 

multibeam sonar) and is useful for characterizations of Navy impacts (e.g., explosive charges on soft 

bottom). 

Differences among the physical and chemical environments of various abiotic habitats dictate both the 

variety and abundance of sessile marine organisms supported. The assessment in this section focuses on 

the potential for testing or training activities to change or modify the physical properties of abiotic 

substrates and their ecological functions as habitat for organisms. A physical impact on abiotic marine 

habitats is anticipated where training or testing activities have the potential to displace sediment, 

convert one substrate type into another (e.g., bedrock to unconsolidated soft bottom), alter vertical 

relief, or modify structural complexity. 

3.5.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.5.2.1 General Background 

Abiotic marine habitats vary according to geographic location, underlying geology, hydrodynamics, 

atmospheric conditions, and suspended particles and associated biogenic features. Sediments may be 

derived from material eroded from land sources associated with coastal bluff erosion and sediment 

flows from creeks and rivers, which may create channels, tidal deltas, intertidal and subtidal flats, and 

shoals of unconsolidated material along the shorelines and estuaries. 

The influence of land-based nutrients on habitat type and sediment increases with proximity to streams, 

bays and harbors, and nearshore waters. In the open ocean, gyres, eddies, and oceanic currents 

influence the distribution of organisms. Major bottom features in the offshore areas of large marine 

ecosystems include shelves, banks, breaks, slopes, canyons, plains, and seamounts. Geologic features 

such as these affect the hydrodynamics of the ocean water column (i.e., currents, gyres, upwellings) as 

well as living resources present. Bathymetric features of the Study Area are described in Section 3.0.2.2 

(Bathymetry). The distribution of abiotic marine habitats among the large marine ecosystems and open 

ocean areas is described in their respective sections. 

The majority of the Study Area lies outside of state waters. State waters extend from shore to 3 nautical 

miles (NM) throughout the Study Area, with the exception of the Gulf coast of Florida, Texas, and Puerto 

Rico, where state waters extend 9 NM offshore. Therefore, relatively little of the Study Area includes 

intertidal and shallow subtidal areas in state waters where numerous habitats are exclusively present 

(e.g., salt/brackish marsh, mangrove, seagrass beds, kelp forests, oyster reefs). Intertidal abiotic habitats 

(i.e., beaches, tidal deltas, mudflats, rocky shores) represent only a small portion of the Study Area; 

however, they are addressed the same as all other habitats (where those habitats overlap with naval 

training or testing activities). 

3.5.2.1.1 Shore Habitats 

3.5.2.1.1.1 Description 

Soft Shores 

Soft shores include all aquatic habitats that have three characteristics: (1) unconsolidated substrates 

with less than 25 percent areal cover of stones, boulders, or bedrock; (2) unconsolidated sediment 

composed of predominantly sand or mud; and (3) primarily intertidal water regimes (Cowardin et al., 

1979). Note that a shoreline covered in vegetation (e.g., marsh) could still have a soft substrate 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-4 

3.5 Habitats 

foundation. Soft shores include beaches, tidal flats/deltas, and streambeds of the tidal riverine and 

estuarine systems. 

Intermittent or intertidal channels of the riverine system and intertidal channels of the estuarine system 

are classified as streambed. Intertidal flats, also known as tidal flats or mudflats, consist of loose mud, 

silt, and fine sand, with organic-mineral mixtures, and are regularly exposed and flooded by the tides 

(Karleskint et al., 2006). Muddy and fine sediment tends to be deposited where wave energy is low, such 

as in sheltered bays and estuaries (Holland & Elmore, 2008). Mudflats are typically unvegetated, but 

may be covered with encrusting microscopic algae (e.g., diatoms) or sparsely vegetated with lowgrowing aquatic plants (e.g., macroalgae/seaweed, seagrass). Muddy intertidal habitat occurs most 

often as part of a patchwork of intertidal habitats that may include rocky shores, tidal creeks, sandy 

beaches, salt marshes, and mangroves. A flat area of unconsolidated sediment that is covered in aquatic 

plants could be considered an aquatic bed growing on soft shore habitat. 

Beaches form through the interaction of waves and tides, as particles are sorted by size and are 

deposited along the shoreline (Karleskint et al., 2006). Wide flat beaches with fine-grained sands occur 

where wave energy is limited. Narrow steep beaches of coarser sand form where energy and tidal 

ranges are high (Speybroeck et al., 2008). Three zones characterize beach habitats: (1) dry areas above 

mean high water, (2) wrack lines (the area where seaweed and debris is deposited at high tide), and 

(3) a high-energy intertidal zone (area between high and low tide). 

Intermediate Shores 

Intermediate shores include all aquatic habitats with the following three characteristics: (1) substrates 

with at least 25 percent cover in particles smaller than stones, (2) unconsolidated substrate is 

predominantly gravel or cobble-sized, and (3) primarily intertidal water regimes. These areas may or 

may not be stable enough for attached vegetation or invertebrates, depending on overlying hydrology 

and water quality. Note that a shoreline covered in vegetation (e.g., macroalgae/seagrass) could still 

have an intermediate substrate foundation. 

Hard Shores 

Rocky shores include intertidal aquatic habitats characterized by bedrock, stones, and/or boulders that 

cover 75 percent or more of an area (Cowardin et al., 1979). Note that a shoreline covered in vegetation 

could still have a hard substrate foundation. Rocky intertidal shores are areas of bedrock occupying the 

area between high and low tide lines (Menge & Branch, 2001). Extensive rocky shorelines can be 

interspersed with sandy areas, estuaries, or river mouths. 

Environmental gradients between hard shorelines and subtidal habitats are determined by wave action, 

depth, frequency of tidal inundation, and stability of substrate (Cowardin et al., 1979). Where wave 

energy is extreme, only rock outcrops may persist. In lower energy areas, a mixture of rock sizes will 

form the intertidal zone. Boulders scattered in the intertidal provide substrate for attached macroalgae 

and sessile invertebrates. 

3.5.2.1.1.2 Distribution 

Soft Shores 

Mudflats occur to some extent in virtually every large marine ecosystem within the Study Area. Muddy 

deposits accumulate in many wave-protected pockets on the Gulf of Maine coast along the northern 

part of the Northeast United States (U.S.) Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, especially at the 

heads of bays. Extensive mudflats occur in the upper reaches of the Bay of Fundy. In the Southeast 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-5 

3.5 Habitats 

U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, mudflats are most often associated with tidal creeks and 

estuaries. In the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, salt marshes 

and tidal creeks occur along the coastal margins behind barrier islands. Mudflats associated with 

mangroves occur on the east coast of Florida, roughly from St. Augustine to the Florida Keys, and north 

to Cedar Key on the west coast in the southern part of the Southeast U.S Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem. Tidal deltas and intertidal flats are present along the coast of Puerto Rico and Vieques 

(National Ocean Service, 2011). 

Sandy beaches are less abundant but do occur in the northern part of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf 

Large Marine Ecosystem, which are otherwise dominated by rocky coasts. Small pocket beaches occur 

within the northern Gulf of Maine, and sandy beaches are abundant on Cape Cod in the southern Gulf of 

Maine. Some sandy intertidal habitats occur in all the states and provinces on the Gulf of Maine coast. 

The Mid- and South Atlantic coast region is protected by an almost continuous string of barrier islands, 

which provide sandy intertidal shores (National Ocean Service, 2011). Sandy coasts and barrier islands 

are common from Long Island, New York to as far south as Florida. A long arc of barrier islands known as 

the Outer Banks protects the shore stretching from southeastern Virginia almost to South Carolina. 

Sandy intertidal habitat predominates in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. 

The east and west coasts of Florida have long stretches of sandy beaches. The West Central Barrier 

Chain, a series of sandy barrier islands, stretches from Anclote Key (north of Tampa Bay) south to Cape 

Romano and protects the west coast of Florida. Sandy beaches are present along the shoreline of Puerto 

Rico and Vieques. 

The eastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem is fringed by sandy intertidal habitat, 

including barrier islands off the coast of the Florida panhandle. Shorelines of the western portion of the 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem are dominated by sand that forms broad straight beaches and 

barrier islands (Britton & Morton, 1998). The longest undeveloped barrier island in the world is Padre 

Island National Seashore in Texas, which has 70 miles of sand beaches that provide nesting ground for 

sea turtles, foraging ground for shorebirds, and sandy intertidal habitat for numerous other species 

(National Park Service, 2010). Other barrier islands continue in an arc, trending up the Texas coast 

(Mustang, San Jose, Matagorda, Follets, and Galveston Islands) (Britton & Morton, 1998). 

Intermediate Shores 

Most of the intermediate coastline of the U.S. Atlantic coast occurs in the transitional area of the 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem where the mostly consolidated rocky shores 

primarily off of Maine give way to the sandy shores in the south (Roman et al., 2000). On the 

U.S. Atlantic shore, intermediate rocky and gravelly areas do not typically occur south of New York 

(National Ocean Service, 2011). 

Hard Shores 

Most of the rocky coastline of the U.S. Atlantic coast occurs from Massachusetts northward into the Gulf 

of Maine, in the northern part of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (Roman 

et al., 2000). Glacial terrain made of bedrock, gravel, and sediment typical of the New England coast is 

unique on the east coast of the United States. Rocky shorelines border training or testing activities 

originating from the shipyard in Bath, Maine; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (Kittery, Maine); coastal 

southern New England waters; and the shipyard and Naval Submarine Base New London (Groton, 

Connecticut). On the U.S. Atlantic shore, rocky and gravelly areas do not typically occur south of New 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-6 

3.5 Habitats 

York (National Ocean Service, 2011). Rocky coasts in the northern areas give way to intermediate or 

mixed shores and sandy shores toward the south. In the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem, sandy beaches predominate. In the Caribbean Sea, rocky bedrock shorelines are mapped 

along the coast of Puerto Rico and Vieques (National Ocean Service, 2011). Very little hard shores occur 

anywhere in the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

3.5.2.1.2 Bottom Habitats 

3.5.2.1.2.1 Description 

Soft Bottom 

Soft bottoms include all aquatic habitats with the following three characteristics: (1) at least 25 percent 

cover of particles smaller than stones, (2) unconsolidated sediment is predominantly mud or sand, and 

(3) primarily subtidal water regimes (Cowardin et al., 1979). Soft bottom forms the substrate of 

channels, shoals, subtidal flats, and other features of the bottom. Sandy channels emerge where strong 

currents connect estuarine and ocean water columns. Shoals or capes form where sand is deposited by 

interacting, sediment-laden currents. Subtidal flats occur between the soft shores and the channels or 

shoals. The continental shelf extends seaward of the shoals and inlet channels and includes relatively 

coarse-grained, softbottom habitats. Relatively finer-grained sediments collect off the shelf break, 

continental slope, and abyssal plain. Organisms characteristic of soft bottom environments, such as 

worms and clams, may be found at all depths where there is sufficient oxygen and sediment 

accumulation (Nybakken, 1993). 

Intermediate Bottom 

Intermediate bottom includes all aquatic habitats with the following three characteristics: (1) substrates 

with at least 25 percent cover in particles smaller than stones, (2) unconsolidated substrate is 

predominantly gravel or cobble-sized, and (3) primarily subtidal water regimes. These areas may or may 

not be stable enough for attached vegetation or sedentary invertebrates, depending on overlying 

hydrology and water quality. 

Hard Bottom 

Hard bottom includes all aquatic habitats with substrates having a surface of stones, boulders, or 

bedrock (75 percent or greater coverage) (Cowardin et al., 1979). Subtidal rocky habitat occurs as 

extensions of intertidal rocky shores and as isolated offshore outcrops. The shapes and textures of the 

larger rock assemblages and the fine details of cracks and crevices are determined by the type of rock, 

the wave energy, and other local variables (Davis, 2009). Maintenance of mostly low-relief hard bottom 

(e.g., bedrock) requires wave energy sufficient to sweep sediment away (Lalli & Parsons, 1993) or 

offshore areas lacking a significant sediment supply; therefore, rocky reefs are rare on broad coastal 

plains near sediment-laden rivers and are more common on high-energy shores and beneath strong 

bottom currents, where sediments cannot accumulate. 

In the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean, there are also a number of cold seeps and 

thermal vents, which tend to support unique biotic communities. A cold seep, or cold vent, is an area of 

the ocean floor where chemical fluid seepage occurs. Cold seeps develop unique topography over time, 

where reactions between methane and seawater create carbonate rock formations and reefs. A 

thermal, or hydrothermal, vent is a fissure in the seafloor where geothermally heated water is released. 

Hard substrate in the abyssal zone and some locations landward of the deep ocean are virtually devoid 

of encrusting or attached organisms due to the scarcity of drifting food particles in the deep ocean 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-7 

3.5 Habitats 

(Nybakken, 1993). Exceptions are areas on seamounts and along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where 

chemosynthetic communities occur (see Section 3.4, Invertebrates, for additional information). 

3.5.2.1.2.2 Distribution 

Soft, intermediate, and hard bottom occur in all large marine ecosystems and the open ocean. However, 

the bottom types vary across the Study Area (Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 3.5-4) and are depicted by 

over 25 datasets. These datasets were ranked by quality and assembled into the non-overlapping 

mosaic as described in Building and Maintaining a Comprehensive Database and Prioritization Scheme 

for Overlapping Habitat Data (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016). The datasets employ a variety of 

data collection techniques and data analysis to characterize the seafloor; results are summarized below. 

Thousands of acres of lower quality data were superseded by high quality data in the process of creating 

the non-overlapping abiotic substrate maps for the AFTT study area. However, some data sources were 

excluded due to the quality of the data, availability at the time of database assembly, or for other 

reasons. 

Most of the bottom within the Study Area (approximately 80 percent) has not been mapped. However 

the majority of the unmapped portion is seaward of the U.S. continental shelf in the Atlantic 

Basin/Abyssal Zone (Table 3.5-2). Available mapping for abiotic substrate indicates a benthic surface 

composed of mostly soft bottom (less than 88 percent) with a little over 5 percent hardbottom, adjusted 

qualitatively for over- or under-estimation. The intermediate category of substrate (7 percent) could add 

to either the soft bottom or hard bottom type, depending on other environmental variables affecting 

stability and the supply of colonizing sedentary organisms and nutrition sources, which also affect hard 

substrate as a habitat for hard bottom organisms (to a lesser degree). It should be noted that percent of 

bottom area does not account for the vertical relief of some hard bottom areas, which contribute 

disproportionately to hard bottom community biomass. The data also does not account for the typically 

smaller dimensions of hard bottom features present in predominantly soft bottom areas; the Southeast 

Area Monitoring and Assessment Program – South Atlantic (Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment 

Program—South Atlantic, 2001) line data is based primarily on trawl samples that indicate hard bottom 

with the collection of species associated with hard bottom, suggesting there were numerous hard 

bottom features too small to be resolved by even the highest quality data in the Study Area. U.S. 

Department of the Navy (2011) data and classification came the closest to finding these smaller areas of 

hardbottom attracting associated species. 

Table 3.5-2: Percent Coverage of Abiotic Substrate Types in Large Marine Ecosystems and the 

Atlantic Basin/Abyssal Zone of the AFTT Study Area 

Large Marine Ecosystem Percent of Large Marine Ecosystem Total Acres Hard Intermediate Soft Unknown

Atlantic Basin / Abyssal Zone 0.04 % 0.04% 7.13% 92.79% 1,907,486,932

Canadian Eastern Arctic - West 

Greenland 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 64,745,140

Caribbean Sea 4.91% 1.60% 20.76% 72.73% 31,139,231

Gulf of Mexico 2.73% 4.10% 62.97% 30.21% 360,245,296

Labrador - Newfoundland 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 151,841,856

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf 1.54% 28.75% 69.58% 0.14% 69,321,609

Scotian Shelf 0.03% 1.69% 6.11% 92.16% 39,949,769

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf 19.19% 5.3% 75.5% 0.01% 67,064,801

Grand Total 0.97% 1.49% 17.48% 80.06% 2,691,794,634
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-8 

3.5 Habitats 

Soft Bottom 

Softbottom occupies the largest habitat area within mapped portions of the Study Area and occur in all 

large marine ecosystems and the open ocean, and are depicted in Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 3.5-4

based on over 25 datasets (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016). 

Intermediate Bottom 

Intermediate bottoms occur in all large marine ecosystems and the open ocean, and are depicted in 

Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 3.5-4 by at least eight datasets (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016). 

Hard Bottom 

Hard bottoms occur in all large marine ecosystems and the open ocean, and are depicted in Figure 3.5-1

through Figure 3.5-4 based on at least eight datasets (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016). 

3.5.2.1.3 Artificial Structures 

3.5.2.1.3.1 Description 

Man-made structures that are either deliberately or unintentionally submerged underwater create 

artificial habitats that mimic some characteristics of natural habitats, such as providing hard substrate 

and vertical relief (Broughton, 2012). Artificial reef habitats have been intentionally created with 

material from sunken ships, rock and stone, concrete and rubble, car bodies, tires, and scrap metal, etc. 

Artificial habitats also have been created as a result of structures built for other purposes (e.g., 

breakwaters, jetties, piers, wharves, bridges, oil and gas platforms, fish aggregating devices) or 

unintentional sinking of vessels (i.e., shipwrecks). 

Some artificial structures provide similar ecological functions as natural hardbottom habitats, such as 

providing attachment substrate for algae and sessile invertebrates, which in turn supports a community 

of mobile organisms that may forage, shelter, and reproduce there (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2007). Other structures may or may not support sessile organisms and only temporarily 

attract mobile organisms. Factors such as the materials, structural features, and surface area of the 

artificial substrate, as well as local environmental conditions, influence the variety and abundance of 

sessile organisms that may become established and the relative success of attracting or enhancing local 

fish populations (Ajemian et al., 2015; Broughton, 2012; Macreadie et al., 2011; Powers et al., 2003; 

Ross et al., 2016). 

Artificial habitats in the Study Area include artificial reefs, shipwrecks, oil and gas platforms, man-made 

shoreline structures (e.g., piers, wharfs, docks, pilings), and obsolete military towers used for aircraft 

training (Macfadyen et al., 2009; Seaman, 2007; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016). Artificial reefs are 

designed and deployed to supplement the ecological services provided by coral or rocky reefs. Artificial 

reefs range from simple concrete blocks to highly engineered structures. Vessels that are unintentionally 

sunk in the Study Area may be colonized by encrusting and attached marine organisms if there is a larval 

source and enough nutrition (e.g., detritus) drifting through the water column. Wrecks in the abyssal 

zone and some locations landward of the deep ocean are virtually devoid of encrusting or attached 

organisms due to the scarcity of drifting food particles in the deep ocean (Nybakken, 1993). 

3.5.2.1.3.2 Distribution 

Artificial shoreline structures (e.g., piers, wharfs, docks, pilings) in the Study Area occur at or along 

pierside locations (Section 2.1.10.1, Pierside Locations), including facilities associated with Navy ports 

and naval shipyards, and channels and routes to and from Navy ports. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-9 

3.5 Habitats 

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise 

Figure 3.5-1: Bottom Types Within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-10

3.5 Habitats 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-11

3.5 Habitats 

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise 

Figure 3.5-2: Bottom Types Within the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-12

3.5 Habitats 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-13

3.5 Habitats 

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Figure 3.5-3: Bottom Types Within the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-14

3.5 Habitats 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-15

3.5 Habitats 

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area 

Figure 3.5-4: Bottom Types Within the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-16

3.5 Habitats 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-17

3.5 Habitats 

The centroid points of mapped artificial structures in waters of the Study Area are depicted on Figure 

3.5-5 through Figure 3.5-8. These include more than 15,000 mapped points, including mostly shipwrecks 

(over 11,000), oil/gas platforms (2,400), artificial reefs (1,400), and military towers (18) (Table 3.5-3). 

Artificial reefs may occur at individual permit sites or within large General Permit areas. Very large 

individual permit areas and General Permit areas range from nearly 100 to several hundred square miles 

(shown as polygons on the artificial structure figures); whereas, typical artificial reef permit areas range 

from less than 0.5 square mile to a few square miles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2016). Not shown on 

Figure 3.5-5 through Figure 3.5-8 are shipwrecks that are “address restricted” due to status on the 

National Register of Historic Places (e.g., Gen. C.B. Comstock located in Texas state waters) and ship 

hulks sunk during Naval sinking exercises. 

Table 3.5-3: Number of Artificial Structures Documented in Large Marine Ecosystems of the 

AFTT Study Area 

Large Marine Ecosystem Air Force 

Towers

Artificial 

Reef

Navy 

Towers

Oil/Gas 

Platform Shipwreck Grand Total

Atlantic Basin / Abyssal Zone 0 0 0 0 106 106

Caribbean Sea 0 9 0 0 350 359

Gulf of Mexico 6 1,166 0 2,400 6,174 9,746

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf 0 62 4 0 3,845 3,911

Scotian Shelf 0 0 0 0 18 18

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf 0 163 8 0 1,284 1,455

Grand Total 6 1,400 12 2,400 11,777 15,595

3.5.2.1.4 General Threats 

Estuarine and ocean environments worldwide are under pressure from a variety of human activities, 

such as coastal development, shoreline stabilization, dredging, flood control, and water diversion; 

destructive fishing practices; offshore energy and resource development and extraction; and global 

climate change (Boehlert & Gill, 2010; Clark et al., 2016; Clarke et al., 2014; Crain et al., 2009; National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2016). These activities produce a 

range of physical and chemical stressors on habitats. Primary threats to marine habitats include habitat 

loss, degradation, or modification. Although stressors may be similar or wide-spread geographically, 

their effects on marine habitats are not random or equal. Human activities vary in their spatial 

distribution and intensity of impact (Halpern et al., 2008). Accordingly, their effects on habitats will vary 

depending on local differences in the duration, frequency, and intensity of stress; scale of effect; and 

environmental conditions. Areas where heavy concentrations of human activity co-occur with naval 

training and testing activities have the greatest potential for cumulative stress on the marine ecosystem 

(see Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts, for more information). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-18

3.5 Habitats 

3.5.2.1.4.1 Urbanization 

Habitat loss and degradation are the primary threats of urbanization. Coastal development has resulted 

in loss of coastal dune and wetland habitats, modification of shorelines and estuaries, and degradation 

of water quality (Crain et al., 2009; Lotze et al., 2006). In addition, development has resulted in a 

proliferation of artificial structure habitats, such as breakwaters, jetties, rock groins, seawalls, oil and gas 

platforms, docks, piers, wharves, and underwater cables and pipelines, as well as artificial reefs. 

Maintenance of coastal infrastructure, ports, and harbors disturbs or modifies intertidal and subtidal 

habitats, the extent of which varies depending on the type, scale, or frequency of the activity. For 

example, maintenance has increased the use of shoreline stabilization measures (engineered structures, 

beach nourishment) to reduce storm-related damages to coastal infrastructure. Flood control or 

shoreline stabilization measures may have temporary or long-term impacts on beach habitats and may 

also affect adjacent intertidal and subtidal habitats due to suspended sediment and sedimentation, 

altered sediment supply and transport dynamics, or creation of artificial substrates (Bacchiocchi & 

Airoldi, 2003). Periodic dredging and excavation of sediment is undertaken to maintain navigable 

channels, tidal exchange, and/or flood control capacity in bays and estuaries. Sediment removal directly 

disturbs subtidal softbottom habitat and may indirectly disturb or modify adjacent habitats (Newell et 

al., 1998). A number of factors may influence maintenance frequency, including sediment 

characteristics, shoreline and watershed characteristics, oceanographic conditions, and climate. 

3.5.2.1.4.2 Water Quality 

Pollution of marine waters and the accumulation of contaminants in marine sediments pose threats to 

marine ecosystems, public health, and local economies of coastal regions (Crain et al., 2009).Marine and 

estuarine water and sediment quality may be influenced by industrial and wastewater discharges, soil 

erosion, stormwater runoff, vessel discharges, marine construction, and accidental spills. Activities that 

disturb or remove marine sediments also impact water quality and may alter physical and chemical 

properties of sediments at and adjacent to the disturbance due to sediment resuspension and 

sedimentation. Generally, threats to water and sediment quality are greater in waterbodies adjacent to 

watersheds with substantial urban or agriculture land uses. For more detailed discussion of water 

quality and potential impacts, see Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). 

Large areas of bottom waters lacking dissolved oxygen, or “dead zones,” are documented in the Study 

Area off the Mississippi River outlet (Rabalais et al., 2002) and other large rivers flowing into coastal 

ocean waters (Diaz & Rosenberg, 2008). Whereas the physical structure of abiotic substrate is 

unaffected by dead zones, associated organisms are adversely impacted there. Refer to individual 

resource sections for specific stressors and impacts on living resources associated with marine 

substrates. 

3.5.2.1.4.3 Commercial Industries 

A variety of commercial development, operations, and activities impact marine habitats and associated 

organisms (e.g., oil/gas development, telecommunications infrastructure, steam and nuclear power 

plants, desalinization plants, alternative energy development, shipping and cruise vessels, commercial 

fishing, aquaculture, and tourism operations) (Crain et al., 2009). Commercial activities are conducted 

under permits and regulations that require companies to avoid and minimize impacts to marine 

habitats, especially sensitive hardbottom and biogenic habitats (e.g., coral reefs, shellfish beds, and 

vegetated habitats). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-19

3.5 Habitats 

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise 

Figure 3.5-5: Artificial Structures Within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-20

3.5 Habitats 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-21

3.5 Habitats 

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise 

Figure 3.5-6: Artificial Structures Within the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and Open Ocean Areas 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-22

3.5 Habitats 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-23

3.5 Habitats 

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Figure 3.5-7: Artificial Structures Within the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-24

3.5 Habitats 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-25

3.5 Habitats 

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area 

Figure 3.5-8: Artificial Structures Within Western Portion of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-26 

3.5 Habitats 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-27

3.5 Habitats 

Marine habitats may be directly impacted during marine construction (e.g., cable laying and burial, 

dredging, pipeline installation, pile driving, work boat anchoring), and commercial bottom fishing and by 

commercial vessel anchoring. Generally, disturbance impacts to softbottom habitats are temporary; 

however, there is the potential to degrade the quality of softbottom habitat for biological resources 

depending on the extent and frequency of disturbance (Newell et al., 1998). Hardbottom and biogenic 

habitats are most vulnerable to damage or degradation by commercial industry development and 

operations. For example, anchors, anchor chains, or cables may damage habitats and abrade and 

remove organisms from hardbottom surfaces. Commercial fishing use of dredges and bottom trawls 

impacts bottom topography and sediments and may degrade habitat quality and associated biological 

communities (Clark et al., 2016). Abandoned or lost fishing gear may alter the structure of abiotic 

habitats and result in abrasion or entanglement of organisms. 

Indirect impacts to habitats may occur from commercial development, discharges, or accidental spills 

that degrade water or sediment quality. Threats associated with impacts to water and sediment quality 

are further described in Section 3.5.2 (Affected Environment). Accidental spills have the potential to 

contaminate and degrade marine habitats by coating hard bottom or biogenic substrates as well as 

mixing into bottom sediments (Hanson et al., 2003). Many factors determine the degree of 

environmental damage from oil spills, including the type of oil, size and duration of the spill, geographic 

location, season, and types of habitats and resources present. Effects of oil on the bottom habitat have 

the potential to have long-term impacts on fish and wildlife populations. 

3.5.2.1.4.4 Climate Change 

All marine ecosystems are vulnerable to the widespread effects of climate change, which include 

increased ocean temperatures, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and changes in precipitation patterns 

(Hoegh-Guldberg & Bruno, 2010; Scavia et al., 2002). Rising ocean temperatures will cause waters to 

expand and ice caps to melt, driving sea levels to rise at various rates depending on geographic location 

and local environmental conditions. Sea level rise will have the greatest impacts on intertidal and coastal 

ecosystems that have narrow windows of tolerance to flooding frequency or depth (Crain et al., 2009). 

Changes in ocean temperatures also are projected to alter ocean circulation, upwelling, and nutrient 

distribution patterns. It is projected that wet tropical areas and mid-latitude land will experience more 

frequent and extreme precipitation, which will increase erosion-related sedimentation and runoff to 

coastal habitats (Keener et al., 2012). The climatic effects will be superimposed upon, and interact with, 

a wide array of current stresses, including excess nutrient loads, overfishing, invasive species, habitat 

destruction, and chemical contamination (Scavia et al., 2002). 

3.5.2.1.4.5 Marine Debris 

In the past decade, marine debris has been increasingly recognized as a key threat to marine ecosystems 

throughout the world. The Marine Debris Act (33 United States Code 1951 et seq.) defines marine debris 

as any persistent solid material that is manufactured or processed and directly or indirectly, 

intentionally or unintentionally, disposed of or abandoned into the marine environment. Artificial 

substrate that provides hard bottom habitat for marine organisms is discussed in Section 3.4 

(Invertebrates). This section focuses on the aspects of marine debris that pose a threat to marine 

habitats. The accumulation of marine debris can alter and degrade marine habitats through physical 

damage (e.g., abrasion, shearing); changes to the physical and chemical composition of sediments; and 

reductions in oxygen and underwater light levels (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Marine Debris Program, 2016). Accumulation or concentration also can degrade the aesthetic appeal of 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-28

3.5 Habitats 

coastal habitats for recreational use, decrease visitation and tourism, require costly cleanups, and 

impact local economies (Leggett et al., 2014). 

3.5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The Navy considered all potential stressors and the following have been analyzed for habitats: 

explosives and physical disturbance and strikes. This section evaluates how and to what degree the 

activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Section 3.0.3.3 

(Identifying Stressors for Analysis) could impact marine habitats as defined in this section in the Study 

Area. Table 2.6-1 (Proposed Training Activities per Alternative) through Table 2.6-4 (Office of Naval 

Research Proposed Testing Activities per Alternative) present the proposed training and testing activities 

(including number of events and locations). General characteristics of all Navy stressors were introduced 

in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for Analysis). The stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, 

and location within the Study Area. The stressors analyzed for habitats are: 

 Explosives (explosives detonated on or near the bottom); 

 Physical Disturbance and Strikes (vessels and in-water devices; military expended materials; 

seafloor devices; pile driving) 

Impacts of explosives and military expended material were assessed based on three types of analyses: 

(1) a worst-case scenario assuming all the impacts occur on a single habitat type in an affected area (1-

year totals), (2) a more realistic situation in which the impacts are spread proportionally among the 

habitat types in an affected area, and (3) a 5-year cumulative analysis. The most accurate projection 

would be somewhere between the worst-case and proportional distribution because there are locations 

that specific training or testing occurs most frequently within range complexes. However, training and 

testing in those areas are not limited by a percentage as a proposed action in this document. The 

remaining stressors (vessels and in-water devices, seafloor devices, and pile driving) were analyzed 

based on the number of annual events estimated to occur annually within each Range Complex. The 

analysis includes consideration of the mitigation that the Navy will implement to avoid potential impacts 

on habitats from explosives and physical disturbance and strike stressors. Mitigation for habitats will be 

coordinated with NMFS through the consultation processes. 

3.5.3.1 Acoustic Stressors 

Acoustic stressors are not applicable to habitats due to the lack of hearing capabilities of abiotic habitats 

and will not be analyzed further in this section. 

3.5.3.2 Explosive Stressors 

Background 

This section analyzes the potential impacts of in-water explosions on or near the bottom resulting from 

training and testing activities within the Study Area, because those are the only explosives that are 

expected to potentially impact abiotic substrate. 

In-water detonations are used during various mine warfare training and testing activities, surface-tosurface gunnery exercises, air-to-surface gunnery, missile, and bombing exercises, as well as sinking 

exercises, underwater demolition, and other training activities. Likewise, air-to-surface gunnery, missile, 

and bombing tests, anti-submarine warfare tracking tests, mine warfare, detection, neutralization tests, 

and other testing activities also employ underwater explosives. The potential impacts of in-water 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-29

3.5 Habitats 

detonations on marine habitats are assessed according to size of charge (net explosive weight), charge 

radius, height above the bottom, substrate types in the area, and equations linking all these factors. 

Most explosive detonations during training and testing involving the use of high-explosive munitions, 

including bombs, missiles, and projectile casings, would occur in the air or near the water’s surface. 

Explosives associated with torpedoes, explosive sonobuoys, and explosive mines would occur in the 

water column; demolition charges could occur near the surface, in the water column, or the ocean 

bottom. Most surface and water column detonations would occur in waters greater than 3 NM from 

shore in water depth greater than 100 feet (ft.), although mine warfare and demolition detonations 

could occur in shallow water, and typically in a few specific locations within the Study Area. This section 

only evaluates the impact of explosives placed on the bottom, because the physical structure of the 

water column is not affected by explosions. 

An explosive charge would produce percussive energy that would be absorbed and reflected by the 

bottom. Hard bottom would mostly reflect the charge (Berglind et al., 2009), whereas a crater would be 

formed in soft bottom (Gorodilov & Sukhotin, 1996). For a specific size of explosive charge, crater 

depths and widths would vary depending on depth of the charge and substrate type. There is a 

nonlinear relationship between crater size and depth of water, with relatively small crater sizes in the 

shallowest water, followed by a spike in size at some intermediate depth, and a decline to an average 

flat line at greater depth (Gorodilov & Sukhotin, 1996; O'Keeffe & Young, 1984). Radii of the craters 

reportedly vary little among unconsolidated substrate types (O'Keeffe & Young, 1984). On substrate 

types with nonadhesive particles (everything except clay), the effects should be temporary, whereas 

craters in clay may persist for years (O'Keeffe & Young, 1984). Soft substrate moves around with the 

tides and currents and depressions are only short-lived (days – weeks) unless they are maintained. 

3.5.3.2.1 Impacts from Explosives 

3.5.3.2.1.1 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Relevant training activities under Alternative 1 include explosives used during mine countermeasures, 

mine neutralization using remotely operated vehicles, mine neutralization explosive ordnance disposal, 

and other activities (see Table 2.6-1, Proposed Training Activities per Alternative, and Appendix B, 

Activity Stressor Matrices). The number and locations for these stressors under Alternative 1 are 

provided in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2, Military Expended Materials. The Navy testing and training areas listed 

by range complex, and acreages of abiotic habitat by type are shown in Appendix F (Military Expended 

Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses). 

The analysis assumes that half the charges that could be detonated on the bottom during training 

activities are actually detonated on the bottom. The determination of impact is based on this scenario: 

0.5, 5, 10, 20, and 60 pounds (lb.) net explosive weight explosions on the bottom. Note that mitigation 

measures that may prevent impacts are not included in the quantitative assessment (Chapter 5, 

Mitigation). Only the acreage in the large marine ecosystem areas was included in percentages shown in 

Table 3.5-2. The areas within the Atlantic Basin/Abyssal Zone were not included in order to focus on 

bottom areas likely to have a combination of suitable habitat, supply of sedentary invertebrate larvae, 

and sufficient food particles for filtration or deposit-feeding. Artificial substrate was not included, 

because it was inconsistently included for mapping and it likely represented a miniscule percentage of 

habitat types in the large marine ecosystems. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-30

3.5 Habitats 

The mine neutralization and other training activities involving explosives could occur over a larger area, 

to support the added flexibility of conducting activities anywhere within the specified range complexes. 

Based on the number of charges and impact areas per year, the worst-case scenarios for hard bottom 

impacts are 8.0, less than 0.5, less than 0.5, and 0.5 acres in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine 

Ecosystems, respectively. This represents less than 0.01 percent of the available hard bottom in each of 

the large marine ecosystems. 

Analysis was conducted in order to determine the proportional impact of explosives training on marine 

habitats in each of the training areas within the Study Area (Figure 3.5-9). Based on the proportional 

analysis, total explosive impacts to hard substrate from explosives training activities would be less than 

0.5 acre. Impacts to other substrate types would be approximately 0.5, 8.0, and less than 0.5 acres for 

intermediate, soft, and unknown substrates, respectively. See Appendix F (Military Expended Materials 

and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) for detailed analysis of explosive impacts from training activities in 

each Training Area. 

Analysis was also conducted to evaluate impacts accumulating over the course of a 5-year period. The 

analysis assumed that all impacts would accumulate. In reality, some habitat would recover over time as 

soft substrates are dynamic systems and craters could refill. Areas of hard bottom and other sensitive 

habitats could be avoided using the Protective Measures Assessment Protocol. The total footprint for 

impacts from high explosives over the 5-year period would be approximately 44.2 acres. Of this, less 

than 0.6 percent of the total area of each habitat type (hard, intermediate, and soft) would be impacted, 

and less than 0.01 percent of hard bottom. Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix F (Military 

Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses). 

Under Alternative 1, the areas of bottom habitat in the AFTT Study Area affected annually or over a 

5-year period by in-water detonations for training activities would be a negligible portion of available 

bottom habitat. Training events that include seafloor detonations would be infrequent, the percentage 

of the Study Area affected would be small, and the disturbed areas are likely soft bottom areas that 

recover relatively quickly from disturbance. Therefore, underwater explosions under Alternative 1 would 

be limited to local and short-term impacts on habitat structure in the Study Area. 

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigations to avoid impacts from explosives on habitats in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area. 

For example, the Navy will not conduct explosive mine countermeasure and neutralization activities 

within a specified distance of shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and 

shipwrecks. Mitigation for seafloor resources was not included in the quantitative assessment of habitat 

impacts; however, it will help the Navy further avoid the potential for impacts on habitats from certain 

explosive activities.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Various types of explosives are used during testing activities. The type, number, and location of activities 

that use explosives are described in Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors), and the resulting footprints 

on bottom habitats are quantified in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact 

Analyses). The general locations for Alternative 1 activities are listed in Appendix A (Navy Activity 

Descriptions) and shown on Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 3.5-4. 

Based on the number of charges and impact areas per year, the worst-case scenarios for hardbottom 

area impacted are 3.0, 1.5, and 10.0 acres in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-31

3.5 Habitats 

U.S. Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems, respectively (Figure 3.5-17).This 

represents less than 0.01 percent of hardbottom habitat for each of the large marine ecosystems. 

Additional analysis was conducted in order to determine the proportional impact of explosives testing 

on marine habitats in each of the range complexes and testing ranges within the Study Area (Figure 

3.5-9). Based on the proportional analysis of impacts, total explosive impacts to hard substrate from 

testing activities would be approximately 0.9 acre. Impacts to other substrate types would be 

approximately 1.5 and 12.0 acres for intermediate and soft substrates, respectively. Impacts to unknown 

substrate would be less than 0.5 acre. See Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike 

Impact Analyses) for detailed analysis of explosive impacts from testing activities in each range complex 

and testing range. 

Analysis was also conducted to evaluate impacts accumulating over the course of a 5-year period. The 

analysis assumed that all impacts would be cumulative. In reality, some habitat would recover over time, 

as soft substrates are dynamic systems and craters could refill. Areas of hard bottom and other sensitive 

habitats could be avoided using the Protective Measures Assessment Protocol. The total footprint for 

impacts from high explosives over the 5-year period would be approximately 70.5 acres. Of this, less 

than 0.01 percent of the total area of each habitat type (hard, intermediate, and soft) would be 

impacted. Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct 

Strike Impact Analyses). 

Under Alternative 1, the areas of bottom habitat in the AFTT Study Area affected annually by in-water 

detonations for testing activities would be a negligible portion of available bottom habitat (less than 

0.01 percent for each substrate type). Testing events that include seafloor detonations would be 

infrequent, the percentage of testing area affected would be small, and the disturbed areas are likely 

soft bottom areas that recover relatively quickly from disturbance. Therefore, in-water explosions under 

Alternative 1 would be limited to local and short-term impacts on habitat structure in the Study Area. 

3.5.3.2.1.2 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Relevant training activities included in Alternative 2 include explosives used during mine 

countermeasures, mine neutralization using remotely operated vehicles, mine neutralization explosive 

ordnance disposal, and other training activities (see Table 2.6-1, Proposed Training Activities per 

Alternative). Explosive activities would be the same under Alternative 2 as those analyzed under 

Alternative 1, as only the frequency and duration of sonar activities would differ. The general locations 

for these activities under Alternative 2 are listed in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) and are 

shown on Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 3.5-4. The Navy testing and training areas, listed by large marine 

ecosystem and acreages of abiotic habitat by type, are shown in Appendix F (Military Expended 

Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses).

Testing events that include seafloor detonations would be infrequent, the percentage of testing area 

affected would be small, and the disturbed areas are likely soft bottom areas that recover relatively 

quickly from disturbance. Therefore, in-water explosions under Alternative 2 would be limited to local 

and short-term impacts on habitat structure in the Study Area.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-32

3.5 Habitats 

Figure 3.5-9: Alternative 1 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives by Substrate Type for Training and Testing Compared to 

Total Vulnerable Habitat Within the Range Complexes of the Large Marine Ecosystems Within the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-33

3.5 Habitats 

Figure 3.5-9 (Continued): Alternative 1 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives by Substrate Type for Training and Testing 

Compared to Total Vulnerable Habitat Within the Range Complexes of the Large Marine Ecosystems Within the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-34

3.5 Habitats 

Figure 3.5-10 Alternative 2 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives by Substrate Type for Training and Testing Compared to 

Total Vulnerable Habitat Within the Range Complexes of the Large Marine Ecosystems Within the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-35

3.5 Habitats 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Relevant testing activities included in Alternative 2 that differ from Alternative 1 include NAVAIR’s 

airborne mine neutralization system test and anti-submarine warfare tracking test–maritime patrol 

aircraft. Impacts from other activities would remain the same as discussed above under Alternative 1 

impacts from explosives for testing. The general locations for Alternative 2 activities are listed in 

Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions) and shown on Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 3.5-4. 

Based on the number of charges and impact areas per year, the worst-case scenarios for hard bottom 

are 4.0, 1.5, and 14.0 acres in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems, respectively (Figure 3.5-17). This represents less than 

0.01 percent of hard bottom, intermediate bottom, and softbottom habitat in each area. 

Analysis was conducted in order to determine the proportional impact of explosives testing on marine 

habitats in each of the training areas within the Study Area. Only Virginia Capes and Naval Surface 

Warfare Center Panama City would differ in impacts from Alternative 1 (Figure 3.5-10). Based on the 

proportional analysis of impacts, total explosive impacts to hard substrate from testing activities would 

be approximately 1.0 acre. Impacts to other substrate types would be approximately 1.5 and 13.5 acres 

for intermediate and soft substrates, respectively. Impacts to unknown substrate would be less than 

0.5 acre. See Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) for detailed 

analysis of explosive impacts from testing activities in each training area. 

Analysis was also conducted to evaluate impacts accumulating over the course of a 5-year period. The 

analysis assumed that all impacts would accumulate. In reality, some habitat would recover over time, 

as soft substrates are dynamic systems and craters could refill. Areas of hard bottom and other sensitive 

habitats could be avoided using the Protective Measures Assessment Protocol. The total footprint for 

impacts from high explosives over the 5-year period would be approximately 80.0 acres. However, 

proportional impacts would still affect less than 0.01 percent of the total area of each habitat type (hard, 

intermediate, and soft). Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials 

and Direct Strike Impact Analyses). 

Under Alternative 2, the areas of bottom habitat in in the large marine ecosystems affected annually by 

in-water detonations for testing activities would be a negligible portion of available bottom habitat (less 

than 0.01 percent annually). Testing events that include seafloor detonations would be infrequent and 

the percentage of testing area affected would be small, and the disturbed areas are likely softbottom 

areas that recover relatively quickly from disturbance. Therefore, in-water explosions under Alternative 

2 would be limited to local and short-term impacts on marine habitat structure in the Study Area. 

3.5.3.2.1.3 Impacts from Explosives Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Explosives Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various explosive stressors (e.g., underwater detonations occurring on 

or near the seafloor) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline 

conditions of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after 

cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-36

3.5 Habitats 

3.5.3.3 Energy Stressors 

Energy stressors are not applicable to habitats, since activities that include the use of energy-producing 

devices are typically conducted at or above the surface of the water and would not impact bottom 

habitats. Therefore, they are not analyzed further in this section. 

3.5.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors 

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of physical disturbance and strike 

stressors resulting from the Navy training and testing activities within the Study Area. This analysis 

includes the potential impacts of (1) vessels and in-water devices, (2) military expended materials 

(3) seafloor devices, and (4) pile driving. 

Impacts from physical disturbances or strikes resulting from Navy training and testing activities on biota 

inhabiting soft bottom (habitat for seagrasses, clams, etc.) and hard bottom (habitat for hard corals, 

seaweed, sponges, etc.) substrates are discussed in Section 3.3 (Vegetation) and Section 3.4 

(Invertebrates). Potential impacts to the underlying substrates (soft, intermediate, hard, or artificial) are 

analyzed here. 

3.5.3.4.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices 

Vessels conducting training and testing activities in the Study Area include large ocean-going ships and 

submarines typically operating in waters deeper than 100 m, but also occasionally transiting inland 

waters from ports and through the operating areas. Training and testing activities also include smaller 

vessels operating in inland waters, typically at higher speeds (greater than 10 knots). Vessels used for 

training and testing activities range in size from small boats (less than 40 ft.) to nuclear aircraft carriers 

(greater than 980 ft.). Table 3.0-16 (Representative Vessel Types, Lengths, and Speeds) lists 

representative types of vessels, including amphibious warfare vessels, used during training and testing 

activities. Towed mine warfare and unmanned devices are much smaller than other Navy vessels, but 

would also disturb the water column near the device. Some activities involve vessels towing in-water 

devices used in mine warfare activities. The towed devices attached to a vessel by cables are smaller 

than most vessels, and are not towed at high speeds. Some vessels, such as amphibious vehicles, would 

intentionally contact the seafloor in the surf zone. 

Vessels, in-water devices, and towed in-water devices could either directly or indirectly impact any of 

the habitat types discussed in this section, including soft and intertidal shores, soft and hard bottoms, 

and artificial substrates. In addition, a vessel or device could disturb the water column enough to stir up 

bottom sediments, temporarily increasing the local turbidity. The shore and nearshore environment is 

typically very dynamic because of its constant exposure to wave action and cycles of erosion and 

deposition. Along high-energy shorelines like ocean beaches, these areas would be reworked by waves 

and tides shortly after the disturbance. Along low-energy shorelines in sheltered inland waters, the force 

of vessel wakes can result in elevated erosion and resuspension of fine sediment (Zabawa & Ostrom, 

1980). In deeper waters where the tide or wave action has little influence, sediments suspended into the 

water column would eventually settle. Sediment settlement rates are highly dependent on grain size. 

Disturbance of deeper bottom habitat by vessels or in-water devices is possible where the propeller 

wash interacts with the bottom. However, most vessels transiting in shallow, nearshore waters are 

confined to navigation channels where bottom disturbance only occurs with the largest vessels. An 

exception would be for training and testing activities that occur in shallow, nearshore environments. 

Turbidity caused by vessel operation in shallow water, propeller scarring, and vessel grounding could 

impact habitats in shallow-water areas. In addition, physical contact with hard bottom areas can cause 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-37

3.5 Habitats 

structural damage to the substrate. However, direct impacts to the substrate are typically avoided 

because they could slow or damage the vessel or in-water device. These disturbances would not alter 

the overall nature of the sediments to a degree that would impair their function as habitat. The 

following alternatives analysis specifies where these impacts could be happening in terms of number of 

events with vessel movement or in-water devices training/testing in different habitat areas. 

3.5.3.4.1.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), the majority of the training activities 

include vessels. These activities could be widely dispersed throughout the Study Area, but would be 

more concentrated near naval ports, piers, and ranges. Navy training vessel traffic would be 

concentrated in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem near Naval Station Norfolk 

in Norfolk, Virginia, and in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem near Naval 

Station Mayport in Jacksonville, Florida. Amphibious landings would be restricted to designated 

beaches. Large vessel movement primarily occurs within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, with the 

majority of the traffic flowing in a direct line between Naval Stations Norfolk and Mayport. Large marine 

ecosystems, as well as the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically within the Northeast, Virginia 

Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes and anywhere in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Use of in-water devices is concentrated within the Virginia Capes Range Complex. 

Because of the nature of vessel operation and intentional avoidance of bottom strikes, most shore and 

bottom habitats would not be exposed to vessel strikes but could be exposed to vessel disturbance by 

propeller wash. Groundings would be accidental and are rare. Amphibious vehicles are an exception, but 

only designated beaches that are naturally resilient to disturbance are used. Therefore, while vessels 

may affect shore and bottom habitats, adverse impacts are not likely. 

Shallow water habitats within the Study Area would have a very small potential to be exposed to vessel 

strikes. Vessels would pose little risk to habitats in the open ocean although, in coastal waters, currents 

from large vessels may cause resuspension of sediment. Vessels travelling at high speeds would 

generally pose more of a risk through propeller action in shallow waters. 

With the exception of amphibious operations, vessel disturbance and strikes affecting habitats would be 

extremely unlikely. Shallow-water vessels typically operate in defined boat lanes with sufficient depths 

to avoid propeller or hull strikes of bottom habitats. However, for some inland training activities the 

training areas outside of navigation channels may not have sufficient depth that it is avoidable. 

The direct impact of vessels on bottom habitats is restricted to amphibious training beaches, whereas 

the indirect impact of propeller wash and wakes from vessels or in-water devices could impact shallowwater training areas and sheltered shoreline habitats. However, the bottom disturbance associated with 

propeller wash represents only a temporary resuspension of sediment in the shallowest portion of 

training areas. The effect of surface wakes is limited to high-speed training along relatively sheltered 

shorelines and is likely indistinguishable from the effect of other vessel wakes or storms in waters open 

to the public. Sheltered waters restricted to the public are typically harbors where no wake speeds are 

enforced. 

There is very little likelihood of impacts to habitats because in-water devices are not expected to contact 

the seafloor during training activities, because operational procedures typically avoid shallow areas and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-38

3.5 Habitats 

intentionally avoid vessels or devices contacting the bottom, and exposures would be localized, 

temporary, and would cease with the conclusion of the activity. 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), Navy vessel movements and in-water 

device usage for testing activities would be similar to those described previously under training 

activities. 

Because of the nature of vessel and in-water device operation and intentional avoidance of bottom 

strikes, most habitat would not be exposed to vessel or in-water device direct strikes. 

The impact of vessels and in-water devices on marine habitats would be inconsequential because the 

footprint of potential impact is extremely small relative to the overall availability of habitat, operational 

procedures typically avoid shallow areas and intentionally avoid vessels or devices contacting the 

bottom, and exposures would be localized, temporary, and would cease with the conclusion of the 

activity. 

3.5.3.4.1.2 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), Navy vessel movements and in-water 

device usage under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described previously under Alternative 1 

training activities, although the overall vessel operations would be slightly increased due to more active 

hull-mounted sonar operations. 

Because of the nature of vessel and in-water device operation and intentional avoidance of bottom 

strikes, most habitat would not be exposed to vessel or in-water device direct strikes. Amphibious 

landings are an exception, but these activities are conducted in designated areas that have been 

historically used for this type of activity and are generally devoid of any quality habitat. 

The impact of vessels and in-water devices on marine habitats would be inconsequential because the 

footprint of potential impact is extremely small relative to the overall availability of habitat, operational 

procedures typically avoid shallow areas and intentionally avoid vessels or devices contacting the 

bottom, and exposures would be localized, temporary, and would cease with the conclusion of the 

activity. 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), Navy vessel movements and in-water 

device usage for testing activities under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described previously 

under Alternative 2 training activities. 

Because of the nature of vessel and in-water device operation and intentional avoidance of bottom 

strikes, most habitats would not be exposed to vessel or in-water device direct strikes. Amphibious 

landings are an exception; however, they are not included in testing activities. 

The impact of vessels and in-water devices on marine habitats would be inconsequential because the 

footprint of potential impact is extremely small relative to the overall availability of habitat, operational 

procedures typically avoid shallow areas and intentionally avoid vessels or devices contacting the 

bottom, and exposures would be localized, temporary, and would cease with the conclusion of the 

activity. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-39

3.5 Habitats 

3.5.3.4.1.3 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training 

and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., vessels and inwater devices) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of 

the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.5.3.4.2 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets 

Impacts from aircraft and aerial targets are not applicable to habitats, because aircraft and aerial targets 

would not contact or otherwise affect shore or bottom habitats and are not analyzed further in this 

section. 

3.5.3.4.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials 

This section analyzes the potential for physical disturbance to marine substrates from the following 

categories of military expended materials: (1) non-explosive practice munitions, (2) fragments from 

high-explosive munitions, and (3) expended materials other than munitions, such as sonobuoys, 

expendable targets, and ship hulks. Note that expended materials do not include materials that are 

recovered or considered in-water or seafloor devices. Areas expected to have the greatest amount of 

expended materials are the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, the Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, and the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area (specifically 

within the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes). For a discussion of the types of activities 

that use military expended materials, where they are used, and how many events would occur under 

each alternative, see Tables 2.6-1 through 2.6-4. Military expended materials have the potential to 

physically disturb marine substrates to the extent that they impair the substrate’s ability to function as a 

habitat. These disturbances can result from several sources, including the impact of the expended 

material contacting the seafloor and moving around, the covering of the substrate by the expended 

material, or alteration of the substrate from one type to another. 

The potential for military expended materials to physically impact marine substrates as they come into 

contact with the seafloor depends on several factors. These factors include, but are not limited to, the 

size, shape, type, density, and speed of the material through the water column; the amount of the 

material expended; the frequency of training or testing; water depth, water currents, or other 

disturbances; and the type of substrate. Most of the kinetic energy of the expended material, however, 

is dissipated within the first few feet of the object entering the water causing it to slow considerably by 

the time it reaches the substrate. Because the damage caused by a strike is proportional to the force of 

the strike, slower speeds result in lesser impacts. Due to the water depth at which most training and 

testing events take place, a direct strike on either hardbottom or artificial structures (e.g., artificial reefs 

and shipwrecks) is unlikely to occur with sufficient force to damage the substrate. In softer substrates 

(e.g., sand, mud, silt, clay, and composites), the impact of the expended material coming into contact 

with the seafloor, if large enough and striking with sufficient momentum, may result in a depression and 

a localized redistribution of sediments as they are temporarily suspended in the water column. There 

may also be redistribution of unconsolidated sediment in areas with sufficient flow to move the 

sediment, creating a pattern of scouring on one side of the material and deposition on the other. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-40

3.5 Habitats 

During Navy training and testing, countermeasures such as flares and chaff are introduced into marine 

habitats. These types of military 

expended materials are not 

expected to impact marine 

habitats as strike stressors, 

given their smaller size and low 

velocity when deployed 

compared to projectiles, 

bombs, and missiles. 

Another potential physical 

disturbance that military 

expended materials could have 

on marine substrates would be 

to cover them or to alter the 

type of substrate and, 

therefore, its function as 

habitat. The majority of military 

expended materials that settle 

on hardbottom or artificial 

substrates, while covering the 

seafloor, may serve a similar 

habitat function as the 

substrate it is covering by 

providing a hard surface on 

which organisms can attach 

(Figure 3.5-11 and Figure 

3.5-12). Similarity in attached 

organisms over the long term 

depends on similarity in 

structural features (PerkolFinkel et al., 2006; Ross et al., 

2016), fine surface texture, and 

mineral content (Davis, 2009). 

Natural hardbottom and 

artificial structures of a similar 

shape will eventually have 

similar communities of attached 

organisms if they have similar 

fine texture and mineral 

content. However, the smooth 

surface texture of intact 

military expended materials 

and lack of mineral content 

suggest a difference in species 

composition and associated 

Note: Observed at approximately 350 meters in depth and 60 nautical miles east of 

Jacksonville, Florida. Of note is the use of the smoke float as a colonizing 

substrate for a cluster of sea anemones (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010). 

Figure 3.5-11: A Marine Marker Observed in an Area 

Dominated by Coral Rubble on the Continental Slope 

Note: Observed on the ridge system that runs parallel to the shelf break at 

approximately 80 meters in depth and 55 nautical miles east of Jacksonville, 

Florida. Of note is that encrusting organisms and benthic invertebrates readily 

colonize the artificial structure to a similar degree as the surrounding rock 

outcrop (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010).

Figure 3.5-12: An Unidentified, Non-Military Structure on 

Hardbottom
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-41

3.5 Habitats 

functions. An exception would be expended materials, like the decelerators/parachutes utilized to 

deploy sonobuoys, lightweight torpedoes, expendable mobile anti-submarine warfare training targets, 

and other devices from aircraft, which would not provide a hard surface for colonization. In these cases, 

the hardbottom or artificial substrate covered by the expended material would not be physically 

damaged, but would have an impaired ability to function as a habitat for colonizing or encrusting 

organisms. 

Most military expended materials that settle on soft bottom habitats, while not damaging the actual 

substrate, would inhibit the substrate’s ability to function as a soft bottom habitat by covering it with a 

hard surface. This would effectively alter the substrate from a soft surface to a hard structure and, 

therefore, would alter the habitat to be more suitable for organisms more commonly found associated 

with hard bottom environments (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010, 2011). Expended materials that 

settle in the shallower, more dynamic environments of the continental shelf would likely be eventually 

covered over by sediments due to currents and other coastal processes, or encrusted by organisms. 

Depending on the substrate properties and the hydrodynamic characteristics of the area, military 

expended materials may become buried rather quickly while in other areas they may persist on the 

surface of the seafloor for a more extended time. The offshore portion of the continental shelf 

experiences more sediment redistribution from oceanic currents (e.g., Gulf Stream) than distant surface 

waves. The effect of oceanic currents on sediment redistribution diminishes seaward of the continental 

shelf break: sediment along the continental slope and the Atlantic Basin/Abyssal Zone experience very 

little reworking from surface currents and waves. In the deeper waters of the continental slope and 

beyond where currents do not play as large of a role, expended materials may remain exposed on the 

surface of the substrate with minimal change for extended periods (Figure 3.5-13). 

Note: The casing was observed in a sandy area on the continental slope approximately 425 meters in depth and 70 nautical 

miles east of Jacksonville, Florida. The casing has not become covered by sediments or encrusting organisms due to the 

depth and the relatively calm, current-free environment. 

Figure 3.5-13: A 76-millimeter Cartridge Casing on Softbottom and

a Blackbelly Rosefish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) Using the Casing 

for Protection When Disturbed

Whereas the impacts will accumulate somewhat through successive years of training and testing, some 

portion of the expended material will sink below the surface of shifting soft bottom habitat or become 

incorporated into natural hard bottom before crumbling into inorganic particulates. This will be the fate 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-42

3.5 Habitats 

of military expended material whose density is greater than or equal to that of the underlying substrate 

(e.g., metal, cement, sand) (Traykovksi & Austin, 2017). Constituents of military expended material that 

are less dense than the underlying substrate (e.g., fabric, plastic) will likely remain on the surface 

substrate after sinking. In this case, the impact on substrate as a habitat is likely temporary and minor 

due to the mobility of such materials (refer to living resources sections for more information on the 

entanglement and ingestion risk posed by plastic and fabric constituents of military expended material). 

The impact of dense expendable materials on bottom substrate is prolonged in the large marine 

ecosystem areas that are seaward of the continental shelf. Between initial settlement and burial or 

complete degradation, these relatively stable objects will likely function as small artificial habitats for 

encrusting algae, attached macroalgae/seaweed, and/or sedentary invertebrates as well as small motile 

organisms (Figure 3.5-14).

Disturbance of the bottom from ship hulks may occur, but impairment of habitat function is not 

expected because the material is sunk in the abyssal zone where bottom organisms are generally small 

and sparsely populated (Nybakken, 1993); the deep ocean has a sparse supply of food items for 

sedentary deposit or filter feeders. The only densely populated areas in the deep ocean are around the 

occasional hydrothermal vent/cold seep. 

To determine the potential 

level of disturbance that 

military expended 

materials have on soft, 

intermediate, and hard 

bottom substrates, an 

analysis to determine the 

impact footprint was 

conducted for each range 

complex for each 

alternative. Three main 

assumptions were made 

that result in the impact 

footprints calculated being 

generally considered 

overestimates. First, within 

each category of expended 

items (e.g., bombs, 

missiles, rockets, largecaliber projectiles, etc.), 

the size of the largest item 

that would be expended 

was used to represent the 

sizes of all items in the 

category. For example, the 

impact footprints of 

missiles used during 

training exercises range 

a. MK 82 inert 

bomb 

(168 centimeters 

long) that directly 

impacted the 

seafloor at a depth 

of 12 meters in Z3E 

on 5 or 6 

September 2007; 

photographed on 

13 September 2007. 

Area of destruction/ 

disturbance was 

approximately 17 

square meters. 

b. MK 82 bombs 

with Pocilloporid 

corals, algae, etc.

Source: (Smith & Marx, 2016)

Figure 3.5-14: Military Expended Material Functioning as Habitat
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-43

3.5 Habitats 

from 1.5 to 40 square feet. For the analyses, all missiles were assumed to be equivalent to the largest in 

size, or 40 square feet. Second, it was also assumed that the impact of the expended material on the 

seafloor was twice the size of its actual footprint. This assumption accounts for any displacement of 

sediments at the time of impact as well as any subsequent movement of the item on the seafloor due to 

currents or other forces. This should more accurately reflect the potential disturbance to soft bottom 

habitats, but would overestimate disturbance to hard bottom habitats since no displacement of the 

substrate would occur. Third, items with casings (e.g., small-, medium-, and large-caliber munitions; 

flares; sonobuoys; etc.) have their impact footprints doubled to account for both the item and its casing. 

Items and their casings were assumed to be the same size, even though depending on the munitions, 

one of them is often smaller than the other. 

Once the impact footprints were calculated, three analyses were performed for each range complex: 

(1) a worst-case scenario in which potential impact to each habitat type (soft, intermediate, and hard 

bottom habitats) in that range complex if all expended materials settled in areas with that substrate 

type, (2) a proportional analysis in which potential impact to each habitat type expended materials 

settled proportionally across all habitat types in the area, and (3) a 5-year scenario in which potential 

impact to the bottom habitats in that range complex over a 5-year period if activities continued at 

anticipated levels and impact accumulated over that period. During the analyses, the same dimensions 

were used for high-explosive munitions as were used for non-explosive practice munitions. The total 

area of the seafloor covered by the expended materials should be similar regardless of whether the item 

is intact or fragmented, despite the fact that high-explosive munitions will explode in the air, at the 

surface, or in the water column and only fragments would make it to the substrate. 

Only the acreage in the large marine ecosystem areas was included in percentages. The areas within the 

Atlantic Basin and Abyssal Zone were not included in order to focus on bottom areas likely to have a 

combination of suitable habitat, supply of sedentary invertebrate larvae, and sufficient food particles for 

filtration or deposit-feeding. Artificial substrate was not included, because it was inconsistently included 

for mapping and it likely represented a miniscule percentage of habitat types in the large marine 

ecosystems. 

According to surveys conducted at Farallon De Medinilla (a Department of Defense bombing range in 

the Mariana Archipelago) between 1997 and 2012, there was no evidence that the condition of the 

living resources assessed had changed or been adversely impacted to a significant degree by the training 

activities being conducted there. It should also be noted that the intended munition target was on the 

nearby land area, and water impacts were due to inaccuracy. The health, abundance, and biomass of 

fishes, corals, and other marine resources are comparable to or superior to those in similar habitats at 

other locations within the Mariana Archipelago (Smith & Marx, 2016). However, the study noted that 

the decline in some important reef fish during their latest surveys was likely due to increasing attention 

from fishermen. Also, this is expected to be an extreme case based on the proximity to shallow-water 

coral reefs and the severe wave impact and associated movement of military expended materials due to 

the shallow margins of the islands where wave impact is most severe. Impacts to habitat from military 

expended material in the Study Area would be expected to be less severe. See Appendix F (Military 

Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) for detailed analyses of the impacts associated 

with military expended materials from Navy testing and training activities. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-44

3.5 Habitats 

3.5.3.4.3.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Training activities involving military expended materials (Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions) would 

have the potential to impact the marine substrates within the areas in which the training is occurring. 

Each range complex was evaluated to determine what level of impact could be expected under 

Alternative 1. 

To determine the percentage of a given substrate within a range complex that may potentially be 

impacted by military expended materials under a worst case scenario for each of the alternatives, the 

total impacted area for each range complex was divided by the total amount of that particular substrate 

type within the same range complex as provided in Table 3.5-2 (see also Appendix F, Military Expended 

Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses).

Military expended materials associated with training exercises under a worst-case scenario would not 

impact more than 0.01 percent of the available soft bottom habitat annually within any of the training 

areas or range complexes. Likewise, the potential impact of the worst-case scenario on intermediate 

bottom habitats within each range complex does not exceed 0.01 percent of the total available 

intermediate bottom. Impacts to hard substrate would not exceed 0.01 percent for any of the areas. 

Given that the probability of these worst case scenarios occurring is highly unlikely, the actual impact of 

military expended materials within each range complex under the Alternative 1 on hard bottom, 

intermediate bottom, or soft bottom substrates will be even less. 

Additional analysis was conducted in order to determine the proportional impact of military expended 

material from training activities on marine habitats in each of the training areas within the Study Area 

(Figure 3.5-15). Based on the proportional analysis of impacts, total military expended materials impacts 

from training activities to vulnerable hard substrate would be approximately 7.5 acres. Impacts to other 

substrate types would be approximately 6.0, 63.0, and 5.5 acres for intermediate, soft, and unknown 

substrates, respectively. See Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact 

Analyses), for detailed analysis of military expended materials impacts from training activities in each 

range complex and other training locations. 

Analysis was also conducted to evaluate impacts accumulating over the course of a 5-year period. The 

analysis assumed that all impacts would accumulate. In reality, soft bottom habitats may recover in the 

short term where heavier military expended materials are buried under shifting sediments; hard bottom 

habitats would recover over the long term where hard, stable military expended materials become 

overgrown with similar organisms. The total proportional impact footprint for impacts from high 

explosives over the 5-year period would be approximately 36.0, 30.5, and 315.5 acres for hard bottom, 

intermediate bottom, and soft bottom respectively. Approximately 27.0 acres of unknown habitat would 

be impacted. However, total impacts would still affect less than 0.02 percent of the total area of each 

habitat type (hard, intermediate, and soft) would be impacted. Details of this analysis can be found in 

Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses).

Military expended materials, including small caliber projectile casings, marine markers, flares, and flare 

parts, would also be utilized in inland waterways. In the northeast, military expended materials would 

be expended in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island; Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River and Tributaries, 

and York River. In the southeast, military expended material is employed in Cooper River, South 

Carolina; Kings Bay, Georgia; Mayport, Florida; and Port Canaveral, Florida. Impacts from training 

activities under Alternative 1 in inland waterways are very small, totaling only about 2.5 acres combined 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-45

3.5 Habitats 

in the northeast inland waterways and less than 0.5 acre. In the southeast inland waterways in the 

worst-case scenario. Proportionally, in range complexes in the northeast, less than 0.5, 0.5, 2.5, and 

0.5 acres of hard, intermediate, soft, and unknown substrate would be impacted respectively (Figure 

3.5-15). In the southeast, less than 0.5 acre would be impacted in any of the substrate types (Figure 

3.5-15).

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigation to avoid impacts from military expended materials on habitats in mitigation areas throughout 

the Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct gunnery activities within a specified distance of 

shallow-water coral reefs. Mitigation for seafloor resources was not included in the quantitative 

assessment of habitat impacts; however, it will help the Navy further avoid the potential for impacts on 

habitats from certain activities that involve the use of military expended materials. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Testing activities involving military expended materials (Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions) would 

have the potential to impact the marine substrates within the areas the testing is occurring. Each range 

complex and testing range was evaluated to determine what level of impact could be expected under 

Alternative 1. 

To determine the percentage of the total soft bottom or hard bottom substrate within the Study Area 

that may potentially be impacted by military expended materials under a worst case scenario for each of 

the alternatives, the total impacted area for each testing range was divided by the total amount of that 

particular substrate type within the same testing range as provided in Table 3.5-2 (see also Appendix F, 

Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses).

Military expended materials associated with testing activities under a worst-case scenario would not 

impact more than 0.01 percent of the available soft bottom habitat annually within any of the testing 

areas. Likewise, the potential impact of the worst-case scenario on intermediate bottom habitats within 

each testing range does not exceed 0.01 percent of the total available hard bottom. Hard bottom 

impacts would not exceed 0.01 percent for any of the areas. Given that the probability of these worst 

case scenarios occurring is highly unlikely, the actual impact of military expended materials within each 

range complex under Alternative 1 on hard bottom, intermediate bottom, or soft bottom substrates will 

be even less. 

Additional analysis was conducted in order to determine the proportional impact of military expended 

material from testing activities on marine habitats in each of the ranges complexes and training areas 

within the Study Area (Figure 3.5-15). Based on the proportional analysis of impacts, total military 

expended materials impacts to hard substrate from testing activities would be approximately 6.5 acres. 

Impacts to other substrate types would be approximately 6.5 and 57.0 acres for intermediate and soft 

substrates, respectively. Approximately 0.5 acre of unknown substrate would be impacted. See 

Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses, for detailed analysis of 

military expended materials impacts from testing activities in each range complex or other testing area. 

Analysis was also conducted to evaluate impacts accumulating over the course of a 5-year period. The 

analysis assumed that all impacts would accumulate. In reality, some habitat would recover over time, 

as soft substrates are dynamic systems and craters could refill. The total proportional impact footprint 

for impacts from high explosives over the 5-year period would be approximately 32.5, 335.5, and 

282.0 acres for hard bottom, intermediate bottom, and soft bottom respectively. Approximately 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-46

3.5 Habitats 

Figure 3.5-15: Alternative 1 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended Materials by Substrate Type for Testing and 

Training Compared to Total Habitat Within the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-47

3.5 Habitats 

Figure 3.5-15 (Continued): Alternative 1 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended Materials by Substrate Type for 

Testing and Training Compared to Total Habitat Within the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-48

3.5 Habitats 

Figure 3.5-15 (Continued): Alternative 1 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended Materials by Substrate Type for 

Testing and Training Compared to Total Habitat Within the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-49

3.5 Habitats 

Figure 3.5-15 (Continued): Alternative 1 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended Materials by Substrate Type for 

Testing and Training Compared to Total Habitat Within the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-50

3.5 Habitats 

1.0 acres of unknown habitat would be impacted. However, total impacts would still affect less than 

0.05 percent of the total area of each habitat type (hard, intermediate, and soft) would be impacted. 

Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact 

Analyses).

Further, many of the materials used in training are recovered to some degree: non-explosive torpedoes 

(100 percent), unmanned aerial systems (depends on the type and exercise), targets (depends on the 

type and exercise), mine shapes (depends on the exercise), and bottom-placed instruments 

(100 percent). For the purpose of analysis, a worst case (expended) is assumed if the recovery status 

was unknown. The numbers are also based on a maximum expenditure which is typically not realized in 

any given year. 

As discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources), the Navy will implement 

mitigation to avoid impacts from military expended materials on habitats in mitigation areas throughout 

the Study Area. For example, the Navy will not conduct gunnery activities within a specified distance of 

shallow-water coral reefs. Mitigation for seafloor resources was not included in the quantitative 

assessment of habitat impacts; however, it will help the Navy further avoid the potential for impacts on 

habitats from certain activities that involve the use of military expended materials. 

3.5.3.4.3.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Training activities involving military expended materials (Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions) would 

have the potential to impact the marine substrates within the areas the testing is occurring. Each range 

complex was evaluated to determine what the level of impact could be expected under Alternative 2. 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials), under Alternative 2 the total number 

of military expended materials would be nearly identical to those analyzed under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses), and the primary difference 

between alternatives would be due to an increase in the amount of materials (e.g., sonobuoys) 

associated with anti-submarine warfare activities. Activities under Alternative 2 would occur in the same 

geographic locations using the same types of military expended materials as Alternative 1. 

To determine the percentage of the total soft bottom, intermediate bottom, or hard bottom substrate 

within a training range that may potentially be impacted by military expended materials under a worst 

case scenario for each of the alternatives, the total impacted area for each training range was divided by 

the total amount of that particular substrate type within the same testing range. Results of this analysis 

are provided in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses).

Military expended materials related to training activities under a worst-case scenario would not impact 

more than 0.01 percent of the available soft bottom habitat annually within any of the training ranges. 

Likewise, the potential impact of the worst-case scenario on intermediate bottom habitats within each 

training range does not exceed 0.01 percent of the total available intermediate bottom. Likewise, the 

potential impact of the worst-case scenario on habitats within each training area, range complex, or 

other area does not exceed 0.01 percent of the total available hard bottom. 

Analysis was conducted in order to determine the proportional impact of military expended material 

from training on marine habitats in each of the range complexes within the Study Area. Under 

Alternative 2, impacts would only differ for the Jacksonville and Gulf of Mexico Ranges complexes 

(Figure 3.5-16). Based on the proportional analysis of impacts, military expended material impacts to 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-51

3.5 Habitats 

hard substrate from training activities would be less than 7.5 acres. Impacts to other substrate types 

would be approximately 6.0, 63.5, and 5.5 acres for intermediate, soft, and unknown substrates, 

respectively. See Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) for 

detailed analysis of explosive impacts from training activities in each Training Area. 

Analysis was conducted to evaluate impacts accumulating over the course of a 5-year period. The 

analysis assumed that all impacts would accumulate. In reality, soft bottom habitats may recover in the 

short term where heavier military expended materials are buried under shifting sediments; hard bottom 

habitats would recover over the long term where hard, stable military expended materials become 

overgrown with similar organisms. The total proportional impact footprint for impacts from high 

explosives over the 5-year period would be approximately 36.5, 31.0, and 316.5 acres for hard bottom, 

intermediate bottom, and soft bottom respectively. Approximately 27.0 acres of unknown habitat would 

be impacted. However, total impacts would still affect less than 0.02 percent of the total area of each 

habitat type (hard, intermediate, and soft) would be impacted. Details of this analysis can be found in 

Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses). 

Given that the probability of these worst case scenarios occurring is highly unlikely, the actual impact of 

military expended materials within each range complex under Alternative 2 on either hard bottom or 

soft bottom substrates will be even less than shown in Figure 3.5-16. 

Further, many of the military expended materials would be recovered, including, torpedoes, unmanned 

aerial systems, targets, mine shapes, and instruments. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Testing activities involving military expended materials (Section 3.0.3.3.4, Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors, and Appendix A, Navy Activity Descriptions) would have the potential to impact the 

marine substrates within the areas the testing is occurring. Each range complex and testing range was 

evaluated to determine what the level of impact could be expected under Alternative 2. 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials), under Alternative 2 the total number 

of military expended materials would be very similar to that under Alternative 1 (see Appendix F,

Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses), and the primary difference between 

alternatives would be due to an increase in the amount of materials (e.g., sonobuoys) associated with 

anti-submarine warfare activities. Activities under Alternative 2 would occur in the same geographic 

locations using the same types of military expended materials as Alternative 1. 

To determine the percentage of the total soft bottom, intermediate bottom, or hard bottom substrate 

within a testing range that may potentially be impacted by military expended materials under a worst 

case scenario for each of the alternatives, the total impacted area for each testing range was divided by 

the total amount of that particular substrate type within the same testing range. Results of this analysis 

are provided in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses).

Military expended materials related to testing activities under a worst-case scenario would not impact 

more than 0.01 percent of the available soft bottom habitat annually within any of the testing ranges. 

Likewise, the potential impact of the worst-case scenario on intermediate bottom habitats within each 

testing range does not exceed 0.01 percent of the total available intermediate bottom. The potential 

impact of the worst-case scenario on habitats within each testing range does not exceed 0.1 percent of 

the total available hard bottom. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-52

3.5 Habitats 

Figure 3.5-16: Alternative 2 – Proportional Impact (Acres) from Military Expended Materials by Substrate Type for Training and 

Testing Compared to Total Vulnerable Habitat Within the Range Complexes of the Large Marine Ecosystems Within the Study 

Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-53

3.5 Habitats 

Analysis was conducted in order to determine the proportional impact of military expended material 

from testing on marine habitats in each of the range complexes within the Study Area. Based on the 

proportional analysis of impacts, military expended material impacts to hard substrate from training 

activities would be 6.5 acres. Impacts to other substrate types would be approximately 7.0, 57.0, and 

less than 0.5 acres for intermediate, soft, and unknown substrates, respectively. See Appendix F 

(Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) for detailed analysis of explosive 

impacts from training activities in each training area. 

Analysis was conducted to evaluate impacts accumulating over the course of a 5-year period. The 

analysis assumed that all impacts would accumulate. In reality, over time, some habitat would recover 

as soft substrates are dynamic systems and craters could refill. The total proportional impact footprint 

for impacts from high explosives over the 5-year period would be approximately 33.0, 36.0, and 

285.0 acres for hard bottom, intermediate bottom, and soft bottom respectively. Approximately 

1.0 acre of unknown habitat would be impacted. However, total impacts would still affect less than 

0.05 percent of the total area of each habitat type (hard, intermediate, and soft) would be impacted. 

Details of this analysis can be found in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact 

Analyses). 

Given that the probability of these worst case scenarios occurring is highly unlikely, the actual impact of 

military expended materials within each range complex under Alternative 2 on either hard bottom or 

soft bottom substrates will be even less than shown in Figure 3.5-15. 

Further, many of the military expended materials would be recovered, including torpedoes, unmanned 

aerial systems, targets, mine shapes, and instruments. 

3.5.3.4.3.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under the No Action Alternative for Training 

and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., military 

expended materials) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline 

conditions of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after 

cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.5.3.4.4 Impacts from Seafloor Devices 

The types of activities that use seafloor devices are discussed in Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices) 

and where they are used and how many activities would occur under each alternative are discussed in 

Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices). Seafloor devices include items that are placed on, dropped on, or 

moved along the substrate for a specific purpose, and include mine shapes, anchor blocks, vessel 

anchors, bottom-placed instruments, bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles, and bottom 

placed targets that are recovered (not expended). Mine shapes are typically deployed via surface vessels 

or fixed-wing aircraft. These items can damage fragile abiotic or biogenic structures on the bottom, 

temporarily cover and effectively replace an area of bottom, and resuspend sediment when 

deployed/retrieved. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-54

3.5 Habitats 

3.5.3.4.4.1 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices), under Alternative 1, seafloor devices are deployed 

in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems, as 

well as Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically within the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, 

Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. Specific bays and inland waters where seafloor 

devices are deployed include Sandy Hook Bay, Earle, New Jersey; lower Chesapeake Bay, Hampton 

Roads, Virginia; Beaufort Inlet Channel, Morehead City, North Carolina; Cape Fear River, Wilmington, 

North Carolina; St. Andrew Bay, Panama City, Florida; Sabine Lake, Beaumont, Texas; and Corpus Christi 

Bay, Corpus Christi, Texas. 

Activities involving seafloor devices have the potential to impact bottom habitats. While hard bottom 

exists in all these areas, activities in the Virginia Capes Range Complex, Navy Cherry Point Range 

Complex, and particularly the Jacksonville Range Complex have the potential to impact hard bottom. 

Mine shapes or other stationary targets and anchors are typically recovered within 7 to 30 days 

following the completion of the training or testing events. As a result of their temporary nature, 

recovered mine shapes do not permanently impact the substrate on which they are placed, but will 

temporarily impair the ability of the substrate to function as a habitat for as long as the mine shape and 

anchor is in place. The impairment is due to the temporary covering by artificial substrate along with 

changes in the bathymetry around the structures due to scouring and deposition patterns around 

objects on a soft bottom. Additionally, many targets used in inshore waters are placed either pierside or 

at beachfront locations where the substrate is already disturbed by dredging (for pierside locations) or 

by nearshore currents and wave action (for beach-front locations). 

Potential impacts of precision anchoring are qualitatively different from other seafloor devices because 

the activity involves repeated disturbance to the same area of seafloor. Precision anchoring training 

exercises involve releasing of anchors in designated locations. The intent of these training exercises is to 

practice anchoring the vessel within 300 ft. of the planned anchorage location. These training activities 

typically occur within predetermined shallow water anchorage locations near ports with seafloors 

consisting of soft bottom substrate. The level of impact to the soft sediments would depend on the size 

of the anchor used, which would vary according to vessel type. As most of these activities occur in areas 

along navigation channels subject to strong currents and shifting sediment, disturbed areas would 

quickly return to pre-disturbance conditions. The Navy will implement mitigation that includes not 

conducting precision anchoring (except in designated anchorages) within the anchor swing circle of 

shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks to avoid potential impacts 

from seafloor devices on habitats in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, 

Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). Mitigation for seafloor resources was not included in the 

quantitative assessment of habitat impacts; however, it will help the Navy further avoid the potential for 

impacts on habitats from precision anchoring activities. 

Crawlers are fully autonomous, battery-powered amphibious vehicles used for functions such as 

reconnaissance missions in territorial waters. These devices are used to classify and map underwater 

mines in shallow water areas. The crawler is capable of traveling 2 ft. per second along the seafloor and 

can avoid obstacles. The crawlers are equipped with various sonar sensors and communication 

equipment that enable these devices to locate and classify underwater objects and mines while 

rejecting miscellaneous clutter that would not pose a threat. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-55

3.5 Habitats 

Crawlers move over the surface of the seafloor and would not harm or alter any hard substrates 

encountered; therefore the hard bottom habitat would not be impaired. However, fragile abiotic or 

biogenic structures could be harmed by the crawlers moving over the substrate (refer to living resources 

sections for analysis). In soft substrates, crawlers may leave a trackline of depressed sediments 

approximately 2 ft. wide (the width of the device) in their wake. However, since these crawlers operate 

in shallow water, any disturbed sediments would be redistributed by wave and tidal action shortly (days 

to weeks) following the disturbance. Any disturbance to the soft sediments would not impair its ability 

to function as a habitat. 

The impact of seafloor devices on marine habitats from Alternative 1 training activities is likely to be 

inconsequential because: (1) the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to overall 

availability of habitat of each type, (2) the activities are dispersed such that with the exception of 

precision anchoring activities, few habitats would be exposed to multiple events, (3) impacts would be 

localized and those involving soft bottom would likely be temporary due to the dynamic nature of the 

habitats, and (4) sensitive habitats would tend to be avoided due to snagging or entanglement that 

could hinder recovery of the device. Activities involving seafloor devices are not expected to yield any 

discernable impacts on the overall availability or quality of habitat. 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 1, the use of seafloor devices occurs throughout the Study Area. 

Testing activities involving the use of anchor blocks, which are used to moor minefield targets and 

shapes and are deployed and recovered, have the potential to impact bottom habitat throughout the 

Study Area. At the conclusion of the testing event, the minefield targets and shapes are typically 

recovered, but may be left in place. 

Crawlers are used in the northeast in Narragansett Bay and waters used for testing by the Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range; off the east coast of Florida at the South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range; and at the Gulf of Mexico testing ranges for the 

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range. Testing activities involving the use of 

bottom crawling unmanned underwater vehicles within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility 

Testing Range would be limited to the Port Everglades Restricted Anchorage Area (Section 2.1.6.2, Sea 

and Undersea Space). In other testing areas, bottom habitats would be exposed to strike and 

disturbance in the relatively small area transited by bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles. 

Impacts to habitats from Alternative 1 testing activities are likely to be similar to those discussed above 

for training exercises. The impact of seafloor devices on marine habitats is likely to be inconsequential 

because: (1) the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to overall availability of habitat 

of each type, (2) the activities are dispersed such that with the exception of precision anchoring 

activities, few habitats would be exposed to multiple events, (3) impacts would be localized and those 

involving soft bottom would likely be temporary due to the dynamic nature of the habitats, and 

(4) sensitive habitats would tend to be avoided due to snagging or entanglement that could hinder 

recovery of the device. Activities involving seafloor devices are not expected to yield any discernable 

impacts on the overall availability or quality of habitat. The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid 

potential impacts from seafloor devices on habitats in mitigation areas within the South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility, as discussed in Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). For 

example, the Navy will use real-time geographic information system and Global Positioning System 

(along with remote sensing verification) data during deployment, installation, and recovery of anchors 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-56

3.5 Habitats 

and mine-like objects to avoid impacts on shallow-water coral reefs and live hard bottom. Mitigation for 

seafloor resources was not included in the quantitative assessment of habitat impacts; however, it will 

help the Navy further avoid the potential for impacts on habitats from certain activities that involve the 

use of seafloor devices at the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range. 

3.5.3.4.4.2 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices), under Alternative 2, seafloor devices occur in the 

Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems, as well as 

Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically within the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, 

and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. Specific bays and inland waters could include Sandy Hook Bay, 

Earle, New Jersey; lower Chesapeake Bay, Hampton Roads, Virginia; Beaufort Inlet Channel, Morehead 

City, North Carolina; Cape Fear River, Wilmington, North Carolina; St. Andrew Bay, Panama City, Florida; 

Sabine Lake, Beaumont, Texas; and Corpus Christi Bay, Corpus Christi, Texas. 

Impacts to habitats from training activities under Alternative 2 are likely to be the same as those 

discussed above for Alternative 1 training exercises. The number of devices and locations in which they 

are used would be the same. The impact of seafloor devices on marine habitats is likely to be 

inconsequential because: (1) the area exposed to the stressor is extremely small relative to overall 

availability of habitat of each type, (2) the activities are dispersed such that with the exception of 

precision mooring activities, few habitats would be exposed to multiple events, (3) impacts would be 

localized and those involving soft bottom would likely be temporary due to the dynamic nature of the 

habitats, and (4) sensitive habitats would tend to be avoided due to snagging or entanglement that 

could hinder recovery of the device. Activities involving seafloor devices are not expected to yield any 

discernable impacts on the overall availability or quality of habitat. 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 2, the use of seafloor devices occurs in the Northeast, and Southeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems as well as Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically within the 

Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes; Naval Undersea 

Warfare Center Division, Newport Testing Range, South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing 

Range, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and the Panama City Division Testing Range; nearshore locations 

at Newport, Rhode Island and Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek, Virginia Beach, Virginia; and 

anywhere in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Impacts to habitats from testing activities under Alternative 2 are likely to be similar to those discussed 

above for Alternative 1 testing exercises. The number of testing activities involving seafloor devices is 

only slightly increased (approximately 0.5 percent increase) from Alternative 1. The only locations where 

activities would increase are Virginia Capes Range Complex and Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama 

City Testing Range, where five additional activities annually would occur at each location. Impact of 

seafloor devices on marine habitats is likely to be inconsequential because: (1) the area exposed to the 

stressor is extremely small relative to overall availability of habitat of each type, (2) the activities are 

dispersed such that with the exception of precision mooring activities, few habitats would be exposed to 

multiple events, and (3) impacts would be localized and those involving soft bottom would likely be 

temporary due to the dynamic nature of the habitats. Activities involving seafloor devices are not 

expected to yield any discernable impacts on the overall availability or quality of habitat. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-57

3.5 Habitats 

3.5.3.4.4.3 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., seafloor devices) 

would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities. 

3.5.3.4.5 Impacts from Pile Driving 

Pile driving and removal would involve driving of piles into soft substrate with an impact hammer. Pile 

driving may have the potential to impact soft bottom habitats temporarily during driving, removal, and 

in the short-term thereafter. 

3.5.3.4.5.1 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 1, Elevated Causeway System training would include pile driving and removal which 

could occur once per year in the nearshore and surf zone at one of the following locations: Chesapeake 

Bay area or Navy Cherry Point Range Complex. While pile driving and removal may have the potential to 

impact soft bottom habitat, the impacts would be extremely limited since the number of piles is 

relatively small, and the duration is short (20 days for assembly and 10 days for disassembly). Piles 

would remain in the water for up to 60 days. Since pile driving would occur in the nearshore and surf 

zone areas, the dynamic nature of the soft bottom habitat is likely to return to its previous state shortly 

following removal of the temporary piles. However, the dispersed larvae forming new hard bottom 

communities may attach to the temporary structures instead of more permanent structures (see Section 

3.4, Invertebrates, for details). 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Pile driving stressors are not applicable to habitats since pile driving would not occur under testing 

activities for Alternative 1 and will not be analyzed further in this section. 

3.5.3.4.5.2 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 2, elevated causeway system training would include pile driving and removal which 

could occur once per year in the nearshore and surf zone at one of the following locations: Chesapeake 

Bay area or Navy Cherry Point Range Complex. While pile driving and removal may have the potential to 

impact softbottom habitat, the impacts would be extremely limited since the number of piles is 

relatively small, and the duration is short (20 days for assembly and 10 days for disassembly). Piles 

would remain in the water for up to 60 days. Since pile driving would occur in the nearshore and surf 

zone areas, the dynamic nature of the softbottom habitat is likely to return to its previous state shortly 

following removal of the temporary piles. 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Pile driving stressors are not applicable to habitats since pile driving would not occur under testing 

activities for Alternative 2 and will not be analyzed further in this section. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-58

3.5 Habitats 

3.5.3.4.5.3 Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., pile driving) 

would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities. 

3.5.3.5 Entanglement Stressors 

Entanglement stressors are not applicable to habitats due to the lack of mobility capabilities of habitats 

and will not be analyzed further in this section. 

3.5.3.6 Ingestion Stressors 

Ingestion stressors are not applicable to habitats due to the lack of ingestion capabilities of habitats and 

will not be analyzed further in this section. 

3.5.3.7 Secondary Stressors 

Secondary stressors are not applicable to habitats as they are not susceptible to impacts from secondary 

stressors and will not be analyzed further in this section. 

3.5.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON HABITATS

3.5.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 

Of all the potential stressors, only explosives on or near the bottom and military expended materials 

have any measureable potential to impact marine substrates as habitat for biological communities. The 

impact area for in-water explosions and military expended materials were all much less than 1 percent 

of the total area of documented soft bottom or hard bottom in their respective training or testing areas 

for each mapped substrate type, in any range complex, over 1 year. Furthermore, impacts are expected 

to be negligible for unknown substrate type habitats. The impacts are unlikely to persist in most cases. 

Large and dense military expended material (e.g., anchor blocks, large caliber projectile casings, nonexplosive bombs) deposited on the bottom along the outer continental shelf would be the most 

persistent. However, soft bottom habitats may recover in the short term where heavier military 

expended materials are buried under shifting sediments; hard bottom habitats would recover over the 

long term where hard, stable military expended materials become overgrown with similar organisms. 

The combined impact area of explosive stressors, physical disturbances, and strike stressors proposed 

for training and testing events in Alternative 1 would have minimal impact on the ability of soft bottom, 

intermediate bottom, or hard bottom to serve their function as habitat. The total area of mapped hard 

bottom (Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 3.5-4) in the Study Area is over 26,110,408 acres, which dwarfs the 

estimated 14.0 acres of potential impacts. Training activities under Alternative 1 would have a total 

footprint of potential impact across all habitat types of 82.0 acres from military expended materials and 

9.0 acres from explosive detonations. This also represents less than 0.01 percent of the bottom habitat 

within the Study Area. Testing activities under Alternative 1 would have a total footprint of potential 

impact of 70.5 acres from military expended materials and 14.5 acres from explosive detonations. This 

represents less than 0.01 percent of the bottom habitat within the Study Area. The combined total 

proportional impact for training and testing is primarily to soft bottom habitat, much less to hard and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-59

3.5 Habitats 

intermediate substrate habitats, and very little to areas with unknown substrate type (Figure 3.5-17). 

See Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) for detailed impact 

analysis. 

3.5.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 

The combined effects of explosive stressors, physical disturbances, and strike stressors proposed for 

training and testing events in Alternative 2 would have minimal impact on the ability of soft bottom, 

intermediate bottom, or hard bottom to function as habitat. The total area of mapped hard bottom 

(Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 3.5-4) in the Study Area is over 26,110,408 acres, which dwarfs the 

estimated 7.5 acres of potential impacts. Training activities under Alternative 2 would have a total 

footprint of potential impact of 82.0 acres across all habitat types from military expended materials and 

9.0 acres from explosive detonations. This represents less than 0.01 percent of the bottom habitat 

within the Study Area. Testing activities under Alternative 2 would have a total footprint of potential 

impact of 71.0 acres from military expended materials and 16.0 acres from explosive detonations. This 

also represents less than 0.01 percent of the bottom habitat within the Study Area. The combined total 

proportional impact for training and testing is primarily to soft bottom habitat, much less to hard 

bottom and intermediate bottom substrate habitats, and very little to areas with unknown substrate 

type (Figure 3.5-18). See Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) for 

detailed impact analysis. 

3.5.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various explosives and physical disturbance and strike stressors (e.g., 

in-water detonations, military expended materials, seafloor devices, vessels and in-water devices, and 

pile driving) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of 

the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-60

3.5 Habitats 

Figure 3.5-17: Alternative 1 – Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives and 

Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-61

3.5 Habitats 

Figure 3.5-17 (Continued): Alternative 1 – Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from 

Explosives and Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-62

3.5 Habitats 

Figure 3.5-17 (Continued): Alternative 1 – Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from 

Explosives and Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within the Study Area 

Figure 3.5-18: Alternative 2 – Combined Proportional Impact (Acres) from Explosives and 

Military Expended Materials for Training and Testing Within the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-63

3.5 References 

References 

Ajemian, M. J., J. J. Wetz, B. Shipley-Lozano, J. D. Shively, & G. W. Stunz. (2015). An Analysis of Artificial 

Reef Fish Community Structure along the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico Shelf: Potential Impacts 

of "Rigs-to-Reefs" Programs. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0126354. 

Allee, R. J., M. Dethier, D. Brown, L. Deegan, R. G. Ford, T. F. Hourigan, J. Maragos, C. Schoch, K. Sealey, 

R. Twilley, M. P. Weinstein, & M. Yoklavich. (2000). Marine and estuarine ecosystem and habitat 

classification. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-F/SPO-43, 43 

Bacchiocchi, F., & L. Airoldi. (2003). Distribution and dynamics of epibiota on hard structures for coastal 

protection. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 56, 1157-1166. 

Berglind, R., D. Menning, R. Tryman, A. Helte, P. Leffler, & R. M. Karlsson. (2009). Environmental Effects 

of Underwater Explosions: A Literature Study. Totalforsvarets Forskningsinstitut, FOI. 

Boehlert, G. W., & A. B. Gill. (2010). Environmental and ecological effects of ocean renewable energy 

development: A current synthesis. Oceanography, 23(2), 68–81. 

Britton, J. C., & B. Morton. (1998). Shore Ecology of the Gulf of Mexico. 387. 

Broughton, K. (2012). Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Science Review of Artificial Reefs. Silver 

Spring, MD: NOAA National Ocean Service, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 

Clark, M. R., F. Althaus, T. A. Schlacher, A. Williams, D. A. Bowden, & A. A. Rowden. (2016). The impacts 

of deep-sea fisheries on benthic communities: a review. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal 

du Conseil, 73(suppl 1), i51–i69. 

Clarke, M. C., M. E. Mach, & R. G. Martone. (2014). Cumulative Effects in Marine Ecosystems: Scientific 

Perspectives on its Challenges and Solutions. 

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, & E. T. LaRoe. (1979). Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States. Washington, DC: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home 

Page Retrieved from http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm. 

Crain, C. M., B. S. Halpern, M. W. Beck, & C. V. Kappel. (2009). Understanding and Managing Human 

Threats to the Coastal Marine Environment. In R. S. Ostfeld & W. H. Schlesinger (Eds.), The Year 

in Ecology and Conservation Biology, 2009 (pp. 39–62). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. 

Davis, A. R. (2009). The role of mineral, living and artificial substrata in the development of subtidal 

assemblages. In M. Wahl (Ed.), Marine Hardbottom Communities: Patterns, Dynamics, Diversity 

and Change (Vol. 206, pp. 19–37). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. 

Diaz, R. J., & R. Rosenberg. (2008). Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. 

Science, 321(5891), 926–929. 

Gorodilov, L. V., & A. P. Sukhotin. (1996). Experimental investigation of craters generated by explosions 

of underwater surface charges on sand. Combustion, Explosion, and Shock Waves, 32(3), 344–

346. 

Halpern, B. S., S. Walbridge, K. A. Selkoe, C. V. Kappel, F. Micheli, C. D'Agrosa, J. F. Bruno, K. S. Casey, C. 

Ebert, H. E. Fox, R. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H. S. Lenihan, E. M. P. Madin, M. T. Perry, E. R. Selig, M. 

Spalding, R. Steneck, & R. Watson. (2008). A global map of human impact on marine 

ecosystems. Science, 319, 948–952. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-64

3.5 References 

Hanson, J., M. Helvey, & R. Strach. (2003). Non-Fishing Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and 

Recommended Conservation Measures. 

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., & J. F. Bruno. (2010). The impact of climate change on the world's marine 

ecosystems. Science, 328(5985), 1523–1528. 

Holland, K. T., & P. A. Elmore. (2008). A review of heterogeneous sediments in coastal environments. 

Earth-Science Reviews, 89(3–4), 116–134. 

Howell, E. A., P. H. Dutton, J. J. Polovina, H. Bailey, D. M. Parker, & G. H. Balazs. (2010). Oceanographic 

influences on the dive behavior of juvenile loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the North 

Pacific Ocean. Marine Biology, 157(5), 1011–1026. 

Karleskint, G., Jr., R. Turner, & J. W. Small, Jr. (2006). Introduction to Marine Biology (2nd ed.). Belmont, 

CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. 

Keener, V. W., J. J. Marra, M. L. Finucane, D. Spooner, & M. H. Smith. (2012). Climate Change and Pacific 

Islands: Indicators and Impacts (Executive Summary of the 2012 Pacific Islands Regional Climate 

Assessment (PIRCA)). 

Kendall, M. S., M. E. Monaco, K. R. Buja, J. D. Christensen, C. R. Kruer, M. Finkbeiner, & R. A. Warner. 

(2001). Methods Used to Map the Benthic Habitats of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

Silver Spring, MD: U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Ocean 

Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science Biogeography Program. 

Lalli, C. M., & T. R. Parsons. (1993). Biological Oceanography: An Introduction. New York, NY: Pergamon 

Press. 

Leggett, C., N. Scherer, M. Curry, R. Bailey, & T. Haab. (2014). Assessing the Economic Benefits of 

Reductions in Marine Debris: A Pilot Study of Beach Recreation in Orange County, California. 

Final Report. Prepared for NOAA, Marine Debris Division. 

Lotze, H. K., S. L. Hunter, B. J. Bourque, R. H. Bradbury, R. G. Cooke, M. C. Kay, S. M. Kidwell, M. X. Kirby, 

C. H. Peterson, & J. B. Jackson. (2006). Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of 

estuaries and coastal seas. Science, 312. 

Macfadyen, G., T. Huntington, & R. Cappell. (2009). Abandoned, Lost or Otherwise Discarded Fishing 

Gear. (UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 185 and FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture 

Technical Paper No. 523). Rome, Italy: United Nations Environment Programme, Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Retrieved from 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0620e/i0620e00.HTM. 

Macreadie, P. I., A. M. Fowler, & D. J. Booth. (2011). Rigs-to-reefs: Will the deep sea benefit from 

artificial habitat? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(8), 455–461. 

Menge, B. A., & G. M. Branch. (2001). Rocky intertidal communities. In M. D. Bertness, S. D. Gaines & M. 

E. Hay (Eds.), Marine Community Ecology (pp. 221–252). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 

Inc. 

National Ocean Service. (2011). Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) Maps. Retrieved from 

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/maps-and-spatial-data/environmental-sensitivity-indexesi-maps.html 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2007). National Artificial Reef Plan (as Amended): 

Guidelines for Siting, Construction, Development, and Assessment of Artifical Reefs. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-65

3.5 References 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2016). Marine Debris 

Impacts on Coastal and Benthic Habitats. Silver Spring, MD. 

National Park Service. (2010). Padre Island National Seashore. U.S. Department of the Interior Retrieved 

from http://www.nps.gov/pais/naturescience/index.htm. 

Newell, R. C., L. J. Seiderer, & D. R. Hitchcock. (1998). Sensitivity to Disturbance and Subsequent 

Recovery of Biological Resources on the Sea Bed. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual 

Review. 

Nybakken, J. W. (1993). Marine Biology, an Ecological Approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins 

College Publishers. 

O'Keeffe, D. J., & G. A. Young. (1984). Handbook on the Environmental Effects of Underwater Explosions. 

Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Navy, Naval Surface Weapons Center (Code R14). 

Perkol-Finkel, S., N. Shashar, & Y. Benayahu. (2006). Can artificial reefs mimic natural reef communities? 

The roles of structural features and age. Marine Environmental Research, 61, 121–135. 

Powers, S. P., J. H. Grabowski, C. H. Peterson, & W. J. Lindberg. (2003). Estimating enhancement of fish 

production by offshore artificial reefs: uncertainty exhibited by divergent scenarios. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 264, 265–277. 

Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, & W. J. Wiseman, Jr. (2002). Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, a.k.a. "The Dead Zone" 

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33( ), 235–263. 

Roman, C. T., N. Jaworski, F. T. Short, S. Findlay, & R. S. Warren. (2000). Estuaries of the northeastern 

United States: Habitat and land use signatures. Estuaries, 23(6), 743–764. 

Ross, S. W., M. Rhode, S. T. Viada, & R. Mather. (2016). Fish species associated with shipwreck and 

natural hard-bottom habitats from the middle to outer continental shelf of the Middle Atlantic 

Bight near Norfolk Canyon. 

Scavia, D., J. C. Field, D. F. Boesch, R. W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D. R. Cayan, M. Fogarty, M. A. Harwell, 

R. W. Howarth, C. Mason, D. J. Reed, T. C. Royer, A. H. Sallenger, & J. G. Titus. (2002). Climate 

Change Impacts on U.S. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems. Estuaries, 25(2), 149–164. 

Seaman, W. (2007). Artificial habitats and the restoration of degraded marine ecosystems and fisheries. 

Hydrobiologia, 580(1), 143-155. 

Smith, S. H., & D. E. Marx, Jr. (2016). De-facto marine protection from a Navy bombing range: Farallon 

De Medinilla, Mariana Archipelago, 1997 to 2012. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 102(1), 187–198. 

Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program—South Atlantic. (2001). Distribution of bottom 

habitats on the continental shelf from North Carolina through the Florida Keys. Washington, DC: 

SEAMAP—SA Bottom Mapping Workgroup, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 

Speybroeck, J., D. Bonte, W. Courtens, T. Gheskiere, P. Grootaert, J. P. Maelfait, S. Provoost, K. Sabbe, E. 

W. M. Stienen, V. Van Lancker, W. Van Landuyt, M. Vincx, & S. Degraer. (2008). The Belgian 

sandy beach ecosystem: A review. Marine Ecology-an Evolutionary Perspective, 29(Supplement 

1), 171–185. 

Traykovksi, P., & T. Austin. (2017). Continuous Monitoring of Mobility, Burial, and Re-exposure of 

Underwater Munitions in Energetic Near-Shore Environments (SERDP Project MR-2319). Woods 

Hole, MA: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.5-66

3.5 References 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010). JAX OPAREA USWTR Bottom Mapping and Habitat 

Characterization, Florida. Final Cruise Report. Norfolk, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command Atlantic Retrieved from https://164.223.10.96/marlinrepository/26708/. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011). CC Range Bottom Mapping and Habitat Characterization, Florida. 

Final Cruise Report. (NAVFAC Atlantic Biological Resource Services 

Contract # N62470-08-D-1008/TO 0029). Norfolk, VA: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2016). Building and Maintaining a Comprehensive Database and 

Prioritization Scheme for Overlapping Habitat Data. 

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2009). Global Open Oceans and Deep 

Seabed (GOODS)—Biogeographic Classification. Paris, France: UNESCO - IOC. 

Valentine, P. C., B. J. Todd, & V. E. Kostylev. (2005). Classification of Marine Sublittoral Habitats, with 

Application to the Northeastern North America Region. Paper presented at the American 

Fisheries Society Symposium. 

Zabawa, C., & C. Ostrom. (1980). Final Report on the Role of Boat Wakes in Shore Erosion in Anne 

Arundel County, Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

i 

Table of Contents

Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

3.6 Fishes .......................................................................................................... 3.6-1

3.6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3.6-2

3.6.2 Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 3.6-3

3.6.2.1 General Background ........................................................................... 3.6-3

3.6.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species ............................................ 3.6-15

3.6.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act .................... 3.6-44

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... 3.6-61

3.6.3.1 Acoustic Stressors ............................................................................. 3.6-62

3.6.3.2 Explosive Stressors .......................................................................... 3.6-107

3.6.3.3 Energy Stressors .............................................................................. 3.6-122

3.6.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors ...................................... 3.6-131

3.6.3.5 Entanglement Stressors .................................................................. 3.6-146

3.6.3.6 Ingestion Stressors .......................................................................... 3.6-157

3.6.3.7 Secondary Stressors ........................................................................ 3.6-169

3.6.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Fishes ........................................................ 3.6-174

3.6.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................ 3.6-174

3.6.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................ 3.6-175

3.6.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative ...................................................................................... 3.6-175

3.6.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations ........................................................ 3.6-175

List of Figures 

Figure 3.6-1: Critical Habitat Areas for Atlantic Salmon in and Adjacent to the Study Area ................ 3.6-22

Figure 3.6-2: Proposed Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the 

Southern Portion the Study Area ..................................................................................... 3.6-24

Figure 3.6-3: Proposed Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the 

Northern Portion of the Study Area ................................................................................ 3.6-25

Figure 3.6-4: Critical Habitat Areas for Smalltooth Sawfish in and Adjacent to the Study Area .......... 3.6-31

Figure 3.6-5: Critical Habitat Areas for Gulf Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the Study Area ................... 3.6-34
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

ii

Table of Contents

List of Tables 

Table 3.6-1: Regulatory Status and Occurrence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Fishes in 

the Study Area ................................................................................................................. 3.6-16

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 3.6-45

Table 3.6-3: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Sonar .................................................................... 3.6-77

Table 3.6-4: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift from Four Representative Sonar Bins .................. 3.6-78

Table 3.6-5: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Air Guns ..................................... 3.6-86

Table 3.6-6: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Air Guns ................................................................ 3.6-87

Table 3.6-7: Range to Effect for Fishes Exposed to 100 Air Gun Shots ................................................. 3.6-87

Table 3.6-8: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Impact Pile Driving ..................... 3.6-91

Table 3.6-9: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Impact Pile Driving ............................................... 3.6-92

Table 3.6-10: Impact Ranges for Transient or Pelagic Fishes from Impact Pile Driving for 35 

Strikes (1 minute) ............................................................................................................. 3.6-93

Table 3.6-11: Impact Ranges for Demersal Fishes from Impact Pile Driving for 3,150 strikes 

(1 Day) .............................................................................................................................. 3.6-93

Table 3.6-12: Range to Effect from Underwater Explosions for Fishes with a Swim Bladder ............3.6-109

Table 3.6-13: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Explosives .............................. 3.6-114

Table 3.6-14: Sound Exposure Criteria for Hearing Loss from Explosives .......................................... 3.6-115

Table 3.6-15: Range to Effect for Fishes without a Swim Bladder from Explosives ........................... 3.6-115

Table 3.6-16: Range to Effect for all Fishes with a Swim Bladder from Explosives ............................ 3.6-117

Table 3.6-17: Ingestion Stressors Potential for Impact on Fishes Based on Location ........................ 3.6-159
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-1 

3.6 Fishes

3.6 FISHES

FISHES SYNOPSIS

The United States Department of the Navy (Navy) considered all potential stressors that fishes could 

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

the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1):

 Acoustics: The use of sonar and other transducers, air guns, pile driving, vessel noise, aircraft 

noise, and weapons noise could result in impacts on fishes in the Study Area. Some sonars and 

other transducers, vessel noise, and weapons noise could result in hearing loss, masking, 

physiological stress, or behavioral reactions. Aircraft noise would not likely result in impacts 

other than brief, mild behavioral responses in fishes that are close to the surface. Air guns and 

pile driving have the potential to result in the same effects in addition to mortality or injury. 

Most impacts, such as masking or behavioral reactions, are expected to be temporary and 

infrequent as most activities involving acoustic stressors would be at low levels of noise, 

temporary, localized, and infrequent. More severe impacts such as mortality or injury could lead 

to permanent or long-term consequences for individuals but, overall, long-term consequences 

for fish populations are not expected.

 Explosives: The use of explosives could result in impacts on fishes within the Study Area. Sound 

and energy from explosions is capable of causing mortality, injury, hearing loss, masking, 

physiological stress, or behavioral responses. The time scale of individual explosions is very 

limited, and training and testing activities involving explosions are dispersed in space and time, 

therefore, repeated exposure of individual fishes are unlikely. Most effects such as hearing loss 

or behavioral responses are expected to be short-term and localized. More severe impacts such 

as mortality or injury could lead to permanent or long-term consequences for individuals but, 

overall, long-term consequences for fish populations are not expected.

 Energy: The use of electromagnetic devices may elicit brief behavioral or physiological stress 

responses only in those exposed fishes with sensitivities to the electromagnetic spectrum. This 

behavioral impact is expected to be temporary and minor. Similar to regular vessel traffic that is 

continuously moving and covers only a small spatial area during use, electromagnetic fields 

would be continuously moving and cover only a small spatial area during use, so population-level 

impacts are unlikely.

 Physical Disturbance and Strike: Vessel strikes, in-water device strikes, military expended 

material strikes, and seafloor device strikes present a risk for collision with fishes, particularly 

near coastal areas, seamounts, and other bathymetric features where densities are higher. While 

the potential for physical disturbance and strikes of fishes can occur anywhere vessels are 

operated or training and testing activities occur, most fishes are highly mobile and have sensory 

capabilities which enable the detection and avoidance of vessels, expended materials, or objects 

in the water column or on the seafloor.

Continued on the next page...
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-2 

3.6 Fishes

3.6.1 INTRODUCTION

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the Proposed Action on fishes found in the Study Area. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) species that occur in the Study Area are discussed in Section 3.6.2.2 and 

taxonomic groupings are discussed in Section 3.6.2.3. The complete analysis of environmental 

consequences is in Section 3.6.3 (Environmental Consequences) and the potential impacts of the 

Proposed Action on marine fish species are summarized in Section 3.6.4 (Summary of Potential Impacts 

on Fishes).

For this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS), 

marine fishes are evaluated as groups of species characterized by distribution, morphology (body type), 

or behavior relevant to the stressor being evaluated. Activities are evaluated for their potential effects 

on the marine fishes in the Study Area that are listed, proposed, or candidate species under the ESA, as 

well as other fishes in the Study Area generally by major marine fish groupings. Fishes are not 

distributed uniformly throughout the Study Area but are closely associated with a variety of habitats. 

Some species, such as large sharks, salmon, tuna, and billfishes, range across thousands of square miles. 

Other species, such as gobies and most reef fish, generally have small home ranges and restricted 

distributions (Helfman et al., 2009). The early life stages (e.g., eggs and larvae) of many fishes may be 

widely distributed even when the adults have relatively small ranges. The movements of some 

open-ocean species may never overlap with coastal fishes that spend their lives within several hundred 

feet of the shore. The distribution and specific habitats in which an individual of a single fish species 

occurs may be influenced by its life stage, size, sex, reproductive condition, and other factors. 

FISHES SYNOPSIS

Continued from the previous page...

 Entanglement: Fishes could be exposed to multiple entanglement stressors associated with Navy 

training and testing activities. The potential for impacts is dependent on the physical properties 

of the expended materials and the likelihood that a fish would encounter a potential 

entanglement stressor and then become entangled in it. Physical characteristics of wires and 

cables, decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymers, combined with the sparse 

distribution of these items throughout the Study Area, indicates a very low potential for fishes to 

encounter and become entangled in them. Because of the low numbers of fish potentially 

impacted by entanglement stressors, population-level impacts are unlikely.

 Ingestion: The likelihood that expended items would cause a potential impact on a given fish 

species depends on the size and feeding habits of the fish and the rate at which the fish 

encounters the item and the composition of the item. Military expended materials from 

munitions present an ingestion risk to fishes that forage in the water column and on the seafloor. 

Military expended materials other than munitions present an ingestion risk for fishes foraging at 

or near the surface while these materials are buoyant, and on the seafloor when the materials 

sink. Because of the low numbers of fish potentially impacted by ingestion stressors, populationlevel impacts are unlikely.

 Secondary: Effects on sediment or water quality would be minor, temporary, and localized and 

could have short-term, small-scale secondary effects on fishes; however, there would be no 

persistent or large-scale effects on the growth, survival, distribution, or population-level impacts 

of fishes.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-3 

3.6 Fishes

Approximately 78 percent of all marine fish species occur in waters less than 200 meters (m) deep and in 

close association with land, while 13 percent are associated with the open ocean (Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

3.6.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Three subsections are included in this section. General background information is given in Section 

3.6.2.1 (General Background), which provides brief summaries of habitat use, movement and behavior, 

and threats that affect or have the potential to affect fishes within the Study Area. Protected species 

listed under the ESA are described in Section 3.6.2.2 (Endangered Species Act-Listed Species). General 

taxonomic groupings of fishes not listed under the ESA are briefly reviewed in Section 3.6.2.3 (Species 

Not Listed under the Endangered Species Act). 

3.6.2.1 General Background 

Fishes are the most numerous and diverse of the major vertebrate groups (Moyle & Cech, 2004). It is 

estimated that there are currently over 34,000 species of fish worldwide (Eschmeyer & Fong, 2017), 

with greater than half that number of species inhabiting the oceans. 

Many factors impact the abundance and distribution of marine fishes in the seven Large Marine 

Ecosystems (West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast United 

States (U.S.) Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) and 

three open ocean areas (Labrador Sea, North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre, and Gulf Stream Current) in the 

Study Area. The distribution of fish species in the Study Area is influenced primarily by temperature, 

salinity, pH, physical habitat, ocean currents, and latitudinal gradients (Helfman et al., 2009; 

Macpherson, 2002). In general terms, the coastal-centered Large Marine Ecosystems support a greater 

diversity of coastal species, while the open ocean areas support a lower diversity of oceanic and deepsea species (Helfman et al., 2009). The warm waters of the Loop Current in the Gulf of Mexico promote 

the dispersal of tropical species from the Caribbean Sea into the Northern Gulf of Mexico (Shulman, 

1985). The circulation patterns of the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre also influence 

species distributions, particularly near Bermuda and Cape Hatteras, where the northernmost 

occurrences of sizable tropical fish assemblages are found (Love & Chase, 2007; Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

The Gulf Stream, described in Section 3.0.2 (Ecological Characterization of the Study Area), carries warm 

water to northern latitudes, where these areas can support subtropical species. For example, 

approximately half of the species occurrences in the Gulf of Maine are considered warm-water fish 

(Moyle & Cech, 2004), although some of these are sporadic or rare. 

Marine fishes can be broadly categorized by their distributions within the water column or habitat 

usage. Moyle and Cech (2004) define the major marine habitat categories as estuaries, coastal habitats, 

reefs, epipelagic zone, deep sea, and the Polar regions. In the Study Area, the major habitat categories 

include all of the aforementioned except the Polar regions. Many marine fishes that occur in the Study 

Area are demersal species associated with nearshore coastal reefs or are more oceanic and live in 

surface waters (pelagic) further offshore (Schwartz, 1989). The highest number and diversity of fishes 

typically occur where the habitat has structural complexity (reef systems, continental slopes, deep 

canyons), biological productivity (areas of nutrient upwelling), and a variety of physical and chemical 

conditions (water flow, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and temperature) (Bergstad et al., 2008; Helfman et 

al., 2009; Moyle & Cech, 2004; Parin, 1984). Some of the marine fishes that occur in the coastal zone 

migrate between marine and freshwater habitats (Helfman et al., 2009). Other distribution factors, 

including predator/prey relationships, water quality, and refuge (e.g., physical structure or vegetation 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-4 

3.6 Fishes

cover) operate on more regional or local spatial scales (Reshetiloff, 2004). Also, fishes may move among 

habitats throughout their lives based on changing needs during different life stages (Schwartz, 1989). 

Many habitat and geographic factors impact the distribution of fishes within the Study Area—including 

within range complexes, operating areas (OPAREAs), ports/shipyards, and testing ranges. In the Gulf of 

Mexico portion of the Study Area, water temperature, seafloor (benthic) habitat, and geographic 

location appear to be the primary factors, while in the Atlantic Ocean portion, latitudinal changes, 

temperature, and depth seem to be the most important factors influencing species distribution (Gordon, 

2001; Love & Chase, 2007; Macpherson, 2002). Each major habitat type in the Study Area (e.g., coral 

reef, hard bottom, soft bottom, and beds of aquatic vegetation) supports an associated fish community 

with the number of species increasing with decreasing latitude (transition from north to south). 

However, this pattern is not as clearly defined for wide-ranging migratory open-ocean species 

(Macpherson, 2002). The specific characteristics of the wide diversity of habitat and biotic species that 

make up these habitat types within the Study Area are discussed in Section 3.3 (Vegetation), Section 3.4 

(Invertebrates), and Section 3.5 (Habitats). 

Some fish species in the United States are protected under the ESA and are managed by either the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The recreational and 

commercial fisheries are managed within a framework of overlapping international, federal, state, 

interstate, and tribal authorities. Individual states and territories generally have jurisdiction over 

fisheries located in marine waters within 3 nautical miles (NM) of their coast, except for Texas, the Gulf 

Coast of Florida, and Puerto Rico, which haves jurisdiction out to 9 NM. Federal jurisdiction includes 

fisheries in marine waters inside the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. The area stretches from the outer 

boundary of state waters out to 200 NM offshore of any United States coastline, except where 

intersected closer than 200 NM by bordering countries. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and Sustainable Fisheries Act led to 

the formation of eight regional fishery management councils that coordinate with NMFS to manage and 

conserve certain fisheries in federal waters. Together with NMFS, the councils maintain fishery 

management plans for species or species groups comprised of fish, invertebrates, and vegetation to 

regulate commercial and recreational harvest within their geographic regions. The Study Area overlaps 

with the jurisdiction of five regional fishery management councils, as well as the range of the highly 

migratory species (e.g., sharks, billfishes, swordfishes, and tunas), which are managed directly by NMFS. 

 New England Fishery Management Council includes Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island, and Connecticut. 

 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council includes New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina (from its northern border to Cape Hatteras). 

 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council includes North Carolina (from Cape Hatteras to its 

southern border), South Carolina, Georgia, and the east coast of Florida. 

 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council includes west coast of Florida, Alabama, 

Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. 

 Caribbean Fishery Management Council includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. 

 NMFS, Office of Sustainable Fisheries includes all federally managed waters in the 

Northwestern Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico where highly migratory species occur. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-5 

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.1.1 Habitat Use 

Fishes inhabit most of the world’s oceans, from warm shallow coastal habitat to cold deep-sea waters, 

and are found on the surface, in the water column, and at the bottom of the seven Large Marine 

Ecosystems (West Greenland, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea) and open ocean areas 

(Labrador Current, Gulf Stream, and North Atlantic Gyre) in the Study Area. The description of habitat 

use in this section pertains to common fishes found in the different habitats. The abiotic (non-living) 

components of all habitat types are addressed in Section 3.5 (Habitats), habitat-forming invertebrates 

(e.g., coral, sponges, etc.) are covered in Section 3.4 (Invertebrates), and marine vegetation components 

are discussed in Section 3.3 (Vegetation). 

Fish distribution is restricted by biotic factors (competition or predation) or by abiotic components, such 

as temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and pH or by that describe the potential range of 

environmental conditions a species can inhabit in the absence of predators and competitors. A species 

can be excluded from habitat otherwise suitable for it by competitors, predators, parasites, or lack of 

suitable prey (Moyle & Cech, 2004). For example, Catano et al. (2015) found that a loss of corals and the 

resulting decline in structural complexity, as well as management efforts to protect reefs, could alter the 

territory dynamics and reproductive potential of important herbivorous fish species. 

Estuaries are comprised of brackish water, where freshwater mixes with saltwater to form transitional 

environments between rivers and the ocean. The fluctuating nature of the estuarine environment 

means that the fishes inhabiting or transiting through expend considerable amounts of energy adjusting 

to the changing conditions. Fishes found in estuaries are of five broad types: (1) freshwater (e.g., 

catfishes [Ictalurus species]), (2) diadromous species that spend part of their lives in freshwater and part 

of their lives in saltwater (e.g., young American shad, striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon, and Gulf sturgeon), 

(3) true estuarine (e.g., white perch [Morone americana]), (4) marine species that use estuaries but do 

not necessarily need them (e.g., American plaice [Hippoglossoides platessoides]), and (5) marine species 

that need estuaries for at least one stage of their lives (e.g., croakers [Micropogonias and Leistomus 

species]) (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Estuaries are primarily composed of soft bottom (e.g., sandy and 

mudflats) and many contain a variety of benthic habitat types such as seagrass beds and oyster reefs. 

Marine and diadromous fishes inhabit the diverse coastal habitats on or near the edges of the 

continents, from the intertidal regions to the edge of the continental shelf (Moyle & Cech, 2004). The 

most abundant and conspicuous types of coastal habitats are hard bottom (e.g., rocky bottom which can 

include shell beds), soft bottom (e.g., sand, mud, silt), submerged aquatic vegetation (e.g., mangroves, 

salt marshes, seagrass beds, macroalgae beds), and floating macroalgae (e.g., Sargassum). Each of these 

coastal habitats has distinct types of fishes associated with it. In the Study Area, common fishes 

inhabiting the hard bottom habitat type include, but are not limited to gobies (Gobiidae), drums 

(Sciaenidae), seabasses (Serranidae), groupers (Epinephelidae), snappers (Lutjanidae), and sculpins 

(Cottidae), while flounder (Bothidae and Paralichthyidae) and stingrays (Dasyatidae) are found on soft 

bottoms. Grunts (Haemulidae) and a wide variety of other fishes are common inhabitants of submerged 

aquatic vegetation habitat. 

Somewhere between 30 percent and 40 percent of all fish species are associated with hard bottom 

habitats (tropical and subtropical) such as reefs, and anywhere from 250 to 2,200 species are likely to be 

found in, on, or near a major complex of reefs (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Coral reef habitats are found 

between latitudes 30° North (N) and 30° South (S) in shallow water (usually less than 164 feet [ft.]) that 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-6 

3.6 Fishes

is warm enough to support the growth of corals and clear enough to allow photosynthesis at moderate 

depths. However, some mesophotic and deepwater corals such as Lophelia pertusa has been found on 

relatively shallow reefs (180–250 m) off northeastern Florida (Ross et al., 2015). Most reef habitats are 

surrounded by nutrient-poor oceanic waters. Examples of some specialized carnivore fishes include 

flounders, coronetfishes (Fistularidae), and needlefishes (Belonidae). Compared to the total number of 

species of carnivorous fishes that inhabit low-latitude coral reefs, the number of herbivores is small (20 

percent), but they are often the most noticeable fishes. Damselfishes (Pomacentridae), parrotfishes 

(Labridae), and surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae) are examples of herbivorous fishes found in reef habitat 

(Moyle & Cech, 2004). In the Study Area, commonly recognized reef fishes include butterfly fishes 

(Chaetodontidae), puffers (Tetraodontidae), tangs (Acanthuridae), triggerfishes (Balistidae), and wrasses 

(Labridae). 

The upper 200 m of the ocean is termed the photic or epipelagic zone (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Sunlight 

penetrates sufficiently to support the growth of phytoplankton and macroalgae. The area between 200 

m and 1,000 m is referred to as the mesopelagic zone, where light penetration is minimal (Moyle & 

Cech, 2004). Below the mesopelagic zone is the bathypelagic or aphotic zone, where sunlight does not 

penetrate. The lack of habitat complexity limits the number of fish species that inhabit the Epipelagic 

Zone. Less than two percent of all fish species inhabit the poor nutrient waters, with most occurring in 

the upper 328 ft. of the water column, where light can penetrate and permit phytoplankton growth and 

visual predators to see their prey. Epipelagic fishes are divided for convenience into nearshore and 

oceanic groups. Nearshore epipelagic fishes are overall the most commercially valuable group of fishes 

to humans because they typically occur in large schools, such as herring (Clupeidae) and anchovies 

(Engraulidae), or are particularly favored as food, such as tunas (Scombridae) and salmon. Predators on 

nearshore epipelagic fishes include billfishes and swordfishes (Xiphiidae), sharks (Carcharhinidae), and 

others. Oceanic epipelagic spend their entire life cycle either free swimming or can be associated with 

drifting macroalgae (Sargassum spp.) (Moyle & Cech, 2004). In the Study Area, examples of epipelagic 

open ocean fishes include sharks, tunas, billfishes and swordfishes, sauries (Scomberesocidae), and 

ocean sunfish (Molidae), plus the commensal remoras (Echeneidae). 

Mesopelagic habitats reside below the well-lighted, well-mixed epipelagic zone. Between 400 ft. and 

3,280 ft. in depth, light gradually fades to extinction, and the water temperatures decreases to 

39° Fahrenheit (°F). Below 3,280 ft., bathypelagic habitats are characterized by complete darkness, low 

temperatures, low nutrients, low dissolved oxygen, and great pressure. This environment is the most 

extensive aquatic habitat on earth. The vastness of the deep-sea habitat, coupled with its probable 

stability through geological time, has led to the development of a diverse fish community, which 

accounts for 11 percent of all recorded fish species in the oceans. Lanternfishes (Myctophidae), with 

about 240 species, are an important group of mesopelagic deep sea fishes in terms of diversity, 

distribution, and numbers of individuals (Helfman et al., 2009). These species make up a large fraction of 

the deep scattering layer, so called because the sonic pulses of a sonar can reflect off the millions of 

swim bladders, often giving the impression of a false bottom (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Generally, deep-sea 

fishes are divided into two groups, those that are found in the water column and others associated with 

the seafloor. In the Study Area, the cookie cutter shark (Dalatiidae), fangtooths (Anoplogastridae), 

hatchetfishes (Sternoptychidae), and lanternfishes (Myctophidae) inhabit the water column while the 

seafloor is inhabited with grenadiers or rattails (Macrouridae), hagfishes (Myxinidae), hakes 

(Merlucciidae), and rays (Rajidae). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-7 

3.6 Fishes

Some fishes use one habitat type over their entire life cycle, while others associate with different habitat 

types by life stage. Anadromous fishes such as sturgeon (Acipenseridae) and salmon (Salmonidae) hatch 

and rear in freshwater rivers as larvae and early juveniles and inhabit estuaries as they transition into 

the late-juvenile and early sub-adult life stages before entering the ocean to mature into adults. Many 

other marine fishes inhabit the water column as larvae and settle onto soft bottom habitat as juveniles 

and remain there as adults (flatfishes). The oceanic Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) provides an 

example of a species closely connected to one habitat category across their life cycle. By comparison, 

the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and American shad (Alosa sapidissima) inhabit wide ranges of salinity 

and water depths that vary by season and age. 

3.6.2.1.2 Movement and Behavior 

Fishes exhibit a rich array of sophisticated behavior (Meyer et al., 2010). Fishes have been shown to 

cooperate in a variety of ways during foraging, navigation, reproduction, and predator avoidance 

(Fitzpatrick et al., 2006; Huntingford et al., 2006; Johnstone and Bshary, 2004). Some examples of the 

common types of behavior exhibited by fishes include movement or migration, schooling, feeding, and 

resting (Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

Migratory behavior consists of mass movements from one place to another and can range in occurrence 

from daily to seasonal, depending on the species. Tunas, salmon, and eels migrate thousands of miles in 

short periods of time (e.g., a few months). Daily or seasonal migrations are typically for feeding and/or 

predator avoidance and can also be referred to as movement patterns. Some common movement 

patterns include coastal migrations, open ocean migrations, onshore/offshore movements, vertical 

water column movements, and life stage related migrations (e.g., eggs and larvae as part of the 

plankton/nekton). Migratory behavior occurs in response to changing environmental conditions, 

particularly temperature, or the movement and abundance of food organisms. The destinations of 

migratory events are often feeding or reproductive grounds. Many fishes have the ability to find their 

way back to a “home” area and some species use olfactory and visual cues, as well as or from chemicals 

released by the other fishes to return home (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Highly migratory species such as 

hammerhead shark (Sphyrna species), basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), and swordfish (Xiphias 

gladius), may move across thousands of miles of open ocean. Other migratory species such as the 

Atlantic salmon and Atlantic sturgeon exhibit seasonal movement patterns throughout coastal 

continental shelf waters and beyond. 

A shoal is defined as any group of fishes that remain together for social reasons, while a school is a 

polarized, synchronized shoal (Moyle & Cech, 2004), often swimming together in tight formations. 

Schools can change shape when traveling, feeding, resting, or avoiding predators. Vision and the lateral 

line system (defined below in Section 3.6.2.1.3) play roles in assisting schooling by allowing fish to 

visually orientate to one another and also sense water movements when visibility is reduced. Schooling 

may also be beneficial in terms of reproduction since little energy has to be expended to find a mate 

when sexes school together (Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

Feeding behavior of fishes is influenced by many factors, including characteristics of the environment, 

the predators, and prey. When food is scare, fish have been observed to capture prey items of all sizes 

for which there is likely to be a net gain of energy for the fish, however, when food is abundant, fish will 

preferentially seek the prey item that produces the most energy for the least amount of effort. The body 

shape of a fish species, specifically the mouth, reflects the general method of feeding. Many fishes must 

swallow their prey whole and have specialized mouth sizes for their prey depending on the prey’s shape 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-8 

3.6 Fishes

and fin spines (Price et al., 2015). Fishes with their mouth on the underside of their body (e.g., sturgeon, 

rays, skates, etc.) are typically bottom feeders, while fishes with their mouths near the top of their head 

(e.g., mullets, halfbeaks, etc.) are typically surface feeders. Fishes that typically feed in the water 

column, which includes most species, have mouths that are centered in their head. Common types of 

feeding behavior include ambushing, drift feeding, and filter feeding and fishes may regularly switch 

between two or more modes of feeding behavior depending on the abundance of prey (Moyle & Cech, 

2004). 

3.6.2.1.3 Hearing and Vocalization 

All fishes have two sensory systems which can detect sound in the water: the inner ear, which functions 

similarly to the inner ear in other vertebrates, and the lateral line, which consists of a series of receptors 

along the body of a fish (Popper & Schilt, 2008). The lateral line system is sensitive to external particle 

motion arising from sources within a few body lengths of the animal. The lateral line detects particle 

motion at low frequencies from below 1 hertz (Hz) up to at least 400 Hz (Coombs & Montgomery, 1999; 

Hastings & Popper, 2005; Higgs & Radford, 2013; Webb et al., 2008). The inner ears of fish contain three 

dense otoliths (i.e., small calcareous bodies) that sit atop many delicate mechanoelectric hair cells 

within the inner ear of fishes, similar to the hair cells found in the mammalian ear. Sound waves in water 

tend to pass through the fish’s body, which has a composition similar to water, and vibrate the otoliths. 

This causes a relative motion between the dense otoliths and the surrounding tissues causing a 

deflection of the hair cells, which is sensed by the nervous system. 

Although a propagating sound wave contains pressure and particle motion components, particle motion 

is most significant at low frequencies (up to at least 400 Hz) and is most detectible at high sound 

pressures or very close to a sound source. The inner ears of fishes are directly sensitive to acoustic 

particle motion rather than acoustic pressure (acoustic particle motion and acoustic pressure are 

discussed in Appendix D, Acoustic and Explosive Primer). Historically, studies that have investigated 

hearing in, and effects to, fishes have been carried out with sound pressure metrics. Although particle 

motion may be the more relevant exposure metric for many fish species, there is little data available 

that actually measures it due to a lack in standard measurement methodology and experience with 

particle motion detectors (Hawkins et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2016). In these instances, particle motion 

can be estimated from pressure measurements (Nedelec et al., 2016). 

Some fishes possess additional morphological adaptations or specializations that can enhance their 

sensitivity to sound pressure, such as a gas-filled swim bladder (Astrup, 1999; Popper & Hastings, 

2009b). The swim bladder can enhance sound detection by converting acoustic pressure into localized 

particle motion, which may then be detected by the inner ear (Radford et al., 2012). Fishes with a swim 

bladder generally have better sensitivity and can detect higher frequencies than fishes without a swim 

bladder (Popper & Hastings, 2009b; Popper et al., 2014). In addition, structures such as gas-filled 

bubbles near the ear or swim bladder, or even connections between the swim bladder and the inner 

ear, also increase sensitivity and allow for high-frequency hearing capabilities and better sound pressure 

detection. 

Although many researchers have investigated hearing and vocalizations in fish species (Ladich & Fay, 

2013; Popper et al., 2014), hearing capability data only exist for just over 100 of the currently known 

34,000 marine and freshwater fish species (Eschmeyer & Fong, 2016). Therefore, fish hearing groups are 

defined by species that possess a similar continuum of anatomical features which result in varying 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-9 

3.6 Fishes

degrees of hearing sensitivity (Popper & Hastings, 2009b). Categories and descriptions of hearing 

sensitivities are further defined in this document (modified from Popper et al., 2014) as the following: 

 Fishes without a swim bladder – hearing capabilities are limited to particle motion detection at 

frequencies well below 1 kilohertz (kHz). 

 Fishes with a swim bladder not involved in hearing – species lack notable anatomical 

specializations and primarily detect particle motion at frequencies below 1 kHz. 

 Fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing – species can detect frequencies below 1 kHz and 

possess anatomical specializations to enhance hearing and are capable of sound pressure 

detection up to a few kHz. 

 Fishes with a swim bladder and high-frequency hearing – species can detect frequencies below 1 

kHz and possess anatomical specializations and are capable of sound pressure detection at 

frequencies up to 10 kHz to over 100 kHz. 

Data suggest that most species of marine fish either lack a swim bladder (e.g., sharks and flatfishes) or 

have a swim bladder not involved in hearing and can only detect sounds below 1 kHz. Some marine 

fishes (clupeiforms) with a swim bladder involved in hearing are able to detect sounds to about 4 kHz 

(Colleye et al., 2016; Mann et al., 1997; Mann et al., 2001). One subfamily of clupeids (i.e., Alosinae) can 

detect high- and very high-frequency sounds (i.e., frequencies from 10 to 100 kHz, and frequencies 

above 100 kHz, respectively), although auditory thresholds at these higher frequencies are elevated and 

the range of best hearing is still in the low-frequency range (below 1 kHz) similar to other fishes. Mann 

et al. (1997; 1998) theorize that this subfamily may have evolved the ability to hear relatively high sound 

levels at these higher frequencies in order to detect echolocations of nearby foraging dolphins. For 

fishes that have not had their hearing tested, such as deep sea fishes, the suspected hearing capabilities 

are based on the structure of the ear, the relationship between the ear and the swim bladder, and other 

potential adaptations such as the presence of highly developed areas of the brain related to inner ear 

and lateral line functions (Buran et al., 2005; Deng et al., 2011, 2013). It is believed that most fishes have 

their best hearing sensitivity from 100 to 400 Hz (Popper, 2003). 

Species listed under the ESA within the Study Area include the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), shortnose 

sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), Gulf sturgeon 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinatea), scalloped hammerhead shark 

(Sphyrna lewini), and the Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus). Proposed threatened ESA species within 

the Study Area include the giant manta ray (Manta birostris) and the oceanic whitetip shark 

(Carcharhinus longimanus). As discussed above, most marine fishes investigated to date lack hearing 

capabilities greater than 1,000 Hz. This notably includes sturgeon and salmonid species that have a swim 

bladder that is not involved in hearing however, sturgeon sand salmon species have only been tested to 

date up to about 400 or 500 Hz (Hawkins & Johnstone, 1978; Kane et al., 2010; Lovell et al., 2005; Meyer 

et al., 2010). Sawfish, rays and sharks are cartilaginous fishes (i.e., elasmobranchs) lacking a swim 

bladder. Available data suggest these species can detect sounds from 20 to 1,000 Hz, with best 

sensitivity at lower ranges (Casper et al., 2003; Casper & Mann, 2006, 2009; Myrberg, 2001). Nassau 

groupers have a swim bladder that is not involved in hearing. As part of the family Epinephelidae, 

Nassau grouper may have a similar hearing range to the leopard coral grouper (Plectropomus 

leopardus), the larvae of which can detect sounds 100 to 2,000 Hz (Wright et al., 2008; Wright et al., 

2010). 

Some fishes are known to produce sound. Bony fishes can produce sounds in a number of ways and use 

them for a number of behavioral functions (Ladich, 2008, 2014). Over 30 families of fishes are known to 

use vocalizations in aggressive interactions, and over 20 families are known to use vocalizations in 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-10

3.6 Fishes

mating (Ladich, 2008). Sounds generated by fishes as a means of communication are generally below 

500 Hz (Slabbekoorn et al., 2010). The air in the swim bladder is vibrated by the sound producing 

structures (often muscles that are integral to the swim bladder wall) and radiates sound into the water 

(Zelick et al., 1999). Sprague and Luczkovich (2004) calculated that silver perch, of the family sciaenidae, 

can produce drumming sounds ranging from 128 to 135 decibels referenced to 1 micropascal (dB re 1 

μPa). Female midshipman fish apparently detect and locate the “hums” (approximately 90 to 400 Hz) of 

vocalizing males during the breeding season (McIver et al., 2014; Sisneros & Bass, 2003). Sciaenids 

produce a variety of sounds, including calls produced by males on breeding grounds (Ramcharitar et al., 

2001), and a “drumming” call produced during chorusing that suggested a seasonal pattern to 

reproductive-related function (McCauley & Cato, 2000). Other sounds produced by chorusing reef fishes 

include “popping,” “banging,” and “trumpet” sounds; altogether, these choruses produce sound levels 

35 dB above background levels, at peak frequencies between 250 and 1,200 Hz, and source levels 

between 144 and 157 dB re 1 μPa (McCauley & Cato, 2000). 

3.6.2.1.4 General Threats 

Fish populations can be influenced by various natural factors and human activities. There can be direct 

effects from disease or from commercial and recreational activities such as fishing, or indirect effects 

from reductions in prey availability or lowered reproductive success of individuals. Human-made 

impacts are widespread throughout the world’s oceans, such that very few habitats remain unaffected 

by human influence (Halpern et al., 2008b). Direct and indirect effects have shaped the condition of 

marine fish populations, particularly those species with large body size, late maturity ages, and/or low 

fecundity such as some elasmobranchs (e.g., scalloped hammerhead shark, smalltooth sawfish), 

sturgeon (e.g., Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon), and some reef fishes (e.g., Nassau 

grouper), making these species especially vulnerable to habitat losses and fishing pressure (Reynolds et 

al., 2005). Human-induced stressors (e.g., threats) can be divided into four components, which often act 

on fish populations simultaneously: habitat alteration, exploitation, introduction of non-native species, 

and pollution (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Climate change and its resulting effects on the marine environment 

is another stressor on fish populations (Roessig et al., 2004). 

Coastal development, deforestation, road construction, dam development, water control structures, 

and agricultural activities are types of habitat alteration that can affect fishes and their environment. 

These activities may affect the water quality of the nearshore marine environment. Threats to fishes 

related to poor water quality are discussed in Section 3.6.2.1.4.1 (Water Quality). Threats from 

exploitation, including commercial and recreational fishing and other stressors, are addressed in Section 

3.6.2.1.4.2 (Commercial and Recreational Activities). Fishes living in suboptimal habitat from habitat 

alteration and over exploitation due to fishing may be at increased risk of contracting diseases and 

acquiring parasites, and are covered in Section 3.6.2.1.4.3 (Disease and Parasites). The presence of an 

introduced species represents a major change in the native fish community, and this topic is discussed in 

Section 3.6.2.1.4.4 (Invasive Species). The threats to fish from oil spills, marine debris, and noise are 

covered in Section 3.6.2.1.4.1 (Water Quality). Climate change and its effects on fishes is addressed in 

Section 3.6.2.1.4.5 (Climate Change). 

3.6.2.1.4.1 Water Quality 

Parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, turbidity, and pH define the water quality as 

a component of habitat quality for fishes. Some land-based activities can directly and indirectly impact 

water quality in rivers, estuaries, and in the coastal waters. Sediment from activities on land may be 

transported to the marine environment. Sediment can impact water quality by increasing turbidity and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-11

3.6 Fishes

decreasing light penetration into the water column, as well as transport contaminants into the marine 

environment (Allen, 2006). Increases in sediment can decrease the survival and reproduction of 

plankton and have food web and ecosystem level effects. 

Hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen concentration) is a major impact associated with poor water quality. 

Hypoxia occurs when waters become overloaded with nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which 

enter oceans from agricultural runoff, sewage treatment plants, bilge water, and atmospheric 

deposition. An overabundance of nutrients can stimulate algal blooms, resulting in a rapid expansion of 

microscopic algae (phytoplankton) and can cause anoxic events leading to fish kills (Corcoran et al., 

2013). Over the last several decades, coastal regions throughout the world have experienced an increase 

in the frequency of algal blooms that are toxic or otherwise harmful. Commonly called red tides, these 

events are now grouped under the descriptor harmful algal blooms or HABs (Anderson et al., 2002). 

Harmful algal blooms can produce toxins, causing human illness and massive fish and other animal 

mortalities. The most common harmful algal bloom species in the Gulf of Mexico is Karenia brevis

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016a). 

Pollution 

Chemicals and debris are the two most common types of pollutants in the marine environment. Global 

oceanic circulation patterns result in the accumulation of a considerable amount of pollutants and 

debris scattered throughout the open ocean and concentrated in gyres and other places (Crain et al., 

2009). Pollution initially impacts fishes that occur near the sources of pollution, but may also affect 

future generations from effects to reproduction and increase mortality across life stages. 

Chemical pollutants in the marine environment that may impact marine fishes include organic pollutants 

(e.g., pesticides, herbicides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, flame retardants, and oil) and inorganic 

pollutants (e.g., heavy metals) (Pew Oceans Commission, 2003). High chemical pollutant levels in marine 

fishes may cause behavioral changes, physiological changes, or genetic damage (Goncalves et al., 2008; 

Moore, 2008; Pew Oceans Commission, 2003). Bioaccumulation is the net buildup of substances (e.g., 

chemicals or metals) in an organism from inhabiting contaminated habitat or sediment through the gills 

or skin, from ingesting food or prey containing the substance (Newman, 1998), or from ingestion of the 

substance directly (Moore, 2008).Bioaccumulation of pollutants (e.g., metals and organic pollutants) is 

also a concern to human health because people consume top predators with high pollutant loads. 

Oil Spills 

Groups of fish typically impacted by oil spills include surface-oriented or surface dwelling species, 

nearshore (within 3 NM of the shoreline) species, and species whose spawning time coincided with the 

timing of an oil spill (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010). Fishes can be impacted 

by the oil directly through the gills, or by consuming oil or oiled prey. Potentially harmful physiological 

effects to fishes from oil spills include reduced growth, enlarged livers, changes to heart and respiration 

rate, fin erosion, and reproductive impairment. The most damaging effects of oil on fish populations 

may be in harming eggs and larvae, because these stages are highly sensitive to oil at the surface, in the 

water column, or on the seafloor, and are subject to increased mortality and morphological deformities 

and impaired growth (Greer et al., 2012; Ingvarsdottir et al., 2012; National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2014). Discharges from ballast water and bilge water during routine ship operations and 

illegal dumping of solid waste are other sources of oil in the marine environment. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-12

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.1.4.2 Commercial and Recreational Activities 

Exploitation from commercial and recreational fishing is the single biggest cause of changes in fish 

populations and communities (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Historic and current overfishing largely contributed 

to the listing of ESA-protected marine fish species (Crain et al., 2009; Kappel, 2005). Overfishing of a 

resource results from legal and illegal fishing (poaching) and bycatch of resources in quantities above a 

sustainable level. By the end of 2015, 28 managed fish stocks in the U.S. were on the overfishing list and 

38 stocks were on the overfished list, while the number of rebuilt fish stocks since 2000 increased to 39 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016a). 

In recent decades, commercial fisheries have targeted the larger, predatory, and sometimes higherpriced fish species. Gradually, the fishing pressure will make the larger species more scarce, and fishing 

will move towards the smaller species, often causing negative implications for entire marine food webs 

(Pauly & Palomares, 2005). Other factors, such as fisheries-induced evolution and intrinsic vulnerability 

to overfishing, have been shown to reduce the abundance of some populations (Kauparinen & Merila, 

2007). Fisheries-induced evolution describes a change in genetic composition of the population that 

results from intense fishing pressure, such as a reduction in the overall size and growth rates of fishes in 

a population. Intrinsic vulnerability describes certain life history traits (e.g., large body size, late maturity 

age, low growth rate, low offspring production) that result in a species being more susceptible to 

overfishing than others (Cheung et al., 2007). 

Other threats from commercial industries to fishes include vessel strikes, sea farming, and energy 

production activities. Large commercial vessels (e.g., cruise liners, cargo ships) pose threats to large, 

slow-moving open ocean fishes while moving along the sea surface. Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus), 

basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus), sturgeons, manta rays (Manta spp.), and ocean sunfish (Mola 

mola) are vulnerable to ship strikes (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010d; Rowat et al., 2007; 

Stevens, 2007). 

The threats of aquaculture operations on wild fish populations include reduced water quality, 

competition for food, predation by escaped or released farmed fishes, spread of disease and parasites, 

and reduced genetic diversity (Kappel, 2005). These threats become apparent when farmed fish escape 

and enter the natural ecosystem (Hansen & Windsor, 2006; Ormerod, 2003). The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (2011) published the Marine Aquaculture Policy, which provides direction 

to enable the development of sustainable marine aquaculture. 

Energy production and offshore activities associated with power-generating facilities results in direct 

and indirect injury and/or mortality of fishes. Injury and mortality sources include entrainment of eggs 

and larvae during water withdrawal and impingement of juveniles and adults (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2004). Acoustic impacts from offshore wind energy development are additional 

sources of injury and mortality (Madsen et al., 2006). 

Anthropogenic Noise 

Anthropogenic noise is generated from a variety of sources, including commercial shipping, oil and gas 

exploration and production activities, commercial and recreational fishing (including fish-finding sonar, 

fathometers, and acoustic deterrent and devices), recreational boating, whale watching activities and 

other marine transportation vessels such as ferries, marine and coastal development (i.e., construction 

of bridges, ferry terminals, windfarms, etc.), and research (including sound from air guns, sonar, and 

telemetry). Vessel noise, in particular, is a major contributor to noise in the ocean and is intensively 

produced in inland waters. Commercial shipping’s contribution to ambient noise in the ocean increased 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-13

3.6 Fishes

by as much as 12 dB between approximately the 1960s and 2005 (Hildebrand, 2009; McDonald et al., 

2008). Frisk (2012) confirmed the trend, and reported that between 1950 and 2007 ocean noise in the 

25 to 50 Hz frequency range has increased 3.3 dB per decade, resulting in a cumulative increase of 

approximately 19 dB over a baseline of 52 dB (decibels re 1 Pa2/Hz). The increase in noise is associated 

with an increase in commercial shipping, which correlates with global economic growth (Frisk, 2012). 

Miksis-Olds and Nichols (2015) found low-frequency ocean sound levels have decreased in the South 

Atlantic and Equatorial Pacific Oceans, similar to a trend of slightly decreasing low-frequency noise levels 

in the Northeast Pacific. In addition to vessels, other sources of underwater noise include pile-driving 

activity (Carlson et al., 2007b; Casper et al., 2012b; Casper et al., 2013a; Casper et al., 2013b; Dahl et al., 

2015; Debusschere et al., 2014; Feist et al., 1992; Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Popper et al., 2006; 

Ruggerone et al., 2008; Stadler & Woodbury, 2009), sonar (Carlson et al., 2007b; Mueller-Blenkle et al., 

2010; Popper et al., 2006), seismic activity (California Department of Transportation, 2001; Popper & 

Hastings, 2009a), and offshore construction projects (Foderaro, 2015). 

Noise can cause permanent injury in some marine animals (Popper et al., 2005). Physiological responses 

to noise have shown a variety of results. For example, the giant kelpfish (Heterostichus rostratus) 

exhibited acute stress response when exposed to intermittent recorded boat engine noise (Nichols et 

al., 2015). In another study, Holles et al. (2013) found that local, low intensity noise from recreational 

boat engines has the capacity to disrupt settlement in coral reef fish larvae, which may lead to impacts 

on recruitment to adult populations. 

3.6.2.1.4.3 Disease and Parasites 

Fishes in poor quality environments have higher incidences of disease, due to increased stress levels and 

decreased immune system function and are less resilient to fight the disease. Parasites, bacteria, 

aquaculture conditions, environmental influences, and poor nourishment contribute to fish disease 

levels (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016d). Disease outbreaks in fishes are 

influenced by environmental conditions, which typically are more variable in inland waters compared to 

the open ocean (Snieszko, 1978). Areas with higher density fish populations, such as marine protected 

areas and fish farms, are at higher risk for disease compared to areas with lower densities (National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016a; Wootton et al., 2012). Additionally, introduced species 

may expose native species to new diseases and parasites. Sea lice (Lepeophtheirus species and Caligus 

spp.) are parasites and vectors of viruses commonly associated with fish farming activities in the Study 

Area that can negatively impact wild fish populations in areas surrounding fish farms (Thorstad et al., 

2015; Whelan, 2010). 

3.6.2.1.4.4 Invasive Species 

Native fish populations are affected by invasive (introduced, non-native) species by predation, 

competition and hybridization (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Non-native fishes pose threats to native fishes 

when they are introduced into an environment lacking natural predators and then either compete with 

native marine fishes for resources or prey upon the native marine fishes (Crain et al., 2009). Marine 

invasions by other non-fish species also may impact fish populations. Invasive marine algae have been 

found to alter the health status of native fishes feeding on the algae, which could impact the 

reproduction success of those populations (Felline et al., 2012). 

In the Study Area, a particularly damaging invasive fish species is the predatory Indo-Pacific lionfish 

(Pterois volitans and P. miles). This species has spread swiftly across the Western Atlantic, producing a 

marine predator invasion of unparalleled speed and magnitude (Green et al., 2012). This study also 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-14

3.6 Fishes

found a 65 percent decline in the biomass of the lionfish’s prey fishes with the increase in lionfish 

abundance within just two years. The increase in lionfish may have long-term impacts for the marine 

ecosystem (Green et al., 2012). 

3.6.2.1.4.5 Climate Change 

Global climate change is impacting and will continue to impact marine and estuarine fishes and fisheries 

(IPCC, 2014; Roessig et al., 2004). Climate change is contributing to a shift in fish distribution from lower 

to higher latitudes (Brander, 2010; Brander, 2007; Dufour et al., 2010; Popper & Hastings, 2009a; Wilson 

et al., 2010). Warming waters over the past quarter-century have driven fish populations in the northern 

hemisphere northward and to deeper depths (Inman, 2005). 

Fishes with shifting distributions have faster life cycles and smaller body sizes than non-shifting species 

(Perry et al., 2005). In addition to affecting species ranges, increasing temperature has been shown to 

alter the sex-ratio in fish species such as the freshwater zebrafish (Danio rerio) that have temperaturedependent sex determination mechanisms (Ospina-Alvarez & Piferrer, 2008). Further temperature rises 

are likely to have profound impacts on commercial fisheries through continued shifts in distribution and 

alterations in community interactions (Perry et al., 2005). It appears that diadromous and benthic fish 

species are most vulnerable to climate change impacts (Hare et al., 2016). 

Ocean acidification, the process where increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are 

reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, may have serious impacts on fish development 

and behavior (Raven et al., 2005). Physiological development of fishes can be affected by increases in pH 

that can increase the size, density, and mass of fish otoliths (e.g., fish ear stones) which would affect 

sensory functions (Bignami et al., 2013). Ocean acidification may affect fish larvae behavior and could 

impact fish populations (Munday et al., 2009). A range of behavioral traits critical to survival of newly 

settled fish larvae are affected by ocean acidification. Settlement-stage larval marine fishes exposed to 

elevated carbon dioxide were less responsive to threats than controls. This decrease in sensitivity to risk 

might be directly related to the impaired olfactory ability (Munday et al., 2009). 

Beyond direct impacts on fishes from increasing pH ocean acidification can cause changes to the ocean 

chemistry which leads to increased algal blooms (Anderson et al., 2002). Ocean acidification can also 

lead to reef impacts such as coral bleaching and can also lead to reduced larval settlement and 

abundance (Doropoulos et al., 2012). Plankton are important prey items for many fish species and are 

also impacted by ocean acidification. Ocean acidification may cause a shift in phytoplankton community 

composition and biochemical composition that can impact the transfer of essential compounds to 

predators that eat the plankton (Bermudez et al., 2016) and can cause shifts in community composition. 

Another climate change effect is ocean deoxygenation. Netburn and Koslow (2015) found that the depth 

of the lower boundary of the deep scattering layer is most strongly correlated with dissolved oxygen 

concentration, and irradiance and oxygen concentration are the key variables determining the upper 

boundary. This study estimated the corresponding annual rate of change of deep scattering layer depths 

and hypothesized that if past trends continue, the upper boundary is expected to rise at a faster rate 

than the lower boundary, effectively widening the deep scattering layer under climate changes 

scenarios. Cao et al. (2014) modeled different sensitivities of ocean temperature, carbonate chemistry, 

and oxygen, in terms of both the sign and magnitude to the amount of climate change. Model 

simulations in this study found by the year 2500, every degree increase of climate sensitivity warms the 

ocean by 0.8 degrees Celsius (°C) and reduces ocean-mean dissolved oxygen concentration by 5.0 

percent. Conversely, every degree increase of climate sensitivity buffers CO2-induced reduction in 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-15

3.6 Fishes

ocean-mean carbonate ion concentration and pH by 3.4 percent and 0.02 units, respectively. These 

results have great implications for understanding the response of ocean biota to climate change. 

3.6.2.1.4.6 Marine Debris 

Marine debris is a widespread global pollution problem and trends suggest that accumulations are 

increasing with increasing plastic production (Rochman et al., 2013). Debris includes plastics, metals, 

rubber, textiles, derelict fishing gear, vessels, and other lost or discarded items. Debris such as 

abandoned nets and lines also pose a threat to fishes. Due to body shape, habitat use, and feeding 

strategies, some fishes are more susceptible to marine debris entanglement than others (Musick et al., 

2000; Ocean Conservancy, 2010). Entanglement in abandoned commercial and recreational fishing gear 

has caused declines for some marine fishes. 

Microplastics in the marine environment are well documented, and interactions with marine biota, 

including numerous fish species have been described worldwide (Lusher et al., 2016). Plastic waste in 

the ocean chemically attracts hydrocarbon pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, which accumulate up to one million times more in plastic than in 

ocean water (Mato et al., 2001). Fishes can mistakenly consume these wastes, containing elevated levels 

of toxins, instead of their prey. Rochman et al., (2015) found marine debris in 28 percent of the 

individual fish examined and in 55 percent of all fish species analyzed. 

3.6.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species 

In the Study Area, eight fish species are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA (Table 3.6-1). 

Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, and Gulf sturgeon are anadromous species that are primarily found 

in coastal waters, but which spend substantial portions of their lifecycle in estuarine and riverine waters. 

The shortnose sturgeon inhabits its natal river and estuary, and very rarely has been observed in coastal 

waters. Largetooth sawfish and smalltooth sawfish are predominately estuarine and coastal waters, but 

can also occur in freshwater and deeper ocean waters. Scalloped hammerhead is generally considered a 

marine fish but has early life stages which are estuarine. Nassau groupers are marine fishes that inhabit 

deep coral reefs or rocky substrate in Florida and the Caribbean. 

In addition to the aforementioned listed species, there are also a number of other species that are 

under consideration for listing. These species are broken into two categories: candidates for listing and 

proposed for listing. Candidate species are any species that are undergoing a status review that have 

been announced in a Federal Register notice. Proposed species are those candidate species that were 

found to warrant listing as either threatened or endangered and were officially proposed as such in a 

Federal Register notice after the completion of a status review and consideration of other protective 

conservation measures. 

There are two proposed species, the giant manta ray and oceanic whitetip shark, and three candidates 

species found within the Study Area, including the Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae), cusk (Brosme 

brosme), and dwarf seahorse (Hippocampus zosterae) (Table 3.6-1). NMFS also manages a proactive 

conservation program that allows for species with concerns regarding status and threats, but for which 

insufficient information is available to indicate a need for listing under the ESA. These species are listed 

as "species of concern." Within the Study Area, there are 14 fish species listed as such: Atlantic bluefin 

tuna (Thunnus thynnus), dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus), sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus), 

rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus), Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus 

hippoglossus), striped croaker (Corvula sanctaeluciae), speckled hind (Epinephelus drummondhayi), 

Warsaw grouper (Hyporthodus nigritus), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-16

3.6 Fishes

aestivalis), key silverside (Menidia conchorum), mangrove rivulus (Kleptolebias marmoratus), and 

opossum pipefish (Microphis brachyurus lineatus) (Table 3.6-1). As the species of concern are not 

considered for listing at this time, they will not be discussed separately in this document. 

Table 3.6-1: Regulatory Status and Occurrence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Fishes in the 

Study Area 

Regulatory Status Occurrence in the Study Area

Common Name Scientific Name

Endangered 

Species Act 

Status Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems Inland Waters

Atlantic Salmon

(Gulf of Maine 

Distinct 

Population 

Segment)

Salmo salar Endangered N/A

West Greenland 

Shelf, Scotian 

Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

Kennebec River Estuary, 

ME

Atlantic Sturgeon

(New York Bight, 

Chesapeake Bay, 

Carolina, & South 

Atlantic Distinct 

Population 

Segments)

Acipenser 

oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus

Endangered N/A

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

Kennebec River Estuary, 

ME; Narragansett Bay 

and Rhode Island Sound, 

RI; Thames River Estuary, 

CT; Sandy Hook Bay, NJ; 

lower Chesapeake Bay, 

VA; Beaufort Inlet 

Channel, and Cape Fear 

River, NC; Kings Bay, GA; 

St. Johns River, FL

Largetooth 

Sawfish Pristis pristis Endangered Extirpated Extirpated Extirpated

Shortnose 

Sturgeon

Acipenser 

brevirostrum Endangered N/A

Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, 

Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

Kennebec River Estuary, 

ME; Narragansett Bay 

and Rhode Island Sound, 

RI; Thames River Estuary, 

CT; Sandy Hook Bay, NJ; 

Cape Fear River, NC; 

Kings Bay, GA;

St. Johns River, FL

Smalltooth 

Sawfish Pristis pectinata Endangered N/A

Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, 

Gulf of Mexico, 

Caribbean Sea

St. Andrew Bay, FL; 

Pascagoula River Estuary, 

MS; Sabine Lake and 

Corpus Christi Bay, TX

Atlantic Sturgeon

(Gulf of Maine 

Distinct 

Population 

Segment)

Acipenser 

oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus

Threatened N/A

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

Kennebec River Estuary, 

ME; Narragansett Bay 

and Rhode Island Sound, 

RI; Thames River Estuary, 

CT; Sandy Hook Bay, NJ; 

lower Chesapeake Bay, 

VA
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-17

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-1: Regulatory Status and Occurrence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Fishes in the 

Study Area (continued) 

Regulatory Status Occurrence in the Study Area

Common Name Scientific Name

Endangered 

Species Act 

Status Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems Inland Waters

Gulf Sturgeon

Acipenser 

oxyrinchus 

desotoi

Threatened N/A Gulf of Mexico

St. Andrew Bay, FL; 

Pascagoula River Estuary, 

MS

Nassau Grouper Epinephelus 

striatus Threatened N/A

Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, 

Gulf of Mexico, 

Caribbean Sea

N/A

Scalloped 

Hammerhead

(Central and 

Southwest 

Atlantic Distinct 

Population 

Segment)

Sphyrna lewini Threatened N/A Caribbean Sea N/A

Giant Manta Ray Manta birostris Proposed 

Threatened

North 

Central 

Atlantic 

Gyre, Gulf 

Stream

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean 

Sea

N/A

Oceanic Whitetip 

Shark

Carcharhinus 

longimanus

Proposed 

Threatened

North 

Central 

Atlantic 

Gyre, Gulf 

Stream

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean 

Sea

N/A

Alabama Shad Alosa alabamae Candidate N/A Gulf of Mexico

St. Andrew Bay, FL; 

Pascagoula River Estuary, 

MS 

Cusk Brosme brosme Candidate

Labrador 

Current, 

North 

Central 

Atlantic 

Gyre, Gulf 

Stream

Scotian Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

N/A
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-18

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-1: Regulatory Status and Occurrence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Fishes in the 

Study Area (continued) 

Regulatory Status Occurrence in the Study Area

Common Name Scientific Name

Endangered 

Species Act 

Status Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems Inland Waters

Dwarf Seahorse Hippocampus 

zosterae

Candidate N/A

Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean 

Sea

St. Johns River and St. 

Andrew Bay, FL; 

Pascagoula River Estuary, 

MS; Sabine Lake and 

Corpus Christi Bay, TX

Alewife Alosa 

pseudoharengus

Species of 

Concern Gulf Stream

Scotian Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

Kennebec River Estuary, 

ME; Narragansett Bay and 

Rhode Island Sound, RI; 

Thames River Estuary, CT; 

Sandy Hook Bay, NJ; 

lower Chesapeake Bay, 

VA; Beaufort Inlet 

Channel and Cape Fear 

River, NC; Kings Bay, GA; 

St. Johns River, FL

Atlantic Bluefin 

Tuna Thunnus thynnus Species of Concern

North 

Central 

Atlantic 

Gyre, Gulf 

Stream

Scotian Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean 

Sea

N/A

Atlantic Halibut Hippoglossus 

hippoglossus

Species of 

Concern

Labrador 

Current; 

North 

Central 

Atlantic 

Gyre; Gulf 

Stream

West Greenland 

Shelf, Scotian 

Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental

Shelf

N/A

Atlantic Wolffish Anarhichas 

lupus

Species of 

Concern

Labrador 

Current, 

North 

Central 

Atlantic 

Gyre, Gulf 

Stream

West Greenland 

Shelf, Scotian 

Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

N/A
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-19

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-1: Regulatory Status and Occurrence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Fishes in the 

Study Area (continued) 

Regulatory Status Occurrence in the Study Area

Common Name Scientific Name

Endangered 

Species Act 

Status Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems Inland Waters

Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis Species of 

Concern Gulf Stream

Scotian Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

N/A

Dusky Shark Carcharhinus 

obscurus

Species of 

Concern

Gulf Stream

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean 

Sea

Juveniles only; Sandy 

Hook Bay, NJ; lower 

Chesapeake Bay, VA

Key Silverside Menidia 

conchorum

Species of 

Concern N/A Gulf of Mexico N/A

Mangrove Rivulus Kleptolebias 

marmoratus

Species of 

Concern N/A

Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean

Mangroves throughout 

Study Area

Opossum Pipefish

Microphis 

brachyurus 

lineatus

Species of 

Concern

Gulf Stream

Southeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of 

Mexico, Caribbean 

Sea

St. Andrew Bay, FL; 

Pascagoula River Estuary, 

MS; Sabine Lake and 

Corpus Christi Bay, TX

Rainbow Smelt Osmerus mordax Species of 

Concern N/A

Scotian Shelf, 

NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, 

Northeast 

U.S. Continental 

Shelf

Kennebec River Estuary,

ME; Narragansett Bay 

and Rhode Island Sound, 

RT; Thames River 

Estuary, CT; Sandy Hook 

Bay, NJ

Speckled Hind Epinephelus 

drummondhayi

Species of 

Concern N/A

Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, 

Gulf of Mexico, 

Caribbean Sea

Gulf Stream

Striped Croaker Corvula

sanctaeluciae

Species of 

Concern N/A

Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf,

Caribbean Sea

N/A
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-20

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-1: Regulatory Status and Occurrence of Endangered Species Act-Listed Fishes in the 

Study Area (continued) 

Regulatory Status Occurrence in the Study Area

Common Name Scientific Name

Endangered 

Species Act 

Status Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems Inland Waters

Warsaw Grouper Hyporthodus 

nigritus

Species of 

Concern

Gulf Stream

Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, 

Gulf of Mexico, 

Caribbean Sea

N/A

1Candidate and species of concern status does not carry any procedural or substantive protections under the ESA, but is 

provided for informational purposes.

2N/A = not applicable

3.6.2.2.1 Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) 

3.6.2.2.1.1 Status and Management 

The Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic salmon was listed as federally endangered in 

2000 (65 Federal Register 69459). During 2009, the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment was 

expanded to include Maine’s Penobscot, Kennebec, and Androscoggin rivers, which support remnant 

wild populations (74 Federal Register 29300). The Atlantic salmon is co-managed by NMFS and USFWS 

because its lifecycle spans marine, estuarine, and freshwater habitats. Although Atlantic salmon may 

occur elsewhere (e.g., hatchery programs and aquaculture), only the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population 

Segment is protected under the ESA. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recognized 45 areas as critical habitat for the 

Atlantic salmon located in Maine (Figure 3.6-1). The designated habitat excludes marine waters beyond 

estuaries. Critical habitat includes all perennial rivers, estuaries, and lakes connected to the marine 

environment in the 45 designated critical habitat areas, except those areas specifically excluded by 

tribal, economic, or military uses. The only critical habitat estuary within the Study Area is the Kennebec 

River Estuary, which has a military exclusion for the contractor-owned shipyard at Bath, Maine, due to 

national security. Atlantic salmon critical habitat includes sites for spawning and egg incubation, sites for 

juvenile rearing, and migration corridors. Although successful migration is also essential to the 

conservation of the species, NMFS was unable to identify the essential features of marine migration and 

feeding habitat. Therefore, critical marine habitat areas were not designated. 

In 2015, NMFS focused efforts to protect species that are most at risk of extinction in the near future. 

The Atlantic salmon was selected as one of the eight species because of their critically low abundance 

and declining population trends. Key actions include reconnecting the Gulf of Maine with headwater 

streams, increasing the number of juveniles successfully emigrating into the marine environment, 

reducing mortality in international fishery in West Greenland waters, and increasing the understanding 

and ability to improve survival in the marine environment (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016b). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-21

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.1.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Atlantic salmon is an anadromous and iteroparous (does not die after spawning like other salmon) 

species. After hatching, juveniles rear in their natal rivers and estuaries. After juveniles complete the 

smolting process (e.g., physiologically transforming into marine form called a smolt), they enter the 

estuarine portion of the Study Area in the Gulf of Maine, primarily at night, during the late spring when 

water temperatures reach 10° C (50° F) (Sheehan et al., 2012) and school in coastal waters primarily in 

the upper 3 m (10 ft.), although may occur in deeper waters (Hedger et al., 2009). Adults migrate back to 

their natal river to spawn. 

Labrador Current Large Marine Ecosystem. By mid-summer, smolts migrate to the Gulf of Maine along 

the Scotian Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, reaching the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem and the Grand Banks (Fay et al., 2006), as indicated by tag recoveries (McCormick et al., 

1998). For much of their first summer, sub-adults inhabit the coastal waters off Canada, the Southern 

Grand Banks (Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem), the Labrador Sea, and the 

northern Gulf of St. Lawrence (Reddin & Short, 1991). Decreasing nearshore water temperatures in 

autumn trigger offshore (greater than 3 NM from shoreline) movements (Dutil & Coutu, 1988). Subadults overwinter in the Labrador Sea south of Greenland. Small percentages return to Gulf of Maine 

coastal rivers after their first winter at sea (Fay et al., 2006). 

West Greenland Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Atlantic salmon migrate great distances in the open 

ocean to reach feeding areas in the West Greenland Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem and in the Davis 

Strait between Labrador and Greenland, nearly 2,500 miles (mi.) from their natal rivers (Fay et al., 2006; 

Reddin & Short, 1991). North American and European stocks co-occur in these areas while feeding (Fay 

et al., 2006). They spend up to two years feeding before returning to Gulf of Maine coastal rivers to 

spawn (Reddin & Short, 1991). 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The historic range of Atlantic salmon in the 

northwestern Atlantic Ocean includes coastal drainages from northern Quebec, Canada, to Connecticut. 

Smolts migrate into marine habitats during approximately two weeks each spring, usually during May 

(McCormick et al., 1998). Spawning adults migrate into estuaries and natal rivers throughout the spring 

and summer with the peak occurring in June (Fay et al., 2006). 

3.6.2.2.1.3 Population Trends 

By the end of the 19th century, Atlantic salmon had been extirpated from the Androscoggin, Merrimack, 

and Connecticut Rivers. The Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment represents the last wild 

population. Populations have been extirpated or decreased from land use practices and development 

that eliminated spawning and rearing habitat and reduced water quality. The population remains in 

decline. With added conservation efforts, adult returns remain extremely low. The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (2006) reported an estimated extinction risk of 19–75 percent within the 

next 100 years for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment, which included the on-going hatchery 

supplementation. 

Adult return rates have continued to decline since the 1980s which indicates low marine survival 

(Chaput, 2012). Population estimates have rarely exceeded 5,000 in any given year since 1967, whereas 

historical abundances (excluding the Penobscot River) likely exceeded 100,000 (Fay et al., 2006). 

Numerous conservation and restoration practices have slowed the population decline, but have not 

increased recovery. Similar to salmon populations on the West Coast of the U.S., changes in ocean 

conditions affect recovery rates. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-22

3.6 Fishes

 

Note: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area 

Figure 3.6-1: Critical Habitat Areas for Atlantic Salmon in and Adjacent to the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-23

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.1.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Upon ocean entry, smolts feed on fish larvae (Haugland et al., 2006), amphipods, euphausiids, and small 

fish (Fraser, 1987; Hislop & Youngson, 1984; Hislop & Shelton, 1993; Jutila & Toivonen, 1985). As they 

grow, small fishes become an increasingly dominant component of their diet. Striped bass, cod, 

haddock, fish-eating birds, and marine mammals feed on smolts and subadults in the marine 

environment. Adults prey on capelin, Atlantic herring, and sand lance (Hansen & Windsor, 2006). Adults 

are vulnerable to predation by seals and cormorants (Fay et al., 2006). 

3.6.2.2.1.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Incremental increases in marine survival (survival from emigrating smolts to adult returns) have a much 

greater impact on the population than comparable increases in freshwater survival (Legault, 2005), 

however, the factors contributing to low marine survival are not well understood. A review of existing 

studies indicates that mortality during the early marine migration varies between 8 and 71 percent, with 

predation being the most common cause of low survival in rivers and estuaries (Thorstad et al., 2015). In 

recent decades, individuals have migrated to sea at a younger age; these smaller smolts are subject to 

increased mortality (Russell et al., 2012). Sea lice infestation of farmed fish is a major cause of mortality 

of adults (Gargan et al., 2012). Parasitic crustaceans have also been noted to cause mortality and are 

common in areas with large aquaculture populations (Krkosek et al., 2013). 

The primary threats impacting the juvenile life stages include restricted fish passage (Baum, 1997), 

degraded water quality and aluminum toxicity (Kroglund et al., 2007), commercial aquaculture (Hansen 

& Windsor, 2006), and lack of spawning habitat (Fay et al., 2006). Increases in juvenile survival could 

enhance the probability of recovery, but only if marine survival is also increased. Current research shows 

that the catch and release recreational fishery does not negatively impacted the adult population during 

the spawning migration (Lennox et al., 2016). 

3.6.2.2.2 Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) 

3.6.2.2.2.1 Status and Management 

Atlantic sturgeon is co-managed by Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and NMFS. Sharp 

declines in the abundance of Atlantic sturgeon resulting from historic overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, 

and habitat degradation led the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to issue a coast-wide 

moratorium on the commercial harvest in state waters in 1998 (63 Federal Register 9967). This was 

followed closely by a similar moratorium in federal waters issued by NMFS in early 1999 (64 Federal 

Register 9449). When the population continued to decline, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration listed the species as endangered or threatened throughout its range in 2012 (77 Federal 

Register 5880; 77 Federal Register 5914). The Chesapeake, New York Bight, Carolina, and South Atlantic 

Distinct Population Segments are listed as endangered and the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population 

Segment as threatened. 

In June, 2016, NMFS proposed to designate critical habitat (Figure 3.6-2 and Figure 3.6-3). Proposed 

critical habitat for the Carolina Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic sturgeon contain approximately 

1,241 mi. of aquatic habitat within the following rivers: the Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, Cape Fear, and 

Northeast Cape Fear rivers in North Carolina; and the Waccamaw, Pee Dee, Black, Santee, North Santee, 

South Santee, Cooper, and Bull rivers in South Carolina. In addition, NMFS proposed to designate 

unoccupied areas for the Carolina Distinct Population Segment totaling 238 mi. of aquatic habitat within 

the Cape Fear River, North Carolina and in the Santee, Wateree, Congaree, and Broad rivers, Lake 

Marion, Lake Moultrie, and the Diversion and Rediversion canals in South Carolina. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-24

3.6 Fishes

Note: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area 

Figure 3.6-2: Proposed Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the Southern Portion the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-25

3.6 Fishes

Note: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area, SINKEX = Sinking Exercise 

Figure 3.6-3: Proposed Critical Habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the Northern Portion of the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-26

3.6 Fishes

Proposed critical habitat for the South Atlantic Distinct Population Segment contain approximately 

1,809 mi. of aquatic habitat within the Edisto, Combahee-Salkehatchie, and Savannah rivers in South 

Carolina; and the Ogeechee, Altamaha, Ocmulgee, Oconee, Satilla, and St. Marys rivers in Georgia. In 

addition, an unoccupied area within the Savannah River for the South Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment that contains 21 mi. of aquatic habitat has been proposed. 

3.6.2.2.2.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Subadult and adult Atlantic sturgeon inhabits the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, likely 

year-round. Juveniles, sub-adults, and adults also inhabit many of the estuarine and riverine systems 

that are included in the Study Area (e.g., Kennebec River in Maine, Chesapeake Bay, James River and 

York River in Virginia, Cooper River in South Carolina, St. Johns River in Florida, and St. Marys River and 

Kings Bay in Georgia). Larvae are not known to inhabit the Study Area. 

Atlantic sturgeon are fairly well studied during their juvenile and spawning life phases in riverine 

environments, but their sub-adult and adult estuarine and marine phases are less understood. Females 

spawn highly adhesive eggs on cobble substrate located on river bottoms, which are fertilized by males. 

Breece et al. (2013) found that spawning habitat was influenced by salinity and substrate composition. 

Larvae hatch out in four to seven days, and newly hatched young are active swimmers, frequently 

leaving the bottom and swimming throughout the water column. After 9 to 10 days, the yolk sac is 

absorbed and the larvae begin to show more strictly benthic behavior. Juveniles remain riverine and 

estuarine residents for two to six years before migrating to the Atlantic Ocean. After reaching 76–92 

centimeters (cm) in length (30 to 36 in.), subadults move from natal estuaries into the marine 

environment, and may undertake long range migrations (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team, 2007). 

Sub-adults disperse widely both north and south along the Atlantic coast and beyond the continental 

shelf (Bain, 1997). Sub-adults and adults were found to be strongly associated within a narrow range of 

depths 10–50 m over gravel and sand and, to lesser extent, silt and clay (Stein et al., 2004) and in 

temperatures around 20° C (Breece et al., 2016). Age of sexual maturity varies from 5 to 34 years 

depending on latitude, averaging 15 years (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team, 2007). Sturgeon in 

the southern parts of the range tend to mature faster, but experience shorter lifespans than sturgeon in 

the northern portions of the range. Despite extensive mixing in coastal waters, adults return to their 

natal river to spawn as indicated from tagging records. During non-spawning years, adults remain in 

marine waters either year-round or seasonally venture into either natal or non-natal estuarine 

environments (Bain, 1997; Hager et al., 2016). As part of a Navy-funded research effort, Hager et al. 

(2016) found that sturgeon implanted with acoustic transmitters in the York River system in Virginia 

spent the summer and fall seasons of non-spawning years in either the mainstem of the Chesapeake 

Bay, the Delaware Bay and the Delaware River, or along the coast of New York and in the Hudson River. 

Spawning was originally thought to occur only in the spring along the Atlantic coast; however, recent 

research indicates that spawning primarily occurs in the fall in the South Atlantic rather than spring 

(Balazik, 2012; Balazik & Musick, 2015; Hager, 2015; Kahn et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2015). Males and 

females return to the ocean shortly after spawning. The highly adhesive eggs are deposited on cobble 

substrate. Juveniles (e.g., larvae life stage) hatch out in 4–7 days, assume a demersal existence, and 

begin to move downstream into their natal estuary, where they remain for a period of time ranging 

from months to years (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team, 2007). Breece et al. (2013) found that 

spawning habitats in the Delaware River were influenced by salinity levels and substrate composition, 

which have been heavily impacted by dredging activities and climate change. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-27

3.6 Fishes

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotia Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. 

Sub-adult and adult Atlantic sturgeon inhabits the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotia Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem year-round. 

Atlantic sturgeon can range as far north as the coast of Labrador, and as far south as the St. Johns River 

in Florida. 

3.6.2.2.2.3 Population Trends 

Atlantic sturgeon is a long-lived (average life span of 60 years), late maturing, estuarine dependent, 

iteroparous, and anadromous species. Twelve genetically distinct population segments along the U.S. 

Atlantic coast have been differentiated (Stein et al., 2004). The Hudson River population seemed 

somewhat large in 1995 with 9,500 juveniles recorded (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009b). The 

mean annual spawning stock size has been estimated at 870 adults, although about half may be of 

hatchery origin (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007). The Delaware River population has only a few 

individuals remaining. St. Johns River, Florida spawning population appears to be extinct (Fox et al., 

2016; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007; Waldman & Wirgin, 1998). The species has been 

historically overfished throughout its range with landings peaking around the turn of the 20th century 

followed by drastic declines thereafter (Smith & Clugston, 1997). 

Historically, Atlantic sturgeon were recorded in 38 rivers from St. Croix, Maine to the Saint Johns River, 

Florida. As of 2007, they were only known to still occupy 35 rivers (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review 

Team, 2007). However, spawning populations have been discovered in at least five new rivers since this 

estimate and preliminary research indicates there are likely spawning populations in several more rivers 

that have yet to be fully investigated. In the early 1600s, Atlantic sturgeon has been considered an 

important fishery (Jerome et al., 1965). In the mid-1800s, incidental catch of Atlantic sturgeon in the 

shad and river herring seine fisheries indicated that the species was very abundant (Armstrong & 

Hightower, 2002). By 1870, females were collected for their eggs, which were sold as caviar. By 1890, 

over 3,350 metric tons were landed from rivers along the Atlantic coast (Smith & Clugston, 1997). 

Despite a moratorium on commercial fishing for this species since 1998, there has been no indication of 

recovery. The lack of recovery is attributed to coastal development, pollution, poor water quality, and 

habitat degradation and loss. 

3.6.2.2.2.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Atlantic sturgeon prey upon benthic invertebrates such as isopods, crustaceans, worms, and molluscs 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010c). It has also been documented to feed on fish (Bain, 1997). 

Evidence of predation on sturgeon is scant, but it’s speculated that juveniles may be eaten by the 

American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula), striped bass 

(Dadswell, 2006), and sharks. 

3.6.2.2.2.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Overfishing of females for caviar prior to the 1900s resulted in large population declines. Current threats 

include: bycatch in fisheries targeting other species; habitat degradation from dredging, dams, and 

water withdrawals; passage impediments including locks and dams; and ship strikes (Atlantic Sturgeon 

Status Review Team, 2007; Balazik et al., 2012; Brown & Murphy, 2010; Foderaro, 2015). The copepod 

(Dichelesthium oblongum) parasitizes 93 percent of the Atlantic sturgeon sampled in the New York 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-28

3.6 Fishes

Bight. High parasite load, stress, and reduced immune suppression has been associated with Atlantic 

sturgeon inhabiting areas of poor water quality (e.g., sewage contamination) (Fast et al., 2009). 

3.6.2.2.3 Largetooth Sawfish (Pristis pristis) 

3.6.2.2.3.1 Status and Management 

In July 2011, NMFS listed the largetooth sawfish, a type of elasmobranch (shark), as endangered 

throughout its U.S. range (76 Federal Register 40822), although the last confirmed record of this species 

in U.S. waters was from Port Aransas, Texas, in 1961. The largetooth sawfish has undergone severe 

range reduction in the United States (Del Monte-Luna et al., 2009; National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2009c). NMFS determined that there is inadequate management of this species throughout most of its 

range (74 Federal Register 37767). Until a recovery plan is developed, the smalltooth sawfish recovery 

plan (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009c) may be used to manage the largetooth sawfish because 

the species are similar (Seitz & Poulakis, 2006). Research has determined that largetooth sawfish 

recovery may take decades because of a low rate of population growth. No critical habitat is designated 

for this species (76 Federal Register 40822). 

3.6.2.2.3.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. The largetooth sawfish inhabits shallow, subtropical-tropical, 

estuarine and marine waters in the southwestern portion of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, 

but it is also known from freshwater habitats in large Central American rivers or lake systems outside 

the Study Area (WildEarth Guardians, 2009). This species moves between freshwater and marine 

habitats, and some type of dispersal between these systems may be assumed (Kyne & Feutry, 2013). 

The largetooth sawfish typically remains close to the bottom of sand or muddy sand, generally in depths 

less than 35 ft. (11 m) (Kyne & Feutry, 2013). The largetooth sawfish can tolerate a range of salinities, 

moving freely between salinity gradients (74 Federal Register 37671), and is reported in brackish water 

near river mouths, large embayments, and partially enclosed systems. Largetooth sawfish may occupy 

deep holes or be found over mud and sand (75 Federal Register 25174). Red mangroves and shallow 

habitats of varying salinity are important nursery habitats for the largetooth sawfish; these shallow 

habitats support an abundance of prey (WildEarth Guardians, 2009). The complexity of such habitats 

also provides juveniles with refuges from larger shark species (74 Federal Register 37671). 

3.6.2.2.3.3 Population Trends 

The presence of this species in U.S. waters is under review because it has not been documented in the 

United States in several decades (74 Federal Register 37671). Some largetooth sawfish may rarely and 

briefly enter U.S. waters along the Texas coast (WildEarth Guardians, 2009), although further research is 

needed to determine exactly where that population occurs (75 Federal Register 25174). 

3.6.2.2.3.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

The largetooth sawfish uses its saw while foraging, either by stirring up the substrate to expose 

crustaceans or by stunning and slashing schooling fish (75 Federal Register 25174). Largetooth sawfish 

have been documented in the stomachs of American crocodile, narrowtooth sharks, bull sharks, and 

tiger sharks also prey on various species of sawfishes (Florida Museum of Natural History, 2017a). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-29

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.3.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Factors contributing to the decline of the largetooth sawfish include habitat degradation, commercial 

harvest, gear entanglements, fisheries bycatch, low productivity, and the market for rostral saws 

(WildEarth Guardians, 2009). 

3.6.2.2.4 Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) 

3.6.2.2.4.1 Status and Management 

In 1967, the U.S. Department of Interior listed the shortnose sturgeon as endangered throughout its 

range (32 Federal Register 4001). The species remained listed following enactment of the ESA in 1973 

(Wippelhauser & Squiers, 2015). NMFS has recognized 19 Distinct Population Segments. These include 

New Brunswick, Canada (1); Maine (2); Massachusetts (1); Connecticut (1); New York (1); New 

Jersey/Delaware (1); Maryland/Virginia (1); North Carolina (1); South Carolina (4); Georgia (4); and 

Florida (2) (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998a). In September 2014, a petition was created to list 

the population within the St. John River in New Brunswick, Canada as a distinct population segment 

under the ESA. Critical habitat for this species remains under development. 

3.6.2.2.4.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

The geographic range of shortnose sturgeon runs along eastern North America from the Saint John 

River, New Brunswick, Canada to the St. Johns River, Florida (Kynard, 1997; National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 1998b). After hatching in rivers, larvae orient into the current and away from light, generally 

staying near the bottom and seeking cover. Within two weeks, the larvae emerge from cover and swim 

in the water column, moving downstream from the spawning site. Within two months, juvenile behavior 

mimics adults, with active swimming (Deslauriers & Kieffer, 2012) and foraging at night along the 

bottom (Richmond & Kynard, 1995). The species primarily occurs in rivers and estuaries of the Northeast 

and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, occasionally moving into the nearshore 

coastal waters (Dadswell, 2006; National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998b; Richmond & Kynard, 1995). In 

estuaries, juveniles and adults occupy areas with little or no current over a bottom composed primarily 

of mud and sand (Secor et al., 2000). Adults are found in deep water (10–30 m) in winter and in 

shallower habitat (2–10 m) during summer (Welsh et al., 2002). Juveniles are known to occur in the 

Study Area, particularly in the St. Johns River in Florida. 

3.6.2.2.4.3 Population Trends 

Shortnose sturgeon is a long-lived (average life span 30 years), riverine and estuarine habitat 

dependent, iteroparous, and anadromous species. Populations were stable or possibly increasing in the 

1990s (Wippelhauser et al., 2015). Certain subpopulations have increased in recent years, particularly 

the Hudson River stock (Bain, 1997; Stein et al., 2004). Several strong cohorts (i.e., groups of fish born in 

the same year within a population or stock) had higher-than-expected survival during the 1980s and 

1990s, then recovery slowed during the late 1990s (Woodland & Secor, 2007). Abundances in the 

Hudson River population exceed recovery criteria (Bain, 1997; Woodland & Secor, 2007). The Delaware 

River supports 8,445 individuals (Welsh et al., 2002). 

3.6.2.2.4.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Prey varies with season between northern and southern river systems. In northern rivers, some 

sturgeon feed in freshwater during summer and over sand-mud bottoms in the lower estuary during fall, 

winter, and spring (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998b). In southern rivers, feeding has been 

observed during winter at or just downstream the saltwater and freshwater interface (Kynard, 1997). In 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-30

3.6 Fishes

the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, shortnose sturgeon reduces feeding 

activity during summer months (Sulak & Randall, 2002). 

The shortnose sturgeon feeds by suctioning worms, crustaceans, molluscs, and small fish from the 

bottom (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998b; Stein et al., 2004). Juveniles have been found in the 

stomachs of yellow perch (Perca flavescens). Predation on sub-adults and adults is not 

well-documented; however, sharks are likely predators in the marine environment (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1998b). 

3.6.2.2.4.5 Species-Specific Threats 

The population decline has been attributed to pollution, overharvest in commercial fisheries (including 

bycatch), and its resemblance to the formerly commercially valuable Atlantic sturgeon (Bain et al., 2007; 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998a). Other risk factors include poaching, non-native species, poor 

water quality in spawning and nursery habitats, contaminants (e.g., heavy metals, pesticides, and 

organochlorine compounds), siltation from dredging, bridge construction and demolition, impingement 

on power plant cooling water intake screens, impoundment operations, and hydraulic dredging 

operations (Collins et al., 2000; National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998a). 

3.6.2.2.5 Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) 

3.6.2.2.5.1 Status and Management 

The smalltooth sawfish was once common in the Gulf of Mexico and along the east coast of the United 

States. Today, the severely depleted population is restricted mostly to southern Florida (Poulakis & 

Seitz, 2004; Simpfendorfer, 2006; Simpfendorfer et al., 2011). The Distinct Population Segment of 

smalltooth sawfish in the United States, between Florida and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, was listed 

as endangered under the ESA by NMFS in 2003 and by USFWS in 2005 (70 Federal Register 69464), and 

it is co-managed by both agencies (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010a). 

Critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is located at Charlotte Harbor Estuary and the Ten Thousand 

Islands portion of the Everglades. Most of this critical habitat lies in the boundaries of the federally 

managed Everglades National Park, Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve, and Cape Romano-Ten Thousand 

Islands Aquatic Preserve (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009c). Critical habitat includes red 

mangroves and shallow habitats characterized by variable salinities with water depths between the 

mean high water line and 1 m measured at mean lower low water. The Key West Range Complex does 

not overlap these areas; the northeastern boundary (Warning Area-174) of the Key West Range 

Complex is within approximately 9 NM of critical habitat at its closest point (Figure 3.6-4).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-31

3.6 Fishes

Note: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, LME = Large Marine Ecosystem 

Figure 3.6-4: Critical Habitat Areas for Smalltooth Sawfish in and Adjacent to the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-32

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.5.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

The smalltooth sawfish typically inhabit shallow tropical or subtropical estuarine and marine waters 

associated with sandy and muddy deep holes, limestone hard bottom, coral reefs, sea fans, artificial 

reefs, and offshore drilling platforms (Poulakis & Seitz, 2004). Nursery areas of the smalltooth sawfish 

include estuaries and mangroves with the roots providing refuge from predators (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2009c, 2010b; Seitz & Poulakis, 2006; Simpfendorfer & Wiley, 2005). Juveniles exhibit a 

high site fidelity to nearshore areas and residence up to 55 days, and upstream movement toward 

preferred lower salinity conditions (Poulakis et al., 2012; Simpfendorfer et al., 2011). Larger individuals 

may occur to a depth of 120 m (Poulakis & Seitz, 2004; Simpfendorfer, 2006), although adults are known 

to spend more time in shallower habitat than in deeper waters (Simpfendorfer & Wiley, 2005). 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The species is recorded in the Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem area of the Study Area, but its range is primarily southern 

Florida. Historic records indicate that this species may have made summer migrations northward along 

the Atlantic coast. 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. The smalltooth sawfish also occurs in the Gulf of Mexico Large 

Marine Ecosystem portion of the Study Area, particularly at river mouths (e.g., Mississippi River) 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009c; Simpfendorfer, 2006). 

3.6.2.2.5.3 Population Trends 

No population estimates exist of the smalltooth sawfish. The best available data suggest that the current 

population is a small fraction of its historical size (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010a; 

Simpfendorfer, 2006). Data collected in the Everglades National Park since 1972 suggest that the 

population has stabilized, and may be increasing. Between 1989 and 2004, the population increased by 

approximately 5 percent (Carlson et al., 2007a). 

3.6.2.2.5.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Smalltooth sawfish are nocturnal feeders and use the saw-like rostrum to disrupt the substrate to 

expose crustaceans and to stun and slash schooling fish. Juveniles are preyed upon by bull sharks and 

other shark species inhabiting shallow coastal waters (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009c). 

3.6.2.2.5.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Factors contributing to the historic population decline included habitat degradation, commercial 

harvest, gear entanglements, bycatch in fisheries, poaching, and the illegal market for the saw-like 

rostrum (WildEarth Guardians, 2009). 

3.6.2.2.6 Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

3.6.2.2.6.1 Status and Management 

The Gulf sturgeon and the Atlantic sturgeon are members of the same species, but do not overlap 

geographically. The Gulf sturgeon was federally listed in 1991 as threatened in the Gulf of Mexico Large 

Marine Ecosystem (56 Federal Register 49653) (Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi) and is comanaged by NMFS and USFWS. The fishery for the species has been closed since being listed. Bycatch 

along the Gulf coast was a major source of mortality (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 1995), and efforts to 

reduce bycatch include gear modifications for nearshore trawl fisheries (Smith & Clugston, 1997). NMFS 

and USFWS concluded that the Gulf sturgeon population was stable and had achieved recovery 

objectives (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-33

3.6 Fishes

Critical habitat include abundant prey items across life stages (e.g., detritus, aquatic invertebrates) and 

suitable spawning substrate, aggregation areas, flow regime, water quality, sediment quality, and safe, 

unobstructed migratory passage corridors. Most elements of the critical habitat are not applicable to 

the marine portions of the Study Area. The Panama City OPAREA and Naval Surface Warfare Center, 

Panama City Division Testing Range overlaps with Gulf sturgeon critical habitat (Figure 3.6-5). This 

critical habitat (Unit 11) encompasses Florida nearshore Gulf of Mexico waters in Escambia, Santa Rosa, 

Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, and Gulf counties in Florida. Unit 11 provides a migration corridor for Gulf 

sturgeon enroute from winter habitat and feeding grounds in the Gulf of Mexico to spring and summer 

spawning and hatching habitat in the Yellow, Choctawhatchee, and Apalachicola rivers. Gulf sturgeon 

inhabits the nearshore coastline between Pensacola and Apalachicola bays, in depths of less than 6 m 

during winter (Fox et al., 2000, 2002). 

3.6.2.2.6.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Adults inhabit nearshore waters from October thru February (Robydek & Nunley, 2012) with distribution 

influenced by prey availability (Ross et al., 2009), particularly within the Suwannee River estuary (Harris 

et al., 2005). The spring spawning migration toward natal rivers begins as riverine water temperatures 

reach 64°F to 72°F (Edwards et al., 2003; Heise et al., 2004; Rogillio et al., 2007). Spawning areas include 

the Suwannee, Apalachicola, Escambia, Choctawhatchee, and Pascagoula rivers (Chapman & Carr, 1995; 

Craft et al., 2001; Fox et al., 2000; Wooley & Crateau, 1985). Spawning occurs during autumn in some 

watersheds (e.g., Suwannee) (Randall & Sulak, 2012). Once post-spawned adults leave rivers, they 

remain within 1,000 m of the shoreline (Robydek & Nunley, 2012) and often inhabit estuaries and 

nearshore bays in water less than 10 m deep (Ross et al., 2009). Some individuals, particularly females 

between spawning years (Fox et al., 2002; Ross et al., 2009) move into deeper offshore waters for short 

periods during cold weather (Sulak et al., 2009). 

Sub-adult and adult foraging grounds include barrier island inlets with strong tidal currents and estuaries 

less than 2 m deep with clean sand substrate (Fox et al., 2002; Harris et al., 2005; Ross et al., 2009). Gulf 

sturgeon winter near beaches of northwestern Florida and southeast of the mouth of St. Andrew Bay 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009), while others moved northeast 

of St. Andrew Bay at depths ranging from 4 to 12 m (12 to 40 ft.) at 0.5 to 2 mi. offshore, and likely 

feeding on prey associated with fine sand and shell hash substrates (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009). 

By December, only the young-of-the-year and juveniles remain in the rivers (Carr & Carr, 1996; Foster & 

Clugston, 1997). Young-of-the-year nursery habitat includes riverine sandbars and shoals (Carr & Carr, 

1996). Juveniles show high site fidelity rates for riverine habitats used during spring and summer (Rudd 

et al., 2014), prefer sand or vegetated habitats (Wakeford, 2001), tolerate high salinity levels for 

extended durations, and appear to use estuaries infrequently (Sulak et al., 2009).

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. This anadromous species occurs in the Gulf of Mexico Large 

Marine Ecosystem in bays, estuaries and rivers, and in the marine environment from Florida to Louisiana 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010b). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-34

3.6 Fishes

 

Note: AFTT = Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing, OPAREA = Operating Area 

Figure 3.6-5: Critical Habitat Areas for Gulf Sturgeon in and Adjacent to the Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-35

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.6.3 Population Trends 

Gulf sturgeon populations are stable or slowly increasing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2009). Current population levels in four of the seven river systems in the 

recovery plan are likely at or exceeding the mean carrying capacity, given the current levels of available

habitat. In the remaining three rivers, extant Gulf Sturgeon populations are likely below their estimated 

carrying capacity levels (Ahrens & Pine, 2014). Population estimates in the Pearl and Pascagoula Rivers 

are lacking because research has been limited since hurricanes Ivan in 2004 and Katrina in 2005 (Rogillio 

et al., 2007). 

3.6.2.2.6.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Prey varies on life stage, but Gulf sturgeon is considered an opportunistic feeder. Adults typically do not 

feed while in freshwater, and may lose from 12 to 30 percent of their body weight while inhabiting 

rivers. In estuarine and marine habitats, they prey upon a wide range of benthic invertebrates (Florida 

Museum of Natural History, 2017b). Sharks are likely predators while sturgeon inhabit the marine 

environment (Florida Museum of Natural History, 2017b). 

3.6.2.2.6.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Factors contributing to the decline include overfishing and habitat loss. Threats include dams (e.g., Pearl, 

Alabama, and Apalachicola Rivers), dredged material disposal, channel maintenance, oil and gas 

exploration, shrimp trawling, and poor water quality (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2009). Other threats include potential hybridization with non-native sturgeon from 

aquaculture farms and diseases. 

3.6.2.2.7 Nassau Grouper (Epinephelus striatus) 

3.6.2.2.7.1 Status and Management 

The Nassau grouper is listed as threatened under the ESA in the Study Area (81 Federal Register 42268). 

Designation of critical habitat remains under study. Commercial and recreational landings declined in 

both pounds landed and average fish size from 1986 and 1991. As a result, moratoriums on take and 

possession were established in 1996 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). 

By 2000, abundance had decreased approximately 60 percent over the last three generations (Cornish & 

Eklund, 2003). This decline is attributed to intensive fishing efforts on or near the spawning aggregation 

sites (Beets & Hixon, 1994; Colin, 1992). Failure of recovery in response to fishing moratoriums 

combined with concerns over habitat loss have guided management efforts toward the establishment of 

marine protected areas as a more effective means of preserving the species and its habitat, which are 

typically near current and historical spawning aggregation sites (81 Federal Register 42268). 

3.6.2.2.7.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Nassau grouper is a long-lived, late-maturing perch-like bony fish. This species is a solitary fish apart 

from spawning aggregations (Starr et al., 2007). These fish inhabit high-relief coral reefs and rocky 

bottoms from nearshore to a depth of 100 m and rest on or near the bottom, with juveniles inhabiting 

seagrass beds and patch reefs (Bester, 2012). This species also occupies caves and large overhangs 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). Spawning aggregation sites are typically located near 

significant geomorphological features, such as projections (promontories) of the reef as little as 50 m 

from the shore (81 Federal Register 42268). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-36

3.6 Fishes

Nassau grouper congregate in large numbers at specific areas to spawn after the appropriate water 

temperature and moon phase cues (usually within a period of 10 days overlapping the full moon) 

between January and February (Archer et al., 2012; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015; Semmens 

et al., 2006). Spawning aggregations of several thousand individuals have been reported (Bester, 2012). 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The geographic range within Study Area is 

limited to the southeast coast of Florida. 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. Within the Study Area, Nassau grouper occur in Flower 

Gardens Bank; Dry Tortugas National Park; and Key West, Florida (Bester, 2012). 

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. Range within the Study Area includes Florida and areas near 

Puerto Rico. 

3.6.2.2.7.3 Population Trends 

The current worldwide population of Nassau grouper is approximately 10,000 individuals and continues 

to decline (Cornish & Eklund, 2003). Subpopulations in the United States appear stable, but Caribbean 

stocks are in decline. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analyses indicate no evidence of genetically distinct 

subpopulations; thus, Nassau grouper are considered as a single population (Bernard et al., 2012; 

Cornish & Eklund, 2003). More recent research has shown strong genetic differentiation in 

subpopulations in the Caribbean that may correlate to larvae dispersal barriers (Jackson et al., 2014). 

3.6.2.2.7.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Nassau groupers are preyed upon by barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda), king mackerel (Scomberomorus 

cavalla), moray eels (Gymnothorax spp.), sandbar sharks (Carcharhinus plumbeus), great hammerhead 

sharks (Sphyrna mokarran), and although rare, other groupers (Bester, 2012). 

Adult Nassau grouper is an opportunistic ambush predator, feeding on a variety of fishes, shrimps, 

crabs, lobsters, and octopuses (Sadovy & Eklund, 1999). Adults have been observed feeding on the 

invasive lionfish in the Caribbean and are currently being studied as a potential biocontrol option 

(Mumby et al., 2011). Nassau grouper larvae are filter and particulate feeders that prey on 

dinoflagellates, fish larvae, and mysids (Sadovy & Eklund, 1999). 

3.6.2.2.7.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Nassau grouper is sensitive to over-exploitation due to slow growth rate, late reproduction age 

(five-plus years), large size, and long lifespan (Morris et al., 2000; Sadovy & Eklund, 1999). The decline in 

population is the result of overharvest and collapse of spawning aggregations (Aguilar-Perera, 2006; 

Ehrhardt & Deleveaux, 2007) and is exacerbated by coastal development (Stallings, 2009). 

Damage to spawning sites limits reproductive success of adults if alternative habitats are unavailable. 

Loss of macroalgae and seagrass beds is damaging to Nassau grouper populations, as it often results in 

low recruitment rates (Sadovy & Eklund, 1999). 

Fishing moratoriums have been ineffective at preventing illegal harvest that occurs in Puerto Rico and 

other U.S. waters. Declines have also resulted from overfishing with spear guns and bycatch of juvenile 

in fine mesh nets (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015). 

The marine isopod Excorallana tricornis is a known parasite of the Nassau grouper, sometimes resulting 

in infestations immediately following spawning (Semmens et al., 2006). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-37

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.8 Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna lewini) 

3.6.2.2.8.1 Status and Management 

The Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead 

population are listed as threatened under the ESA (79 Federal Register 52576). The Northwest Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks has not been listed 

under the ESA at this time. There are no designated critical habitat marine areas within the jurisdiction 

of the United States. 

The scalloped hammerhead shark fishery is managed under the Large Coastal Shark Management Unit 

by NMFS through the Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries Management Plan 

(Miller et al., 2013). 

3.6.2.2.8.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

The scalloped hammerhead shark is a coastal and semi-oceanic species distributed in temperate to 

tropical waters (Froese & Pauly, 2016). Scalloped hammerhead sharks inhabit the surface to depths of 

275 m (Duncan & Holland, 2006) of the Study Area. Coastal waters with temperatures between 23 °C

and 26°C are preferred habitats (Castro, 1983; Compagno, 1984), with animals generally remaining close 

to shore during the day and moving into deeper waters to feed at night (Bester, 1999). Ketchum et al. 

(2014b) found scalloped hammerheads formed daytime schools at specific locations in the Galapagos 

Islands, but dispersed at night, spending more time at the northern islands during part of the warm 

season (December–February) compared to the cool. Ketchum et al. (2014a) used acoustic telemetry to 

show that scalloped hammerheads were highly selective of location (i.e., habitat on up-current side of 

island) and depth (i.e., top of the thermocline) while refuging, where they may carry out essential 

activities such as cleaning and thermoregulation, and also perform exploratory vertical movements by 

diving the width of the mixed layer and occasionally diving below the thermocline while moving 

offshore, most likely for foraging. Hoffmayer et al. (2013) also found that tagged sharks exhibited 

consistent and repeated diel vertical movement patterns, making more than 76 deep nighttime dives to 

a maximum depth of 964 m, possibly representing feeding behavior. A genetic marker study suggests 

that females remain close to coastal habitats, while males disperse across larger open ocean areas (DalyEngel et al., 2012). Scalloped hammerhead sharks that are part of the Central and Southwest Atlantic 

Distinct Population Segment are only found in the southernmost portion of the Study Area in the vicinity 

of Puerto Rico. Scalloped hammerhead sharks that occur in other portions of the Study Area are not 

protected under the ESA. 

In the western Atlantic, their range extends from New Jersey to points south of the Study Area, including 

the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea (Bester, 1999) with seasonal migration along the eastern 

United States. Juveniles rear in coastal nursery areas (Duncan & Holland, 2006) with all ages occurring in 

the Gulf Stream, but rarely inhabits the open ocean (Kohler & Turner, 2001). 

3.6.2.2.8.3 Population Trends 

The scalloped hammerhead shark has undergone substantial declines throughout its range (Baum et al., 

2003). There is some evidence of population increase in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem (Ward-Paige et al., 2012). Landings of scalloped hammerhead sharks peaked at 

8,000 metric tons in 2002 and declined to 1,000 metric tons in 2009 (Food and Agriculture Organization 

of the United Nations, 2005, 2009). Modeling results estimate the overall population range from 

approximately 142,000 to 169,000 individuals in 1981 and between 24,000 and 28,000 individuals in 

2005 (Miller et al., 2013). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-38

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.8.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Scalloped hammerhead sharks have few predators. Sharks locate potential prey by odor, particularly 

from injured prey, or low-frequency sounds, inner ear (vibrations), lateral line (turbulence) with vision 

coming into play at closer range (Moyle & Cech, 2004). They feed primarily at night (Compagno, 1984) 

on a wide variety of fishes such as sardines, herring, anchovies, and jacks, and also feed on 

invertebrates, including squid, octopus, shrimp, crabs, and lobsters (Bester, 1999). 

3.6.2.2.8.5 Species-Specific Threats 

The primary threat is from fishing mortality by the foreign commercial shark fin fishery (Miller et al., 

2013). Longline mortality is estimated between 91 and 94 percent (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2011) total shark bycatch in the swordfish and tuna longline fisheries and shrimp trawls in the Gulf of 

Mexico (Branstetter, 2002). This species is highly susceptible to bycatch due to schooling habits (Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012). 

3.6.2.2.9 Giant Manta Ray (Manta birostris) 

3.6.2.2.9.1 Status and Management 

The giant manta ray was proposed to be listed as a threatened species under ESA by NMFS on January 

12 2017 (82 Federal Register 3694). Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, 

including the status review report (Miller & Klimovich, 2016), and after taking into account efforts being 

made to protect these species, NMFS determined that the giant manta ray is likely to become an 

endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range. 

3.6.2.2.9.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Giant manta rays are considered seasonal visitors to productive coastlines with regular upwelling, 

including oceanic island shores, and offshore pinnacles and seamounts. They utilize sandy bottom 

habitat and seagrass beds, as well as shallow reefs, and the ocean surface both inshore and offshore. 

The species ranges globally and is distributed in tropical, subtropical, and temperate waters They can 

migrate seasonally usually more than 1,000 km (approximately 621 mi.), however not likely across ocean 

basins (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016c). 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The ecosystem is highly productive with 

upwelling from Cape Hatteras to the Gulf of Maine (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

2016b). Giant manta rays occur in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem for 

feeding on plankton in the upwelling region. 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Occasional short-lived plankton blooms 

occur along the Gulf Stream front and in intrusions into the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem (Aquarone, 2009). This draws giant manta rays to feed in this large marine ecosystem 

during these occasions. Shelf fronts are separated by wintertime cold air outbreaks, river discharge, tidal 

mixing, and wind-induced coastal upwelling, all of which attract giant manta rays for feeding, and to 

seagrass floors (Aquarone, 2009). 

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. In the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem, there are 

localized upwelling areas and nearshore habitats like coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds 

(Heileman & Mahon, 2008). All of these areas attract giant manta rays for feeding and attendance at 

cleaning stops on coral reefs where fishes groom the rays by eating parasites off of them (Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2013). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-39

3.6 Fishes

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. The Loop Current, which is created by oceanic waters entering 

the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem from the Yucatan channel and exiting through the Straits of 

Florida, has upwelling along its edges, as well as in its rings and eddies that are associated with it 

(Heileman & Rabalais, 2008). These rings, eddies, and upwelling zones are areas where giant manta rays 

could be found feeding. 

3.6.2.2.9.3 Population Trends 

No stock assessments exist for the giant manta ray. Most estimates of subpopulations are based on 

anecdotal observations by divers and fishermen, with current populations estimated between 100 and 

1,500 individuals (Miller & Klimovich, 2016). Giant manta rays reach maturity at age 10 and have one 

pup every two to three years (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016c). 

3.6.2.2.9.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Manta rays prey exclusively on plankton (Defenders of Wildlife, 2015b). The gill plates of the giant 

manta ray filters the water as they swim, straining out any plankton that is larger than a grain of sand 

(Defenders of Wildlife, 2015b). 

3.6.2.2.9.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Threats to giant manta rays include fisheries and bycatch, destruction or modification of habitat, and 

disease and predation. The international market highly values the gill plates of the giant manta ray for 

use in traditional medicines. They also trade their cartilage and skins and consume the manta ray meat 

or use it for local bait. Bycatch occurs in purse seine, gillnet, and trawl fisheries as well (National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, 2016c). Fisheries exist outside the Study Area in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, 

India, Peru, Mexico, China, Mozambique, and Ghana (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, 2013). Other potential threats include degradation of coral reefs, interaction with marine 

debris, marine pollution, and boat strikes (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

2013). 

3.6.2.2.10 Oceanic Whitetip Shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) 

3.6.2.2.10.1 Status and Management 

NMFS completed a comprehensive status review of the oceanic whitetip shark and based on the best 

scientific and commercial information available, including the status review report (Young et al., 2016), 

proposed on December 29, 2016 that this species warrants listing as a threatened species under ESA (81 

Federal Register 96304). 

3.6.2.2.10.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Oceanic whitetip sharks are found worldwide in warm tropical and subtropical waters between the 

20° North and 20° South latitude near the surface of the water column (Young et al., 2016). In the 

Western Atlantic, oceanic whitetips occur from Maine to Argentina, including the Caribbean and Gulf of 

Mexico. This species has a clear preference for open ocean waters, with abundances decreasing with 

greater proximity to continental shelves. Preferring warm waters near or over 20° C (68° F), and offshore 

areas, the oceanic whitetip shark is known to undertake seasonal movements to higher latitudes in the 

summer (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2016e) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2016e) and may regularly survey extreme environments (deep depths, low 

temperatures) as a foraging strategy (Young et al., 2016). The presence of oceanic whitetip sharks 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-40

3.6 Fishes

increases further away from the continental shelf in deep water areas, but it prefers to inhabit the 

surface waters in deep water areas at less than 328 ft. (Defenders of Wildlife, 2015a). 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. During warming periods, the ocean whitetip 

shark may be present. Long-term steady warming has been observed in the ecosystem since 1957 and 

has accelerated since the mid-1990s, with the sea surface temperature rising by 1.8° C in 15 years from 

4.6° C to 6.4° C (Aquarone & Adams, 2009). As the sea temperature increases, the oceanic whitetip 

shark would be more likely to occur in this area. 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The oceanic whitetip shark has declined in 

the northwest Atlantic and western central Atlantic (Baum et al., 2015). It could occur in the offshore 

open ocean areas. 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Oceanic whitetip sharks would be more 

likely to occur far offshore in the open sea in waters that are 200 m deep near the surface of the water 

column, although some have been recorded to occur at depths of 152 m (Baum et al., 2015). 

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. The oceanic whitetip shark would occur in the open ocean 

offshore portions of the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. They would occur near the surface of 

the water column of 200 m deep or deeper areas in the ecosystem area (Baum et al., 2015). Sharks 

would be less likely to occur in the shallow habitats such as coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds 

(Heileman & Mahon, 2008). 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. Oceanic whitetip sharks are a species that prefers warmer 

waters, and is more likely to occur during the summer months (Baum et al., 2015). This species would 

likely occur near the surface of deep open ocean waters offshore. An analysis of the Gulf of Mexico used 

U.S. pelagic longline surveys in the mid-1950s and U.S. pelagic longline observer data in the late-1990s 

and estimated a decline of the species in the Gulf over the 40-year time period. However, due to 

temporal changes in fishing gear and practices over the time period, the study may have exaggerated or 

underestimated the magnitude of population decline (Baum et al., 2015). 

3.6.2.2.10.3 Population Trends 

Population trend information is not clear or available. Information shows that the population has 

declined and that there is evidence of decreasing average weights of the sharks that have been 

encountered. The oceanic whitetip shark has declined by 70 percent throughout the Atlantic region 

(Defenders of Wildlife, 2015a). 

3.6.2.2.10.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

As one of the major apex predators in the tropical open ocean waters, the oceanic whitetip shark feeds 

on fishes and cephalopods. As a high level predators, the oceanic whitetip shark, with its large size 

(Ebert et al., 2015) and long life, builds up high levels of pollutants due to bioaccumulation and biomagnification impacting their physiology negatively (Defenders of Wildlife, 2015a). 

3.6.2.2.10.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Threats include pelagic longline and drift net fisheries bycatch, targeted fisheries (for the shark fin 

trade), and threatened destruction or modification of its habitat and range (Baum et al., 2015; 

Defenders of Wildlife, 2015a). Legal and illegal fishing activities in the Atlantic have caused significant 

population declines for the oceanic whitetip shark. It is caught as bycatch in tuna and swordfish 

longlines in the northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Habitat degradation has occurred due to 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-41

3.6 Fishes

pollutants in the environment that bioaccumulate and biomagnify to high levels in their bodies due to 

their high position in the food chain, long life, and large size (Defenders of Wildlife, 2015a). 

3.6.2.2.11 Alabama Shad (Alosa alabamae) 

3.6.2.2.11.1 Status and Management 

The Alabama shad was added to the Candidate Species List by NMFS in 1997 (62 Federal Register 3756). 

In 2004 it was classified to the level of a Species of Concern (69 Federal Register 19975). The status of 

the Alabama shad has yet to be updated from Candidate. 

3.6.2.2.11.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

This anadromous and euryhaline (able to adapt to a wide range of salinities) fish species occurs as far 

north as the Ohio River in West Virginia and Mississippi tributaries, south to the Gulf of Mexico. They are 

believed to only occur in northern Gulf of Mexico rivers from the Mississippi east to the Suwannee in 

Florida (Smith et al., 2011). They are known specifically to occur in St. Andrew Bay, Florida, and the 

Pascagoula River Estuary, Mississippi. Although they are preferential to cooler river waters that have 

high dissolved oxygen and pH levels, there have been no studies on the thermal tolerances of Alabama 

shad (Smith et al., 2011). Juveniles have been found in waters as warm as 32° C, while adults have been 

found spawning in waters of 10° C (Smith et al., 2011). The velocity of the water is an important habitat 

feature, as the Alabama sad is rarely found in still waters of rivers. Flooding in the spring may be of 

critical importance as a spawning cue for adult fishes (Smith et al., 2011). The movement of the Alabama 

shad may be similar to the American shad in that they may move to deeper, quieter areas of the river 

channels at night (Freeman et al., 2009). 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. There is very little information available on the Alabama shad’s 

use of marine environments such as the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. As anadromous fish, 

they migrate up river in the spring to spawn and return to the Gulf in the late summer or fall (Smith et 

al., 2011). They spend the winter months in the marine environment outside of river systems (Smith et 

al., 2011). 

3.6.2.2.11.3 Population Trends 

The Alabama shad population has declined and has been extirpated from portions of its historical range 

(Smith et al., 2011). The historical range extended to inland eastern Oklahoma, Iowa, and West Virginia, 

while current distributions are found in some Gulf coast drainages and the majority of the states that fall 

within the historical range of the species contain fewer Alabama shad today than they did historically 

(Smith et al., 2011). The population has declined mainly due to fragmentation as rivers are more 

modified by levees, dams, locks, and navigational passages. 

Despite the decline of the overall population and abundance, data from the Smith et al. (2011) study 

indicate that the current range of the Alabama shad is stable and in some cases the riverine systems 

have the capability for population increase. The following rivers contain spawning populations based on 

the same study; Suwannee River, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, Choctawhatchee River, 

Escambia River, and Pascagoula River (Smith et al., 2011). The total population of the species is 

unknown, population estimates of migrating Alabama shad near the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam in 

2005 and 2007 varied from year to year from greater than 30,000 to less than 25,000 fish (NatureServe, 

2010). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-42

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.2.11.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Alabama shad appear to feed very little or not at all while in fresh water to spawn, as evidenced by a 

lack of food in their stomachs when captured (Freeman et al., 2009; Louisiana Department of Wildlife 

and Fisheries, 2012). Juvenile Alabama shad feed on aquatic dipterans and small fishes in the 

Apalachicola and other river drainages (Freeman et al., 2009). At sea the prey interactions of Alabama 

shad are unknown (Freeman et al., 2009). Generally this fish species eats phytoplankton, aquatic insects, 

crustaceans, small fishes, and vegetation (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2012). 

3.6.2.2.11.5 Species-Specific Threats 

The greatest species-specific threat to the Alabama shad is human encroachment. Human 

encroachment on their habitat occurs through dams, dredging, and pollution (Smith et al., 2011). 

Construction and operation of hydroelectric power plants in spawning and development habitat in rivers 

are a primary cause of the species declining numbers (Smith et al., 2011). Dams and locks degrade water 

quality and change water flow and temperature in the rivers. Dredging, agricultural operations, and 

reservoir construction on tributaries in the Alabama shad range are also threats to the survivorship of 

the Alabama shad (Smith et al., 2011). 

3.6.2.2.12 Cusk (Brosme brosme) 

3.6.2.2.12.1 Status and Management 

The cusk was added to the Candidate Species List by NMFS on March 9, 2007 (72 Federal Register

10710). NMFS is in the process of a status review for the cusk and soliciting scientific and commercial 

information pertaining to the species. 

3.6.2.2.12.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Cusk inhabit small shoals on rock, pebble, and gravel bottoms at depths between 60 and 1,805 ft. 

(20 and 550 m) (Collette & Klein-MacPhee, 2002) and temperatures ranging from 32°F to 50°F (0°C to 

10°C) (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009a). Cusk eggs are buoyant; after hatching, larvae remain 

near the surface, then settle to the bottom as 2 in. (5 cm) juveniles (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2004). 

Adult cusk are solitary and remain in offshore waters; they are rarely captured in waters less than 65 to 

100 ft. (20 to 30 m) deep (Knutsen et al., 2009). Unlike other cods, cusk rarely leave the seafloor, and do 

not disperse very far once settled into a particular habitat area (Collette & Klein-MacPhee, 2002). 

Scotian Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The cusk occurs around the Scotian Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009a). 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. Cusks occur around the Strait of Belle Isle and 

on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009a), and infrequently at the southern tip of Greenland in the 

Labrador Current Open Ocean Area (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009a). 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The cusk is limited geographically by its need 

for cold water; it ranges only as far south as the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem around New Jersey (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009a). 

3.6.2.2.12.3 Population Trends 

Fisheries data indicate substantial decreases in biomass and abundance of cusk, most likely because of 

fishery harvest; U.S. landings dropped from approximately 4,200 tons (3,800 metric tons) in the early 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-43

3.6 Fishes

1980s to 87 tons (79 metric tons) in the year 2004 (Collette & Klein-MacPhee, 2002; National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2009a). Very little fisheries-independent data exists for this species. 

3.6.2.2.12.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

The cusk feeds primarily on crustaceans and shellfish, fishes (including flatfish and gurnard), and 

occasionally on sea stars. However, little information is available on its diet because most cusk have 

emptied their stomach contents by the time they reach the surface, making stomach-content analysis 

very difficult (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2004). The primary food composition (by percent weight) is 

crustaceans (51 percent), fishes (16 percent), and echinoderms (15 percent), with some variation by 

region (Collette & Klein-MacPhee, 2002). The most frequent predator of cusk are spiny dogfish (Squalus 

acanthias), but other fishes (cods, hakes, skates, and flounders) and marine mammals (hooded seal 

[Cystophora cristata] and grey seal [Halichoerus grypus]) also feed on cusk (Collette & Klein-MacPhee, 

2002). 

3.6.2.2.12.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Threats to cusk are poorly understood. Bycatch of cusk by commercial fisheries targeting cod and 

haddock is likely the primary cause of decline in both the United States and Canada (Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada, 2004; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009a). Canada established a bycatch limit of 

1,000 tons of cusk in 1999 and reduced it to 750 tons of cusk in 2003 (Crozier et al., 2004). Deepwater 

seismic testing within cusk habitat by the oil and gas industry could impact fish closely associated with 

the seafloor (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2011). 

3.6.2.2.13 Dwarf Seahorse (Hippocampus zosterae) 

3.6.2.2.13.1 Status and Management 

The dwarf seahorse was added to the Candidate Species List by NMFS on May 4, 2012 (77 Federal 

Register 26478). 

3.6.2.2.13.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

The dwarf seahorse has a restricted geographic range within the Study Area, inhabiting tropical and 

subtropical/warm-temperate waters of Florida, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean (Masonjones & 

Lewis, 1996). It primarily occurs in south Florida estuaries and in the Florida Keys. The dwarf seahorse 

prefers protected bays/lagoons with low water flow, high organic content, mid- to high-salinities and 

depths less than 6 ft. (Bruckner, 2005; Foster & Vincent, 2004). The species is almost exclusively 

associated with seagrass beds, particularly eelgrass (Zostera species) (Bruckner, 2005). It is more 

abundant in areas with higher seagrass density, canopy cover, and seagrass shoot density (Bruckner, 

2005). Other habitats used by the dwarf seahorse include mangrove areas, unattached algae, and 

inshore drifting vegetation (Center for Biological Diversity, 2011; Hoese & Moore, 1998; Tabb & 

Manning, 1961). 

While most seahorse species exhibit strong site-fidelity, in terms of home ranges and spawning habitat 

(Curtis & Vincent, 2006; Masonjones & Lewis, 1996), Masonjones et al. (2010) suggest that further 

seahorse dispersal outside of home ranges may occur. Dispersal may be enhanced by clinging to drifting 

Sargassum or floating debris within inshore habitats (Curtis & Vincent, 2006; Masonjones & Lewis, 

1996). Spawning occurs between February and November (Foster & Vincent, 2004). 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. The dwarf seahorse’s primary range includes 

south Florida estuaries and the Florida Keys (77 Federal Register 26478). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-44

3.6 Fishes

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem. Bruckner et al. (2005) report that the dwarf seahorse is 

uncommon in many areas in the Gulf of Mexico (77 Federal Register 26478), with fewer than 20 

independent collection records from the following locations: Lower Laguna Madre, South Apalachee 

Bay, North Apalachee Bay, Corpus Christi Bay, St. George Sound, East Mississippi Sound, Aransas Bay, 

Terrebonne/Timbalier Bays, Chandeleur Sound, Perdido Bay, and Pensacola Bay (Beck & Odaya, 2001).

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. The dwarf seahorse’s primary range includes all portions of the 

Caribbean (77 Federal Register 26478). 

3.6.2.2.13.3 Population Trends 

There are no published data on current global population trends or total numbers of mature dwarf 

seahorses; however, some population data exist in Florida based on numbers derived from the 

commercial seahorse fishery. NMFS reported a five-fold increase in seahorse landings between 1991 

and 1992 (from 14,000 harvested in 1991 to 83,700 harvested in 1992), with the increased landings 

primarily attributed to dwarf seahorses (77 Federal Register 26478). Over a longer period, the number of 

dwarf seahorses landed during 1990–2003 ranged from 2,142 to 98,779 individuals per year (Bruckner, 

2005). Additional density data are from ichthyoplankton tows conducted in portions of southern Florida 

and range from 0 to 6 seahorses per 100 cubic meters in subtidal pools, seagrass beds, in channels, and 

along restored marsh edges (Masonjones et al., 2010; Powell et al., 2002). 

3.6.2.2.13.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Seahorses are ambush predators, consuming primarily live, mobile nekton, such as small amphipods and 

other invertebrates (Bruckner, 2005). 

3.6.2.2.13.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Dwarf seahorses are the second most sought after fish exported from Florida in the aquarium trade (77 

Federal Register 26478). They are dried and sold at curio shops as souvenirs (Bruckner, 2005) and also 

are in high demand in the traditional Chinese medicine trade (77 Federal Register 26478). 

The petition for listing (Center for Biological Diversity, 2011) describes other natural or manmade factors 

that may be threatening the dwarf seahorse, including life history characteristics, bycatch mortality, 

illegal fishing, hurricanes or tropical storms, and invasive species. The petition also suggests that the 

current status of the dwarf seahorse may be related to low-frequency boat motor noise, based on a 

single lab study (77 Federal Register 26478). However, the actual negative impacts of boat motor noise 

on the health, behavior, and reproductive success of wild populations of dwarf seahorses in their natural 

habitat remain unclear at this time (77 Federal Register 26478). 

In addition to species-specific threats, threats to the dwarf seahorse’s primary habitat of seagrass are 

further described in Section 3.7.2.8 (Seagrasses, Cordgrasses, and Mangroves). Additional information 

on threats to dwarf seahorses are detailed by NMFS and Center for Biological Diversity (Center for 

Biological Diversity, 2011). 

3.6.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act 

Taxonomic categories of major fish groups are provided in Table 3.6-2 and are described further in this 

section to supplement information on fishes of the Study Area that are not ESA-protected species. These 

fish groups are based on the organization presented by Moyle and Cech (2004), Nelson et al. (2016), 

Helfman et al. (2009), and Froese and Pauly (2016). These groupings are intended to organize the 

extensive and diverse list of fishes that occur in the Study Area and serve as a means to structure the 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-45

3.6 Fishes

analysis of potential impacts on fishes with similar physiological characteristics and habitat use. 

Exceptions to these generalizations exist within each group and are noted wherever appropriate in the 

analysis of potential impacts. For simplicity, the fishes are presented in generally accepted evolutionary 

order. 

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area

Major Fish Groups Occurrence in the study Area

Group Names Description

Representative 

Species Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems Inland Waters

Jawless fishes

(Orders 

Myxiniformes and

Petromyzontiformes)

Primitive, 

cartilaginous, 

eel-like 

vertebrates, 

parasitic or 

feed on dead 

fish

Hagfishes, 

Lampreys

Seafloor Seafloor Water 

column, 

seafloor

Ground Sharks, 

Mackerel Sharks, 

Carpet Sharks, and 

Bullhead Sharks

(Orders 

Carcharhiniformes, 

Lamniformes, 

Orectolobiformes, 

and 

Heterodontiformes)

Cartilaginous, 

two dorsal fins 

or first large, 

an anal fin, and 

five gill slits

Great white, 

Oceanic 

whitetip, 

Scalloped and 

smooth 

hammerheads, 

Tiger sharks, 

sand tiger 

sharks, nurse 

sharks, whale 

sharks

Water 

column, 

Seafloor

Water column, 

Seafloor

Water column

Frilled and Cow 

Sharks, Sawsharks, 

Dogfish, and Angel 

Sharks

(Orders 

Hexanchiformes, 

Pristiophoriformes, 

Squaliformes, and 

Squatiniformes)

Cartilaginous, 

anal fin and 

nictitating 

membrane 

absent, 6-7 gill 

slits

Dogfish, Frill, 

Sawshark, 

Sevengill, Sixgill 

sharks

Water 

column, 

Seafloor

Water column, 

Seafloor

Seafloor

Stingrays, Sawfishes, 

Skates, Guitarfishes, 

and Electric Rays

(Orders 

Myliobatiformes, 

Pristiformes, 

Rajiformes, and 

Torpediniformes)

Cartilaginous, 

flat-bodied, 

usually five gill 

slits

Caribbean, 

Electric, Giant 

manta rays, 

Largetooth and 

smalltooth 

sawfishes, 

Stingrays, 

Thorny skate

Water 

column, 

Seafloor

Water column, 

Seafloor

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Ratfishes 

(Order 

Chimaeriformes).

Cartilaginous, 

placoid scales

Chimaera, 

Rabbitfish

Ratfishes

Seafloor Seafloor N/A
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-46

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area (continued)

Major Fish Groups Occurrence in the study Area

Group Names Description

Representative 

Species Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inland 

Waters

Sturgeons

(Order 

Acipenseriformes)

Primitive, rayfinned, 

cartilaginous, 

bony plates, 

heterocercal 

tail

Atlantic, Gulf, 

Shortnose

N/A Surface, water 

column, 

seafloor

Surface, 

water 

column, 

seafloor

Gars

(Order 

Lepisosteiformes)

Primitive, 

slender body. 

ganoid scales, 

heterocercal 

tail; needle-like 

teeth

Alligator

Longnose and 

Shortnose

N/A N/A Surface, 

water 

column

Herrings and allies 

(Order Clupeiformes)

Silvery, Lateral 

line on body 

and fin spines 

absent, usually 

scutes along 

ventral profile

Alabama shad. 

Anchovies, 

Herrings, Shads

N/A Surface, water 

column

Surface, 

water 

column

Tarpons and allies

(Orders Elopiformes, 

and Albuliformes)

Body encased 

in silvery 

scales, mouth 

large, mostly a 

single dorsal 

fin, some with 

tapered tail fin, 

spines absent

Bonefishes, 

Ladyfish, 

Malacho, 

Tarpons

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Surface, water 

column

Surface, 

water 

column, 

seafloor

Eels and allies

(Orders Anguilliforms, 

Notacanthiformes, 

and 

Saccopharyngiformes)

Body very 

elongate, 

usually 

scaleless with 

pelvic fins and 

fin spines 

absent

American, 

Conger, 

Cutthroat, 

Duckbill, 

Halosaur, 

Morays, Pike, 

Sawtooth, 

Short-tailed, 

Spiny, Gulper, 

Pelican

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Water column, 

seafloor

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Salmonids

(Order 

Salmoniformes)

Silvery body, 

adipose fin 

present

Arctic char, 

Atlantic 

salmon, 

Atlantic 

whitefish

Surface, 

water column

Surface, water 

column

Surface, 

water 

column
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-47

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area (continued)

Major Fish Groups Occurrence in the study Area

Group Names Description

Representative 

Species Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inland 

Waters

Argentines and allies

(Order 

Argentiniformes)

Body silvery, 

and elongate; 

fin spines 

absent, 

adipose fin 

sometimes 

present, pelvic 

fins and ribs 

sometimes 

absent

Barreleyes, 

Deep-sea 

smelts, 

Slickheads, 

Tubeshoulders

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Seafloor N/A

Catfishes

(Order Siluriformes)

Barbels on 

head, spines 

on dorsal and 

pectoral fins, 

scaleless, 

adipose fin 

present

Sea Catfishes N/A Seafloor Seafloor

Bristlemouths and 

allies

(Orders 

Stomiiformes)

Photophores 

present, 

adipose and 

chin barbels fin 

sometimes 

present

Dragonfishes, 

Fangjaws, 

Hatchetfishes, 

Lightfishes,

Water 

column, 

seafloor

N/A N/A

Greeneyes and allies

(Order Aluopiformes)

Upper jaw 

protrusible 

adipose fin 

present, forked 

tail usually 

present

Barracudinas, 

Daggertooth, 

Greeneyes,

Lizardfishes, 

Pearleyes, 

Waryfishes

Surface, 

water column, 

seafloor

Water column, 

seafloor

N/A

Lanternfishes and 

allies

(Order 

Myctophiformes)

Small-sized, 

adipose fin, 

forked tail and 

photophores 

usually present

Lanternfishes Water 

column, 

seafloor

N/A N/A

Hakes and allies

(Order Gadiformes)

Long dorsal 

and anal fins; 

no true spines, 

spinous rays 

present in 

dorsal fin, 

barbels 

present

Cods, Codlings, 

Cusk,

Grenadiers, 

Hakes,

Whiptails

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Water column, 

seafloor

Surface, 

water 

column, 

seafloor

Brotulas and allies

(Order Ophidiiformes)

Pelvic absent 

or far forward 

and 

filamentous, 

Brotulas,

Cusk-eels

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Water column, 

seafloor

Water 

column, 

seafloor
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-48

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area (continued)

Major Fish Groups Occurrence in the study Area

Group Names Description

Representative 

Species Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inland 

Waters

no sharp 

spines, Dorsal 

and anal fins 

joined to 

caudal fins

Toadfishes and allies

(Order 

Batrachoidiformes)

Body 

compressed; 

head large, 

mouth large 

with tentacles; 

two dorsal fins, 

the first with 

spines

Toadfish,

Midshipman

N/A Seafloor Seafloor

Anglerfishes and allies 

(Order Lophiiformes)

Body 

globulose, first 

spine on dorsal 

fin usually 

modified, 

pelvic fins 

usually absent

Anglerfishes, 

Footballfishes, 

Frogfishes, 

Goosefishes, 

Sea devils

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Seafloor Seafloor

Flying Fishes 

(Order Beloniformes)

Jaws extended 

into a beak; 

pelvic fins very 

large wing-like; 

spines absent

Flying fishes, 

Halfbeaks, 

Needlefishes

Sauries

Surface, 

water column

Surface, water 

column

Surface, 

water 

column

Killifishes

(Order 

Cyprinodontiformes)

Protrusible 

upper jaw; fin 

spines rarely 

present; single 

dorsal fin

Goldenspot, 

Killifishes, 

Rivulines, 

Sheepshead 

Minnows

N/A N/A Water 

column

Silversides

(Order 

Atheriniformes)

Small-sized, 

silvery stripe 

on sides, 

pectoral fins 

high, first 

dorsal fin with 

flexible spine, 

pelvic fin with 

one spine

Atlantic, Beach, 

Inland, Rough,

N/A Surface, water 

column

Surface, 

water 

column

Opahs and allies 

(Order Lampriformes)

Upper jaw 

protrusible; 

pelvic fins 

forward on 

body, below or 

just behind 

Crestfishes, 

Oarfishes, 

Opahs,

Ribbonfishes, 

Tapertails, 

Tube-eyes

Water column N/A N/A
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-49

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area (continued)

Major Fish Groups Occurrence in the study Area

Group Names Description

Representative 

Species Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inland 

Waters

insertion of 

pectoral fins

Squirrelfishes and 

allies

(Order Beryciformes)

Body usually 

round, one 

dorsal fin often 

set far back, 

pelvic fins 

absent, fin 

spines often 

present

Bigscales, 

Fangtooths, 

Pricklefish,

Slimeheads, 

Squirrelfishes

Whalefishes

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Water column, 

seafloor

N/A

Dories and allies

(Order Zeiformes)

Body deeply 

compressed,

protrusible 

jaws, spines in 

dorsal fin, 

pelvic fin 

spines 

sometimes 

present

Boarfishes, 

Dories, Oreos, 

Tinselfishes

Water 

Column, 

seafloor

Water column, 

seafloor

N/A

Pipefishes

(Order 

Syngnathiformes)

Snout tubelike, mouth 

small, scales 

often modified 

bony plates

Cornetfish,

Dwarf 

Seahorse, 

Snipefishes

Water 

Column, 

seafloor

Water Column, 

seafloor

Seafloor

Sticklebacks 

(Order 

Gasterosteiformes)

mouth small, 

scales often 

modified bony 

plates

Blackspotted, 

threespine, 

fourspine, 

ninespine 

sticklebacks

Water 

Column, 

seafloor

Water Column, 

seafloor

Seafloor

Scorpionfishes 

(Order 

Scorpaeniformes)

Usually strong 

spines on head 

and dorsal fin; 

cheeks with 

bony struts, 

pectoral fins

usually 

rounded

Poachers, 

Sculpins, 

Sea robins, 

Snailfishes

Water 

Column, 

seafloor

Water Column, 

seafloor

Seafloor

Mullets

(Order Mugiliformes)

Streamline 

body, forked 

tail, hard 

angled mouth, 

large scales

Striped, white, 

fantail, 

mountain 

mullet

Spawn in 

offshore 

waters

Surface, water 

column, 

seafloor

Surface, 

water 

column, 

seafloor

Perch-like Fishes and 

Allies

(Order Perciformes)

Deep bodied, 

to moderately 

elongate, 1-2 

dorsal fins, 

Angelfishes, 

Cardinal Fishes,

Drums, Grunts, 

Groupers, 

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Surface, water 

column, 

seafloor

Water 

column, 

seafloor
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-50

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area (continued)

Major Fish Groups Occurrence in the study Area

Group Names Description

Representative 

Species Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inland 

Waters

large mouth 

and eyes, and 

throracic pelvic 

fins

Jacks, Remoras, 

Snappers, 

Striped bass

Wrasses and Allies

(Order Perciformes)

Compressed 

body, scales 

large, welldeveloped 

teeth, usually 

colorful

Hogfishes, 

Parrotfishes, 

Wrasses, 

Damselfishes

N/A Seafloor Seafloor

Eelpouts and Allies

(Order Perciformes)

Eel-like body, 

long dorsal and 

anal fins, pelvic 

fins usually 

absent

Gunnels,

Ocean pout, 

Pricklebacks,

Wolfeels

Seafloor Seafloor Seafloor

Stargazers

(Order Perciformes)

Body 

elongated, 

lower jaw 

usually 

projecting 

beyond upper 

jaw, pelvic and 

anal fins with 

spines

Stargazers Water 

column, 

seafloor

Water column, 

seafloor

Water 

column, 

seafloor

Blennies, Gobies, and 

Allies

(Order Perciformes)

Body eel-like to 

sculpin-like, 

pelvic fins 

reduced or 

fused

Barfin goby, 

Freckled 

blenny, Bridled 

goby, 

Sleepers,

Wormfishes

N/A Seafloor Seafloor

Surgeonfishes

(Order Perciformes)

Body deeply 

compressed 

laterally, 

mouth small, 

scales usually 

small, pelvic 

fins with spines

Blue tang, 

Surgeonfishes

N/A Seafloor N/A

Tunas and Allies

(Order Perciformes)

Large mouth, 

inlets and keels 

usually 

present, pelvic 

fins often 

absent or 

reduced, fast 

swimmers

Barracudas, 

Billfishes, 

Swordfishes, 

Tunas

Surface, 

water column

Surface, water 

column

Juvenile 

barracudas 

only
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-51

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-2: Major Taxonomic Groups of Fishes in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Study Area (continued)

Major Fish Groups Occurrence in the study Area

Group Names Description

Representative 

Species Open Ocean

Large Marine 

Ecosystems

Inland 

Waters

Butterfishes

(Order Perciformes)

Snout blunt 

and thick, 

teeth small, 

maxilla mostly 

covered by 

bone

Ariommatids, 

Driftfishes, 

Medusafishes

Surface, 

water column, 

seafloor

Surface, water 

column, 

seafloor

N/A

Flatfishes 

(Order 

Pleuronectiformes)

Body flattened; 

eyes on one 

side of body

Flounders, 

Halibuts,

Soles, 

Tonguefishes

Seafloor Seafloor Seafloor

Pufferfishes

(Order 

Tetraodontiformes)

Skin thick or 

rough 

sometimes 

with spines or 

scaly plates, 

pelvic fins 

absent or 

reduced, small 

mouth with 

strong teeth 

coalesced into 

biting plate

Filefishes, 

Ocean 

sunfishes, 

Triggerfishes

Water column Surface, water 

column, 

seafloor

Surface, 

water 

column, 

seafloor

N/A = not applicable

3.6.2.3.1 Jawless Fishes-Hagfishes (Order Myxiniformes) and Lampreys (Order 

Petromyzontiformes) 

Hagfishes and lampreys are primitive, cartilaginous, vertebrates with very limited external features 

often associated with fishes, such as fins and scales (Helfman et al., 2009). Both groups inhabit marine 

water column and soft bottom seafloor habitats in depths greater than 30 m and below 13° C in the 

West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems. 

Hagfish reproduction and early development has not been observed and captive breeding has been 

unsuccessful (Powell et al., 2005). Females lay leathery eggs on the seafloor and when the eggs hatch 

they are essentially miniature adults. Hagfishes prey on dying fishes or feed on dead fishes. Some 

hagfishes have commercial fishery importance as their external “skin” is used for making “eel leather” 

goods. 

Lampreys are anadromous and larvae are buried in the soft bottoms of river backwaters (Moyle & Cech, 

2004). Juvenile lampreys filter feed on algae and detritus. Adults are parasitic and use their oral disc 

mouth to attach to other fishes and feed on their blood (Moyle & Cech, 2004; Nelson et al., 2004). 

Hagfishes and lampreys have no known predators. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-52

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.3.2 Ground Sharks (Orders Carcharhiniformes), Mackerel Sharks (Order 

Lamniformes), Carpet Sharks (Order Orectolobiformes) 

Ground Sharks and allies (bull, dusky, hammerheads, oceanic whitetip, and tiger) are cartilaginous fishes 

with two dorsal fins, an anal fin, five gill slits, and eyes with nictitating membranes. Reproduction 

includes internal fertilization with the young born fully developed. These sharks are highly migratory. 

They are found in the water column and bottom/seafloor habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, 

Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems and open ocean areas. These sharks are associated with hard 

and soft bottoms, nearshore and open ocean surface waters, and deep-sea habitats.

Mackerel Sharks and allies (great white, makos, and porbeagle) are cartilaginous fishes with a large first 

dorsal fin that is high, erect, and angular or somewhat rounded, anal fin with a keel, and a mouth 

extending behind the eyes. Reproduction includes internal fertilization with young being produced by 

means of eggs that are hatched within the body of the female. They are found in the water column and 

bottom/seafloor habitats in the West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea 

Large Marine Ecosystems and open ocean areas. These sharks are associated with nearshore and open 

ocean surface water habitats.

Carpet Sharks and allies are a diverse group inhabiting coral and rocky reefs in the order 

Orectolobiformes. This group includes whale sharks which are the largest shark in the group and are one 

of three filter feeding sharks. Many of the carpet sharks, such as whale shark are also highly migratory. 

Carpet sharks all share certain characteristics, including their mouth being completely in front of eyes, 

both dorsal fins without spines, five pairs of gill slits, and an anal fin being present. Nurse sharks are also 

in this group and are usually yellowish-tan to dark brown, average around 8 to 9 ft. long, and can weigh 

over 200 pounds. They are nocturnal, scouting the sea bottom for prey such as crustaceans, molluscs 

and stingrays. They spend most of the day resting on sandy bottom or in caves or reef crevices. Whale 

sharks are another member of the carpet sharks group and are the largest shark in the world, growing to 

a length of over 40 ft. 

3.6.2.3.3 Frilled and Cow Sharks (Order Hexanchiformes), Sawsharks (Order 

Pristiophoriformes), Dogfish Sharks (Order Squaliformes), and Angel Sharks 

(Order Squatiniformes) 

Frill and cow sharks (sevengill, sixgill) are cartilaginous fishes, generally characterized by lacking traits 

such as an anal fin, and nictitating membrane; they do possess six to seven gill slits, compared to five gill 

slits found in all other sharks. Reproduction includes internal fertilization with young being produced by 

means of eggs that are hatched within the body of the female. They are associated with deep-sea 

habitats in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

Sawshark (Bahamas) is a cartilaginous fish characterized by two spineless dorsal fins, absent anal fin, and 

five to six gill openings. Reproduction includes internal fertilization with young emerging from eggs that 

are hatched within the body of the female. This species is associated with deep-sea habitats in the 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016). 

Dogfish Sharks are cartilaginous fishes with both dorsal fins spines, not grooved, caudal peduncle with a 

pair of lateral keels. Reproduction includes internal fertilization with young emerging from eggs that are 

hatched within the body of the female. They are associated with soft bottom and deep-sea habitats in 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-53

3.6 Fishes

the West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 

2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

Angel sharks (Atlantic and sand) are cartilaginous fishes with flat, batoid-like body, two small spineless 

dorsal fins behind pelvic fins, and anal fin absent. Reproduction includes internal fertilization with young 

emerging from eggs that are hatched within the body of the female. They are associated with soft 

bottom habitat in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, 

and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

3.6.2.3.4 Stingrays (Order Myliobatiformes), Sawfishes (Order Pristiformes), Skates and 

Guitarfishes (Order Rajiformes), and Electric Rays (Order Torpediniformes) 

Stingrays and allies (eagle ray, manta) are cartilaginous fishes, distinguished by flattened bodies, 

enlarged pectoral fins that are fused to the head and gill slits that are placed on their ventral surfaces.

Reproduction includes internal fertilization with the young born fully developed. They are associated 

with reefs, nearshore open ocean, bottom habitat, seagrass beds, and deep sea water column habitat in 

the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean 

Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

Sawfishes and allies inhabit inshore tropical areas in warm-temperate contiental waters and can be 

found in ocean waters out to 400 ft. in depth. They are also found and in muddy bays, estuaries, river 

mouths, off of large continental islands, and in fresh water in rivers or lakes (Compagno & Last, 1984). 

They can be found at or near the surface of the water column, but are usually bottom dwellers that rest 

in mud or sandy soft bottoms. They may occur over the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Compagno & Last, 

1984). 

Skates and guitarfishes are cartilaginous fishes, distinguished by flattened bodies, two reduced dorsal 

fins, and a reduced caudal fin. Reproduction includes internal fertilization and deposition of egg sacks. 

They are associated with soft bottom habitat in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems. Species in this group are 

associated with soft bottom habitat (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

Electric rays are cartilaginous fishes, distinguished by flattened bodies, two well-developed dorsal fins 

and caudal fin. Two large kidney shaped organs in a disc on either side of the electric ray’s head 

distinguish it from others, as these organs are able to produce strong electric shock at will (Madl & Yip, 

2000). Reproduction includes internal fertilization with young being produced by means of eggs that are 

hatched within the body of the female. Two species, the Atlantic torpedo ray (Torpedo nobiliana) and 

lesser electric ray (Narcine bancroftii), occur in the Study Area. They are associated with soft bottom 

habitat in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

3.6.2.3.5 Ratfishes (Order Chimaeriformes) 

Ratfishes (chimera, rabbitfish, and ratfish) are cartilaginous fishes, with smooth skin largely covered by 

placoid scales, and their color can range from black to brownish gray. Reproduction includes internal 

fertilization and deposition of egg capsules. Fishes in this group are associated with soft bottom and 

deep-sea habitats in the West Greenland Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Northeast 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-54

3.6 Fishes

U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems 

(Froese & Pauly, 2016).

3.6.2.3.6 Sturgeons (Order Acipenseriformes) 

Sturgeons (Atlantic, Gulf, and shortnose) are cartilaginous, long-lived, late-maturing fishes with a 

heterocercal tail, an elongated spindle-like body that is smooth-skinned, scaleless and armored with five 

lateral rows of bony plates. They are found in riverine, estuarine, and marine environments in the water 

column, bottom, and seafloor habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems. Sturgeons 

historically had commercial and recreational fishery importance. They are broadcast spawners (females 

release eggs into the water where the eggs are fertilized by males) and fertilized eggs attach to bottom 

substrate until hatching. Juveniles and adults prey upon bottom invertebrates such as clams and fishes. 

Sturgeons have few known predators.

3.6.2.3.7 Gars (Order Lepisosteiformes) 

Gars (alligator, longnose, shortnose, and Florida) are mostly cartilaginous fishes with a slender body 

encased in heavy ganoid scales plates, abbreviated heterocercal tail, and needle-like teeth. They are 

found in chiefly in riverine and estuarine waters and considered very rare in the marine environment. In 

the marine environment, they typically occur at the surface or in the water column in the Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems. Gars 

have some recreational game fishery importance. They are broadcast spawners and fertilized eggs 

attach to submerged aquatic vegetation until hatching. Juveniles prey upon plankton, invertebrates, and 

amphibians, while adults eat blue crabs, fishes, birds, reptiles, and small mammals. Gars are preyed 

upon by fishes as juveniles and alligators as adults. 

3.6.2.3.8 Herrings (Order Clupeiformes) 

Herring and allies (anchovies, herrings, sardines, and shad) are bony fishes with a silvery body with the 

lateral line and fin spines absent, and usually scutes along ventral profile. They are found only in the 

marine environment in the water column, and seafloor habitats in the West Greenland Shelf, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Large 

Marine Ecosystems. Herring, menhaden, sardine, and anchovy species are well-known as valuable 

targets of commercial fisheries. Herring account for a large portion of the total worldwide fish catch 

(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2005, 2009). Herrings and allies are broadcast 

spawners. They are known to form schools to help conserve energy and minimize predation (Brehmer et 

al., 2007) which may facilitate some level of communication during predator avoidance (Marras et al., 

2012). They feed on decaying organic matter and plankton while swimming in the water column (Moyle 

& Cech, 2004). Herring and allies support marine food webs as a forage fish and preyed upon by fish, 

birds, and marine mammals. 

3.6.2.3.9 Tarpons (Orders Elopiformes and Albuliformes) 

Tarpons and allies (bonefishes, halosaurs, ladyfish, and machete) are bony fishes with the body encased 

in silvery scales, a large mouth, a single dorsal fin (most), and a somewhat tapered tail with fin spines 

absent. They are associated with riverine, estuarine and marine environments on the surface, water 

column, and seafloor/bottom habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf (halosaurs only), Northeast 

and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelves, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystems. 

Tarpon and allies are important game species, but are not considered edible. Tarpons and allies are 

broadcast spawners. Fertilized eggs float in the water column until hatching into a leptocephalus larva 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-55

3.6 Fishes

(ribbon-like, with no resemblance to the adult). During the change from larvae to juvenile, the body 

shrinks in length. Juveniles prey upon plankton and marine invertebrates, while adults feed on midwater fishes. Tarpon and allies are nocturnal ambush predators (Wainwright & Richard, 1995) who prey 

on bottom-dwelling invertebrates and small fishes. Tarpons and allies are preyed upon by larger fishes, 

birds, and marine mammals. 

3.6.2.3.10 Eels (Anguilliforms, Notacanthiformes, and Saccopharyngiformes) 

Eels (conger, cutthroat, duckbill, false moray, morays, sawtooth, short-tailed, spiny, gulpers, and pelican 

eels) are bony fishes with a very elongate body, usually scaleless with pelvic fins, and without fin spines. 

They are associated with riverine, estuarine and marine environments in the water column, and 

seafloor/bottom habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and 

Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems. Eels and allies have little fishery importance. Some species are 

broadcast spawners, and fertilized eggs float in the water column until hatching into a leptocephalus 

larva. Juveniles prey upon plankton and marine invertebrates, while adults feed on small fishes. 

Depending on the species and its habitat, eels can be diurnal or nocturnal ambush predators and prey 

on bottom-dwelling invertebrates and small fishes. Eels are preyed upon mostly by larger fishes. 

3.6.2.3.11 Salmonids (Orders Salmoniformes) 

Salmon and allies (Arctic char, Atlantic salmon, and Atlantic whitefish) are bony fishes with silvery bodies 

with an adipose fin present and exhibit anadromy. They are found in riverine, estuarine, and marine 

environment in the water column, and seafloor habitats in the West Greenland Newfoundland-Labrador 

Shelf, and Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems. Atlantic salmon is listed as 

endangered in the Study Area, as described in Section 3.6.2.2.1 (Atlantic salmon [Salmo salar]). Salmon 

have historic fishery importance. The native distribution of Salmoniformes is restricted to the cold 

waters of the Northern Hemisphere. Most salmon spawn in freshwater and live in the sea; they are 

among the most thoroughly studied and commercially valuable fish groups in the world. Juveniles prey 

upon insects, plankton, and small fishes while adults feed mainly on fishes. Salmon are preyed upon by 

sharks, birds, and marine mammals. 

3.6.2.3.12 Argentines and Allies (Order Argentiniformes) 

Argentines and allies (argentines, barreleyes, deep-sea smelts, slickheads, and tubeshoulders) are bony 

fishes with typically silvery, elongate bodies, adipose fin and extremely large mouths sometimes 

present, and pelvic fins and spines sometimes absent. They are found only in the marine environment in 

the water column, and seafloor habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems. Argentines and allies have little fishery 

importance. Argentines and allies vary in their reproduction strategy. Some deep-sea species are 

capable of bioluminescence and release scents that may help to attract mates. Argentines are broadcast 

spawners and fertilized eggs float in the water column until hatching. Argentines and allies likely have 

few predators, but may be preyed upon by larger fishes. 

3.6.2.3.13 Catfishes (Order Siluriformes) 

Catfishes (sea catfishes) are bony fishes with barbels on head, spines on dorsal and pectoral fins, lack 

scale, with an adipose fin present. They are found in estuarine and marine environment on bottom and 

seafloor habitats in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large 

Marine Ecosystems. These fishes do have recreational fishery importance. Catfishes prefer soft bottom 

habitats, and can tolerate salinities of wide ranges in the open ocean and nearshore fresh waters (Gulf 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-56

3.6 Fishes

Coast Research Laboratory, 2016). Reproduction is external with males incubate eggs in their mouth. All 

ages of fishes eat benthic invertebrates. Predators are likely very limited (Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

3.6.2.3.14 Bristlemouths and Allies (Order Stomiiformes) 

Bristlemouths and allies (dragonfishes, fangjaws, hatchfishes, and lightfishes) are bony fishes with 

photophores and adipose fin present and chin barbels sometimes present. Bristlemouths and 

hatchetfishes are small in size and the most abundant fishes in many parts of the world’s oceans. They 

are capable of eating large and small prey items and are known to engage in prey-related vertical 

migration patterns. Other species in this order prey largely on other fishes (Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

3.6.2.3.15 Greeneyes and Allies (Order Aulopiformes) 

Greeneyes and allies (barracudinas, daggertooth, lizardfishes, pearleyes, and waryfishes) are bony fishes 

with an upper protrusible jaw, an adipose fin and forked tail usually present with fin spines absent. Most 

greeneyes and allies are small (less than 50 cm) predators capable of devouring a wide range of species, 

including other fishes nearly their same size and pelagic invertebrates. Fishes in this order are preyed 

upon by salmon, tunas, and swordfishes. Reproduction is usually external, and includes the ability to 

change sex (Froese & Pauly, 2016). 

3.6.2.3.16 Lanternfishes and Allies (Order Myctophiformes) 

Lanternfishes and allies (headlight, lampfishes, and lancetfishes) are bony fishes that are usually smallsized, with an adipose fin, forked tail and photophores usually present. Lanternfishes can occur closer to 

the surface at night (10-100 m) and deeper during the day (300 to 1200 m) (Froese & Pauly, 2016), 

where they may become prey for marine mammals. These fishes often are an important part of the 

deep scattering layer (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Lanternfishes prey upon copepods and krill (Van Noord et 

al., 2016). 

3.6.2.3.17 Hakes and Allies (Order Gadiformes). 

Hakes and allies (cods, codlings, grenadiers, and whiptails) are bony fishes with long dorsal and anal fins, 

no true spines in fins, although spinous rays present in dorsal fin of most species, and chin barbels are 

often present. Hakes and allies account for approximately half of the global commercial landings (Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2005). Prey items for fishes in this group include 

small crustaceans during juvenile phases and larger crustaceans, squid, and fishes as adults. Predators 

include striped bass, sharks, and cetaceans (Froese & Pauly, 2016). 

3.6.2.3.18 Brotulas and Allies (Order Ophidiiformes) 

Brotulas and allies (cusk-eels) are bony fishes with pelvic absent or far forward and filamentous, dorsal 

and anal fins joined to caudal fin, and spines absent. These fishes exhibit a variety of reproductive 

strategies including external fertilization and giving live birth. Prey items for fishes in this group include 

small crustaceans during juvenile phases and larger crustaceans, squid and fishes as adults. Predators 

include striped bass, sharks, and cetaceans (Froese & Pauly, 2016). 

3.6.2.3.19 Toadfishes and Allies (Order Batrachoidiformes) 

Toadfishes and allies (midshipman) are bony fishes with compressed bodies, large, depressed head and 

mouth usually with tentacles, and two dorsal fins with the first with spines. These fishes are known to 

build nests (Moyle & Cech, 2004). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-57

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.3.20 Anglerfishes and Allies (Order Lophiiformes) 

Anglerfishes and allies (footballfishes, frogfishes, goosefishes, and sea devils) are bony fishes with 

globulose bodies, a spine on the first dorsal fin and the pelvic fins usually absent. Anglerfish attract 

potential prey using their first dorsal fin (illicium) as a lure (Yasugi & Hori, 2016). Fishes in these orders 

are found occasionally on the surface, but most frequently in the water column and seafloor habitats in 

the West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems. 

Additional adaptations include large mouths, sharp teeth, and sensitive lateral line [sensory] systems 

(Haedrich, 1996; Koslow, 1996; Marshall, 1996; Rex & Etter, 1998; Warrant & Locket, 2004). These fishes 

are mostly generalist feeders. Reproduction is not well studied, but sexes are separate and some exhibit 

parasitism (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Fishes in this group generally have no fishery importance unless stated 

otherwise. 

3.6.2.3.21 Flying Fishes (Order Beloniformes) 

Flying fishes (halfbeaks, needlefishes, and sauries) are bony fishes with jaws extended into a beak; pelvic 

fins very large wing-like; spines absent. These fishes are associated with reefs, submerged aquatic 

vegetation, and open ocean habitat in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems and open ocean areas (Froese & 

Pauly, 2016). 

3.6.2.3.22 Killifishes (Order Cyprinodontiformes) 

Killifishes (goldspotted, rivulus, and sheepshead minnows) are bony fishes with a protrusible upper jaw, 

fin spines rarely present, and a single dorsal fin. Killifishes are found in the water column of rivers and 

estuaries in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and 

Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems. The mangrove rivulus (Kleptolebias marmoratus) is a species of 

concern in the Study Area, as listed in Table 3.6-1. 

3.6.2.3.23 Silversides (Order Atheriniformes). 

Silversides (Atlantic, beach, inland, and rough) are bony fishes with a silvery stripe on their sides, high 

pectoral fins, a dorsal fin, and the pelvic fin has a spine. These fishes are found on the surface and in the 

water column in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems. The Key 

silverside (Menidia conchorum) is a species of concern in the Study Area, as listed in Table 3.6-1. 

3.6.2.3.24 Opahs and Allies (Order Lampriformes) 

Opahs and allies (crestfishes, oarfishes, ribbonfishes, tapertails, and tube-eyes) are bony fishes with an 

upper protrusible jaw, pelvic fins located forward on body, below, or just behind insertion of pectoral 

fins. Toadfishes (midshipman) have compressed bodies, large, depressed head and mouth usually with 

tentacles, and two dorsal fins with the first with spines. These fishes are found in the water column and 

seafloor habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems and open 

ocean areas. Fishes in this group exhibit a variety of reproductive strategies including external 

fertilization and parasitism. Prey items for fishes in this group include crustaceans, squid, and fishes. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-58

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.3.25 Squirrelfishes and Allies (Order Beryciformes) 

Squirrelfishes and allies (bigscales, fangtooths, pricklefishes, slimeheads, and whalefishes) are bony 

fishes with round bodies, one dorsal fin often set far back, with pelvic fins absent, and fin spines often 

present. Squirrelfishes (family Holocentridae) are the largest and most widely distributed family in the 

order, with over 60 species found throughout tropical and subtropical marine habitats (Moyle & Cech, 

2004). Most species in this group occupy shallow nearshore reef and rocky areas where they hide during 

the day and come out at night to feed on zooplankton in the water column. 

3.6.2.3.26 Dories and Allies (Order Zeiformes) 

Dories and allies (boarfishes, oreos, and tinselfishes) are bony fishes that have deeply compressed 

bodies, protrusible jaws, spines in dorsal fin, and pelvic fin spines sometimes present. There are seven 

species recorded in the Study Area (Froese & Pauly, 2016). These fishes are only found in marine 

habitats and most of are deep sea species. Fishes in this order typically have large heads with distensible 

jaws that allow them to capture larger-sized prey, including fishes and crustaceans. 

3.6.2.3.27 Pipefishes and Allies (Order Syngnathiformes) 

Pipefishes and allies (cornetfish, seahorses, and snipefishes) are bony fishes, which exhibit unique body 

shapes with snout tube-like, mouth small, and scales often modified bony plates. These fishes are 

associated with hard and soft bottom, submerged aquatic vegetation, reefs, and deep-sea habitats in 

the West Greenland, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & 

Pauly, 2016; Paxton & Eshmeyer, 1998). Some pipefishes and allies exhibit a high level of parental care 

by, brooding pouches (male seahorses), which results in relatively few young being produced (Helfman 

et al., 2009). Most fishes in this group are diurnal ambush predators and prey on zooplankton, marine 

invertebrates, and small fishes. Pipefishes and allies are preyed upon by larger fishes, and birds. 

3.6.2.3.28 Sticklebacks (Order Gasterosteiformes) 

Sticklebacks are small fishes comprised of only seven species that live in freshwater, saltwater, or 

brackish water (Helfman et al., 2009; Moyle & Cech, 2004). Species in this group are easily recognized by 

the presence of three to 16 isolated spines on their back in front of the dorsal fin, large eyes, and small 

upturned mouths. Most species in this group possess a row of bony plates on each side. Some 

sticklebacks display parental care through nest building. Fishes in this group are found in littoral marine 

waters and freshwater habitats in the Study Area. 

3.6.2.3.29 Scorpionfishes (Order Scorpaeniformes) 

Scorpionfishes and allies (poachers, sea robins, snailfishes, and sculpins) are bony fishes with usually 

strong spines on head and dorsal fin, cheeks with bony struts, and rounded pectoral fins. These fishes 

are associated with hard and soft bottom, reefs, and deep-sea habitats in the West Greenland, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems and open ocean areas 

(Froese & Pauly, 2016; Paxton & Eshmeyer, 1998). Some scorpionfishes have commercial and recreation 

fishery importance (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Reproduction methods vary widely between species and 

include external fertilization and egg deposition (sculpins). Most fishes in this group are diurnal ambush 

predators and prey on bottom-dwelling invertebrates and small fishes. Scorpionfishes are allies are 

preyed upon by larger fishes, birds, and marine mammals. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-59

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.3.30 Mullets (Order Mugiliformes) 

Mullets (striped, white, fantail, mountain) are bony fishes with a streamline body, forked tail, hard 

angled mouth, large scales, high pectoral fins, and pelvic fins with one spine. Striped mullet is an 

important commercial fishery (Froese & Pauly, 2016). These fishes are associated with soft bottom, 

reefs, and nearshore open ocean habitats in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016; 

Moyle & Cech, 2004). Mullets are catadromous; they spawn in saltwater but spend most of their lives in 

freshwater environments. 

3.6.2.3.31 Order Perciformes 

The Perciformes, with over 7,800 species, is the largest order of vertebrates. They are extremely diverse, 

but most species are adapted for life as predators in the shallow or surface waters of the ocean. Some of 

the characteristics include fin spines present, dorsal fins either double or made up of two distinct parts 

with the lead spiny, adipose fin absent, pelvic fins thoracic or jugular in position or absent, pectoral fins 

on side of body; ctenoid scales, and closed swim bladder. Nearly half of all species belong to four 

families: gobies, wrasses seabasses, or blennies (Moyle & Cech, 2004). Fish groupings in this section 

generally follow the classification in Nelson (2016). 

3.6.2.3.31.1 Perches and Allies 

Perches and allies (angelfishes, cardinal fishes, damselfishes, drums, grunts, jacks, remoras, groupers, 

sea basses, snappers, and striped bass) are bony fishes with deep to moderately elongate bodies, one to 

two dorsal fins, with large mouth and eyes and thoracic pelvic fins. These fishes are associated with hard 

and soft bottom, reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, open ocean, and deep-sea habitats in the Scotian 

Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean 

Sea Large Marine Ecosystems and open ocean areas (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004). 

3.6.2.3.31.2 Wrasses and Allies 

Wrasses and allies (hogfishes, parrotfishes, wrasses, and damselfishes) are bony fishes with a 

compressed body, large scales, well-developed teeth, usually colorful coloring. Some wrasses and allies 

have recreational fishery and aquarium trade importance. Most of these fishes are associated with 

depths less than 30 m hard and soft bottom and reef habitats in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & 

Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004). Wrasses and allies can change sex, usually female-to-male and exhibit 

broadcast spawning, where the fertilized eggs float in the water column or attach to substrate until 

hatching into larvae. Most are diurnal opportunistic predators (Wainwright & Richard, 1995). Prey items 

include zooplankton, invertebrates, and small fishes. Predators of wrasses and allies include larger fishes 

and marine mammals. 

3.6.2.3.31.3 Eelpouts and Allies 

Eelpouts and allies (gunnels, ocean pout, pricklebacks, wolfeels) are bony fishes with an eel-like body, 

long dorsal and anal fins, and pelvic fins usually absent. These fishes are associated with soft bottom and 

deep-sea habitats in the West Greenland, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine 

Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004). Eelpouts have been found to occur near deepsea vents in the Atlantic Ocean’s Mid-Atlantic Ridge (National Geographic, 2016). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-60

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.3.31.4 Stargazers 

Stargazers are bony fishes with an elongated body and eyes on top of their head and big oblique 

mouths. They are associated with soft bottom and deep-sea habitats in the Northeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems 

(Froese & Pauly, 2016). This group of fishes ambush their prey from the sand. 

3.6.2.3.31.5 Blennies, Gobies, and Allies 

Blennies, gobies, and allies (barfin goby, freckled blenny, bridled goby, sleepers, and wormfishes) are 

bony fishes with an eel-like to sculpin-like body, pelvic fins reduced or fused. They are associated with 

hard and soft bottoms, reefs, and deep-sea habitats in the Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems 

(Froese & Pauly, 2016). 

3.6.2.3.31.6 Surgeonfishes 

Surgeonfishes (doctorfish, Gulf surgeonfish, blue tang,) are bony fishes with bodies that are deeply 

compressed laterally, small mouth, small scales, and pelvic fins with spines. They are associated with 

reef habitats in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, 

and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016). These fishes scrape algae from 

coral reefs with small, elongated mouths. These grazers provide an important function to the reef 

system by controlling the growth of algae on the reef (Goatley & Bellwood, 2009). 

3.6.2.3.31.7 Tunas and Allies 

Tuna and allies (barracudas, billfishes, swordfishes, and tunas) have a large mouth, keels usually present, 

pelvic fins often absent or reduced, and are fast swimmers. These fishes are associated with reefs, 

nearshore and offshore open ocean habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Large 

Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 2016; Moyle & Cech, 2004). Most species have commercial and 

recreational importance. Tuna and allies are voracious open ocean predators (Estrada et al., 2003). They 

exhibit broadcast spawning and fertilized eggs float in the water column until hatching into larvae. Many 

feed nocturnally (Goatley & Bellwood, 2009) and in low-light conditions of twilight (Rickel & Genin, 

2005). Many species in this group make large-scale migrations that allow for feeding in highly productive 

areas, which vary by season (Pitcher, 1995). Prey items include zooplankton for larvae and juvenile 

stages, while fishes and squid are consumed by subadults and adults. Predators of tuna and allies 

include other tuna species, billfishes, toothed whales, and some open ocean shark species. The Atlantic 

bluefin tuna is a NMFS Species of Concern that occurs in the Study Area, as presented in Table 3.6-1. 

3.6.2.3.31.8 Butterfishes 

Butterfishes (Ariommatids, driftfishes, and medusafishes) are bony fishes with a blunt and thick snout, 

teeth small, and a maxilla mostly covered by bone. They are associated with soft bottom and deep-sea 

habitats in the Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystems (Froese & Pauly, 

2016). Butterfishes form large schools over the continental shelf, except during winter months when it 

may descend to deeper waters. Juveniles are associated with jellies and floating vegetation. Adults feed 

mainly on jellies, squids, and crustaceans. Some species of butterfishes are also commercially harvested 

(Froese & Pauly, 2016). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-61

3.6 Fishes

3.6.2.3.32 Flatfishes (Order Pleuronectiformes) 

Flatfishes (flounders, halibut, sand dabs, soles, and tonguefish) are bony fishes with a flattened body 

and eyes on one side of body (Table 3.6-2). These fishes occur on soft bottom habitat in inland waters, 

as well as in deep-sea habitats in the West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian 

Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean 

Sea Large Marine Ecosystems and are an important part of commercial fisheries in the Study Area. The 

Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) is a representative of this group and is also a Species of 

Concern. Flatfishes are broadcast spawners. They are ambush predators, and prey on other fishes and 

bottom-dwelling invertebrates. Some species in this group have been affected by overfishing (Drazen & 

Seibel, 2007; Froese & Pauly, 2010). 

3.6.2.3.33 Pufferfishes (Order Tetraodontiformes) 

Pufferfishes (boxfishes, filefishes, ocean sunfishes and triggerfishes) are bony fishes with thick or rough 

skin, sometimes with spines or scaly plates, pelvic fins absent or reduced, and a small mouth with strong 

teeth coalesced into a biting plate. They are associated with hard and soft bottom, reef, submerged 

aquatic vegetation, nearshore and offshore open-ocean, and deep-sea habitats in the NewfoundlandLabrador shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystems. Pufferfishes are broadcast spawners. 

Predators vary by species, but due to spiny and rough exterior of this group, it is likely few are 

successful. Prey vary by species, but includes jellies, crustaceans, detritus, molluscs, and other bottom 

dwelling marine invertebrates (Froese & Pauly, 2016). 

3.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section evaluates how, and to what degree, the activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) potentially impact fishes known to occur within the Study Area. 

Tables 2.6-2 through 2.6-5 present the proposed typical training and testing activity locations for each 

alternative (including number of events). General characteristics of all U.S. Department of the Navy 

(Navy) stressors were introduced in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for Analysis), and living 

resources' general susceptibilities to stressors were introduced in Section 3.0.3.6 (Biological Resource 

Methods). The stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, and location within the Study Area. The 

stressors analyzed for fishes are: 

 Acoustic (sonar and other transducers; air guns; pile driving; vessel noise; aircraft noise; and 

weapons noise) 

 Explosives (explosive shock wave and sound; explosive fragments) 

 Energy (in-water electromagnetic devices; in-air electromagnetic devices; high-energy lasers) 

 Physical disturbance and strikes (vessels and in-water devices; aircraft and aerial targets, 

military expended materials, seafloor devices, pile driving) 

 Entanglement (wires and cables, decelerators/parachutes, biodegradable polymers) 

 Ingestion (military expended materials – munitions, military expended materials other than 

munitions) 

 Secondary stressors (impacts to habitat and prey availability) 

The analysis focuses on the fish groups and ESA-listed fish species discussed in Section 3.6.2 (Affected 

Environment). Largetooth sawfish, defined in Table 3.6-1 as extirpated, are not carried forward in the 

analysis as this species is unlikely to occur in the Study Area, and there would be no effect from training 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-62

3.6 Fishes

and testing activities. The analysis includes consideration of the mitigation that the Navy will implement 

to avoid potential impacts on fishes from explosives, and physical disturbance and strikes. Mitigation for 

fishes will be coordinated with NMFS through the consultation processes. 

3.6.3.1 Acoustic Stressors 

The following section analyzes potential impacts on fishes from proposed activities that involve acoustic 

stressors (i.e., sonar and other transducers; air guns; pile driving; vessel noise; aircraft noise; and 

weapons noise). It follows the outline and methodology for assessing potential impacts put forth in 

Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities). 

3.6.3.1.1 Background 

Effects of human-generated sound on fishes have been examined in numerous publications (Hastings & 

Popper, 2005; Hawkins et al., 2015; Mann, 2016; National Research Council, 1994, 2003; Neenan et al., 

2016; Popper, 2003; Popper et al., 2004; Popper, 2008; Popper & Hastings, 2009c; Popper et al., 2014; 

Popper et al., 2016). The potential impacts from Navy activities are based on the analysis of available 

literature related to each type of effect. In addition, a Working Group organized under the American 

National Standards Institute-Accredited Standards Committee S3, Subcommittee 1, Animal Bioacoustics, 

developed sound exposure guidelines for fish and sea turtles (Popper et al., 2014), hereafter referred to 

as the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report. Where applicable, thresholds and relative risk 

factors presented in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report were used to assist in the 

analysis of effects to fishes from Navy activities. 

3.6.3.1.1.1 Injury 

Injury refers to the direct effects on the tissues or organs of a fish. Research on injury in fish caused by 

exposure to high-intensity or long-duration sound from air guns, impact pile driving and some sonars is 

discussed below. Moderate- to low-level noise from vessels, aircraft, and weapons use is described in 

Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors) and lacks the amplitude and energy to cause any direct injury. 

Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities) 

provides additional information on injury and the framework used to analyze this potential impact. 

Injury due to Impulsive Sound Sources 

Impulsive sounds, such as those produced by seismic air guns and impact pile driving, may cause injury 

or mortality in fishes. Mortality and potential damage to the cells of the lateral line have been observed 

in fish larvae, fry, and embryos after exposure to single shots from a seismic air gun within close 

proximity to the sound source (0.1 to 6 m) (Booman et al., 1996; Cox et al., 2012). However, exposure of 

adult fish to a single shot from an air gun array (four air guns) within similar ranges (6 m), has not 

resulted in any signs of mortality within seven days after exposure (Popper et al., 2016). Although 

injuries occurred in adult fishes, they were similar to injuries seen in control subjects (i.e., fishes that 

were not exposed to the air gun) so there is little evidence that the air gun exposure solely contributed 

to the observed effects. 

In a pile driving study conducted by the California Department of Transportation, fish exposed to peak 

pressures up to 205–206 decibels referenced to 1 micropascal (dB re 1 μPa) exhibited no statistically 

significant differences in rates of injury compared to control fish (California Department of 

Transportation, 2004). Injuries, such as ruptured swim bladders, hematomas, and hemorrhaging of 

other gas-filled organs, have been reported in fish exposed to a large number of simulated impact pile 

driving strikes with cumulative sound exposure levels up to 219 decibels referenced to 1 micropascal 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-63

3.6 Fishes

squared seconds (dB re 1 μPa2-s) under highly controlled settings where fish were unable to avoid the 

source (Casper et al., 2012b; Casper et al., 2013a; Casper et al., 2013b; Halvorsen et al., 2011; Halvorsen 

et al., 2012a; Halvorsen et al., 2012b). Halvorsen (2011) found that the equal energy hypothesis does 

not apply to effects of pile driving; rather, metrics relevant to injury could include, but not be limited to, 

cumulative sound exposure level, single strike sound exposure level, and number of strikes. Although 

single strike peak sound pressure levels were also measured during these experiments (207 dB re 1 μPa),

the injuries were only observed during exposures to multiple strikes. These studies included species 

both with and without swim bladders. The majority of fish that exhibited injuries were those with swim 

bladders. Lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulyescens), a physostomous fish, was found to be less susceptible to 

injury from impulsive sources than Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), a physoclistous fish (Halvorsen et 

al., 2012a). The difference in results is likely due to the type of swim bladder in each fish. Physostomous 

fishes have an open duct connecting the swim bladder to their esophagus and may be able to quickly 

adjust the amount of gas in their body by gulping or releasing air. Physoclistous fishes do not have this 

duct and instead, gas pressure in the swim bladder is regulated by special tissues or glands. There were 

no mortalities reported during these experiments and in the studies where recovery was observed, the 

majority of exposure related injuries healed within a few days in a laboratory setting. In addition, limited 

experimental data suggests that fish larvae exposed to pile driving at cumulative sound exposure levels 

up to 206 dB re 1 μPa2-s and peak sound pressure levels of 210 re 1 μPa are not susceptible to mortality 

(Bolle et al., 2012). 

Debusschere et al. (2014) largely confirmed the results discussed in the paragraph above with caged 

juvenile European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) exposed to actual pile driving operations. No 

differences in mortality were found between control and experimental groups at similar levels tested in 

the experiments described in the paragraph above (sound exposure levels up to 215–222 dB re 1 μPa2-s) 

and many of the same types of injuries occurred. Fishes with injuries from impulsive sources such as 

these may not survive in the wild due to harsher conditions and risk of predation. 

Other potential effects from exposure to impulsive sound sources include potential bubble formation 

and neurotrauma. It is speculated that high sound pressure levels may also cause bubbles to form from 

micronuclei in the blood stream or other tissues of animals, possibly causing embolism damage 

(Hastings & Popper, 2005). Fishes have small capillaries where these bubbles could be caught and lead 

to the rupturing of the capillaries and internal bleeding. It has also been speculated that this phenomena 

could take place in the eyes of fish due to potentially high gas saturation within the eye tissues (Popper 

& Hastings, 2009c). Additional research is necessary to verify if these speculations apply to exposures to 

non-impulsive sources such as sonars. These phenomena have not been well studied in fishes and are 

difficult to recreate under real-world conditions. 

As summarized in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), exposure to 

high intensity and long duration impact pile driving or air gun shots did not cause mortality, and fishes 

typically recovered from injuries in controlled laboratory settings. Species tested to date can be used as 

viable surrogates for investigating injury in other species exposed to similar sources (Popper et al., 

2014). 

Injury due to Sonar and Other Transducers 

Non-impulsive sound sources (e.g., sonar, acoustic modems, and sonobuoys) have not been known to 

cause direct injury or mortality to fish under conditions that would be found in the wild (Halvorsen et al., 

2012a; Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007). Potential direct injuries (e.g., barotrauma, hemorrhage or 

rupture of organs or tissue) from non-impulsive sound sources, such as sonar, are unlikely because of 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-64

3.6 Fishes

slow rise times1, lack of a strong shock wave such as that associated with an explosive, and relatively low 

peak pressures. General categories and characteristics of Navy sonar systems are described in Section 

3.0.3.3.1.1 (Sonar and Other Transducers). 

The effects of mid-frequency sonar-like signals (1.5–6.5 kHz) on larval and juvenile Atlantic herring 

(Clupea harengus), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhura), saithe (Pollachius virens), and spotted wolffish 

(Anarhichas minor) were examined by Jørgensen et al. (2005). Researchers investigated potential effects 

on survival, development, and behavior in this study. Among fish kept in tanks and observed for one to 

four weeks after sound exposure, no significant differences in mortality or growth-related parameters 

between exposed and unexposed groups were observed. Examination of organs and tissues from 

selected herring experiments did not reveal obvious differences between unexposed and exposed 

groups. However, two (out of 42) of the herring groups exposed to sound pressure levels of 189 dB re 

1 μPa and 179 dB re 1 μPa had a post-exposure mortality of 19 and 30 percent, respectively. It is not 

clear if this increased mortality was due to the received level or to other unknown factors, such as 

exposure to the resonance frequency of the swim bladder. Jørgensen et al. (2005) estimated a resonant 

frequency of 1.8 kHz for herring and saithe ranging in size from 6.3 to 7.0 cm, respectively, which lies 

within the range of frequencies used during sound exposures and therefore may explain some of the 

noted mortalities. 

Individual juvenile fish with a swim bladder resonance in the frequency range of the operational sonars 

may be more susceptible to injury or mortality. Past research has demonstrated that fish species, size 

and depth influences resonant frequency (Løvik & Hovem, 1979; McCartney & Stubbs, 1971). At 

resonance, the swim bladder, which can amplify vibrations that reach the fishes hearing organs, may 

absorb much of the acoustic energy in the impinging sound wave. It is suspected that the resulting 

oscillations may cause mortality or harm the auditory organs or the swim bladder (Jørgensen et al., 

2005; Kvadsheim & Sevaldsen, 2005). However, damage to the swim bladder and to tissues surrounding 

the swim bladder was not observed in fishes exposed to sonar at their presumed swim bladder resonant 

frequency (Jørgensen et al., 2005). The physiological effect of sonars on adult fish is expected to be less 

than for juvenile fish because adult fish are in a more robust stage of development, the swim bladder 

resonant frequencies would be lower than that of mid-frequency active sonar, and adult fish have more 

ability to move from an unpleasant stimulus (Kvadsheim & Sevaldsen, 2005). Lower frequencies (i.e., 

generally below 1 kHz) are expected to produce swim bladder resonance in adult fishes from about 10–

100 cm (McCartney & Stubbs, 1971). Fish, especially larval and small juveniles, are more susceptible to 

injury from swim bladder resonance when exposed to continuous signals within the resonant frequency 

range. 

Hastings (1995) found “acoustic stunning” (loss of consciousness) in blue gouramis (Trichogaster 

trichopterus), a freshwater species, following an 8-minute continuous exposure to a 150 Hz pure tone 

with a sound pressure level of 198 dB re 1 μPa. This species of fish has an air bubble in the mouth cavity 

directly adjacent to the animal’s braincase that may have caused this injury. Hastings (1991, 1995) also 

found that goldfish (Carassius auratus), also a freshwater species, exposed to a 250 Hz continuous wave 

sound with peak pressures of 204 dB re 1 μPa for two hours, and blue gourami exposed to a 150 Hz 

continuous wave sound at a sound pressure level of 198 dB re 1 μPa for 0.5 hours did not survive. These 

studies are examples of the highest known levels tested on fish and for relatively long durations. 

 

1 Rise time: the amount of time for a signal to change from static pressure (the ambient pressure without the added sound) to 

high pressure. Rise times for non-impulsive sound typically have relatively gradual increases in pressure where impulsive sound 

has near instantaneous rise to a high peak pressure. For more detail, see Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosives Primer).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-65

3.6 Fishes

Stunning and mortality due to exposure to non-impulsive sound exposure has not been observed in 

other studies. 

Three freshwater species of fish, the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), channel catfish (Ictalurus 

punctatus), and the hybrid sunfish (Lepomis sp.), were exposed to both low- and mid-frequency sonar 

(Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007). Low-frequency exposures with received sound pressure levels of 

193 dB re 1 μPa occurred for either 324 or 648 seconds. Mid-frequency exposures with received sound 

pressure levels of 210 dB re 1 μPa occurred for 15 seconds. No fish mortality resulted from either 

experiment and during necropsy after test exposures, both studies found that none of the subjects 

showed signs of tissue damage related to exposure (Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007). 

As summarized in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), although 

fishes have been injured and killed due to intense, long-duration non-impulsive sound exposures, fish 

exposed under more realistic conditions have shown no signs of injury. Those species tested to date can 

be used as viable surrogates for estimating injury in other species exposed to similar sources. 

3.6.3.1.1.2 Hearing Loss 

Researchers have examined the effects on hearing in fishes from sonar-like signals, tones, and different 

continuous noise sources; however, studies from impulsive sources are limited to air gun and impact 

pile driving exposures. Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and 

Explosive Activities) provides additional information on hearing loss and the framework used to analyze 

this potential impact. 

Exposure to high-intensity sound can cause hearing loss, also known as a noise-induced threshold shift, 

or simply a threshold shift (Miller, 1974). A temporary threshold shift (TTS) is a temporary, recoverable 

loss of hearing sensitivity. A TTS may last several minutes to several weeks, and the duration may be 

related to the intensity of the sound source and the duration of the sound (including multiple 

exposures). A permanent threshold shift (PTS) is non-recoverable, results from the destruction of tissues 

within the auditory system, permanent loss of hair cells, or damage to auditory nerve fibers (Liberman, 

2016), and can occur over a small range of frequencies related to the sound exposure. However, the 

sensory hair cells of the inner ear in fishes are regularly replaced over time when they are damaged, 

unlike in mammals where sensory hair cells loss is permanent (Lombarte et al., 1993; Popper et al., 

2014; Smith et al., 2006). As a consequence, PTS has not been known to occur in fishes and any hearing 

loss in fish may be as temporary as the timeframe required to repair or replace the sensory cells that 

were damaged or destroyed (Popper et al., 2005; Popper et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2006). It is not known 

if damage to auditory nerve fibers could occur, and if so, whether fibers would recover during this 

process. As with TTS, the animal does not become deaf but requires a louder sound stimulus, relative to 

the amount of PTS, to detect a sound within the affected frequencies. 

Hearing Loss due to Impulsive Sound Sources 

Popper et al. (2005) examined the effects of a seismic air gun array on a fish with a swim bladder that is 

involved in hearing, the lake chub (Couesius plumbeus), and two species that have a swim bladder that is 

not involved in hearing, the northern pike (Esox lucius) and the broad whitefish (Coregonus nasus), a 

salmonid. In this study, the lowest received cumulative sound exposure level (5 shots with a mean sound 

pressure level of 177 dB re 1 μPa) at which effects were noted was 186 dB re 1 μPa2-s. The results 

showed temporary hearing loss for both lake chub and northern pike to both 5 and 20 air gun shots, but 

not for the broad whitefish. Hearing loss was approximately 20 to 25 dB at some frequencies for both 

species, and full recovery of hearing took place within 18 hours after sound exposure. Examination of 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-66

3.6 Fishes

the sensory surfaces of the ears after allotted recovery times (one hour for 5 shot exposures, and up to 

18 hours for 20 shot exposures) showed no damage to sensory hair cells in any of the fish from these 

exposures (Song et al., 2008). 

McCauley et al. (2003) and McCauley and Kent (2012) showed loss of a small percent of sensory hair 

cells in the inner ear of caged fish exposed to a towed air gun array simulating a passing seismic vessel. 

Pink snapper (Pargus auratus), a species that has a swim bladder that is not involved in hearing, were 

exposed to multiple air gun shots for up to 1.5 hours (McCauley et al., 2003) where the maximum 

received sound exposure levels exceeded 180 dB re 1 μPa2-s. The loss of sensory hair cells continued to 

increase for up to at least 58 days post exposure to 2.7 percent of the total cells. Gold band snapper 

(Pristipomoides multidens) and sea perch (Lutjanis kasmira), both fishes with a swim bladder involved in 

hearing, were also exposed to a towed air gun array simulating a passing seismic vessel (McCauley & 

Kent, 2012). Although received levels for these exposures have not been published, hair cell damage 

increased as the range of the exposure decreased. Again, the amount of damage was considered small 

in each case (McCauley & Kent, 2012). It is not known if this hair cell loss would result in hearing loss 

since fish have tens or even hundreds of thousands of sensory hair cells in the inner ear and only a small 

portion were affected by the sound (Lombarte & Popper, 1994; Popper & Hoxter, 1984). The question 

remains as to why McCauley and Kent (2012) found damage to sensory hair cells while Popper et al. 

(Popper et al., 2005) did not; however, there are many differences between the studies, including 

species and the precise sound source characteristics. 

Hastings et al. (2008) exposed a fish with a swim bladder that is involved in hearing, the pinecone 

soldierfish (Myripristis murdjan), and three species that have a swim bladder that is not involved in 

hearing, the blue green damselfish (Chromis viridis), the saber squirrelfish (Sargocentron spiniferum), 

and the bluestripe seaperch (Lutjanus kasmira), to an air gun array. Fish in cages were exposed to 

multiple air gun shots with a cumulative sound exposure level of 190 dB re 1 μPa2-s. The authors found 

no hearing loss in any fish examined up to twelve hours after the exposures. 

In an investigation of another impulsive source, Casper et al. (2013b) found that some fishes may 

actually be more susceptible to barotrauma (e.g., swim bladder ruptures, herniations, and hematomas) 

than hearing effects when exposed to simulated impact pile driving. Hybrid striped bass (white bass 

[Morone chrysops] x striped bass [Morone saxatilis]) and Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis 

mossambicus), two species with a swim bladder not involved in hearing, were exposed to sound 

exposure levels between 213 and 216 dB re 1 μPa2-s. The subjects exhibited barotrauma and although 

researchers began to observe signs of inner ear hair cell loss, these effects were small compared to the 

other non-auditory injuries incurred. Researchers speculated that injury might occur prior to signs of 

hearing loss or TTS. These sound exposure levels may present the lowest threshold at which hearing 

effects may begin to occur. 

The lowest sound exposure level at which TTS has been observed in fishes with a swim bladder involved 

in hearing is 186 dB re 1 μPa2-s. As reviewed in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report 

(Popper et al., 2014), fishes without a swim bladder, or fishes with a swim bladder that is not involved in 

hearing, would be less susceptible to hearing loss (i.e., TTS) than fishes with swim bladders involved in 

hearing, even at higher levels and longer durations. 

Hearing Loss due to Sonar and Other Transducers 

Studies have examined the effects of the sound exposures from low-frequency sonar on fish hearing 

(Halvorsen et al., 2013; Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007). Hearing was measured both immediately 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-67

3.6 Fishes

post exposure and for several days thereafter. Maximum received sound pressure levels were 193 dB re 

1 μPa for 324 or 648 seconds (a cumulative sound exposure level of 218 or 220 dB re 1 μPa2-s, 

respectively) at frequencies ranging from 170 to 320 Hz (Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007) and 195 

dB re 1 Pa for 324 seconds (a cumulative sound exposure level of 215 dB re 1 μPa2-s) in a follow-on 

study (Halvorsen et al., 2013). Two species with a swim bladder not involved in hearing, the largemouth 

bass (Micropterus salmoides) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens), showed no loss in hearing sensitivity 

from sound exposure immediately after the test or 24 hours later. Channel catfish, a fish with a swim 

bladder involved in hearing, and some specimens of rainbow trout, a fish with a swim bladder not 

involved in hearing, showed a threshold shift (up to 10 to 20 dB of hearing loss) immediately after 

exposure to the low-frequency sonar when compared to baseline and control animals. Small thresholds 

shifts were detected for up to 24 hours after the experiment in some channel catfish. Although some 

rainbow trout showed signs of hearing loss, another group showed no hearing loss. The different results 

between rainbow trout test groups are difficult to understand, but may be due to development or 

genetic differences in the various groups of fish. Catfish hearing returned to, or close to, normal within 

about 24 hours after exposure to low-frequency sonar. Examination of the inner ears of the fish during 

necropsy revealed no differences from the control groups in ciliary bundles or other features indicative 

of hearing loss. The maximum time fish were held post exposure before sacrifice was 96 hours (Kane et 

al., 2010). 

The same investigators examined the potential effects of mid-frequency active sonar on fish hearing and 

the inner ear (Halvorsen et al., 2012c; Kane et al., 2010). The maximum received sound pressure level 

was 210 dB re 1 μPa at a frequency of 2.8 to 3.8 kHz for a total duration of 15 seconds (cumulative 

sound exposure level of 220 dB re 1 μPa2-s). Out of the species tested (rainbow trout and channel 

catfish), only one test group of channel catfish showed any hearing loss after exposure to mid-frequency 

active sonar. The investigators tested catfish during two different seasons and found that the group 

tested in October experienced TTS, which recovered within 24 hours, but fish tested in December 

showed no effect. It was speculated that the difference in hearing loss between catfish groups might 

have been due to the difference in water temperature during the testing period or due to differences 

between the two stocks of fish (Halvorsen et al., 2012c). Any effects on hearing in channel catfish due to 

sound exposure appeared to be short-term and non-permanent (Halvorsen et al., 2012c; Kane et al., 

2010). 

Some studies have suggested that there may be some loss of sensory hair cells due to high intensity 

sources, indicating a loss in hearing sensitivity; however, none of those studies concurrently investigated 

the subjects’ actual hearing range after exposure to these sources. Enger (1981) found loss of ciliary 

bundles of the sensory cells in the inner ears of Atlantic cod following one to five hours of exposure to 

pure tone sounds between 50 and 400 Hz with a sound pressure level of 180 dB re 1 μPa. Hastings 

(1995) found auditory hair-cell damage in goldfish, a freshwater species with a swim bladder that is 

involved in hearing. Goldfish were exposed to 250 Hz and 500 Hz continuous tones with maximum peak 

sound pressure levels of 204 dB re 1 μPa and 197 dB re 1 μPa, respectively, for about two hours. 

Similarly, Hastings et al. (1996) demonstrated damage to some sensory hair cells in oscars observed one 

to four days following a one hour exposure to a pure tone at 300 Hz with a sound pressure level of 180 

dB re 1 μPa but no damage to the lateral line was observed. Both studies found a relatively small 

percentage of total hair cell loss from hearing organs despite long duration exposures. Effects from longduration noise exposure studies are generally informative; however, they are not necessarily a direct 

comparison to intermittent short-duration sounds generated during Navy activities involving sonar and 

other transducers.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-68

3.6 Fishes

As noted in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), some fish species 

with a swim bladder that is involved in hearing may be more susceptible to TTS from high intensity nonimpulsive sound sources, such as sonar and other transducers, depending on the duration and 

frequency content of the exposure. Fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing and fishes with highfrequency hearing may exhibit TTS from exposure to low- and mid-frequency sonar, specifically at 

cumulative sound exposure levels above 215 dB re 1 μPa2-s. Fishes without a swim bladder and fishes 

with a swim bladder that is not involved in hearing would be unlikely to detect mid- or other higherfrequency sonars and would likely require a much higher sound exposure level to exhibit the same effect 

from exposure to low-frequency active sonar.

Hearing Loss due to Vessel Noise 

Little data exist on the effects of vessel noise on hearing in fishes. However, TTS has been observed in 

fishes exposed to elevated background noise and continuous sources. Studies on pressure sensitive 

fishes show some hearing loss after several days or weeks of exposure to increased background sounds, 

although the hearing loss seems to recover (e.g., Scholik & Yan, 2002; Smith et al., 2004a; Smith et al., 

2006). Smith et al. (2004a; 2006) exposed goldfish to noise with a sound pressure level of 170 dB re 

1 μPa and found a clear relationship between the amount of hearing loss and the duration of exposure 

until maximum hearing loss occurred at about 24 hours of exposure. A 10-minute exposure resulted in 5 

dB of TTS, whereas a three-week exposure resulted in a 28 dB TTS that took over two weeks to return to 

pre-exposure baseline levels (Smith et al., 2004a). Recovery times were not measured by investigators 

for shorter exposure durations. Scholik and Yan (2001) demonstrated TTS in fathead minnows 

(Pimephales promelas) after a 24-hour exposure to white noise (0.3 to 2.0 kHz) at 142 dB re 1 μPa, that 

took up to 14 days post-exposure to recover. This is the longest recorded time for a threshold shift to 

recover in a fish. 

3.6.3.1.1.3 Masking 

Masking refers to the presence of a noise that interferes with a fish’s ability to hear biologically 

important sounds including those produced by prey, predators, or other fishes. Masking occurs in all 

vertebrate groups and can effectively limit the distance over which an animal can communicate and 

detect biologically relevant sounds. Human-generated continuous sounds (e.g., some sonar, vessel noise 

and vibratory pile driving) have the potential to mask sounds that are biologically important to fishes. 

Researchers have studied masking in fishes using continuous masking noise but masking due to 

intermittent, short duty cycle sounds has not been studied. Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for 

Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities) provides additional information on masking and 

the framework used to analyze this potential impact. 

Masking is likely to occur in most fishes due to varying levels of ambient or natural noise in the 

environment such as wave action, precipitation, or other animal vocalizations (Popper et al., 2014). 

Ambient noise during higher sea states in the ocean has resulted in elevated thresholds in several fish 

species (Chapman & Hawkins, 1973; Ramcharitar & Popper, 2004). Masking may be most problematic in 

the frequency region near the signal but is also related to the overall level of the noise source (Buerkle, 

1968, 1969; Popper et al., 2014; Tavolga, 1974). 

Wysocki and Ladich (2005) investigated the influence of continuous white noise exposure on the 

auditory sensitivity of two freshwater fish with notable hearing specializations for sound pressure 

detection, the goldfish and the lined Raphael catfish (Platydoras costatus), and a freshwater fish without 

notable specializations, the pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus). For the goldfish and catfish, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-69

3.6 Fishes

baseline thresholds were lower than masked thresholds. Continuous white noise with a sound pressure 

level of approximately 130 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m resulted in an elevated threshold of 23 to 44 dB within the 

subjects’ region of best sensitivity between 500 and 1000 Hz. There was less evidence of masking in the 

sunfish during the same exposures with only a shift of 11 dB. Wysocki and Ladich (2005) suggest that 

ambient sound regimes may limit acoustic communication and orientation, especially in animals with 

notable hearing specializations for sound pressure detection. 

Masking could lead to potential fitness costs depending on the severity of the reaction (Radford et al., 

2014; Slabbekoorn et al., 2010). For example, masking could result in changes in predator-prey 

relationships potentially inhibiting a fish’s ability to detect predators and therefore increase its risk of 

predation (Astrup, 1999; Mann et al., 1998; Simpson et al., 2015; Simpson et al., 2016). Masking may 

also limit the distance over which fish can communicate or detect important signals (Codarin et al., 

2009; Ramcharitar et al., 2001; Ramcharitar et al., 2006) including sounds emitted from a reef for 

navigating larvae (Higgs, 2005; Neenan et al., 2016). If the masking signal is brief (a few seconds or less), 

biologically important signals may still be detected resulting in little effect to the individual. If the signal 

is longer in duration (minutes or hours) or overlaps with important frequencies for a particular species, 

more severe consequences may occur such as the inability to attract a mate and reproduce. Holt et al. 

(2014) were the first to demonstrate the Lombard effect in one species of fish, a potentially 

compensatory behavior where an animal increases its vocalizations in response to elevated noise levels. 

The Lombard effect is currently understood to be a reflex which may be unnoticeable to the animal or 

may lead to increased energy expenditure during communication. 

The ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014) highlights a lack of data that 

exist for masking by sonar but suggests that the narrow bandwidth and intermittent nature of most 

sonar signals would result in only a limited probability of any masking effects. In addition, most sonars 

(mid-, high-, and very high-frequency) are above the hearing range of most marine fish species, 

eliminating the possibility of masking for these species. In most cases, the probability of masking would 

further decrease with increasing distance from the sound source. 

In addition, no data are available on masking by impulsive signals (e.g., impact pile driving and air guns) 

(Popper et al., 2014). Impulsive sounds are typically brief, lasting only fractions of a second, where 

masking could occur only during that brief duration of sound. Biological sounds can typically be detected 

between pulses within close distances to the source unless those biological sounds are similar to the 

masking noise, such as impulsive or drumming vocalizations made by some fishes (e.g., cod or haddock). 

Masking could also indirectly occur because of repetitive impulsive signals where the repetitive sounds 

and reverberations over distance may create a more continuous noise exposure. 

Although there is evidence of masking as a result of exposure to vessel noise, the ANSI Sound Exposure 

Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014) does not present numeric thresholds for this effect. 

Instead, relative risk factors are considered and it is assumed the probability of masking occurring is 

higher at near to moderate distances from the source (up to hundreds of meters) but decreases with 

increasing distance (Popper et al., 2014). 

3.6.3.1.1.4 Physiological Stress 

Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities) 

provides additional information on physiological stress and the framework used to analyze this potential 

impact. A fish must first be able to detect a sound above its hearing threshold and above the ambient 

noise level before a physiological stress reaction can occur. The initial response to a stimulus is a rapid 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-70

3.6 Fishes

release of stress hormones into the circulatory system, which may cause other responses such as 

elevated heart rate and blood chemistry changes. Although an increase in background sound has been 

shown to cause stress in humans and animals, only a limited number of studies have measured 

biochemical responses by fishes to acoustic stress (e.g., Goetz et al., 2015; Madaro et al., 2015; RemageHealey et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2004b; Wysocki et al., 2006; Wysocki et al., 2007) and the results have 

varied. Researchers have studied physiological stress in fishes using predator vocalizations, continuous 

and impulsive noise exposures. 

A stress response that has been observed in fishes includes the production of cortisol (a stress hormone) 

when exposed to sounds such as boat noise, tones, or predator vocalizations. Nichols et al. (2015) found 

that giant kelpfish (Heterostichus rostratus) had increased levels of cortisol with increased sound level 

and intermittency of boat noise playbacks. Cod exposed to a short-duration upsweep (a tone that 

sweeps upward across multiple frequencies) across 100 to 1,000 Hz had increases in cortisol levels, 

which returned to normal within one hour post-exposure (Sierra-Flores et al., 2015). Remage-Healey et 

al. (2006) found elevated cortisol levels in Gulf toadfish (Opsanus beta) exposed to low-frequency 

bottlenose dolphin sounds. The researchers observed none of these effects in toadfish exposed to 

low-frequency snapping shrimp “pops.” 

A sudden increase in sound pressure level or an increase in overall background noise levels can increase 

hormone levels and alter other metabolic rates indicative of a stress response, such as increased 

ventilation and oxygen consumption (Pickering, 1981; Popper & Hastings, 2009a; Simpson et al., 2015; 

Simpson et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2004a, 2004b). Although results have varied, it has been shown that 

chronic or long-term (days or weeks) exposures of continuous man-made sounds can lead to a reduction 

in embryo viability (Sierra-Flores et al., 2015) and slowed growth rates (Nedelec et al., 2015). 

However not all species tested to date show these reactions. Smith et al. (2004b) found no increase in 

corticosteroid, a class of stress hormones, in goldfish exposed to a continuous, band-limited noise 

(0.1–10 kHz) with a sound pressure level of 170 dB re 1 μPa for one month. Wysocki et al. (2007) 

exposed rainbow trout to continuous band-limited noise with a sound pressure level of about 150 dB re 

1 μPa for nine months with no observed stress effects. Growth rates and effects on the trout’s immune 

systems were not significantly different from control animals held at a sound pressure level of 110 dB re 

1 μPa. 

Fishes may have physiological stress reactions to sounds that they can hear. Generally, stress responses 

are more likely to occur in the presence of potentially threatening sound sources such as predator 

vocalizations or the sudden onset of impulsive signals. Stress responses are typically brief (a few seconds 

to minutes) if the exposure is short or if fishes habituate or learn to tolerate the noise that is being 

presented. However, exposure to chronic noise sources can lead to more severe impacts such as 

reduced growth rates, which may lead to reduced survivability for an individual. It is assumed that any 

physiological response (e.g., hearing loss or injury) or significant behavioral response is also associated 

with a stress response. 

3.6.3.1.1.5 Behavioral Reactions 

Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities) 

provides additional information on behavioral reactions and the framework used to analyze this 

potential impact. Behavioral reactions in fishes have been observed due to a number of different types 

of sound sources. The majority of research has been performed using air guns (including large-scale 

seismic surveys), sonar, and vessel noise. Fewer observations have been made on behavioral reactions 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-71

3.6 Fishes

to impact pile driving noise; although fish are likely to show similar behavioral reactions to any impulsive 

noise within or outside the zone for hearing loss and injury. 

As with masking, a fish must first be able to detect a sound above its hearing threshold and above the 

ambient noise level before a behavioral reaction can potentially occur. Most fishes can only detect 

low-frequency sounds with the exception of a few species that can detect some mid and high 

frequencies (above 1 kHz). Behavioral effects to fish could include disruption or alteration of natural 

activities such as swimming, schooling, feeding, breeding, and migrating. Sudden changes in sound level 

can cause fish to dive, rise, or change swimming direction. Studies of fishes have identified the following 

basic behavioral reactions to sound: alteration of natural behaviors (e.g., startle or alarm), and 

avoidance (McCauley et al., 2000; Pearson et al., 1992; Scripps Institution of Oceanography & National 

Science Foundation, 2008). In the context of this EIS/OEIS, and to remain consistent with available 

behavioral reaction literature, the terms startle and alarm response or reactions will be used 

synonymously. Changes in sound intensity may be more important to a fishes’ behavior than the 

maximum sound level. Sounds that fluctuate in level or have intermittent pulse rates tend to elicit 

stronger responses from fish than even stronger sounds with a continuous level (Neo et al., 2014; 

Schwarz & Greer, 1984). Interpreting behavioral responses can be difficult due to species-specific 

behavioral tendencies, motivational state (e.g., feeding or mating), an individual’s previous experience, 

and whether or not the fish are able to avoid the source (e.g., caged versus free-swimming subjects). 

Results from caged studies may not provide a clear understanding of how free-swimming fishes may 

react to the same or similar sound exposures (Hawkins et al., 2015). 

Behavioral Reactions due to Impulsive Sound Sources 

It is assumed that most species would react similarly to impulsive sources (i.e., air guns and impact pile 

driving). These reactions include startle or alarm responses at the onset of impulsive sounds (Fewtrell & 

McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992). Data on behavioral reactions in fishes exposed to impulsive 

sound sources is mostly limited to studies using caged fishes and the use of seismic air guns (Løkkeborg 

et al., 2012). Several species of rockfish (Sebastes species) in a caged environment exhibited startle or 

alarm reactions to seismic air gun pulses between peak-to-peak sound pressure levels of 180 dB re 1 μPa 

and 205 dB re 1 μPa (Pearson et al., 1992). More subtle behavioral changes were noted at lower sound 

pressure levels, including decreased swim speeds. At the presentation of the sound, some species of 

rockfish settled to the bottom of the experimental enclosure and reduced swim speed. Trevally 

(Pseudocaranx dentex) and pink snapper (Pagrus auratus) also exhibited alert responses as well as 

changes in swim depth, speed and schooling behaviors when exposed to air gun noise (Fewtrell & 

McCauley, 2012). Both trevally and pink snapper swam faster and closer to the bottom of the cage at 

the onset of the exposure. However, trevally swam in tightly cohesive groups at the bottom of the test 

cages while pink snapper exhibited much looser group cohesion. These behavioral responses were seen 

during sound exposure level s as low as 147 up to 161 dB re 1 μPa2-s but habituation occurred in all 

cases, either within a few minutes or up to 30 minutes after the final air gun shot (Fewtrell & McCauley, 

2012; Pearson et al., 1992). 

Some studies have shown a lack of behavioral reactions to air gun noise. Herring exposed to an 

approaching air gun survey (from 27 to 2 km over 6 hours), resulting in single pulse sound exposure 

levels of 125 to 155 dB re 1 μPa2-s, did not react by changing direction or swim speed (Pena et al., 2013). 

Although these levels are similar to those tested in other studies which exhibited responses (Fewtrell & 

McCauley, 2012), the distance of the exposure to the test enclosure, the slow onset of the sound source, 

and a strong motivation for feeding may have affected the observed response (Pena et al., 2013). In 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-72

3.6 Fishes

another study, Wardle et al. (2001) observed marine fish on an inshore reef before, during, and after an 

air gun survey at varying distances. The air guns were calibrated at a peak level of 210 dB re 1 μPa at 16 

m and 195 dB re 1 μPa at 109 m from the source. Other than observed startle responses and small 

changes in position of pollack, when the air gun was located within close proximity to the test site 

(within 10 m), they found no substantial or permanent changes in the behavior of the fish on the reef 

throughout the course of the study. Behavioral responses to impulsive sources are more likely to occur 

within near and intermediate (tens to hundreds of meters) distances from the source as opposed to far 

distances (thousands of meters) (Popper et al., 2014). 

Unlike the previous studies, Slotte et al. (2004) used fishing sonar (38 kHz echo sounder) to monitor 

behavior and depth of blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) and Norwegian spring herring (Claupea 

harengus L.) spawning schools exposed to air gun signals. They reported that fishes in the area of the air 

guns appeared to go to greater depths after the air gun exposure compared to their vertical position 

prior to the air gun usage. Moreover, the abundance of animals 30–50 km away from the air guns 

increased during seismic activity, suggesting that migrating fish left the zone of seismic activity and did 

not re-enter the area until the activity ceased. It is unlikely that either species was able to detect the 

fishing sonar, however, it should be noted that these behavior patterns may have also been influenced 

by other factors such as motivation for feeding, migration, or other environmental factors (e.g., 

temperature, salinity, etc.) (Slotte et al., 2004). 

Alterations in natural behavior patterns due to exposure to pile driving noise have not been studied as 

thoroughly, but reactions noted thus far are similar to those seen in response to seismic surveys. These 

changes in behavior include startle responses, changes in depth (in both caged and free-swimming 

subjects), increased swim speeds, changes in ventilation rates, and avoidance (e.g., Hawkins et al., 2014; 

Mueller-Blenkle et al., 2010; Neo et al., 2015). The severity of response varied greatly by species and 

received sound pressure level of the exposure. For example, some minor behavioral reactions such as 

startle responses were observed during caged studies with a sound pressure level as low as 140 dB re 1 

μPa (Neo et al., 2014). However, only some free-swimming fishes avoided pile driving noise at even 

higher sound pressure levels between 152 and 157 dB re 1 μPa (Iafrate et al., 2016). The repetition rate 

of pulses during an exposure may also have an effect on what behaviors were noted and how quickly 

these behaviors recovered as opposed to the overall sound pressure or exposure level. For example, 

Neo et al. (2014) observed slower recovery times in fishes exposed to intermittent sounds (similar to 

pile driving) compared to continuous exposures. 

As summarized in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), species may 

react differently to the same sound source depending on a number of variables, such as the animal’s life 

stage or behavioral state (e.g., feeding, mating). Without specific data, it is assumed that fishes react 

similarly to all impulsive sounds outside the zone for hearing loss and injury. Observations of fish 

reactions to large-scale air gun surveys are informative, but not necessarily directly applicable to 

analyzing impacts from the short-term, intermittent use of all impulsive sources. It is assumed that fish 

have a high probability of reacting to an impulsive sound source within near and intermediate distances 

(tens to hundreds of meters), and a decreasing probability of reaction at increasing distances (Popper et 

al., 2014). 

Behavioral Reactions due to Sonar and Other Transducers 

Behavioral reactions to sonar have been studied both in caged and free-living fish although results can 

often times be difficult to interpret depending on the species tested and the study environment. 

Jørgensen et al. (2005) showed that caged cod and spotted wolf fish lacked any response to simulated 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-73

3.6 Fishes

sonar between 1 and 8 kHz. However, within the same study, reactions were seen in juvenile herring. It 

is likely that the sonar signals were inaudible to the cod and wolf fish (species that lack notable hearing 

specializations), but audible to herring which do possess hearing capabilities in the frequency ranges 

tested. 

Doksæter et al. (2009; 2012) and Sivle et al. (2012; 2014) studied the reactions of both wild and captive 

Atlantic herring to the Royal Netherlands Navy’s experimental mid-frequency active sonar ranging from 

1 to 7 kHz. The behavior of the fish was monitored in each study either using upward looking 

echosounders (for wild herring) or audio and video monitoring systems (for captive herring). The source 

levels used within each study varied across all studies and exposures with a maximum received sound 

pressure level of 181 dB re 1 μPa and maximum cumulative sound exposure level of 184 dB re 1 μPa2·s. 

No avoidance or escape reactions were observed when herring were exposed to any sonar sources. 

Instead, significant reactions were noted at lower received sound levels of different non-sonar sound 

types. For example, dive responses (i.e., escape reactions) were observed when herring were exposed to 

killer whale feeding sounds at received sound pressure levels of approximately 150 dB re 1 μPa (Sivle et 

al., 2012). Startle responses were seen when the cages for captive herring were hit with a wooden stick 

and with the ignition of an outboard boat engine at a distance of 1 meter from the test pen (Doksaeter 

et al., 2012). It is possible that the herring were not disturbed by the sonar, were more motivated to 

continue other behaviors such as feeding, or did not associate the sound as a threatening stimulus. 

Based on these results (Doksaeter et al., 2009; Doksaeter et al., 2012; Sivle et al., 2012), Sivle et al. 

(2014) created a model in order to report on the possible population-level effects on Atlantic herring 

from active naval sonar. The authors concluded that the use of naval sonar poses little risk to 

populations of herring regardless of season, even when the herring populations are aggregated and 

directly exposed to sonar. 

There is evidence that elasmobranchs also respond to human-generated sounds. Myrberg and 

colleagues did experiments in which they played back sounds (e.g., pulsed tones below 1 kHz) and 

attracted a number of different shark species to the sound source (e.g., Casper et al., 2012a; Myrberg et 

al., 1976; Myrberg et al., 1969; Myrberg et al., 1972; Nelson & Johnson, 1972). The results of these 

studies showed that sharks were attracted to irregularly pulsed low-frequency sounds (below several 

hundred Hz), in the same frequency range of sounds that might be produced by struggling prey. 

However, sharks are not known to be attracted to continuous signals or higher frequencies that they 

presumably cannot hear (Casper & Mann, 2006, 2009). 

Only a few species of marine fishes can detect sonars above 1 kHz (see Section 3.6.2.1.3, Hearing and 

Vocalization) meaning that most fishes would not detect most mid-, high-, or very high-frequency Navy 

sonars. The few marine species that can detect above 1 kHz and have some hearing specializations may 

be able to better detect the sound and would therefore be more likely to react. However, researchers 

have found little reaction by adult fish in the wild to sonars within the animals’ hearing range (Doksaeter 

et al., 2009; Doksaeter et al., 2012; Sivle et al., 2012). The ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical 

report (Popper et al., 2014) suggests that fish able to hear sonars would have a low probability of 

reacting to the source within near or intermediate distances (within tens to hundreds of meters) and a 

decreasing probability of reacting at increasing distances. 

Behavioral Reactions due to Vessel Noise 

Vessel traffic also contributes to the amount of noise in the ocean and has the potential to affect fishes. 

Several studies have demonstrated and reviewed avoidance responses by fishes (e.g., herring and cod) 

to the low-frequency sounds of vessels (De Robertis & Handegard, 2013; Engås et al., 1995; Handegard 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-74

3.6 Fishes

et al., 2003). Misund (1997) found fish ahead of a ship that showed avoidance reactions did so at ranges 

of 50 to 150 m. When the vessel passed over them, some species of fish responded with sudden escape 

responses that included lateral avoidance or downward compression of the school. 

As mentioned in Section 3.6.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions), behavioral reactions are quite variable 

depending on a number of factors such as the type of fish, its life history stage, behavior, time of day, 

and the sound propagation characteristics of the water column (Popper et al., 2014; Schwarz & Greer, 

1984). Reactions to playbacks of continuous noise or passing vessels noted, in addition to the basic 

startle and avoidance responses, increased group cohesion, changes in vertical distribution in the water 

column, changes in swim speeds, and changes in feeding efficacy such as reduced foraging attempts and 

increased mistakes (i.e., lowered discrimination between food and non-food items) (e.g., Bracciali et al., 

2012; De Robertis & Handegard, 2013; Handegard et al., 2015; Nedelec et al., 2015; Neo et al., 2015; 

Payne et al., 2015; Purser & Radford, 2011; Sabet et al., 2016; Simpson et al., 2015; Simpson et al., 2016; 

Voellmy et al., 2014a; Voellmy et al., 2014b). Changes in anti-predator response have also been 

observed but vary by species. During exposures to vessel noise, juvenile Ambon damselfish 

(Pomacentrus amboinensis) and European eels showed slower reaction times and lacked startle 

responses to predatory attacks which subsequently increased their risk of predation during both 

simulated and actual predation experiments (Simpson et al., 2015; Simpson et al., 2016). In contrast, 

larval Atlantic cod showed a stronger anti-predator response and were more difficult to capture during 

simulated predator attacks (Nedelec et al., 2015). Although behavioral responses such as these were 

often noted during the onset of most sound presentations, these behaviors did not last long and animals 

quickly returned to baseline behavior patterns. In fact, in one study, when given the chance to move 

from a noisy tank (with sound pressure levels reaching 120–140 dB re 1 μPa) to a quieter tank (sound 

pressure levels of 110 dB re 1 μPa), there was no evidence of avoidance. The fish did not seem to prefer 

the quieter environment and continued to swim between the two tanks comparable to control sessions 

(Neo et al., 2015). However, many of these reactions are difficult to extrapolate to real world conditions 

due to the captive environment in which testing occurred. 

Most fish species should be able to detect vessel noise due to its low-frequency content and their 

hearing capabilities (see Section 3.6.2.1.3, Hearing and Vocalization). The ANSI Sound Exposure 

Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014) suggests that fishes have a high to moderate probability 

of reacting to nearby vessel noise (i.e., within tens of meters) with decreasing probability of reactions 

with increasing distance from the source (hundreds or more meters). 

3.6.3.1.1.6 Long-Term Consequences 

Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities) 

provides additional information on potential pathways for long-term consequences. Mortality removes 

an individual fish from the population and injury reduces the fitness of an individual. Few studies have 

been conducted on any long-term consequences from repeated hearing loss, stress, or behavioral 

reactions in fishes due to exposure to loud sounds (Hawkins et al., 2014; Popper & Hastings, 2009a; 

Popper et al., 2014). Repeated exposures of an individual to multiple sound-producing activities over a 

season, year, or life stage could cause reactions with costs that can accumulate over time to cause 

long-term consequences for the individual. These long-term consequences may affect the survivability 

of the individual or if impacting enough individuals, may have population-level effects including: 

alteration from migration paths, avoidance of important habitat, or even cessation of foraging or 

reproductive behavior (Hawkins et al., 2014). Conversely, some animals habituate to or become tolerant 

of repeated exposures over time, learning to ignore a stimulus that in the past has not accompanied any 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-75

3.6 Fishes

overt threat. In fact, Sivle et al. (2016) predicted that exposures to sonar at the maximum levels tested 

would only result in short-term disturbance and would not likely affect the overall population in 

sensitive fishes such as herring. More research is needed to understand better the long-term 

consequences of human-made noise on fishes. 

3.6.3.1.2 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Sonar and other transducers proposed for use are transient in most locations because activities that 

involve sonar and other transducers take place at different locations throughout the Study Area. A few 

activities involving sonar and other transducers occur in inshore waters (within bays and estuaries), 

including at pierside locations where they reoccur. Sonar and other transducers emit sound waves into 

the water to detect objects, safely navigate, and communicate. General categories and characteristics of 

these systems and the number of hours these sonars will be operated are described in Section 3.0.3.3 

(Identifying Stressors for Analysis). The activities analyzed in the EIS/OEIS that use sonar and other 

transducers are described in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). 

As described under Section 3.6.3.1.1.1 (Injury due to Sonar and Other Transducers), direct injury from 

sonar and other transducers is highly unlikely because injury has not been documented in fish exposed 

to sonar (Halvorsen et al., 2012c; Halvorsen et al., 2013; Popper et al., 2007) and therefore is not 

considered further in this analysis. 

Fishes are not equally sensitive to noise at all frequencies. Fishes must first be able to hear a sound in 

order to be affected by it. As discussed in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization), many marine fish 

species tested to date hear primarily below 1 kHz. For the purposes of this analysis, fish species were 

grouped into one of four fish hearing groups based on either their known hearing ranges (i.e., 

audiograms) or physiological features that may be linked to overall hearing capabilities (i.e., swim 

bladder with connection to, or in close proximity to, the inner ear). Figure 3.6-6 provides a summary of 

hearing threshold data from available literature (e.g., Casper & Mann, 2006; Deng et al., 2013; Kéver et 

al., 2014; Mann et al., 2001; Ramcharitar et al., 2006) to demonstrate the potential overall range of 

frequency detection for each hearing group. Due to data limitations, these estimated hearing ranges 

may be overly conservative in that they may extend beyond what some species within a given fish 

hearing group may actually detect. The upper bounds of each fish hearing groups frequency range is 

outside of the range of best sensitivity for all fishes within that group. As a result, fishes within each 

group would only be able to detect those upper frequencies from sources with relatively high source 

levels. Figure 3.6-6 is not intended as a composite audiogram, but rather displays the basic overlap in 

potential frequency content for each hearing group with Navy defined sonar classes (i.e., low-, mid-, 

high- and very high-frequency) as discussed under Section 3.0.3.3.1.1 (Sonar and Other Transducers –

Classification of Sonar and Other Transducers). 

Systems within the low-frequency sonar class presents the greatest potential for overlap with fish 

hearing. Some mid-frequency sonars and other transducers may also overlap some species’ hearing 

ranges, but to a lesser extent than low-frequency sonars. For example, the only hearing groups that 

would be able to detect mid-frequency sources within bins MF3, MF4 and MF5 are fishes with a swim 

bladder involved in hearing and with high-frequency hearing. It is anticipated that most marine fishes 

would not hear or be affected by mid-frequency Navy sonars or other transducers with operating 

frequencies greater than about 1–4 kHz. Only a few fish species (i.e., fish with a swim bladder and highfrequency hearing specializations) can detect and therefore be potentially affected by high- and very 

high-frequency sonars and other transducers. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-76

3.6 Fishes

The most probable impacts from exposure to sonar and other transducers are TTS (for more detail see 

Section 3.6.3.1.1.2, Hearing Loss), masking (for more detail see Section 3.6.3.1.1.3, Masking), 

physiological stress (for more detail see Section 3.6.3.1.1.4, Physiological Stress), and behavioral 

reactions (for more detail see Section 3.6.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). Analysis of these effects is 

provided below. 

 

Notes: kHz = kilohertz, MF1 = 3.5 kHz, MF4 = 4 kHz, MF5 = 8 kHz. 

Thin blue lines represent the estimated minimum and maximum range of frequency detection for each group. All hearing 

groups are assumed to hear down to 0.01 kHz regardless of available data. Thicker portions of each blue line represent the 

estimated range of best sensitivity for that group. Currently, no data are available to estimate the range of best sensitivity 

for fishes without a swim bladder. Although each sonar class is represented graphically by the horizontal black, grey and 

brown bars, not all sources within each class would operate at all the displayed frequencies. Example mid-frequency 

sources are provided to further demonstrate this. 

Figure 3.6-6: Fish Hearing Group and Navy Sonar Frequency Ranges 

3.6.3.1.2.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers 

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the range to TTS for fishes exposed to sonar and 

other transducers used during Navy training and testing activities. Inputs to the quantitative analysis 

included sound propagation modeling in the Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model to the sound exposure 

criteria and thresholds presented below. Although ranges to effect are predicted, density data for fish 

species within the Study Area are not available; therefore, it is not possible to estimate the total number 

of individuals that may be affected by sound produced by sonar and other transducers. 

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Frequency (kHz)

Low-Frequency Sonar

Fishes Without a Swim Bladder

Very HighFrequency Sonar

High-Frequency Sonar

Mid-Frequency Sonar

Fishes with a Swim Bladder not Involved in Hearing

Fishes with a Swim Bladder Involved in Hearing

Fishes with a Swim Bladder and High-Frequency Hearing

MF1

MF4

MF5
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-77

3.6 Fishes

Criteria and thresholds to estimate impacts from sonar and other transducers are presented below in 

Table 3.6-3. Thresholds for hearing loss are typically reported in cumulative sound exposure level so as 

to account for the duration of the exposure. Therefore, thresholds reported in the ANSI Sound Exposure 

Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014) that were presented in other metrics were converted to 

sound exposure level based on the signal duration reported in the original studies (see Halvorsen et al., 

2012c; Halvorsen et al., 2013; Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007). General research findings from 

these studies can be reviewed in Section 3.6.3.1.1.2 (Hearing Loss). 

Table 3.6-3: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Sonar 

Fish Hearing Group

TTS from Low-Frequency 

Sonar (SELcum)

TTS from Mid-Frequency 

Sonar (SELcum)

Fishes without a swim bladder NC NC

Fishes with a swim bladder not 

involved in hearing > 210 NC

Fishes with a swim bladder involved 

in hearing 210 220

Fishes with a swim bladder and 

high-frequency hearing 210 220

Notes: TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level (decibel referenced to 1 

micropascal squared seconds [dB re 1 μPa2-s]), NC = effects from exposure to sonar is considered to 

be unlikely, therefore no criteria are reported, > indicates that the given effect would occur above the 

reported threshold. 

For mid-frequency sonars, fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing have shown signs of hearing 

loss because of mid-frequency sonar exposure at a maximum received sound pressure level of 210 dB re 

1 μPa for a total duration of 15 seconds. To account for the total duration of the exposure, the threshold 

for TTS is a cumulative sound exposure level of 220 dB re 1 μPa2-s (Halvorsen et al., 2012c; Kane et al., 

2010). The same threshold is used for fishes with a swim bladder and high frequency hearing as a 

conservative measure although fishes in this hearing group have not been tested for the same impact. 

TTS has not been observed in fishes with a swim bladder that is not involved in hearing exposed to mid‐

frequency sonar. Fishes within this hearing group do not sense pressure well and typically cannot hear 

at frequencies above 1 kHz (Halvorsen et al., 2012c; Popper et al., 2014). Therefore, no criteria were 

proposed for fishes with a swim bladder that is not involved in hearing from exposure to mid-frequency 

sonars as it is considered unlikely for TTS to occur. Fishes without a swim bladder are even less 

susceptible to noise exposure; therefore TTS is unlikely to occur and no criteria are proposed for this 

group either. 

For low-frequency sonar, as described in Section 3.6.3.1.1.2 (Hearing Loss), exposure of fishes with a 

swim bladder has resulted in TTS (Halvorsen et al., 2013; Kane et al., 2010; Popper et al., 2007). 

Specifically, fishes with a swim bladder not involved in hearing showed signs of hearing loss after 

exposure to a maximum received sound pressure level of 193 dB re 1 μPa for 324 and 648 seconds 

(cumulative sound exposure level of 218 and 220 dB re 1 μPa2-s, respectively) (Kane et al., 2010; Popper 

et al., 2007). In addition, exposure of fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing to low-frequency 

sonar at a sound pressure level of 195 dB re 1 μPa for 324 seconds (cumulative sound exposure level of 

215 dB re 1 μPa2-s) resulted in TTS (Halvorsen et al., 2013). Although the results were variable, it can be 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-78

3.6 Fishes

assumed that TTS may occur in fishes within the same hearing groups at similar exposure levels. As a 

conservative measure, the threshold for TTS from exposure to low-frequency sonar for all fish hearing 

groups with a swim bladder was rounded down to a cumulative sound exposure level of 210 dB re 1 

μPa2-s. 

Criteria for high- and very high-frequency sonar were not available in the ANSI Sound Exposure 

Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014); however, only species with a swim bladder involved in 

hearing and with high-frequency specializations such as shad could potentially be affected. The majority 

of fish species within the Study Area are unlikely to be able to detect these sounds. There is little data 

available on hearing loss from exposure of fishes to these high-frequency sonars. Due to the lack of 

available data, and as a conservative measure, effects to these hearing groups from high-frequency 

sonars would utilize the lowest threshold available for other hearing groups (a cumulative sound 

exposure level of 210 dB re 1 μPa2-s) but effects would largely be analyzed qualitatively. 

3.6.3.1.2.2 Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers 

The following section provides ranges to specific effects from sonar and other transducers. Ranges are 

calculated using criteria from Table 3.6-4 and the Navy Acoustic Effects Model. Only ranges to TTS were 

predicted based on available data. Sonar durations of 1, 30, 60 and 120 seconds were used to calculate 

the ranges below. However, despite the variation in exposure duration, ranges were almost identical 

across these durations and therefore were combined and summarized by bin in the table below. General 

source levels, durations and other characteristics of these systems are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 

(Acoustic Stressors). 

Table 3.6-4: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift from Four Representative Sonar Bins 

Fish Hearing Group

Range to Effects (meters)

Sonar Bin 

LF5

Lowfrequency

Sonar Bin MF1

Hull-mounted 

surface ship 

sonars (e.g., 

AN/SQS-53C and 

AN/SQS-61)

Sonar Bin MF4

Helicopterdeployed dipping 

sonars (e.g., 

AN/AQS-22)

Sonar Bin MF5

Active acoustic 

sonobuoys (e.g., 

DICASS)

Fishes without a swim bladder NR NR NR NR

Fishes with a swim bladder not 

involved in hearing 0 NR NR NR

Fishes with a swim bladder 

involved in hearing 0

7

(5 - 10) 0 0

Fishes with a swim bladder and 

high-frequency hearing 0

7

(5 - 10) 0 0

Notes: NR = no criteria are available and therefore no range to effects are estimated. 

Ranges to TTS represent modeled predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The average range to TTS is

provided as well as the minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parenthesis. Where only one number is provided the 

average, minimum, and maximum ranges to TTS are the same. 

Ranges to TTS for mid-frequency sonar bins are only estimated for fishes with a swim bladder involved in 

hearing and fishes with high-frequency hearing. The maximum range to TTS is up to 10 m for these most 

sensitive hearing groups, but only for the most powerful sonar bins (e.g., MF1). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-79

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.1.2.3 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Sonar and other transducers emit sound waves into the water to detect objects, safely navigate, and 

communicate. Use of sonar and other transducers would typically be transient and temporary. General 

categories and characteristics of sonar systems and the number of hours these sonars would be 

operated during training under Alternative 1 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). 

Activities using sonars and other transducers would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description 

of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). 

Under Alternative 1, the number of Major Training Exercises, Integrated/Coordinated Training activities, 

and Civilian Port Defense Activities would fluctuate annually. In addition, a portion of Anti-Submarine 

Warfare Tracking Exercise –Ship unit-level training activities would be conducted using synthetic means 

(e.g., simulators) or in conjunction with other training exercises. Training activities using sonar and other 

transducers could occur throughout the Study Area. 

Only a few species of shad within the Clupeidae family, subfamily Alosinae, are known to be able to 

detect high-frequency sonar and other transducers (greater than 10 kHz) and are considered a part of 

the fish hearing group for species with a swim bladder that have high-frequency hearing. Other marine 

fishes would probably not detect these sounds and therefore would not experience masking, 

physiological stress, or behavioral disturbance. Shad species, especially in nearshore and inland areas 

where mine warfare activities take place that often employ high-frequency sonar systems, could have 

behavioral reactions and experience masking during these events. However, mine warfare activities are 

typically limited in duration and geographic extent. Furthermore, sound from high-frequency systems 

may only be detectable above ambient noise regimes in these coastal habitats from within a few 

kilometers due to lower source levels and higher frequencies that do not propagate as far as other 

sonars. Behavioral reactions and masking, if they occurred for some shad and herring species, are 

expected to be transient and long-term consequences for populations would not be expected. 

Most marine fish species are not expected to detect sounds in the mid-frequency range (above a few 

kHz) of most operational sonars. The fish species that are known to detect mid-frequencies (i.e., those 

with swim bladders including some sciaenids [drum], most clupeids [herring, shad], and potentially 

deep-water fish such as myctophids [lanternfish]) do not have their best sensitivities in the range of the 

operational sonars (see Figure 3.6-6). Thus, fishes may only detect the most powerful systems, such as 

hull-mounted sonar, within a few kilometers; and most other, less powerful mid-frequency sonar 

systems, for a kilometer or less. Fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing and with high-frequency 

hearing are more susceptible to hearing loss due to exposure to mid-frequency sonars. However, as 

shown in Table 3.6-4, the maximum estimated range to TTS for these fish hearing groups is equal to or 

less than 10 m for only the most powerful sonar bins. Fishes within these hearing groups would have to 

be very close to the source in order to experience this effect. 

Most mid-frequency active sonars used in the Study Area would not have the potential to substantially 

mask key environmental sounds or produce sustained physiological stress or behavioral reactions due to 

the limited time of exposure due to the moving sound sources and variable duty cycles. However, it is 

important to note that some mid-frequency sonars have a high duty cycle or are operated continuously. 

This may increase the risk of masking but only for important biological sounds that overlap with the 

frequency of the sonar being operated. Furthermore, although some species may be able to produce 

sound at higher frequencies (greater than 1 kHz), vocal marine fishes, such as sciaenids, largely 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-80

3.6 Fishes

communicate below the range of mid-frequency levels used by most sonars. Any such effects would be 

temporary and infrequent as a vessel operating mid-frequency sonar transits an area. As such, midfrequency sonar use is unlikely to impact individuals. Long-term consequences for fish populations due 

to exposure to mid-frequency sonar and other transducers are not expected. 

The majority of marine fish species can likely detect low-frequency sonars and other transducers. 

However, low-frequency active sonar use is rare and most low-frequency active operations are typically 

conducted in deeper, offshore areas. The majority of fish species, including those that are the most 

highly vocal, exist on the continental shelf and within nearshore, estuarine areas. However, some 

species may still be present in areas where low-frequency sonar and other transducers are used, 

including some coastal areas. As shown in Table 3.6-4, it is not likely that fishes exposed to lowfrequency sonars, with relatively low source levels, would result in TTS. Sonars with higher source levels 

may lead to TTS in some fishes but these ranges would not likely exceed a few tens of meters, similar to 

other ranges shown in Table 3.6-4. Fishes that experience hearing loss may have reduced ability to 

detect biologically important sounds until their hearing recovers. Recovery from hearing loss begins 

almost immediately after the noise exposure ceases and can take a few minutes to a few days to fully 

recover, depending on the magnitude of the initial threshold shift. 

Fishes within a few tens of kilometers around a low-frequency active sonar could experience brief 

periods of masking, physiological stress, and behavioral disturbance while the system is used, with 

effects most pronounced closer to the source. However, due to the transient nature of most sonar 

operations, overall effects would be localized and infrequent, only lasting a few seconds or minutes. 

Based on the low level and short duration of potential exposure to low-frequency sonar and other 

transducers, long-term consequences for fish populations are not expected. 

As discussed previously in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization) and as shown in Figure 3.6-6, all 

ESA-listed and proposed fish species that occur in the Study Area are capable of detecting sound 

produced by low-frequency sonars and other transducers. Scalloped hammerhead sharks, smalltooth 

sawfish, giant manta ray, and oceanic whitetip sharks do not have a swim bladder and generally are not 

sensitive to frequencies above 1 kHz. It is assumed that fishes without a swim bladder cannot detect 

high-frequency sonars and may only detect mid-frequency sources below 2 kHz, with high source levels, 

and within close proximity to the source (a few tens of meters). Although Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon and Nassau groupers have a swim bladder not involved in 

hearing and may be able to detect some mid-frequency sources up to 2 kHz, they are not particularly 

sensitive to these frequencies. Therefore, effects from sound produced by mid- and high-frequency 

sonars and other transducers are not expected for any ESA-listed species. 

All ESA-listed and proposed threatened species that occur in the Study Area may be exposed to lowfrequency sonar or other transducers associated with training activities. Because most low-frequency 

sonar is typically operated in deeper offshore areas, ESA-listed shortnose sturgeon would be less likely 

to be exposed to low-frequency sonar due to their occurrence in nearshore areas. Atlantic sturgeon, 

Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish typically occur in nearshore areas as well but can also occur 

farther offshore. Despite their occurrence in nearshore areas, each of these species may still be present 

in areas where low-frequency sonar and other transducers are used. The Central and Southwest Atlantic 

Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead only occur in the southeastern part of the Study 

Area in the eastern portion of the Key West Range Complex and in the vicinity of Puerto Rico. Nassau 

groupers are also limited to these southern portions of the Study Area, specifically around Florida, Key 

West and Puerto Rico. These species would only have the potential to be impacted by activities in these 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-81

3.6 Fishes

areas. Proposed threatened giant manta ray and oceanic whitetip sharks could be exposed to lowfrequency sonar throughout the Study Area. 

Overall, impacts to ESA-listed species that encounter sonar or other transducers within their hearing 

range would be similar to those discussed above for impacts to fishes in general. Based on the small 

ranges provided in Table 3.6-4, TTS in ESA-listed species would only occur within a maximum of 10 m 

from any sonar source. TTS may result in a reduction in detection of biologically significant sounds but 

would likely recover within a few minutes to days. Most ESA species within the Study Area could 

experience masking, physiological stress, and behavioral reactions; however, these impacts would be 

short-term (seconds to minutes) for individuals and minor for the population. Multiple exposures for 

individuals within a short period (seconds to minutes) are unlikely due to the transient nature of sonar 

activities. Although some shark species have shown attraction to irregularly pulsed low-frequency 

sounds (below several hundred Hz), they are not known to be attracted to continuous signals or higher 

frequencies that they presumably cannot hear (Casper & Mann, 2006, 2009; Casper et al., 2012a). 

Proposed training activities involving the use of sonar overlap proposed critical habitat for Atlantic 

sturgeon in the James River at Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, VA. However, low-frequency sonars are 

not operated in these areas under training activities and although some mid-frequency sonars are used 

in these areas, most sources contain frequencies outside of the theorized hearing range for Atlantic 

sturgeon (above 2 kHz). While highly unlikely, the use of sonar and other transducers within the critical 

habitat may affect migratory passage corridors within the vicinity of the sound source. 

Proposed training activities involving the use of sonar overlap designated critical habitat for Gulf 

sturgeon in the Panama City OPAREA. A map of critical habitat is available in Section 3.6.2.2.6.1 (Status 

and Management). Most of the physical and biological features are generally not applicable to the Study 

Area since they occur within the riverine habitat of the species. However, part of the physical and 

biological features for Gulf sturgeon critical habitat includes migratory corridors from winter feeding 

grounds to spring and summer spawning rivers. While highly unlikely, the use of sonar and other 

transducers within the critical habitat may affect migratory passage corridors within the vicinity of the 

sound source. 

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon is restricted to rivers within Maine. Likewise, designated 

critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 m) around 

the tip of Florida. The use of sonar during training activities is not anticipated to overlap with designated 

critical habitat for Atlantic salmon or smalltooth sawfish. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities, as described 

under Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and smalltooth 

sawfish. The use of sonar and other transducers during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth 

sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped 

hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks, critical 

habitat designated for Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The Navy will 

consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that 

regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

General categories and characteristics of sonar systems and the number of hours these sonars would be 

operated during testing under Alternative 1 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-82

3.6 Fishes

Activities using sonars and other transducers would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description 

of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions).

Under Alternative 1, the number of testing activities would fluctuate annually. Testing activities using 

sonar and other transducers could occur throughout the Study Area, although use would generally occur 

within Navy range complexes, on Navy testing ranges, or around inshore locations identified in Chapter 

2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives). 

Hearing loss in fishes from exposure to sonar and other transducers is unlikely. If hearing loss is to occur, 

it would occur within tens of meters of the source. The majority of fish species exposed to sonar and 

other transducers may experience mild physiological stress, brief masking or behavioral reactions, such 

as startle or avoidance responses, or no reaction. Long-term consequences for individual fish are 

unlikely in most cases because acoustic exposures are intermittent, transient and unlikely to repeat over 

short periods. Since long-term consequences for most individuals are unlikely, long-term consequences 

for populations are not expected. 

All ESA-listed and proposed threatened fish species that occur in the Study Area have the potential to be 

exposed to high- and mid-frequency sonar or other transducer use during testing activities, as activities 

involving these sources may occur in all range complexes, testing ranges, and at numerous inshore 

locations. As discussed above, all ESA-listed and proposed fish species that occur in the Study Area are 

capable of detecting sound produced by low-frequency sonars and other transducers but may only 

detect mid-frequency sources below 2 kHz, with high source levels, and within close proximity to the 

source (a few tens of meters). Therefore, effects from sound produced by mid- and high-frequency 

sonars and other transducers are not expected for any ESA-listed species. 

Most ESA-listed and proposed threatened fish species that occur in the Study Area may be exposed to 

low-frequency sonar or other transducers associated with testing activities. In particular, low-frequency 

sources occur in some coastal waters such as Newport, RI; the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, 

Newport Testing Range; offshore of Fort Pierce, FL; South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility; Naval 

Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range; as well as in any of the range complexes, 

with the exception of the Key West Range Complex, throughout the Study Area. The use of sonar in 

these coastal areas may increase the likelihood of exposure for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

shortnose surgeon, smalltooth sawfish and Gulf sturgeon. The Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct 

Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead only occur in the southeastern part of the Study Area in 

the eastern portion of the Key West Range Complex and in the vicinity of Puerto Rico and would, 

therefore, not be exposed to low-frequency sonar use during testing activities. Nassau groupers are also 

limited to these southern portions of the Study Area, specifically around Florida, Key West and Puerto 

Rico and, as such, the species would only likely be exposed to low-frequency sonar during its use at the 

South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility and offshore of Fort Pierce, FL. Proposed threatened giant 

manta ray and oceanic whitetip sharks could be exposed to low-frequency sonar throughout the Study 

Area. 

General impacts on ESA-listed species would be similar to those discussed for other fishes that occur in 

the Study Area. TTS in ESA-listed species would only occur within a maximum of 10 m from any sonar 

source and may result in a reduction in detection of biologically significant sounds but would likely 

recover within a few minutes to days. Most ESA species within the Study Area could experience 

masking, physiological stress, and behavioral reactions; however, these impacts would be short-term 

(seconds to minutes) for individuals and minor for the population. Multiple exposures for individuals 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-83

3.6 Fishes

within a short period (seconds to minutes) throughout most of the range complexes are unlikely due to 

the transient nature of sonar activities. Testing activities in coastal waters may increase the likelihood of 

repeated exposures. However, repeated exposures would likely involve short-term (seconds to minutes) 

and minor behavioral impacts, which, repeated a few times per year, would still likely be short-term 

(seconds to minutes) for individuals and minor for the population. 

Proposed testing activities involving the use of sonar overlap proposed critical habitat for Atlantic 

sturgeon in the Kennebec River at Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME; in the Piscataqua River at Portsmouth 

Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, NH; and in the James River at Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, VA. 

However, low-frequency sonars are not operated in these areas under testing activities and although 

some mid-frequency sonars are used in these areas, most sources contain frequencies outside of the 

theorized hearing range for Atlantic sturgeon (above 2 kHz). While highly unlikely, the use of sonar and 

other transducers within the critical habitat may affect migratory passage corridors within the vicinity of 

the sound source. 

Proposed testing activities involving the use of sonar overlap designated critical habitat for Gulf 

sturgeon in the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division Testing Range and the Panama City 

OPAREA. A map of critical habitat is available in Section 3.6.2.2.6.1 (Status and Management). Most of 

the physical and biological features are generally not applicable to the Study Area since they occur 

within the riverine habitat of the species. However, part of the physical and biological features for Gulf 

sturgeon critical habitat includes migratory corridors from winter feeding grounds to spring and summer 

spawning rivers. While highly unlikely, the use of sonar and other transducers within the critical habitat 

may affect migratory passage corridors within the vicinity of the sound source. 

Proposed testing activities involving the use of sonar overlap proposed critical habitat for Atlantic 

salmon in the Kennebec River near Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME. While the waters immediately 

surrounding Bath Iron Works are excluded from the critical habitat designation, sound produced by the 

sonars or other transducers may travel beyond the boundaries of the exclusion area. However, lowfrequency sonars are not operated in this area under testing activities and although some midfrequency sonars are used in this area, most sources contain frequencies outside of the theorized 

hearing range for Atlantic salmon (above 2 kHz). While highly unlikely, the use of sonar and other 

transducers near the critical habitat may affect migratory passage corridors within the vicinity of the 

sound source. 

Designated critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 

m) around the tip of Florida (see Figure 3.6-4). The use of sonar during testing activities is not 

anticipated to overlap designated critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on ESA-listed Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark and designated critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish. The 

use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities, as described under Alternative 1, may affect 

ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, 

Nassau grouper, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks, designated critical habitat for 

Gulf sturgeon and Atlantic salmon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The Navy will 

consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that 

regard. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-84

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.1.2.4 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Sonar and other transducers emit sound waves into the water to detect objects, safely navigate, and 

communicate. Use of sonar and other transducers would typically be transient and temporary. General 

categories and characteristics of sonar systems and the number of hours these sonars would be 

operated during training under Alternative 2 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). 

Activities using sonars and other transducers would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description 

of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). 

Under Alternative 2, the maximum number of training activities could occur every year and all unit level 

training requirements would be completed at sea rather than synthetically. In addition, all unit level 

surface ship ASW training requirements would be completed through individual events conducted at 

sea, rather than through leveraging other ASW training exercises or the use of synthetic trainers. This 

would result in an increase of sonar use compared to Alternative 1. Training activities using sonar and 

other transducers could occur throughout the Study Area. 

Impacts on fishes due to sonar and other transducers are expected to be limited to minor behavioral 

responses, short-term physiological stress, and short periods of masking for individuals; long-term 

consequences for individuals and therefore populations would not be expected. Predicted impacts on 

ESA-listed fish species and designated critical habitat would not be discernible from those described 

above in 3.6.3.1.2.3 (Impacts from sonar and Other Transducers under Alternative 1). 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities, as described 

under Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and smalltooth 

sawfish. The use of sonar and other transducers during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth 

sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped 

hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks, 

designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

General categories and characteristics of sonar systems and the number of hours these sonars would be 

operated during testing under Alternative 2 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). 

Activities using sonars and other transducers would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description 

of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). 

Under Alternative 2, the maximum number of nearly all testing activities would occur every year. This 

would result in an increase of sonar use compared to Alternative 1. Testing activities using sonar and 

other transducers could occur throughout the Study Area, although use would generally occur within 

Navy range complexes, on Navy testing ranges, or around inshore locations identified in Chapter 2 

(Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives). 

Impacts on fishes due to sonar and other transducers are expected to be limited to minor behavioral 

responses, short-term physiological stress, and short periods of masking for individuals; long-term 

consequences for individuals and therefore populations would not be expected. Predicted impacts on 

ESA-listed fish species and designated critical habitat would not be discernible from those described 

above in Section 3.6.3.1.2.3 (Impacts from sonar and Other Transducers under Alternative 1 – Testing 

Activities). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-85

3.6 Fishes

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on ESA-listed Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark and critical habitat designated for smalltooth sawfish. The 

use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities, as described under Alternative 2, may affect 

ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, 

Nassau grouper, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks, designated critical habitat for 

Gulf sturgeon and Atlantic salmon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

3.6.3.1.2.5 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., sonar and other transducers) would 

not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing 

environment either would remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities. 

3.6.3.1.3 Impacts from Air Guns

Fishes could be exposed to sounds from air guns during testing activities. General categories and 

characteristics of air guns and the number of hours these air guns will be operated are described in 

Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for Analysis). The activities analyzed in the EIS/OEIS that use air 

guns are also described in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). 

As discussed in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization), most marine fish species hear primarily 

below 1 kHz. Fish species within each of the four fish hearing groups would likely be able to detect 

sounds produced by air guns. Exposure of fishes to air guns could result in direct injury, hearing loss, 

masking, physiological stress or behavioral reactions. 

3.6.3.1.3.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts for Air Guns 

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate ranges to effect for fishes exposed to air guns 

during Navy testing activities. Inputs to the quantitative analysis included sound propagation modeling 

in the Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model to the sound exposure criteria and thresholds presented below. 

Although ranges to effects are predicted, density data for fish species within the Study Area are not 

available; therefore, it is not possible to estimate the total number of individuals that may be affected 

by sound produced by air guns. 

Criteria and Thresholds Used to Estimate Impacts from Air Guns 

Mortality and Injury from Air Guns 

Criteria and thresholds to estimate impacts from sound produced by air gun activities are presented 

below in Table 3.6-5. Consistent with the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 

2014), dual metric sound exposure criteria are utilized to estimate mortality and injury from exposure to 

air guns. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a specified effect will occur when either metric 

(cumulative sound exposure level or peak sound pressure level) is met or exceeded. Due to the lack of 

detailed data on injury thresholds in fishes exposed to air guns, thresholds form impact pile driving 

exposures are used as a proxy for this analysis (Halvorsen et al., 2011; Halvorsen et al., 2012a; Halvorsen 

et al., 2012b). General research findings regarding mortality and injury in fishes are discussed under 

Section 3.6.3.1.1.1 (Injury due to Impulsive Acoustic Sources).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-86

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-5: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Air Guns 

Fish Hearing Group

Onset of Mortality Onset of Injury

SELcum SPLpeak SELcum SPLpeak

Fishes without a swim 

bladder > 219 > 213 > 216 > 213

Fishes with a swim 

bladder not involved in 

hearing

210 > 207 203 > 207

Fishes with a swim 

bladder involved in 

hearing

207 > 207 203 > 207

Fishes with a swim 

bladder and highfrequency hearing207 > 207 203 > 207

Notes: SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level (decibel referenced to 1 micropascal squared seconds [dB re 1 μPa2-s]), 

SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level (decibel referenced to 1 micropascal [dB re 1 μPa]), > indicates that the given 

effect would occur above the reported threshold. 

As discussed under Section 3.6.3.1.1.1 (Injury due to Impulsive Acoustic Sources), injury and mortality in 

fishes exposed to impulsive sources may vary depending on the presence or absence of, and type of 

swim bladder. Injury and mortal injury has not been observed in fishes without a swim bladder because 

of exposure to impulsive sources (Halvorsen et al., 2011; Halvorsen et al., 2012a). Therefore, these 

effects would likely occur above the given thresholds in Table 3.6-5. Cumulative sound exposure 

thresholds for mortality and injury in fishes with a swim bladder were measured by investigators 

(Halvorsen et al., 2011; Halvorsen et al., 2012a; Halvorsen et al., 2012b). However, only the single strike 

peak sound pressure level was measured during these experiments; therefore, mortality and injury 

thresholds are assumed to be the same across all hearing groups with a swim bladder (Popper et al., 

2014). 

Hearing Loss from Air Guns 

Criteria and thresholds to estimate TTS in fishes exposed to sound produced by air guns are presented 

below in Table 3.6-6. Sound exposure thresholds are available in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline 

technical report (Popper et al., 2014). General research findings regarding hearing loss in fishes are 

discussed under Section 3.6.3.1.1.2 (Hearing Loss due to Impulsive Sound Sources). 

As discussed in Section 3.6.3.1.1.2 (Hearing Loss), exposure to sound produced from an air gun at a 

cumulative sound exposure level of 186 dB re 1 μPa2-s has resulted in TTS in fishes (Popper et al., 2005). 

TTS is not likely to occur in fishes without a swim bladder and would likely occur above the given 

threshold in Table 3.6-6 for fishes with a swim bladder not involved in hearing. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-87

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-6: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Air Guns 

Fish Hearing Group

TTS

(SELcum)

Fishes without a swim bladder NC

Fishes with a swim bladder not involved in hearing > 186

Fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing 186

Fishes with a swim bladder and high-frequency 

hearing 186

Notes: TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level (decibel 

referenced to 1 micropascal squared seconds [dB re 1 μPa2-s]), NC = effects from exposure to 

sound produced by air guns is considered to be unlikely, therefore no criteria are reported, > 

indicates that the given effect would occur above the reported threshold. 

Impact Ranges for Air Guns 

The following section provides to range to effects for fishes exposed to air gun activities. Table 3.6-7

present the approximate ranges in meters to mortality, onset of injury and TTS for air guns for 100 

pulses. Ranges are calculated using criteria (shown in Table 3.6-5 and Table 3.6-6) and the Navy Acoustic 

Effects Model and are specific to the AFTT Study Area and to each fish hearing group. Ranges to effect 

for each hearing group may vary depending on the available criteria or other factors such as location of 

the activity, season the activity occurs, or depth of the activity. 

Table 3.6-7: Range to Effect for Fishes Exposed to 100 Air Gun Shots 

Fish Hearing Group

Rang to Effects (meters)

Onset of Mortality Onset of Injury TTS

SELcum SPLpeak SELcum SPLpeak SELcum

Fishes without swim 

bladders 0

5

(4 - 13)

0

(0 - 2)

5

(4 - 13) NR

Fishes with swim 

bladders not involved in 

hearing

0

9

(8 - 21)

1

(0 - 30)

9

(8 - 21)

14

(4 - 190)

Fishes with swim 

bladders involved in 

hearing

1

(0 - 1)

9

(8 - 21)

1

(0 - 30)

9

(8 - 21)

14

(4 - 190)

Fishes with 

high-frequency hearing

1

(0 - 1)

9

(8 - 21)

1

(0 - 30)

9

(8 - 21)

14

(4 - 190)

Notes: SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level, SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level, TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, 

NR = no criteria are available and therefore no range to effects are estimated. 

Range to effects represent modeled predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. Each cell contains 

the estimated average, minimum and maximum range to the specified effect.

Mortality or injury could occur in all fishes with a swim bladder from exposure to air guns within a 

maximum of 21 or 30 m, respectively. These effects would only occur in fishes without a swim bladder 

out to a maximum of 13 m. Hearing loss may occur in fishes with a swim bladder from exposure to air 

gun activities out to an average of 14 m. In some cases, these effects may occur out to a maximum of 

190 m. The probability of these effects would decrease with increasing distance from the pile. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-88

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.1.3.2 Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Air gun activities would not occur during training activities under Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying 

Stressors for Analysis) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), testing activities under Alternative 1 

would include the use of single air guns pierside at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, 

Newport Testing Range, and at off-shore locations typically in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, and Gulf of 

Mexico Range Complexes. 

Impulses from air guns lack the strong shock wave and rapid pressure increases known to cause primary 

blast injury or barotrauma during explosive events and (to a lesser degree) impact pile driving. Although 

data from impact pile driving are often used as a proxy to estimate effects to fish from air guns, this may 

be overly conservative metric due to the differences in rise times between the two types of impulsive 

sources. Typically, impact pile driving signals have a much steeper rise time and higher peak pressure 

than air gun signals. However, there is evidence that air guns may cause direct injury to small juvenile or 

larval fish nearby (approximately 5 m). Therefore, larval and small juvenile fish within a few meters of 

the air gun may be injured or killed. While mortality, injury, or TTS may occur at the individual level 

because of air gun activities, considering the small footprint of the mortality/injury zone and the isolated 

and infrequent use of air guns, population-level consequences would not be expected. 

Air guns produce broadband sounds; however, the duration of an individual impulse is about 1/10th of a 

second. Masking could potentially occur as a result of exposure to sound produced by air guns. 

However, due to the brief nature of each pulse, it is unlikely that fishes within relatively close distance of 

the source (tens to hundreds of meters) to experience these effects. It is more likely that masking would 

occur at farther distances from the source where signals may sound continuous. This may result in brief 

periods where fishes are unable to detect vocalizations from other fish and predators. Fishes may also 

respond by altering their vocalizations to compensate for the noise. However, these effects would only 

occur if air gun signals are detectable over the existing ambient noise. 

In addition, fish that are able to detect the air gun impulses may exhibit signs of physiological stress or 

alterations in natural behavior. Some fish species with site fidelity such as reef fish may show initial 

startle reactions, returning to normal behavioral patterns within a matter of a few minutes. Pelagic and 

schooling fish that typically show less site fidelity may avoid the immediate area for the duration of the 

events. Due to the limited use and relatively small footprint of air guns, impacts on fish are expected to 

be minor. Population consequences would not be expected. 

As discussed previously in 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization), all ESA-listed and proposed fish species 

that occur in the Study Area are capable of detecting sound produced by air guns. Air gun activities 

associated with testing under Alternative 1 do not overlap the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct 

Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark or Nassau grouper habitat. Therefore, in-water 

sound associated with air guns would not affect scalloped hammerhead sharks or Nassau grouper.

Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, and proposed 

threatened giant manta ray and oceanic whitetip sharks could be exposed to sound from air guns 

associated with testing activities. Salmon, sturgeon and sawfish exposures would only occur in the 

Northeast, Virginia Capes, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, and in Newport, RI. However, based on 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-89

3.6 Fishes

the low annual number of activities to occur in the Study Area and the short period of time (spring 

months) during the year that Atlantic salmon are present, the likelihood of exposure to testing activities 

is expected to be infrequent throughout a given year. Only subadult and adult life phase Atlantic and 

Gulf sturgeon occur near air gun activity locations. All ESA-listed or proposed fishes that are present 

within a maximum of 30 m of an air gun could potentially suffer mortality or injury with the probability 

and severity increasing closer to the air gun. Although there are estimated ranges to mortality and 

injury, on average, these ranges are relatively short (under 10 m) across all fish hearing groups, further 

reducing the likelihood that mortality or injury would occur due to exposure to air gun activities. 

ESA-listed fishes near air gun activities may also exhibit impacts such as behavioral reactions or 

physiological stress depending on their proximity to the activity. Masking effects would not be 

anticipated at close distances (likely within hundreds of meters) from the source due to the short 

duration of the signal pulse. If masking occurs, it would likely be at greater distances if sound from air 

guns could be detected above existing background noise levels. 

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon is restricted to rivers within Maine. Likewise, designated 

critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 m) around 

the tip of Florida. The majority of proposed Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat are within estuarine and 

river systems. Although Gulf designated critical habitat overlaps with portions of the study area, 

specifically in the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range and the Panama City 

OPAREA, air gun activities do not occur in these areas. The use of air guns during training activities is not 

anticipated to overlap with Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon critical habitat or 

proposed Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of air guns during testing activities, as described under Alternative 1, will 

have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, and Gulf sturgeon 

or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The use of air guns during testing activities, as 

described under Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose 

sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic 

whitetip sharks, designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic 

sturgeon. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA in that regard.

3.6.3.1.3.3 Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Air gun activities would not occur under training activities under Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying 

Stressors for Analysis) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), testing activities under Alternative 2 

would include activities that produce in-water noise from the use of air guns. Testing activities under 

Alternative 2 would be identical to those described under Alternative 1; therefore, the locations, types, 

and severity of predicted impacts would be identical to those described above under 3.6.3.1.3.2

(Impacts from Air Guns under Alternative 1). 

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon is restricted to rivers within Maine. Likewise, designated 

critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 m) around 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-90

3.6 Fishes

the tip of Florida. The majority of proposed Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat are within estuarine and 

river systems. Although Gulf designated critical habitat overlaps with portions of the study area, 

specifically in the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range and the Panama City 

OPAREA, air gun activities do not occur in these areas. The use of air guns during training activities is not 

anticipated to overlap with Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon critical habitat or 

proposed Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of air guns during testing activities, as described under Alternative 2, will 

have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, and Gulf sturgeon 

or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The use of air guns during testing activities, as 

described under Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose 

sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic 

whitetip sharks, designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic 

sturgeon. 

3.6.3.1.3.4 Impacts from Air Guns Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Air Guns Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (i.e., air guns) would not be introduced into 

the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment either would 

remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.6.3.1.4 Impacts from Pile Driving 

Fishes could be exposed to sounds produced by impact pile driving and vibratory pile extraction 

activities during the construction and removal phases of the Elevated Causeway System described in 

Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), and Appendix A (Navy Activity 

Descriptions). The training involves the use of an impact hammer to drive the 24-inch steel piles into the 

sediment and a vibratory hammer to remove later the piles that support the causeway structure. The 

impulses can produce a shock wave that is transmitted to the sediment and water column (Reinhall & 

Dahl, 2011). Elevated Causeway System pile installation and removal within the project area would 

result in a short-term increase in underwater noise levels (approximately one month out of a year). 

Section 3.0.3.3.1.3 (Pile Driving) provides additional details on pile driving and noise levels measured 

from similar operations. Pile driving activities produce broadband sound, therefore it is anticipated that 

all fishes within each fish hearing group discussed in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization) would 

likely be able to detect sound produced by impact pile driving and vibratory pile extraction activities. 

Exposure of fishes to pile driving activities could result in direct injury, hearing loss, masking, 

physiological stress or behavioral reactions. 

3.6.3.1.4.1 Methods for Analyzing Impact from Pile Driving 

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the range to effect for fishes exposed to impact 

pile driving during Navy training activities. Inputs to the quantitative analysis included basic sound 

propagation modeling and sound exposure criteria and thresholds presented below. Although ranges to 

effect are predicted, density data for fish species within the Study Area are not available; therefore, it is 

not possible to estimate the total number of individuals that may be affected by sound produced by 

impact pile driving. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-91

3.6 Fishes

Currently, there are no proposed criteria for vibratory pile extraction activities and therefore these 

activities are analyzed based on available literature and other observed reactions. 

Criteria and Thresholds Used to Estimate Impacts from Pile Driving 

Mortality and Injury from Pile Driving 

Criteria and thresholds to estimate impacts from sound produced by impact pile driving activities are 

presented below in Table 3.6-8. Consistent with the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report 

(Popper et al., 2014), dual metric sound exposure criteria are utilized to estimate mortality and injury 

from exposure to air guns. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a specified effect will occur 

when either metric (cumulative sound exposure level or peak sound pressure level) is met or exceeded. 

General research findings regarding mortality and injury in fishes as well as findings specific to exposure 

to other impulsive sound sources are discussed under Section 3.6.3.1.1.1 (Injury due to Impulsive 

Acoustic Sources). 

Table 3.6-8: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Impact Pile Driving 

Fish Hearing Group

Onset of Mortality Onset of Injury

SELcum SPLpeak SELcum SPLpeak

Fishes without a swim 

bladder > 219 > 213 > 216 > 213

Fishes with a swim 

bladder not involved in 

hearing

210 > 207 203 > 207

Fishes with a swim 

bladder involved in 

hearing

207 > 207 203 > 207

Fishes with a swim

bladder and highfrequency hearing207 > 207 203 > 207

Notes: SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level (decibel referenced to 1 micropascal squared seconds [dB re 1 μPa2-s]), 

SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level (decibel referenced to 1 micropascal [dB re 1 μPa]), > indicates that the given 

effect would occur above the reported threshold. 

An explanation of mortality and injury criteria are also available under Section 3.6.3.1.3.1 (Methods for 

Analyzing Impacts from Air Guns – Mortality and Injury from Air Guns). 

Hearing Loss from Pile Driving 

Criteria and thresholds to estimate TTS in fishes exposed to sound produced by impact pile driving 

activities are presented below in Table 3.6-9. Sound exposure thresholds are available in the ANSI Sound 

Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014) and inform the TTS thresholds presented here. 

Due to the lack of data on hearing loss in fishes exposed to impact pile driving, data from air gun studies 

were used as a proxy for this analysis (Popper et al., 2005). General research findings regarding hearing 

loss in fishes are discussed under Section 3.6.3.1.1.2 (Hearing Loss due to Impulsive Sound Sources). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-92

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-9: Sound Exposure Criteria for TTS from Impact Pile Driving 

Fish Hearing Group

TTS

(SELcum)

Fishes without a swim bladder NC

Fishes with a swim bladder not involved in hearing > 186

Fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing 186

Fishes with a swim bladder and high-frequency 

hearing 186

Notes: TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level (decibel 

referenced to 1 micropascal squared seconds [dB re 1 μPa2-s]), NC = effects from exposure to 

sound produced by impact pile driving is considered to be unlikely, therefore no criteria are 

reported, > indicates that the given effect would occur above the reported threshold. 

An explanation of hearing loss criteria is also available under Section 3.6.3.1.3.1 (Methods for Analyzing 

Impacts from Air Guns – Hearing Loss from Air Guns). 

Modeling of Pile Driving Noise 

Underwater noise effects from pile driving and vibratory pile extraction were modeled using actual 

measures of impact pile driving and vibratory removal during construction of an elevated causeway 

(Illingworth and Rodkin, 2015, 2016). A conservative estimate of spreading loss of sound in shallow 

coastal waters (i.e., transmission loss = 16.5*Log10[radius]) was applied based on spreading loss 

observed in actual measurements. Inputs used in the model are provided in Section 3.0.3.3.1.3 (Pile 

Driving), including source levels; the number of strikes required to drive a pile and the duration of 

vibratory removal per pile; the number of piles driven or removed per day; and the number of days of 

pile driving and removal. 

Assumptions made for this analysis are: 

 The event is equally likely to occur in any season. 

 Impact pile driving would occur over 20 days. On average, 6 piles would be driven per day, at an 

average of 35 strikes per minute for a total of 15 minutes per pile. 

 Vibratory pile removal would occur over 10 days. On average, 12 piles would be removed per 

day, at 6 minutes effort per pile. 

3.6.3.1.4.2 Impact Ranges for Pile Driving 

The following section provides range to effects for fishes exposed to impact pile driving to specific 

criteria determined using the calculations and modeling described above. Fishes within these ranges 

would be predicted to receive the associated effect. Where effects are anticipated to occur above the 

designated criteria (see Table 3.6-10), the estimated ranges to that effect would be less than those 

displayed in the table. 

Because of the static nature of pile driving activities, two different exposure times were used when 

calculating ranges to effect for different types of fish (e.g., pelagic vs. demersal). It is assumed that some 

transient or pelagic species would likely move through the area during pile driving activities, resulting in 

less time exposed. Therefore, ranges to effect for these species are estimated based on 35 strikes per 

minute, for a cumulative exposure time of one minute (see Table 3.6-10). In addition, it is assumed that 

ranges to mortality or injury would actually be less than the ranges shown in the table due to the 

criteria, which informed the range calculations. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-93

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-10: Impact Ranges for Transient or Pelagic Fishes from Impact Pile Driving for 35 

Strikes (1 minute) 

Fish Hearing Group

Range to Effects (meters)

Onset of Mortality Onset of Injury TTS

SELcum SPLpeak SELcum SPLpeak SELcum

Fishes without a swim bladder 1 < 8 1 < 8 NR

Fishes with a swim bladder not 

involved in hearing 2 < 17 5 < 17 < 57

Fishes with a swim bladder 

involved in hearing 3 < 17 5 < 17 57 

Fishes with a swim bladder and 

high-frequency hearing 3 < 17 5 < 17 57 

Notes: SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level, SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level, TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, NR 

= no criteria are available and therefore no range to effects are estimated, < indicates that effects would occur below 

the provided range. 

Based on the measured sound levels for pile driving, mortality or injury could occur in transient or 

pelagic fishes from exposure to impact pile driving within 17 m of the source. In addition, it is assumed 

that these fishes may also experience signs of hearing loss out to 57 m. The probability of these effects 

would decrease with increasing distance from the pile. Fishes without a swim bladder would not likely 

experience TTS and would only have the potential for mortality or injury effects within 8 m of the 

source. 

In contrast, it is assumed that demersal species, or those with high site fidelity, may stay in the area 

during pile driving activities and therefore may receive a longer exposure. As a conservative measure, 

ranges in Table 3.6-11 were calculated based on an estimated 3,150 strikes over the course of an entire 

day. 

Table 3.6-11: Impact Ranges for Demersal Fishes from Impact Pile Driving for 3,150 strikes (1 

Day) 

Fish Hearing Group

Range to Effects (meters)

Onset of Mortality Onset of Injury TTS

SELcum SPLpeak SELcum SPLpeak SELcum

Fishes without a swim bladder 9 < 8 13 < 8 NR

Fishes with a swim bladder not 

involved in hearing 30 < 17 81 < 17 < 868

Fishes with a swim bladder 

involved in hearing 46 < 17 81 < 17 868 

Fishes with a swim bladder and 

high-frequency hearing 46 < 17 81 < 17 868 

Notes: SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level, SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level, TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, NR 

= no criteria are available and therefore no range to effects are estimated, < indicates that effects would occur below 

the provided range. 

Mortality and injury could occur in demersal fishes from exposure to impact pile driving within 46 m and 

potentially out to 81 m from the source, respectively, for species within the most sensitive hearing 

groups (i.e., fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing and fishes with high-frequency hearing). In 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-94

3.6 Fishes

addition, fishes with a swim bladder may also experience signs of hearing loss out to 868 m. The 

probability of these effects would decrease with increasing distance from the pile. Fishes without a swim 

bladder would not likely experience TTS and would only have the potential for mortality or injury effects 

within 9 or 13 m of the source, respectively. 

3.6.3.1.4.3 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.6-1, Section 3.0.3.3 

(Identifying Stressors for Analysis), and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), training activities under 

Alternative 1 include pile driving associated with construction and removal the Elevated Causeway 

System. This activity would take place nearshore and within the surf zone for up to 30 days (20 days for 

construction and 10 days for removal). Specifically, pile driving activities would only occur once at Joint 

Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Virginia, and once at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina, per year. The pile driving locations are within coastal areas that tend to have high ambient 

noise levels due to natural and anthropogenic sources. 

Impulses from the impact hammer are broadband and carry most of their energy in the lower 

frequencies. The impulses are within the hearing range of all fish, and in close proximity exhibit an 

overpressure shock front in the water due to the high-speed travel of the impact pressure wave down 

and back up the steel pile (Reinhall & Dahl, 2011). The impulse can also travel through the bottom 

sediment. Fishes may be exposed to sound or energy from impact and vibratory pile driving associated 

with training activities throughout the year. 

Range to effects for demersal fishes are generally longer than those reported for transient or pelagic 

fishes due to the differences in cumulative exposure time (see Table 3.6-11). However, it is not likely 

that either demersal or pelagic fishes would remain close enough to a pile driving source for an entire 

day to result in mortality or injury. Fishes would be more likely to startle or avoid the source prior to 

receiving these higher order effects. Signs of hearing loss however may occur in fishes exposed to initial 

pile driving activities. Fishes that experience hearing loss may have reduced ability to detect biologically 

important sounds until their hearing recovers. Recovery from hearing loss begins almost immediately 

after the noise exposure ceases and can take a few minutes to a few days to fully recover, depending on 

the magnitude of the initial threshold shift. As discussed in Section 2.3.3.13 (Pile Driving Safety), as a 

standard operating procedure, the Navy performs soft starts at reduced energy during an initial set of 

strikes from an impact hammer. Soft starts may “warn” fish and cause them to move away from the 

sound source before impact pile driving increases to full operating capacity. Considering the small 

footprint of this injury zone and standard operating procedure for soft starts, long-term consequences 

to transient individuals, and therefore population consequences, would not be expected. Fishes with 

high site fidelity would be at more risk to experience effects from impact pile driving, but these effects 

would also not be likely to result in population level consequences. 

Fishes exposed to vibratory extraction would not likely result in mortality, injury, or TTS based on the 

low source level and limited duration of these activities as discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.1.3 (Pile Driving). 

Based on the predicted impact pile driving and vibratory extraction noise levels, fishes may also exhibit 

other responses such as masking, physiological stress, or behavioral responses. Masking only occurs 

when the interfering signal is present; however, impact pile driving activities are intermittent, with 

actual pile driving occurring for only about 60 minutes per 24-hour period. Therefore, masking would be 

localized and of limited duration during impact pile driving. Fishes may habituate, or choose to tolerate 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-95

3.6 Fishes

pile driving sound after multiple strikes, returning to normal behavior patterns during the pile driving 

activities. Vibratory pile extraction is more likely than impact pile driving to cause masking of 

environmental sounds; however, due to its low source level, the masking effect would only be relevant 

in a small area around the vibratory pile extraction activity. Fishes may also react to pile driving and 

vibratory pile extraction sound by increasing their swimming speed, moving away from the source, or 

not responding at all. 

As discussed previously (Section 3.6.2.1.3, Hearing and Vocalization), all ESA-listed and proposed fish 

species that occur in the Study Area are capable of detecting sound produced by pile driving activities. 

Pile driving activities associated with training under Alternative 1 do not overlap Atlantic salmon, 

smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct 

Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper or oceanic whitetip habitat. 

Atlantic sturgeon and giant manta ray could be exposed to sound or substrate vibration from pile driving 

associated with training activities. These exposures would only occur in either Joint Expeditionary Base 

Little Creek-Fort Story, Virginia, or Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Atlantic sturgeon, 

and giant manta ray, if close enough to pile driving, could potentially suffer mortality, injury or hearing 

loss with the probability and severity increasing closer to the pile driving activity. Masking, physiological 

stress or behavioral reactions are also possible due to pile driving or vibratory pile extraction, although 

these impacts would be expected to be short-term, infrequent, and localized based on the low annual 

number of activities and short duration of the actual event (maximum of 60 minutes of impact pile 

driving per day) to occur in the training area. All ESA-listed species that could be exposed to pile driving 

activities may habituate, or choose to tolerate the sound after multiple strikes or after multiple pile 

removals, returning to normal behavior patterns during the pile driving activities. Although Atlantic 

sturgeon, and giant manta ray may be affected, long-term consequences for populations would not be 

expected. 

As discussed in Section 3.6.2.2 (Endangered Species Act-Listed Species) critical habitat designated for 

Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and Gulf sturgeon does not overlap with areas 

where pile driving activities will occur therefore, there would be no impact on critical habitat. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of pile driving during training activities, as described under Alternative 1, 

will have no effect on ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, 

the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, 

Nassau grouper, or proposed oceanic whitetip sharks, or designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

Atlantic sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and Gulf sturgeon. The use of pile driving during training 

activities, as described under Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic sturgeon and proposed giant 

manta rays. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Pile driving (impact and vibratory) would not occur under testing activities under Alternative 1. 

3.6.3.1.4.4 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying 

Stressors for Analysis), and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), training activities under Alternative 

2 include activities that produce in-water sound from the pile driving. Training activities under 

Alternative 2 would be identical to those described under Alternative 1; therefore, the locations, types, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-96

3.6 Fishes

and severity of predicted impacts would be identical to those described above in Section 3.6.3.1.4.3

(Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 – Training Activities). 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of pile driving during training activities, as described under Alternative 2, 

will have no effect on ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, 

the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, 

Nassau grouper, or proposed oceanic whitetip sharks, or designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

Atlantic sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and Gulf sturgeon. The use of pile driving during training 

activities, as described under Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic sturgeon and proposed giant 

manta rays.

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Pile driving (impact and vibratory) would not occur under testing activities under Alternative 2. 

3.6.3.1.4.5 Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., impact pile driving and vibratory pile 

extraction) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the 

existing environment either would remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.6.3.1.5 Impacts from Vessel Noise 

Fishes may be exposed to sound from vessel movement. A detailed description of the acoustic 

characteristics and typical sound produced by vessels is in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for 

Analysis). Vessel movements involve transits to and from ports to various locations within the Study 

Area. Many ongoing and proposed training and testing activities within the Study Area involve 

maneuvers by various types of surface ships, boats, and submarines (collectively referred to as vessels), 

as well as unmanned vehicles. Moderate- to low-level passive sound sources including vessel noise are 

unlikely to cause any direct injury or trauma due to characteristics of the sounds and the moderate 

source levels as discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). Furthermore, although hearing loss 

because of continuous noise exposure has occurred, vessels are transient and would result in only brief 

periods of exposure. Injury and hearing loss because of exposure to vessel noise is not discussed further 

in this analysis. 

As discussed in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization), all fish species should be able to detect 

vessel noise due to its low-frequency content and their hearing capabilities. Exposure to vessel noise 

could result in short-term behavioral or physiological responses (e.g., avoidance, stress) as discussed in 

Section 3.6.3.1.1.3 (Masking), Section 3.6.3.1.1.4 (Physiological Stress), and Section 3.6.3.1.1.5

(Behavioral Reactions). 

Training and testing events involving vessel movements occur intermittently and range in duration from 

a few hours up to a few weeks. These activities are widely dispersed throughout the Study Area. The 

exception is for pierside activities, although these areas are located inshore, these are industrialized 

areas that are already exposed to high levels of anthropogenic noise due to numerous waterfront users 

(e.g., commercial properties, ports, marinas). Ships would produce low-frequency, broadband 

underwater sound below 1 kHz while smaller vessels would emit higher-frequency sound between 1 kHz 

to 50 kHz, though the exact level of sound produced varies by vessel type. Navy vessels make up a very 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-97

3.6 Fishes

small percentage of the overall traffic (Mintz, 2012), and the rise of ambient noise levels in the Study 

Area is a problem related to all ocean users, including commercial and recreational vessels and shoreline 

development and industrialization. Fishes could be exposed to a range of impacts depending on the 

source of vessel noise and context of the exposure. Specifically, impacts from exposure to vessel noise 

may include temporary hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress, or changes in behavior. 

3.6.3.1.5.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Vessel Noise 

The impacts on fishes due to exposure to vessel noise are analyzed qualitatively by comparing reported 

observations under specific conditions as discussed in Section 3.6.3.1.1 (Background) to the conditions 

which fishes may be exposed to during proposed Navy activities. 

3.6.3.1.5.2 Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Section 3.0.3.3.1.4 

(Vessel Noise), training activities under Alternative 1 include vessel movement in many events. Navy 

vessel traffic could occur anywhere within the Study Area, but would be concentrated near the Norfolk 

and Mayport Navy ports and within the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range 

Complexes. A study of Navy vessel traffic found that traffic was heaviest just offshore between the 

mouth of the Chesapeake Bay and Jacksonville, FL, with very little Navy vessel traffic in the Northeast or 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes (Mintz, 2012). 

As described in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization), an increase in background noise levels from 

training and testing activities have the potential to expose fishes to sound and general disturbance, 

potentially resulting in short-term physiological stress, masking, or behavioral reactions. Fishes are more 

likely to react to nearby vessel noise (i.e., within tens of meters) than to vessel noise emanating from a 

distance. Fishes may have physiological stress reactions to sounds they can hear but typically, responses 

would be brief and would not affect the overall fitness of the animal. Auditory masking due to vessel 

noise can potentially mask vocalizations and other biologically important sounds (e.g., sounds of prey or 

predators) that fish may rely on. The low-frequency sounds of large vessels or accelerating small vessels 

can cause avoidance responses by fishes. However, impacts from vessel noise would be temporary and 

localized, and such responses would not be expected to compromise the general health or condition of 

individual fish. Therefore, long-term consequences for populations are not expected. 

All ESA-listed species that occur in the Study Area are likely capable of detecting vessel noise as 

discussed previously in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization). Atlantic salmon may be exposed to 

vessel sound from training activities throughout the year in the Northeast Range Complexes. Atlantic 

sturgeon exposures could occur at any inshore training area in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy 

Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes, particularly in the Chesapeake Bay and in the St. Marys 

River near Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, GA. Shortnose sturgeon, which primarily inhabit rivers and 

estuaries, are not expected to occur in the off shore portions of the Study Area (Dadswell, 2006; 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998b). However, exposures could occur in the Northeast, Virginia 

Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Smalltooth sawfish and Gulf sturgeon 

exposures could occur in the Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. Smalltooth sawfish could also be 

exposed to vessel noise in the Jacksonville and Key West Range Complexes. The Central and SW Atlantic 

distinct population segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks and Nassau grouper may be exposed to 

vessel noise associated with training activities throughout the year in the Key West Range Complex and 

in waters in the vicinity of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition, Nassau grouper may also 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-98

3.6 Fishes

be exposed to vessel noise associated with training activities throughout the year in the Jacksonville 

Range Complex. Giant manta ray and oceanic whitetip sharks may also be exposed throughout the Study 

Area. If exposure to vessel noise did occur, ESA-listed species could experience behavioral reactions, 

physiological stress, and masking, although these impacts would be expected to be short-term and 

infrequent based on the low probability of co-occurrence between vessel activity and species. Long-term 

consequences for populations would not be expected. 

Proposed training activities that produce vessel noise overlap proposed critical habitat for Atlantic 

sturgeon in a number of areas including; Kennebec River, ME; James River at Naval Station Norfolk in 

Norfolk, VA; York River in the Chesapeake Bay, VA; Coopers, River, SC; and the St. Mary’s River near 

Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, GA. As discussed above, Atlantic sturgeon can detect vessel noise and 

may experience brief behavioral reactions, physiological stress, or periods of masking. While highly 

unlikely, sound produced by vessel movement within the critical habitat may affect migratory passage 

corridors within the vicinity of the sound source. 

Proposed training activities that produce vessel noise overlap designated critical habitat for Gulf 

sturgeon in the Panama City OPAREA. A map of critical habitat is available in Section 3.6.2.2.6.1 (Status 

and Management). Most of the physical and biological features are generally not applicable to the Study 

Area since they occur within the riverine habitat of the species. However, part of the physical and 

biological features for Gulf sturgeon critical habitat includes migratory corridors from winter feeding 

grounds to spring and summer spawning rivers. As discussed above, Atlantic sturgeon can detect vessel 

noise and may experience brief behavioral reactions, physiological stress, or periods of masking. While 

highly unlikely, sound from vessel movement within the critical habitat may affect migratory passage 

corridors within the vicinity of the sound source. 

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon is restricted to rivers within Maine. All of the biological 

and physical features required by Atlantic salmon are only applicable to freshwater areas. However, 

while highly unlikely, sound from vessel movement within the critical habitat may affect migratory 

passage corridors within the vicinity of the sound source. 

Designated critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 

m) around the tip of Florida. Training activities that produce vessel noise is not anticipated to overlap 

with smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. 

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by vessel movement during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and smalltooth 

sawfish. Sound produced by vessel movement during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth 

sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped 

hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks, 

designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The 

Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Section 3.0.3.3.1.8 

(Vessel Noise), proposed testing activities under Alternative 1 include vessel movements in many 

events. Testing activities within the Study Area typically consist of a single vessel involved in unit-level 

activity for a few hours, one or two small boats conducting testing, or during a larger training event. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-99

3.6 Fishes

Navy vessel traffic could occur anywhere within the Study Area, primarily concentrated within the 

Jacksonville and Virginia Capes Range Complexes; the Northeast Range Complexes and adjacent inland 

waters, especially near the Naval Underwater Warfare Center Newport Testing Range; and in the Gulf of 

Mexico, especially in areas near Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range 

(Mintz, 2012). 

Impacts on fishes due to vessel noise sound are expected to be limited to minor behavioral responses, 

short-term physiological stress, and short periods of masking; and, long-term consequences for 

populations would not be expected. Predicted impacts on ESA-listed fish species and designated critical 

habitat would not be discernible from those described above under Section 3.6.3.1.5.2 (Impacts from 

Vessel Noise under Alternative 1 for Training Activities). 

Proposed training activities that produce vessel noise overlap proposed critical habitat for Atlantic 

sturgeon in a number of areas including; Kennebec River, ME; James River at Naval Station Norfolk in 

Norfolk, VA; York River in the Chesapeake Bay, VA; Coopers, River, SC; and the St. Mary’s River near 

Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, GA. As discussed above, Atlantic sturgeon can detect vessel noise and 

may experience brief behavioral reactions, physiological stress, or periods of masking. While highly 

unlikely, sound produced by vessel movement within the critical habitat may affect migratory passage 

corridors within the vicinity of the sound source. 

Proposed training activities that produce vessel noise overlap designated critical habitat for Gulf 

sturgeon in the Panama City OPAREA. A map of critical habitat is available in Section 3.6.2.2.6.1 (Status 

and Management). Most of the physical and biological features are generally not applicable to the Study 

Area since they occur within the riverine habitat of the species. However, part of the physical and 

biological features for Gulf sturgeon critical habitat includes migratory corridors from winter feeding 

grounds to spring and summer spawning rivers. As discussed above, Atlantic sturgeon can detect vessel 

noise and may experience brief behavioral reactions, physiological stress, or periods of masking. While 

highly unlikely, sound from vessel movement within the critical habitat may affect migratory passage 

corridors within the vicinity of the sound source. 

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon is restricted to rivers within Maine. All of the biological 

and physical features required by Atlantic salmon are only applicable to freshwater areas. However, 

while highly unlikely, sound from vessel movement within the critical habitat may affect migratory 

passage corridors within the vicinity of the sound source. 

Designated critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 

m) around the tip of Florida. Training activities that produce vessel noise is not anticipated to overlap 

with smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. 

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by vessel movement during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and smalltooth 

sawfish. Sound produced by vessel movement during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth 

sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped 

hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks, 

designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The 

Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-100 

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.1.5.3 Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Proposed Training Activities under Alternative 2 that involve vessel movement slightly increase from 

Training Activities proposed under Alternative 1, but the locations, types, and severity of impacts would 

not be discernible from those described above in Section 3.6.3.1.5.2 (Impacts from Vessel Noise under 

Alternative 1 for Training Activities). 

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by vessel movement during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and smalltooth 

sawfish. Sound produced by vessel movement during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth 

sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped 

hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks, 

designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The 

Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Proposed Testing Activities under Alternative 2 that involve vessel movement slightly increase from 

Testing Activities proposed under Alternative 1, but the locations, types, and severity of impacts would 

not be discernible from those described above Section 3.6.3.1.5.2 (Impacts from Vessel Noise under 

Alternative 1 for Testing Activities). 

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by vessel movement during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and smalltooth 

sawfish. Sound produced by vessel movement during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth 

sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped 

hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks, 

designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The 

Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard. 

3.6.3.1.5.4 Impacts from Vessel Noise Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., vessel noise) would not be introduced 

into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment either would 

remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.6.3.1.6 Impacts from Aircraft Noise 

Fishes may be exposed to aircraft-generated overflight noise throughout the Study Area. A detailed 

description of the acoustic characteristics and typical sound produced by aircraft overflights are in 

Section 3.0.3.3 (Identifying Stressors for Analysis). Most of these sounds would be concentrated around 

airbases and fixed ranges within each of the range complexes. Aircraft produce extensive airborne noise 

from either turbofan or turbojet engines. A severe but infrequent type of aircraft noise is the sonic 

boom, produced when the aircraft exceeds the speed of sound. Rotary wing aircraft (helicopters) 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-101 

3.6 Fishes

produce low-frequency sound and vibration (Pepper et al., 2003). Aircraft would pass quickly overhead 

and rotary-wing aircraft (e.g., helicopters) may hover for a few minutes at a time over the ocean. 

Aircraft overflights have the potential to affect surface waters and, therefore, to expose fish occupying 

those upper portions of the water column to sound. Fish may be exposed to fixed-wing or rotary-wing 

aircraft-generated noise wherever aircraft overflights occur; however, sound is primarily transferred into 

the water from air in a narrow cone under the aircraft. Fish would have to be at or near the surface at 

the time of an overflight to be exposed to appreciable sound levels. Transmission of sound from a 

moving airborne source to a receptor underwater is influenced by numerous factors. These factors are 

discussed in detail in Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosives Primer). 

As discussed in Section 3.6.3.1.1.1 (Injury) and Section 3.6.3.1.1.2 (Hearing Loss), direct injury and 

hearing loss in fishes because of exposure to aircraft overflight noise is highly unlikely to occur. Sounds 

from aircraft noise, including occasional sonic booms, lack the amplitude or duration to cause injury or 

hearing loss in fishes underwater (see Section 3.6.3.1, Acoustic Stressors). Due to the brief and dispersed 

nature of aircraft overflights, masking is also unlikely and not discussed further in this analysis. 

Fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft are used for a variety of training and testing activities throughout the 

Study Area. Fishes within close proximity to the activity and closer to the surface would have a higher 

probability of detecting these sounds although exposure to aircraft overflight noise would likely only last 

while the object is directly overhead. Training and testing events involving overflight noise are widely 

dispersed throughout the Study Area. 

3.6.3.1.6.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Aircraft Noise 

The impacts on fishes due to exposure to aircraft noise are analyzed qualitatively by comparing reported 

observations under specific conditions as discussed in section 3.6.3.1.1 (Background) to the conditions 

which fish may be exposed to during proposed Navy activities. 

3.6.3.1.6.2 Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Section 3.0.3.3.1.5 

(Aircraft Overflight Noise), training activities under Alternative 1 include fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft 

overflights. Certain portions of the Study Area such as areas near fleet concentration areas where planes 

are based are used more heavily by Navy aircraft than other portions. A detailed description of aircraft 

noise as a stressor is provided in Section 3.0.3.3.1.5 (Aircraft Overflight Noise). If fish were to respond to 

aircraft noise, only short-term behavioral or physiological reactions (e.g., avoidance and increased heart 

rate) would be expected. Therefore, long-term consequences for individuals would be unlikely and longterm consequences for populations are not expected. 

Each ESA-listed species within the Study Area could be exposed to aircraft overflight noise. However, 

due to the small area within which sound could potentially enter the water and the extremely brief 

window the sound could be present, exposures of ESA-listed fishes to aircraft noise would be extremely 

rare and in the event that they did occur, would be very brief (seconds). Likewise, although some 

portions of the Study Area overlap designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Gulf sturgeon, 

smalltooth sawfish, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, aircraft noise would not affect 

critical habitat or any of the physical or biological features. 

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by aircraft overflights during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-102 

3.6 Fishes

smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of 

the scalloped hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, or proposed giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip 

sharks, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, or proposed 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Section 3.0.3.3.1.9 

(Aircraft Noise), testing activities under Alternative 1 include fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft overflights. 

Certain portions of the Study Area such as areas near fleet concentration areas and testing facilities 

where planes are based are used more heavily by Navy aircraft than other portions. Proposed testing 

activities under Alternative 1 that involve aircraft differ in number and location from training activities 

under Alternative 1; however, the types and severity of impacts would not be discernible from those 

described above in Section 3.6.3.1.6.2 (Impacts from Aircraft Noise under Alternative 1 for Training 

Activities). 

Each ESA-listed species within the Study Area could be exposed to aircraft overflight noise. However, 

due to the small area within which sound could potentially enter the water and the extremely brief 

window the sound could be present, exposures of ESA-listed fishes to aircraft noise would be rare and in 

the event that they did occur, would be very brief (seconds). Likewise, although some portions of the 

Study Area overlap designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Gulf sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, 

and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, aircraft noise would not affect critical habitat or any 

of the physical or biological features. 

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by aircraft overflights during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, 

smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of 

the scalloped hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, or proposed giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip 

sharks, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, or proposed 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

3.6.3.1.6.3 Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), and Section 3.0.3.3.1.5 

(Aircraft Overflight Noise), training activities under Alternative 2 include a minor increase in the number 

of events that involve aircraft as compared to Alternative 1; however, the training locations, types of 

aircraft, and severity of predicted impacts would not be discernible from those described above in 

Section 3.6.3.1.6.2 (Impacts from Aircraft Noise under Alternative 1 for Training Activities). 

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by aircraft overflights during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, 

smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of 

the scalloped hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, or proposed giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip 

sharks, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, or proposed 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), and Section 3.0.3.3.1.9 

(Aircraft Noise), testing activities under Alternative 2 include a minor increase in the number of events 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-103 

3.6 Fishes

that involve aircraft noise as compared to Alternative 1; however, the testing locations, types of aircraft, 

and severity of predicted impacts would not be discernible from those described above in Section 

3.6.3.1.6.2 (Impacts from Aircraft Noise under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities). 

Pursuant to the ESA, sound produced by aircraft overflights during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, 

smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of 

the scalloped hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, or proposed giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip 

sharks, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, or proposed 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

3.6.3.1.6.4 Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., aircraft overflight noise) would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

either would remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing 

activities. 

3.6.3.1.7 Impacts from Weapons Noise 

Fishes could be exposed to noise from weapons firing, launch, flight downrange, and from the impact of 

non-explosive munitions on the water's surface. A detailed description of the acoustic characteristics of 

weapons noise is in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 (Weapons Noise). Reactions by fishes to these specific stressors 

have not been recorded; however, fishes would be expected to react to weapons noise, as they would 

other transient sounds (Section 3.6.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). 

3.6.3.1.7.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Weapons Noise 

The impacts on fishes due to exposure to weapons noise are analyzed qualitatively by comparing 

reported observations under specific conditions as discussed in section 3.6.3.1.1 (Background) to the 

conditions which fish may be exposed to during proposed Navy activities. 

3.6.3.1.7.2 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), training activities under 

Alternative 1 include activities that produce in-water sound from weapons firing, launch, flight 

downrange, and non-explosive practice munitions impact with the water's surface. Training activities 

could occur throughout the Study Area but would be concentrated in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry 

Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes, with fewer events in the Northeast, Key West, and Gulf of 

Mexico Range Complexes. Most activities involving large-caliber naval gunfire or the launching of 

targets, missiles, bombs, or other munitions are conducted more than 12 NM from shore. Impacts from 

training activities would be highly localized and concentrated in space and duration. 

Mortality, injury, hearing loss and masking in fishes because of exposure to weapons noise is highly 

unlikely to occur. Sound from these sources lack the duration and high intensity to cause injury or 

hearing loss. Therefore, injury and hearing loss is not discussed further in this analysis. Due to the brief 

and dispersed nature of weapons noise, masking is also unlikely and not discussed further in this 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-104 

3.6 Fishes

analysis. However, potential impacts considered are short-term behavioral or physiological reactions 

(e.g., swimming away and increased heart rate). 

Animals at the surface of the water, in a narrow footprint under a weapons trajectory, could be exposed 

to naval gunfire sound and may exhibit brief behavioral reactions such as startle reactions or avoidance, 

or no reaction at all. Due to the short-term, transient nature of gunfire activities, animals may be 

exposed to multiple shots within a few seconds, but are unlikely to be exposed multiple times within a 

short period (minutes or hours). Behavioral reactions would likely be short-term (minutes) and are 

unlikely to lead to substantial costs or long-term consequences for individuals or populations. 

Sound due to missile and target launches is typically at a maximum during initiation of the booster 

rocket and rapidly fades as the missile or target travels downrange. Many missiles and targets are 

launched from aircraft, which would produce minimal sound in the water due to the altitude of the 

aircraft at launch. Behavioral reactions would likely be short-term (minutes) and are unlikely to lead to 

long-term consequences for individuals or populations. 

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 (Weapons Noise), any objects that are dropped and impact the water 

with great force could produce a loud broadband sound at the water’s surface. Large-caliber nonexplosive projectiles, non-explosive bombs, and intact missiles and targets could produce a large 

impulse upon impact with the water surface (McLennan, 1997). Fishes within a few meters could 

experience some temporary hearing loss, although the probability is low of the non-explosive munitions 

landing within this range while a fish is near the surface. Animals within the area may hear the impact of 

object on the surface of the water and would likely alert, dive, or avoid the immediate area. Impact 

noise would not be expected to induce significant behavioral reactions from fishes, and long-term 

consequences for individuals and populations are unlikely. 

As discussed previously (Section 3.6.2.1.3, Hearing and Vocalization), all ESA-listed and proposed fish 

species that occur in the Study Area are capable of detecting weapons noise but not all species occur in 

areas where weapons noise is present. Shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and Nassau grouper 

would not likely encounter weapon noise as smalltooth sawfish and Nassau grouper typically are found 

along the seafloor and shortnose sturgeon are largely confined to rivers and estuaries. Scalloped 

hammerhead sharks, and Gulf and Atlantic sturgeon could occur in areas associated with weapons noise 

however, these species don't typically swim near the surface at sea, therefore decreasing the likelihood 

of exposure. Atlantic salmon, giant manta ray and oceanic white tip sharks could be exposed to weapons 

noise. In particular, oceanic whitetip sharks in deeper waters spend much of their time at the surface, 

potentially increasing the risk of exposure. However, most species that occur within 12 NM of the shore 

would have a lower probability of encountering these activities. ESA listed fishes that are exposed to 

weapons noise may exhibit minor behavioral reactions, brief physiological stress, or short periods of 

masking. Due to the short-term, transient nature of weapons noise, animals are unlikely to be exposed 

multiple times within a short period. Physiological stress and behavioral reactions would likely be shortterm (minutes) and substantive costs or long-term consequences for individuals or populations would 

not be expected. 

Proposed training activities that produce weapons largely occur 12 NM from shore but could potentially 

occur in the Panama City OPAREA and may overlap designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. A map 

of critical habitat is available in Section 3.6.2.2.6.1 (Status and Management). Most of the physical and 

biological features are generally not applicable to the Study Area since they occur within the riverine 

habitat of the species. However, part of the physical and biological features for Gulf sturgeon critical 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-105 

3.6 Fishes

habitat includes migratory corridors from winter feeding grounds to spring and summer spawning rivers. 

While highly unlikely, activities that produce weapons noise within the critical habitat may affect 

migratory passage corridors within the vicinity of the sound source. 

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon is restricted to rivers within Maine. Likewise, designated 

critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 m) around 

the tip of Florida. Weapons noise produced during training activities is not anticipated to overlap with 

Atlantic salmon or smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. In addition, proposed training activities that 

produce weapons noise largely occur 12 NM from shore and would not overlap proposed critical habitat 

for Atlantic sturgeon. 

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise produced during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on ESA-listed shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish or Nassau 

grouper, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, or proposed critical habitat 

for Atlantic sturgeon. Weapons noise produced during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Gulf and Atlantic sturgeon, the Central and 

Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, proposed giant 

manta rays, oceanic whitetip sharks, and designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. The Navy will 

consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that 

regard. 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), testing activities under 

Alternative 1 include activities that produce weapons noise. Testing activities could occur in the Virginia 

Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes, with fewer events in the Northeast, Key 

West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. Activities could also occur in the Naval Surface Warfare 

Center Panama Canal Testing Range. Most activities involving large-caliber naval gunfire or the 

launching of targets, missiles, bombs, or other munitions are conducted more than 12 NM from shore. 

Proposed testing activities under Alternative 1 differ in number and location from training activities 

under Alternative 1; however, the types and severity of impacts would not be discernible from those 

described above for Impacts from Weapons Noise under Alternative 1 for Training Activities. Impacts on 

fish due to weapons noise are expected to be limited to short-term, minor behavioral responses, 

physiological stress, and short periods of masking; and, long-term consequences for an individual, and 

therefore populations, would not be expected. 

As discussed previously (Section 3.6.2.1.3, Hearing and Vocalization), all ESA-listed and proposed fish 

species that occur in the Study Area are capable of detecting weapons noise but not all species occur in 

areas where weapons noise is present. Shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and Nassau grouper 

would not likely encounter weapon noise. Scalloped hammerhead sharks, and Gulf and Atlantic 

sturgeon could occur in areas associated with weapons noise however, these species don't typically 

swim near the surface at sea, therefore decreasing the likelihood of exposure. Atlantic salmon, giant 

manta ray and oceanic white tip sharks could be exposed to weapons noise. Most species that occur 

within 12 NM of the shore would have a lower probability of encountering these activities. ESA listed 

fishes that are exposed to weapons noise may exhibit minor behavioral reactions, brief physiological 

stress, or short periods of masking. Due to the short-term, transient nature of weapons noise, animals 

are unlikely to be exposed multiple times within a short period. Physiological stress and behavioral 

reactions would likely be short-term (minutes) and substantive costs or long-term consequences for 

individuals or populations would not be expected. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-106 

3.6 Fishes

Proposed training activities that produce weapons largely occur 12 NM from shore but could potentially 

occur in the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range and the Panama City OPAREA and 

may overlap designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. A map of critical habitat is available in Section 

3.6.2.2.6.1 (Status and Management). Most of the physical and biological features are generally not 

applicable to the Study Area since they occur within the riverine habitat of the species. However, part of 

the physical and biological features for Gulf sturgeon critical habitat includes migratory corridors from 

winter feeding grounds to spring and summer spawning rivers. While highly unlikely, activities that 

produce weapons noise within the critical habitat may affect migratory passage corridors within the 

vicinity of the sound source. 

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon is restricted to rivers within Maine. Likewise, designated 

critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 m) around 

the tip of Florida. Weapons noise produced during training activities is not anticipated to overlap with 

Atlantic salmon or smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. In addition, proposed training activities that 

produce weapons noise largely occur 12 NM from shore and would not overlap proposed critical habitat 

for Atlantic sturgeon.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise produced during testing activities, as described under Alternative 1, 

will have no effect on ESA-listed shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Nassau grouper, designated 

critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

Weapons noise produced during testing activities, as described under Alternative 1, may affect ESAlisted Atlantic salmon, Gulf and Atlantic sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, proposed giant manta rays, oceanic whitetip sharks and 

designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.6.3.1.7.3 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Proposed training activities under Alternative 2 that produce weapons noise differ in number and 

location from training activities under Alternative 1; however, the types and severity of impacts would 

not be discernible from those described above in Section 3.6.3.1.7.2 (Impacts from Weapons Noise 

under Alternative 1 for Training Activities). Impacts on fishes due to weapons noise are expected to be 

limited to minor behavioral responses, short-term physiological stress, and short periods of masking; 

furthermore, long-term consequences for an individual, and therefore populations, would not be 

expected. 

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise produced during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on ESA-listed shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish or Nassau 

grouper, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, or proposed critical habitat 

for Atlantic sturgeon. Weapons noise produced during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Gulf and Atlantic sturgeon, the Central and 

Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, proposed giant 

manta rays, oceanic whitetip sharks, and designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Proposed testing activities under Alternative 2 that produce weapons noise differ in number and 

location from testing activities under Alternative 1; however, the types and severity of impacts would 

not be discernible from those described above in Section 3.6.3.1.7.2 (Impacts from Weapons Noise 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-107 

3.6 Fishes

under Alternative 1 for Training Activities). Impacts on fishes due to weapons noise are expected to be 

limited to minor behavioral responses, short-term physiological stress, and short periods of masking; 

and, long-term consequences for an individual, and therefore populations, would not be expected. 

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise produced during testing activities, as described under Alternative 2, 

will have no effect on ESA-listed shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Nassau grouper, designated 

critical habitat Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

Weapons noise produced during testing activities, as described under Alternative 2, may affect ESAlisted Atlantic salmon, Gulf and Atlantic sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, proposed giant manta rays, oceanic whitetip sharks and 

designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. 

3.6.3.1.7.4 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various acoustic stressors (e.g., weapons noise) would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

either would remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing 

activities. 

3.6.3.2 Explosive Stressors 

Explosions in the water or near the water surface can introduce loud, impulsive, broadband sounds into 

the marine environment. However, unlike acoustic stressors, explosives release energy at a high rate 

producing a shock wave that can be injurious and even deadly. Therefore, explosive impacts on fishes 

are discussed separately from other acoustic stressors, even though the analysis of explosive impacts 

will in part rely on data from fishes exposed to impulsive sources where appropriate. 

Explosives are usually described by their net explosive weight, which accounts for the weight and type of 

explosive material. Additional explanation of the acoustic and explosive terms and sound energy 

concepts used in this section is found in Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosives Concepts). 

The ways in which an explosive exposure could result in immediate effects or lead to long-term 

consequences for an animal are explained in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing 

Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities) and the below background section follows that 

framework. The following Background section discusses what is currently known about effects of 

explosives on fishes. 

3.6.3.2.1 Background 

The effects of explosions on fishes have been studied and reviewed by numerous authors (Keevin & 

Hempen, 1997; O'Keeffe, 1984; O'Keeffe & Young, 1984; Popper et al., 2014). A summary of the 

literature related to each type of effect forms the basis for analyzing the potential effects from Navy 

activities. The sections below include a survey and synthesis of best-available-science published in peerreviewed journals, technical reports, and other scientific sources pertinent to impacts on fishes 

potentially resulting from Navy training and testing activities. Fishes could be exposed to a range of 

impacts depending on the explosive source and context of the exposure. In addition to acoustic impacts 

including temporary or permanent hearing loss, auditory masking, physiological stress, or changes in 

behavior, potential impacts from an explosive exposure can include non-lethal injury and mortality. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-108 

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.2.1.1 Injury 

The blast wave from an underwater explosion is lethal to fishes at close range, causing massive organ 

and tissue damage (Keevin & Hempen, 1997). At greater distance from the detonation point, the extent 

of mortality or injury depends on a number of factors including fish size, body shape, depth, physical 

condition of the fish, and perhaps most importantly, the presence of a swim bladder (Keevin & Hempen, 

1997; Wright, 1982; Yelverton et al., 1975; Yelverton & Richmond, 1981). At the same distance from the 

source, larger fishes are generally less susceptible to death or injury, elongated forms that are round in 

cross-section are less at risk than deep-bodied forms, and fishes oriented sideways to the blast suffer 

the greatest impact (Edds-Walton & Finneran, 2006; O'Keeffe, 1984; O'Keeffe & Young, 1984; Wiley et 

al., 1981; Yelverton et al., 1975). Species with a swim bladder are much more susceptible to blast injury 

from explosives than fishes without them (Gaspin, 1975; Gaspin et al., 1976; Goertner et al., 1994). 

If a fish is close to an explosive detonation, the exposure to rapidly changing high pressure levels can 

cause barotrauma. Barotrauma is injury due to a sudden difference in pressure between an air space 

inside the body and the surrounding water and tissues. Rapid compression followed by rapid expansion 

of airspaces, such as the swim bladder, can damage surrounding tissues and result in the rupture of the 

airspace itself. The swim bladder is the primary site of damage from explosives (Wright, 1982; Yelverton 

et al., 1975). Gas-filled swim bladders resonate at different frequencies than surrounding tissue and can 

be torn by rapid oscillation between high- and low-pressure waves (Goertner, 1978). Swim bladders are 

a characteristic of most bony fishes with the notable exception of flatfishes (e.g., halibut). Sharks and 

rays are examples of fishes without a swim bladder. Small airspaces, such as micro-bubbles that may be 

present in gill structures, could also be susceptible to oscillation when exposed to the rapid pressure 

increases caused by an explosion. This may have caused the bleeding observed on gill structures of some 

fish exposed to explosions (Goertner et al., 1994). Sudden very high pressures can also cause damage at 

tissue interfaces due to the way pressure waves travel differently through tissues with different 

densities. Rapidly oscillating pressure waves might rupture the kidney, liver, spleen, and sinus and cause 

venous hemorrhaging (Keevin & Hempen, 1997). 

Several studies have exposed fish to explosives and examined various metrics in relation to injury 

susceptibility. Sverdrup (1994) exposed Atlantic salmon (1 to 1.5 kg [2–3 lb.]) in a laboratory setting to 

repeated shock pressures of around 2 megapascals (300 pounds per square inch) without any 

immediate or delayed mortality after a week. Hubbs and Rechnitzer (1952) showed that fish with swim 

bladders exposed to explosive shock fronts (the near-instantaneous rise to peak pressure) were more 

susceptible to injury when several feet below the water surface than near the bottom. When near the 

surface, the fish began to exhibit injuries around peak pressure exposures of 40 to 70 pounds per square 

inch. However, near the bottom (all water depths were less than 100 ft.) fish exposed to pressures over 

twice as high exhibited no sign of injury. Yelverton et al. (1975) similarly found that peak pressure was 

not correlated to injury susceptibility. Yelverton et al. (1975) instead found that injury susceptibility of 

swim bladder fish at shallow depths (10 ft. or less) was correlated to the metric of positive impulse (Pas), which takes into account both the positive peak pressure and the duration of the positive pressure 

exposure, and the fish mass, with smaller fish being more susceptible. 

Gaspin et al. (1976) exposed multiple species of fish with a swim bladder, placed at varying depths, to 

explosive blasts of varying size and depth. Goertner (1978) and Wiley (1981) developed a swim bladder 

oscillation model, which showed that the severity of injury observed in those tests could be correlated 

to the extent of swim bladder expansion and contraction predicted to have been induced by exposure to 

the explosive blasts. Per this model, the degree of swim bladder oscillation is affected by ambient 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-109 

3.6 Fishes

pressure (i.e., depth of fish), peak pressure of the explosive, duration of the pressure exposure, and 

exposure to surface rarefaction (negative pressure) waves. The maximum potential for injury is 

predicted to occur where the surface reflected rarefaction (negative) pressure wave arrives coincident 

with the moment of maximum compression of the swim bladder caused by exposure to the direct 

positive blast pressure wave, resulting in a subsequent maximum expansion of the swim bladder. 

Goertner (1978) and Wiley et al. (1981) found that their swim bladder oscillation model explained the 

injury data in the Yelverton et al. (1975) exposure study and their impulse parameter was applicable 

only to fishes at shallow enough depths to experience less than one swim bladder oscillation before 

being exposed to the following surface rarefaction wave. 

O’Keeffe (1984) provides calculations and contour plots that allow estimation of the range to potential 

effects of underwater explosions on fish possessing swim bladders using the damage prediction model 

developed by Goertner (1978). O’Keeffe’s (1984) parameters include the charge weight, depth of burst, 

and the size and depth of the fish, but the estimated ranges do not take into account unique 

propagation environments that could reduce or increase the range to effect. The 10 percent mortality 

range shown below in Table 3.6-12 is the maximum horizontal range predicted by O'Keeffe (1984) for 10 

percent of fish suffering injuries that are expected to not be survivable (e.g., damaged swim bladder or 

severe hemorrhaging). Fish at greater depths and near the surface are predicted to be less likely to be 

injured because geometries of the exposures would limit the amplitude of swim bladder oscillations. 

Table 3.6-12: Range to Effect from Underwater Explosions for Fishes with a Swim Bladder 

Weight of Pentolite 

(lb.)

[NEW, lb.]1

Depth of 

Explosion (ft.)

[m]

10% Mortality Maximum Range (ft.)

[m]

1 oz. Fish 1 lb. Fish 30 lb. Fish

10

[13]

10

[3]

530

[162]

315

[96]

165

[50]

50

[15]

705

[214]

425

[130]

260

[79]

200

[61]

905

[276]

505

[154]

290

[88]

100

[130]

10

[3]

985

[300]

600

[183]

330

[101]

50

[15]

1,235

[376]

865

[264]

590

[180]

200

[61]

1,340

[408]

1,225

[373]

725

[221]

1,000

[1,300]

10

[3]

1,465

[447]

1,130

[344]

630

[192]

50

[15]

2,255

[687]

1,655

[504]

1,130

[344]

200

[61]

2,870

[875]

2,390

[728]

1,555

[474]
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-110 

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-12: Range to Effect from Underwater Explosions for Fishes with a Swim Bladder 

(continued) 

Weight of Pentolite 

(lb.)

[NEW, lb.]1

Depth of 

Explosion (ft.)

[m]

10% Mortality Maximum Range (ft.)

[m]

1 oz. Fish 1 lb. Fish 30 lb. Fish

10,000

[13,000]

10

[3]

2,490

[759]

1,920

[585]

1,155

[352]

50

[15]

4,090

[1,247]

2,885

[879]

2,350

[716]

200

[61]

5,555

[1,693]

4,153

[1,266]

3,090

[942]

1Explosive weights of pentolite converted to net explosive weight using the peak pressure 

parameters in Swisdak (1978).lb. = pounds, NEW = net explosive weight, oz. = ounce. 

Source: O’Keeffe (1984)

In contrast to fish with swim bladders, fishes without swim bladders have been shown to be more 

resilient to explosives (Gaspin, 1975; Gaspin et al., 1976; Goertner et al., 1994). For example, some small 

(average 116 mm length; approximately 1 oz.) hogchokers (Trinectes maculatus) exposed less than 5 ft. 

from a 10-lb. pentolite charge immediately survived the exposure with slight to moderate injuries and 

only a small number of fish were immediately killed; however, most of the fish at this close range did 

suffer moderate to severe injuries, typically of the gills or around the otolithic structures (Goertner et 

al., 1994). 

Studies that have documented caged fishes killed during planned underwater explosions indicate that 

most fish that die do so within one to four hours, and almost all die within a day (Yelverton et al., 1975). 

Mortality in free-swimming (uncaged) fishes may be higher due to increased susceptibility to predation. 

Fitch and Young (1948) found that the type of free-swimming fish killed changed when blasting was 

repeated at the same location within 24 hours of previous blasting. They observed that most fish killed 

on the second day were scavengers, presumably attracted by the victims of the previous day’s blasts. 

Fitch and Young (1948) also investigated whether a significant portion of fish killed would have sunk and 

not been observed at the surface. Comparisons of the numbers of fish observed dead at the surface and 

at the bottom in the same affected area after an explosion showed that fish found dead on the bottom 

comprised less than 10 percent of the total observed mortality. Gitschlag et al. (2001) conducted a more 

detailed study of both floating fishes and those that were sinking or lying on the bottom after explosive 

removal of nine oil platforms in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Results were highly variable. They found 

that 3 to 87 percent (46 percent average) of the red snapper killed during a blast might float to the 

surface. Currents, winds, and predation by seabirds or other fishes may be some of the reasons that the 

magnitude of fish mortality may not have been accurately captured. 

There have been few studies of the impact of underwater explosives on early life stages of fish (eggs, 

larvae, juveniles). Fitch and Young (1948) reported mortality of larval anchovies exposed to underwater 

blasts off California. Nix and Chapman (1985) found that anchovy and smelt larvae died following the 

detonation of buried charges. Similar to adult fishes, the presence of a swim bladder contributes to 

shock wave-induced internal damage in larval and juvenile fish (Settle et al., 2002). Explosive shock wave 

injury to internal organs of larval pinfish and spot exposed at shallow depths was documented by 

Govoni et al. (2003; 2008) at impulse levels similar to those predicted by Yelverton et al. (1975) for very 

small fish. Researchers (Faulkner et al., 2006; Faulkner et al., 2008; Jensen, 2003) have suggested that 

egg mortality may be correlated with peak particle velocity exposure (i.e., the localized movement or 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-111 

3.6 Fishes

shaking of water particles, as opposed to the velocity of the blast wave), although sufficient data from 

direct explosive exposures is not available. 

Rapid pressure changes could cause mechanical damage to sensitive ear structures due to differential 

movements of the otolithic structures. Bleeding near otolithic structures was the most commonly 

observed injury in non-swim bladder fish exposed to a close explosive charge (Goertner et al., 1994). 

General research findings regarding injury in fishes due to exposure to other impulsive sound sources 

are discussed in Section 3.6.3.1.1.1 (Injury Due to Impulsive Sources). Results from other impulsive 

sound exposure studies, such as those for seismic air guns and impact pile driving, may be useful in 

interpreting effects where data are lacking for explosive sources. 

As summarized by the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), exposure to 

explosive energy poses the greatest potential threat for injury and mortality in marine fishes. Fishes with 

a swim bladder are more susceptible to injury than fishes without a swim bladder. The susceptibility also 

probably varies with size and depth of both the detonation and the fish. Fish larvae or juvenile fish may 

be more susceptible to injury from exposure to explosives. 

3.6.3.2.1.2 Hearing Loss 

There are no direct measurements of hearing loss in fishes due to exposure to explosive sources. The 

sound resulting from an explosive detonation is considered an impulsive sound and shares important 

qualities (i.e., short duration and fast rise time) with other impulsive sounds such as those produced by 

air guns. PTS in fish has not been known to occur in species tested to date and any hearing loss in fish 

may be as temporary as the timeframe required to repair or replace the sensory cells that were 

damaged or destroyed (Popper et al., 2005; Popper et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2006). 

As reviewed in Popper et al. (2014), fishes without a swim bladder, or fishes with a swim bladder not 

involved in hearing, would be less susceptible to hearing loss (i.e., TTS), even at higher level exposures. 

Fish with a swim bladder involved in hearing may be susceptible to TTS within very close ranges to an 

explosive. General research findings regarding TTS in fishes as well as findings specific to exposure to 

other impulsive sound sources are discussed in Section 3.6.3.2.1.2 (Hearing Loss). 

3.6.3.2.1.3 Masking 

Masking refers to the presence of a noise that interferes with a fish’s ability to hear biologically 

important sounds including those produced by prey, predators, or other fish in the same species 

(Myrberg, 1980; Popper et al., 2003). This can take place whenever the noise level heard by a fish 

exceeds the level of a biologically relevant sound. As discussed in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual 

Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities) masking only occurs in the 

presence of the masking noise and does not persist after the cessation of the noise. Masking may lead to 

a change in vocalizations or a change in behavior (e.g., cessation of foraging, leaving an area). 

There are no direct observations of masking in fishes due to exposure to explosives. Popper et al. (2014) 

highlights a lack of data that exist for masking by explosives but suggests that the intermittent nature of 

explosions would result in very limited probability of any masking effects and if masking were to occur it 

would only occur during the duration of the sound. General research findings regarding masking in fishes 

due to exposure to sound are discussed in detail in Section 3.6.3.1.1.3 (Masking). Potential masking from 

explosives is likely to be similar to masking studied for other impulsive sounds such as air guns. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-112 

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.2.1.4 Physiological Stress 

Fishes naturally experience stress within their environment and as part of their life histories. The stress 

response is a suite of physiological changes that are meant to help an organism mitigate the impact of a 

stressor. However, if the magnitude and duration of the stress response is too great or too long, then it 

can have negative consequences to the organism (e.g., decreased immune function, decreased 

reproduction). Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and 

Explosive Stressors) provides additional information on physiological stress and the framework used to 

analyze this potential impact. 

Research on physiological stress in fishes due to exposure to explosive sources is limited. Sverdrup et al. 

(1994) studied levels of stress hormones in Atlantic salmon after exposure to multiple detonations in a 

laboratory setting. Increases in cortisol and adrenaline were observed following the exposure, with 

adrenaline values returning to within normal range within 24 hours. General research findings regarding 

physiological stress in fishes due to exposure to impulsive sources are discussed in detail in Section 

3.6.3.1.1.4 (Physiological Stress). Generally, stress responses are more likely to occur in the presence of 

potentially threatening sound sources such as predator vocalizations or the sudden onset of impulsive 

signals. Stress responses may be brief (a few seconds to minutes) if the exposure is short or if fishes 

habituate or learn to tolerate the noise. It is assumed that any physiological response (e.g., hearing loss 

or injury) or significant behavioral response is also associated with a stress response. 

3.6.3.2.1.5 Behavioral Reactions 

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and 

Explosive Activities), any stimuli in the environment can cause a behavioral response in fishes, including 

sound produced by explosions. Wright (1982) observed changes in fish behavior as a result of the sound 

produced by an explosion, with effects intensified in areas of hard substrate, but there are no other data 

available on the behavioral reactions of fish to explosives (Popper et al., 2014). Behavioral reactions 

from explosive sounds are likely to be similar to reactions studied for other impulsive sounds such as 

those produced by air guns. Impulsive signals, particularly at close range, have a rapid rise time and 

higher instantaneous peak pressure than other signal types, making them more likely to cause startle or 

avoidance responses. General research findings regarding behavioral reactions from fishes due to 

exposure to impulsive sounds, such as those associated with explosions, are discussed in detail in 

Section 3.6.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions). 

As summarized by the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014), species 

may react differently to the same sound source depending on a number of variables, such as the 

animal’s life stage or behavioral state (e.g., feeding, mating). Without data that are more specific it is 

assumed that fishes with similar hearing capabilities react similarly to all impulsive sounds outside or 

within the zone for hearing loss and injury. Observations of fish reactions to large-scale air gun surveys 

are informative, but not necessarily directly applicable to analyzing impacts from the short-term, 

intermittent use of all impulsive sources. Fish have a higher probability of reacting when closer to an 

impulsive sound source (within tens of meters), and a decreasing probability of reaction at increasing 

distances (Popper et al., 2014). 

3.6.3.2.1.6 Long-term Consequences 

Long-term consequences to a population are determined by examining changes in the population 

growth rate. For additional information on the determination of long-term consequences, see Section 

3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Stressors). Physical 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-113 

3.6 Fishes

effects from explosive sources that could lead to a reduction in the population growth rate include 

mortality or injury, which could remove animals from the reproductive pool, and permanent hearing 

impairment or chronic masking, which could affect navigation, foraging, predator avoidance, or 

communication. The long-term consequences due to individual behavioral reactions, masking and shortterm instances of physiological stress are especially difficult to predict because individual experience 

over time can create complex contingencies, especially for fish species that live for multiple seasons or 

years. For example, a lost reproductive opportunity could be a measurable cost to the individual; 

however, short-term costs may be recouped during the life of an otherwise healthy individual. These 

factors are taken into consideration when assessing risk of long-term consequences. 

3.6.3.2.2 Impacts from Explosives 

Fishes could be exposed to energy and sound from underwater and in-air explosions associated with 

proposed activities. General categories and characteristics of explosives and the numbers and sizes of 

detonations proposed are described in Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors). The activities analyzed in 

the EIS/OEIS that use explosives are also described in Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). 

As discussed throughout Section 3.6.3.2.1 (Background), sound and energy from underwater explosions 

are capable of causing mortality, injury, hearing loss, a behavioral response, masking, or physiological 

stress, depending on the level and duration of exposure. The death of an animal would eliminate future 

reproductive potential, which is considered in the analysis of potential long-term consequences to the 

population. Exposures that result in non-auditory injuries may limit an animal’s ability to find food, 

communicate with other animals, or interpret the surrounding environment. Impairment of these 

abilities can decrease an individual’s chance of survival or affect its ability to reproduce. Temporary 

threshold shift can also impair an animal’s abilities, although the individual may recover quickly with 

little significant effect. 

3.6.3.2.2.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Explosives 

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate ranges to effect for fishes exposed to 

underwater explosions during Navy training and testing activities. Inputs to the quantitative analysis 

included sound propagation modeling in the Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model to the sound exposure 

criteria and thresholds presented below. Density data for fish species within the Study Area are not 

currently available; therefore, it is not possible to estimate the total number of individuals that may be 

affected by explosive activities. 

Criteria and Thresholds used to Estimate Impacts on Fishes from Explosives 

Mortality and Injury from Explosives 

Criteria and thresholds to estimate impacts from sound and energy produced by explosive activities are 

presented below in Table 3.6-13. In order to estimate the longest range at which a fish may be killed or 

mortally injured, the Navy based the threshold for mortal injury on the lowest pressure that caused 

mortalities in the study by Hubbs and Rechnitzer (1952), consistent with the recommendation in the 

ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014). As shown in Section 3.6.3.2.1.1

(Injury), this threshold likely over-estimates the potential for mortal injury. The potential for mortal 

injury has been shown to be correlated to fish size, depth, and geometry of exposure, which are not 

accounted for by using a peak pressure threshold. However, until fish mortality models are developed 

that can reasonably consider these factors across multiple environments, use of the peak pressure 

threshold allows for a conservative estimate of maximum impact ranges. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-114 

3.6 Fishes

Due to the lack of detailed data for onset of injury in fishes exposed to explosives, thresholds from 

impact pile driving exposures are used as a proxy for this analysis (Halvorsen et al., 2011; Halvorsen et 

al., 2012a; Halvorsen et al., 2012b). Consistent with the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report 

(Popper et al., 2014), dual metric sound exposure criteria are utilized to estimate injury from exposure 

to explosives, as shown in Table 3.6-13. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a specified effect 

will occur when either metric (cumulative sound exposure level or peak sound pressure level) is met or 

exceeded. General research findings regarding mortality and injury in fishes due to exposure to impact 

pile driving (or simulated impact pile driving sources) are discussed under Section 3.6.3.1.1.1 (Injury due 

to Impulsive Acoustic Sources) and Section 3.6.3.2.1.1 (Injury). 

Table 3.6-13: Sound Exposure Criteria for Mortality and Injury from Explosives 

Fish Hearing Group

Onset of 

Mortality Onset of Injury

SPLpeak SELcum SPLpeak

Fishes without a swim bladder 229 > 216 > 213

Fishes with a swim bladder not 

involved in hearing 229 203 > 207

Fishes with a swim bladder involved 

in hearing 229 203 > 207

Fishes with a swim bladder and 

high-frequency hearing 229 203 > 207

Notes: SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level (decibel referenced to 1 micropascal squared seconds [dB 

re 1 μPa2-s]), SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level (decibel referenced to 1 micropascal [dB re 1 μPa]), 

> indicates that the given effect would occur above the reported threshold. 

The number of fish killed by an underwater explosion would depend on the population density near the 

blast, as well as factors discussed Section 3.6.3.2.1.1 (Injury) such as net explosive weight, depth of the 

explosion, and fish size. For example, if an explosion occurred in the middle of a dense school of 

menhaden, herring, or other schooling fish, a large number of fish could be killed. However, the 

probability of this occurring is low based on the patchy distribution of dense schooling fish. Stunning 

from pressure waves could also temporarily immobilize fish, making them more susceptible to 

predation. 

Fragments produced by exploding munitions at or near the surface may present a high-speed strike 

hazard for an animal at or near the surface. In water, however, fragmentation velocities decrease rapidly 

due to drag (Swisdak & Montanaro, 1992). Because blast waves propagate efficiently through water, the 

range to injury from the blast wave would likely extend beyond the range of fragmentation risk. 

Hearing Loss from Explosives 

Criteria and thresholds to estimate TTS from sound produced by explosive activities are presented 

below in Table 3.6-14. Direct (measured) TTS data from explosives are not available. Criteria used to 

define TTS from explosives is derived from data on fishes exposed to seismic air gun signals (Popper et 

al., 2005) as summarized in the ANSI Sound Exposure Guideline technical report (Popper et al., 2014). 

TTS has not been documented in fishes without a swim bladder from exposure to other impulsive 

sources (pile driving and air guns). Although it is possible that fishes without a swim bladder could 

receive TTS from exposure to explosives, fishes without a swim bladder are typically less susceptible to 

hearing impairment than fishes with a swim bladder. If TTS occurs in fishes without a swim bladder, it 

would likely occur within the range of injury, therefore no threshold for TTS are proposed. General 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-115 

3.6 Fishes

research findings regarding hearing loss in fishes as well as findings specific to exposure to other 

impulsive sound sources are discussed in Section 3.6.3.1.1.2 (Hearing Loss Due to Impulsive Sound 

Sources). 

Table 3.6-14: Sound Exposure Criteria for Hearing Loss from Explosives 

Fish Hearing Group TTS (SELcum)

Fishes with a swim bladder not involved in hearing > 186

Fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing 186

Fishes with a swim bladder and high-frequency 

hearing 186

Notes: TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift, SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level (decibel 

referenced to 1 micropascal squared seconds [dB re 1 μPa2-s]), > indicates that the given 

effect would occur above the reported threshold. 

As discussed in Section 3.6.3.2.1.2 (Hearing Loss), exposure to sound produced from seismic air guns at a 

cumulative sound exposure level of 186 dB re 1 μPa2-s has resulted in TTS in fishes with a swim bladder 

involved in hearing (Popper et al., 2005). TTS has not occurred in fishes with a swim bladder not involved 

in hearing and would likely occur above the given threshold in Table 3.6-14. 

3.6.3.2.2.2 Impact Ranges for Explosives 

The following section provides estimated range to effects for fishes exposed to sound and energy 

produced by explosives. Ranges are calculated using criteria from Table 3.6-13 and Table 3.6-14 and the 

Navy Acoustic Effects Model. Fishes within these ranges would be predicted to receive the associated 

effect. Ranges may vary greatly depending on factors such as the cluster size, location, depth, and 

season of the activity. Table 3.6-15 provides ranges to effect for all fishes without a swim bladder. Only 

one table (Table 3.6-16) is provided for ranges to effect for all fishes with a swim bladder due to 

identical numeric thresholds across each hearing group. However, ranges to TTS for fishes with a swim 

bladder not involved in hearing would be shorter than those reported because this effect has not been 

observed from the designated threshold in Table 3.6-14. 

Table 3.6-15: Range to Effect for Fishes without a Swim Bladder from Explosives 

Bin

Cluster 

Size

Range to Effects (meters)

Onset of 

Mortality Onset of Injury

SPLpeak SELcum SPLpeak

E1 (0.25 lb. NEW)

1

49

(40–80)

1

(0–2)

246

(100–1,025)

100 49

(40–80)

17

(16–30)

246

(100–1,025)

E2 (0.5 lb. NEW) 1

57

(50–70)

3

(2–4)

247

(110–410)

E3 (2.5 lb. NEW)

1

105

(70–220)

4

(4–5)

543

(150–1,775)

50 105

(70–220)

30

(25–40)

543

(150–1,775)
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-116 

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-15: Range to Effect for Fishes without a Swim Bladder from Explosives 

(continued)

Bin

Cluster 

Size

Range to Effects (meters)

Onset of 

Mortality Onset of Injury

SPLpeak SELcum SPLpeak

E4 (5 lb. NEW) 1

151

(140–370) 

11

(6–30) 

1,027

(625–2,025) 

E5 (10 lb. NEW)

1

163

(90–330) 

8

(7–15) 

688

(210–2,025) 

25 163

(90–330) 

34

(25–85) 

688

(210–2,025) 

E6 (20 lb. NEW) 1

218

(120–1,275) 

10

(9–18) 

950

(370–3,025) 

E7 (60 lb. NEW) 1

465

(380–525) 

26

(25–30) 

3,643

(3,025–4,525) 

E8 (100 lb. NEW) 1

419

(160–1,275) 

21

(15–30) 

2,224

(525–7,025) 

E9 (250 lb. NEW) 1

462

(280–550) 

24

(20–35) 

1,749

(775–5,025) 

E10 (500 lb. NEW) 1

511

(240–925) 

32

(25–55) 

2,307

(725–11,525) 

E11 (650 lb. NEW) 1

1,075

(625–2,775) 

74

(65–120) 

5,693

(2,275–15,525) 

E12 (1,000 lb. NEW) 1

701

(360–1,025) 

39

(30–70) 

2,758

(1,025–17,275) 

E16 (14,500 lb. NEW) 1

5,039

(1,775–8,025) 

322

(320–330) 

14,997

(9,025–31,525) 

E17 (58,000 lb. NEW) 1

6,740

(2,775 –11,525) 

705

(600 –1,000) 

20,963

(11,775–46,525) 

Notes: SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level, SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level, TTS = Temporary 

Threshold Shift. Range to effects represents modeled predictions in different areas and seasons within 

the Study Area. Each cell contains the estimated average, minimum and maximum range to the specified 

effect.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-117 

3.6 Fishes

Table 3.6-16: Range to Effect for all Fishes with a Swim Bladder from Explosives

Bin

Cluster 

Size

Range to Effects (meters)

Onset of 

Mortality Onset of Injury TTS

SPLpeak SELcum SPLpeak SELcum

E1 (0.25 lb. NEW)

1

49

(40–80) 

8

(8–10) 

453

(140 –1,025) 

52

(45–85) 

100 49

(40–80) 

73

(55–120) 

453

(140–1,025) 

471

(180–1,275) 

E2 (0.5 lb. NEW) 1

57

(50–70) 

13

(10–16) 

467

(160 –1,275) 

92

(55–170) 

E3 (2.5 lb. NEW)

1

105

(70 –220) 

20

(17–30) 

962

(230–3,775) 

129

(75–260) 

50 105

(70–220) 

129

(75–260) 

962

(230–3,775) 

830

(240–2,525) 

E4 (5 lb. NEW) 1

151

(140–370) 

55

(25–180) 

1,874

(850–5,275) 

432

(150–1,275) 

E5 (10 lb. NEW)

1

163

(90–330) 

30

(25–75) 

1,112

(330–4,025) 

198

(100–490) 

25 163

(90–330) 

139

(85–350) 

1,112

(330–4,025) 

755

(260–2,775) 

E6 (20 lb. NEW) 1

218

(120–1,275) 

43

(30–95) 

1,569

(550–5,275) 

339

(170–1,275) 

E7 (60 lb. NEW) 1

465

(380–525) 

147

(130–180) 

5,338

(3,775–9,775) 

1,504

(1,275–1,775) 

E8 (100 lb. NEW) 1

419

(160–1,275) 

99

(55–190) 

3,951

(800 –13,025) 

784

(240–2,525) 

E9 (250 lb. NEW) 1

462

(280–550) 

116

(75–230) 

3,094

(1,025–17,275) 

683

(340–1,275) 

E10 (500 lb. NEW) 1

511

(240–925) 

162

(95–350) 

5,025

(975–30,525) 

860

(370–7,775) 

E11 (650 lb. NEW) 1

1,075

(625–2,775) 

378

(290–875) 

9,705

(2,525–25,775) 

3,152

(1,525–8,525) 

E12 (1,000 lb. NEW) 1

701

(360–1,025) 

241

(120–460) 

4,778

(1,525–40,775) 

1,084

(525–7,525) 

E16 (14,500 lb. NEW) 1

5,039

(1,775–8,025) 

1,738

(1,275–2,275) 

23,868

(16,025–51,775) 

14,863

(11,525–21,775) 

E17 (58,000 lb. NEW) 1

6,740

(2,775–11,525) 

3,612

(2,775–4,525) 

32,369

(12,775–85,275) 

26,240

(13,775–51,775) 

Notes: SELcum = Cumulative sound exposure level, SPLpeak = Peak sound pressure level, TTS = Temporary Threshold Shift.

Range to effects represent modeled predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. Each cell contains the 

estimated average, minimum and maximum range to the specified effect.
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-118 

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.2.2.3 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive 

Stressors), and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), training activities under Alternative 1 would use 

underwater detonations and explosive munitions. Training activities involving explosions would be 

concentrated in the Virginia Capes Range Complex, followed in descending order of numbers of 

activities by Jacksonville, Navy Cherry Point, Gulf of Mexico, Northeast, and Key West Range Complexes, 

and the lower Chesapeake Bay, although training activities could occur anywhere within the Study Area. 

Activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive munitions typically occur more than 3 NM 

from shore however, some mine warfare and demolition activities could also occur in shallow water 

close to shore. In addition, the Navy will implement mitigation to avoid impacts from explosives on 

seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Seafloor Resource 

Mitigation Areas), which will consequently also help avoid potential impacts on fishes that shelter and 

feed on shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks. 

Sound and energy from explosions could result in mortality and injury, on average, for hundreds to even 

thousands of meters from some of the largest explosions. Exposure to explosions could also result in 

hearing loss in nearby fishes. The estimated range to each of these effects based on explosive bin size is 

provided in Table 3.6-13. Generally, explosives that belong to larger bins (with large net explosive 

weights) produce longer ranges within each effect category. However, some ranges vary depending 

upon a number of other factors (e.g., number of explosions in a single activity, depth of the charge, etc.). 

Fishes without a swim bladder, adult fishes, and larger species would generally be less susceptible to 

injury and mortality from sound and energy associated with explosive activities than small, juvenile or 

larval fishes. Fishes that experience hearing loss could miss opportunities to detect predators or prey, or 

show a reduction in interspecific communication. 

If an individual fish were repeatedly exposed to sound and energy from underwater explosions that 

caused alterations in natural behavioral patterns or physiological stress, these impacts could lead to 

long-term consequences for the individual such as reduced survival, growth, or reproductive capacity. If 

detonations occurred close together (within a few seconds), there could be the potential for masking to 

occur but this would likely happen at farther distances from the source where individual detonations 

might sound more continuous. Training activities involving explosions are generally dispersed in space 

and time. Consequently, repeated exposure of individual fishes to sound and energy from underwater 

explosions over the course of a day or multiple days is not likely and most behavioral effects are 

expected to be short-term (seconds or minutes) and localized. Exposure to multiple detonations over 

the course of a day would most likely lead to an alteration of natural behavior or the avoidance of that 

specific area. 

As discussed previously in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization), all ESA-listed and proposed fish 

species that occur in the Study Area are capable of detecting sound produced by explosives. Atlantic 

salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, scalloped hammerhead sharks, Nassau 

grouper, giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks may be exposed to sound and energy from 

explosives associated with training activities throughout the Study Area. Atlantic salmon occur in the 

Northeast Range Complex where relatively few explosive activities occur throughout a given year. 

Although they may be more likely to be exposed to detonations at the water’s surface or throughout the 

water column, impacts, if they occur, would be infrequent due to the lack of overlap in habitat and 

activity areas. Atlantic sturgeon may be exposed throughout the year in the Northeast, Navy Cherry 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-119 

3.6 Fishes

Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes but in particular, may be more likely to be exposed to activities 

that occur in the Virginia Capes Range Complex and the lower Chesapeake Bay. Shortnose sturgeon are 

primarily restricted to inshore waters with only infrequent excursions into the marine environment and 

therefore are not likely to be exposed to sound and energy from explosives. Smalltooth sawfish and Gulf 

sturgeon may be exposed to sound and energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year in the Gulf of Mexico Range complex. In addition, smalltooth sawfish could also 

occur in the Jacksonville and Key West Range Complexes and the Panama City OPAREA. Known habitat 

for the Central and Southwest Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead shark only 

overlaps with a small southern portion of the Study Area, so the likelihood of exposure would be rare. 

Nassau grouper may be exposed to training activities throughout the year in the Jacksonville and the Key 

West Range Complexes. Giant manta ray and oceanic whitetip sharks could be exposed throughout the 

Study Area. 

Proposed training activities involving the use of explosives overlap designated critical habitat for Gulf 

sturgeon within one mile of the coastline in the eastern Gulf of Mexico as discussed in Section 

3.6.2.2.6.1 (Status and Management). Most of the physical and biological features are generally not 

applicable to the Study Area since they occur within the riverine habitat of the species. Explosives are 

typically detonated 3 NM offshore however, if the use of explosive sources overlapped Gulf sturgeon 

critical habitat, it is unlikely to interfere with the individuals’ safe and unobstructed passage between 

riverine, estuarine, and marine habitats. However, part of the physical and biological features for Gulf 

sturgeon critical habitat includes abundant prey items (e.g., amphipods, lancelets, polychaetes, 

gastropods, ghost shrimp, isopods, molluscs, and crustaceans) within estuarine and marine habitats and 

substrates. The use of explosives within the critical habitat may affect the abundance of prey items. 

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon is restricted to rivers within Maine. Likewise, designated 

critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 m) around 

the tip of Florida and Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat are within estuarine and river systems. Explosives 

are typically detonated 3 NM offshore and are not anticipated to overlap with critical habitat designated 

for Atlantic salmon and smalltooth sawfish or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities, as described under Alternative 1, 

will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and smalltooth sawfish, or proposed 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The use of explosives during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth 

sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped 

hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks, and 

designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive 

Stressors), and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), testing activities under Alternative1 would 

involve underwater detonations and explosive munitions. Testing activities would be conducted, in 

descending order, in the Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, Northeast, Gulf of Mexico, Key West, and Navy 

Cherry Point Range Complexes, as well as the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range. 

Small Ship Shock Trials could take place any season within the deep offshore water of the Virginia Capes 

Range Complex or in the Spring, Summer or Fall within the Jacksonville Range Complex and would occur 

up to three times over a 5-year period. The Large Ship Shock Trial could take place in the Jacksonville 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-120 

3.6 Fishes

Range Complex during the Spring, Summer, or Fall and during any season within the deep offshore 

water of the Virginia Capes Range Complex or within the Gulf of Mexico. The Large Ship Shock Trial 

would occur once over 5 years. Testing activities using explosives do not normally occur within 3 NM of 

shore; the exception is the designated underwater detonation area near Naval Surface Warfare Center, 

Panama City Division Testing Range, which is nearshore, partially within the surf zone. Although there is 

the potential for larger ranges to mortality or injury due to Ship Shock trials, proposed testing activities 

that involve explosives under Alternative 1 would differ in number and location from training activities 

under Alternative 1; however, the types and severity of impacts would not be discernible from those 

described above in Section 3.6.3.2.2.3 (Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 for Training 

Activities). To avoid potential impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation that includes ceasing ship 

shock trial explosive detonations if a large school of fish is observed in the mitigation zone, and seasonal 

mitigation for line charge testing specific to Gulf Sturgeon migrations in the Naval Surface Warfare 

Center, Panama City Division Testing Range, as discussed in Section 5.3.3, Explosive Stressors. In 

addition to procedural mitigation, the Navy will implement mitigation to avoid impacts from explosives 

on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Seafloor 

Resource Mitigation Areas). The mitigation areas will further avoid potential impacts on fishes that 

shelter and feed on shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks. 

As discussed previously in Section 3.6.2.1.3 (Hearing and Vocalization), all ESA-listed and proposed fish 

species that occur in the Study Area are capable of detecting sound produced by explosives. Atlantic 

salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, giant 

manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks may be exposed to sound and energy from explosives 

associated with testing activities throughout the Study Area. Known habitat for the Central and 

Southwest Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead shark only overlaps with a small 

southern portion of the Study Area, but would not occur in range complexes where explosives are used 

during testing activities. 

Atlantic salmon occur in the Northeast Range Complex where relatively few explosive activities occur 

throughout a given year. Although they may be more likely to be exposed to detonations at the water’s 

surface or throughout the water column, impacts, if they occur, would be infrequent due to the lack of 

overlap in habitat and activity areas. Atlantic sturgeon may be exposed throughout the year in the 

Northeast, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes and the Chesapeake Bay area but are 

more likely to be exposed to activities that occur in the Virginia Capes Range Complex and the lower 

Chesapeake Bay. Shortnose sturgeon are primarily restricted to inshore waters with only infrequent 

excursions into the marine environment and therefore may only be exposed to sound and energy from 

explosive activities in nearshore areas within the Northeast, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range 

Complexes. Smalltooth sawfish and Gulf sturgeon, may be exposed to sound and energy from explosive 

activities associated with testing activities throughout the year in the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex. In 

addition, smalltooth sawfish could also occur in the Jacksonville and Key West Range Complexes and the 

Panama City OPAREA portion of the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex and the Naval Surface Warfare 

Center, Panama City Testing Range. Nassau grouper may be exposed to testing activities throughout the 

year in the Jacksonville and the Key West Range Complexes. Giant manta ray and oceanic whitetip 

sharks could be exposed throughout the Study Area. 

To avoid potential impacts during one activity that occurs close to shore in Gulf sturgeon habitat (line 

charge testing), the Navy will implement mitigation that includes avoiding line charge testing in 

nearshore waters in the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range (except 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-121 

3.6 Fishes

within the designated location on Santa Rosa Island) between October and March. The mitigation would 

help avoid impacts from explosives during Gulf sturgeon migrations from the Gulf of Mexico winter and 

feeding grounds to the spring and summer natal (hatching) rivers (the Yellow, Choctawhatchee, and 

Apalachicola Rivers). 

Designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon is restricted to rivers within Maine. Likewise, designated 

critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish is restricted to nearshore, shallow waters (less than 1 m) around 

the tip of Florida and Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat are within estuarine and river systems. Explosives 

are typically detonated 3 NM offshore and are not anticipated to overlap with critical habitat designated 

for Atlantic salmon and smalltooth sawfish or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

Proposed testing activities overlap designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon within one mile of the 

coastline in the eastern Gulf of Mexico as discussed in Section 3.6.2.2.6.1 (Status and Management). 

Most of the physical and biological features are generally not applicable to the Study Area since they 

occur within the riverine habitat of the species. Explosives are typically detonated 3 NM offshore 

however, if the use of explosive sources overlapped Gulf sturgeon critical habitat, it is unlikely to 

interfere with the individuals’ safe and unobstructed passage between riverine, estuarine, and marine 

habitats. However, part of the physical and biological features for Gulf sturgeon critical habitat includes 

abundant prey items (e.g., amphipods, lancelets, polychaetes, gastropods, ghost shrimp, isopods, 

molluscs, and crustaceans) within estuarine and marine habitats and substrates. The use of explosives 

within the critical habitat may affect the abundance of prey items within the vicinity of the explosion. 

Therefore, explosives used in proposed training activities may affect Gulf sturgeon designated critical 

habitat. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities, as described under Alternative 1, will 

have no effect on ESA-listed Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the 

scalloped hammerhead shark, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and smalltooth sawfish, and 

proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The use of explosives during testing activities, as 

described under Alternative 1, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose 

sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic 

whitetip sharks, and designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. The Navy will consult with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.6.3.2.2.4 Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive 

Stressors), and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions), training activities under Alternative 2 would be 

almost identical to those described under Alternative 1. The differences in the number of activities 

within each range complex across a year is nominal with only slight increases in activities in the Virginia 

Capes Range Complex across a five year period; therefore, the locations, types, and severity of predicted 

impacts would not be discernible from those described above in Section 3.6.3.2.2.3 (Impacts from 

Explosives Under Alternative 1 – Training Activities). 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities, as described under Alternative 2, 

will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, or proposed 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The use of explosives during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth 

sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-122 

3.6 Fishes

hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks, and 

designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), testing activities under 

Alternative 2 include activities that produce sound and energy from explosives. Testing activities under 

Alternative 2 would be almost identical to those described under Alternative 1. The differences in the 

number of activities across a year is nominal with only slight increases in activities in the Virginia Capes 

Range Complex and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range across a five year 

period; therefore the locations, types, and severity of predicted impacts would not be discernible from 

those described above in Section 3.6.3.2.2.3 (Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 – Testing 

Activities). 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities, as described under Alternative 2, will 

have no effect on ESA-listed Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the 

scalloped hammerhead shark, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, or 

proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The use of explosives during testing activities, as 

described under Alternative 2, may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose 

sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic 

whitetip sharks, and designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. 

3.6.3.2.2.5 Impacts from Explosives Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Explosives Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various explosive stressors (e.g., explosive shock wave and sound; 

explosive fragments) would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline 

conditions of the existing environment either would remain unchanged or would improve slightly after 

cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.6.3.3 Energy Stressors 

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of energy stressors that can occur during 

training and testing activities within the Study Area. This section includes analysis of the potential 

impacts from (1) in-water and in-air electromagnetic devices and (2) high energy lasers. 

3.6.3.3.1 Impacts from in-Water Electromagnetic Devices 

Several different electromagnetic devices are used during training and testing activities. A discussion of 

the characteristics of energy introduced into the water through naval training and testing activities and 

the relative magnitude and location of these activities is presented in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water 

Electromagnetic Devices), while Table B-1 (Appendix B) lists the activities in each alternative that use the 

devices. 

A comprehensive review of information regarding the sensitivity of marine organisms to electric and 

magnetic impulses is presented in (Normandeau et al., 2011). The synthesis of available data and 

information contained in this report suggests that while many fish species (particularly elasmobranchs) 

are sensitive to electromagnetic fields (Hore, 2012), further investigation is necessary to understand the 

physiological response and magnitude of the potential impacts. Most examinations of electromagnetic 

fields on marine fishes have focused on buried undersea cables associated with offshore wind farms in 

European waters (Boehlert & Gill, 2010; Gill, 2005; Ohman et al., 2007). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-123 

3.6 Fishes

Many fish groups including lampreys, elasmobranchs, sturgeon, eels, marine catfish, salmonids, 

stargazers, tuna, and others, have an acute sensitivity to electrical fields, known as electroreception 

(Bullock et al., 1983; Helfman et al., 2009). Fishes likely use the same sensory organs (e.g., lateral line 

system particularly around the head) for electroreception and also for detecting sounds. Some species 

such as sharks such as the scalloped hammerhead have small pores near the nostrils, around the head 

and on the underside of the snout, or rostrum called ampullae of Lorenzini to detect the 

electromagnetic signature of their prey. Each ESA-listed fish has some level of electroreception, but 

elasmobranchs (including sawfishes) are more sensitive than the others. Electroreceptors are thought to 

aid in navigation, orientation, and migration of sharks and rays (Kalmijn, 2000). In elasmobranchs, 

behavioral and physiological response to electromagnetic stimulus varies by species and age, and 

appears to be related to foraging behavior (Rigg et al., 2009). Many elasmobranchs respond 

physiologically to electric fields of 10 nanovolts per cm and behaviorally at 5 nanovolts per cm (Collin & 

Whitehead, 2004), while Kajiura & Holland (2002) showed juvenile scalloped hammerhead sharks 

detected and behaviorally responded to electric fields of less than 1 nanovolt per cm. 

There are two general types of electroreceptor organs in fishes (Helfman et al., 2009). Ampullary 

receptors, located in recesses in the skin, are connected to the surface by a canal filled with a conductive 

gel and are sensitive to electric fields of low-frequency (<0.1 to 25 Hz). Tuberous receptors are located in 

depressions of the epidermis, are covered with loosely packed epithelial cells, and detect higher 

frequency electric fields (50 Hz to > 2 kHz). They are typically found in fishes that use electric organs to 

produce their own electric fields. The distribution of electroreceptors on the head of these fishes, 

especially around the mouth (e.g., along the rostrum of sawfishes), suggests that these sensory organs 

may be used in foraging. Additionally, some researchers hypothesize that the electroreceptors aid in 

social communication (Collin & Whitehead, 2004). 

Electromagnetic sensitivities of the Gulf, Atlantic, and shortnose sturgeon have not been heavily 

studied; however, the presence of electroreceptive ampullae in all sturgeon strongly supports the 

assertion that they are sensitive to electromagnetic energy (Bouyoucos et al., 2014). The ampullae of 

some fishes are sensitive to low frequencies (less than 0.1–25 Hz) of electrical energy (Helfman et al., 

2009), which may be of physical or biological origin, such as muscle contractions. A recent study on 

juvenile Atlantic sturgeon showed a behavioral avoidance of electropositive metals when food was 

present (Bouyoucos et al., 2014). (Zhang et al., 2012) studied electroreception on Siberian sturgeon 

(Acipenser baerii) and suggested that electroreception plays a role in the feeding behavior of most 

sturgeon species. 

While elasmobranchs and other fishes can sense the level of the earth’s electromagnetic field, the 

potential impacts on fishes resulting from changes in the strength or orientation of the background field 

are not well understood. When the electromagnetic field is enhanced or altered, sensitive fishes may 

experience an interruption or disturbance in normal sensory perception. Research on the 

electrosensitivity of sharks indicates that some species respond to electrical impulses with an apparent 

avoidance reaction (Helfman et al., 2009; Kalmijn, 2000). This avoidance response has been exploited as 

a shark deterrent, to repel sharks from areas of overlap with human activity (Marcotte & Lowe, 2008). A 

recent study on cat sharks (Scyliorhinus canicula) demonstrated that sharks may show habituation to 

electrical fields over short-term exposures (Kimber et al., 2014). Other studies suggest that sharks are 

attracted to electromagnetic sources when conditions in the water hinder their other senses such as 

sight and hearing. This attraction to electromagnetic sources helps sharks to find prey when in these low 

sensory conditions (Fields, 2007). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-124 

3.6 Fishes

The mechanism for direct sensing of magnetic fields is unknown; however, the presence of magnetite (a 

magnetic mineral) in the tissues of some fishes such as tunas and salmon, or other sensory systems such 

as the inner ear and the lateral line system may be responsible for electromagnetic reception (Helfman 

et al., 2009). Magnetite of biogenic origins has been documented in the lateral line of the European eel 

(Anguilla anguilla), a close relative of the American eel; both species occur in the Study Area (Moore & 

Riley, 2009). These species undergo long-distance migrations from natal waters of the Sargasso Sea 

(North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre) to freshwater habitats in Europe and North America (Helfman et al., 

2009), where they mature and then return as adults to the Sargasso Sea to spawn. Some species of 

salmon, tuna, and stargazers have likewise been shown to respond to magnetic fields and may also 

contain magnetite in their tissues (Helfman et al., 2009). 

Experiments with electromagnetic pulses can provide indirect evidence of the range of sensitivity of 

fishes to similar stimuli. Two studies reported that exposure to electromagnetic pulses do not have any 

effect on fishes (Hartwell et al., 1991; Nemeth & Hocutt, 1990). The observed 48-hour mortality of small 

estuarine fishes (e.g., sheepshead minnow, mummichog, Atlantic menhaden, striped bass, Atlantic 

silverside, fourspine stickleback, and rainwater killifish) exposed to electromagnetic pulses of 100–200 

kilovolts per meter (10 nanoseconds per pulse) from distances greater than 50 m was not statistically 

different than the control group (Hartwell et al., 1991; Nemeth & Hocutt, 1990). During a study of 

Atlantic menhaden, there were no statistical differences in swimming speed and direction (toward or 

away from the electromagnetic pulse source) between a group of individuals exposed to 

electromagnetic pulses and the control group (Hartwell et al., 1991; Nemeth & Hocutt, 1990). 

Electromagnetic sensitivity in some marine fishes (e.g., salmonids) is already well-developed at early life 

stages (Ohman et al., 2007); however, most of the limited research that has occurred focuses on adults. 

A laboratory study on Atlantic salmon showed no behavioral changes for adults and post-smolts passing 

through an area with a 50 Hz magnetic field activated (Armstrong et al., 2015). Some species appear to 

be attracted to undersea cables, while others show avoidance (Ohman et al., 2007). Under controlled 

laboratory conditions, the scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) and sandbar shark (Carcharhinus 

plumbeus) exhibited altered swimming and feeding behaviors in response to very weak electric fields 

(less than 1 nanovolt per cm) (Kajiura & Holland, 2002). In a test of sensitivity to fixed magnets, five 

Pacific sharks were shown to react to magnetic field strengths of 2,500–234,000 μT (microtesla) at 

distances ranging between 0.26 and 0.58 m and avoid the area (Rigg et al., 2009). A field trial in the 

Florida Keys demonstrated that southern stingrays (Dasyatis americana) and nurse sharks 

(Ginglymostoma cirratum) detected and avoided a fixed magnetic field producing a flux of 95,000 μT 

(O'Connell et al., 2010). A field study on white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) in South Africa suggested 

behavioral changes in the sharks when approaching a towed prey item with an active electromagnetic 

field (Huveneers et al., 2013). No change was noticed in the sharks’ behavior towards a static prey item. 

The maximum electromagnetic fields typically generated during Navy training and testing activities is 

approximately 2,300 μT. 

Potential impacts of electromagnetic activity on adult fishes may not be relevant to early life stages 

(eggs, larvae, juveniles) due to ontogenic (lifestage-based) shifts in habitat utilization (Botsford et al., 

2009; Sabates et al., 2007). Some skates and rays produce egg cases that lay on the bottom, while many 

neonate and adult sharks occur in the water column or near the water surface. Exposure of eggs and 

larvae (ichthyoplankton) to electromagnetic fields would be low since their distributions are extremely 

patchy. Early life history stages of ESA-listed sturgeon and Atlantic salmon occur in freshwater or 

estuarine habitats outside of the Study Area. Similarly, sawfish neonates and juveniles typically inhabit 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-125 

3.6 Fishes

nearshore mangrove habitats, beyond the areas where in-water electromagnetic devices are used. For 

many sharks, skates, rays, and livebearers, the fecundity and natural mortality rates are much lower, 

and the exposure of the larger neonates and juveniles to electromagnetic energy would be similar 

across life stages for these species. 

Based on current literature, only the fish groups identified above are capable of detecting 

electromagnetic fields (primarily elasmobranchs, sturgeon, salmonids, tuna, eels, and stargazers) and 

thus will be carried forward in this section. The remaining major fish groups (from Table 3.6-2) will not 

be presented further. Aspects of electromagnetic stressors that are applicable to marine organisms in 

general are described in Section 3.0.3.6.2 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from 

Energy-Producing Activities). 

3.6.3.3.1.1 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 1, training activities involving in-water electromagnetic devices occur in the Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico Large Marine 

Ecosystems—specifically within the Virginia Capes Range Complex, Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, 

Jacksonville Range Complex, Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, and within inland waters in these areas. 

Activities that use in-water electromagnetic devices would remain concentrated within the Virginia 

Capes Range Complex, accounting for 63 percent of the annual activities. Fish species that do not occur 

within these specified areas—including the ESA-listed Atlantic salmon— would not be exposed to inwater electromagnetic devices. Species that do occur within the areas listed above—including the ESAlisted smalltooth sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, and the 

Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark would 

have the potential to be exposed to in-water electromagnetic devices. 

Exposure is limited to those marine fish groups able to detect electromagnetic properties in the water 

column, as described in Section 3.6.2 (Affected Environment), such as elasmobranchs, sturgeon, tuna, 

salmon, eels, and stargazers (Bullock et al., 1983; Helfman et al., 2009). Fishes sensitive to 

electromagnetic fields (primarily elasmobranchs, sturgeon, salmonids, tuna, eels, and stargazers) may 

experience temporary disturbance of normal sensory perception during migratory or foraging 

movements, or they could experience avoidance or attraction reactions (Fields, 2007; Kalmijn, 2000), 

resulting in alterations of behavior and avoidance of normal foraging areas or migration routes. 

Exposure of electromagnetically sensitive fish species to electromagnetic activities has the potential to 

result in stress to the animal and may also elicit alterations in normal behavior patterns (e.g., swimming, 

feeding, resting, and spawning). Such effects may have the potential to disrupt long-term growth and 

survival of an individual. However, due to the temporary (hours) and isolated locations where in-water 

electromagnetic devices are used in the Study Area, the resulting stress on fishes is not likely to impact 

the health of resident or migratory populations. Likewise, some fish in the vicinity of training activities 

may react to in-water electromagnetic devices, but the signals are not widespread or frequent enough 

to alter behavior on a long-term basis. Any behavioral changes are not expected to have lasting effects 

on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of these marine fish groups at the population 

level. 

Smalltooth sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest 

Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, oceanic whitetip sharks, and 

giant manta rays are the only ESA-listed fish species occurring in training areas that are known to be 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-126 

3.6 Fishes

capable of detecting electromagnetic energy. Smalltooth sawfish could occur in the Jacksonville Range 

Complex, but any occurrences would be extremely rare (Florida Museum of Natural History, 2011). 

Atlantic sturgeon inhabit inland and coastal waters, and therefore may encounter in-water 

electromagnetic devices used in training activities in bays and estuaries, like the lower Chesapeake Bay. 

Other locations include portions of the range complexes that lie over the Continental Shelf, overlapping 

the normal distribution of Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. Oceanic 

whitetip sharks and giant manta rays are found in offshore waters and may encounter in-water 

electromagnetic devices used in training activities in those areas. Any behavioral changes are not 

expected to have lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of fishes at the 

population level. 

The civilian port defense training activity could overlap with Gulf sturgeon critical habitat, if it were to 

occur in St. Andrew Bay in a given year. Food sources identified as biological and physical features of the 

critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon that occurs in St. Andrew Bay would not be impacted by this activity; 

but it is possible, though highly unlikely, that the use of electromagnetic devices may impact fish 

passage, which is another biological and physical feature of the critical habitat for this species. In 

addition, civilian port defense training activities in Wilmington, DE; Norfolk, VA; and Savannah, GA 

overlap with proposed Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat in the Delaware River, James River, and 

Savannah River, respectively. As with Gulf sturgeon critical habitat, while highly unlikely, 

electromagnetic activities could affect fish passage within these areas. 

All of the biological and physical features required by Atlantic salmon are applicable to freshwater only 

and are outside the Study Area. Therefore, none of the electromagnetic stressors would affect Atlantic 

salmon critical habitat. The biological and physical features of critical habitat for smalltooth sawfish are 

red mangrove habitats and shallow marine waters of less than 1 m deep. Electromagnetic activities do 

not occur at these depths and thus would not overlap with smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. 

The in-water electromagnetic devices used in training activities would not be anticipated to result in 

more than minimal impact on fishes as individuals or populations because of: (1) the relatively low 

intensity of the magnetic fields generated (0.2 microtesla at 200 m from the source), (2) the highly 

localized potential impact area, and (3) the limited and temporally distinct duration of the activities 

(hours). Some fishes could have a detectable response to electromagnetic exposure, but the fields 

generated are typically well below physiological and behavioral responses of magnetoreceptive fishes, 

and any impacts would be temporary with no anticipated impact on an individual’s growth, survival, 

annual reproductive success, or lifetime reproductive success (i.e., fitness), or species recruitment, and 

are not expected to result in population-level impacts. Electromagnetic exposure of eggs and larvae of 

sensitive bony fishes would be low relative to their total ichthyoplankton biomass (Able & Fahay, 1998); 

therefore, potential impacts on recruitment would not be expected. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities, as described 

under Alternative 1, will have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Nassau grouper, and critical habitats 

designated for Atlantic salmon and smalltooth sawfish. Training activities under Alternative 1 involving 

the use of in-water electromagnetic devices may affect smalltooth sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose 

sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the 

scalloped hammerhead shark, proposed oceanic whitetip sharks and giant manta rays, designated 

critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The Navy will 

consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that 

regard. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-127 

3.6 Fishes

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 1, testing activities involving in-water electromagnetic devices occur in a number of 

areas, including Virginia Capes Range Complex, Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, Jacksonville Range 

Complex, Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing Range, South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range, and 

within inland waters (see Table 3.0-14). Atlantic salmon and scalloped hammerhead sharks belonging to 

the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment do not occur within these specified 

areas and would not be exposed to in-water electromagnetic devices during testing activities. 

ESA-listed species that occur within these areas, including Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon 

smalltooth sawfish, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, scalloped hammerhead sharks, oceanic whitetip 

sharks, and giant manta rays would have the potential to be exposed to in-water electromagnetic 

devices. 

Exposure is limited to those marine fish groups able to detect electromagnetic properties in the water 

column, as described in Section 3.6.2 (Affected Environment), such as elasmobranchs, sturgeon, tuna, 

salmon, eels, and stargazers (Bullock et al., 1983; Helfman et al., 2009). Two such species, the Atlantic 

torpedo ray (Torpedo nobiliana) and the lesser electric ray (Narcine brasiliensis) occur in the Naval 

Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range, where a portion of the electromagnetic 

activities will be concentrated. 

All of the ESA-listed fish species occurring in areas where testing occurs are capable of detecting 

electromagnetic energy, with the exception of Nassau grouper. Potential exposure to electromagnetic 

testing activities may occur in the offshore portions of the testing ranges that lie within the continental 

shelf, overlapping the normal distribution of Gulf sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, and 

smalltooth sawfish. Oceanic whitetip sharks and giant manta rays are found in offshore waters and may 

encounter in-water electromagnetic devices used in testing activities in those areas. Behavioral changes 

are not expected to have lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction of fish 

species. 

Testing activities in the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex could overlap with Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. 

Food sources identified as biological and physical features of the critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon that 

would not be impacted by this activity; but it is possible, though highly unlikely, that the use of 

electromagnetic devices may impact fish passage, which is another biological and physical feature of the 

critical habitat for this species. The use of electromagnetic devices during testing activities does not 

overlap with the proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

All of critical habitat biological and physical features required by Atlantic salmon are applicable to 

freshwater only and are outside the Study Area. Therefore, none of the electromagnetic stressors would 

affect Atlantic salmon critical habitat. The biological and physical features for smalltooth sawfish are red 

mangrove habitats and shallow marine waters of less than 1 m deep. Electromagnetic activities do not 

occur at these depths and thus would not overlap with smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. 

The in-water electromagnetic devices used in testing activities would not cause any risk to fish because 

of the: (1) relatively low intensity of the magnetic fields generated (0.2 microtesla at 200 m from the 

source), (2) highly localized potential impact area, and (3) limited and temporally distinct duration of the 

activities (hours). Fishes may have a detectable response to electromagnetic exposure, but would likely 

recover completely. Potential impacts of exposure to electromagnetic stressors are not expected to 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-128 

3.6 Fishes

result in substantial changes to an individual’s behavior, fitness, or species recruitment, and are not 

expected to result in population-level impacts. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during testing activities, as described 

under Alternative 1, will have no effect on Atlantic salmon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct 

Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, designated critical habitat for 

Atlantic salmon and smalltooth sawfish, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. Testing 

activities under Alternative 1 involving the use of in-water electromagnetic devices may affect 

smalltooth sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, proposed oceanic whitetip 

sharks and giant manta rays, and designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. The Navy will consult with 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.6.3.3.1.2 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Because the locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with in-water electromagnetic 

devices would be the same Under Alternatives 1 and 2, impacts experienced by fishes from in-water 

electromagnetic devices use under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than 

those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with training activities under 

Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during training activities, as described 

under Alternative 2, will have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Nassau grouper, and designated critical 

habitat for Atlantic salmon and smalltooth sawfish. Training activities under Alternative 2 involving the 

use of in-water electromagnetic devices may affect smalltooth sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose 

sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the 

scalloped hammerhead shark, proposed oceanic whitetip sharks and giant manta rays, designated 

critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Because the locations, number of events, and potential effects associated with in-water electromagnetic 

devices would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2, impacts experienced by fishes from in-water 

electromagnetic devices use under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than 

those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with testing activities under 

Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices during testing activities, as described 

under Alternative 2, will have no effect on Atlantic salmon, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct 

Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, Nassau grouper, designated critical habitat for 

Atlantic salmon and smalltooth sawfish, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. Testing 

activities under Alternative 2 involving the use of in-water electromagnetic devices may affect 

smalltooth sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, proposed oceanic whitetip 

sharks and giant manta rays, and designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-129 

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.3.1.3 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under the No Action 

Alternative 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Electromagnetic fields from towed devices or unmanned mine warfare 

systems would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the 

existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.6.3.3.2 Impacts from In-Air Electromagnetic Devices 

In-air electromagnetic stressors are not applicable to fishes because they are transmitted in the air and 

not underwater and will not be analyzed further in this section. 

3.6.3.3.3 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers 

This section analyzes the potential impacts of high energy lasers on fishes. As discussed in Section 

3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers), high energy laser weapons are designed to disable surface targets, rendering them 

immobile. The primary impact from high-energy lasers would be from the laser beam striking the fish at 

or near the water's surface, which could result in injury or death. 

Fish could be exposed to a laser only if the beam missed the target. Should the laser strike the sea 

surface, individual fish at or near the surface could be exposed. The potential for exposure to a high 

energy laser beam decreases as the water depth increases. Most fish are unlikely to be exposed to laser 

activities because they primarily occur more than a few meters below the sea surface. 

3.6.3.3.3.1 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 1, training activities involving high-energy lasers only occur within the Virginia Capes 

and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Fish species in these areas that occur near the surface, such as 

oceanic whitetip sharks and giant manta rays, would have the potential to be exposed to high-energy 

lasers. Although occurring in areas of laser use, while in coastal and offshore waters, Atlantic sturgeon, 

shortnose sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish typically occur in the lower depths of the water column or 

near the seafloor and would not be exposed. Atlantic salmon, Gulf sturgeon, Nassau grouper, and the 

Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark do not 

occur in areas of laser use. In addition, the use of high energy lasers under Alternative 1 for training 

activities does not overlap with the designated critical habitat for any of the ESA-listed fish species. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf 

sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth 

sawfish, and Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The use of high-energy 

lasers during training activities under Alternative 1 may affect proposed oceanic whitetip sharks and 

giant manta rays. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-130 

3.6 Fishes

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 1, high-energy laser weapons would be used for testing activities in the AFTT Study 

Area, the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystems and Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area (see Table 3.0-15). High-energy laser testing occurs at the 

highest frequency within the Virginia Capes Range Complex, but would also occur at the Northeast 

Range Complexes, Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, Jacksonville Range Complex, Key West Range 

Complex, Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing Range, South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, and Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range. 

Species that occur near the surface at these locations within these areas would have the potential to be 

exposed. 

Some ESA-listed species such as Atlantic salmon, as well as proposed species such as oceanic whitetip 

sharks and giant mantas that are found in offshore locations and occur near the surface of the water 

column may pose a higher risk of being exposed to high-energy lasers. Although occurring in areas of 

laser use, while in coastal and offshore waters, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, 

smalltooth sawfish, and Nassau grouper typically occur in the lower depths of the water column or near 

the seafloor and would not be exposed. Scalloped hammerheads belonging to the Central and 

Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment do not occur in the areas used for testing activities. 

High-energy laser weapons tests would not overlap with critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 

sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, or Gulf sturgeon. 

Fishes are unlikely to be exposed to high-energy lasers based on: (1) the relatively low number of 

events, (2) the very localized potential impact area of the laser beam, and (3) the temporary duration of 

potential impact (seconds). 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, smalltooth 

sawfish, Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the 

scalloped hammerhead shark, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, and 

Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The use of high-energy lasers during 

testing activities under Alternative 1 may affect Atlantic salmon, proposed giant manta rays and oceanic 

whitetip sharks. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.6.3.3.3.2 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Because activities under Alternative 2 occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1, 

impacts experienced by fishes from high-energy laser use under Alternative 2 are not expected to be 

meaningfully different than those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with 

testing activities under Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, would have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf 

sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth 

sawfish, and Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The use of high-energy 

lasers during training activities under Alternative 2 may also affect proposed giant manta rays and 

oceanic whitetip sharks. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-131 

3.6 Fishes

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Because activities under Alternative 2 occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1, 

impacts experienced by fishes from high-energy laser use under Alternative 2 are not expected to be 

meaningfully different than those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with 

testing activities under Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of high-energy lasers during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, smalltooth 

sawfish, Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of the 

scalloped hammerhead shark, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish, and 

Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The use of high-energy lasers during 

testing activities under Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed Atlantic salmon and proposed giant manta 

rays and oceanic whitetip sharks. 

3.6.3.3.3.3 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area and fishes would not be exposed to high-energy lasers. Therefore, 

baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve 

slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.6.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors 

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of physical disturbance and potential for 

strike during training and testing activities within the Study Area from (1) vessels and in water devices, 

(2) military expended materials, including non-explosive practice munitions and fragments from highexplosive munitions, and (3) seafloor devices. A discussion of the relative magnitude and location of 

these activities is presented in Section 3.0.3.3.4 (Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors), while Table 

B-1 (Appendix B) lists the activities in each alternative that use the devices. 

How a physical strike impacts a fish depends on the relative size of the object potentially striking the fish 

and the location of the fish in the water column. Before being struck by an object, Atlantic salmon for 

example, would sense a pressure wave through the water (Hawkins & Johnstone, 1978) and have the 

ability to swim away from the oncoming object. The movement generated by a large object moving 

through the water would simply displace small fishes in open water, such as Atlantic herring. Some fish 

might have time to detect the approaching object and swim away; others could be struck before they 

become aware of the object. An open-ocean fish that is displaced a small distance by movements from 

an object falling into the water nearby would likely continue on its original path as if nothing had 

happened. However, a bottom-dwelling fish near a sinking object would likely be disturbed, and may 

exhibit a general stress response, as described in Section 3.0.3.6 (Biological Resource Methods). As in all 

vertebrates, the function of the stress response in fish is to rapidly alter blood chemistry levels or ratios 

to prepare the fish to flee or fight (Helfman et al., 2009). This generally adaptive physiological response 

can become a liability to the fish if the stressor persists and the fish is not able to return to its baseline 

physiological state. When stressors are chronic, the fish may experience reduced growth, health, or 

survival (Wedemeyer et al., 1990). If the object hits the fish, direct injury (in addition to stress) or death 

may result. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-132 

3.6 Fishes

The potential responses to a physical strike are varied, but include behavioral changes such as 

avoidance, altered swimming speed and direction, physiological stress, and physical injury or mortality. 

Despite their ability to detect approaching vessels using a combination of sensory cues (e.g., sight, 

hearing, and lateral line), larger slow-moving fishes (e.g., whale sharks [Rhincodon typus], basking sharks 

[Cetorhinus maximus], manta rays [Manta spp.), sturgeon [Acipenser spp.], and ocean sunfish) cannot 

avoid all collisions, with some collisions resulting in mortality (Balazik et al., 2012; Braun et al., 2015; 

Brown & Murphy, 2010; Couturier et al., 2012; Deakos et al., 2011; Foderaro, 2015; Germanov & 

Marshall, 2014; Graham et al., 2012; Miller & Klimovich, 2016; Ramirez-Macias et al., 2012; Rowat et al., 

2007; Speed et al., 2008; Stevens, 2007). Many fishes respond by darting quickly away from the 

stimulus. Some other species may respond by freezing in place and adopting cryptic coloration, while 

still some other species may respond in an unpredictable manner. Regardless of the response, the 

individual must stop its current activity and divert its physiological and cognitive attention to responding 

to the stressor (Helfman et al., 2009). The energy costs of reacting to a stressor depend on the specific 

situation, but in all cases the caloric requirements of stress reactions reduce the amount of energy 

available to the fish for other functions, such as predator avoidance, reproduction, growth, and 

maintenance (Wedemeyer et al., 1990). 

The ability of a fish to return to its previous activity following a physical strike (or near-miss resulting in a 

stress response) is a function of a variety of factors. Some fish species are more tolerant of stressors 

than others and become re-acclimated more easily. Within a species, the rate at which an individual 

recovers from a physical strike may be influenced by its age, sex, reproductive state, and general 

condition. A fish that has reacted to a sudden disturbance by swimming at burst speed would tire after 

only a few minutes; its blood hormone and sugar levels (cortisol and glucose) may not return to normal 

for up to, or longer than, 24 hours. During its recovery period, the fish would not be able to attain burst 

speeds and would be more vulnerable to predators (Wardle, 1986). If the individual were not able to 

regain a steady state following exposure to a physical stressor, it may suffer reduced immune function 

and even death (Wedemeyer et al., 1990). 

Potential impacts of physical disturbance and strike to adults may be different than for other life stages 

(e.g., eggs, larvae, juveniles) because these life stages do not necessarily occur together in the same 

location (Botsford et al., 2009; Sabates et al., 2007), and because they have different response 

capabilities. The numbers of eggs and larvae exposed to vessel movements would be low relative to 

total ichthyoplankton biomass (Able & Fahay, 1998); therefore, measurable effects on fish recruitment 

would not be expected. Also, the early life stages of most marine fishes (excluding sharks and other 

livebearers) already have extremely high natural mortality rates (10–85 percent per day) from predation 

on these life stages (Helfman et al., 2009), and therefore, most eggs and larvae are not expected to 

survive to the next life stage. 

3.6.3.4.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices 

Representative Navy vessel types, lengths, and speeds of vessels used in the Study Area is presented in 

Table 3.0-16. The number and location of activities including vessels for each alternative is presented in 

Table 3.0-17, while Table B-1 (Appendix B) lists the activities in each alternative that use the devices. 

Vessels 

Vessels do not normally collide with adult fishes, most of which can detect and avoid them. One study 

on Barents sea capelin (Mallotus villosus) behavioral responses to vessels showed that most adults 

exhibit avoidance responses to engine noise, sonar, depth finders, and fish finders (Jørgensen et al., 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-133 

3.6 Fishes

2004), reducing the potential for vessel strikes. Misund (1997) found that fishes, such as Polar cod 

(Boreogadus saida), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), 

sardine (Sardina pilchardus), herring, anchovy (Engraulis ringens), and capelin, that were ahead of a ship 

showed avoidance reactions and did so at ranges of 50–350 m. When the vessel passed over them, 

some fishes had sudden avoidance responses that included lateral avoidance or downward compression 

of the school. Conversely, Rostad et al. (2006) observed that some fishes are attracted to different types 

of vessels (e.g., research vessels, commercial vessels) of varying sizes, noise levels, and habitat locations. 

Fishes involved in that study included herring (Clupea harengus), sprat (Sprattus sprattus), and whitefish 

(Merlangius merlangus) (Rostad et al., 2006). Fish behavior in the vicinity of a vessel is therefore quite 

variable, depending on the type of fish, its life history stage, behavior, time of day, and the sound 

propagation characteristics of the water (Schwarz & Greer, 1984). Early life stages of most fishes could 

be displaced by vessels and not struck in the same manner as adults of larger species. However, a 

vessel’s propeller movement or propeller wash could entrain early life stages. The low-frequency sounds 

of large vessels or accelerating small vessels caused avoidance responses among herring (Chapman & 

Hawkins, 1973), but avoidance ended within 10 seconds after the vessel departed. 

There are a few notable exceptions to this assessment of potential vessel strike impacts on fish groups. 

Large slow-moving fishes such as whale sharks (Ramirez-Macias et al., 2012; Rowat et al., 2007; Speed et 

al., 2008; Stevens, 2007), basking sharks (Pacific Shark Research Center, 2017; The Shark Trust, 2017), 

manta rays (Braun et al., 2015; Couturier et al., 2012; Deakos et al., 2011; Germanov & Marshall, 2014; 

Graham et al., 2012; Miller & Klimovich, 2016), and sturgeon (Balazik et al., 2012; Brown & Murphy, 

2010; Foderaro, 2015) may occur near the surface in open-ocean and coastal areas, thus making them 

more susceptible to ship strikes which may result in blunt trauma, lacerations, fin damage, or mortality. 

Stevens (2007) noted that increases in the numbers and sizes of shipping vessels in the modern cargo 

fleets make it difficult to gather strike-related mortality data for whale sharks because personnel on 

large ships are often unaware of collisions; therefore, the occurrence of vessel strikes is likely much 

higher than has been documented by the few studies that have been conducted. This holds true not just 

for whale sharks, but also for any of the aforementioned fish species. 

In addition to whale sharks, Atlantic sturgeon have also been documented to be susceptible to vessel 

strikes. Brown and Murphy (2010) found that 28 deaths of Atlantic sturgeon in the Delaware Bay and 

the Delaware River were reported over the four-year period of 2005 to 2008. Of those, 50 percent were 

caused by vessel collisions, although the size and type of the vessels was unknown. An unknown number 

of additional sturgeon were likely struck by vessels and were not included in this total. Based on an eggper-recruit analysis of the Delaware River population, the authors concluded that an annual mortality 

rate of 2.5 percent of the females could have adverse impacts on the population (Brown & Murphy, 

2010). In Virginia, Balazik et al. (2012) investigated Atlantic sturgeon mortalities due to vessel strikes 

that occurred in upstream areas of the James River. Based on observations of fish implanted with 

acoustic transmitters, the authors concluded that when moving the tracked individuals occurred in 

water depths overlapping with the draft of ocean cargo vessels (about 23 ft.), but were rarely in depths 

overlapping the draft of tugboats and small recreational craft (about 3 to 7 ft.). However, as a result of 

the very small sample size (three fish), this conclusion bears little support. The fish were detected in the 

navigation channel of the river 69 percent of the time. More recently in New York, it was noted that 

over the latest three-year period (2012 through 2014), there were 76 known Atlantic sturgeon fatalities 

attributed to boat strikes around the Tappan Zee Bridge on the Hudson River, in addition to over two 

dozen more reported during the first six months of 2015 (Foderaro, 2015). This reflects a significant 

increase when compared to the previous three-year period (2009 through 2011) during which only six 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-134 

3.6 Fishes

sturgeon fatalities were documented. Many have attributed this increase in sturgeon mortality to the 

increased boat traffic associated with the expansion of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which began in 2012. 

However, they may also, in part, be the result of an increased effort into monitoring for fish strandings. 

Regardless, it illustrates the level of susceptibility of Atlantic sturgeon to vessel strikes. 

Based on the typical physiological responses described in Section 3.6.3.4 (Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors), vessel movements are not expected to compromise the general health or condition of 

individual fishes, except for large slow-moving fishes such as whale sharks, basking sharks, manta rays, 

sturgeon, and ocean sunfish (Balazik et al., 2012; Brown & Murphy, 2012; Foderaro, 2015; Rowat et al., 

2007; Speed et al., 2008; Stevens, 2007). 

In-Water Devices 

In-water devices do not normally collide with adult fishes, as most can detect and avoid them. Fish 

responses to in-water devices would be similar to those discussed above for vessels. Fishes would likely 

show varying behavioral avoidance responses to in-water devices. Early life stages of most fishes could 

be displaced by in-water devices and not struck in the same manner as adults of larger species. Because 

in-water devices are continuously moving, most fishes are expected to move away from it or to follow 

behind it. 

3.6.3.4.1.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices) provide estimates of relative vessel and in-water 

devices use and location for each of the alternatives. These estimates are based on the number of 

activities predicted for each alternative. While these estimates predict use, actual Navy vessel usage 

depends on military training and testing requirements, deployment schedules, annual budgets, and 

other unpredictable factors. Training concentrations mostly depend on locations of Navy shore 

installations and established training areas. The Navy’s use of these areas has not appreciably changed 

in the last decade and are not expected to change in the foreseeable future. Under Alternative 1, the 

concentration of vessel movement and in-water device use and the manner in which the Navy trains 

would remain consistent with the range of variability observed over the last decade. As underwater 

technologies advance, it is likely that the frequency of in-water device use may increase. However, the 

Navy does not foresee any appreciable changes in the locations where in-water devices have been used 

over the last decade, and therefore the level at which strikes are expected to occur is likely to remain 

consistent with the previous decade. 

Navy training vessel traffic could occur anywhere in the Study Area, but would especially be 

concentrated in Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes, as presented in 

Table 3.0-17. In addition, there are numerous areas within inland waters where vessels during training 

activities would be concentrated, including the lower Chesapeake Bay; James River and tributaries; 

Norfolk, VA; Mayport, FL; Groton, CT; and Newport, RI (see Table 3.0-18). Of particular importance 

would be inland areas where activities involving large amounts of high-speed vessel movements occur, 

such as the Lower Chesapeake Bay; James River and tributaries; York River; Cooper River, SC; and 

Narragansett, RI (see Table 3.0-19). Navy training in-water device use could also take place anywhere in 

the Study Area, but primarily occurs in the Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, and Navy Cherry Point Range 

Complexes. A large number of activities involving in-water devices also occur in inland waters, 

predominately in the Lower Chesapeake Bay; James River and tributaries; St. Andrew’s Bay; Mayport, FL; 

and Kings Bay, GA (see Table 3.0-22). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-135 

3.6 Fishes

The risk of a strike from vessels and in-water devices such as a remotely operated vehicles, unmanned 

surface vehicles, unmanned underwater vehicles, motorized autonomous targets, or towed mine 

warfare devices used in training activities would be extremely low because (1) most fishes can detect 

and avoid vessel and in-water device movements; and (2) the types of fish that are likely to be exposed 

to vessel and in-water device strike are limited and occur in low concentrations where vessels and inwater devices are most frequently used. Potential impacts from exposure to vessels and in-water 

devices are not expected to result in substantial changes to an individual’s behavior, fitness, or species 

recruitment, and are not expected to result in population-level impacts. 

As described above, the potential exception would be large, slow-moving fish species, such as Atlantic 

sturgeon, which are documented to be highly susceptible to vessel strikes and are concentrated in 

inshore areas where intense high speed vessel movement activities as part of the Proposed Action are 

common (see Table 3.0-19). Atlantic sturgeon may be susceptible to vessel strikes in these areas, 

including Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River and tributaries, York River, and Cooper River, resulting in 

potential injury or mortality. This species is most susceptible to vessel and in-water device strikes in 

these areas because all five distinct population segments congregate in large numbers in the lower 

Chesapeake Bay, all sturgeon belonging to two separate and genetically distinct spawning populations 

from the James River and the York River populations must pass through the lower Chesapeake Bay on 

their way to and from their spawning grounds, and the York River spawning population is estimated to 

be very small (several hundred fish) and likely consists of higher numbers of males and relatively few 

females. As a result, even a loss of a couple of females to this spawning population could have long-term 

consequences. Gulf sturgeon, a congener of Atlantic sturgeon, are also likely susceptible to vessel and 

in-water device strikes. 

Due to their preference for riverine habitats, absence from the lower Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, 

and close association to the seafloor, shortnose sturgeon are not considered to be highly susceptible to 

vessel and in-water device strikes, with only a few ship strike have been documented for this species 

(Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team, 2010). Likewise, smalltooth sawfish are typically found in 

shallow, coastal waters where training activities do not occur. When in deeper waters, smalltooth 

sawfish tend to remain along the seafloor. Nassau grouper are strongly associated with reef and live 

hard bottom seafloor habitats and, as such, would not be susceptible to vessel and in-water device use. 

Giant manta rays in offshore areas may be susceptible to vessel strikes in those areas, as are the closely 

related reef manta ray (Braun et al., 2015; Couturier et al., 2012; Deakos et al., 2011; Germanov & 

Marshall, 2014; Graham et al., 2012; Miller & Klimovich, 2016). However, unlike the reef manta ray, the 

giant manta ray is typically found in low numbers and rarely aggregates. 

As Atlantic salmon, scalloped hammerhead sharks, and oceanic whitetip sharks also typically occur 

within the upper water column or at the surface, there is the potential for an interaction to occur, 

though it is highly unlikely given their ability to detect and avoid vessel and in-water device movements. 

Vessel and in-water device use during training activities potentially overlaps with designated critical 

habitat for Atlantic salmon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish and proposed critical habitat for 

Atlantic sturgeon. Unimpeded migratory passageways are included as part of the physical and biological 

features associated with Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, and Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. While

unlikely, vessel and in-water device use in inland waters has the potential to delay passage through 

certain migratory pathways. Vessel and in-water device use in smalltooth sawfish critical habitat is 

extremely unlikely and would not affect the physical and biological identified for these habitats. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-136 

3.6 Fishes

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during training activities, as described 

under Alternative 1, will have no effect on Nassau grouper, smalltooth sawfish, and designated critical 

habitat for smalltooth sawfish. Vessel and in-water device use during training activities under 

Alternative 1 may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, oceanic 

whitetip sharks, Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped 

hammerhead sharks, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and Gulf sturgeon, and proposed 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), most of the testing activities involve 

vessel movements. However, the number of activities that include the vessel movement for testing is 

comparatively lower than the number of training activities. In addition, testing often occurs jointly with 

a training event, so it is likely that the testing activity would be conducted from a training vessel. Vessel 

movement in conjunction with testing activities could be widely dispersed throughout the Study Area, 

but would be concentrated near naval ports, piers, range complexes, and testing ranges. Specifically, 

testing activities that include vessels would be conducted within the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy 

Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes; the Naval Undersea Warfare 

Division, Newport Testing Range; South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range; Naval 

Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range; as well as inland waters within the AFTT 

Study Area. Testing activities involving the use of in-water devices would also occur in the AFTT Study 

Area at any time of year. Under Alternative 1, testing activities involving the use of in-water devices 

would be conducted throughout the AFTT Study Area, including the same areas where vessel movement 

is occurring. 

As previously discussed, with the exception of some large, slow-moving species that may occur at the 

surface, the risk of a strike from a vessel or in-water device used in testing activities would be extremely 

low because most fishes can detect and avoid in-water device movements, and exposure to vessels and 

in-water devices are not expected to result in substantial changes to an individual’s behavior, fitness, or 

species recruitment, and are not expected to result in population-level impacts. 

As described above in the Alternative 1 training analysis, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and giant 

manta rays have been shown to be susceptible to vessel strikes. As Atlantic salmon, scalloped 

hammerhead sharks, and oceanic whitetip sharks also typically occur within the upper water column or 

at the surface, there is the potential for an interaction to occur, though it is highly unlikely given their 

ability to detect and avoid vessel and in-water device movements. 

Due to their preference for riverine habitats, absence from the lower Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, 

and close association to the seafloor, shortnose sturgeon are susceptible to vessel and in-water device 

strikes, but the risk is low. As stated above, only a few ship strike have been documented for this species 

(Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team, 2010). Likewise, smalltooth sawfish are typically found in 

shallow, coastal waters where testing activities do not occur. When in deeper waters, smalltooth 

sawfish tend to remain along the seafloor. Nassau grouper are strongly associated with reef and live 

hardbottom seafloor habitats and, as such, would not be susceptible to vessel and in-water device use. 

Vessel and in-water device use potentially overlaps with designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. Unimpeded 

migratory passageways are included as part of the physical and biological features associated with 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-137 

3.6 Fishes

Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, and Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. While unlikely, vessel and in-water 

device use in inland waters has the potential to delay passage through certain migratory pathways. 

Vessel and in-water device use in smalltooth sawfish critical habitat is extremely unlikely and would not 

affect the physical and biological identified for these habitats. 

Vessel and in-water device use during testing activities potentially overlaps with designated critical 

habitat for Atlantic salmon, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish and proposed critical habitat for 

Atlantic sturgeon. Unimpeded migratory passageways are included as part of the physical and biological 

features associated with Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, and Gulf sturgeon critical habitat. While 

unlikely, vessel and in-water device use in inland waters has the potential to delay passage through 

certain migratory pathways within Atlantic salmon and Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat, but testing 

activities should not affect Gulf sturgeon critical habitat as inland testing activities do not overlap with 

critical habitat for this species. Vessel and in-water device use in smalltooth sawfish critical habitat is 

extremely unlikely and would not affect the physical and biological identified for these habitats. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on Nassau grouper, smalltooth sawfish, and designated critical habitat 

for Gulf sturgeon and smalltooth sawfish. Vessel and in-water device use during testing activities under 

Alternative 1 may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, oceanic 

whitetip sharks, Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment of scalloped 

hammerhead sharks, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, and proposed critical habitat for 

Atlantic sturgeon. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.6.3.4.1.2 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Activities under Alternative 2 would occur at a slightly higher rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1 

for certain activities. Therefore physical disturbance and strike stress experienced by fishes from vessel 

use and in-water devices under Alternative 2 are expected to be slightly increased in comparison to 

those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with training activities under 

Alternative 2 are slightly greater than they are for Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during training activities, as described 

under Alternative 2, will have no effect on Nassau grouper, smalltooth sawfish, and designated critical 

habitat for smalltooth sawfish. Vessel and in-water device use during training activities under 

Alternative 2 may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, proposed 

oceanic whitetip sharks and giant manta rays, Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and Gulf 

sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Because testing activities under Alternative 2 would occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to 

Alternative 1, physical disturbance and strike stress experienced by fishes from vessel use and in-water 

device under Alternative 2 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, 

impacts associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of vessels and in-water devices during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on Nassau grouper, smalltooth sawfish, and designated critical habitat 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-138 

3.6 Fishes

for Gulf sturgeon and smalltooth sawfish. Vessel and in-water device use during testing activities under 

Alternative 2 may affect Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, proposed 

oceanic whitetip sharks and giant manta rays, Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, and proposed 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

3.6.3.4.1.3 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various physical strike stressors to fishes from vessels or in-water 

devices would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the 

existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.6.3.4.2 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets 

Aircraft and aerial targets stressors are not applicable to fishes because they are conducted in the air 

and not underwater and will not be analyzed further in this section. 

3.6.3.4.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials 

Navy training and testing activities in the Study Area include firing a variety of weapons and employing a 

variety of explosive and non-explosive rounds including bombs; small-, medium-, and large-caliber 

projectiles; or sinking exercises with ship hulks. During these training and testing activities, various items 

may be introduced and expended into the marine environment and are referred to as military expended 

materials. 

This section analyzes the disturbance or strike potential to fishes of the following categories of military 

expended materials: (1) non-explosive practice munitions, (2) fragments from high-explosive munitions, 

and (3) expended materials other than munitions, such as sonobuoys, ship hulks, and expendable 

targets. Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials) provides information on the quantity and 

location where activities would occur under each alternative. Appendix F (Military Expended Materials 

and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) provides additional information on each military expended material 

proposed to be used, where it would be used, how many would be used, and the amount of area 

impacted by each device. Analysis of all potential impacts (disturbance, strike) of military expended 

materials on critical habitat is included in this section. 

While disturbance or strike from any of these objects as they sink through the water column is possible, 

it is not very likely for most expended materials because the objects generally sink through the water 

slowly and can be avoided by most fishes. Therefore, with the exception of sinking exercises, the 

discussion of military expended materials strikes focuses on strikes at the surface or in the upper water 

column from fragments (of high-explosives) and projectiles because those items have a greater potential 

for a fish strike as they hit the water, before slowing down as they move through the water column. 

Ship Hulk. During a sinking exercise, aircraft, ship, and submarine crews fire or drop munitions on a 

seaborne target, usually a clean deactivated ship (Section 3.2, Sediments and Water Quality), which is 

deliberately sunk using multiple weapon systems. A description of Sinking Exercises is presented in 

Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Sinking exercises occur in specific open ocean areas, outside of 

the coastal range complexes, in waters exceeding 3,000 m (9,842.5 ft.) in depth. Direct munitions strikes 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-139 

3.6 Fishes

from the various weapons used in these exercises are a source of potential impact. However, these 

impacts are discussed for each of those weapons categories in this section and are not repeated in the 

respective sections. Therefore, the analysis of sinking exercises as a strike potential for benthic fishes is 

discussed in terms of the ship hulk landing on the seafloor. 

Small-, Medium-, and Large-Caliber Projectiles. Various types of projectiles could cause a temporary 

(seconds), localized impact when they strike the surface of the water. Current Navy training and testing 

in the Study Area, such as gunnery exercises and testing events, include firing a variety of weapons and 

using a variety of non-explosive training and testing rounds, including 5-in. naval gun shells, and small-, 

medium-, and large-caliber projectiles. The larger-caliber projectiles are primarily used in the open 

ocean beyond 20 NM. Direct munitions strikes from firing weapons are potential stressors to fishes. 

There is a remote possibility that an individual fish at or near the surface may be struck directly if it is at 

the point of impact at the time of non-explosive practice munitions delivery. Expended rounds may 

strike the water surface with sufficient force to cause injury or mortality. However, limited fish species 

swim right at, or near, the surface of the water (e.g., with the exception of pelagic sharks, herring, 

salmonids, flying fishes, jacks, tuna, mackerels, billfishes, ocean sunfish, and other similar species). 

Various projectiles will fall on soft or hard bottom habitats, where they could either become buried 

immediately in the sediments, or sit on the bottom for an extended time period. Most munitions would 

sink through the water column and come to rest on the seafloor, stirring up sediment and possibly 

inducing an alarm response, displacing, or injuring nearby fishes in extremely rare cases. Particular 

impacts on a given fish species would depend on the size and speed of the munitions, the water depth, 

the number of rounds delivered, the frequency of training and testing, and the sensitivity of the fish 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013).

Bombs, Missiles, and Rockets. Direct munitions strikes from bombs, missiles, and rockets are potential 

stressors to fishes. Some individual fish at or near the surface may be struck directly if they are at the 

point of impact at the time of non-explosive munitions delivery. However, most missiles hit their target 

or are disabled before hitting the water. Thus, most of these missiles and aerial targets hit the water as 

fragments, which quickly dissipates their kinetic energy within a short distance of the surface. A limited 

number of fishes swim right at, or near, the surface of the water, as described for small-, medium-, and 

large-caliber projectiles. 

Even though statistical modeling conducted for the Study Area (discussed in Appendix F –Military 

Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) indicates that the probability of military 

expended materials striking marine mammals or sea turtles is extremely low, modeling could not be 

conducted to estimate the probability of military expended material strikes on an individual fish. This is 

primarily due to the lack of fish density data available at the scale of a range complex or testing range. 

In lieu of strike probability modeling, the number, size, and area of potential impact (or “footprints”) of 

each type of military expended material is presented in Appendix F. 

The application of this type of footprint analysis to fish follows the notion that a fish occupying the 

impact area could be susceptible to potential impacts, either at the water surface (e.g., pelagic sharks, 

herring, salmonids, flying fishes, jacks, tuna, mackerels, billfishes, and ocean sunfish (Table 3.6-2) or as 

military expended material falls through the water column and settles to the bottom (e.g., flounders, 

skates, and other benthic fishes listed in Table 3.6-2). Furthermore, most of the projectiles fired during 

training and testing activities are fired at targets, and most projectiles hit those targets, so only a very 

small portion of those would hit the water with their maximum velocity and force. Of that small portion, 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-140 

3.6 Fishes

a small number of fishes at or near the surface (pelagic fishes) or near the bottom (benthic fishes) may 

be directly impacted if they are in the target area and near the expended item that hits the water 

surface (or bottom). 

Propelled fragments are produced by an exploding bomb. Close to the explosion, fishes could potentially 

sustain injury or death from propelled fragments (Stuhmiller et al., 1990). However, studies of 

underwater bomb blasts show that fragments are large and decelerate rapidly (O'Keeffe & Young, 1984; 

Swisdak & Montaro, 1992), posing little risk to marine organisms. 

Fish disturbance or strike could result from bomb fragments (after explosion) falling through the water 

column in very small areas compared to the vast expanse of the testing ranges range complexes, or the 

remainder of the Study Area. The expected reaction of fishes exposed to military expended materials 

would be to immediately leave the area where bombing is occurring, thereby reducing the probability of 

a fish strike after the initial expended materials hit the water surface. When a disturbance of this type 

concludes, the area would be repopulated and the fish stock would rebound, with inconsequential 

impacts on the resource (Lundquist et al., 2010). 

3.6.3.4.3.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

As stated above, Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials) provides information on the number 

and location where activities would occur under each alternative, while Appendix F (Military Expended 

Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) has more information on where the military expended 

material would be used, how many would be used, and the amount of area impacted by each device.

Major fish groups identified in Table 3.6-2 that are particularly susceptible to military expended material 

strikes are those occurring at the surface, within the offshore and continental shelf portions of the range 

complexes (where the strike would occur). Those groups include pelagic sharks, herring, salmonids, 

flying fishes, jacks, tuna, mackerels, billfish, ocean sunfish, and other similar species (Table 3.6-2). 

Additionally, certain deep-sea fishes would be exposed to strike risk as a ship hulk, expended during a 

sinking exercise, settles to the seafloor. These groups include hagfish, dragonfish, lanternfishes, 

Aulopiformes, anglerfishes, and oarfishes. 

Projectiles, bombs, missiles, rockets, and associated fragments have the potential to directly strike fish 

as they hit the water surface and below the surface to the point where the projectile loses its forward 

momentum. Fishes at and just below the surface would be most susceptible to injury or death from 

strikes, because velocity of these materials would rapidly decrease upon contact with the water and as 

they travel through the water column. Consequently, most water column fishes would have ample time 

to detect and avoid approaching munitions or fragments that fall through the water column. Even for an 

extreme case of expending all small-caliber projectiles within a single gunnery box, the probability of any 

of these items striking a fish (even as large as bluefin tuna or whale sharks) is extremely low. Therefore, 

since most fishes are smaller than bluefin tuna or whale sharks, and most military expended materials 

are less abundant than small-caliber projectiles, the risk of strike by these items is exceedingly low for 

fish overall. A possibility exists that a small number of fish at or near the surface may be directly 

impacted if they are in the target area and near the point of physical impact at the time of military 

expended material strike, but population-level impacts would not occur. 

Sinking exercises occur in open ocean areas, outside of the coastal range complexes. While serious 

injury or mortality to individual fish would be expected if they were present within range of high-
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-141 

3.6 Fishes

explosive activities (analyzed in Section 3.6.3.1, Acoustic Stressors), sinking exercises under Alternative 1 

would not result in impacts on pelagic fish populations at the surface based on the placement of these 

activities in deep ocean areas where fish abundance is low or widely dispersed. Also, these activities are 

very few in number. Disturbances to benthic fishes from sinking exercises would be highly localized to 

the sinking exercise box. Any deep-sea fishes on the bottom where a ship hulk would settle could 

experience displacement, injury, or death. However, population level impacts on the deep-sea fish 

community would not occur because of the limited spatial extent of the impact and the wide dispersal 

of fish in deep ocean areas. 

All of the ESA-listed fish species occurring in training areas would be potentially exposed to military 

expended materials. The Atlantic salmon occurs only in the Northeast Range Complexes and in the three 

northernmost Large Marine Ecosystems, where the density of military expended materials is very low. 

Therefore, while military expended materials could overlap with Atlantic salmon, the likelihood of a 

strike would be extremely low, with discountable effects. Within the Study Area, scalloped hammerhead 

sharks belonging to the Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct Population Segment occur only in the 

North Atlantic Gyre Open Ocean Area, the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem and around Puerto 

Rico, and the southeastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem adjacent to the Key 

West OPAREA. Therefore, while military expended materials could overlap with scalloped hammerhead 

sharks, the likelihood of a strike would be extremely low, with discountable effects. Nassau groupers are 

found in reefs areas of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea Large 

Marine Ecosystems. Even though there’s likely some overlap with military expended materials and 

Nassau grouper, the likelihood of a strike would be extremely low, with discountable effects. All 

sturgeon are restricted to the continental shelf, particularly the shallow, coastal, or nearshore waters of 

the Study Area (Dadswell, 2006; Ross et al., 2009) and, therefore, could be exposed to military expended 

materials in these locations. Sawfishes typically occur in shallow coastal waters of South Florida and the 

Gulf of Mexico, usually near the ocean bottom, but may occur out to depths of 120 m. 

There is no overlap of military expended materials use with designated critical habitat for Atlantic 

salmon or smalltooth sawfish. All of the physical and biological features required by Atlantic salmon 

within the Study Area are applicable to freshwater only and are outside of areas where military 

materials may be expended. Therefore, none of the military expended materials would affect Atlantic 

salmon critical habitat. The physical and biological features for smalltooth sawfish critical habitat are red 

mangrove habitats and shallow marine waters of less than 1 m deep. No activities involving military 

expended materials would occur at these depths and thus would not overlap with smalltooth sawfish 

critical habitat. Military expended materials could be expended within Gulf sturgeon critical habitat 

within coastal waters where the Panama City Operating Area overlaps with the critical habitat. Likewise, 

the use of military expended materials during training activities overlaps with the proposed critical 

habitat for Atlantic sturgeon in the James and York rivers in Virginia, the Cooper River in South Carolina, 

and the Savannah River in Georgia. In each case for both Gulf and Atlantic sturgeon critical habitat, while 

overlap occurs, military expended materials from training exercises are not anticipated to impact any of 

the physical and biological features identified for these habitats. 

The Navy will implement mitigation (e.g., not conducting gunnery activities within a specified distance of 

shallow-water coral reefs) to avoid potential impacts from military expended materials on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor 

Resources). The mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on fishes that inhabit shallowwater coral reefs. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-142 

3.6 Fishes

The impact of military expended material strikes on fishes would be inconsequential due to: (1) the 

limited number of species found directly at the surface where military expended material strikes could 

occur, (2) the rare chance that a fish might be directly struck at the surface by military expended 

materials, (3) the ability of most fishes to detect and avoid an object falling through the water below the 

surface, and (4) the implementation of mitigation. The potential impacts of military expended material 

strikes would be short-term (seconds) and localized disturbances of the water surface (and seafloor 

areas within sinking exercise boxes) and are not expected to yield any behavioral changes or lasting 

effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction at the population level. 

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended material from training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on Atlantic salmon and smalltooth sawfish critical habitat, but may 

affect all ESA-listed fishes and critical habitat designated for Gulf sturgeon and proposed for Atlantic 

sturgeon. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) 

of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) has more information on 

the type and quantities of military expended materials proposed to be used. The type, quantity, and 

location of testing activities would be substantially less than training activities described above. 

Potential impacts from military expended material strikes on marine fish groups and ESA-listed species 

during testing activities would be similar to those described for comparable training activities. Some fish 

species potentially impacted by testing activities would be different than those fishes impacted during 

training activities based on the specific activity and the location of the activity. For example, torpedoes 

are tested at nine locations (Table 3.0-25) compared to three training locations (Table 3.0-23). Military 

expended materials hitting the water could result in an extremely unlikely strike of an individual fish, or 

more likely in a short-term and local displacement of fishes in the water column. However, these 

behavioral reactions are not expected to result in substantial changes to an individual’s fitness or 

species recruitment, and are not expected to result in population-level impacts. 

Similarly, military expended materials are not anticipated to overlap with designated critical habitat for 

Atlantic salmon or smalltooth sawfish or proposed for Atlantic sturgeon. Military expended materials 

could be expended within Gulf sturgeon critical habitat within coastal waters where the Panama City 

Operating Area overlaps with the critical habitat. While overlap with Gulf sturgeon critical habitat may 

occur, military expended materials from testing exercises are not anticipated to impact any of the 

physical and biological features identified for these habitats. 

The Navy will implement mitigation (e.g., not conducting gunnery activities within a specified distance of 

shallow-water coral reefs) to avoid potential impacts from military expended materials on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor 

Resources). The mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on fishes that inhabit shallowwater coral reefs. 

The impact of military expended material strikes would be inconsequential due to: (1) the limited 

number of species found directly at the surface where military expended material strikes could occur, 

(2) the rare chance that a fish might be directly struck at the surface by military expended materials, 

(3) the ability of most fishes to detect and avoid an object falling through the water below the surface, 

and (4) the implementation of mitigation. The potential impacts of military expended material strikes 

would range from short-term (seconds) and localized disturbances of the water surface and long-term 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-143 

3.6 Fishes

impacts for individuals if struck. However these impacts are not expected to yield any behavioral 

changes or lasting effects on the survival, growth, recruitment, or reproduction at the population level. 

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended material from testing activities, as described under Alternative 1, 

will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon or smalltooth sawfish, or proposed 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed fishes and designated critical habitat for 

Gulf sturgeon. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.6.3.4.3.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Because training activities under Alternative 2 occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to 

Alternative 1, physical disturbance and strike stress experienced by fishes from military expended 

materials under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those described under 

Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with training activities under Alternative 2 are the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended material from training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on Atlantic salmon and smalltooth sawfish critical habitat, but may 

affect all ESA-listed fishes and critical habitat designated for Gulf sturgeon and proposed for Atlantic 

sturgeon. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Testing activities under Alternative 2 would occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to Alternative 

1. In addition, physical disturbance and strike stress experienced by fishes from military expended 

materials under Alternative 2 would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. Therefore, 

impacts associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended material from testing activities, as described under Alternative 2, 

will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon or smalltooth sawfish, or proposed 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed fishes and designated critical habitat for 

Gulf sturgeon. 

3.6.3.4.3.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Various military expended materials stressors for fishes would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing 

activities. 

3.6.3.4.4 Impacts from Seafloor Devices 

The number and location of activities including seafloor devices is presented in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 

(Seafloor Devices). Additional information on stressors by testing and training activity is provided in 

Appendix B. Seafloor devices include items that are placed on, dropped on, or moved along the seafloor, 

such as mine shapes, anchor blocks, anchors, bottom-placed instruments, bottom-crawling unmanned 

underwater vehicles, and bottom-placed targets that are not expended. As discussed in the military 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-144 

3.6 Fishes

expended materials strike section, objects falling through the water column would slow in velocity as 

they sink toward the bottom and could be avoided by most, if not all fish. 

Seafloor devices with a strike potential for fish include those items temporarily deployed on the 

seafloor. The potential strike impacts of unmanned underwater vehicles (e.g., bottom crawl vehicles) 

are also included here. Some fishes are attracted to virtually any tethered object in the water column for 

food or refuge (Dempster & Taquet, 2004) and could be attracted to a non-explosive mine assembly. 

However, while a fish might be attracted to the object, its sensory abilities allow it to avoid colliding with 

fixed tethered objects in the water column (Bleckmann & Zelick, 2009), so the likelihood of a fish striking 

one of these objects is implausible. Therefore, strike hazards associated with collision into other seafloor 

devices such as deployed mine shapes or anchored devices are highly unlikely to pose any strike hazard 

to fishes and are not discussed further. 

3.6.3.4.4.1 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Table 3.0-34 shows the number and location of activities that use seafloor devices. As indicated in 

Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices), under Alternative 1, training activities that deploy seafloor devices 

occur in the Northeast and Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico Large 

Marine Ecosystems and the Gulf Stream Open Ocean Area—specifically within eight locations, including 

Virginia Capes Range Complex, Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, Jacksonville Range Complex, Key 

West Range Complex, Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, Inland Waters, Chesapeake Bay Area, and Naval 

Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range. 

Aircraft deployed mine shapes, anchor blocks, anchors, and bottom-placed instruments, and targets all 

have the potential to strike fish upon deployment as they are sinking through the water column and 

settling on the seafloor. While seafloor device use during training activities could overlap with ESA-listed 

species, with the exception of Atlantic sturgeon and the Central and Southwestern Distinct Population 

Segment of scalloped hammerheads, the likelihood of a strike would be extremely low given the low 

abundance of ESA-listed species recorded in the Study Area, the ability for the species to detect and 

avoid falling objects through the water below the surface, and the dispersed nature of the activities. 

However, there would be the potential for effect. 

Activities that employ seafloor devices would overlap the critical habitat of the Atlantic sturgeon and 

Gulf sturgeon. For example, the use of seafloor devices during training activities would overlap proposed 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon in inland waters such as the Delaware River in Delaware, James and 

York rivers in Virginia, Cooper River in South Carolina, and Savannah and St. Marys rivers in Georgia and 

with Gulf sturgeon critical habitat within coastal waters where the Panama City Operating Area overlaps 

with the critical habitat. Seafloor device use would not overlap with designated Atlantic salmon and 

smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. 

The Navy will implement mitigation that includes not conducting precision anchoring (except in 

designated anchorages) within the anchor swing circle of shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, 

artificial reefs, and shipwrecks to avoid potential impacts from seafloor devices on seafloor resources in 

mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). 

This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on fishes that inhabit these areas. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on Atlantic salmon, the Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-145 

3.6 Fishes

Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, and designated critical habitat for Atlantic 

salmon and smalltooth sawfish, but may affect Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, 

smalltooth sawfish, Nassau grouper, proposed oceanic whitetip sharks and giant manta rays, designated 

critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The Navy will 

consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that 

regard. 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Table 3.0-34 shows the number and location of activities that use seafloor devices. As indicated in 

Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices), under Alternative 1, testing activities that deploy seafloor devices 

occur in the Northeast Range Complexes, Virginia Capes Range Complex, Navy Cherry Point Range 

Complex, Jacksonville Range Complex, Key West Range Complex, Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing Range, South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, Naval 

Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range, and Inland Waters such as Little Creek and Norfolk, 

VA. 

As discussed in Section 3.6.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Material), objects falling through the 

water column will slow in velocity as they sink toward the bottom and could be avoided by most fishes. 

While seafloor device use during training activities could overlap with ESA-listed species, the likelihood 

of a strike would be extremely low given the low abundance of ESA-listed species recorded in the Study 

Area, the ability for the species to detect and avoid falling objects through the water below the surface, 

and the dispersed nature of the activities. However, there would be the potential for effect. 

Activities that employ seafloor devices would overlap the critical habitat of the Atlantic sturgeon and 

Gulf sturgeon. For example, the use of seafloor devices during testing activities would overlap proposed 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon in the, James River in Virginia and with Gulf sturgeon critical habitat 

within coastal waters where the Panama City Operating Area overlaps with the critical habitat. Seafloor 

device use would not overlap with designated Atlantic salmon and smalltooth sawfish critical habitat. 

The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from seafloor devices on seafloor 

resources in mitigation areas within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, as discussed in 

Section 5.4.1 (Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). For example, the Navy will use real-time 

geographic information system and global positioning system (along with remote sensing verification) 

during deployment, installation, and recovery of anchors and mine-like objects to avoid impacts on 

shallow-water coral reefs and live hard bottom. This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential 

impacts on fishes that occur in these areas. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and smalltooth 

sawfish, but may affect ESA-listed fishes and designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon and proposed 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.6.3.4.4.2 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Because training activities under Alternative 2 occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to 

Alternative 1, physical disturbance and strike stress experienced by fishes from seafloor device use 

under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those described under 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-146 

3.6 Fishes

Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with training activities under Alternative 2 are the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on Atlantic salmon, the Central and Southwestern Atlantic Distinct 

Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, and designated critical habitat for Atlantic 

salmon and smalltooth sawfish, but may affect Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, 

smalltooth sawfish, Nassau grouper, proposed oceanic whitetip sharks and giant manta rays, designated 

critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon, and proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Because testing activities under Alternative 2 occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to Alternative 

1, physical disturbance and strike stress experienced by fishes from seafloor device use under 

Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those described under Alternative 1. 

Therefore, impacts associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of seafloor devices during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon and smalltooth 

sawfish, but may affect ESA-listed fishes, designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon, and proposed 

critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. 

3.6.3.4.4.3 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Stressors for fishes such as seafloor devices would not be introduced 

into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment would either 

remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.6.3.4.5 Impacts from Pile Driving 

Physical disturbance and strike stressors from pile driving activities are not applicable to fishes because 

they are mobile and would be able to avoid the stressors and will not be analyzed further in this section. 

3.6.3.5 Entanglement Stressors 

This section evaluates potential entanglement impacts of various types of expended materials used by 

the Navy during training and testing activities within the Study Area. The likelihood of fishes being 

affected by an entanglement stressor is a function of the physical properties, location, and buoyancy of 

the object and the behavior and physical features of the fish, as described in Section 3.0.3.6.4 

(Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Entanglement). Three types of military expended 

materials are considered here: (1) wires and cables (2) decelerators/parachutes, and (3) biodegradable 

polymer. 

Most entanglement observations involve abandoned or discarded nets, lines, and other materials that 

form loops or incorporate rings (Derraik, 2002; Keller et al., 2010; Laist, 1987; Macfadyen et al., 2009). A 

25-year dataset assembled by the Ocean Conservancy reported that fishing line, rope, and fishing nets 

accounted for 68 percent of fish entanglements, with the remainder due to encounters with various 

items such as bottles, cans, and plastic bags (Ocean Conservancy, 2010). No occurrences involving 

military expended materials were documented. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-147 

3.6 Fishes

Fish entanglement occurs most frequently at or just below the surface or in the water column where 

objects are suspended. A smaller number involve objects on the seafloor, particularly abandoned fishing 

gear designed to catch bottom fishes or invertebrates (Ocean Conservancy, 2010). More fish species are 

entangled in coastal waters and the continental shelf than elsewhere in the marine environment 

because of higher concentrations of human activity (e.g., fishing, sources of entangling debris), higher 

fish abundances, and greater species diversity (Helfman et al., 2009; Macfadyen et al., 2009). The 

consequences of entanglement range from temporary and inconsequential to major physiological stress 

or mortality. 

Some fishes are more susceptible to entanglement in derelict fishing gear and other marine debris, 

compared to other fish groups. Physical features, such as rigid or protruding snouts of sawfishes and 

sturgeon and some elasmobranchs (e.g., the wide heads of hammerhead sharks and cephalic fins on 

manta rays), increase the risk of entanglement compared to fishes with smoother, more streamlined 

bodies (e.g., lampreys and eels). High rates of shark mortality have been associated with entanglement 

in fish aggregating devices (Filmalter et al., 2013). Sawfishes occur only in nearshore, and continental 

shelf waters of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem and portions of the Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (74 Federal Register 45353 and 74 Federal Register

37671), where they are concentrated in south Florida and the Florida Keys. Scalloped hammerhead 

sharks, giant mantas, oceanic whitetip sharks, and ESA-listed sturgeon species occur in nearshore and 

offshore waters within one or more of the Large Marine Ecosystems that overlap Navy training and 

testing areas in the Study Area. Most fishes, except for jawless fishes and eels that are too smooth and 

slippery to become entangled, are susceptible to entanglement in gear specifically designed for that 

purpose (e.g., gillnets). The Navy uses a biodegradable polymer to function as entanglement objects. 

Biodegradable polymer systems designed to entangle the propellers of small in-water vessels would only 

be used during testing activities, not during training and the number and location of proposed testing 

activities is presented in Table 3.0-40. 

The overall impacts of entanglement are highly variable, ranging from temporary disorientation to 

mortality due to predation or physical injury. The evaluation of a species’ entanglement potential should 

consider the size, location, and buoyancy of an object as well as the size, physical characteristics, and 

behavior of the fish species. 

The following sections seek to identify entanglement potential due to military expended material. 

Where appropriate, specific geographic areas (Large Marine Ecosystems, open ocean areas, range 

complexes, testing ranges, and bays and inland waters) of potential impact are identified. 

3.6.3.5.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables 

Fiber optic cables, guidance wires, and sonobuoys (which contain a wire) are used during training and 

testing activities. The number and location of items expended under each alternative is presented in 

Sections 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables), with additional details provided in Appendix B. 

Major fish groups identified in Table 3.6-2, that could be susceptible to entanglement in expended 

cables and wires are those like sawfishes, with elongated snouts lined with tooth-like structures that 

easily snag on other similar marine debris, such as derelict fishing gear (Macfadyen et al., 2009). Some 

elasmobranchs (hammerhead sharks and manta rays) and billfishes occurring within the offshore and 

continental shelf portions of the range complexes and testing ranges (where the potential for 

entanglement would occur) could be susceptible to entanglement in cables and wires. Species occurring 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-148 

3.6 Fishes

outside the specified areas within these range complexes and testing ranges would not be exposed to 

fiber optic cables or guidance wires and sonobuoy wires. 

Once a guidance wire is released, it is likely to sink immediately and remain on the seafloor. In some 

cases, the wire may snag on a hard structure near the bottom and remain partially or completely 

suspended. The types of fish that encounter any given wire would depend, in part, on its geographic 

location and vertical location in the water column. In any situation, the most likely mechanism for 

entanglement would involve fish swimming through loops in the wire that tighten around it; however, 

loops are unlikely to form in a guidance wire or sonobuoy wire because of its size and rigidity 

(Environmental Sciences Group, 2005). 

Because of their physical characteristics, guidance wires and fiber optic cables pose a potential, though 

unlikely, entanglement risk to susceptible fishes. Analysis of potential entanglement for fishes is based 

on abandoned monofilament, nylon, and polypropylene lines used in commercial nets. Such derelict 

fishing gear is abundant in the ocean (Macfadyen et al., 2009) and pose a greater hazard to fishes than 

the wires expended by the Navy. Fishing gear materials often have breaking strengths that can be up to 

orders of magnitude greater than that of guidance wire and fiber optic cables (Environmental Sciences 

Group, 2005), and are far more prone to tangling, as discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables). 

Fiber optic cables do not easily form loops, are brittle, and break easily if bent, so they pose a negligible 

entanglement risk. Additionally, the encounter rate and probability of impact from guidance wires and 

fiber optic cables are low, as few are expended. 

Tube-launched optically tracked wire-guided missiles would expend wires in the nearshore or offshore 

waters of the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex during training only, and are discussed together with 

torpedo guidance wires because their potential impacts would be similar to those described here for 

torpedo guidance wires. 

Sonobuoys consist of a surface antenna and float unit and a subsurface hydrophone assembly unit. The 

two units are attached through a thin gauge, dual-conductor, and hard-draw copper strand wire, which 

is then wrapped by a hollow rubber tubing or bungee in a spiral configuration. The tensile breaking 

strength of the wire and rubber tubing is no more than 40 lb. The length of the cable is housed in a 

plastic canister dispenser, which remains attached upon deployment. The length of wire that extends 

out is no more than 1,500 ft. and is dependent on the water depth and type of sonobuoy. Attached to 

the wire is a kite-drogue and damper disk stabilizing system made of non-woven nylon fabric. The nylon 

fabric is very thin and can be broken by hand. The wire runs through the stabilizing system, and leads to 

the hydrophone components. The hydrophone components may be covered by thin plastic netting 

depending on type of sonobuoy, but pose no entanglement risk. Each sonobuoy has a saltwateractivated polyurethane float that inflates when the sonobuoy is submerged and keeps the sonobuoy 

components floating vertically in the water column below it. Sonobuoys remain suspended in the water 

column for no more than 30 hours, after which they sink to the seafloor. 

The sonobuoy itself is not considered an entanglement hazard upon deployment (Environmental 

Sciences Group, 2005), but their components may pose an entanglement hazard once released into the 

ocean. Aerial-launched sonobuoys are deployed with a decelerator/parachute. Sonobuoys contain 

cords, electronic components, and plastic mesh that may entangle fish (Environmental Sciences Group, 

2005). Open-ocean filter feeding species, such as basking sharks, whale sharks, and manta rays could 

become entangled in these items, whereas smaller species such as Atlantic herring could become 

entangled in the plastic mesh in the same manner as a small gillnet. Smalltooth sawfish, scalloped 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-149 

3.6 Fishes

hammerheads, Nassau grouper, giant manta rays, oceanic whitetip sharks, and sturgeon may co-occur 

with newly expended sonobuoy, as these fishes are found in areas where sonobuoys are expended. 

Additionally, since most sonobuoys are expended in offshore areas, many other coastal fishes would not 

encounter or have any opportunity to become entangled in materials associated with sonobuoys, apart 

from the risk of entanglement in decelerators/parachutes mentioned above. 

3.6.3.5.1.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

The entanglement potential of discarded sections of fiber optic cable is low due to the brittle nature of 

the cable, which is easily broken when kinked, twisted, or bent sharply. The physical properties of the 

fiber optic cable prevent it from forming loops, greatly reducing or even eliminating the risk to fishes 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2001a). Additionally, encounter rates with fiber optic cables is limited by 

the small number that are expended. 

Fiber optic cables may be expended within the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf 

of Mexico range complexes. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon could encounter fiber optic cables in the 

Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, or Jacksonville Range Complexes; smalltooth sawfish could occur in 

the Jacksonville Range Complex as well. Nassau grouper occur in the Jacksonville and Gulf of Mexico 

range complexes. For sawfishes, early life stages have the same body-type as adults. However, the 

likelihood of entanglement of early life stages would be slightly less than that of adults, because nursery 

habitats are found in very shallow water (less than 1 m deep) (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009b), 

where no cables or wires would be expended. Early life stages of sturgeon and Atlantic salmon are 

typically (or exclusively, for salmon) found in freshwater rivers and not in marine environments, so only 

sub-adults and adults would be potentially exposed to entanglement stressors. Gulf sturgeon and 

scalloped hammerhead sharks belonging to the Central and Southwest Distinct Population Segment 

could encounter fiber-optic cables because they are expended during training activities where these 

species are found, including the Gulf of Mexico. Nassau grouper are found over high-relief reefs along 

the southeast coast of Florida in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, Dry 

Tortugas National Park, and Key West, Florida in the Gulf of Mexico, and areas in Florida and near 

Puerto Rico in the Caribbean Sea. Some of these areas overlap the geographic range of this species, so it 

is possible that they would be exposed to entanglement stressors. In the rare instance where a fish did 

encounter a fiber optic cable, entanglement is unlikely because the cable is not strong enough to bind 

most fishes (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2001a). Giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks occur in 

offshore areas in the large marine ecosystems where training activities would occur. While 

entanglement is possible, these species would be able to break the wires and cables. 

Guidance wires may be expended in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, and Jacksonville range complexes, as 

well as in the designated Sinking Exercise areas. Benthic-associated ESA-listed species, including Atlantic 

and shortnose sturgeon, smalltooth sawfish, and Nassau grouper, could encounter guidance wire 

because they can occur in nearshore waters out to the shelf break, where they feed on the bottom and 

could become entangled in a guidance wire while feeding. Pelagic species such as Atlantic salmon, 

oceanic whitetip sharks, and scalloped hammerhead sharks belonging to the Central and Southwestern 

Distinct Population Segment may encounter guidance wires in the water column. Guidance wires sink 

too quickly to be transported very far before reaching the seafloor (Environmental Sciences Group, 

2005), thus limiting the amount of exposure time for pelagic species. Gulf sturgeon would not be 

exposed to guidance wires as they would not be expended within the waters of the northern Gulf of 

Mexico where this species occurs. Fish would rarely encounter guidance wires expended during training 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-150 

3.6 Fishes

activities. If a guidance wire were encountered, the most likely result would be that the fish ignores it, 

which is an inconsequential and immeasurable effect. In the rare instance where an individual fish 

became entangled in guidance wire and could not break free, the individual could be impacted as a 

result of impaired feeding, bodily injury, or increased susceptibility to predators. However, this is an 

extremely unlikely scenario because the density of guidance wires would be very low, as discussed in 

Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables). 

Sonobuoy wires may be expended within any of the range complexes throughout the Study Area. As 

described above, a sonobuoy wire runs through the stabilizing system and leads to the hydrophone 

components. The hydrophone components may be covered by thin plastic netting depending on type of 

sonobuoy, but pose no entanglement risk. This is mainly due to the sonobuoy being made of a single 

wire that hangs vertically in the water column. Therefore, it would be highly unlikely that a fish, 

including ESA-listed species would be entangled by a sonobuoy wire. 

While individual fish susceptible to entanglement could encounter guidance wires, fiber optic cables, 

and sonobuoy wires, the long-term consequences of entanglement are unlikely for either individuals or 

populations because (1) the encounter rate for cables and wires is low, (2) the types of fishes that are 

susceptible to these items is limited, (3) the restricted overlap with susceptible fishes, and (4) the 

physical characteristics of the cables and wires reduce entanglement risk to fishes compared to 

monofilament used for fishing gear. Potential impacts of exposure to guidance wires and fiber optic 

cables are not expected to result in substantial changes to an individual’s behavior, fitness, or species 

recruitment, and are not expected to result in population-level impacts. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish 

and Gulf sturgeon or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed fishes. The 

Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables), under Alternative 1 testing activities, fiber optic 

cables, guidance wires, and sonobuoy components that would pose an entanglement risk to marine 

fishes, including ESA-listed species, would be similar to those described training activities, even though 

testing activities occur at a higher frequency and in more locations compared to training activities. 

Testing activities involving wires and cables occur at Virginia Capes Range Complex, Jacksonville Range 

Complex, Key West Range Complex, Northeast Range Complexes, Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complex, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing Range, Naval Surface 

Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range, and South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility. 

Atlantic salmon would not be as prone to entanglement because they do not possess the morphological 

features (rigid or protruding snouts) associated with high entanglement rates. ESA-listed species more 

susceptible to entanglement (sawfish and sturgeon species, and giant manta rays) and those not as 

susceptible to entanglement (Atlantic salmon, Nassau grouper, and oceanic whitetip sharks) occur in 

testing locations, but are unlikely to encounter the guidance wires because of their low densities in the 

areas where they are expended. Early life stages of sturgeon and Atlantic salmon are typically (or 

exclusively, for salmon) found in freshwater rivers and not in marine environments, so only sub-adults 

and adults would be potentially exposed to entanglement stressors. For sawfishes, the early life stages 

have the same body-type as adults; however, the likelihood of entanglement of early life stages would 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-151 

3.6 Fishes

be slightly less than that of adults, because nursery habitats are found in very shallow water (less than 1 

m deep), where no cables or wires would be expended. The Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct 

Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks may encounter expended cables and wires in the 

Key West Range Complex. 

While individual fish susceptible to entanglement could encounter guidance wires, fiber optic cables, 

and sonobuoy wires, the long-term consequences of entanglement are unlikely for either individuals or 

populations because (1) the encounter rate for cables and wires is low, (2) the types of fishes that are 

susceptible to these items is limited, (3) the restricted overlap with susceptible fishes, and (4) the 

physical characteristics of the cables and wires reduce entanglement risk to fishes compared to 

monofilament used for fishing gear. Potential impacts from exposure to guidance wires and fiber optic 

cables are not expected to result in substantial changes to an individual’s behavior, fitness, or species 

recruitment, and are not expected to result in population-level impacts. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish 

and Gulf sturgeon or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed fishes. The 

Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard. 

3.6.3.5.1.2 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Because activities under Alternative 2 occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1, 

entanglement stress experienced by fishes from guidance wires, fiber optic cables, and sonobuoy wires 

under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those described under 

Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with training activities under Alternative 2 are the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish 

and Gulf sturgeon or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed fishes.

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Even though testing activities under Alternative 2 occur at a slightly higher rate and frequency relative to 

Alternative 1, entanglement stress experienced by fishes from guidance wires, fiber optic cables, and 

sonobuoy wires under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those described 

under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 are the 

same as Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of wires and cables during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish 

and Gulf sturgeon or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed fishes. 

3.6.3.5.1.3 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Entanglement stressors for fishes from wires and cables would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-152 

3.6 Fishes

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing 

activities. 

3.6.3.5.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes 

Decelerators/Parachutes of varying sizes are used during training and testing activities. Section 

3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes) describes the use and platforms where decelerators/parachutes 

would be released into the marine environment and therefore present an entanglement risk to fishes. 

The types of activities that use decelerators/parachutes, physical characteristics and size of 

decelerators/parachutes, locations where decelerators/parachutes are used, and the number of 

decelerator/parachute activities proposed under each alternative are presented in Appendix B. Fishes

face many potential entanglement scenarios in abandoned monofilament, nylon, polypropylene line, 

and other derelict fishing gear in the nearshore and offshore marine habitats of the Study Area 

(Macfadyen et al., 2009; Ocean Conservancy, 2010). Abandoned fishing gear is dangerous to fishes

because it is abundant, essentially invisible, strong, and easily tangled. In contrast, 

decelerators/parachutes are rare, highly visible, and not designed to capture fishes. The weak 

entangling features reduce the risk to ESA-protected fishes. 

Once a decelerator/parachute has been released to the water, it poses a potential entanglement risk to 

fishes. The Naval Ocean Systems Center identified the potential impacts of torpedo air launch 

accessories, including decelerators/parachutes, on fish (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2001a). Unlike 

other materials in which fish become entangled (such as gill nets and nylon fishing line), the 

decelerator/parachute is relatively large and visible, reducing the chance that visually oriented fish 

would accidentally become entangled in it. No cases of fish entanglement have been reported for 

decelerators/parachutes (Ocean Conservancy, 2010; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2001a). 

Entanglement in a newly expended decelerator/parachute and its attachment lines while it is in the 

water column is unlikely because fish generally react to sound and motion at the surface with a 

behavioral reaction by swimming away from the source (see Section 3.6.3.4.3, Impacts from Military 

Expended Materials) and would detect the oncoming decelerator/parachute in time to avoid contact. 

While the decelerator/parachute is sinking, fish would have ample opportunity to swim away from the 

large moving object. Even if the decelerator/parachute landed directly on a fish, it would likely be able 

to swim away faster than the decelerator/parachute would sink because the resistance of the water 

would slow the decelerator/parachute’s downward motion. 

Once the decelerator/parachute is on the bottom, however, it is feasible that a fish could become 

entangled in the decelerator/parachute or its attachment lines while diving and feeding, especially in 

deeper waters where it is dark. If the decelerator/parachute dropped in an area of strong bottom 

currents, it could billow open and pose a short-term entanglement threat to large fish feeding on the 

bottom. Benthic fishes with elongated spines could become caught on the decelerator/parachute or 

lines. Most sharks and other smooth-bodied fishes are not expected to become entangled because their 

soft, streamlined bodies can more easily slip through potential snares. A fish with spines or protrusions 

(e.g., some sharks, manta rays, billfishes, sturgeon, or sawfishes) on its body that swam into the 

decelerator/parachute or a loop in the lines, and then struggled, could become bound tightly enough to 

prevent escape. Although this scenario is possible based on the structure of the materials and the shape 

and behavior of fishes, it is not considered a likely event. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-153 

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.5.2.1 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Fish species that could be susceptible to entanglement in decelerators/parachutes are the same as 

discussed for cables and wires. As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes), training 

activities involving decelerators/parachutes use that would pose an entanglement risk to fishes under 

Alternative 1 would be expended primarily in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, 

Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. Based on the numbers and geographic locations of 

their use, decelerators/parachutes pose a risk of entanglement for all fish species that occurs in the 

Study Area. Table 3.0 33 show the number and location of decelerator/parachutes expended during 

proposed training and testing activities under Alternative 1. 

Some elasmobranchs (sawfishes, hammerhead sharks, and manta rays), sturgeon, swordfishes, and 

billfishes occurring within the offshore and continental shelf portions of the range complexes (where the 

potential for entanglement would occur) may be more susceptible to entanglement in decelerators/ 

parachutes than most fish species due to their unusual body shape or projections. As described above, 

the highly maneuverable swimming capabilities of these fishes make it unlikely that any entanglement 

would occur while the decelerators/parachutes are at the surface or sinking through the water column. 

It is conceivable that ESA-listed species near the seafloor such as a sawfish or sturgeon could encounter 

an expended decelerator/parachute that has settled to the bottom. These species could encounter 

decelerators/parachutes because they can occur at the surface or on the bottom in nearshore waters 

out to the shelf break. 

The Atlantic salmon occurs in offshore areas where decelerators/parachutes would be expended in the 

Northeast Range Complexes and may encounter decelerators/parachutes in the water column. 

However, the Atlantic salmon, like all salmonids, is a strong swimmer with a streamlined body that is 

unlikely to become entangled in decelerators/parachutes or lines. The impacts of entanglement with 

decelerators/parachutes are discountable because of the low density of decelerators/parachutes 

expended in this location and the body shape of Atlantic salmon, which makes it unlikely to become 

entangled. 

Sawfishes are highly mobile, visual predators that could easily avoid a floating or suspended 

decelerator/parachute. If a rare decelerator/parachute encounter by a sawfish led to entanglement, the 

fish would likely thrash its rostral saw in an effort to break free. If such an effort were unsuccessful, the 

individual could remain entangled, possibly resulting in injury or death. However, this scenario is 

considered so unlikely that it would be discountable. 

For sawfishes, the early life stages have the same body-type as adults; however, the likelihood of 

entanglement of early life stages would be slightly less than that of adults because nursery habitats are 

found in very shallow water (less than 1 m deep) (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009c), where no 

decelerators/parachutes would be expended. Early life stages of sturgeon and Atlantic salmon are 

typically (or exclusively, for salmon) found in freshwater rivers and not in marine environments, so only 

sub-adults and adults would be potentially exposed to entanglement stressors. 

Scalloped hammerhead sharks belonging to the Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population 

Segment may potentially encounter decelerators/parachutes in the Key West Range Complex. Likewise, 

due to their widespread distribution, giant manta rays may encounter parachutes/decelerators 

throughout most of the Study Area where these items are used. Both scalloped hammerhead sharks and 

giant manta rays are highly mobile species that could likely avoid floating or suspended 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-154 

3.6 Fishes

decelerators/parachutes. If a rare decelerator/parachute encounter by one of these species led to 

entanglement, it would likely thrash in an effort to break free. If such an effort were unsuccessful, the 

individual could remain entangled, possibly resulting in injury or death. However, this scenario is 

considered so unlikely that it would be discountable. Similarly, oceanic whitetip sharks occurring 

offshore could come into contact with a parachute/decelerator during training activities. This species is 

also a highly mobile, visual predators that could easily avoid floating or suspended decelerators/ 

parachutes or break free if it got entangled. 

Nassau groupers are found in reefs areas of the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Caribbean Sea. However, this species is known to have large spawning aggregations in areas such as the 

ends of islands or reef pinnacles seaward from the general reef contour. This species is highly mobile 

and could easily avoid floating or suspended decelerators/parachutes, so the likelihood of this species 

being entangled would be extremely low. If a rare decelerator/parachute encounter by a Nassau 

grouper led to entanglement, the fish would likely thrash in an effort to break free. If such an effort 

were unsuccessful, the individual could remain entangled, possibly resulting in injury or death. However, 

this scenario is considered so unlikely that it would be discountable. 

Fishes are unlikely to encounter or become entangled in decelerators/parachutes because of the large 

size of the range complexes and the resulting widely scattered expended decelerators/parachutes. 

Individual fish are not prone to be repeatedly exposed to decelerators/parachutes; thus the long-term 

consequences of entanglement risks from decelerators/parachutes are unlikely for either individuals or 

populations. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish 

and Gulf sturgeon or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed fishes. The 

Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes), under Alternative 1 testing activities, 

decelerators/parachutes that would pose an entanglement risk to fishes would be expended primarily in 

Jacksonville Range Complex, Virginia Capes Range Complex, Northeast Range complexes Gulf of Mexico 

Range Complex, and Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing Range. Appendix F (Military 

Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) provides a list of expended materials that would 

include decelerators/parachutes. Table F-2 provides the number of each type of military expended 

material used for testing activities under Alternative 1. 

Based on the numbers and geographic locations of their use, decelerators/parachutes pose a risk of 

entanglement for all fish species that occurs in the Study Area, including ESA-listed species and would be 

the same as discussed for cables and wires. It is conceivable that a sawfish or sturgeon could encounter 

an expended decelerator/parachute that has settled to the bottom. Any of the sturgeon species could 

encounter decelerators/parachutes because sturgeon can occur at the surface or on the bottom in 

nearshore waters out to the shelf break. For sawfishes, the early life stages have the same body-type as 

adults; however, the likelihood of entanglement of early life stages would be slightly less than that of 

adults because nursery habitats are found in very shallow water (less than 1 m deep), where no 

decelerators/parachutes would be expended. Early life stages of sturgeon and Atlantic salmon are 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-155 

3.6 Fishes

typically (or exclusively, for salmon) found in freshwater rivers and not in marine environments, so only 

sub-adults and adults would be potentially exposed to entanglement stressors. 

Scalloped hammerhead sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, and manta rays are highly mobile pelagic 

species and would likely avoid floating or suspended decelerators/parachutes. If one of these species 

were to become entangled in a decelerator/parachute, they would likely thrash in an effort to break 

free. If such an effort were unsuccessful, the individual could remain entangled, possibly resulting in 

injury or death. This scenario is considered so unlikely that it would be discountable. 

Fish are unlikely to encounter or become entangled in decelerators/parachutes because of the large size 

of the range complexes and testing ranges and the resulting widely scattered expended 

decelerators/parachutes. Individual fish are not prone to be repeatedly exposed to these entanglement 

stressors, thus the long-term consequences of entanglement risks from decelerators/parachutes are 

unlikely for either individuals or populations. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish 

and Gulf sturgeon or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed fishes. The 

Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in 

that regard. 

3.6.3.5.2.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Under Alternative 2, the number of decelerators/parachutes that would be expended during training 

activities is the same as for Alternative 1 and entanglement stress experienced by fishes from 

decelerators/parachutes under Alternative 2 are not expected to be different than those described 

under Alternative 1. Therefore, the impact conclusion for decelerators/parachutes under Alternative 2 

training activities is the same as for Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish 

and Gulf sturgeon or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed fishes. 

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Under Alternative 2, the number of decelerators/parachutes that would be expended during testing 

activities is the same as for Alternative 1 and entanglement stress experienced by fishes from 

decelerators/parachutes under Alternative 2 are not expected to be different than those described 

under Alternative 1. Therefore, the impact conclusion for decelerators/parachutes under Alternative 2 

testing activities is the same as for Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth sawfish 

and Gulf sturgeon or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed fishes. 

3.6.3.5.2.3 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Entanglement stressors for fishes from decelerators/parachutes would 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-156 

3.6 Fishes

not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing 

environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities. 

3.6.3.5.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer 

For a discussion of the types of activities that use biodegradable polymers see Appendix B (Activity 

Stressor Matrices) and for a discussion on where they are used and how many activities would occur 

under each alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.5.3 (Biodegradable Polymer). Navy activities that involve 

vessel entanglement systems include the development of the biodegradable polymer and would be 

associated with testing activities in the AFTT Study Area. As indicated by its name, vessel entanglement 

systems that make use of biodegradable polymers are designed to entangle the propellers of in-water 

vessels, which would significantly slow and potentially stop the advance of the vessel. A biodegradable 

polymer is a high molecular weight polymer that degrades to smaller compounds as a result of 

microorganisms and enzymes The rate of biodegradation could vary from hours to years and the type of 

small molecules formed during degradation can range from complex to simple products, depending on 

whether the polymers are natural or synthetic (Karlsson & Albertsson, 1998). Based on the constituents 

of the biodegradable polymer the Navy proposes to use, it is anticipated that the material will 

breakdown into small pieces within a few days to weeks. This will breakdown further and dissolve into 

the water column within weeks to a few months. The final products, which are all environmentally 

benign, will be dispersed quickly to undetectable concentrations. Unlike other entanglement stressors, 

biodegradable polymers only retain their strength for a relatively short period of time; therefore, the 

potential for entanglement by a fish would be limited. Furthermore the longer the biodegradable 

polymer remains in the water, the weaker it becomes making it more brittle and likely to break. A fish 

would have to encounter the biodegradable polymer after it was expended for it to be a potential 

entanglement risk. If an animal were to approach the polymer a more than a few weeks after it was 

expended, it is very likely that it would break easily and would not be able to entangle a fish. Since 

biodegradable polymers are only proposed for testing activities within the AFTT Study Area, the 

concentration of these items being expended throughout the AFTT Study Area is considered very low 

and the rate of encounter and risk of entanglement for fishes would be considered extremely low. 

3.6.3.5.3.1 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Biodegradable polymers would not be used during Navy training activities associated with the Proposed 

Action. 

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Testing activities under Alternative 1 that use of biodegradable polymers would be conducted within the 

Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, Key West and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, as well as the Naval 

Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing Range. Biodegradable polymers would be expended equally 

throughout these areas. 

ESA-listed species such as smalltooth sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, 

oceanic whitetip sharks, and giant manta rays may occur in these range complexes and may be exposed 

to the biodegradable polymer during testing activities. However, the likelihood of a fish encountering 

the biodegradable polymers when they are first expended is low because: (1) very few polymers are 

used annually within each range complex; and (2) polymers only remain intact for relatively short 

periods of time (generally a few days to weeks) and they are brittle and would break apart over time. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-157 

3.6 Fishes

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of biodegradable polymers during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwestern 

Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, designated critical habitat for Atlantic 

salmon, smalltooth sawfish, and Gulf sturgeon, or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The 

use of biodegradable polymers during testing activities under Alternative 1 may affect smalltooth 

sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, and proposed oceanic whitetip sharks and 

giant manta rays. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.6.3.5.3.2 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Biodegradable polymers would not be used during Navy training activities associated with the Proposed 

Action. 

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Testing activities that expend biodegradable polymers under Alternative 2 would be identical to what is 

proposed under Alternative 1. The analysis presented above in Section 3.6.3.5.3.1 (Impacts from 

Biodegradable Polymer under Alternative 1) for testing activities would also apply to Alternative 2. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of biodegradable polymers during testing activities, as described under 

Alternative 1, will have no effect on Atlantic salmon, Nassau grouper, the Central and Southwestern 

Distinct Population Segment of scalloped hammerhead sharks, designated critical habitat for Atlantic 

salmon, smalltooth sawfish, and Gulf sturgeon, or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon. The 

use of biodegradable polymers during testing activities under Alternative 1 may affect smalltooth 

sawfish, Atlantic sturgeon, shortnose sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, oceanic whitetip sharks, and giant manta 

rays. 

3.6.3.5.3.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Biodegradable polymer is not a part of ongoing Navy activities in the Study Area and this entanglement 

stressor would not be introduced into the marine environment under the No Action Alternative. 

Therefore, no change in baseline conditions of the existing environment would occur. 

3.6.3.6 Ingestion Stressors 

This section analyzes the potential ingestion impacts of the various types of munitions and military 

expended materials other than munitions used by the Navy during training and testing activities within 

the Study Area. Aspects of ingestion stressors that are applicable to marine organisms in general are 

presented in Section 3.0.3.6.5 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Ingestion). Ingestion of 

expended materials by fishes could occur in all Large Marine Ecosystems and open ocean areas, and can 

occur at or just below the surface, in the water column, or at the seafloor, depending on the size and 

buoyancy of the expended object and the feeding behavior of the fish. Floating material is more likely to 

be eaten by fishes that feed at or near the water surface (e.g., ocean sunfish, basking sharks, whale 

sharks, manta rays, herring, or flying fishes), while materials that sink to the seafloor present a higher 

risk to bottom-feeding fishes (e.g., sturgeon, hammerhead sharks, skates, and flatfishes).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-158 

3.6 Fishes

It is reasonable to assume that any item of a size that can be swallowed by a fish could be eaten at some 

time; this analysis focuses on ingestion of materials in two locations: (1) at the surface or water column 

and (2) at the seafloor. Open-ocean predators and open-ocean planktivores are most likely to ingest 

materials in the water column. Coastal bottom-dwelling predators and estuarine bottom-dwelling 

predators could ingest materials from the seafloor. The potential for fish, including the ESA-listed fish 

species, to encounter and ingest expended materials is evaluated with respect to their feeding group, 

size, and geographic range, which influence the probability that they would eat military expended 

materials. 

The Navy expends the following types of materials during training and testing in the Study Area that 

could become ingestion stressors: non-explosive practice munitions (small- and medium-caliber), 

fragments from high-explosives, fragments from targets, chaff, flare casings (including plastic end caps 

and pistons), small decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymer. The location and number of 

activities that expend these items are detailed in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors) and in Appendix 

B. Metal items eaten by fish are generally small (such as fishhooks, bottle caps, and metal springs), 

suggesting that small- and medium-caliber projectiles, pistons, or end caps (from chaff canisters or 

flares) are more likely to be ingested. Both physical and toxicological impacts could occur as a result of 

consuming metal or plastic materials (Dantas et al., 2012; Davison & Asch, 2011; Possatto et al., 2011). 

Ingestion of plastics has been shown to increase hazardous chemicals in fish leading to liver toxicity of 

fishes (Rochman et al., 2013). Items of concern are those of ingestible size that either drift at or just 

below the surface (or in the water column) for a time or sink immediately to the seafloor. The likelihood 

that expended items would cause a potential impact on a given fish species depends on the size and 

feeding habits of the fish and the rate at which the fish encounters the item and the composition of the 

item. In this analysis only small- and medium-caliber munitions (or small fragments from larger 

munitions), chaff, small decelerators/parachutes, and end caps and pistons from flares and chaff 

cartridges are considered to be of ingestible size for a fish. For many small fish species (e.g., herring, 

anchovy, etc.), even these items (with the exception of chaff) are often too large to be ingested, even 

though small pieces could sometimes be nibbled off by small fishes. Therefore, the discussion in this 

section focuses on those fish species large enough to potentially ingest these materials. 

The analysis of ingestion impacts on fishes is structured around the following feeding strategies: 

Feeding at or Just Below the Surface or Within the Water Column

 Open-Ocean Predators. Large, migratory, open-ocean fishes, such as salmon, tuna, dolphin fish, 

sharks, and billfishes, feed on fast-swimming prey in the water column of the Study Area. These 

fishes range widely in search of unevenly distributed food patches. Atlantic salmon generally 

travel alone (Fay et al., 2006) but gather in common feeding areas near Greenland and Labrador, 

where they prey on schooling fish associated with the surface and water column of shallow 

open-water areas (Hansen & Windsor, 2006). Smaller military expended materials could be 

mistaken for prey items and ingested purposefully or incidentally as the fish is swimming. A few 

of these predatory fishes (e.g., bull sharks, tiger sharks) are known to ingest any type of marine 

debris that they can swallow, even automobile tires. Some marine fishes, such as the dolphinfish 

(Coryphaena hippurus) (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 2011) and tunas, eat plastic 

fragments, strings, nylon lines, ropes, or even small light bulbs (Choy & Drazen, 2013; Rochman 

et al., 2015). 

 Open-Ocean Planktivores. Plankton-eating fishes in the open-ocean portion of the Study Area 

include herring, flying fishes, ocean sunfish, whale sharks, manta rays, and basking sharks. These 

fishes feed by either filtering plankton from the water column or by selectively ingesting larger 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-159 

3.6 Fishes

zooplankton. These planktivores could encounter and incidentally feed on smaller types of 

military expended materials (e.g., chaff, end caps, pistons) at or just below the surface or in the 

water column (Table 3.6-17). Giant manta rays are the only ESA-listed species in the Study Area 

that is an open ocean planktivore, while some species in this group of fishes (e.g., herring) 

constitute a major prey base for many important predators, including salmon, tuna, sharks, 

marine mammals, and seabirds. While not a consumer of plankton, the ocean sunfish eats 

jellyfish and may consume a parachute/decelerator by accident at or just below the surface in 

the open ocean. Larger filter feeders such as whale sharks, basking sharks, and manta rays could 

also inadvertently ingest a parachute or decelerator. 

Military expended materials that could potentially impact these types of fish at or just below the surface 

or in the water column include those items that float or are suspended in the water column for some 

period of time (e.g., decelerators/parachutes and end caps and pistons from chaff cartridges or flares). 

Table 3.6-17: Ingestion Stressors Potential for Impact on Fishes Based on Location

Feeding Guild

Representative 

Species

Endangered 

Species ActProtected 

Species Overall Potential for Impact

Open-ocean 

predators

Dolphinfishes, most 

shark species, tuna, 

mackerel, wahoo, 

jacks, billfishes, 

swordfishes

Atlantic 

salmon, 

Scalloped 

hammerhead 

sharks, 

Oceanic 

whitetip 

sharks

These fishes may eat floating or sinking 

expended materials, but the encounter rate 

would be extremely low. May result in 

individual injury or death but is not 

anticipated to have population-level effects. 

Open-ocean Plankton 

Eaters (Planktivores)

Atlantic herrings, 

Menhaden, basking 

shark, whale shark

Giant manta 

rays

These fishes may ingest floating expended 

materials incidentally as they feed in the 

water column, but the encounter rate would 

be extremely low. May result in individual 

injury or death but is not anticipated to have 

population-level effects. 

Coastal bottomdwelling predatorsAtlantic cod, skates, 

cusks, and rays

Atlantic 

salmon, 

Scalloped 

hammerhead 

sharks, Nassau 

grouper

These fishes may eat expended materials on 

the seafloor, but the encounter rate would 

be extremely low. May result in individual 

injury or death but is not anticipated to have 

population-level effects. 

Coastal bottomdwelling foragers and 

scavengers

Skates and rays, 

flounders

Sturgeon 

species, 

Sawfish 

species

These fishes could incidentally eat some 

expended materials while foraging, especially 

in muddy waters with limited visibility. May 

result in individual injury or death but is not 

anticipated to have population-level effects. 

Note: The scientific names of the listed species are as follows: Atlantic cod (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), Atlantic salmon 

(Salmo salar), basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), cusk (Brosme brosme), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), whale 

shark (Rhincodon typus), rays (Manta species), and scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini), sawfish species

(Pristis species), sturgeon species (Acipenser species), rays (Manta species), skates (Amblyraja species), and flounders 

(Bothidae).
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-160 

3.6 Fishes

Fishes Feeding at the Seafloor 

 Bottom Dwelling Predators. Large predatory fishes near the seafloor are represented by species 

such as Atlantic cod and cusk, which are typical predators in the northern portion of the Study 

Area Table 3.6-14. The cod and cusk feed opportunistically on or near the bottom, taking fishes

and invertebrates from the water column (e.g., shrimp) and from the sediment (e.g., crabs) 

(Collette & Klein-MacPhee, 2002). The cod also ingests marine debris while feeding on or near 

the bottom. In the United Kingdom, plastic cups thrown from ferries have been discovered in 

cod stomachs (Hoss & Settle, 1990). The varied diet of the cod and the low visibility in its deep 

shelf habitat may promote the ingestion of foreign objects. The Atlantic salmon also feeds on 

fish on or near the seafloor such as sand lances and capelin. Cusks and sturgeon normally eats 

hard-shelled and spiny organisms, increasing the likelihood that it would swallow a sharp plastic 

or metal item rather than reject it. 

 Bottom Dwelling Foragers and Scavengers. Bottom dwelling fishes in the nearshore coasts and 

estuaries may feed by seeking prey and by scavenging on dead fishes and invertebrates. All 

sturgeon in the Study Area suction-feed along the bottom in coastal waters on small fish and 

invertebrate prey, which increases the likelihood of incidental ingestion of marine debris (Ross 

et al., 2009). 

Military expended materials that could be ingested by fishes at the seafloor include items that sink (e.g., 

small-caliber projectiles and casings, fragments from high-explosive munitions). 

Potential impacts of ingestion on some adult fishes are different than for other life stages (eggs, larvae, 

and juveniles) because early life stages for some species are too small to ingest any military expended 

materials except for chaff, which has been shown to have limited effects on fishes in the concentration 

levels that it is released at (Arfsten et al., 2002; Spargo et al., 1999; U.S. Department of the Air Force, 

1997). Therefore, no ingestion potential impacts on early life stages would occur, with the exception of 

later stage juveniles that are large enough to ingest military expended materials. 

Within the context of fish location in the water column and feeding strategies, the analysis is divided 

into (1) munitions (small- and medium-caliber projectiles, and small fragments from larger munitions); 

and (2) military expended material other than munitions (chaff, chaff end caps, pistons, 

decelerators/parachutes, flares, and target fragments). 

3.6.3.6.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions 

Different types of explosive and non-explosive practice munitions are expended at sea during training 

and testing activities. This section analyzes the potential for fishes to ingest non-explosive practice 

munitions and fragments from high explosive munitions. 

Types of non-explosive practice munitions generally include projectiles, missiles, and bombs. Of these, 

only small- or medium-caliber projectiles would be small enough for a large fishes to ingest. Small- and 

medium-caliber projectiles include all sizes up to and including 2.25 in. in diameter. These solid metal 

materials would quickly move through the water column and settle to the seafloor. Ingestion of nonexplosive practice munitions in the water column is possible when shiny fragments of the munitions sink 

quickly and could be ingested by fast, mobile predators that chase moving prey (e.g., tunas, jacks, 

billfishes, swordfishes, dolphinfishes, mackerel, wahoo, and barracudas). In addition, these fragments 

may also be accidentally ingested by fishes that forage on the bottom such as sturgeon, flounders, 

skates, and rays. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-161 

3.6 Fishes

Types of high explosive munitions that can result in fragments include demolition charges, projectiles, 

missiles, and bombs. Fragments would result from fractures in the munitions casing and would vary in 

size depending on the size of the net explosive weight and munitions type; however, typical sizes of 

fragments are unknown. These solid metal materials would quickly move through the water column and 

settle to the seafloor. Similar to non-explosive practice munitions described above, ingestion of high 

explosive munition fragments by fast-moving mobile predators such tunas, jacks, billfishes, swordfishes, 

dolphinfishes, mackerel, wahoo, and barracudas in the water column is possible. In the unlikely event 

that explosive material, high-melting-point explosive (known as HMX), or royal demolition explosive 

(known as RDX), is exposed on the ocean floor, it would break down in a few hours (U.S. Department of 

the Navy, 2001b). High-melting-point explosive or royal demolition explosive would not accumulate in 

the tissues of fish (Lotufo et al., 2010; Price et al., 1998). Fragments are primarily encountered by 

species that forage on the bottom. 

It is possible that expended small caliber projectiles on the seafloor could be colonized by seafloor 

organisms and mistaken for prey or that expended small caliber projectiles could be accidentally or 

intentionally eaten during foraging. Over time, the metal may corrode or become covered by sediment 

in some habitats, reducing the likelihood of a fish encountering the small caliber, non-explosive practice 

munitions. 

The potential impacts of ingesting foreign objects on a given fish depend on the species and size of the 

fish. Fishes that normally eat spiny, hard-bodied invertebrates may have tougher mouths and digestive 

systems than fish that normally feed on softer prey. Materials that are similar to the normal diet of a fish 

would be more likely to be ingested and more easily handled once ingested—for example, by fishes that 

feed on invertebrates with sharp appendages. These items could include fragments from high-explosives 

that a fish could encounter on the seafloor. Relatively small or smooth objects, such as small-caliber 

projectiles or their casings, might pass through the digestive tract without causing harm. A small sharpedged item could cause a fish immediate physical distress by tearing or cutting the mouth, throat, or 

stomach. If the object is rigid and large (relative to the fish’s mouth and throat), it may block the throat 

or obstruct the flow of waste through the digestive system. An object may be enclosed by a cyst in the 

gut lining (Danner et al., 2009; Hoss & Settle, 1990). Ingestion of large foreign objects could lead to 

disruption of a fish’s normal feeding behavior, which could be sublethal or lethal.

3.6.3.6.1.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Use of military expended materials from munitions may occur throughout the AFTT Study Area. Fishes in 

the vicinity of these activities would have the potential to ingest military expended materials from 

munitions. 

When these items explode, they may break apart or remain largely intact in irregularly shaped pieces—

some of which may be small enough for some fishes to ingest. Some fishes such as sturgeon are able to 

feed on crustaceans that have hard, sharp, or irregular parts, without any impacts. Most fragments from 

high-explosives would be too large for a fish to ingest. Also, it is assumed that fragments from larger 

munitions are similar in size to fragments from smaller munitions. Although fragment size cannot be 

quantified, more individual fragments would result from larger munitions than from smaller munitions. 

The number of fragments that would result from the proposed explosions cannot be quantified. 

However, it is believed to be smaller than the number of small-caliber projectiles to be expended in the 

Study Area. Small-caliber projectiles would likely be more prevalent throughout the Study Area and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-162 

3.6 Fishes

more likely to be encountered and potentially ingested by bottom-dwelling fishes and some reef fishes, 

such as Nassau grouper, than fragments from any type of high-explosive munitions. 

The Atlantic and Gulf sturgeon and smalltooth sawfish may occur in portions of the Study Area out to 

the continental shelf break where projectiles and munitions are used. Shortnose sturgeon can migrate 

long distances in coastal waters to their natal river or estuary (Wippelhauser et al., 2015), only 

occasionally moving to nearshore marine environments. The current Chesapeake Bay system population 

of shortnose sturgeon appears to be centered in the upper Chesapeake Bay (Welsh et al., 2002), outside 

of the Study Area. Training activities expending projectiles or munitions could expose sturgeon and 

sawfish to ingestion risk. These species could be injured if it ingested a small-caliber projectile or 

fragment and couldn’t pass it. 

Scalloped hammerhead sharks could encounter some munitions-related material; although the 

likelihood is remote because only medium-caliber projectiles (no small-caliber projectiles) would be 

expended in the Key West Range Complex portion of the Study Area where this species would most 

likely occur. Although less likely, smalltooth sawfish could encounter some munitions-related material in 

the Jacksonville and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. Giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks are 

generally surface-oriented feeders, with rays feeding on plankton in the upper water column, while 

oceanic whitetips are high-level predators feeding on fishes and cephalopods such as squid. It is unlikely 

that these species would mistake larger military expended materials in the water column for prey. If 

these species accidentally ingested military expended materials, it is likely that they would “taste” the 

item and then expel it, in the same manner that a fish would take a lure into its mouth then spit it out. It 

is also possible that giant mantas could ingest smaller fragments as they fall through the water column, 

although this species would be able to distinguish between a food item and non-food item such as 

fragments of military expended materials. 

The likelihood of ingestion of munitions (or fragments) by early life stages of smalltooth sawfish would 

be slightly less than that of adults because nursery habitats are found in very shallow water (less than 1 

m deep), where no munitions would be expended. Juvenile sturgeon are also found in the same 

freshwater rivers and tributaries as adults, including the James River, and would also be potentially 

exposed to ingestion stressors. 

Overall, the potential impacts of ingesting munitions (whole or fragments) would be limited to individual 

fish that might suffer a negative response from a given ingestion event. While ingestion of munitions or 

fragments identified here could result in sublethal or lethal effects to a small number of individuals, the 

likelihood of a fish encountering an expended item is dependent on where that species feeds and the 

amount of material expended. Furthermore, an encounter may not lead to ingestion, As a fish might 

“taste” an item, then expel it (Felix et al., 1995), in the same manner that a fish would take a lure into its 

mouth then spit it out. The number of fishes potentially impacted by ingestion of munitions or 

fragments from munitions would be assumed to be low, and population-level effects would not be 

expected. The Navy will implement mitigation (e.g., not conducting gunnery activities within a specified 

distance of shallow-water coral reefs) to avoid potential impacts from military expended materials on 

seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for 

Seafloor Resources). This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on fishes that feed 

on shallow-water coral reefs. 

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials such as munitions from training activities, as described 

under Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-163 

3.6 Fishes

sawfish and Gulf sturgeon or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed 

fishes. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of 

the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Use of military expended materials from munitions may occur throughout the AFTT Study Area. Fish in 

the vicinity of these activities would have the potential to ingest military expended materials from 

munitions. 

When these items explode, they may break apart or remain largely intact in irregularly shaped pieces—

some of which may be small enough for a fish to ingest. Some fish species feed on crustaceans that have 

hard, sharp, or irregular parts, without any impacts. Most fragments from high-explosives would be too 

large for a fish to ingest. Also, it is assumed that fragments from larger munitions are similar in size to 

fragments from smaller munitions. Although fragment size cannot be quantified, more individual 

fragments would result from larger munitions than from smaller munitions. The number of fragments 

that would result from the proposed explosions cannot be quantified. However, it is believed to be 

smaller than the number of small-caliber projectiles to be expended in the Study Area. Small-caliber 

projectiles would likely be more prevalent throughout the Study Area and more likely to be encountered 

and potentially ingested by bottom-dwelling fishes than fragments from any type of high-explosive 

munitions. Furthermore, a fish might taste an item then expel it before swallowing it (Felix et al., 1995), 

in the same manner that fish would temporarily take a lure into its mouth, then spit it out. Based on 

these factors, the number of fishes potentially impacted by ingestion of munitions would be low and 

population-level impacts are not likely to occur. 

The Atlantic and Gulf sturgeon and smalltooth sawfish may occur in portions of the Study Area out to 

the continental shelf break where projectiles and munitions are used. Shortnose sturgeon generally 

remain within their natal river or estuary, only occasionally moving to nearshore marine environments 

(Dadswell et al., 1984). The current Chesapeake Bay system population of shortnose sturgeon appears 

to be centered in the upper Chesapeake Bay (Welsh et al., 2002), outside of the Study Area. The 

likelihood of ingestion of munitions (or fragments) by early life stages of sawfishes would be slightly less 

than that of adults, because nursery habitats are found in very shallow water (less than 1 m deep), 

where no munitions would be expended. Early life stages of sturgeon are typically found in freshwater 

rivers and not in marine environments, so only sub-adults and adults would be potentially exposed to 

ingestion stressors. 

As described above for training activities, giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks are generally 

surface-oriented feeders. It is unlikely that these species would mistake larger military expended 

materials in the water column for prey, but if this occurred they accidentally ingested military expended 

materials, it is likely that they would “taste” the item and then expel it. Smaller fragments could be 

consumed and these species would be able to distinguish between food and non-food items. 

Overall, the impacts on fishes ingesting munitions or fragments from munitions resulting from proposed 

testing activities would be low. The number of fishes potentially impacted by ingestion of munitions or 

fragments from munitions would be low, and population-level effects would not be expected. The Navy 

will implement mitigation (e.g., not conducting gunnery activities within a specified distance of shallowwater coral reefs) to avoid potential impacts from military expended materials on seafloor resources in 

mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-164 

3.6 Fishes

This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts on fishes that feed on shallow-water coral 

reefs.

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials such as munitions from testing activities, as described 

under Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth 

sawfish and Gulf sturgeon or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed 

fishes. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of 

the ESA in that regard. 

3.6.3.6.1.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

Because activities under Alternative 2 occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1, 

ingestion stress experienced by fishes from military expended materials and munitions under 

Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those described under Alternative 1. 

Therefore, impacts associated with training and testing activities under Alternative 2 are the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials such as munitions from training activities, as described 

under Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth 

sawfish, and gulf sturgeon, or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed 

fishes. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

Because activities under Alternative 2 occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to Alternative 1, 

ingestion stress experienced by fishes from military expended materials and munitions under 

Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those described under Alternative 1. 

Therefore, impacts associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials such as munitions from testing activities, as described 

under Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth 

sawfish, and gulf sturgeon, or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed 

fishes. 

3.6.3.6.1.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions Under the No Action 

Alternative 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions Under the No Action Alternative for Training 

and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Ingestion stressors for fishes from military expended materials such as 

munitions would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the 

existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.6.3.6.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions 

Fishes feed throughout the water column and could mistake many types of marine debris for prey items. 

Ingesting nonfood items is common among a variety of marine fishes, particularly those that feed on the 

seafloor (Boerger et al., 2010; Hoss & Settle, 1990; Jackson et al., 2000). Many fishes are also known to 

accidentally ingest plastic materials and the extent to which an individual fish might discriminate 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-165 

3.6 Fishes

between a plastic item perceived as prey and an indistinct or less appealing shape is not clear. Once 

eaten, any type of plastic could cause digestive problems for the fish (Danner et al., 2009). Fishes have 

been reported to ingest a variety of materials or debris, such as plastic pellets, bags, rope, and line (Hoss 

& Settle, 1990; Jackson et al., 2000). As discussed above in Section 3.6.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), some 

fish species such as the ocean sunfish eat jellyfish and may consume a parachute/decelerator at or just 

below the surface in the open ocean by accident. Larger filter feeders such as whale sharks, basking 

sharks, and manta rays could also inadvertently ingest a small or medium parachute or decelerator. 

Chaff is used throughout the Study Area and is composed of an aluminum alloy coating on glass fibers of 

silicon dioxide and is released or dispensed in cartridges or projectiles that contain millions of fibers. 

Based on the small size of chaff fibers, fishes would likely not confuse the fibers with prey items or 

purposefully feed on them. However, some fishes could occasionally ingest low concentrations of chaff 

incidentally while feeding on prey items on the surface, in the water column, or the seafloor. Chaff fiber 

ingestion is not expected to impact fishes based on the low concentration that could reasonably be 

ingested and the small size of the chaff fibers. Therefore, exposure to chaff would cause no injury, 

mortality, or tissue damage to fishes. Potential impacts of chaff ingestion by fishes are not discussed 

further. Impacts of ingestion of the end caps or pistons associated with chaff cartridges are analyzed 

together with impacts of flares below. 

Chaff end caps and pistons sink in saltwater (Spargo et al., 1999). Fishes feeding on the seafloor where 

chaff canisters and flares are expended (e.g., range complexes, and testing ranges would be more likely 

to encounter and ingest these items than in other locations. Ingested end caps or pistons could disrupt a 

fish’s feeding behavior or digestive processes. If the item is particularly large relative to the fish ingesting 

it, the item could become permanently encapsulated by the stomach lining, and potentially lead to 

starvation and death (Danner et al., 2009 ; Hoss & Settle, 1990). 

As described above, surface-feeding fishes have little opportunity to ingest end caps or pistons before 

they sink. However, some of these items could become entangled in dense Sargassum mats near the 

surface. Predatory open-ocean fishes, such as tuna, dolphinfishes, and billfishes, are attracted to the 

many small prey species associated with Sargassum mats. While foraging near the floating mats, 

predatory fishes may incidentally ingest end caps and pistons. The density of these items in any given 

location would vary based on release points and dispersion by wind and water currents. The number of 

end-caps and pistons that would remain at or just below the surface in Sargassum mats and potentially 

available to fish is unknown. Unlike other plastic types of marine debris, end caps and pistons are 

heavier than water and not expected to float unless they are enmeshed in Sargassum or other floating 

debris. 

Most materials associated with airborne mine neutralization system activities are recovered, but pieces 

of fiber optic cable may be expended (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2001a). For a discussion of the 

physical characteristics of these expended materials, where they are used, and the number of activities 

in each alternative, please see Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables). Only small amounts of fiber optic 

cable would be deposited onto the seafloor each year, and the small amount of fiber optic cable expended 

during training and testing would sink to the seafloor. Pelagic fishes would be unlikely to encounter the 

small, dispersed lengths of fiber optic cable unless they were in the immediate area when the cable was 

expended. The low number of fiber optic cables expended in the Study Area during this activity makes it 

unlikely that fishes would encounter any fiber optic cables. Potential impacts of fiber optic cable 

ingestion by fishes are not discussed further. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-166 

3.6 Fishes

As stated in Section 3.0.3.3.5.3 (Biodegradable Polymer), based on the constituents of the 

biodegradable polymer, it is anticipated that the material will breakdown into small pieces within a few 

days to weeks. These small pieces will breakdown further and dissolve into the water column within 

weeks to a few months and could potentially be incidentally ingested by fishes. Because the final 

products of the breakdown are all environmentally benign, the Navy does not expect the use of 

biodegradable polymer to have any negative impacts for fishes. 

3.6.3.6.2.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions Under 

Alternative 1 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Training 

Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.6.3 (Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions) under 

Alternative 1, activities involving target materials use would occur throughout the Study Area. All of the 

ESA-listed species occur where target materials could potentially be expended. 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.6.3 (Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions), under 

Alternative 1, activities that expend chaff and flare occur throughout the Study Area. No potential 

impacts would occur from the chaff itself, but there is some potential for fishes to ingest the end caps or 

pistons associated with the chaff cartridges. 

Environmental concentrations would vary based on release points and dispersion by wind and water 

currents. The number of end caps and pistons that would remain at or just below the surface in 

Sargassum mats and potentially available to fish is unknown but is expected to be an extremely small 

percentage of the total. 

ESA-listed species in the Key West Range Complex such as smalltooth sawfish and scalloped 

hammerhead sharks are bottom feeders and would not encounter end caps or flares at the surface, but 

could ingest an item after it settled to the bottom. However, these items would most likely pass through 

the digestive tract without causing harm. Based on the low density of expended endcaps and pistons, 

the encounter rate would be extremely low, and the ingestion rate even lower. No chaff or flares are 

planned for use in the Northeast Range Complexes where the Atlantic salmon occurs. The number of 

fishes potentially impacted by ingestion of end caps or pistons would be low based on the low 

environmental concentration. Population-level effects would not be expected. 

As discussed above, it is unlikely that giant manta rays or oceanic whitetip sharks could mistake larger 

military expended materials other than munitions for prey, even though these species typically forage at 

or near the surface. If these species accidentally ingested military expended materials other than 

munitions, it is likely that they would “taste” the item and then spit it out. If these species accidentally 

ingested an item, it would most likely pass through the digestive tract without causing harm. 

Overall, the potential impacts of ingesting decelerators/parachutes, target fragments, or end caps and 

pistons would be limited to individual fish that ingest an item too large to pass through its gut. Fishes

encounter many items (natural and manmade) in their environment that are unsuitable for ingestion 

and most species have behavioral mechanisms for spitting out the item. If the item were swallowed, it 

could either pass through the digestive system without doing any harm, or become lodged inside the 

fish and cause injury or mortality. 

For smalltooth sawfish, the likelihood of ingestion of military expended materials other than munitions 

by early life stages would be slightly less than that of adults, because nursery habitats are found in very 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-167 

3.6 Fishes

shallow water (less than 1 m deep), where no military expended materials would occur. The potential 

impacts on smalltooth sawfish are discountable because they are historically rare in the locations where 

military expended materials are expended. Early life stages of sturgeon are typically found in freshwater 

rivers and not in marine environments, so only juveniles and adults would be potentially exposed to 

ingestion stressors.

Although ingestion of military expended materials identified here could result in sublethal or lethal 

effects, the likelihood of ingestion is low based on the dispersed nature of the materials, the limited 

encounter rate of fishes to the expended items, behavioral mechanisms for expelling the item, and the 

capacity of the fish’s digestive system to simply pass the item through as waste. Based on these factors, 

the number of fishes potentially impacted by ingestion of military expended materials (such as chaff and 

flare end caps and pistons) would be low, and no population-level effects would be expected. 

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials other than munitions from training activities, as 

described under Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

smalltooth sawfish, and gulf sturgeon, or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect 

ESA-listed fishes. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Testing 

Activities 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.6.3 (Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions) under 

Alternative 1, testing activities involving target materials use would occur throughout the Study Area. All 

of the ESA-listed species occur where target materials could potentially be expended. 

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.6.3 (Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions), under 

Alternative 1, activities involving chaff and flare use would occur in offshore locations throughout the 

Study Area. No potential impacts would occur from the chaff itself, but there is some potential for 

fishes, including ESA-listed species to ingest the end caps or pistons associated with the chaff cartridges. 

The smalltooth sawfish or sturgeon could ingest one of these items after it settled to the bottom, but 

the item would most likely pass through the digestive tract of a larger fish without causing harm, as the 

items measure only 1.3 in. (3.3 cm) in diameter and 0.13 in. (0.3 cm) in thickness. Based on the low 

density of expended end caps and pistons, the encounter rate would be extremely low, and the 

ingestion rate even lower. The number of fishes potentially impacted by ingestion of end caps or pistons 

would be low based on the low environmental concentration. Population-level effects would not be 

expected. 

The potential impacts on smalltooth sawfish are discountable because they are historically rare in the 

locations where decelerators/parachutes, chaff, targets, and end-caps are expended. Smalltooth sawfish 

are rare in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem, but since 1999, the species has been 

documented in the vicinity of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range, 

and a viable population exists off the coast of southwest Florida (Papastamatiou et al., 2015). 

For sawfishes, the early life stages have the same body-type as adults; however, the likelihood of 

ingestion of military expended materials other than munitions by early life stages would be slightly less 

than that of adults, because nursery habitats are found in very shallow water (less than 1 m), where no 

military expended materials would be expended. Early life stages of sturgeon are typically found in 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-168 

3.6 Fishes

freshwater rivers and not in marine environments, so only juveniles and adults would be potentially 

exposed to ingestion stressors. 

As discussed above, it is unlikely that offshore species such as giant manta rays or oceanic whitetip 

sharks could mistake larger military expended materials other than munitions for prey during testing 

activities, even though these species typically forage at or near the surface. It is likely that these species 

would “taste” and then spit it out if an item were accidentally ingested; if ingested, the item would most 

likely pass through the digestive tract without causing harm. 

Overall, the risk of potential impacts of fishes ingesting military expended materials resulting from 

proposed testing activities would be low. 

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials other than munitions from testing activities, as 

described under Alternative 1, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

smalltooth sawfish, and gulf sturgeon, or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect 

ESA-listed fishes. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.6.3.6.2.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions Under 

Alternative 2 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Training 

Activities 

Because training activities under Alternative 2 occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to 

Alternative 1, ingestion stress experienced by fishes from military expended materials other than 

munitions under Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those described under 

Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts associated with training activities under Alternative 2 are the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials other than munitions from training activities, as 

described under Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

smalltooth sawfish, and gulf sturgeon, or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect 

ESA-listed fishes. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Testing 

Activities 

Because testing activities under Alternative 2 occur at a similar rate and frequency relative to Alternative 

1, ingestion stress experienced by fishes from military expended materials other than munitions under 

Alternative 2 are not expected to be meaningfully different than those described under Alternative 1. 

Therefore, impacts associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1. 

Pursuant to the ESA, military expended materials other than munitions from testing activities, as 

described under Alternative 2, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

smalltooth sawfish, and gulf sturgeon, or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect 

ESA-listed fishes. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-169 

3.6 Fishes

3.6.3.6.2.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions Under the 

No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Other Than Munitions Under the No Action Alternative 

for Training and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. Ingestion stressors for fishes from military expended materials other 

than munitions would not be introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of 

the existing environment would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of 

ongoing training and testing activities. 

3.6.3.7 Secondary Stressors 

This section analyzes potential impacts on fishes exposed to stressors indirectly through impacts on their 

prey availability and habitat (e.g., sediment or water quality, and physical disturbance). For the purposes 

of this analysis, indirect impacts on fishes via sediment or water which do not require trophic transfer 

(e.g., bioaccumulation) in order to be observed are considered here. It is important to note that the 

terms “indirect” and “secondary” do not imply reduced severity of environmental consequences, but 

instead describe how the impact may occur in an organism or its ecosystem. 

Stressors from Navy training and testing activities could pose secondary or indirect impacts on fishes via 

habitat (e.g., sediment, and water quality) and prey availability. These include (1) explosives and 

explosion byproducts; (2) metals; (3) chemicals; and (4) other materials such as targets, chaff, and 

plastics. Activities associated with these stressors are detailed in Tables 2.8-1 to 2.8-3, and their 

potential effects are analyzed in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality), Section 3.4 (Invertebrates), 

and Section 3.5 (Habitats). The Navy will implement mitigation (e.g., not conducting gunnery activities 

within a specified distance of shallow-water coral reefs) to avoid potential impacts from explosives and 

physical disturbance and strike stressors on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study 

Area (see Section 5.4.1, Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). This mitigation will consequently help 

avoid potential impacts on fishes that shelter in and feed on shallow-water coral reefs, live hard bottom, 

artificial reefs, and shipwrecks. 

3.6.3.7.1 Impacts on Habitat 

The Proposed Action could result in localized and temporary changes to the benthic community during 

activities that impact fish habitat. Hard bottom is important habitat for many different species of fish, 

including those fishes managed by various fishery management plans. Fish habitat could become 

degraded during activities that would strike the seafloor or introduce military expended materials, 

bombs, projectiles, missiles, rockets, or fragments to the seafloor. The spatial area of habitat impacted 

by the Proposed Action would be relatively small compared to the available habitat in the Study Area. 

However, there would still be vast expanses of habitat adjacent to the areas of habitat impact that 

would remain undisturbed by the Proposed Action. 

Explosions 

Secondary impacts to fishes resulting from explosions at the surface, in the water column, or on the 

bottom would be associated with changes to habitat structure and effects to prey species. Most 

explosions on the bottom would occur in soft bottom habitat and would displace some amount of 

sediment, potentially resulting in cratering. However, water movement would redistribute the affected 

sediment over time. A small amount of sediment would be suspended in the water column temporarily 

(turbidity), but would resettle to the bottom. Activities that inadvertently result in explosions on or near 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-170 

3.6 Fishes

hard bottom habitat or reefs could break hard structures and reduce the amount of colonizing surface 

available to encrusting organisms (e.g., corals, sponges). Given the large spatial area of the range 

complexes compared to the small percentage covered by hard bottom habitat, it is unlikely that most of 

the small, medium, and large projectiles expended in the Study Area would fall onto this habitat type. 

Furthermore, these activities are distributed within discrete locations within the Study Area, and the 

overall footprint of these areas is quite small with respect to the spatial extent of biogenic habitat within 

the Study Area. 

Sinking exercises could also provide secondary impacts on deep-sea populations. These activities occur 

in open-ocean areas, outside of the coastal range complexes, with potential direct disturbance or strike 

impacts on deep-sea fishes, as covered in Section 3.6.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). Secondary impacts on 

these fishes could occur after the ship hulks sink to the seafloor. Over time, the ship hulk would be 

colonized by marine organisms that attach to hard surfaces. For fishes that feed on these types of 

organisms, or whose abundances are limited by available hard structural habitat, the ships that are sunk 

during sinking exercises could provide an incidental beneficial impact on the fish community (Love & 

York, 2005; Macreadie et al., 2011). 

The alternatives could result in localized and temporary changes to the benthic community during 

activities that impact fish habitat. Fish habitat could become degraded during activities that would strike 

the seafloor or introduce military expended materials, bombs, projectiles, missiles, rockets or fragments 

to the seafloor. During or following activities that impact benthic habitats, fish species may experience 

loss of available benthic prey at locations in the Study Area where these items might be expended. 

Additionally, plankton and zooplankton that are eaten by fishes may also be negatively impacted by 

these same expended materials. The spatial area of habitat impacted by the Proposed Action would be 

relatively small compared to the available habitat in the Study Area. However, there would still be vast 

expanses of habitat adjacent to the areas of habitat impact that would remain undisturbed by the 

Proposed Action. 

Impacts of vessel disturbance and strike during amphibious assaults could temporarily reduce the 

quality and quantity of benthic substrate (sand) over an extremely localized and limited area within 

Onslow Beach and Seminole Beach. Fishes in the taxonomic group that includes the snapper-grouper 

complex (as managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council), use these designated 

amphibious assault areas with sandy benthic substrate as habitat and could be impacted by this activity. 

However, the secondary habitat impacts on these fishes would be extremely localized compared to the 

total available area of sandy substrate available in the Jacksonville and Virginia Capes Range Complexes 

and the overall Study Area. 

Impacts of physical disturbance and strikes by small-, medium-, and large-caliber projectiles would be 

concentrated within designated gunnery box areas, resulting in localized disturbances of hard bottom 

areas, but could occur anywhere in the range complexes or the Study Area. Hard bottom is important 

habitat for many different species of fish, including those fishes managed by various fishery 

management plans. The likelihood these habitats would be impacted is greater in Jacksonville and Navy 

Cherry Point Range Complexes compared to the Virginia Capes and Key West Range Complexes, based 

solely on these percentages. However, the location with the smallest proportion of hard bottom habitat 

(the Virginia Capes Range Complex) has the greatest concentration of small-caliber projectiles expended 

in the Study Area, with nearly 58 percent of the total 6,550,400 small-caliber projectiles expended. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-171 

3.6 Fishes

Explosion By-Products 

Deposition of undetonated explosive materials into the marine environment can be reasonably well 

estimated by the known failure and low-order detonation rates of high-explosives. Undetonated 

explosives associated with munitions disposal and mine clearance are collected after training is 

complete; therefore, potential impacts are assumed to be inconsequential for these training and testing 

activities, but other activities could result in unexploded munitions and unconsumed explosives on the 

seafloor. Fishes may be exposed by contact with the explosive, contact with contaminants in the 

sediment or water, and ingestion of contaminated sediments. 

High-order explosions consume most of the explosive material, creating typical combustion products. In 

the case of royal demolition explosive, 98 percent of the products are common seawater constituents, 

and the remainder is rapidly diluted below threshold effect level. Explosion byproducts associated with 

high order detonations present no indirect stressors to fishes through sediment or water. However, low 

order detonations and unexploded munitions present elevated likelihood of impacts on fishes. 

Indirect impacts of explosives and unexploded munitions to fishes via sediment is possible in the 

immediate vicinity of the munitions. Degradation of explosives proceeds via several pathways discussed 

in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). Degradation products of royal demolition explosive are 

not toxic to marine organisms at realistic exposure levels (Rosen & Lotufo, 2010). Trinitrotoluene (TNT) 

and its degradation products impact developmental processes in fishes and are acutely toxic to adults at 

concentrations similar to real-world exposures (Halpern et al., 2008a; Rosen & Lotufo, 2010). Relatively 

low solubility of most explosives and their degradation products means that concentrations of these 

contaminants in the marine environment are relatively low and readily diluted. Furthermore, while 

explosives and their degradation products were detectable in marine sediment approximately 0.15–0.3 

m away from degrading munitions, the concentrations of these compounds were not statistically 

distinguishable from background beyond 1–2 m from the degrading munitions (Section 3.2, Sediments 

and Water Quality). Taken together, it is likely that various life stages of fishes could be impacted by the 

indirect impacts of degrading explosives within a very small radius of the explosive (0.3–2 m). 

If high-explosive munitions does not explode, it would sink to the bottom. In the unlikely event that 

explosive material, high-melting-point explosive (known as HMX), or royal demolition explosive (known 

as RDX) is exposed on the ocean floor, it would break down in a few hours (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2001a). High-melting-point explosive or royal demolition explosive would not accumulate in the tissues 

of fishes (Lotufo et al., 2010; Price et al., 1998). Fishes may take up trinitrotoluene (TNT) from the water 

when it is present at high concentrations but not from sediments (Lotufo et al., 2010). The rapid 

dispersal and dilution of trinitrotoluene (TNT) expected in the marine water column reduces the 

likelihood of a fish encountering high concentrations of trinitrotoluene (TNT) to near zero. 

A series of research efforts focused on World War II underwater munitions disposal sites in Hawaii 

(Briggs et al., 2016; Edwards et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 2016; Koide et al., 2016; University of Hawaii, 

2010) and an intensively used live fire range in the Mariana Islands (Smith & Marx, 2016) provide 

information in regard to the impacts of undetonated materials and unexploded munitions on marine 

life. A summary of this literature which investigated water and sediment quality impacts, on a localized 

scale, from munitions ocean disposal sites and ocean disposed dredge spoils sites is presented in the 

Sediment and Water Quality section and specifically in Section 3.2.3.1 (Explosives and Explosives 

Byproducts) and Section 3.2.3.3 (Metals). Findings from these studies indicate that there were no 

adverse impacts on the local ecology from the presence of degrading munitions and there was no 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-172 

3.6 Fishes

bioaccumulation of munitions-related chemicals in local marine species. Therefore, water quality effects 

from the use of munitions, expended material, or devices would be negligible, would have no long-term 

effect on water quality, and therefore would not constitute a secondary indirect stressor for fishes. 

Metals 

Certain metals and metal-containing compounds at concentrations above background levels (e.g., 

cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc, copper, manganese, and many others) can be toxic to fishes 

(Wang & Rainbow, 2008). Metals are introduced into seawater and sediments as a result of training and 

testing activities involving vessel hulks, targets, munitions, batteries, and other military expended 

materials (Section 3.2, Sediments and Water Quality). Some metals bioaccumulate, and physiological 

impacts begin to occur only after several trophic transfers concentrate the toxic metals (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2012). Indirect effects of metals on fish via sediment and water involve 

concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than concentrations achieved via bioaccumulation. 

Fishes may be exposed by contact with the metal, contact with contaminants in the sediment or water, 

and ingestion of contaminated sediments. Concentrations of metals in seawater are orders of 

magnitude lower than concentrations in marine sediments. It is extremely unlikely that fishes would be 

indirectly impacted by toxic metals via the water. 

Chemicals 

Several Navy training and testing activities introduce potentially harmful chemicals into the marine 

environment, principally flares and propellants for rockets, missiles, and torpedoes. Polychlorinated 

biphenyls are discussed in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality), but there is no additional risk to 

fishes because the Proposed Action does not introduce this chemical into the Study Area and the use of 

polychlorinated biphenyls has been nearly zero since 1979. Properly functioning flares missiles, rockets, 

and torpedoes combust most of their propellants, leaving benign or readily diluted soluble combustion 

byproducts (e.g., hydrogen cyanide). Operational failures allow propellants and their degradation 

products to be released into the marine environment. 

The greatest risk to fishes from flares, missiles, and rocket propellants is perchlorate which is highly 

soluble in water, persistent, and impacts metabolic processes in many plants and animals. Fishes may be 

exposed by contact with contaminated water or ingestion of re-suspended contaminated sediments. 

Since perchlorate is highly soluble, it does not readily adsorb to sediments. Therefore, missile and rocket 

fuels pose no risk of indirect impact on fishes via sediment. In contrast, the principal toxic components 

of torpedo fuel, propylene glycol dinitrate, and nitrodiphenylamine, adsorb to sediments, have relatively 

low toxicity, and are readily degraded by biological processes (Section 3.2, Sediments and Water 

Quality). It is conceivable that various life stages of fishes could be indirectly impacted by propellants via 

sediment in the immediate vicinity of the object (e.g., within a few inches), but these potential impacts 

would diminish rapidly as the propellant degrades. 

Other Materials 

In some bottom types (without strong currents, hard-packed sediments, and low biological 

productivity), items such as projectiles might remain intact for some time before becoming degraded or 

broken down by natural processes. These potential impacts may cease only (1) when the military 

expended materials are too massive to be mobilized by typical oceanographic processes, (2) if the 

military expended materials become encrusted by natural processes and incorporated into the seafloor, 

or (3) when the military expended materials become permanently buried. In this scenario, a parachute 

could initially sink to the seafloor, but then be transported laterally through the water column or along 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-173 

3.6 Fishes

the seafloor, increasing the opportunity for entanglement. In the unlikely event that a fish would 

become entangled, injury or mortality could result. In contrast to large decelerators/parachutes, other 

devices with decelerators such as sonobuoys are typically used in deep open ocean areas. These areas 

are much lower in fish numbers and diversity, so entanglement hazards are greatly reduced for 

commercially and recreationally targeted species (i.e., tuna, swordfishes, etc.), as well as mesopelagic 

prey of other species. The entanglement stressor would eventually cease to pose an entanglement risk 

as it becomes encrusted or buried. 

Pursuant to the ESA, impacts on habitat from secondary stressors during training and testing activities, 

as described above, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, smalltooth 

sawfish, and gulf sturgeon, or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect ESA-listed 

fishes. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 7(a)(2) of 

the ESA in that regard. 

3.6.3.7.2 Impacts on Prey Availability 

Impacts on fish prey availability resulting from explosives, explosives byproducts, unexploded munitions, 

metals, and chemicals would differ depending upon the type of prey species in the area, but would likely 

be negligible overall and have no population-level impacts on fishes. As discussed in Section 3.6.3.1

(Acoustic Stressors), fishes with swim bladders are more susceptible to blast injuries than fishes without 

swim bladders. During or following activities that impact benthic habitats, fish species may experience 

loss of available benthic prey at locations in the Study Area where these items might be expended. 

Additionally, plankton and zooplankton that are eaten by fishes may also be negatively impacted by 

these same expended materials some species of zooplankton that occur in the Pacific such as Pacific 

oyster (Crassostrea gigas) larvae have been found feeding on microplastics (Cole & Galloway, 2015). 

In addition to physical effects of an underwater blast such as being stunned, prey might have behavioral 

reactions to underwater sound. For instance, prey species might exhibit a strong startle reaction to 

detonations that might include swimming to the surface or scattering away from the source. This startle 

and flight response is the most common secondary defense among animals (Hanlon & Messenger, 1996; 

Mather, 2004). The sound from underwater explosions might induce startle reactions and temporary 

dispersal of schooling fish if they are within close proximity (Popper et al., 2014; Wright, 1982). 

The abundances of fish and invertebrate prey species near the detonation point could be diminished for 

a short period of time before being repopulated by animals from adjacent waters. The sound from 

underwater explosions might induce startle reactions and temporary dispersal of schooling fishes, 

potentially increasing visibility to predators, if they are within close proximity (Kastelein et al., 2008). 

Alternatively, any prey species that would be directly injured or killed by the blast could draw in 

scavengers from the surrounding waters that would feed on those organisms, and in turn could be 

susceptible to becoming directly injured or killed by subsequent explosions. Any of these scenarios 

would be temporary, only occurring during activities involving explosives, and no lasting impact on prey 

availability or the food web would be expected. Indirect impacts of underwater detonations and high 

explosive munitions use under the Proposed Action would not result in a decrease in the quantity or 

quality of fish populations in the Study Area. 

Pursuant to the ESA, impacts on prey availability from secondary stressors during training and testing 

activities, as described above, will have no effect on designated critical habitat for Atlantic salmon, 

smalltooth sawfish, and gulf sturgeon, or proposed critical habitat for Atlantic sturgeon, but may affect 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-174 

3.6 Fishes

ESA-listed fishes. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.6.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON FISHES

3.6.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 

As described in Section 3.0.3.5 (Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Multiple Stressors), this section 

evaluates the potential for combined impacts of all the stressors from the Proposed Action. The analysis 

and conclusions for the potential impacts from each individual stressor are discussed in the analyses of 

each stressor in the sections above and summarized in Section 3.6.5 (Endangered Species Act 

Determinations). 

There are generally two ways that a fish could be exposed to multiple stressors. The first would be if a 

fish were exposed to multiple sources of stress from a single activity (e.g., a mine warfare activity may 

include the use of a sound source and a vessel). The potential for a combination of these impacts from a 

single activity would depend on the range of effects of each stressor and the response or lack of 

response to that stressor. Most of the activities as described in the Proposed Action involve multiple 

stressors; therefore, it is likely that if a fish were within the potential impact range of those activities, it 

may be impacted by multiple stressors simultaneously. This would be even more likely to occur during 

large-scale exercises or activities that span a period of days or weeks (such as a sinking exercises or 

composite training unit exercise). 

A fish could also be exposed to a combination of stressors from multiple activities over the course of its 

life. This is most likely to occur in areas where training and testing activities are more concentrated (e.g., 

near naval ports, testing ranges, and routine activity locations and in areas that individual fish frequent 

because it is within the animal's home range, migratory corridor, spawning or feeding area. Except for in 

the few concentration areas mentioned above, combinations are unlikely to occur because training and 

testing activities are generally separated in space and time in such a way that it would be very unlikely 

that any individual fish would be exposed to stressors from multiple activities. However, animals with a 

home range intersecting an area of concentrated Navy activity have elevated exposure risks relative to 

animals that simply transit the area through a migratory corridor. The majority of the proposed training 

and testing activities occur over a small spatial scale relative to the entire Study Area, have few 

participants, and are of a short duration (on the order of a few hours or less). 

Multiple stressors may also have synergistic effects. For example, fishes that experience temporary 

hearing loss or injury from acoustic stressors could be more susceptible to physical strike and 

disturbance stressors via a decreased ability to detect and avoid threats. Fishes that experience 

behavioral and physiological consequences of ingestion stressors could be more susceptible to 

entanglement and physical strike stressors via malnourishment and disorientation. These interactions 

are speculative, and without data on the combination of multiple Navy stressors, the synergistic impacts 

from the combination of Navy stressors are difficult to predict in any meaningful way. Navy research and 

monitoring efforts include data collection through conducting long-term studies in areas of Navy 

activity, occurrence surveys over large geographic areas, biopsy of animals occurring in areas of Navy 

activity, and tagging studies where animals are exposed to Navy stressors. These efforts are intended to 

contribute to the overall understanding of what impacts may be occurring overall to animals in these 

areas. 

The combined impacts under Alternative 1 of all stressors would not be expected to impact fish 

populations because (1) activities involving more than one stressor are generally short in duration, and 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-175 

3.6 Fishes

(2) such activities are dispersed throughout the Study Area. Existing conditions would not change 

considerably, therefore, no impacts on fish populations would occur with the implementation of 

Alternative 1. 

3.6.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 

The combined impacts under Alternative 2 of all stressors would not be expected to impact fish 

populations because (1) activities involving more than one stressor are generally short in duration, and 

(2) such activities are dispersed throughout the Study Area. Existing conditions would not change 

considerably, therefore, no impacts on fish populations would occur after the implementation of 

Alternative 2. 

3.6.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. The combined impacts of all stressors for fishes would not be 

introduced into the marine environment. Therefore, baseline conditions of the existing environment 

would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing 

activities and no impacts on fish population would occur. 

3.6.5 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT DETERMINATIONS

Pursuant to the ESA, Navy training and testing activities may affect ESA-listed fishes and will have no 

effect on designated critical habitat because the proposed action does not have any elements with the 

potential to modify such habitat. The Navy will consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. The outcome of those consultations pursuant to 

ESA will be described in the Final AFTT EIS/OEIS. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-176 

3.6 Fishes

This page intentionally left blank. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-177 

3.6 References

References 

Able, K. W., & M. P. Fahay. (1998). The first year in the life of estuarine fishes in the Middle Atlantic 

Bight. Rutgers University Press. 

Aguilar-Perera, A. (2006). Disappearance of a Nassau grouper spawning aggregation off the southern 

Mexican Caribbean coast. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 327, 289–296. 

Ahrens, R. N. M., & W. E. Pine. (2014). Informing Recovery Goals Based on Historical Population Size and 

Extant Habitat: A Case Study of the Gulf Sturgeon. Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 6(1), 274–286. 

Allen, M. J. (2006). Pollution. In L. G. Allen, D. J. Pondella, II & M. H. Horn (Eds.), The Ecology of Marine 

Fishes: California and Adjacent Waters (pp. 595–610). Berkeley, CA: University of California 

Press. 

Anderson, D. M., P. M. Glibert, & J. M. Burkholder. (2002). Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: 

Nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries, 25(4, Part B: Dedicated Issue: 

Nutrient Over-Enrichment in Coastal Waters: Global Patterns of Cause and Effect), 704–726. 

Aquarone, M. C. (2009). XV-51 Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf TAG: LME #6 (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme. 

Aquarone, M. C., & S. Adams. (2009). XIX-59 Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World's Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme. 

Archer, S. K., S. A. Heppell, B. X. Semmens, C. V. Pattengill-Semmens, P. G. Bush, C. M. McCoy, & B. C. 

Johnson. (2012). Patterns of color phase indicate spawn timing at a Nassau grouper, Epinephelus 

striatus spawning aggregation. Current Zoology, 58, 73–83. 

Arfsten, D., C. Wilson, & B. Spargo. (2002). Radio Frequency Chaff: The Effects of Its Use in Training on 

the Environment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 53, 1–11. 

Armstrong, J. D., D.-C. Hunter, R. J. Fryer, P. Rycroft, & J. E. Orpwood. (2015). Behavioural Responses of 

Atlantic Salmon to Mains Frequency Magnetic Fields. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science, 6, 

1–17. 

Armstrong, J. L., & J. E. Hightower. (2002). Potential for restoration of the Roanoke River population of 

Atlantic sturgeon. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 18(4-6), 475–480. 

Astrup, J. (1999). Ultrasound detection in fish - a parallel to the sonar-mediated detection of bats by 

ultrasound-sensitive insects? Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A, 124, 19–27. 

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team. (2007). Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus). 

Bain, M. B. (1997). Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson River: common and divergent life 

history attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48, 347–358. 

Bain, M. B., N. Haley, D. L. Peterson, K. K. Arend, K. E. Mills, & P. J. Sullivan. (2007). Recovery of a U.S. 

endangered fish. PLoS ONE, 2(1), 1–9. 

Balazik, M. T. (2012). Life History Analysis of James River Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus) with Implications for Management and Recovery of the Species. Virginia 

Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-178 

3.6 References

Balazik, M. T., K. J. Reine, A. J. Spells, C. A. Fredrickson, M. L. Fine, G. C. Garman, & S. P. McIninch. 

(2012). The Potential for Vessel Interactions with Adult Atlantic Sturgeon in the James River, 

Virginia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 32(6), 1062–1069. 

Balazik, M. T., & J. A. Musick. (2015). Dual annual spawning races in Atlantic sturgeon. PLoS ONE, 10(5), 

e0128234. 

Baum, E. (1997). Maine Atlantic Salmon: A National Treasure. Hermon, ME: Atlantic Salmon Unlimited. 

Baum, J., E. Medina, J. A. Musick, & M. Smale. (2015). Carcharhinus longimanus. The IUCN Red List of 

Threatened Species 2015: e.T39374A85699641. Retrieved 

Baum, J. K., R. A. Myers, D. G. Kehler, B. Worm, S. J. Harley, & P. A. Doherty. (2003). Collapse and 

Conservation of Shark Populations in the Northwest Atlantic. 

Beck, M. W., & M. Odaya. (2001). Ecoregional planning in marine environments: identifying priority sites 

for conservation in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater 

Ecosystems, 11(4), 235–242. 

Beets, J., & M. A. Hixon. (1994). Distribution, persistence, and growth of groupers (Pisces: Serranidae) on 

artificial and natural patch reefs in the Virgin Islands. Bulletin of Marine Science, 55(2–3), 470–

483. 

Bergstad, O. A., T. Falkenhaug, O. S. Astthorsson, I. Byrkjedal, A. V. Gebruk, U. Piatkowski, I. G. Priede, R. 

S. Santos, M. Vecchione, P. Lorance, & J. D. M. Gordon. (2008). Towards improved 

understanding of the diversity and abundance patterns of the mid-ocean ridge macro- and 

megafauna. Deep-Sea Research II, 55(1–2), 1–5. 

Bermudez, J. R., U. Riebesell, A. Larsen, & M. Winder. (2016). Ocean acidification reduces transfer of 

essential biomolecules in a natural plankton community. Scientific Reports, 6, 27749. 

Bernard, A. M., K. A. Feldheim, V. P. Richards, R. S. Nemeth, & M. S. Shivji. (2012). Development and 

characterization of fifteen novel microsatellite loci for the Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) 

and their utility for cross-amplification on a suite of closely related species. Conservation 

Genetics Resources, 4(4), 983–986. 

Bester, C. (1999). Biological profiles: Scalloped hammerhead. Retrieved 

Bester, C. (2012). Biological profiles: Nassau grouper. Retrieved from 

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/Nassaugrouper/Nassaugrouper.html

Bignami, S., S. Sponaugle, & R. K. Cowen. (2013). Response to ocean acidification in larvae of a large 

tropical marine fish, Rachycentron canadum. Global Change Biology, 19(4), 996–1006. 

Bleckmann, H., & R. Zelick. (2009). Lateral line system of fish. Integrative Zoology, 4(1), 13–25. 

Boehlert, G. W., & A. B. Gill. (2010). Environmental and ecological effects of ocean renewable energy 

development: A current synthesis. Oceanography, 23(2), 68–81. 

Boerger, C. M., G. L. Lattin, S. L. Moore, & C. J. Moore. (2010). Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in 

the North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(12), 2275–2278. 

Bolle, L. J., C. A. de Jong, S. M. Bierman, P. J. van Beek, O. A. van Keeken, P. W. Wessels, C. J. van 

Damme, H. V. Winter, D. de Haan, & R. P. Dekeling. (2012). Common sole larvae survive high 

levels of pile-driving sound in controlled exposure experiments. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e33052. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-179 

3.6 References

Booman, C., H. Dalen, H. Heivestad, A. Levsen, T. van der Meeren, & K. Toklum. (1996). (Seismic-fish) 

Effekter av luftkanonskyting pa egg, larver og ynell. Havforskningsinstituttet. 

Botsford, L. W., D. R. Brumbaugh, C. Grimes, J. B. Kellner, J. Largier, M. R. O'Farrell, S. Ralston, E. 

Soulanille, & V. Wespestad. (2009). Connectivity, sustainability, and yield: Bridging the gap 

between conventional fisheries management and Marine Protected Areas. Reviews in Fish 

Biology and Fisheries, 19(1), 69–95. 

Bouyoucos, I., P. Bushnell, & R. Brill. (2014). Potential for electropositive metal to reduce the 

interactions of Atlantic sturgeon with fishing gear. Conservation Biology, 28(1), 278–282. 

Bracciali, C., D. Campobello, C. Giacoma, & G. Sara. (2012). Effects of nautical traffic and noise on 

foraging patterns of Mediterranean damselfish (Chromis chromis). PLoS ONE, 7(7), e40582. 

Brander, K. (2010). Impacts of climate change on fisheries. Journal of Marine Systems, 79(3–4), 389–402. 

Brander, K. M. (2007). Global fish production and climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(50), 19709–19714. 

Branstetter, S. (2002). Hammerhead sharks. Family Sphyrnidae. In B. B. Collette & G. Klein-MacPhee 

(Eds.), Bigelow and Schroeder's Fishes of the Gulf of Maine (3rd ed., pp. 45–47). Washington, DC: 

Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Braun, C. D., G. B. Skomal, S. R. Thorrold, & M. L. Berumen. (2015). Movements of the reef manta ray 

(Manta alfredi) in the Red Sea using satellite and acoustic telemetry. Marine Biology, 162, 2351–

2362. 

Breece, M. W., M. J. Oliver, M. A. Cimino, & D. A. Fox. (2013). Shifting distributions of adult Atlantic 

sturgeon amidst post-industrialization and future impacts in the Delaware River: a maximum 

entropy approach. PLoS ONE, 8(11), e81321. 

Breece, M. W., D. A. Fox, K. J. Dunton, M. G. Frisk, A. Jordaan, M. J. Oliver, & C. Kurle. (2016). Dynamic 

seascapes predict the marine occurrence of an endangered species: Atlantic SturgeonAcipenser 

oxyrinchus oxyrinchus. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, n/a–n/a. 

Brehmer, P., F. Gerlotto, C. Laurent, P. Cotel, A. Achury, & B. Samb. (2007). Schooling behaviour of small 

pelagic fish: phenotypic expression of independent stimuli. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 334, 

263–272. 

Briggs, C., S. M. Shjegstad, J. A. K. Silva, & M. H. Edwards. (2016). Distribution of chemical warfare agent, 

energetics, and metals in sediments at a deep-water discarded military munitions site. Deep Sea 

Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 63–69. 

Brown, J. J., & G. W. Murphy. (2010). Atlantic Sturgeon Vessel-Strike Mortalities in the Delaware Estuary. 

Fisheries, 35(2), 72–83. 

Brown, J. J., & G. W. Murphy. (2012). Atlantic sturgeon vessel-strike mortalities in the Delaware Estuary. 

Fisheries, 35(2), 72–83. 

Bruckner, A. W. (2005). The importance of the marine ornamental reef fish trade in the wider Caribbean. 

Revista De Biologia Tropical, 53, 127–137. 

Buerkle, U. (1968). Relation of pure tone thresholds to background noise level in the Atlantic cod (Gadus 

morhua). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 25, 1155–1160. 

Buerkle, U. (1969). Auditory masking and the critical band in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Journal of the 

Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 26, 1113–1119. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-180 

3.6 References

Bullock, T. H., D. A. Bodznick, & R. G. Northcutt. (1983). The phylogenetic distribution of 

electroreception—evidence for convergent evolution of a primitive vertebrate sense modality. 

Brian Research Reviews, 6(1), 25–46. 

Buran, B. N., X. Deng, & A. N. Popper. (2005). Structural variation in the inner ears of four deep-sea 

elopomorph fishes. Journal of morphology, 265, 215–225. 

California Department of Transportation. (2001). Pile Installation Demonstration Project Marine 

Mammal Impact Assessment (San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety 

Project). 

California Department of Transportation. (2004). Fisheries and Hydroacoustic Monitoring Program 

Compliance Report for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project. 

Strategic Environmental, Inc. and Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 

Cao, L., S. Wang, M. Zheng, & H. Zhang. (2014). Sensitivity of ocean acidification and oxygen to the 

uncertainty in climate change. Environmental Research Letters. 

Carlson, J. K., J. Osborne, & T. W. Schmidt. (2007a). Monitoring the recovery of smalltooth sawfish, 

Pristis pectinata, using standardized relative indices of abundance. Biological Conservation, 

136(2), 195–202. 

Carlson, T., M. Hastings, & A. N. Popper. (2007b). Memorandum: Update on Recommendations for 

Revised Interim Sound Exposure Criteria for Fish during Pile Driving Activities. 

Carr, S. H., & T. Carr. (1996). First observations of young-of-year Gulf of Mexico sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus de sotoi) in the Suwannee River, Florida. Gulf of Mexico Science, 141, 44–46. 

Casper, B. M., P. S. Lobel, & H. Y. Yan. (2003). The hearing sensitivity of the little skate, Raja erinacea: A 

comparison of two methods. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 68, 371–379. 

Casper, B. M., & D. A. Mann. (2006). Evoked potential audiograms of the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma 

cirratum) and the yellow stingray (Urabatis jamaicensis). Environmental Biology of Fishes, 76(1), 

101–108. 

Casper, B. M., & D. A. Mann. (2009). Field hearing measurements of the Atlantic sharpnose shark, 

Rhizoprionodon terraenovae. Journal of Fish Biology, 75(10), 2768–2776. 

Casper, B. M., M. B. Halvorsen, & A. N. Popper. (2012a). Are Sharks Even Bothered by a Noisy 

Environment? In A. N. Popper & A. D. Hawkins (Eds.), The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II. 

Casper, B. M., A. N. Popper, F. Matthews, T. J. Carlson, & M. B. Halvorsen. (2012b). Recovery of 

barotrauma injuries in Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha from exposure to pile 

driving sound. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e39593. 

Casper, B. M., M. B. Halvorsen, F. Matthews, T. J. Carlson, & A. N. Popper. (2013a). Recovery of 

barotrauma injuries resulting from exposure to pile driving sound in two sizes of hybrid striped 

bass. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e73844. 

Casper, B. M., M. E. Smith, M. B. Halvorsen, H. Sun, T. J. Carlson, & A. N. Popper. (2013b). Effects of 

exposure to pile driving sounds on fish inner ear tissues. Comparative Biochemistry and 

Physiology, Part A, 166(2), 352–360. 

Castro, J. I. (1983). The sharks of North American waters (pp. 179 ). College Station, TX: Texas A&M 

University Press. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-181 

3.6 References

Catano, L. B., B. K. Gunn, M. C. Kelley, & D. E. Burkepile. (2015). Predation Risk, Resource Quality, and 

Reef Structural Complexity Shape Territoriality in a Coral Reef Herbivore. PLoS ONE, 10(2), 

e0118764. 

Center for Biological Diversity. (2011). Petition to List the Dwarf Seahorse (Hippocampus zosterae) As 

Endangered under the United States Endangered Species Act. San Francisco, CA: Center for 

Biological Diversity. 

Chapman, C. J., & A. D. Hawkins. (1973). Field study of hearing in cod, Gadus morhua-l. Journal of 

Comparative Physiology, 85(2), 147–167. 

Chapman, F. A., & S. H. Carr. (1995). Implications of early life stages in the natural history of the Gulf of 

Mexico sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus de sotoi. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 43, 407–413. 

Chaput, G. (2012). Overview of the status of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in the North Atlantic and 

trends in marine mortality. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, Online. 

Cheung, W. W. L., R. Watson, T. Morato, T. J. Pitcher, & D. Pauly. (2007). Intrinsic vulnerability in the 

global fish catch. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 333, 1–12. 

Choy, C. A., & J. C. Drazen. (2013). Plastic for dinner? Observations of frequent debris ingestion by 

pelagic predatory fishes from the central North Pacific. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 485, 

155–163. 

Codarin, A., L. E. Wysocki, F. Ladich, & M. Picciulin. (2009). Effects of ambient and boat noise on hearing 

and communication in three fish species living in a marine protected area (Miramare, Italy). 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58(12), 1880–1887. 

Cole, M., & T. S. Galloway. (2015). Ingestion of Nanoplastics and Microplastics by Pacific Oyster Larvae. 

Environmental Science & Technology, 49(24), 14625–14632. 

Colin, P. L. (1992). Reproduction of the Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus (Pisces: Serranidae) and its 

relationship to environmental conditions. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 34(4), 357–377. 

Collette, B. B., & G. Klein-MacPhee. (2002). Bigelow and Schroeder's fishes of the Gulf of Maine (3rd 

ed.). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Colleye, O., L. Kever, D. Lecchini, L. Berten, & E. Parmentier. (2016). Auditory evoked potential 

audiograms in post-settlement stage individuals of coral reef fishes. Journal of Experimental 

Marine Biology and Ecology, 483, 1–9. 

Collin, S. P., & D. Whitehead. (2004). The functional roles of passive electroreception in non-electric 

fishes. Animal Biology, 54(1), 1–25. 

Collins, M. R., S. G. Rogers, T. I. J. Smith, & M. L. Moser. (2000). Primary factors affecting sturgeon 

populations in the southeastern United States: Fishing mortality and degradation of essential 

habitats. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66(3), 917–928. 

Compagno, L. J. V. (1984). FAO Species Catalogue. Sharks of the World. An Annotated and Illustrated 

Catalogue of Shark Species Known to Date. Part 2. Carcharhiniformes (FAO Fisheries Synopsis 

No. 125). 

Compagno, L. J. V., & P. R. Last. (1984). Pristiformes: Pristidae Order Pristiformes Sharks of the World –

An annotated and illustrated catalogue of shark species known to date (Vol. Volume 4 – Part 1 - 

Hexanchiformes to Lamniformes). Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-182 

3.6 References

Coombs, S., & J. C. Montgomery. (1999). The Enigmatic Lateral Line System. In R. R. Fay & A. N. Popper 

(Eds.), Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians (pp. 319–362). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. 

Corcoran, A., M. Dornback, B. Kirkpatrick, & A. Jochens. (2013). A Primer on Gulf of Mexico Harmful Algal 

Blooms. 

Cornish, A., & A. M. Eklund. (2003). Epinephelus striatus. IUCN 2012 Red List of Threatened Species. 

Version 2012.1. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/7862/0

Couturier, L. I. E., A. D. Marshall, F. R. A. Jaine, T. Kashiwagi, S. J. Pierce, K. A. Townsend, S. J. Weeks, M. 

B. Bennett, & A. J. Richardson. (2012). Biology, ecology and conservation of the Mobulidae. 

Journal of Fish Biology, 80, 1075–1119. 

Cox, B. S., A. M. Dux, M. C. Quist, & C. S. Guy. (2012). Use of a seismic air gun to reduce survival of 

nonnative lake trout embryos: a tool for conservation? North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management, 32(2), 292–298. 

Craft, N. M., B. Russell, & S. Travis. (2001). Identification of Gulf Sturgeon Spawning Habitats and 

Migratory Patterns in the Yellow and Escambia River Systems. Florida Marine Research Institute, 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

Crain, C. M., B. S. Halpern, M. W. Beck, & C. V. Kappel. (2009). Understanding and Managing Human 

Threats to the Coastal Marine Environment. In R. S. Ostfeld & W. H. Schlesinger (Eds.), The Year 

in Ecology and Conservation Biology, 2009 (pp. 39–62). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. 

Crozier, W. W., P. J. Schön, G. Chaput, E. C. E. Potter, N. Ó. Maoiléidigh, & J. C. MacLean. (2004). 

Managing Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in the mixed stock environment: challenges and 

considerations. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61, 1344–1358. 

Curtis, J. M. R., & A. C. J. Vincent. (2006). Life history of an unusual marine fish: survival, growth and 

movement patterns of Hippocampus guttulatus Cuvier 1829. Journal of Fish Biology, 68(3), 707–

733. 

Dadswell, M. J., B. D. Taubert, T. S. Squiers, D. Marchette, & J. Buckley. (1984). Synopsis of biological 

data on shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur 1818. 

Dadswell, M. J. (2006). A review of the status of Atlantic sturgeon in Canada, with comparisons to 

populations in the United States and Europe. Fisheries, 31(5), 218–229. 

Dahl, P. H., C. A. de Jong, & A. N. Popper. (2015). The underwater sound field from impact pile driving 

and its potential effects on marine life. Acoustics Today, 11(2), 18–25. 

Daly-Engel, T. S., K. D. Seraphin, K. N. Holland, J. P. Coffey, H. A. Nance, R. J. Toonen, & B. W. Bowen. 

(2012). Global phylogeography with mixed-marker analysis reveals male-mediated dispersal in 

the endangered scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini). PLoS ONE, 7(1), e29986. 

Danner, G. R., J. Chacko, & F. Brautigam. (2009). Voluntary ingestion of soft plastic fishing lures affects 

brook trout growth in the laboratory. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 29(2), 

352–360. 

Dantas, D. V., M. Barletta, & M. F. da Costa. (2012). The seasonal and spatial patterns of ingestion of 

polyfilament nylon fragments by estuarine drums (Sciaenidae). Environmental Science and 

Pollution Research, 19(2), 600–606. 

Davison, P., & R. G. Asch. (2011). Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes in the North Pacific Subtropical 

Gyre. Marine Ecological Progress Series, 432, 173–180. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-183 

3.6 References

De Robertis, A., & N. O. Handegard. (2013). Fish avoidance of research vessels and the efficacy of noisereduced vessels: a review. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70(1), 34–45. 

Deakos, M. H., J. D. Baker, & L. Bejder. (2011). Characteristics of a manta ray Manta alfredi population 

off Maui, Hawaii, and implications for management. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 429, 245–

260. 

Debusschere, E., B. De Coensel, A. Bajek, D. Botteldooren, K. Hostens, J. Vanaverbeke, S. 

Vandendriessche, K. Van Ginderdeuren, M. Vincx, & S. Degraer. (2014). In situ mortality 

experiments with juvenile sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in relation to impulsive sound levels 

caused by pile driving of windmill foundations. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e109280. 

Defenders of Wildlife. (2015a). A Petition to List the Oceanic Whitetip Shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) 

as an Endangered, or Alternatively as a Threatened, Species Pursuant to the Endangered Species 

Act and for the Concurrent Designation of Critical Habitat. Denver, CO. 

Defenders of Wildlife. (2015b). A Petition to List the Giant Manta Ray (Manta birostris), Reef Manta Ray 

(Manta alfredi), and Caribbean Manta Ray (Manta c.f. birostris) as Endangered, or Alternatively 

as Threatened, Species Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and for the Concurrent 

Designation of Critical Habitat. Denver, CO. 

Del Monte-Luna, P., J. L. Castro-Aguirre, B. W. Brooke, J. de la Cruz-Agüero, & V. H. Cruz-Escalona. 

(2009). Putative extinction of two sawfish species in Mexico and the United States. Neotropical 

Ichthyology, 7(3), 509–512. 

Dempster, T., & M. Taquet. (2004). Fish aggregation device (FAD) research: gaps in current knowledge 

and future direction for ecological studies. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 14(1), 21–42. 

Deng, X., H. J. Wagner, & A. N. Popper. (2011). The inner ear and its coupling to the swim bladder in the 

deep-sea fish Antimora rostrata (Teleostei: Moridae). Deep Sea Res Part 1, Oceanographic 

Research Papers, 58(1), 27–37. 

Deng, X., H. J. Wagner, & A. N. Popper. (2013). Interspecific variations of inner ear structure in the deepsea fish family melamphaidae. The Anatomical Record, 296(7), 1064–1082. 

Derraik, J. G. B. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 44, 842–852. 

Deslauriers, D., & J. D. Kieffer. (2012). The effects of temperature on swimming performance of juvenile 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 

Doksaeter, L., O. R. Godo, N. O. Handegard, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, C. Donovan, & P. J. O. Miller. 

(2009). Behavioral responses of herring (Clupea harengus) to 1-2 and 6-7 kHz sonar signals and 

killer whale feeding sounds. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 125(1), 554–564. 

Doksaeter, L., N. O. Handegard, O. R. Godo, P. H. Kvadsheim, & N. Nordlund. (2012). Behavior of captive 

herring exposed to naval sonar transmissions (1.0–1.6 kHz) throughout a yearly cycle. The 

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 131(2), 1632–1642. 

Doropoulos, C., S. Ward, G. Diaz-Pulido, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, & P. J. Mumby. (2012). Ocean acidification 

reduces coral recruitment by disrupting intimate larval-algal settlement interactions. Ecology 

letters. 

Drazen, J. C., & B. A. Seibel. (2007). Depth-related trends in metabolism of benthic and benthopelagic 

deep-sea fishes. Limnology and Oceanography, 52(5), 2306–2316. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-184 

3.6 References

Dufour, F., H. Arrizabalaga, X. Irigoien, & J. Santiago. (2010). Climate impacts on albacore and bluefin 

tunas migrations phenology and spatial distribution. Progress in Oceanography, 86(1–2), 283–

290. 

Duncan, K. M., & K. N. Holland. (2006). Habitat use, growth rates and dispersal patterns of juvenile 

scalloped hammerhead sharks, Sphyrna lewini, in a nursery habitat. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 312, 211–221. 

Dutil, J. D., & J. M. Coutu. (1988). Early marine life of Atlantic salmon, Salmo-salar, postsmolts in the 

Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Fishery Bulletin, 86(2), 197–212. 

Ebert, D. A., S. Fowler, & M. Dando. (2015). A Pocket Guide to Sharks of the World. Princeton, NJ and 

Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press. 

Edds-Walton, P. L., & J. J. Finneran. (2006). Evaluation of Evidence for Altered Behavior and Auditory 

Deficits in Fishes Due to Human-Generated Noise Sources. (Technical Report 1939). San Diego, 

CA: SSC San Diego. 

Edwards, M. H., S. M. Shjegstad, R. Wilkens, J. C. King, G. Carton, D. Bala, B. Bingham, M. C. Bissonnette, 

C. Briggs, N. S. Bruso, R. Camilli, M. Cremer, R. B. Davis, E. H. DeCarlo, C. DuVal, D. J. Fornari, I. 

Kaneakua-Pia, C. D. Kelley, S. Koide, C. L. Mahk, T. Kerby, G. J. Kurras, M. R. Rognstad, L. Sheild, J. 

Silva, B. Wellington, & M. Van Woerkom. (2016). The Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions 

Assessment. Deep-Sea Research II, 128, 4–13. 

Edwards, R. E., K. J. Sulak, M. T. Randall, & C. B. Grimes. (2003). Movements of Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus desotoi) in nearshore habitat as determined by acoustic telemetry. Gulf of Mexico 

Science, 21(1), 59–70. 

Ehrhardt, N. M., & V. K. W. Deleveaux. (2007). The Bahamas’ Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) 

fishery – two assessment methods applied to a data – deficient coastal population. Fisheries 

Research, 87(1), 17–27. 

Engås, A., O. A. Misund, A. V. Soldal, B. Horvei, & A. Solstad. (1995). Reactions of penned herring and cod 

to playback of original, frequency-filtered and time-smoothed vessel sound. Fisheries Research, 

22(3), 243–254. 

Enger, P. S. (1981). Frequency Discrimination in Teleosts-Central or Peripheral? New York, NY: SpringVerlag. 

Environmental Sciences Group. (2005). Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges 

(CFMETR) Environmental Assessment Update 2005. Kingston, Ontario: Environmental Sciences 

Group, Royal Military College. 

Eschmeyer, W. N., & J. D. Fong. (2016). Species by Family/Subfamily in the Catalog of Fishes: California 

Academy of Sciences. 

Eschmeyer, W. N., & J. D. Fong. (2017). Catalog of Fishes. 

Estrada, J. A., A. N. Rice, M. E. Lutcavage, & G. B. Skomal. (2003). Predicting trophic position in sharks of 

the north-west Atlantic ocean using stable isotope analysis. Journal of the Marine Biological 

Association of the United Kingdom, 83, 1347–1350. 

Fast, M. D., M. S. Sokolowski, K. J. Dunton, & P. R. Bowser. (2009). Dichelesthium oblongum (Copepoda: 

Dichelesthiidae) infestation in wild-caught Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus. ICES Journal 

of Marine Science, 66(10), 2141–2147. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-185 

3.6 References

Faulkner, S. G., W. M. Tonn, M. Welz, & D. R. Schmitt. (2006). Effects of explosives on incubating lake 

trout eggs in the Canadian Arctic. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 26(4), 833–

842. 

Faulkner, S. G., M. Welz, W. M. Tonn, & D. R. Schmitt. (2008). Effects of simulated blasting on mortality 

of rainbow trout eggs. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 137(1), 1–12. 

Fay, C., M. Bartron, S. Craig, A. Hecht, J. Pruden, R. Saunders, T. Sheehan, & J. Trial. (2006). Status 

Review for Anadromous Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in the United States. National Marine 

Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Feist, B. E., J. J. Anderson, & R. Miyamoto. (1992). Potential Impacts of Pile Driving on Juvenile Pink 

(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Chum (O. keta) Salmon Behavior and Distribution. University of 

Washington. 

Felix, A., M. E. Stevens, & R. L. Wallace. (1995). Unpalatability of a colonial rotifer, Sinantherina socialis,

to small zooplanktivorous fishes. Invertebrate Biology, 114(2), 139–144. 

Felline, S., R. Caricato, A. Cutignano, S. Gorbi, M. G. Lionetto, E. Mollo, F. Regoli, & A. Terlizzi. (2012). 

Subtle effects of biological invasions: cellular and physiological responses of fish eating the 

exotic pest Caulerpa racemosa. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e38763. 

Fewtrell, J. L., & R. D. McCauley. (2012). Impact of air gun noise on the behaviour of marine fish and 

squid. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(5), 984–993. 

Fields, R. D. (2007). The Shark's Electric Sense: An astonishingly sensitive detector of electric fields helps 

sharks zero in on prey. Scientific American, Inc. 

Filmalter, J. D., M. Capello, J.-L. Deneubourg, P. D. Cowley, & L. Dagorn. (2013). Looking behind the 

curtain: quantifying massive shark mortality in fish aggregating devices. Frontiers in Ecology and 

the Environment, 11(6), 291–296. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2004). Cusk (Brosme brosme) (Species at Risk Act Legal Listing 

Consultation Workbook). Dartmouth, Nova Scotia: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2011). Oil and Gas Activities in the Offshore. Dartmouth, Nova Scotia: 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada Retrieved from http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/e0009687. 

Fitch, J. E., & P. H. Young. (1948). Use and effect of explosives in California coastal waters. 

Fitzpatrick, J. L., J. K. Desjardins, K. A. Stiver, R. Montgomerie, & S. Balshine. (2006). Male reproductive 

suppression in the cooperatively breeding fish Neolamprologus pulsher. Behavioural Ecology, 

25–33. 

Florida Museum of Natural History. (2011). National Smalltooth Sawfish Encounter Database. 

Florida Museum of Natural History. (2017a). Largetooth Sawfish, Pristis perotteti Retrieved from 

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/discover/species-profiles/pristis-perotteti

Florida Museum of Natural History. (2017b). Gulf Sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi. Retrieved 

from https://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/discover/species-profiles/acipenser-oxyrinchus-desotoi/

Foderaro, L. W. (2015, 21 July 2015). Group Petitions to Save a Prehistoric Fish From Modern 

Construction, New York Times. Retrieved from 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/nyregion/group-petitions-to-save-a-prehistoric-fishfrom-modern-construction.html?_r=0
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-186 

3.6 References

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2005). Review of the State of World Marine 

Fishery Resources. Rome, Italy: FAO Fisheries Department, Fishery Resources Division, Marine 

Resources Service. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). The State of World Fisheries and 

Aquaculture. Rome, Italy: FAO. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2012). Species Fact Sheets, Sphyrna lewini 

Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2028/en

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2013). Report of the Fourth FAO Expert 

Advisory Panel fo rthe Assessment of Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II of CITES 

Concerning Commercially-Exploited Aquatic Species. Rome, Italy. 

Foster, A. M., & J. P. Clugston. (1997). Seasonal migration of Gulf sturgeon in the Suwannee River, 

Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 126, 302–308. 

Foster, S. J., & A. C. J. Vincent. (2004). Life history and ecology of seahorses: Implications for 

conservation and management. Journal of Fish Biology, 65(1), 1–61. 

Fox, A. G., E. S. Stowe, & D. L. Peteron. (2016). Occurrence and Movements of Shortnose and Atlantic 

Sturgeon in the St. Johns River, Florida (Final Report to the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers and the United States Navy). 

Fox, D. A., J. E. Hightower, & F. M. Parauka. (2000). Gulf sturgeon spawning migration and habitat in the 

Choctawhatchee River system, Alabama-Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 

129, 811–826. 

Fox, D. A., J. E. Hightower, & F. M. Parauka. (2002). Estuarine and nearshore marine habitat use by Gulf 

sturgeon from the Choctawhatchee River System, Florida. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium, 28, 111–126. 

Fraser, P. J. (1987). Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., feed in Scottish coastal waters. Aquaculture 

Research, 18(3), 243–247. 

Freeman, B. J., R. Weller, K. Owers, & B. Albanese. (2009). Alabama Shad. Retrieved from 

http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accounts/fis

hes/alosa_alabamae.pdf

Frisk, G. V. (2012). Noiseonomics: The relationship between ambient noise levels in the sea and global 

economic trends. Scientific Reports, 2(437). 

Froese, R., & D. E. Pauly. (2010). FishBase. January 2010. Retrieved from 

http://www.fishbase.org/search.php

Froese, R., & D. Pauly. (2016). FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. Version (01/2016). 

Retrieved from www.fishbase.org

Gargan, P. G., G. Forde, N. Hazon, D. J. F. Russell, & C. D. Todd. (2012). Evidence for sea lice-induced 

marine mortality of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in western Ireland from experimental releases 

of ranched smolts treated with emamectin benzoate. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, 69(2), 343–353. 

Gaspin, J. B. (1975). Experimental Investigations of the Effects of Underwater Explosions on Swimbladder 

Fish, I: 1973 Chesapeake Bay Tests. Silver Spring, MD: Naval Surface Weapons Center, 

White Oak Laboratory. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-187 

3.6 References

Gaspin, J. B., M. L. Wiley, & G. B. Peters. (1976). Experimental Investigations of the Effects of Underwater 

Explosions on Swimbladder Fish, II: 1975 Chesapeake Bay Tests. Silver Spring, MD: White Oak 

Laboratory. 

Germanov, E. S., & A. D. Marshall. (2014). Running the Gauntlet: Regional Movement Patterns of Manta 

alfredi through a Complex of Parks and Fisheries. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e110071. 

Gill, A. B. (2005). Offshore renewable energy: ecological implications of generating electricity in the 

coastal zone. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 605–615. 

Gitschlag, G. R., M. J. Schirripa, & J. E. Powers. (2001). Estimation of fisheries impacts due to underwater 

explosives used to sever and salvage oil and gas platforms in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (Final 

Report). 

Goatley, C. H. R., & D. R. Bellwood. (2009). Morphological structure in a reef fish assemblage. Coral 

Reefs, 28(2), 449–457. 

Goertner, J. F. (1978). Dynamical model for explosion injury to fish. 

Goertner, J. F., M. L. Wiley, G. A. Young, & W. W. McDonald. (1994). Effects of underwater explosions on 

fish without swimbladders. Silver Spring, MD: Naval Surface Warfare Center. 

Goetz, S., M. B. Santos, J. Vingada, D. C. Costas, A. G. Villanueva, & G. J. Pierce. (2015). Do pingers cause 

stress in fish? An experimental tank study with European sardine, Sardina pilchardus (Walbaum, 

1792) (Actinopterygii, Clupeidae), exposed to a 70 kHz dolphin pinger. Hydrobiologia, 749(1), 

83–96. 

Goncalves, R., M. Scholze, A. M. Ferreira, M. Martins, & A. D. Correia. (2008). The joint effect of 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on fish behavior. Environmental Research, 108, 204–213. 

Gordon, J. D. M. (2001). Deep-water fisheries at the Atlantic Frontier. Continental Shelf Research, 21(8–

10), 987–1003. 

Govoni, J. J., L. R. Settle, & M. A. West. (2003). Trauma to juvenile pinfish and spot inflicted by 

submarine detonations. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, 15, 111–119. 

Govoni, J. J., M. A. West, L. R. Settle, R. T. Lynch, & M. D. Greene. (2008). Effects of underwater 

explosions on larval fish: implications for a coastal engineering project. Journal of Coastal 

Research, 24(2B), 228–233. 

Graham, R. T., M. J. Witt, D. W. Castellanos, F. Remolina, S. Maxwell, B. J. Godley, & L. A. Hawkes. 

(2012). Satellite Tracking of Manta Rays Highlights Challenges to Their Conservation. PLoS ONE, 

7(5), e36834. 

Green, S. J., J. L. Akins, A. Maljkovic, & I. M. Cote. (2012). Invasive lionfish drive Atlantic coral reef fish 

declines. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e32596. 

Greer, C. D., P. V. Hodson, Z. Li, T. King, & K. Lee. (2012). Toxicity of crude oil chemically dispersed in a 

wave tank to embryos of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry, Online. 

Gulf Coast Research Laboratory. (2016). Hardhead Catfish. Retrieved from 

http://gcrl.usm.edu/public/fish/hardhead.catfish.php

Haedrich, R. L. (1996). Deep-water fishes: Evolution and adaptation in the earth's largest living spaces. 

Journal of Fish Biology, 49(Supplement A), 40–53. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-188 

3.6 References

Hager, C. (2015). Telemetry tracking of Atlantic sturgeon in the lower Chesapeake Bay: Final Report for 

2014. (Contract No. N62470-10-D-2011, Task Order 0019). Norfolk, VA: Prepared for Naval 

Facilities Enginnering Command Atlantic. 

Hager, C., J. Kahn, & C. Watterson. (2016). Migration Patterns of the Pamunkey River Spawning Stock of 

Atlantic Sturgeon [Presentation]. Paper presented at the Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon 2016 

Workshop, Sheperdstown, WV. 

Halpern, B. S., K. L. McLeod, A. A. Rosenberg, & L. B. Crowder. (2008a). Managing for cumulative impacts 

in ecosystem-based management through ocean zoning. Ocean & Coastal Management, 51(3), 

203–211. 

Halpern, B. S., S. Walbridge, K. A. Selkoe, C. V. Kappel, F. Micheli, C. D'Agrosa, J. F. Bruno, K. S. Casey, C. 

Ebert, H. E. Fox, R. Fujita, D. Heinemann, H. S. Lenihan, E. M. P. Madin, M. T. Perry, E. R. Selig, M. 

Spalding, R. Steneck, & R. Watson. (2008b). A global map of human impact on marine 

ecosystems. Science, 319, 948–952. 

Halvorsen, M. B., B. M. Casper, C. M. Woodley, T. J. Carlson, & A. N. Popper. (2011). Predicting and 

mitigating hydroacoustic impacts on fish from pile installations (Research Results Digest). 

Washington, DC: National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research 

Board, National Academy of Sciences. 

Halvorsen, M. B., B. M. Casper, F. Matthews, T. J. Carlson, & A. N. Popper. (2012a). Effects of exposure to 

pile-driving sounds on the lake sturgeon, Nile tilapia and hogchoker. Proceedings of Biological 

Sciences, 279(1748), 4705–4714. 

Halvorsen, M. B., B. M. Casper, C. M. Woodley, T. J. Carlson, & A. N. Popper. (2012b). Threshold for 

onset of injury in Chinook salmon from exposure to impulsive pile driving sounds. PLoS ONE, 

7(6), e38968. 

Halvorsen, M. B., D. A. Zeddies, W. T. Ellison, D. R. Chicoine, & A. N. Popper. (2012c). Effects of midfrequency active sonar on hearing in fish. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 131(1), 

599–607. 

Halvorsen, M. B., D. G. Zeddies, D. Chicoine, & A. N. Popper. (2013). Effects of low-frequency naval sonar 

exposure on three species of fish. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 134(2), EL205–

210. 

Handegard, N. O., K. Michalsen, & D. Tjøstheim. (2003). Avoidance behaviour in cod (Gadus morhua) to 

a bottom-trawling vessel. Aquatic Living Resources, 16(3), 265–270. 

Handegard, N. O., A. D. Robertis, G. Rieucau, K. Boswell, G. J. Macaulay, & J. M. Jech. (2015). The 

reaction of a captive herring school to playbacks of a noise-reduced and a conventional research 

vessel. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 72(4), 491–499. 

Hanlon, R. T., & J. B. Messenger. (1996). Cephalopod Behaviour. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Hansen, L. P., & M. L. Windsor. (2006). Interactions between aquaculture and wild stocks of Atlantic 

salmon and other diadromous fish species: Science and management, challenges and solutions. 

ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63(7), 1159–1161. 

Hare, J. A., W. E. Morrison, M. W. Nelson, M. M. Stachura, E. J. Teeters, R. B. Griffis, M. A. Alexander, J. 

D. Scott, L. Alade, R. J. Bell, A. S. Chute, K. L. Curti, T. H. Curtis, D. Kircheis, J. F. Kocik, S. M. Lucey, 

C. T. McCandless, L. M. Milke, D. E. Richardson, E. Robillard, H. J. Walsh, M. C. McManus, K. E. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-189 

3.6 References

Marancik, & C. A. Griswold. (2016). A Vulnerability Assessment of Fish and Invertebrates to 

Climate Change on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. PLoS ONE, 11(2), e0146756. 

Harris, J. E., D. C. Parkyn, & D. J. Murie. (2005). Distribution of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon in relation to 

benthic invertebrate prey resources and environmental parameters in the Suwannee River 

estuary, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 134, 975–990. 

Hartwell, S. I., C. H. Hocutt, & W. F. van Heukelem. (1991). Swimming response of menhaden (Brevoortia 

tyrannus) to electromagnetic pulses. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 7(2), 90–94. 

Hastings, M. C. (1991). Effects of underwater sound on bony fishes. Paper presented at the 122nd 

Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America. 

Hastings, M. C. (1995). Physical effects of noise on fishes. Paper presented at the Inter-Noise, Newport 

Beach, CA. 

Hastings, M. C., A. N. Popper, J. J. Finneran, & P. J. Lanford. (1996). Effects of low-frequency underwater 

sound on hair cells of the inner ear and lateral line of the teleost fish Astronotus ocellatus. The 

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 99(3), 1759–1766. 

Hastings, M. C., & A. N. Popper. (2005). Effects of Sound on Fish. 

Haugland, M., J. C. Holst, M. Holm, & L. P. Hansen. (2006). Feeding of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) 

post-smolts in the Northeast Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63, 1488–1500. 

Hawkins, A. D., & A. D. F. Johnstone. (1978). The hearing of the Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. Journal of 

Fish Biology, 13, 655–673. 

Hawkins, A. D., L. Roberts, & S. Cheesman. (2014). Responses of free-living coastal pelagic fish to 

impulsive sounds. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 135(5), 3101–3116. 

Hawkins, A. D., A. E. Pembroke, & A. N. Popper. (2015). Information gaps in understanding the effects of 

noise on fishes and invertebrates. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 25, 39–64. 

Hedger, R. D., D. Hatin, J. J. Dodson, F. Martin, D. Fournier, F. Caron, & F. G. Whoriskey. (2009). 

Migration and swimming depth of Atlantic salmon kelts Salmo salar in coastal zone and marine 

habitats. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 392, 179–192. 

Heileman, S., & R. Mahon. (2008). XV-49 Caribbean Sea: TAG: LME #12 (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme. 

Heileman, S., & N. Rabalais. (2008). XV-50 Gulf of Mexico: TAG: LME #5 (The UNEP Large Marine 

Ecosystem Report: A Perspective on Changing Conditions in LMEs of the World’s Regional Seas). 

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme. 

Heise, R. J., W. T. Slack, S. T. Ross, & M. A. Dugo. (2004). Spawning and associated movement patterns of 

Gulf sturgeon in the Pascagoula River drainage, Mississippi. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, 133, 221–230. 

Helfman, G. S., B. B. Collette, D. E. Facey, & B. W. Bowen. (2009). The Diversity of Fishes: Biology, 

Evolution, and Ecology (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 

Higgs, D. M. (2005). Auditory cues as ecological signals for marine fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

287, 278–281. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-190 

3.6 References

Higgs, D. M., & C. A. Radford. (2013). The contribution of the lateral line to 'hearing' in fish. Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 216(Pt 8), 1484–1490. 

Hildebrand, J. A. (2009). Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 395, 5–20. 

Hislop, J. R. G., & A. F. Youngson. (1984). A note on the stomach contents of salmon caught by longline 

north of the Faroe Islands in March. ICES C.M. 

Hislop, J. R. G., & R. G. J. Shelton. (1993). Marine predators and prey of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). 

In D. Mills (Ed.), Salmon in the sea and new enhancement strategies (pp. 104–118). Oxford. 

Hoese & Moore. (1998). To Be Provided. 

Hoffmayer, E. R., J. S. Franks, W. B. Driggers, & P. W. Howey. (2013). Diel vertical movements of a 

scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini, in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine 

Science, 89(2), 551–557. 

Holles, S., S. D. Simpson, A. N. Radford, L. Berten, & D. Lecchini. (2013). Boat noise disrupts orientation 

behaviour in a coral reef fish. Marine Ecological Progress Series, 485, 295–300. 

Holt, D. E., & C. E. Johnston. (2014). Evidence of the Lombard effect in fishes. Behavioral Ecology, 25(4), 

819–826. 

Hore, P. J. (2012). Are biochemical reactions affected by weak magnetic fields? Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences, 109(5), 1357–1358. 

Hoss, D. E., & L. R. Settle. (1990). Ingestion of plastics by teleost fishes (Proceedings of the Second 

International Conference on Marine Debris). Honolulu, HI: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Hubbs, C. L., & A. B. Rechnitzer. (1952). Report on experiments designed to determine effects of 

underwater explosions on fish life California Fish and Game (pp. 333–366). La Jolla, CA. 

Huntingford, F., C. Adams, V. A. Braithwaite, S. Kadri, T. G. Pottinger, P. Sandoe, & J. F. Turnball. (2006). 

Review paper: Current issues in fish welfare. Journal of Fish Biology, 70(4), 1311–1316. 

Huveneers, C., P. J. Rogers, J. M. Semmens, C. Beckmann, A. A. Kock, B. Page, & S. D. Goldsworthy. 

(2013). Effects of an electric field on white sharks: in situ testing of an electric deterrent. PLoS 

ONE, 8(5), e62730. 

Iafrate, J. D., S. L. Watwood, E. A. Reyier, D. M. Scheidt, G. A. Dossot, & S. E. Crocker. (2016). Effects of 

pile friving on the residency and movement of tagged reef fish. PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0163638. 

Illingworth and Rodkin. (2015). Underwater and airborne acoustic monitoring for the U.S. Navy Elevated 

Causeway (ELCAS) removal at the JEB Little Creek Naval Station: 10–11 September 2015. 

Illingworth and Rodkin. (2016). Navy Pile Driving Report - in press. 

Ingvarsdottir, A., C. Bjorkblom, E. Ravagnan, B. F. Godal, M. Arnberg, D. L. Joachim, & S. Sanni. (2012). 

Effects of different concentrations of crude oil on first feeding larvae of Atlantic herring (Clupea 

harengus). Journal of Marine Systems, 93, 69–76. 

Inman, M. (2005). Fish Moved by Warming Waters. Science, 308, 937. 

IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working 

Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New 

York, NY. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-191 

3.6 References

Jackson, G. D., N. G. Buxton, & M. J. A. George. (2000). Diet of the southern opah, Lampris immaculatus,

on the Patagonian Shelf; the significance of the squid, Moroteuthis ingens, and anthropogenic 

plastic. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 206, 261–271. 

Jackson, J. B. C., M. K. Donovan, K. L. Cramer, & V. V. Lam. (2014). Status and Trends of Caribbean Coral 

Reefs: 1970–2012. Gland, Switzerland: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, International 

Union for the COnservation of Nature. 

Jensen, J. O. T. (2003). New Mechanical Shock Sensitivity Units in Support of Criteria for Protection of 

Salmonid Eggs from Blasting or Seismic Disturbance. Nanaimo, British Columbia: Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada Science Branch, Pacific Region 

Pacific Biological Station. 

Jerome et al. (1965). To Be Provided. 

Johnstone and Bshary. (2004). To Be Provided. 

Jørgensen, R., N. O. Handegard, H. Gjøsæter, & A. Slotte. (2004). Possible vessel avoidance behaviour of 

capelin in a feeding area and on a spawning ground. Fisheries Research, 69(2), 251–261. 

Jørgensen, R., K. K. Olsen, I. B. Falk-Petersen, & P. Kanapthippilai. (2005). Investigations of Potential 

Effects of Low Frequency Sonar Signals on Survival, Development and Behaviour of Fish Larvae 

and Juveniles. Tromsø, Norway: University of Tromsø. 

Jutila, E., & J. Toivonen. (1985). Food composition of salmon postsmolts (Salmo salar L.) in the northern 

part of the Gulf of Bothnia. ICES Document. 

Kahn, J. E., T. L. King, C. Hager, D. Peterson, J. C. Watterson, J. Russo, & K. Hartman. (2014). The coastal 

relationships and risk of extinction of the newly discovered Pamunkey River, Virginia, Atlantic 

sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) population. 

Kajiura, S. M., & K. N. Holland. (2002). Electroreception in juvenile scalloped hammerhead and sandbar 

sharks. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 205, 3609–3621. 

Kalmijn, A. J. (2000). Detection and processing of electromagnetic and near-field acoustic signals in 

elasmobranch fishes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series BBiological Sciences, 355(1401), 1135–1141. 

Kane, A. S., J. Song, M. B. Halvorsen, D. L. Miller, J. D. Salierno, L. E. Wysocki, D. Zeddies, & A. N. Popper. 

(2010). Exposure of fish to high intensity sonar does not induce acute pathology. Journal of Fish 

Biology, 76(7), 1825–1840. 

Kappel, C. V. (2005). Losing pieces of the puzzle; threats to marine, estuarine, and diadromous species. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(5), 275–282. 

Karlsson, S., & A. C. Albertsson. (1998). Biodegradable Polymers and Environmental Interaction. Polymer 

Engineering and Science, 38(8), 1251–1253. 

Kastelein, R. A., S. van der Heul, W. C. Verboom, N. Jennings, J. van der Veen, & D. de Haan. (2008). 

Startle response of captive North Sea fish species to underwater tones between 0.1 and 64 kHz. 

Marine Environmental Research, 65(5), 369–377. 

Kauparinen, A., & J. Merila. (2007). Detecting and managing fisheries-induced evolution. Trends in 

Ecology & Evolution, 22(12), 652–659. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-192 

3.6 References

Keevin, T. M., & G. L. Hempen. (1997). The Environmental Effects of Underwater Explosions with 

Methods to Mitigate Impacts. St. Louis, MO: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Keller, A. A., E. L. Fruh, M. M. Johnson, V. Simon, & C. McGourty. (2010). Distribution and abundance of 

anthropogenic marine debris along the shelf and slope of the U.S. West Coast. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin, 60(5), 692–700. 

Kelley, C., G. Carton, M. Tomlinson, & A. Gleason. (2016). Analysis of towed camera images to determine 

the effects of disposed mustard-filled bombs on the deep water benthic community off south 

Oahu. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 

Ketchum, J. T., A. Hearn, A. P. Klimley, E. Espinoza, C. Penaherrera, & J. L. Largier. (2014a). Seasonal 

changes in movements and habitat preferences of the scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna 

lewini) while refuging near an oceanic island. Marine Biology, 755–767. 

Ketchum, J. T., A. Hearn, A. P. Klimley, C. Penaherrera, E. Espinoza, S. Bessudo, G. Soler, & R. Arauz. 

(2014b). Inter-island movements of scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewini) and seasonal 

connectivity in a marine protected area of the eastern tropical Pacific. Marine Biology, 939–951. 

Kéver, L., O. Colleye, A. Herrel, P. Romans, & E. Parmentier. (2014). Hearing capacities and otolith size in 

two ophidiiform species (Ophidion rochei and Carapus acus). Journal of Experimental Biology, 

217(Pt 14), 2517–2525. 

Kimber, J. A., D. W. Sims, P. H. Bellamy, & A. B. Gill. (2014). Elasmobranch cognitive ability: using 

electroreceptive foraging behaviour to demonstrate learning, habituation and memory in a 

benthic shark. Anim Cogn, 17(1), 55–65. 

Knutsen, H., P. E. Jorde, H. Sannaes, A. R. Hoelzel, O. A. Bergstad, S. Stefanni, T. Johansen, & N. C. 

Stenseth. (2009). Bathymetric barriers promoting genetic structure in the deepwater demersal 

fish tusk (Brosme brosme). Mol Ecol, 18(15), 3151–3162. 

Kohler, N. E., & P. A. Turner. (2001). Shark tagging: A review of conventional methods and studies. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes, 60(1–3), 191–223. 

Koide, S., J. A. K. Silva, V. Dupra, & M. Edwards. (2016). Bioaccumulation of chemical warfare agents, 

energetic materials, and metals in deep-sea shrimp from discarded military munitions sites off 

Pearl Harbor. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 53–62. 

Koslow, J. A. (1996). Energetic and life-history patterns of deep-sea benthic, benthopelagic and 

seamount-associated fish. Journal of Fish Biology, 49(Supplement A), 54–74. 

Krkosek, M., C. W. Revie, P. G. Gargan, O. T. Skilbrei, B. Finstad, & C. D. Todd. (2013). Impact of parasites 

on salmon recruitment in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. Proc Biol Sci, 280(1750), 20122359. 

Kroglund, F., B. Finstad, S. O. Stefansson, T. O. Nilsen, T. Kristensen, B. O. Rosseland, H. C. Teien, & B. 

Salbu. (2007). Exposure to moderate acid water and aluminum reduces Atlantic salmon postsmolt survival. Aquaculture, 273(2–3), 360–373. 

Kvadsheim, P. H., & E. M. Sevaldsen. (2005). The potential impact of 1-8 kHz active sonar on stocks of 

juvenile fish during sonar exercises. Forsvarets Forskningsinstitutt, Norwegian Defence Research 

Establishment, P.O. Box 25, NO-2027 Kjeller, Norway. 

Kynard, B. (1997). Life history, latitudinal patterns and status of the shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser 

brevirostrum. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48(1–4), 319–334. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-193 

3.6 References

Kyne, P. M., & P. Feutry. (2013). A Life History Overview of the Largetooth Sawfish Pristis pristis (Life 

Historyu Overview). National Environmental Research Program. 

Ladich, F. (2008). Sound communication in fishes and the influence of ambient and anthropogenic noise. 

Bioacoustics, 17, 35–37. 

Ladich, F., & R. R. Fay. (2013). Auditory evoked potential audiometry in fish. Reviews in Fish Biology and 

Fisheries, 23(3), 317–364. 

Ladich, F. (2014). Fish bioacoustics. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 28, 121–127. 

Laist, D. W. (1987). Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine 

environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 18(6B), 319–326. 

Legault, C. M. (2005). Population viability analysis of Atlantic salmon in Maine, U.S.A. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society, 134(3), 549–562. 

Lennox, R. J., O. H. Diserud, S. J. Cooke, E. B. Thorstad, F. G. Whoriskey, Ø. Solem, T. B. Havn, & I. Uglem. 

(2016). Influence of gear switching on recapture of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in catch-andrelease fisheries. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 25(3), 422–428. 

Liberman, M. C. (2016). Noise-induced hearing loss: permanent versus temporary threshold shifts and 

the effects of hair cell versus neuronal degeneration. Adv Exp Med Biol, 875, 1–7. 

Løkkeborg, S., E. Ona, A. Vold, & A. Salthaug. (2012). Effects of Sounds from Seismic Air Guns on Fish 

Behavior and Catch Rates The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life (Vol. 730, pp. 415–419). Springer. 

Lombarte, A., H. Y. Yan, A. N. Popper, J. C. Chang, & C. Platt. (1993). Damage and regeneration of hair 

cell ciliary bundles in a fish ear following treatment with gentamicin. Hearing Research, 66, 166–

174. 

Lombarte, A., & A. N. Popper. (1994). Quantitative analyses of postembryonic hair cell addition in the 

otolithic endorgans of the inner ear of the European hake, Merluccius merluccius (Gadiformes, 

Teleostei). Journal of Comparative Neurology, 345(419–428). 

Lotufo, G. R., W. Blackburn, S. J. Marlborough, & J. W. Fleeger. (2010). Toxicity and bioaccumulation of 

TNT in marine fish in sediment exposures. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 73(7), 1720–

1727. 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. (2012). Alosa alabamae; Alabama Shad. Retrieved from 

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fact_sheet_animal/32191-

Alosa%20alabamae/alosa_alabamae.pdf

Love, J. W., & P. D. Chase. (2007). Marine fish diversity and composition in the Mid-Atlantic and South 

Atlantic Bights. Southeastern Naturalist, 6(4), 705–714. 

Love, M. S., & A. York. (2005). A comparison of the fish assemblages associated with an oil/gas pipeline 

and adjacent seafloor in the Santa Barbara Channel, southern California bight. Bulletin of Marine 

Science, 77(1), 101–117. 

Lovell, J. M., M. M. Findlay, R. M. Moate, J. R. Nedwell, & M. A. Pegg. (2005). The inner ear morphology 

and hearing abilities of the paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) and the lake sturgeon (Acipenser 

fulvescens). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A, 142, 286–296. 

Løvik, A., & J. M. Hovem. (1979). An experimental investigation of swimbladder resonance in fishes. The 

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 66(3), 850–854. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-194 

3.6 References

Lundquist, C. J., S. F. Thrush, G. Coco, & J. E. Hewitt. (2010). Interactions between disturbance and 

dispersal reduce persistence thresholds in a benthic community. Marine Ecology-Progress 

Series, 413, 217–228. 

Lusher, A. L., C. O'Donnell, R. Officer, & I. O'Connor. (2016). Microplastic interactions with North Atlantic 

mesopelagic fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(4), 1214–1225. 

Macfadyen, G., T. Huntington, & R. Cappell. (2009). Abandoned, Lost or Otherwise Discarded Fishing 

Gear. (UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 185 and FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture 

Technical Paper No. 523). Rome, Italy: United Nations Environment Programme, Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Retrieved from 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0620e/i0620e00.HTM. 

Macpherson, E. (2002). Large-scale species-richness gradients in the Atlantic ocean. Proceeding of the 

Royal Society of Biology, 269(1501), 1715–1720. 

Macreadie, P. I., A. M. Fowler, & D. J. Booth. (2011). Rigs-to-reefs: Will the deep sea benefit from 

artificial habitat? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(8), 455–461. 

Madaro, A., R. E. Olsen, T. S. Kristiansen, L. O. Ebbesson, T. O. Nilsen, G. Flik, & M. Gorissen. (2015). 

Stress in Atlantic salmon: response to unpredictable chronic stress. Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 218(16), 2538–2550. 

Madl, P., & M. Yip. (2000). Carilagenous fish Colloquial Meeting of Chondrichthyes; Essay about the 

Electric Organ Discharge (EOD). [http://biophysics.sbg.ac.at/ray/eod.htm]. Salzburg, Austria. 

Madsen, P. T., M. Wahlberg, J. Tougaard, K. Lucke, & P. Tyack. (2006). Wind turbine underwater noise 

and marine mammals: implications of current knowledge and data needs. Marine EcologyProgress Series, 309, 279–295. 

Mann, D. A., Z. Lu, & A. N. Popper. (1997). A clupeid fish can detect ultrasound. Nature, 389–341. 

Mann, D. A., Z. Lu, M. C. Hastings, & A. N. Popper. (1998). Detection of ultrasonic tones and simulated 

dolphin echolocation clicks by a teleost fish, the American shad (Alosa sapidissima). The Journal 

of Acoustical Society of America, 104(1), 562–568. 

Mann, D. A., D. M. Higgs, W. N. Tavolga, M. J. Souza, & A. N. Popper. (2001). Ultrasound detection by 

clupeiform fishes. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 3048–3054. 

Mann, D. A. (2016). Acoustic Communications in Fishes and Potential Effects of Noise. In A. N. Popper & 

A. D. Hawkins (Eds.), The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II (pp. 673–678). New York, NY: 

Springer. 

Marcotte, M. M., & C. G. Lowe. (2008). Behavioral responses of two species of sharks to pulsed, direct 

current electrical fields: Testing a potential shark deterrent. Marine Technology Society Journal, 

42(2), 53–61. 

Marras, S., R. S. Batty, & P. Domenici. (2012). Information transfer and antipredator maneuvers in 

schooling herring. Adaptive Behavior, 20(1), 44–56. 

Marshall, N. J. (1996). Vision and sensory physiology: The lateral line systems of three deep-sea fish. 

Journal of Fish Biology, 49(Supplement A), 239–258. 

Martin, B., D. G. Zeddies, B. Gaudet, & J. Richard. (2016). Evaluation of three sensor types for particle 

motion measurement. Adv Exp Med Biol, 875, 679–686. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-195 

3.6 References

Masonjones, H. D., & S. M. Lewis. (1996). Courtship behavior in the dwarf seahorse, Hippocampus 

zosterae. Copeia(3), 634–640. 

Masonjones, H. D., E. Rose, L. B. McRae, & D. L. Dixson. (2010). An examination of the population 

dynamics of syngnathid fishes within Tampa Bay, Florida, U.S.A. Current Zoology, 56(1), 118–

133. 

Mather, J. (2004). Cephalopod Skin Displays: From Concealment to Communication. In D. Kimbrough 

Oller and Ulrike Griebel (Ed.), The Evolution of Communication Systems: A Comparative 

Approach. Cambridge, MA: The Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology and the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology. 

Mato, Y., T. Isobe, H. Takada, H. Kanehiro, C. Ohtake, & T. Kaminuma. (2001). Plastic resin pellets as a 

tranport medium for toxic chemicals in the marine environment. Environmental Science 

Technology, 35, 318–324. 

McCartney, B. S., & A. R. Stubbs. (1971). Measurements of the acoustic target strengths of fish in dorsal 

aspect, including swimbladder resonance. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 15(3), 397–420. 

McCauley, R. D., & D. H. Cato. (2000). Patterns of fish calling in a nearshore environment in the Great 

Barrier Reef. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 355(1401), 1289–1293. 

McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, A. J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M. N. Jenner, J. D. Penrose, R. I. T. Prince, A. Adhitya, 

J. Murdoch, & K. A. McCabe. (2000). Marine Seismic Surveys: Analysis and Propagation of Airgun Signals; and Effects of Air-gun Exposure on Humpback Whales, Sea Turtles, Fishes and Squid. 

Western Australia: Centre for Marine Science and Technology. 

McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, & A. N. Popper. (2003). High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish 

ears. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 113(1), 638–642. 

McCauley, R. D., & C. S. Kent. (2012). A lack of correlation between air gun signal pressure waveforms 

and fish hearing damage. Adv Exp Med Biol, 730, 245–250. 

McCormick, S. D., L. P. Hansen, T. P. Quinn, & R. L. Saunders. (1998). Movement, migration, and smolting 

of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55, 77–92. 

McDonald, M. A., J. A. Hildebrand, S. M. Wiggins, & D. Ross. (2008). A 50 Year comparison of ambient 

ocean noise near San Clemente Island: A bathymetrically complex coastal region off Southern 

California. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 1985–1992. 

McIver, E. L., M. A. Marchaterre, A. N. Rice, & A. H. Bass. (2014). Novel underwater soundscape: acoustic 

repertoire of plainfin midshipman fish. Journal of Experimental Biology, 217(Pt 13), 2377–2389. 

McLennan, M. W. (1997). A simple model for water impact peak pressure and pulse width: a technical 

memorandum. Goleta, CA: Greeneridge Sciences Inc. 

Meyer, M., R. R. Fay, & A. N. Popper. (2010). Frequency tuning and intensity coding of sound in the 

auditory periphery of the lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens. Journal of Experimental Biology, 

213, 1567–1578. 

Miksis-Olds, J. L., & S. M. Nichols. (2015). Is low frequency ocean sound increasing globally? Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 139(1), 501–511. 

Miller, J. D. (1974). Effects of noise on people. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 56(3), 729–

764. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-196 

3.6 References

Miller, M. H., J. Carlson, P. Cooper, D. Kobayashi, M. Nammack, & J. Wilson. (2013). Status Review 

Report: Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna lewini). National Marine Fisheries Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Miller, M. H., & C. Klimovich. (2016). Endangered Species Act Status Review Report: Giant Manta Ray 

(Manta birostris) and Reef Manta Ray (Manta alfredi). National Marine Fisheries Service, Office 

of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD. 

Mintz, J. D. (2012). Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii-Southern California and Atlantic Fleet Testing and 

Training Study Areas. (CRM D0026186.A2/Final). Center for Naval Analysis. 

Misund, O. A. (1997). Underwater acoustics in marine fisheries and fisheries research. Reviews in Fish 

Biology and Fisheries, 7, 1–34. 

Moore, A., & W. D. Riley. (2009). Magnetic particles associated with the lateral line of the European eel, 

Anguilla anguilla. Journal of Fish Biology, 74(7), 1629–1634. 

Moore, J. C. (2008). Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly increasing, long-term 

threat. Environmental Research, 108(2), 131–139. 

Morris, A. V., C. M. Roberts, & J. P. Hawkins. (2000). The threatened status of groupers (Epinephelinae). 

Biodiversity & Conservation, 9(7), 919–942. 

Moyle, P. B., & J. J. Cech, Jr. (2004). Fishes: An Introduction to Ichthyology (5th ed.): Pearson Eductional, 

Inc. 

Mueller-Blenkle, C., P. K. McGregor, A. B. Gill, M. H. Andersson, J. Metcalfe, V. Bendall, P. Sigray, D. 

Wood, & F. Thomsen. (2010). Effects of Pile-Driving Noise on the Behaviour of Marine Fish. 

COWRIE Ltd. 

Mumby, P. J., A. R. Harborne, & D. R. Brumbaugh. (2011). Grouper as a natural biocontrol of invasive 

lionfish. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e21510. 

Munday, P. L., D. L. Dixson, J. M. Donelson, G. P. Jones, M. S. Pratchett, G. V. Devitsina, & K. B. Doving. 

(2009). Ocean acidification impairs olfactory discrimination and homing ability of a marine fish. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(6), 1848–

1852. 

Musick, J. A., M. M. Harbin, S. A. Berkeley, G. H. Burgess, A. M. Eklund, L. Findley, R. G. Gilmore, J. T. 

Golden, D. S. Ha, G. R. Huntsman, J. C. McGovern, S. J. Parker, S. G. Poss, E. Sala, T. W. Schmidt, 

G. R. Sedberry, H. Weeks, & S. G. Wright. (2000). Marine, estuarine, and diadromous fish stocks 

at risk of extinction in North America (exclusive of Pacific salmonids). Fisheries, 25(11), 6–30. 

Myrberg, A. A., C. R. Gordon, & A. P. Klimley. (1976). Attraction of free ranging sharks by low frequency 

sound, with comments on its biological significance. In A. Schuijf & A. D. Hawkins (Eds.), Sound 

Reception in Fish. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. 

Myrberg, A. A. (1980). Ocean noise and the behavior of marine animals: Relationships and implications. 

In F. P. Diemer, F. J. Vernberg & D. Z. Mirkes (Eds.), Advanced concepts in ocean measurements 

for marine biology (pp. 461–491). University of Southern Carolina Press. 

Myrberg, A. A. (2001). The acoustical biology of elasmobranchs. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 60, 31–

45. 

Myrberg, A. A., Jr., A. Banner, & J. D. Richard. (1969). Shark attraction using a video-acoustic system. 

Marine Biology, 2(3), 264–276. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-197 

3.6 References

Myrberg, A. A., Jr., S. J. Ha, S. Walewski, & J. C. Banbury. (1972). Effectiveness of acoustic signals in 

attracting epipelagic sharks to an underwater sound source. Bulletin of Marine Science, 22, 926–

949. 

National Geographic. (2016). Infromation on deep-vent eelpouts. Retrieved from 

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/deep‐sea‐vents/

National Marine Fisheries Service. (1998a). Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (1998b). Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser 

brevirostrum). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2007). Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus). Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office 

Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/atlanticsturgeon2007.pdf. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2009a). Cusk (Brosme brosme). Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/cusk_detailed.pdf. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2009b). Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources Retrieved 

from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/atlanticsturgeon.htm. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2009c). Recovery Plan for the Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata). 

Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2009c). Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan (Pristis pectinata). St. 

Petersburg, FL. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010a). Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata). Silver Springs, MD: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources 

Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/smalltoothsawfish.htm. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010b). Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi). Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/gulfsturgeon.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010c). Species of Concern: Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

oxyrinchus). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Office of Protected Resources Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/atlanticsturgeon_detailed.pdf. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010d). Cruise Report: Oscar Elton Sette, Cruise SE-10-01 (SE-77). 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010b). Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata Latham) 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. St. Petersburg, FL. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2011). Petition to List the Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna 

lewini) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act Either Worldwide or as one or more Distinct 

Population Segments. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015). Nassau Grouper, Epinephelus striatus (Bloch 1792) Biological 

Report. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-198 

3.6 References

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016a). Status of Stocks 2015 (Annual Report to Congress on the 

Status of U.S. Fisheries). Silver Spring, MD.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016b). Species in the Spotlight: Priority Actions: 2016-2020, Atlantic 

Salmon, Salmo salar (Atlantic Salmon 5-Year Action Plan). National Marine Fisheries Service. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2006). To Be Provided. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2010). Fish Stocks in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Retrieved from 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/deepwater_horizon/Fish_economics_FACT_SHEET.pdf. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2011). Draft Aquaculture Policy. Silver Spring, MD: 

Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/noaadraftaqpolicy.pdf. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2014). Crude oil causes developmental 

abnormalities in large marine fish. Study shows Deepwater Horizon oil disrupts heart 

development in tunas. Retrieved from 

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140324_dwh_fishimpact.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016a). Harmful Algal Blooms Observing System. 

Retrieved from http://habsos.noaa.gov/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016b). Ecosystem Considerations: Ecology of the 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Retrieved from 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecosystemecology/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016c). Manta rays (Manta spp.). Retrieved from 

http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/mantaray.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016d). About the national marine aquaculture 

initiative. Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/funding/nmai.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2016e). Oceanic Whitetip Shark (Carcharhinus 

longimanus). Retrieved from 

http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/oceanicwhitetipshark.html

National Research Council. (1994). Low-frequency sound and marine mammals: Current knowledge and 

research needs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

National Research Council. (2003). Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press. 

NatureServe. (2010). Alosa alabamae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010:e.T908A13094078. 

Retrieved 

Nedelec, S. L., S. D. Simpson, E. L. Morley, B. Nedelec, & A. N. Radford. (2015). Impacts of regular and 

random noise on the behaviour, growth and development of larval Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). 

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1817). 

Nedelec, S. L., J. Campbell, A. N. Radford, S. D. Simpson, & N. D. Merchant. (2016). Particle motion: the 

missing link in underwater acoustic ecology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(7), 836–842. 

Neenan, S. T. V., R. Piper, P. R. White, P. Kemp, T. G. Leighton, & P. J. Shaw. (2016). Does Masking 

Matter? Shipping Noise and Fish Vocalizations. In A. N. Popper & A. D. Hawkins (Eds.), The 

Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II (pp. 747–754). 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-199 

3.6 References

Nelson, D. R., & R. H. Johnson. (1972). Acoustic attraction of Pacific reef sharks: Effect of pulse 

intermittency and variability. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A, 42, 85–95. 

Nelson, J. S., E. J. Crossman, H. Espinosa-Pérez, L. T. Findley, C. R. Gilbert, R. N. Lea, & J. D. Williams. 

(2004). Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico 

American Fisheries Society Special Publication 29 (6th ed.). Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries 

Society. 

Nelson, J. S., T. C. Grande, & M. V. H. Wilson. (2016). Fishes of the World (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John 

Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Nemeth, D. J., & C. H. Hocutt. (1990). Acute effects of electromagnetic pulses (EMP) on fish. Journal of 

Applied Ichthyology, 6(1), 59–64. 

Neo, Y. Y., J. Seitz, R. A. Kastelein, H. V. Winter, C. ten Cate, & H. Slabbekoorn. (2014). Temporal 

structure of sound affects behavioural recovery from noise impact in European seabass. 

Biological Conservation, 178, 65–73. 

Neo, Y. Y., E. Ufkes, R. A. Kastelein, H. V. Winter, C. ten Cate, & H. Slabbekoorn. (2015). Impulsive sounds 

change European seabass swimming patterns: Influence of pulse repetition interval. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 97(1–2), 111–117. 

Netburn, A. N., & J. A. Koslow. (2015). Dissolved oxygen as a constraint on daytime deep scattering layer 

depth in the southern California current ecosystem. Deep-Sea Research I, 149–158. 

Newman, M. C. (1998). Uptake, biotransformation, detoxification, elimination, and accumulation. 

Fundamentals of ecotoxicology, 25. 

Nichols, T. A., T. W. Anderson, & A. Širović. (2015). Intermittent noise induces physiological stress in a 

coastal marine fish. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0139157. 

Nix, P., & P. Chapman. (1985). Monitoring of underwater blasting operations in False Creek, British 

Columbia Paper presented at the Proceedings of the workshop on effects of explosive use in the 

marine environment, Ottawa, Canada. 

Normandeau, E., T. Tricas, & A. Gill. (2011). Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on 

Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific Outer Continental 

Shelf Region. 

O'Connell, C. P., D. C. Abel, P. H. Rice, E. M. Stroud, & N. C. Simuro. (2010). Responses of the southern 

stingray (Dasyatis americana) and the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) to permanent 

magnets. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 43(1), 63–73. 

O'Keeffe, D. J. (1984). Guidelines for Predicting the Effects of Underwater Explosions on Swimbladder 

Fish. Dahlgren, VA. 

O'Keeffe, D. J., & G. A. Young. (1984). Handbook on the Environmental Effects of Underwater Explosions. 

Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Navy, Naval Surface Weapons Center (Code R14). 

Ocean Conservancy. (2010). Trash Travels: From Our Hands to the Sea, Around the Globe, and Through 

Time (International Coastal Cleanup Report). Ocean conservancy. 

Ohman, M. C., P. Sigray, & H. Westerberg. (2007). Offshore windmills and the effects of electromagnetic 

fields on fish. Ambio, 36(8), 630–633. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-200 

3.6 References

Ormerod, S. J. (2003). Current issues with fish and fisheries: Editor's overview and introduction. Journal 

of Applied Ecology, 40(2), 204–213. 

Ospina-Alvarez, N., & F. Piferrer. (2008). Temperature-dependent sex determination in fish revisited: 

prevalence, a single sex ratio response pattern, and possible effects of climate change. PLoS 

ONE, 3(7), e2837. 

Pacific Shark Research Center. (2017). Basking Sharks. Retrieved from 

https://psrc.mlml.calstate.edu/current-research/citizen-science/basking-shark/about-baskingsharks/

Papastamatiou, Y. P., R. D. Grubbs, J. L. Imhoff, S. J. B. Gulak, J. K. Carlson, & G. H. Burgess. (2015). A 

subtropical embayment serves as essential habitat for sub-adults and adults of the critically 

endangered smalltooth sawfish. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 764–775. 

Parin, N. V. (1984). Oceanic Ichthyologeography: An attempt to review the distribution and origin of 

pelagic and bottom fishes outside continental shelves and neritic zones. Fourth Congress of 

European Ichthyologists, 35(1), 5–41. 

Pauly, D., & M. L. Palomares. (2005). Fishing down marine food web: It is far more pervasive than we 

thought. Bulletin of Marine Science, 76(2), 197–211. 

Paxton, J. R., & W. N. Eshmeyer. (1998). Encyclopedia of Fishes (2nd ed., pp. 240). San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press. 

Payne, N. L., D. E. van der Meulen, I. M. Suthers, C. A. Gray, & M. D. Taylor. (2015). Foraging intensity of 

wild mulloway Argyrosomus japonicus decreases with increasing anthropogenic disturbance. 

Journal of Marine Biology, 162(3), 539–546. 

Pearson, W. H., J. R. Skalski, & C. I. Malme. (1992). Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on 

behavior of captive Rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 

49, 1343–1356. 

Pena, H., N. O. Handegard, & E. Ona. (2013). Feeding herring schools do not react to seismic air gun 

surveys. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70(6), 1174–1180. 

Pepper, C. B., M. A. Nascarella, & R. J. Kendall. (2003). A review of the effects of aircraft noise on wildlife 

and humans, current control mechanisms, and the need for further study. Environmental 

Management, 32(4), 418–432. 

Perry, A. L., P. J. Low, J. R. Ellis, & J. D. Reynolds. (2005). Climate Change and Distribution Shifts in Marine 

Fishes. Science, 308, 1912–1914. 

Pew Oceans Commission. (2003). America's Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change. Arlington, 

VA: Pew Oceans Commission. 

Pickering, A. D. (1981). Stress and Fish. New York, NY: Academic Press. 

Pitcher, T. J. (1995). The impact of pelagic fish behavior on fisheries. Scientia Marina, 59(3–4), 295–306. 

Popper, A. N., & B. Hoxter. (1984). Growth of a fish ear: 1. Quantitative analysis of sensory hair cell and 

ganglion cell proliferation. Hearing Research, 15, 133–142. 

Popper, A. N. (2003). Effects of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. Fisheries, 28(10), 24–31. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-201 

3.6 References

Popper, A. N., R. R. Fay, C. Platt, & O. Sand. (2003). Sound detection mechanisms and capabilities of 

teleost fishes. In S. P. Collin & N. J. Marshall (Eds.), Sensory Processing in Aquatic Environment. 

New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. 

Popper, A. N., D. T. T. Plachta, D. A. Mann, & D. Higgs. (2004). Response of clupeid fish to ultrasound: A 

review. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61(7), 1057–1061. 

Popper, A. N., M. E. Smith, P. A. Cott, B. W. Hanna, A. O. MacGillivray, M. E. Austin, & D. A. Mann. 

(2005). Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species. The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 117(6), 3958–3971. 

Popper, A. N., T. J. Carlson, A. D. Hawkins, B. L. Southall, & R. L. Gentry. (2006). Interim Criteria for Injury 

of Fish Exposed to Pile Driving Operations: A White Paper. 

Popper, A. N., M. B. Halvorsen, A. Kane, D. L. Miller, M. E. Smith, J. Song, P. Stein, & L. E. Wysocki. 

(2007). The effects of high-intensity, low-frequency active sonar on rainbow trout. The Journal 

of Acoustical Society of America, 122(1), 623–635. 

Popper, A. N. (2008). Effects of mid- and high-frequency sonars on fish. Newport, RI: Naval Undersea 

Warfare Center Division. 

Popper, A. N., & C. R. Schilt. (2008). Hearing and acoustic behavior (basic and applied). In J. F. Webb, R. 

R. Fay & A. N. Popper (Eds.), Fish Bioacoustics. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media, 

LLC. 

Popper, A. N., & M. C. Hastings. (2009a). The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. 

Journal of Fish Biology, 75(3), 455–489. 

Popper, A. N., & M. C. Hastings. (2009b). Review Paper: The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound 

on fishes. Journal of Fish Biology, 75(3), 455–489. 

Popper, A. N., & M. C. Hastings. (2009c). The effects of human-generated sound on fish. Integrative 

Zoology, 4, 43–52. 

Popper, A. N., A. D. Hawkins, R. R. Fay, D. A. Mann, S. M. Bartol, T. J. Carlson, S. Coombs, W. T. Ellison, R. 

L. Gentry, M. B. Halvorsen, S. Løkkeborg, P. H. Rogers, B. L. Southall, D. G. Zeddies, & W. N. 

Tavolga. (2014). Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles. 

Popper, A. N., J. A. Gross, T. J. Carlson, J. Skalski, J. V. Young, A. D. Hawkins, & D. G. Zeddies. (2016). 

Effects of exposure to the sound from seismic airguns on pallid sturgeon and paddlefish. PLoS 

ONE, 11(8), e0159486. 

Possatto, F. E., M. Barletta, M. F. Costa, J. A. I. do Sul, & D. V. Dantas. (2011). Plastic debris ingestion by 

marine catfish: An unexpected fisheries impact. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(5), 1098–1102. 

Poulakis, G. R., & J. C. Seitz. (2004). Recent occurrence of the smalltooth sawfish, Pristis pectinata

(Elasmobranchiomorphi: Pristidae), in Florida Bay and the Florida Keys, with comments on 

sawfish ecology. Florida Scientist, 67, 27–35. 

Poulakis, G. R., P. W. Stevens, A. A. Timmers, C. J. Stafford, & C. A. Simpfendorfer. (2012). Movements of 

juvenile endangered smalltooth sawfish, Pristis pectinata, in an estuarine river system: use of 

non-main-stem river habitats and lagged responses to freshwater inflow-related changes. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes, 96(6), 763–778. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-202 

3.6 References

Powell, A. B., M. W. Lacroix, & R. T. Cheshire. (2002). An Evaluation of Northern Florida Bay as a Nursery 

Area for Red Drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, and Other Juvenile and Small Resident Fishes (NOAA 

Technical Memorandum). Beaufort, NC: NMFS Southeast Fishery Science Center,. 

Powell, M. L., S. I. Kavanaugh, & S. A. Sower. (2005). Current Knowledge of Hagfish Reproduction: 

Implications for Fisheries Management. Integrative & Comparative Biology, 45, 158–165. 

Price, C. B., J. M. Brannon, & S. L. Yost. (1998). Transformation of RDX and HMX Under Controlled Eh/pH 

Conditons. (Technical Report IRRP-98-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Waterways Experiment Station. 

Price, S. A., S. T. Friedman, & P. C. Wainwright. (2015). How predation shaped fish: the impact of fin 

spines on body form evolution across teleosts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological 

Sciences, 282(1819). 

Purser, J., & A. N. Radford. (2011). Acoustic noise induces attention shifts and reduces foraging 

performance in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). PLoS ONE, 6(2), e17478. 

Radford, A. N., E. Kerridge, & S. D. Simpson. (2014). Acoustic communication in a noisy world: can fish 

compete with anthropogenic noise? Behavioral Ecology, 25(5), 1022–1030. 

Radford, C. A., J. C. Montgomery, P. Caiger, & D. M. Higgs. (2012). Pressure and particle motion 

detection thresholds in fish: a re-examination of salient auditory cues in teleosts. The Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 215(Pt 19), 3429–3435. 

Ramcharitar, J., D. M. Higgs, & A. N. Popper. (2001). Sciaenid inner ears: A study in diversity. Brain, 

Behavior and Evolution, 58, 152–162. 

Ramcharitar, J., & A. N. Popper. (2004). Masked auditory thresholds in sciaenid fishes: A comparative 

study. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 116(3), 1687–1691. 

Ramcharitar, J. U., D. M. Higgs, & A. N. Popper. (2006). Audition in sciaenid fishes with different swim 

bladder-inner ear configurations. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 119(1), 439–443. 

Ramirez-Macias, D., M. Meekan, R. De La Parra-Venegas, F. Remolina-Suarez, M. Trigo-Mendoza, & R. 

Vazquez-Juarez. (2012). Patterns in composition, abundance and scarring of whale sharks 

Rhincodon typus near Holbox Island, Mexico. Journal of Fish Biology, 80, 1401–1416. 

Rand Corporation. (2005). Unexploded ordnance cleanup costs: Implications of alternative protocols. 

Santa Monica, CA. 

Randall, M. T., & K. J. Sulak. (2012). Evidence of autumn spawning in Suwannee River Gulf sturgeon, 

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi (Vladykov, 1955). Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 28(4), 489–495. 

Raven, J., K. Caldeira, H. Elderfield, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, P. Liss, U. Riebesell, J. Sheperd, C. Turley, A. 

Watson, R. Heap, R. Banes, & R. Quinn. (2005). Ocean acidification due to increasing 

atmospheric carbon dioxide. The Royal Society. 

Reddin, D. G., & P. B. Short. (1991). Postsmolt Atlantic salmon (Salmo-salar) in the Labrador Sea. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 48(1), 2–6. 

Reinhall, P. G., & P. H. Dahl. (2011). Underwater Mach wave radiation from impact pile driving: Theory 

and observation. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 130(3), 1209–1216. 

Remage-Healey, L., D. P. Nowacek, & A. H. Bass. (2006). Dolphin foraging sounds suppress calling and 

elevate stress hormone levels in a prey species, the Gulf toadfish. The Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 209, 4444–4451. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-203 

3.6 References

Reshetiloff, K. (2004). Chesapeake Bay: Introduction to an Ecosystem. (EPA 903-R-04-003 and CBP/TRS 

232/00 ). Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency. 

Rex, M. A., & R. J. Etter. (1998). Bathymetric patterns of body size: Implications for deep-sea 

biodiversity. Deep-Sea Research Part II-Topical Studies in Oceanography, 45, 103–127. 

Reynolds, J. D., N. K. Dulvy, N. B. Goodwin, & J. A. Hutchings. (2005). Biology of extinction risk in marine 

fishes. Proceedings of the Roayal Society B-Biological Sciences, 272(1579), 2337–2344. 

Richmond, A. M., & B. Kynard. (1995). Ontogenetic behavior of shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser 

brevirostrum. Copeia, 1995, 172–182. 

Rickel, S., & A. Genin. (2005). Twilight transitions in coral reef fish: The input of light-induced changes in 

foraging behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 70(1), 133–144. 

Rigg, D. P., S. C. Peverell, M. Hearndon, & J. E. Seymour. (2009). Do elasmobranch reactions to magnetic 

fields in water show promise for bycatch mitigation? Marine and Freshwater Research, 60(9), 

942–948. 

Robydek, A., & J. M. Nunley. (2012). Determining Marine Migration Patterns and Behavior of Gulf 

Sturgeon in the Gulf of Mexico off Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (Legacy Program Technical 

Notes). 

Rochman, C. M., E. Hoh, T. Kurobe, & S. J. Teh. (2013). Ingested plastic transfers hazardous chemicals to 

fish and induces hepatic stress. Scientific Reports, 3, 3263. 

Rochman, C. M., A. Tahir, S. L. Williams, D. V. Baxa, R. Lam, J. T. Miller, F. Teh, S. Werorilangi, & S. J. Teh. 

(2015). Anthropogenic debris in seafood: Plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and 

bivalves sold for human consumption. Nature, 5, 14340–14350. 

Roessig, J. M., C. M. Woodley, J. J. Cech, Jr., & L. J. Hansen. (2004). Effects of global climate change on 

marine and estuarine fishes and fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 14(2), 251–275. 

Rogillio, H. E., R. T. Ruth, E. H. Behrens, C. N. Doolittle, W. J. Granger, & J. P. Kirk. (2007). Gulf sturgeon 

movements in the Pearl River drainage and the Mississippi Sound. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management, 27(1), 89–95. 

Rosen, G., & G. R. Lotufo. (2010). Fate and effects of composition B in multispecies marine exposures. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 9999(12), 1–8. 

Ross, S. T., W. T. Slack, R. J. Heise, M. A. Dugo, H. Rogillio, B. R. Bowen, P. Mickle, & R. W. Heard. (2009). 

Estuarine and coastal habitat use of Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) in the NorthCentral Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries and Coasts, 32(2), 360–374. 

Ross, S. W., S. Brooke, A. M. Quattrini, M. Rhode, & J. C. Watterson. (2015). A deep-sea community, 

including Lophelia pertusa, at unusually shallow depths in the western North Atlantic Ocean off 

northeastern Florida. Marine Biology. 

Rostad, A., S. Kaartvedt, T. A. Klevjer, & W. Melle. (2006). Fish are attracted to vessels. ICES Journal of 

Marine Science, 63(8), 1431–1437. 

Rowat, D., M. G. Meekan, U. Engelhardt, B. Pardigon, & M. Vely. (2007). Aggregations of juvenile whale 

sharks (Rhincodon typus) in the Gulf of Tadjoura, Djibouti. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 

80(4), 465–472. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-204 

3.6 References

Rudd, M. B., R. N. M. Ahrens, W. E. Pine, S. K. Bolden, & L. Jacobson. (2014). Empirical, spatially explicit 

natural mortality and movement rate estimates for the threatened Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus desotoi). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 71(9), 1407–1417. 

Ruggerone, G. T., S. Goodman, & R. Miner. (2008). Behavioral response and survival of juvenile coho 

salmon to pile driving sounds. Natural Resources Consultants, Inc., and Robert Miner Dynamic 

Testing, Inc. 

Russell, I. C., M. W. Aprahamian, J. Barry, I. C. Davidson, P. Fiske, A. T. Ibbotson, R. J. Kennedy, J. C. 

Maclean, A. Moore, J. Otero, T. Potter, & C. D. Todd. (2012). The influence of the freshwater 

environment and the biological characteristics of Atlantic salmon smolts on their subsequent 

marine survival. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil. 

Sabates, A., M. P. Olivar, J. Salat, I. Palomera, & F. Alemany. (2007). Physical and biological processes 

controlling the distribution of fish larvae in the NW Mediterranean. Progress in Oceanography, 

74(2–3), 355–376. 

Sabet, S. S., K. Wesdorp, J. Campbell, P. Snelderwaard, & H. Slabbekoorn. (2016). Behavioural responses 

to sound exposure in captivity by two fish species with different hearing ability. Animal 

Behaviour, 116, 1–11. 

Sadovy, Y., & A.-M. Eklund. (1999). NOAA Technical Report NMFS 146, Synopsis of Biological Data on the 

Nassau Grouper, Epinephelus striatus, (Block, 1972), and the Jewfish, E. itajara (Lichtenstein, 

1822) (A Technical Report of the Fishery Bulletin, FAO Fisheries Synopsis). Seattle, WA: National 

Marine Fisheries Service,. 

Scholik, A. R., & H. Y. Yan. (2001). Effects of underwater noise on auditory sensitivity of a cyprinid fish. 

Hearing Research, 152(1–2), 17–24. 

Scholik, A. R., & H. Y. Yan. (2002). Effects of boat engine noise on the auditory sensitivity of the fathead 

minnow, Pimephales promelas. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 63, 203–209. 

Schwartz, F. J. (1989). Zoogeography and Ecology of Fishes Inhabiting North Carolina's Marine Waters to 

Depths of 600 Meters. Silver Spring, MD National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Schwarz, A. B., & G. L. Greer. (1984). Responses of Pacific herring, Clupea harengus pallasi, to some 

underwater sounds. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aqutic Science, 41, 1183–1192. 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, & National Science Foundation. (2008). Environmental Assessment 

of a marine geophysical survey by the R/V Melville in the Santa Barbara Channel. Scripps 

Institution of Oceanography, LaJolla, CA and National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. 

Secor, D. H., E. J. Niklitschek, J. T. Stevenson, T. E. Gunderson, S. P. Minkkinen, B. Richardson, B. 

Florence, M. Mangold, J. Skjeveland, & A. Henderson-Arzapalo. (2000). Dispersal and growth of 

yearling Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus, released into Chesapeake Bay. Fisheries 

Bulletin, 98(4), 800–810. 

Seitz, J. C., & G. R. Poulakis. (2006). Anthropogenic effects on the smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) in 

the United States. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52(11), 1533–1540. 

Semmens, B. X., K. E. Luke, P. G. Bush, C. M. R. McCoy, & B. C. Johnson. (2006). Isopod infestation of 

postspawning Nassau grouper around Little Cayman Island. Journal of Fish Biology, 69, 933–937. 

Settle, L. R., J. J. Govoni, M. D. Greene, M. A. West, R. T. Lynch, & G. Revy. (2002). Investigation of 

impacts of underwater explosions on larval and early juvenile fishes. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-205 

3.6 References

Shah, A. A., F. Hasan, A. Hameed, & S. Ahmed. (2008). Biological degradation of plastics: A 

comprehensive review. Biotechnology advances, 26(3), 246–265. 

Sheehan, T. F., D. G. Reddin, G. Chaput, & M. D. Renkawitz. (2012). SALSEA North America: a pelagic 

ecosystem survey targeting Atlantic salmon in the Northwest Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science, 69(9), 1580–1588. 

Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team. (2010). A Biological Assessment of Shortnose Sturgeon 

(Acipenser brevirostrum). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional 

Office. 

Shulman, M. J. (1985). Recruitment of coral reef fishes: Effects of distribution of predators and shelter. 

Ecology, 66(3), 1056–1066. 

Sierra-Flores, R., T. Atack, H. Migaud, & A. Davie. (2015). Stress response to anthropogenic noise in 

Atlantic cod Gadus morhua L. Aquacultural Engineering, 67, 67–76. 

Simpfendorfer, C. A., & T. R. Wiley. (2005). Determination of the Distribution of Florida's Remnant 

Sawfish Population and Identification of Areas Critical to Their Conservation. Sarasota, FL: Mote 

Marine Laboratory. 

Simpfendorfer, C. A. (2006). Movement and Habitat Use of Smalltooth Sawfish. Sarasota, FL: Mote 

Marine Laboratory, Center for Shark Research. 

Simpfendorfer, C. A., B. G. Yeiser, T. R. Wiley, G. R. Poulakis, P. W. Stevens, & M. R. Heupel. (2011). 

Environmental influences on the spatial ecology of juvenile smalltooth sawfish (Pristis 

pectinata): results from acoustic monitoring. PLoS ONE, 6(2), e16918. 

Simpson, S. D., J. Purser, & A. N. Radford. (2015). Anthropogenic noise compromises antipredator 

behaviour in European eels. Global Change Biology, 21(2), 586–593. 

Simpson, S. D., A. N. Radford, S. L. Nedelec, M. C. Ferrari, D. P. Chivers, M. I. McCormick, & M. G. 

Meekan. (2016). Anthropogenic noise increases fish mortality by predation. Nature 

Communications, 7, 10544. 

Sisneros, J. A., & A. H. Bass. (2003). Seasonal plasticity of peripheral auditory frequency sensitivity. The 

Journal of Neuroscience, 23(3), 1049–1058. 

Sivle, L. D., P. H. Kvadsheim, M. A. Ainslie, A. Solow, N. O. Handegard, N. Nordlund, & F. P. A. Lam. 

(2012). Impact of naval sonar signals on Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) during summer 

feeding. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69(6), 1078–1085. 

Sivle, L. D., P. H. Kvadsheim, & M. A. Ainslie. (2014). Potential for population-level disturbance by active 

sonar in herring. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72(2), 558–567. 

Sivle, L. D., P. H. Kvadsheim, & M. Ainslie. (2016). Potential Population Consequences of Active Sonar 

Disturbance in Atlantic Herring: Estimating the Maximum Risk. Adv Exp Med Biol, 875, 217–222. 

Slabbekoorn, H., N. Bouton, I. van Opzeeland, A. Coers, C. ten Cate, & A. N. Popper. (2010). A noisy 

spring: The impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution, 25(7), 419–427. 

Slotte, A., K. Hansen, J. Dalen, & E. Ona. (2004). Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and 

abundance in relation to seismic shooting area off the Norwegian west coast. Fisheries Research, 

67, 8. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-206 

3.6 References

Smith, A., T. Stehly, & W. Musial. (2015). 2014 U.S. Offshore Wind Market Report: Industry Trends, 

Technology Advancement, and Cost Reduction. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL). 

Smith, K., J. K. Carlson, C. Horn, & K. Shotts. (2011). Status and populations viability of the Alabama shad 

(Alosa alabamae) (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-620). Panama City, FL: U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

Smith, M. E., A. S. Kane, & A. N. Popper. (2004a). Acoustical stress and hearing sensitivity in fishes: Does 

the linear threshold shift hypothesis hold water? The Journal of Experimental Biology, 207, 

3591–3602. 

Smith, M. E., A. S. Kane, & A. N. Popper. (2004b). Noise-induced stress response and hearing loss in 

goldfish (Carassius auratus). Journal of Experimental Biology, 207(3), 427–435. 

Smith, M. E., A. B. Coffin, D. L. Miller, & A. N. Popper. (2006). Anatomical and functional recovery of the 

goldfish (Carassius auratus) ear following noise exposure. Journal of Experimental Biology, 

209(21), 4193–4202. 

Smith, S. H., & D. E. Marx, Jr. (2016). De-facto marine protection from a Navy bombing range: Farallon 

De Medinilla, Mariana Archipelago, 1997 to 2012. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 102(1), 187–198. 

Smith, T. I. J., & J. P. Clugston. (1997). Status and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser 

oxyrinchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 48, 335–346. 

Snieszko, S. F. (1978). Control of Fish Diseases (MFR Paper 1301). 

Song, J., D. A. Mann, P. A. Cott, B. W. Hanna, & A. N. Popper. (2008). The inner ears of northern 

Canadian freshwater fishes following exposure to seismic air gun sounds. The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 124(2), 1360–1366. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. (2011). Dolphin Fish. Retrieved from 

http://www.safmc.net/FishIDandRegs/FishGallery/DolphinFish/tabid/284/Default.aspx

Spargo, B. J., T. L. Hullar, S. L. Fales, H. F. Hemond, P. Koutrakis, W. H. Schlesinger, & J. G. Watson. 

(1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff. Naval Research Laboratory. 

Speed, C. W., M. G. Meekan, D. Rowat, S. J. Pierce, A. D. Marshall, & C. J. A. Bradshaw. (2008). Scarring 

patterns and relative mortality rates of Indian Ocean whale sharks. Journal of Fish Biology, 72(6), 

1488–1503. 

Sprague, M. W., & J. J. Luczkovich. (2004). Measurement of an individual silver perch, Bairdiella 

chrysoura, sound pressure level in a field recording. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 

116(5), 3186–3191. 

Stadler, J. H., & D. P. Woodbury. (2009). Assessing the effects to fishes from pile driving: Application of 

new hydroacoustic criteria. Paper presented at the Inter-Noise 2009: Innovations in Practical 

Noise Control, Ottawa, Canada. 

Stallings, C. D. (2009). Fishery-Independent Data Reveal Negative Effect of Human Population Density on 

Caribbean Predatory Fish Communities. PLoS ONE, 4(5), 1–9. 

Starr, R. M., E. Sala, E. Ballesteros, & M. Zabala. (2007). Spatial dynamics of the Nassau grouper, 

Epinephelus striatus, in a Caribbean atoll. Marine Ecological Progress Series, 343, 239–249. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-207 

3.6 References

Stein, A. B., K. D. Friedland, & M. Sutherland. (2004). Atlantic Sturgeon Marine Distribution and Habitat 

Use along the Northeastern Coast of the United States. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society, 133, 527–537. 

Stevens, J. D. (2007). Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) biology and ecology: A review of the primary 

literature. Fisheries Research, 84(1), 4–9. 

Stuhmiller, J. H., Y. Y. Phillips, & D. R. Richmong. (1990). The Physics and Mechanisms of Primary Blast 

Injury. In R. Zatchuck, D. P. Jenkins, R. F. Bellamy & C. M. Quick (Eds.), Textbook of Military 

Medicine. Part I. Warfare, Weapons, and the Casualty (Vol. 5, pp. 241–270). Washington, DC: 

TMMM Publications. 

Sulak, K. J., & M. Randall. (2002). Understanding sturgeon life history: Enigmas, myths, and insights from 

scientific studies. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 18, 519–528. 

Sulak, K. J., M. T. Randall, R. E. Edwards, T. M. Summers, K. E. Luke, W. T. Smith, A. D. Norem, W. M. 

Harden, R. H. Lukens, F. Parauka, S. Bolden, & R. Lehnert. (2009). Defining winter trophic habitat 

of juvenile Gulf Sturgeon in the Suwannee and Apalachicola rivermouth estuaries, acoustic 

telemetry investigations. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 25, 505–515. 

Sverdrup, A., E. Kjellsby, P. G. Krüger, R. Fløysand, F. R. Knudsen, P. S. Enger, G. Serck-Hanssen, & K. B. 

Helle. (1994). Effects of experimental seismic shock on vasoactivity of arteries, integrity of the 

vascular endothelium and on primary stress hormones of the Atlantic salmon. Journal of Fish 

Biology, 45(6), 973–995. 

Swisdak, M. M., Jr. (1978). Explosion effects and properties part II–explosion effects in water. 

(NSWC/WOL/TR-76-116). Dahlgren, VA; Silver Spring, MD. 

Swisdak, M. M., Jr., & P. E. Montanaro. (1992). Hazards from Underwater Explosions. DTIC Document. 

Swisdak, M. M., Jr., & P. E. Montaro. (1992). Airblast and fragmentation hazards produced by 

underwater explosions. Silver Springs, MD: Naval Surface Warfare Center. 

Tabb, D. C., & R. B. Manning. (1961). A Checklist of the Flora and Fauna of Northern Florida Bay and 

Adjacent Brackish Waters of the Florida Mainland Collected During the Period July, 1957 through 

September, 1960. Miami, FL: University of Miami. 

Tavolga, W. N. (1974). Signal/noise ratio and the critical band in fishes. The Journal of Acoustical Society 

of America, 55, 1323–1333. 

The Shark Trust. (2017). Basking sharks - human impacts. Retrieved from 

http://www.sharktrust.org/en/basking_shark_human_impacts

Thorstad, E. B., C. D. Todd, I. Uglem, P. A. Bjørn, P. G. Gargan, K. W. Vollset, E. Halttunen, S. Kålås, M. 

Berg, & B. Finstad. (2015). Effects of salmon lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis on wild sea trout 

Salmo trutta—a literature review. Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 7(2), 91–113. 

U.S. Department of the Air Force. (1997). Environmental effects of self-protection chaff and flares. 

Langley Air Force Base, VA: U.S. Department of the Air Force. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2001a). Overseas Environmental Assessment (OEA) for Cape Cod 

TORPEDO EXERCISE (TORPEX) in Fall 2001. Arlington, VA: Undersea Weapons Program Office. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2001b). Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) for the Shock Trial of the USS WINSTON S. CHURCHILL 

(DDG 81). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Navy. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-208 

3.6 References

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2012). Ecosystem Technical Report for the Atlantic Fleet Training and 

Testing (AFTT) Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 

Atlantic Division, Retrieved from https://aftteis.com/default.aspx. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013). Military Expended Material (MEM) Shrimp Fisheries Study in the 

U.S. South Atlantic and Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Newport, RI: Naval Undersea Warfare Center 

Division. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Sediment-Related Criteria for Surface Water Quality. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (1995). Gulf Sturgeon Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, & National Marine Fisheries Service. (2009). Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus desotoi) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Panama City, FL: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/gulfsturgeon_5yearreview.pdf. 

University of Hawaii. (2010). Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions Assessment, Final Investigation Report 

HI-05, South of Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii. University of Hawaii at Manoa. 

Van Noord, J. E., R. J. Olsen, J. V. Redfern, L. M. Duffy, & R. S. Kaufman. (2016). Oceanographic influences 

on the diet of 3 surface-migrating myctophids in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Fishery 

Bulletin, 114, 274–287. 

Voellmy, I. K., J. Purser, D. Flynn, P. Kennedy, S. D. Simpson, & A. N. Radford. (2014a). Acoustic noise 

reduces foraging success in two sympatric fish species via different mechanisms. Animal 

Behaviour, 89, 191–198. 

Voellmy, I. K., J. Purser, S. D. Simpson, & A. N. Radford. (2014b). Increased noise levels have different 

impacts on the anti-predator behaviour of two sympatric fish species. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e102946. 

Wainwright, P. C., & B. A. Richard. (1995). Predicting patterns of prey use from morphology of fishes. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes, 44, 97–113. 

Wakeford, A. (2001). State of Florida Conservation Plan for Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi)

(Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report). 

Waldman, J. R., & I. Wirgin. (1998). Status and Restoration Options for Atlantic Sturgeon in North 

America. Conservation Biology, 12(3), 631–638. 

Wang, W. X., & P. S. Rainbow. (2008). Comparative approaches to understand metal bioaccumulation in 

aquatic animals. Comparative Biochemistry Physiology, Part C, 148(4), 315–323. 

Ward-Paige, C. A., D. M. Keith, B. Worm, & H. K. Lotze. (2012). Recovery potential and conservation 

options for elasmobranchs. Journal of Fish Biology, 80(5), 1844–1869. 

Wardle, C. S. (1986). Fish behaviour and fishing gear. In T. J. Pitcher (Ed.), The Behavior of Teleost Fishes

(pp. 463–495). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Wardle, C. S., T. J. Carter, G. G. Urquhart, A. D. F. Johnstone, A. M. Ziolkowski, G. Hampson, & D. Mackie. 

(2001). Effects of seismic air guns on marine fish. Continental Shelf Research, 21, 1005–1027. 

Warrant, E. J., & N. A. Locket. (2004). Vision in the deep sea. Biological Reviews, 79, 671–712. 

Webb, J. F., J. C. Montgomery, & J. Mogdans. (2008). Bioacoustics and the Lateral Line of Fishes Fish 

Bioacoustics (pp. 145–182). New York, NY: Springer. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-209 

3.6 References

Wedemeyer, G. A., B. A. Barton, & D. J. McLeay. (1990). Stress and acclimation. In C. B. Schreck & P. B. 

Moyle (Eds.), Methods for Fish Biology (pp. 451–489). Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. 

Welsh, S. A., M. F. Mangold, J. E. Skjeveland, & A. J. Spells. (2002). Distribution and movement of 

shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirosturm) in the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries, 25(1), 101–104. 

Whelan, K. (2010). A Review of the Impacts of the Salmon Louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer, 1837) 

on Wild Salmonids. 

WildEarth Guardians. (2009). A petition: Requesting the Secretary of Commerce add the largetooth 

sawfish, Pristis perotteti, to the list of threatened and endangered species maintained under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act. Wild Earth Guardians. 

Wiley, M. L., J. B. Gaspin, & J. F. Goertner. (1981). Effects of underwater explosions on fish with a 

dynamical model to predict fishkill. Ocean Science and Engineering, 6(2), 223–284. 

Wilson, S. K., M. Adjeroud, D. R. Bellwood, M. L. Berumen, D. Booth, Y. M. Bozec, P. Chabanet, A. Cheal, 

J. Cinner, M. Depczynski, D. A. Feary, M. Gagliano, N. A. J. Graham, A. R. Halford, B. S. Halpern, 

A. R. Harborne, A. S. Hoey, S. J. Holbrook, G. P. Jones, M. Kulbiki, Y. Letourneur, T. L. De Loma, T. 

McClanahan, M. I. McCormick, M. G. Meekan, P. J. Mumby, P. L. Munday, M. C. Ohman, M. S. 

Pratchett, B. Riegl, M. Sano, R. J. Schmitt, & C. Syms. (2010). Crucial knowledge gaps in current 

understanding of climate change impacts on coral reef fishes. Journal of Experimental Biology, 

213(6), 894–900. 

Wippelhauser, G. S., & J. T. S. Squiers. (2015). Shortnose Sturgeon and Atlantic Sturgeon in the Kennebec 

River System, Maine: a 1977–2001 - Retrospective of Abundance and Important Habitat. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 144, 509-601. 

Wippelhauser, G. S., G. B. Zydlewski, M. Kieffer, J. Sulikowski, & M. T. Kinnison. (2015). Shortnose 

Sturgeon in the Gulf of Maine: Use of Spawning Habitat in the Kennebec System and Response 

to Dam Removal. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 144(4), 742–752. 

Woodland, R. J., & D. H. Secor. (2007). Year-class strength and recovery of endangered shortnose 

sturgeon in the Hudson River, New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 136(1), 

72–81. 

Wooley, C. M., & E. J. Crateau. (1985). Movement, microhabitat, exploitation, and management of Gulf 

of Mexico sturgeon, Apalachicola River, Florida. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management, 5, 590–605. 

Wootton, E. C., A. P. Woolmer, C. L. Vogan, E. C. Pope, K. M. Hamilton, & A. F. Rowley. (2012). Increased 

disease calls for a cost-benefits review of marine reserves. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51615. 

Wright, D. G. (1982). A discussion paper on the effects of explosives on fish and marine mammals in the 

waters of the Northwest Territories (Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences). Winnipeg, Manitoba: Western Region Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 

Wright, K. J., D. M. Higgs, A. J. Belanger, & J. M. Leis. (2008). Auditory and olfactory abilities of larvae of 

the Indo‐Pacific coral trout Plectropomus leopardus (Lacepède) at settlement. Journal of Fish 

Biology, 72(10), 2543–2556. 

Wright, K. J., D. M. Higgs, D. H. Cato, & J. M. Leis. (2010). Auditory sensitivity in settlement-stage larvae 

of coral reef fishes. Coral Reefs, 29, 235–243. 

Wysocki, L. E., J. P. Dittami, & F. Ladich. (2006). Ship noise and cortisol secretion in European freshwater 

fishes. Biological Conservation, 128, 501–508. 
Atlantic Fleet 

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017 

3.6-210 

3.6 References

Wysocki, L. E., J. W. Davidson, III, M. E. Smith, A. S. Frankel, W. T. Ellison, P. M. Mazik, A. N. Popper, & J. 

Bebak. (2007). Effects of aquaculture production noise on hearing, growth, and disease 

resistance of rainbow trout, Oncrhynchus mykiss. Aquaculture, 272, 687–697. 

Yasugi, M., & M. Hori. (2016). Predominance of parallel- and cross-predation in anglerfish. Marine 

Ecology, 37, 576–587. 

Yelverton, J. T., D. R. Richmond, W. Hicks, K. Saunders, & E. R. Fletcher. (1975). The relationship between 

fish size and their response to underwater blast. Washington, DC: Lovelace Foundation for 

Medical Education and Research. 

Yelverton, J. T., & D. R. Richmond. (1981, 30 November—4 December 1981). Underwater explosion 

damage risk criteria for fish, birds, and mammals. Paper presented at the 102nd Meeting of the 

Acoustical Society of America Miami Beach, FL. 

Young, C. N., J. Carlson, C. Hutt, D. Kobayashi, C. T. McCandless, & J. Wraith. (2016). Status review 

report: oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinius longimanus) (Final Report to the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources). 

Zelick, R., D. A. Mann, & A. N. Popper. (1999). Acoustic communication in fishes and frogs. In R. R. Fay & 

A. N. Popper (Eds.), Comparative Hearing: Fish and Amphibians (pp. 363–411). New York, NY: 

Springer-Verlag. 

Zhang, X. G., J. K. Song, C. X. Fan, H. Y. Guo, X. J. Wang, & H. Bleckmann. (2012). Use of electrosense in 

the feeding behavior of sturgeons. Integrative Zoology, 7(1), 74–82.