Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement

United States Department of the Navy June 2017

Volume III
Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement / Overseas 

Environmental Impact Statement

Volume III

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

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

3.7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................3.7-3

3.7.2 Affected Environment.........................................................................................3.7-3

3.7.2.1 General Background ...........................................................................3.7-3

3.7.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species............................................3.7-27

3.7.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act....................3.7-48

3.7.3 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.7-95

3.7.3.1 Acoustic Stressors.............................................................................3.7-96

3.7.3.2 Explosive Stressors..........................................................................3.7-478

3.7.3.3 Energy Stressors..............................................................................3.7-651

3.7.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors......................................3.7-659

3.7.3.5 Entanglement Stressors..................................................................3.7-687

3.7.3.6 Ingestion Stressors..........................................................................3.7-701

3.7.3.7 Secondary Stressors........................................................................3.7-715

3.7.4 Summary of Potential Impacts on Marine Mammals.....................................3.7-721

3.7.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1 ................3.7-721

3.7.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2 ................3.7-722

3.7.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action 

Alternative......................................................................................3.7-723

3.7.5 Endangered Species Act Determinations........................................................3.7-723

3.7.6 Marine Mammal Protection Act Determinations...........................................3.7-723

List of Figures 

Figure 3.7-1: Composite Audiograms for Hearing Groups Likely to be Found in the Study Area ........3.7-17

Figure 3.7-2: Designated Critical Habitat Areas for North Atlantic Right Whale in the Study 

Area..................................................................................................................................3.7-31

Figure 3.7-3: Designated Critical Habitat Areas for Florida Manatee in the Study Area......................3.7-45

Figure 3.7-4: Two Hypothetical Threshold Shifts................................................................................3.7-101

Figure 3.7-5: Critical Ratios (in dB) Measured in Different Odontocetes Species (from 

Finneran & Branstetter, 2013).......................................................................................3.7-107

Figure 3.7-6: Navy Auditory Weighting Functions for All Species Groups..........................................3.7-142

Figure 3.7-7: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources...........3.7-143
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

ii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-8: Behavioral Response Function for Odontocetes...........................................................3.7-145

Figure 3.7-9: Behavioral Response Function for Pinnipeds................................................................3.7-146

Figure 3.7-10: Behavioral Response Function for Mysticetes and Manatees ....................................3.7-146

Figure 3.7-11: Behavioral Response Function for Beaked Whales.....................................................3.7-147

Figure 3.7-12: Relative Likelihood of a Response Being Significant Based on the Duration and 

Severity of Behavioral Reactions...................................................................................3.7-148

Figure 3.7-13: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-167

Figure 3.7-14: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-169

Figure 3.7-15: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-171

Figure 3.7-16: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-173

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

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-175

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

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species...........3.7-177

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

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-179

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

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species...........3.7-181

Figure 3.7-21: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-183

Figure 3.7-22: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species...........3.7-185

Figure 3.7-23: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-187

Figure 3.7-24: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. ..........3.7-189

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

During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species...................3.7-191

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

During Testing Under Alternative 1. ..............................................................................3.7-193

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

During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species...................3.7-195
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

iii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-28: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Testing Under Alternative 2. ..............................................................................3.7-197

Figure 3.7-29: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-199

Figure 3.7-30: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-201

Figure 3.7-31: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-203

Figure 3.7-32: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-205

Figure 3.7-33: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-207

Figure 3.7-34: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1......................................................................3.7-209

Figure 3.7-35: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2.....................................................................3.7-211

Figure 3.7-36: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2......................................................................3.7-213

Figure 3.7-37: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species...................3.7-215

Figure 3.7-38: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. ...................3.7-217

Figure 3.7-39: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species...................3.7-219

Figure 3.7-40: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. ...................3.7-221

Figure 3.7-41: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-226

Figure 3.7-42: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species...........3.7-227

Figure 3.7-43: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-229

Figure 3.7-44: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species...........3.7-231

Figure 3.7-45: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1................................................3.7-233

Figure 3.7-46: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1................................................3.7-234
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

iv

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-47: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. ................................................3.7-236

Figure 3.7-48: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. ................................................3.7-237

Figure 3.7-49: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2................................................3.7-239

Figure 3.7-50: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2................................................3.7-240

Figure 3.7-51: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. ................................................3.7-242

Figure 3.7-52: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. ................................................3.7-243

Figure 3.7-53: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-245

Figure 3.7-54: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-246

Figure 3.7-55: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-247

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

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-248

Figure 3.7-57: Sowersby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-249

Figure 3.7-58: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-250

Figure 3.7-59: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-252

Figure 3.7-60: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-253

Figure 3.7-61: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-254

Figure 3.7-62: Northern Bottlenose Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-255
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

v 

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-63: Sowersby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-256

Figure 3.7-64: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-257

Figure 3.7-65: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-259

Figure 3.7-66: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-260

Figure 3.7-67: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-261

Figure 3.7-68: Northern Bottlenose Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-262

Figure 3.7-69: Sowersby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-263

Figure 3.7-70: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-264

Figure 3.7-71: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-266

Figure 3.7-72: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-267

Figure 3.7-73: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-268

Figure 3.7-74: Northern Bottlenose Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-269

Figure 3.7-75: Sowersby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-270

Figure 3.7-76: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-271
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

vi

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-77: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-273

Figure 3.7-78: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-275

Figure 3.7-79: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-277

Figure 3.7-80: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-279

Figure 3.7-81: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-281

Figure 3.7-82: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated 

for this species. ..............................................................................................................3.7-283

Figure 3.7-83: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-285

Figure 3.7-84: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated 

for this species. ..............................................................................................................3.7-287

Figure 3.7-85: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1................................................3.7-289

Figure 3.7-86: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. ................................................3.7-291

Figure 3.7-87: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2................................................3.7-293

Figure 3.7-88: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. ................................................3.7-295

Figure 3.7-89: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. ....................................................................................................................3.7-297

Figure 3.7-90: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-299

Figure 3.7-91: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-301
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

vii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-92: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-303

Figure 3.7-93: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-305

Figure 3.7-94: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. ....................................................................................................................3.7-307

Figure 3.7-95: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-309

Figure 3.7-96: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-311

Figure 3.7-97: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-313

Figure 3.7-98: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-315

Figure 3.7-99: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-317

Figure 3.7-100: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-319

Figure 3.7-101: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-321

Figure 3.7-102: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species...........3.7-323

Figure 3.7-103: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-325

Figure 3.7-104: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. Footnote: No PTS is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................3.7-327

Figure 3.7-105: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-329

Figure 3.7-106: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-331
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

viii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-107: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-333

Figure 3.7-108: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-335

Figure 3.7-109: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-337

Figure 3.7-110: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated 

for this species. ..............................................................................................................3.7-339

Figure 3.7-111: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-341

Figure 3.7-112: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated 

for this species. ..............................................................................................................3.7-343

Figure 3.7-113: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-345

Figure 3.7-114: Short-finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-346

Figure 3.7-115: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-348

Figure 3.7-116: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-349

Figure 3.7-117: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-351

Figure 3.7-118: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-352

Figure 3.7-119: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-354

Figure 3.7-120: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-355
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

ix

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-121: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-357

Figure 3.7-122: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-359

Figure 3.7-123: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-361

Figure 3.7-124: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-363

Figure 3.7-125: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-365

Figure 3.7-126: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-367

Figure 3.7-127: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-369

Figure 3.7-128: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-371

Figure 3.7-129: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-373

Figure 3.7-130: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-375

Figure 3.7-131: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-377

Figure 3.7-132: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-379

Figure 3.7-133: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-381

Figure 3.7-134: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated 

for this species. ..............................................................................................................3.7-383
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

x 

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-135: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-385

Figure 3.7-136: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated 

for this species. ..............................................................................................................3.7-387

Figure 3.7-137: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-389

Figure 3.7-138: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-391

Figure 3.7-139: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-393

Figure 3.7-140: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species. ....................................................................................................................3.7-395

Figure 3.7-141: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-397

Figure 3.7-142: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-399

Figure 3.7-143: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-401

Figure 3.7-144: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-403

Figure 3.7-145: White-Beaked Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-405

Figure 3.7-146: White-Beaked Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-407

Figure 3.7-147: White-Beaked Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-409

Figure 3.7-148: White-Beaked Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-411
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

xi

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-149: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1................................................3.7-413

Figure 3.7-150: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. ................................................3.7-415

Figure 3.7-151: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2................................................3.7-417

Figure 3.7-152: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. ................................................3.7-419

Figure 3.7-153: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-422

Figure 3.7-154: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-423

Figure 3.7-155: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1.....................................................................3.7-424

Figure 3.7-156: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-425

Figure 3.7-157: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1......................................................................3.7-427

Figure 3.7-158: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1......................................................................3.7-428

Figure 3.7-159: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species...........3.7-429

Figure 3.7-160: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species...........3.7-430

Figure 3.7-161: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-432

Figure 3.7-162: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-433

Figure 3.7-163: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2.....................................................................3.7-434

Figure 3.7-164: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species..........3.7-435

Figure 3.7-165: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2......................................................................3.7-437

Figure 3.7-166: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2......................................................................3.7-438

Figure 3.7-167: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species...........3.7-439

Figure 3.7-168: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species...........3.7-440
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

xii

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-169: West Indian Manatee Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-443

Figure 3.7-170: West Indian Manatee Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-445

Figure 3.7-171: West Indian Manatee Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-447

Figure 3.7-172: West Indian Manatee Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for 

this species..................................................................................................................... 3.7-448

Figure 3.7-173: Temporary Threshold Shift and Permanent Threshold Shift Exposure 

Functions for Air Guns...................................................................................................3.7-451

Figure 3.7-174: Estimated Annual Behavioral Responses from Air Gun Use. No TTS or PTS is 

estimated for any species..............................................................................................3.7-454

Figure 3.7-175: Estimated Annual Impacts (Assuming Two Events per Year) from Pile Driving 

and Extraction Associated with the Construction and Removal of the Elevated 

Causeway .......................................................................................................................3.7-459

Figure 3.7-176: Navy Phase III Weighting Functions for All Species Groups. .....................................3.7-486

Figure 3.7-177: Navy Phase III Behavioral, TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Explosives..............3.7-487

Figure 3.7-178: Estimated Maximum Impacts to Each Species Across All Seasons and Areas in 

Which the Large Ship Shock Trial Could Occur. This event could occur once over 

a 5-year period...............................................................................................................3.7-505

Figure 3.7-179: Estimated Maximum Impacts to Each Species Across All Seasons and Areas in 

Which Small Ship Shock Trials Could Occur. This event could occur up to three 

times over a 5-year period.............................................................................................3.7-506

Figure 3.7-180: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

behavioral responses, PTS, or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species........3.7-509

Figure 3.7-181: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species...........................................................................3.7-511

Figure 3.7-182: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species........................................................3.7-515

Figure 3.7-183: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

xiii

Table of Contents

explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species. ..............................................................................................................3.7-517

Figure 3.7-184: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No behavioral reactions, PTS, or 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species........................................................3.7-519

Figure 3.7-185: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses or 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species........................................................3.7-521

Figure 3.7-186: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No behavioral responses or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-523

Figure 3.7-187: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No behavioral reactions or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-525

Figure 3.7-188: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses 

or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species....................................................3.7-527

Figure 3.7-189: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species. ..............................................................................................................3.7-528

Figure 3.7-190: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No behavioral reactions or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-530

Figure 3.7-191: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species........................................................3.7-532

Figure 3.7-192: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No behavioral responses or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for

this species.....................................................................................................................3.7-533

Figure 3.7-193: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No behavioral reactions or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-535

Figure 3.7-194: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

xiv

Table of Contents

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species........................................................3.7-537

Figure 3.7-195: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species. ..............................................................................................................3.7-538

Figure 3.7-196: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) 

is estimated for this species...........................................................................................3.7-542

Figure 3.7-197: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ...................3.7-544

Figure 3.7-198: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-546

Figure 3.7-199: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species...........................................................................3.7-548

Figure 3.7-200: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species...........................................................................3.7-549

Figure 3.7-201: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................3.7-550

Figure 3.7-202: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................3.7-551

Figure 3.7-203: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-553

Figure 3.7-204: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-554
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

xv

Table of Contents

Figure 3.7-205: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS 

or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species....................................................3.7-556

Figure 3.7-206: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-557

Figure 3.7-207: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-558

Figure 3.7-208: Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS 

or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species....................................................3.7-559

Figure 3.7-209: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-560

Figure 3.7-210: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................3.7-562

Figure 3.7-211: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................3.7-563

Figure 3.7-212: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................3.7-564

Figure 3.7-213: Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................3.7-565

Figure 3.7-214: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

xvi

Table of Contents

based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................3.7-566

Figure 3.7-215: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. ....................................3.7-568

Figure 3.7-216: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. ...........................................................................................3.7-570

Figure 3.7-217: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials)....................................................3.7-572

Figure 3.7-218: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species........................................................3.7-574

Figure 3.7-219: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 

1 (excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................3.7-576

Figure 3.7-220: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species...........................................................................3.7-578

Figure 3.7-221: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. ....................................3.7-580

Figure 3.7-222: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. .....................................................................................................................3.7-582

Figure 3.7-223: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials)....................................................3.7-584

Figure 3.7-224: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-586

Figure 3.7-225: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ..............................3.7-587

Figure 3.7-226: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

xvii

Table of Contents

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species...........................................................................3.7-589

Figure 3.7-227: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ...................3.7-591

Figure 3.7-228: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species. ..............................................................................................................3.7-594

Figure 3.7-229: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species...........................................................................3.7-596

Figure 3.7-230: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................3.7-597

Figure 3.7-231: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species........................................................3.7-600

Figure 3.7-232: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 

1 (excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................3.7-601

Figure 3.7-233: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). ................................. 3.7-603

Figure 3.7-234: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-605

Figure 3.7-235: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS 

or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species....................................................3.7-606

Figure 3.7-236: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

xviii

Table of Contents

based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................3.7-607

Figure 3.7-237: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................3.7-608

Figure 3.7-238: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-610

Figure 3.7-239: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-611

Figure 3.7-240: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-613

Figure 3.7-241: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ...................3.7-614

Figure 3.7-242: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species...........................................................................3.7-616

Figure 3.7-243: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ..............................3.7-618

Figure 3.7-244: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ................................................................. 3.7-620

Figure 3.7-245: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 

(excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species............................................................................................................................3.7-622

Figure 3.7-246: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions....................3.7-624

Figure 3.7-247: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

xix

Table of Contents

1 (excluding full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less 

based on fewer explosions. ...........................................................................................3.7-625

Figure 3.7-248: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). ................................. 3.7-627

Figure 3.7-249: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-629

Figure 3.7-250: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ..............................3.7-630

Figure 3.7-251: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-632

Figure 3.7-252: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions...................................................3.7-634

Figure 3.7-253: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ..............................3.7-635

Figure 3.7-254: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species. .............................................................................................3.7-637

Figure 3.7-255: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-640

Figure 3.7-256: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full 

ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ..............................3.7-641

Figure 3.7-257: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species..............................................................................................3.7-643

Figure 3.7-258: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ...................3.7-646

Figure 3.7-259: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

xx

Table of Contents

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ..............................3.7-647

Figure 3.7-260: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ..............................3.7-648

Figure 3.7-261: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. ...................3.7-649

Figure 3.7-262: Navy Vessel Strikes Reported by Year (2009–2017)..................................................3.7-663

List of Tables

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammal Occurrence Within the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study 

Area....................................................................................................................................3.7-7

Table 3.7-2: Species in Marine Mammal Hearing Groups Potentially Within the Study Area .............3.7-16

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

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

Levels at or Exceeding 215 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m..............................................................3.7-147

Table 3.7-4: Range to Permanent Threshold Shift for Five Representative Sonar Systems...............3.7-152

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

Range of Environments Within the Study Area.............................................................3.7-152

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

Range of Environments Within the Study Area.............................................................3.7-153

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

Range of Environments Within the Study Area.............................................................3.7-153

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

Range of Environments Within the Study Area.............................................................3.7-154

Table 3.7-9: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar BinHF4 over a Representative 

Range of Environments Within the Study Area.............................................................3.7-154

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

Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area....................................3.7-155

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

a Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area................................. 3.7-156

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

a Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area................................. 3.7-157

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

a Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area................................. 3.7-158

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

a Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area................................. 3.7-159
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

xxi

Table of Contents

Table 3.7-15: Thresholds for Onset of TTS and PTS for Underwater Air Gun Sounds........................3.7-450

Table 3.7-16: Range to Effects from Air Guns for 10 pulses...............................................................3.7-452

Table 3.7-17: Range to Effects from Air Guns for 100 pulses.............................................................3.7-453

Table 3.7-18: Pile Driving Level B Thresholds Used in this Analysis to Predict Behavioral 

Responses from Marine Mammals................................................................................3.7-457

Table 3.7-19: Average Ranges to Effects from Impact Pile Driving ....................................................3.7-458

Table 3.7-20: Average Ranges to Effect from Vibratory Pile Extraction.............................................3.7-458

Table 3.7-21: Criteria to Quantitatively Assess Non-Auditory Injury Due to 

Underwater Explosions..................................................................................................3.7-485

Table 3.7-22: Criteria for Estimating Ranges to Potential Effect for Mitigation Purposes.................3.7-485

Table 3.7-23: Navy Phase III Weighted Sound Exposure Thresholds for Underwater Explosive 

Sounds............................................................................................................................3.7-488

Table 3.7-24: Ranges1 to 50 % Non-Auditory Injury Risk for All Marine Mammal Hearing 

Groups............................................................................................................................3.7-491

Table 3.7-25: Ranges1 to 50 % Mortality Risk for All Marine Mammal Hearing Groups as a 

Function of Animal Mass ...............................................................................................3.7-492

Table 3.7-26: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for HighFrequency Cetaceans.....................................................................................................3.7-493

Table 3.7-27: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for High-Frequency 

Cetaceans.......................................................................................................................3.7-494

Table 3.7-28: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for LowFrequency Cetaceans.....................................................................................................3.7-495

Table 3.7-29: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Low-Frequency 

Cetaceans.......................................................................................................................3.7-496

Table 3.7-30: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for MidFrequency Cetaceans.....................................................................................................3.7-497

Table 3.7-31: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Mid-Frequency 

Cetaceans.......................................................................................................................3.7-498

Table 3.7-32: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for Phocids......3.7-499

Table 3.7-33: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Phocids........................3.7-500

Table 3.7-34: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for 

Sirenians.........................................................................................................................3.7-501

Table 3.7-35: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Sirenians......................3.7-502
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

xxii

Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-1 

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7 MARINE MAMMALS

MARINE MAMMALS SYNOPSIS

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

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

the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1).

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

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

mammals that could include temporary or permanent hearing threshold shift, auditory masking, 

physiological stress, or behavioral responses. Because individual animals would typically only 

experience a small number of behavioral responses or temporary hearing threshold shifts per 

year from exposure to acoustic stressors and are unlikely to incur substantive costs to the 

individual, population level effects are unlikely.

• Explosives: Explosions underwater or near the surface present a risk to marine mammals located 

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

in the death of an animal. Beyond the zone of injury, the impulsive, broadband noise introduced 

into the marine environment may cause temporary or permanent hearing threshold shift, 

auditory masking, physiological stress, or behavioral responses. Because most estimated impacts 

from explosions are behavioral responses or temporary threshold shifts and because the number 

of marine mammals potentially impacted by explosives are small compared to each species’ 

respective abundance, population level effects are unlikely.

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

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

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

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

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

navigational patterns are not anticipated. Potential impacts from high-energy lasers would only 

result for marine mammals directly struck by the laser beam. Statistical probability analyses 

demonstrate with a high level of certainty that no marine mammals would be struck by a highenergy laser. Energy stressors associated with Navy training and testing activities are temporary 

and localized in nature and, based on patchy distribution of animals, no impacts to individual 

marine mammals and marine mammal populations are anticipated.

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

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

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

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

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

interactions with marine mammals over the last 10 years. Since the Navy does not anticipate a 

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

Continued on the next page...
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-2 

3.7 Marine Mammals

Continued from the previous page...

MARINE MAMMALS SYNOPSIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mammal populations from physical disturbance and strike stressors associated with Navy 

training and testing activities are not anticipated.

• Entanglement: Marine mammals could be exposed to multiple entanglement 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 marine mammal 

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 indicate a very 

low potential for marine mammals to encounter and become entangled in them. Long-term 

impacts to individual marine mammals and marine mammal populations from entanglement 

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

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

multiple ingestion stressors and associated impacts. The likelihood and magnitude of impacts 

depend on the physical properties of the military expended items, the feeding behaviors of 

marine mammals that occur in the Study Area, and the likelihood that a marine mammal would 

encounter and incidentally ingest the items. Adverse impacts from ingestion of military 

expended materials would be limited to the unlikely event that a marine mammal would be 

harmed by ingesting an item that becomes embedded in tissue or is too large to be passed 

through the digestive system. The likelihood that a marine mammal would encounter and 

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

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

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

• Secondary: Marine mammals could be exposed to multiple secondary stressors (indirect 

stressors to habitat or prey) associated with Navy training and testing activities in the Study Area. 

In-water explosions have the potential to injure or kill prey species that marine mammals feed 

on within a small area affected by the blast; however, impacts would not substantially impact 

prey availability for marine mammals. Explosion byproducts and unexploded munitions would 

have no meaningful effect on water or sediment quality; therefore, they are not considered to be 

Continued on the next page...
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-3 

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.1 INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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

taxonomic groupings of marine mammals as appropriate, and on species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) in the AFTT Study Area. 

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

General information relevant to all marine mammal species is provided in Section 3.7.2.1 (General 

Background) followed by subsections that discuss the status, habitats, population trends, predator-prey 

interactions, and species-specific threats. The complete analysis and summary of potential impacts of 

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

Consequences) and Section 3.7.4 (Summary of Potential Impacts on Marine Mammals). 

3.7.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.7.2.1 General Background

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

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

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

2015; Rice, 1998). The exact number of formally recognized marine mammal species changes 

periodically with new scientific understanding or findings (Rice, 1998). For a list of current species 

classifications, see the formal list Marine Mammal Species and Subspecies maintained online by the 

Society for Marine Mammalogy (Committee on Taxonomy, 2016). 

All marine mammals in the United States are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), and some species receive additional protection under the ESA. Within the framework of the 

MMPA, a marine mammal “stock” is defined as “a group of marine mammals of the same species or 

smaller taxon (subspecies) in a common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature” (16 United 

Continued from the previous page...

MARINE MAMMALS SYNOPSIS

secondary stressors for marine mammals. Metals are introduced into the water and sediments 

from multiple types of military expended materials. Available research indicates metal 

contamination is very localized and that bioaccumulation resulting from munitions would not 

occur. Several Navy training and testing activities introduce chemicals into the marine 

environment that are potentially harmful in concentration; however, through rapid dilution, 

toxic concentrations are unlikely to be encountered by marine mammals. Furthermore, 

bioconcentration or bioaccumulation of chemicals introduced by Navy activities to levels that 

would significantly alter water quality and degrade marine mammal habitat has not been 

documented. The Navy’s use of marine mammals is not likely to increase the risk of transmitting 

diseases or parasites to wild marine mammals. Secondary stressors from Navy training and 

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

marine mammals or long-term impacts on marine mammal populations. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-4 

3.7 Marine Mammals

States Code [U.S.C.] section 1362). Per NMFS guidance, “for purposes of management under the MMPA, 

a stock is recognized as being a management unit that identifies a demographically independent 

biological population” (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016a). However, in practice, recognized 

management stocks may fall short of this ideal because of a lack of information or, in some cases, stocks 

may even include multiple species in a management unit, such as with Mesoplodon species (spp.)

(beaked whales) and the two Kogia spp. (dwarf and pygmy sperm whales) occurring in the AFTT Study 

Area (Waring et al., 2016). 

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

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

Vertebrate Population Segments Under the ESA (61 Federal Register 4722, February 7, 1996) defines a 

distinct population segment as, “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 

segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” If a population 

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

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

coincide with distinct population segments under the ESA (81 Federal Register 62660–62320, September 

8, 2016). 

There are 48 marine mammal species known to exist in the AFTT Study Area. Among these species are 

93 stocks managed by either the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. These species and stocks are presented in Table 

3.7-1 along with an abundance estimate, an associated coefficient of variation value, and minimum 

abundance. Table 3.7-1 also includes each species’ occurrence within oceanographic features in open 

ocean areas, large marine ecosystems, and inland waters (including bays, rivers, and estuaries) that 

overlap with the AFTT Study Area. Refer to Section 3.0.2 (Ecological Characterization of the Study Area) 

for a description of each feature. For each species and stock, relevant information on their status, 

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

incorporating the best available science in addition to the analyses provided in the most recent U.S. 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (Waring et al., 2016). Some 

material contained in this chapter was summarized from the book Marine Mammals of the World: A 

Comprehensive Guide to Their Identification (Jefferson et al., 2015). 

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

see Rice (1998), Twiss and Reeves (1999), Hoelzel (2002), Berta et al. (2006), Jefferson et al. (2002), 

Jefferson et al. (2015), and Committee on Taxonomy (2008). Additional species profiles and information 

on the biology, life history, species distribution, and conservation of marine mammals can also be found 

through the following organizations:

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

• Ocean Biogeographic Information System-Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate 

Populations (known as OBIS-SEAMAP) species profiles

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping 

Working Group

• International Whaling Commission 

• International Union for Conservation of Nature, Cetacean Specialist Group 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-5 

3.7 Marine Mammals

• Marine Mammal Commission 

• Society for Marine Mammalogy

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

porpoises), pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, and walruses), sirenians (manatees and dugongs), and other 

marine carnivores (sea otters, marine otters, and polar bears) (Jefferson et al., 2015; Rice, 1998). To 

maintain consistency with past Navy analysis and retain familiar terminology, we have used 

“odontocetes” for toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises, “mysticetes” for baleen whales, and 

“cetaceans” to be inclusive of both. Detailed reviews of the different groups of cetaceans can be found 

in (Heithaus & Dill, 2008; Jefferson et al., 2015; Perrin et al., 2009b). The different feeding strategies 

between mysticetes and odontocetes affect their distribution and occurrence patterns (Goldbogen et 

al., 2015). Odontocetes range in size from slightly longer than 3.3 feet (ft.) to more than 60 ft. and have 

teeth, which they use to capture and consume individual prey. Odontocetes are divided into several 

families. Mysticetes are universally large whales (more than 15 ft. as adults) that use baleen, a fibrous 

structure made of keratin (a type of protein like that found in human fingernails), instead of teeth to 

feed. Mysticetes are batch feeders that typically engulf, suck, or skim the water into their mouths and 

then push the water out as large numbers of prey items, such as small schooling fish, shrimp, or 

microscopic sea animals (i.e., plankton), are filtered by the baleen. Mysticetes are further divided into 

four families, two of which (right whales and rorquals) are found within the Study Area, and gray whales 

and pygmy right whales, which are not found in the Study Area. 

Pinnipeds in the Study Area are of the order Carnivora and can be divided into three families: phocids 

(true seals) and walruses, both found in the Study Area, and otariids (fur seals and sea lions), which are 

not found in the Study Area. Other marine carnivores include polar bears, which are found in the 

northern portion of the AFTT Study Area, and sea otters, which are not found in the Study Area. 

The order Sirenia (sirenians) includes one species found in the Study Area, the West Indian manatee 

(Trichechus manatus), a slow-moving plant eater that inhabits shallow coastal and inland waters. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-6 

3.7 Marine Mammals

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-7 

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammal Occurrence Within the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area 

Common Name Scientific Name1 Stock2 ESA/MMPA Status3

Stock Abundance4

Best / Minimum 

Population

Occurrence in Study Area5

Open Ocean Large Marine Ecosystems Inland Waters

Order Cetacea

Suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales)

Family Balaenidae (right whales)

Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus Eastern Canada-West 

Greenland

Endangered, strategic, 

depleted

7,660 (4,500-11,100)6 Labrador Current Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf, Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf – 

North Atlantic right 

whale

Eubalaena glacialis Western North Atlantic Endangered, strategic, 

depleted

476 (0) / 476 Gulf Stream, Labrador 

Current, North Atlantic Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Gulf of Mexico 

(extralimital)

– 

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Western North Atlantic 

(Gulf of St. Lawrence)

Endangered, strategic, 

depleted

Unknown / 44011 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre, Labrador Current

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador 

Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of 

Mexico (strandings only)

- 

Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera brydei/edeni Northern Gulf of Mexico – 33 (1.07) / 16 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre

Gulf of Mexico – 

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Western North Atlantic Endangered, strategic, 

depleted

1,618 (0. 33) / 1,234 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre, Labrador Current

Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador 

Shelf

– 

West Greenland Endangered, strategic, 

depleted

4,468 (1,343-14,871)9 Labrador Current West Greenland Shelf – 

Gulf of St. Lawrence Endangered, strategic, 

depleted

328 (306-350)10 Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf – 

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Gulf of Maine Strategic 823 (0) / 823 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre, Labrador Current

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador 

Shelf

Lower Chesapeake Bay

Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata Canadian East Coast – 20,741 (0.30) / 16,199 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre, Labrador Current

Caribbean Sea, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf – 

West Greenland7 – 16,609 (7,172-38,461) / 

NA 7

Labrador Current West Greenland Shelf – 

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Nova Scotia Endangered, strategic, 

depleted

357 (0.52) / 236 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, Southeast Northeast U.S. Continental 

Shelf, Scotian Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf – 

Labrador Sea Endangered, strategic, 

depleted

Unknown8 Labrador Current Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf – 

1 Taxonomy follows Committee on Taxonomy (2016) and Perrin et al. (2009a) 2 Stock designations for the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and abundance estimates are from Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Stock Assessment Reports prepared by NMFS (Waring et al., 2016), unless specifically noted. 3 Populations or stocks defined by the MMPA as “strategic” for one of the following reasons: (1) the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (2) based on the best available scientific information, numbers are declining and species are likely to be 

listed as threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; (3) species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA; (4) species are designated as depleted under the MMPA. 4 Stock abundance, CV, and minimum population are numbers provided by the Stock Assessment Reports (Waring et al., 2016). The stock abundance is an estimate of the number of animals within the stock. The CV is a statistical metric used as an indicator of the uncertainty in the abundance 

estimate. The minimum population estimate is either a direct count (e.g., pinnipeds on land) or the lower 20th percentile of a statistical abundance estimate. 5 Occurrence in the Study Area includes open ocean areas—Labrador Current, North Atlantic Gyre, Gulf Stream, and coastal/shelf waters of seven large marine ecosystems—West Greenland Shelf, Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, Scotian Shelf, and Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and inland waters of Kennebec River, Piscataqua River, Thames River, Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, Long Island Sound, Sandy Hook Bay, Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River, 

Elizabeth River, Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River, Kings Bay, St. Johns River, Port Canaveral, St. Andrew Bay, Pascagoula River, Sabine Lake, Corpus Christi Bay, and Galveston Bay, (Figure 3.0-1 in Section 3.0.2, Ecological Characterization of the Study Area). 6 The bowhead whale population off the west coast of Greenland is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent highest density interval were presented in Frasier et al. (2015). 7 The West Greenland stock of minke whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval were presented in (Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2010b). 8 The Labrador Sea stock of sei whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Information was obtained in (Prieto et al., 2014). 9 The West Greenland stock of fin whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval were presented in (Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2010a). 10 The Gulf of St. Lawrence stock of fin whales is not managed by NMFS and, therefore, does not have an associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval were presented in (Ramp et al., 2014). 11 Photo identification catalogue count of 440 recognizable blue whale individuals from the Gulf of St. Lawrence is considered a minimum population estimate for the western North Atlantic stock (Waring et al., 2010). 

CV: coefficient of variation; ESA: Endangered Species Act; MMPA: Marine Mammal Protection Act; NA: not applicable; NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammal Occurrence Within the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

3.7-8 

3.7 Marine Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name1 Stock2 ESA/MMPA Status3

Stock Abundance4

Best (McVey & 

Wibbles)/ Min

Occurrence in Study Area5

Open Ocean Large Marine Ecosystems Inland Waters

Family Physeteridae (sperm whale)

Suborder Odontoceti (toothed whales)

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus North Atlantic Endangered, strategic, 

depleted

2,288 (0.28) / 1,815 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre, Labrador Current

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, Caribbean Sea– 

Gulf of Mexico Oceanic Endangered, strategic, 

depleted

763 (0.38) / 560 – Gulf of Mexico – 

Puerto Rico and 

U.S. Virgin Islands

Endangered, strategic, 

depleted

Unknown North Atlantic Gyre Caribbean Sea – 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico

Endangered, strategic, 

depleted

186 (1.04) / 9012

– Gulf of Mexico – 

Family Kogiidae (sperm whales)

Pygmy and dwarf 

sperm whales

Kogia breviceps and Kogia 

sima

Western North Atlantic – 3,785 (0.47) / 2,59812 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, Caribbean Sea– 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico

– 186 (1.04) / 9012

– Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea – 

Family Monodontidae (beluga whale and narwhal)

Beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas Eastern High 

Arctic/Baffin Bay13

– 21,213 (10,985–32,619) 13Labrador Current West Greenland Shelf – 

West Greenland14 – 10,595 (4.904–24,650) 14West Greenland Shelf – 

Narwhal Monodon monoceros NA15 – NA15 Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf –

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Blainville’s beaked 

whale

Mesoplodon densirostris Western North 

Atlantic16

– 7,092 (0.54) / 4,63217 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre, Labrador Current

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf– 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico

– 149 (0.91) / 7718

– Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea – 

Cuvier’s beaked 

whale

Ziphius cavirostris Western North 

Atlantic16

– 6,532 (0.32) / 5,021 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf– 

Northern Gulf of 

Mexico

– 74 (1.04) / 36 Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea – 

Puerto Rico and U.S. 

Virgin Islands

– Unknown – Caribbean Sea – 

12 Estimates include both the pygmy and dwarf sperm whales in the western North Atlantic (Waring et al., 2014) and the northern Gulf of Mexico (Waring et al., 2013). 13 Beluga whales in the Atlantic are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval for the Eastern High Arctic/Baffin Bay stock were presented in (Innes et al., 2002). 14 Beluga whales in the Atlantic are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. Abundance and 95 percent confidence interval for the West Greenland stock were presented in (Heide-Jørgensen et al., 2009). 15 NA: Not applicable. Narwhals in the Atlantic are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report. 16 Estimates for these western North Atlantic stocks are from Waring et al. (2014). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammal Occurrence Within the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

3.7-9 

3.7 Marine Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name1 Stock2 ESA/MMPA Status3

Stock Abundance4

Best (McVey & 

Wibbles)/ Min

Occurrence in Study Area5

Open Ocean Large Marine Ecosystems Inland Waters

Gervais’ beaked 

whale

Mesoplodon europaeus Western North 

Atlantic16

– 7,092 (0.54) / 4,632 17 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast United States 

Continental Shelf – 

Northern Gulf of Mexico – 149 (0.91) / 77 18 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre

Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea – 

Northern 

bottlenose whale

Hyperoodon ampullatus Western North Atlantic – Unknown Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre, Labrador Current

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf – 

Sowerby’s beaked 

whale

Mesoplodon bidens Western North 

Atlantic16

– 7,092 (0.54) / 4,632 17 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf – 

True’s beaked 

whale

Mesoplodon mirus Western North 

Atlantic16

– 7,092 (0.54) / 4,632 17 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf– 

Family Delphinidae (dolphins)

Atlantic spotted 

dolphin

Stenella frontalis Western North 

Atlantic16

– 44,715 (0.43) / 31,610 Gulf Stream Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf – 

Northern Gulf of Mexico – Unknown – Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea –

Atlantic whitesided dolphinLagenorhynchus acutus Western North Atlantic – 48,819 (0.61) / 30,403 Gulf Steam, Labrador 

Current

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf – 

Clymene dolphin Stenella clymene Western North 

Atlantic16

– Unknown Gulf Stream Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf – 

Northern Gulf of Mexico – 129 (1.0) / 64 – Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea –

Common 

bottlenose dolphin

Tursiops truncatus Western North Atlantic, 

Offshore19

Strategic, depleted 77,532 (0.40) / 56,053 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf – 

Western North Atlantic 

Northern Migratory 

Coastal16

Strategic, depleted 11,548 (0.36) / 8,620

– 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf

Long Island Sound, Sandy Hook Bay, Lower 

Chesapeake Bay, James River, Elizabeth River

Western North Atlantic 

Southern Migratory 

Coastal16

Strategic, depleted 9,173 (0.46) / 6,326

– 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Lower Chesapeake Bay, James River, Elizabeth 

River, Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River, Kings Bay, 

St. Johns River

Western North Atlantic 

South Carolina/ Georgia 

Coastal16

Strategic, depleted 4,377 (0.43) / 3,097

– 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Kings Bay, St. Johns River

Northern North 

Carolina Estuarine 

System16

Strategic 950 (0.23) / 785

– 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf

Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River

Southern North Carolina 

Estuarine System16

Strategic 188 (0.19) / 160 – Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Beaufort Inlet, Cape Fear River

Northern South Carolina 

Estuarine System16

Strategic Unknown _ – 

Charleston Estuarine 

System16

Strategic 289 (CV = 0.03) / 281 – Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf – 

17 Estimate includes undifferentiated Mesoplodon species. 18 Estimate includes Gervais’ and Blainville’s beaked whales.

19 Estimate may include sightings of the coastal form.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammal Occurrence Within the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

3.7-10

3.7 Marine Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name1 Stock2 ESA/MMPA Status 3 Stock Abundance4 

Best / Min

Occurrence in Study Area5

Open Ocean Large Marine Ecosystems Inland Waters

Common 

bottlenose dolphin 

(continued)

Tursiops truncatus

(continued)

Northern Georgia/ 

Southern South Carolina 

Estuarine System16

Strategic Unknown

– 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf

– 

Central Georgia Estuarine 

System

Strategic 192 (0.04) / 185 - Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf –

Southern Georgia Estuarine 

System16

Strategic 194 (0.05) / 185 – Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Kings Bay, St. Johns River

Western North Atlantic 

Northern Florida Coastal16

Strategic, depleted 1,219 (0.67) / 730 – Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Kings Bay, St. Johns River

Jacksonville Estuarine 

System16

Strategic Unknown – Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Kings Bay, St. Johns River

Western North Atlantic 

Central Florida Coastal16

Strategic, depleted 4,895 (0.71) / 2,851 – Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Port Canaveral

Indian River Lagoon 

Estuarine System16

Strategic Unknown – Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Port Canaveral

Biscayne Bay16 Strategic Unknown – Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf –

Florida Bay16 Unknown – Gulf of Mexico –

Northern Gulf of Mexico 

Continental Shelf20

– 51,192 (0.10) / 46,926 – Gulf of Mexico – 

Gulf of Mexico Eastern 

Coastal20

– 12,388 (0.13) / 11,110 – Gulf of Mexico – 

Gulf of Mexico Northern 

Coastal20

Strategic 7,185 (0.21) / 6,044 – Gulf of Mexico St. Andrew Bay, Pascagoula River

Gulf of Mexico Western 

Coastal20

Strategic 20,161 (0.17) / 17,491 – Gulf of Mexico Corpus Christi Bay, Galveston Bay

Northern Gulf of Mexico 

Oceanic20

5,806 (0.39) / 4,230 – Gulf of Mexico – 

Northern Gulf of Mexico 

Bay, Sound, and Estuaries21

Strategic Unknown – Gulf of Mexico St. Andrew Bay, Pascagoula River, Sabine 

Lake, Corpus Christi Bay, and Galveston Bay

Barataria Bay Strategic Unknown – Gulf of Mexico –

Mississippi Sound, Lake 

Borgne, Bay Boudreau20

Strategic 901 (0.63) / 551 - Gulf of Mexico –

St. Joseph Bay Strategic 146 (0.18) / 126 – Gulf of Mexico –

Choctawhatchee Bay Strategic 179 (0.04) / 173 – Gulf of Mexico –

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin 

Islands

– Unknown – Caribbean Sea –

False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens Northern Gulf of Mexico – 442 (1.06) / 212 – Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf

–

Western North Atlantic – Unknown Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea –

Fraser’s dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei Western North Atlantic – Unknown Gulf Stream Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf

–

Northern Gulf of Mexico – Unknown – Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea – 20 Estimates for these Gulf of Mexico stocks are from Waring et al. (2015). 21 NMFS is in the process of writing individual stock assessment reports for each of the 32 bay, sound, and estuary stocks.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammal Occurrence Within the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

3.7-11

3.7 Marine Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name1 Stock2 ESA/MMPA Status 3 Stock Abundance4 

Best / Min

Occurrence in Study Area5

Open Ocean Large Marine Ecosystems Inland Waters

Killer whale Orcinus orca Northern Gulf of Mexico – Unknown Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre, Labrador Current

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf– 

Western North Atlantic – 28 (1.02) / 14 – Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea –

Long-finned pilot 

whale

Globicephala melas Western North Atlantic – 26,535 (0.35) / 19,930 Gulf Stream Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf – 

Melon-headed 

whale

Peponocephala electra Northern Gulf of Mexico – Unknown Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf – 

Western North Atlantic22 – 2,235 (0.75) / 1,274 - Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea –

Pantropical spotted 

dolphin

Stenella attenuata Western North Atlantic16 – 3,333 (0.91) / 1,733 Gulf Stream Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf – 

Northern Gulf of Mexico22 – 50,880 (0.27) / 40,699 – Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea –

Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata Northern Gulf of Mexico – Unknown Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf – 

Western North Atlantic – 152 (1.02) / 75 – Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea –

Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus Western North Atlantic – 18,250 (0.46) / 12,619 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf– 

Northern Gulf of Mexico – 2,442 (0.57) / 1,563 – Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea –

Rough-toothed 

dolphin

Steno bredanensis Western North Atlantic16 – 271 (1.00)/ 134 Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre

Caribbean Sea, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf – 

Northern Gulf of Mexico – 624 (0.99) / 311 – Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea –

Short-finned pilot 

whale

Globicephala 

macrorhynchus

Northern Gulf of Mexico – 21,515 (0.37) / 15,913 Gulf Stream Northeast Continental Shelf, Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf – 

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin 

Islands

– 2,415 (0.66) / 1,456 – Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea – 

– Unknown – Caribbean Sea –

Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris Western North Atlantic16 – Unknown Gulf Stream, North Atlantic 

Gyre

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf – 

Northern Gulf of Mexico – 11,441 (0.83) / 6,221 – Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea –

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin 

Islands

– Unknown – Caribbean Sea –

Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba Western North Atlantic16 – 54,807 (0.30) / 42,804 Gulf Stream Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf –

Northern Gulf of Mexico – 1,849 (0.77) / 1,041 – Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea –

Short-beaked 

common dolphin

Delphinus delphis Western North Atlantic22 – 173,486 (0.55) / 

112,531

Gulf Stream Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf– 

White-beaked 

dolphin

Lagenorhynchus albirostris Western North Atlantic22 – 2,003 (0.94) / 1,023 Labrador Current Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf – 

22 Estimates for these western North Atlantic stocks are from Waring et al. (2007).

23 Harbor porpoise in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report.

24 Harbor porpoise in Newfoundland are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report.

25 Harbor porpoise in Greenland are not managed by NMFS and have no associated Stock Assessment Report.

26 NA: Not applicable. Polar bears are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) but do not occur in the Atlantic U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and, therefore, have no associated Stock Assessment Reports. See the appropriate subsections below for details of populations that may be 

found within the Study Area. 27 NA: Not applicable. These species do not occur within the Atlantic U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and, therefore, are not managed by NMFS in the Atlantic and have no associated Stock Assessment Reports. See the appropriate subsections below for details of populations that may be found 

within the Study Area.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

Table 3.7-1: Marine Mammal Occurrence Within the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area (continued)

3.7-12

3.7 Marine Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name1 Stock2 ESA/MMPA Status 3 Stock Abundance4 

Best / Min

Occurrence in Study Area5

Open Ocean Large Marine Ecosystems Inland Waters

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)

Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena 

phocoena

Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy – 79,883 (0.32) / 61,415 –- Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block 

Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, 

Long Island Sound, Piscataqua River, Thames 

River, Kennebec River

Gulf of St. Lawrence23 – Unknown23

Labrador Current Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

–

Newfoundland24 – Unknown24

Labrador Current Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

–

Greenland25 – Unknown25 Labrador Current Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf

–

Order Carnivora

Family Ursidae (bears)

Polar bear Ursus maritimus NA26 Threatened, strategic, 

depleted

Unknown – Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf – 

Suborder Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (true seals)

Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus NA27 – Unknown – Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf –

Gray seal Halichoerus grypus Western North Atlantic – Unknown

– 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf

Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block 

Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, 

Long Island Sound, Piscataqua River, Thames 

River, Kennebeck River

Harbor seal Phoca vitulina Western North Atlantic – 75,834 (0.15) / 66,884

– 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf

Chesapeake Bay, Narragansett Bay, Rhode 

Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, 

Vineyard Sound, Long Island Sound, Piscataqua 

River, Thames River, Kennebeck River

Harp seal Pagophilus groenlandicus Western North Atlantic – Unknown – Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf – 

Hooded seal Cystophora cristata Western North Atlantic – Unknown

– 

Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf

Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island Sound, Block 

Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, 

Long Island Sound, Piscataqua River, Thames 

River, Kennebec River

Ringed seal Phoca hispida hispida NA27 Strategic Unknown – Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf –

Family Odobenidae (walrus)

Walrus Odobenus rosmarus NA28 – NA28 – Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, West Greenland Shelf –

Order Sirenia

Family Trichechidae (manatees)

West Indian 

manatee

Trichechus manatus 

latirostris (Florida 

subspecies)

Florida Threatened, strategic, 

depleted

6,350 (5,310–7,390)29

– 

Gulf of Mexico, Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Cape Fear River, Bogue Sound, St. Johns River, 

Kings Bay, Port Canaveral, Pascagoula River, St. 

Andrew Bay, Corpus Christi Bay, Sabine Lake, 

and Galveston Bay

Trichechus manatus 

(Antillean subspecies)

Puerto Rico 14230 Caribbean Sea

28 NA: Not applicable. Walruses are managed by the USFWS but do not occur in the Atlantic U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and, therefore, have no associated Stock Assessment Report. See the appropriate subsections below for details of populations that may be found within the Study Area. 29 The West Indian manatee is managed by the USFWS. Based on surveys in 2011 and 2012 (Martin et al., 2015a). 30Minimum population estimate for Antillean manatees in Puerto Rico, based on January 2013 complete island-wide surveys (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014a)
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-13

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.1.1 Group Size 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

groups is also important for the purposes of mitigation and monitoring, since animals that occur in 

larger groups have an increased probability of being detected. A comprehensive and systematic review 

of relevant literature and data was conducted using available published and unpublished literature, 

including journals, books, technical reports, survey cruise reports, raw data from cruises, theses, and 

dissertations. The results of this review were compiled into a technical report (U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2017) and include tables listing group size information by species along with relevant citations.

3.7.2.1.2 Habitat Use

Marine mammals occur in every marine environment in the Study Area, from coastal and inland waters 

to the open Atlantic Ocean. Their distribution is influenced by many factors, primarily patterns of major 

ocean currents, bottom relief, water temperature, water depth, and salinity, which, in turn, affect prey 

distribution and productivity. The continuous movement of water from the ocean bottom to the surface 

creates a nutrient-rich, highly productive environment for marine mammal prey in upwelling zones 

(Jefferson et al., 2015). For most cetaceans, prey distribution, abundance, and quality largely determine 

where they occur at any specific time (Heithaus & Dill, 2008). Most of the baleen whales are migratory, 

but many of the toothed whales do not migrate in the strictest sense. Instead, they undergo seasonal 

dispersal or shifts in density distribution and occupy habitats preferable for feeding, breeding, and other 

important behaviors. Pinnipeds occur mostly in coastal habitats or over continental shelves, while 

manatees and polar bears are strongly associated with coastal waters as habitat for reproducing,

resting, and, in some cases, feeding, though polar bears can also range far offshore.

In 2011, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration convened a working group to map 

cetacean density and distribution within U.S. waters. The specific objective of the Cetacean Density and 

Distribution Mapping Working Group was to create comprehensive and easily accessible regional 

cetacean density and distribution maps that are time and species specific. Separately, to augment this 

more quantitative density and distribution mapping and provide additional context for marine mammal 

impact analyses, the Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Working Group also identified (through 

literature search, current science compilation, and expert elicitation) areas of importance for cetaceans, 

such as reproductive areas, feeding areas, migratory corridors, and areas in which small or resident 

populations are concentrated. Areas identified through this process have been termed biologically 

important areas (Ferguson et al., 2015; Van Parijs, 2015). 

It is important to note that these biologically important areas were not meant to define exclusionary 

zones or serve as sanctuaries or marine protected areas and have no direct or immediate regulatory 

consequences. Ferguson et al. (2015) outlines the envisioned purpose for the biologically important area 

designations. The identification of biologically important areas is intended to be a “living” reference 

based on the best available science at the time, which will be maintained and updated as new 

information becomes available. As new empirical data are gathered, these referenced areas can be 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-14

3.7 Marine Mammals

calibrated to determine how closely they correspond to reality of the species’ habitat uses and updated 

as necessary, including the potential addition of newly defined areas. Additionally, biologically important 

areas identified in the AFTT Study Area by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b) do not represent the totality 

of important habitat throughout the marine mammals’ full range. The stated intention is to serve as a 

resource management tool. The currently identified boundaries should be considered dynamic and 

subject to change based on new information as well as “existing density estimates, range-wide 

distribution data, information on population trends and life history parameters, known threats to the 

population, and other relevant information” (Van Parijs, 2015). Products of the initial assessment 

process, including U.S. East Coast biologically important areas, were compiled and published in March 

2015 (Ferguson et al., 2015; LaBrecque et al., 2015a, 2015b). 

Eighteen biologically important areas were identified for seven species within the AFTT Study Area 

(LaBrecque et al., 2015a, 2015b): minke whales, sei whales, fin whales, North Atlantic right whales, 

humpback whales, harbor porpoises, and bottlenose dolphins. Feeding areas were identified for 

humpback, minke, sei, fin, and North Atlantic right whales; migratory and reproductive areas for North 

Atlantic right whales; and small and resident population areas for harbor porpoise, Bryde’s whale, and 

several stocks of bottlenose dolphins. The areas are not intended to reflect a complete list of areas 

where species engage in important behavioral activities, are not equivalent to a species’ total habitat 

requirements, and likely represent only a fraction of a species’ overall range (Ferguson et al., 2015). 

Figure 5.4-4, Figure 5.4-5, and Figure 5.4-6 show the habitats that the Navy considered when developing 

mitigation areas, including areas that were identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b) as being 

biologically important for marine mammals for feeding, breeding, migrating, or having a small and 

resident population within the AFTT Study Area. As depicted in the figures, many of the habitats 

considered overlap each other. 

3.7.2.1.3 Dive Behavior 

Most marine mammals spend a considerable portion of their lives underwater while traveling or 

feeding. Some species of marine mammals have developed specialized adaptations to allow them to 

make deep dives lasting over an hour, primarily for foraging on deep-water prey such as squid. Other 

species spend the majority of their lives close to the surface and make relatively shallow dives. The 

diving behavior of a particular species or individual has implications for an observer’s ability to detect 

them for purposes of mitigation and monitoring. In addition, their relative distribution through the 

water column is an important consideration when conducting acoustic exposure and direct strike 

analyses. Information and data on diving behavior for each species of marine mammal were compiled 

and summarized in a technical report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017a) that provides estimates of 

time at depth based on available research. The dive data and group size information compiled in this 

technical report was incorporated into the Navy acoustic effects modeling. 

3.7.2.1.4 Hearing and Vocalization 

The typical terrestrial mammalian ear (which is ancestral to that of marine mammals) consists of an 

outer ear that collects and transfers sound to the tympanic membrane and then to the middle ear (Fay 

& Popper, 1994; Rosowski, 1994). The middle ear contains ossicles that amplify and transfer acoustic 

energy to the sensory cells (called hair cells) in the cochlea, which transforms acoustic energy into 

electrical neural impulses that are transferred by the auditory nerve to high levels in the brain (Møller, 

2013). All marine mammals display some degree of modification to the terrestrial ear; however, there 

are differences in the hearing mechanisms of marine mammals with an amphibious ear versus those 

with a fully aquatic ear (Wartzok & Ketten, 1999). Marine mammals with an amphibious ear include the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-15

3.7 Marine Mammals

marine carnivores: pinnipeds, sea otters, and polar bears (Ghoul & Reichmuth, 2014; Owen & Bowles, 

2011; Reichmuth et al., 2013). Outer ear adaptations in this group include external pinnae (ears) that are 

reduced or absent, and in the pinnipeds, cavernous tissue, muscle, and cartilaginous valves seal off 

water from entering the auditory canal when submerged (Wartzok & Ketten, 1999). Marine mammals 

with the fully aquatic ear (cetaceans and sirenians) use bone and fat channels in the head to conduct 

sound to the ear; while the auditory canal still exists in pinnipeds, it is narrow and sealed with wax and 

debris, and external pinnae are absent (Ketten, 1998). 

The most accurate means of determining the hearing capabilities of marine mammal species are direct 

measures that assess the sensitivity of the auditory system (Nachtigall et al., 2000; Supin et al., 2001). 

Studies using these methods produce audiograms, which are plots describing hearing threshold (the 

quietest sound a listener can hear) as a function of frequency. Marine mammal audiograms, like those 

of terrestrial mammals, typically have a “U-shape,” with a frequency region of best hearing sensitivity 

and a progressive decrease in sensitivity outside of the range of best hearing (Fay, 1988; Mooney et al., 

2012; Nedwell et al., 2004; Reichmuth et al., 2013). The “gold standard” for producing audiograms is the 

use of behavioral (psychophysical) methods, where marine mammals are trained to respond to acoustic 

stimuli (Nachtigall et al., 2000). For species that are untrained for behavioral psychophysical procedures, 

those that are difficult to house under human care, or in stranding rehabilitation and temporary capture 

contexts, auditory evoked potential methods are increasingly used to measure hearing sensitivity (e.g., 

Castellote et al., 2014; Finneran et al., 2009; Montie et al., 2011; Mulsow et al., 2011; Nachtigall et al., 

2007; Nachtigall et al., 2008; Supin et al., 2001). 

These auditory evoked potential methods, which measure electrical potentials generated by the 

auditory system in response to sound and do not require the extensive training of psychophysical 

methods, can provide an efficient estimate of behaviorally measured sensitivity (Finneran & Houser, 

2006; Schlundt et al., 2007; Yuen et al., 2005). The thresholds provided by auditory evoked potential 

methods are, however, typically elevated above behaviorally measured thresholds, and auditory evoked 

potential methods are not appropriate for estimating hearing sensitivity at frequencies much lower than 

the region of best hearing (Finneran, 2015; Finneran et al., 2016). For marine mammal species for which 

access is limited and therefore psychophysical or auditory evoked potential measurements are 

impractical (e.g., mysticete whales and rare species), some aspects of hearing can be estimated from 

anatomical structures, frequency content of vocalizations, and extrapolations from related species. 

Direct measurements of hearing sensitivity exist for approximately 25 of the nearly 130 species of 

marine mammals. Table 3.7-2 summarizes hearing capabilities for marine mammal species in the Study 

Area. For this analysis, marine mammals are arranged into the following functional hearing groups based 

on their generalized hearing sensitivities: high-frequency cetaceans (group HF: porpoises, Kogia spp.), 

mid-frequency cetaceans (group MF: delphinids, beaked whales, sperm whales), low-frequency 

cetaceans (group LF: mysticetes), otariids and other non-phocid marine carnivores in water and air 

(groups OW and OA: sea lions, walruses, otters, polar bears), and phocids in water and air (group PW 

and PA: true seals). Note that the designations of high-, mid-, and low-frequency cetaceans are based on 

relative differences of hearing sensitivity between groups, as opposed to conventions used to describe 

active sonar systems. For analyses, a single representative composite audiogram (see Figure 3.7-1) was 

created for each functional hearing group using audiograms from published literature. For discussion of 

all marine mammal functional hearing groups and their derivation see technical report Criteria and 

Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017e). The midfrequency cetacean composite audiogram is consistent with recently published behavioral audiograms 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-16

3.7 Marine Mammals

of killer whales (Branstetter et al., 2017). The otariid and phocid composite audiograms are consistent 

with recently published behavioral audiograms of pinnipeds; these behavioral audiograms also show 

that pinniped hearing sensitivity at frequencies and thresholds far above the range of best hearing may 

drop off at a slower rate than previously predicted (Cunningham & Reichmuth, 2015). 

Table 3.7-2: Species in Marine Mammal Hearing Groups Potentially Within the Study Area

Functional Hearing Group Species in the Study Area

High-frequency cetaceans

Dwarf sperm whale

Harbor porpoise 

Pygmy sperm whale 

Mid-frequency cetaceans

Atlantic spotted dolphin 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 

Beluga whale 

Bottlenose dolphin 

Clymene dolphin 

Common dolphin 

False killer whale 

Fraser’s dolphin 

Gervais’ beaked whale

Killer whale 

Long-finned pilot whale 

Melon-headed whale 

Narwhal 

Northern bottlenose whale 

Pantropical spotted dolphin 

Pygmy killer whale 

Risso’s dolphin 

Rough-toothed dolphin 

Short-finned pilot whale 

Sowerby’s beaked whale

Sperm whale 

Spinner dolphin 

Striped dolphin 

True’s beaked whale

White-beaked dolphin 

Low-frequency cetaceans

Bowhead whale 

Blue whale 

Bryde’s whale 

Fin whale 

Humpback whale 

Minke whale 

North Atlantic right whale 

Sei whale 

Sirenians West Indian manatee 

Odobenids Walrus

Polar bear Polar bear
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

Table 3.7-2: Species in Marine Mammal Hearing Groups Potentially Within the Study Area

(continued)

3.7-17

3.7 Marine Mammals

Functional Hearing Group Species in the Study Area

Phocids

Bearded seal

Gray seal

Harbor seal

Harp seal

Hooded seal

Ringed seal

Similar to the diversity of hearing capabilities among species, the wide variety of acoustic signals used in 

marine mammal communication (including biosonar or echolocation) is reflective of the diverse 

ecological characteristics of cetacean, sirenian, and carnivore species (see Avens & Lohmann, 2003; 

Richardson et al., 1995b). This makes a succinct summary difficult (see Richardson et al., 1995b; Wartzok 

& Ketten, 1999 for thorough reviews); however, a division can be drawn between lower-frequency 

communication signals that are used by marine mammals in general, and the specific, high-frequency 

biosonar signals that are used by odontocetes to sense their environment. 

Non-biosonar communication signals span a wide frequency range, primarily having energy up into the 

tens of kilohertz (kHz). Of particular note are the very low-frequency calls of mysticete whales that range 

from tens of hertz (Hz) to several kHz, and have source levels of 150 to 200 dB referenced to 

For hearing in the water (left) and in air (right, phocids only).

LF: low frequency; MF: mid-frequency; HF: high frequency; SI: sirenians; PW: phocids in water; PA: phocids in air 

Source: Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017)

Figure 3.7-1: Composite Audiograms for Hearing Groups Likely to be Found in the 

Study Area 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-18

3.7 Marine Mammals

1 micropascal (dB re 1 μPa) (Cummings & Thompson, 1971; Edds-Walton, 1997; Širović et al., 2007; 

Stimpert et al., 2007; Wartzok & Ketten, 1999). These calls most likely serve social functions such as 

mate attraction, but may serve an orientation function as well (Green, 1994; Green et al., 1994; 

Richardson et al., 1995b). Humpback whales are a notable exception within the mysticetes, with some 

calls exceeding 10 kHz (Smultea et al., 2008a). 

Odontocete cetaceans, sirenians, and marine carnivores use underwater communicative signals that, 

while not as low in frequency as those of many mysticetes, likely serve similar functions. These include 

tonal whistles in some odontocetes, the calls of manatees and dugongs, and the wide variety of barks, 

grunts, clicks, sweeps, and pulses of pinnipeds. Of additional note are the aerial vocalizations that are 

produced by pinnipeds, otters, and polar bears. Again, the acoustic characteristics of these signals are 

quite diverse among species, but can be generally classified as having dominant energy at frequencies 

below 20 kHz (Richardson et al., 1995b; Wartzok & Ketten, 1999). 

Odontocete cetaceans generate short-duration (50–200 μs), specialized clicks used in biosonar with 

peak frequencies between 10 and 200 kHz to detect, localize, and characterize underwater objects such 

as prey (Au, 1993; Wartzok & Ketten, 1999). These clicks are often more intense than other 

communicative signals, with reported source levels as high as 229 dB re 1 μPa peak-to-peak (Au et al., 

1974). The echolocation clicks of high-frequency cetaceans (e.g., porpoises) are narrower in bandwidth 

(i.e., the difference between the upper and lower frequencies in a sound) and higher in frequency than 

those of mid-frequency cetaceans (Madsen et al., 2005; Villadsgaard et al., 2007). 

In general, frequency ranges of vocalization lie within the audible frequency range for an animal (i.e., 

animals vocalize within their audible frequency range); however, auditory frequency range and 

vocalization frequencies do not perfectly align. The frequency range of vocalization in a species can 

therefore be used to infer some characteristics of their auditory system; however, caution must be 

taken when considering vocalization frequencies alone in predicting the hearing capabilities of species 

for which no data exist (i.e., mysticetes). It is important to note that aspects of vocalization and hearing 

sensitivity are subject to evolutionary pressures that are not solely related to detecting communication 

signals. For example, hearing plays an important role in detecting threats (e.g., Deecke et al., 2002), and 

high-frequency hearing is advantageous to animals with small heads in that it facilitates sound 

localization based on differences in sound levels at each ear (Heffner & Heffner, 1982). This may be 

partially responsible for the difference in best hearing thresholds and dominant vocalization frequencies 

in some species of marine mammals (e.g., Steller sea lions, Mulsow & Reichmuth, 2010). 

3.7.2.1.5 General Threats 

Marine mammal populations can be influenced by various natural factors and human activities. There 

can be direct effects, such as from disease or activities such as hunting and whale watching, or indirect 

effects, such as reduction in prey availability or lowered reproductive success of individuals. Twiss and 

Reeves (1999) and National Marine Fisheries Service (2011a) provide a general discussion of marine 

mammal conservation and the threats they face. As detailed in National Marine Fisheries Service 

(2011a), investigations of stranded marine mammals are undertaken to monitor threats to marine 

mammals and out of concern for animal welfare and ocean stewardship. Marine mammals have also 

been recognized as sentinels of ecosystem health and may therefore provide valuable links to human 

health issues (Simeone et al., 2015). Investigations into the cause of death for stranded animals can also 

provide indications of the general threats to marine mammals in a given location (Bradford & Lyman, 

2015; Carretta et al., 2016b; Heckler et al., 2015). The causes for strandings include infectious disease, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-19

3.7 Marine Mammals

parasite infestation, starvation, climate change reducing prey availability leading to starvation, pollution 

exposure, trauma (e.g., injuries from ship strikes or fishery entanglements), sound (human-generated or 

natural), harmful algal blooms and associated biotoxins, tectonic events such as underwater 

earthquakes, and ingestion or interaction with marine debris (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016b). 

For a general discussion of strandings and their causes, as well as strandings in association with U.S. 

Navy activity, see the technical report titled Marine Mammal Strandings Associated with U.S. Navy

Sonar Activities (U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program, 2017). 

3.7.2.1.5.1 Water Quality 

Chemical pollution and impacts to water quality is of great concern, although its effects on marine 

mammals are just starting to be understood (Desforges et al., 2016; Godard-Codding et al., 2011; Jepson 

& Law, 2016; Law, 2014; Peterson et al., 2014; Peterson et al., 2015). Oil and other chemical spills are a 

specific type of ocean contamination that can have damaging effects on some marine mammal species 

directly through exposure to oil or chemicals and indirectly due to pollutants’ impacts on prey and 

habitat quality (Engelhardt, 1983; Marine Mammal Commission, 2010b; Matkin et al., 2008). 

The Mississippi Canyon-252 Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010 was the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. 

history, spilling millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Photographic evidence and field 

observations documented 11 cetacean species swimming through the oil and sheen with oil adhered to 

their skin (Dias et al., 2017). In addition, passive acoustic monitoring conducted after the spill detected 

multiple marine mammal species including sperm whale, pygmy and dwarf sperm whale, four species of 

beaked whales and at least four different Stenella species (Sidorovskaia et al., 2016). As a result, there 

were 13 dead and 178 live marine mammal strandings reported across four Gulf coast states and 

offshore waters (Wilkin et al., 2017). NOAA declared an Unusual Mortality Event for cetaceans in 2010, 

with some marine mammal strandings likely associated with this disaster. A study determined that 

bottlenose dolphins mortalities from 2010 through 2014 were likely related to the increased exposure to 

petroleum hydrocarbons from the Deepwater Horizon disaster (Venn-Watson et al., 2015). Although 

information on effects of oil and chemical spills on marine mammals is limited, they can be harmed by 

direct exposure to oil or chemicals and indirectly due to pollutants’ impacts on prey and habitat quality. 

Potential physical/physiological effects of exposure to oil and chemical spills include irritation, 

inflammation, necrosis (premature death of living tissue), and chemical burns of skin, eyes, and nose 

areas, and inhalation of toxic fumes with potential long-term respiratory effects, such as inflammation, 

pulmonary emphysema, and infection (Engelhardt, 1983; Marine Mammal Commission, 2010a). 

Ingestion of oil and dispersants directly or through feeding on contaminated prey that have eaten 

dispersants can lead to short or longer-term effects from inflammation, ulcers, bleeding, and possible 

damage to liver, kidney, and brain tissues (Engelhardt, 1983; Marine Mammal Commission, 2010a) 

On a broader scale, ocean contamination resulting from chemical pollutants inadvertently introduced 

into the environment by industrial, urban, and agricultural use is also a concern for marine mammal 

conservation and has been the subject of numerous studies (Desforges et al., 2016; Fair et al., 2010; 

Krahn et al., 2007; Krahn et al., 2009; Moon et al., 2010; Ocean Alliance, 2010). For example, the 

chemical components of pesticides used on land can flow as runoff into the marine environment and 

can bioaccumulate in the bodies of marine mammals and be transferred to their young through 

mother’s milk (Fair et al., 2010). The presence of these chemical contaminants in marine mammals has 

been assumed to put those animals at greater risk for adverse health effects and potential impact on 

their reproductive success (Fair et al., 2010; Godard-Codding et al., 2011; Krahn et al., 2007; Krahn et al., 

2009; Peterson et al., 2014; Peterson et al., 2015). Desforges et al. (2016) have suggested that exposure
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-20

3.7 Marine Mammals

to chemical pollutants may act in an additive or synergistic manner with other stressors, resulting in 

significant population level consequences. Although the general trend has been a decrease in chemical 

pollutants in the environment following their regulation, chemical pollutants remain important given 

their potential to impact marine mammals and marine life in general (Bonito et al., 2016; Jepson & Law, 

2016; Law, 2014). 

3.7.2.1.5.2 Commercial Industries

Human impacts on marine mammals have received much attention in recent decades and include 

fisheries interaction, including bycatch (accidental or indirect catch), gear entanglement, and indirect 

effects from takes of prey species, noise pollution, marine debris (ingestion and entanglement), hunting 

(both commercial and subsistence), vessel strikes, entrainment into power plant water intakes, 

increased ocean acidification, and general habitat deterioration or destruction.

Bycatch

Fishery bycatch is likely the most impactful threat to marine mammal individuals and populations and 

may account for the deaths of more marine mammals than any other cause (Geijer & Read, 2013; 

Hamer et al., 2010; Northridge, 2008; Read, 2008). In 1994, the MMPA was amended to formally 

address bycatch. The amendment requires the development of a take reduction plan when bycatch 

exceeds a level considered unsustainable and will lead to marine mammal population decline. In 

addition, NMFS develops and implements take reduction plans that help recover and prevent the 

depletion of strategic stocks of marine mammals that interact with certain fisheries.

At least in part as a result of the amendment, estimates of bycatch in the Atlantic declined by a total of 

59 percent from 1994 to 2006 (Geijer & Read, 2013). Cetacean bycatch declined by 44 percent, from 

3,153 in 1994 to 1,764 in 2006, and pinniped bycatch declined by 78 percent, from 2,210 to 476 over the 

same time period. Despite these reductions, fisheries interactions continue to be the primary humanrelated source of mortality for most marine mammal stocks (Roman et al., 2013). Regulatory efforts 

have not reduced the lethal effects of human activities on large whales in the northwest Atlantic on a 

population-range basis (Knowlton et al., 2012; Van der Hoop et al., 2013), although targeted measures 

for specific local habitats were not analyzed in these studies.

Other Fisheries Interactions

Fishery interactions other than bycatch also include entanglement from abandoned or partial nets, 

fishing line, hooks, and the ropes and lines connected to fishing gear (Bradford & Forney, 2014; Bradford 

& Lyman, 2015; Carretta et al., 2013; Carretta et al., 2014; Carretta et al., 2016b; Heckler et al., 2015; 

Saez et al., 2012). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program (2014a)

reports that abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear constitutes the vast majority of 

mysticete entanglements. 

For cetaceans in the AFTT Study Area, Cassoff et al. (2011) reported that in the western North Atlantic, 

mortality due to entanglement has slowed the recovery of some populations of mysticetes, including 

minke, Bryde’s, North Atlantic right, and humpback whales. In September 2016, two North Atlantic right 

whales were found dead off the coast of Maine and a third one was disentangled from fishing gear off 

the coast of Cape Cod (Miller, 2016). Cause of death from one of the dead right whales was determined 

to be chronic entanglement. From 1970 through 2009, death by entanglement in fishing gear was on 

aggregate the most commonly diagnosed cause of death across eight large whale species. Where the 

cause of death could be determined (43 percent of all known mortalities), 43 percent were entangled, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-21

3.7 Marine Mammals

23 percent were vessel struck, and 33 percent died of non-human-related causes (Van der Hoop et al., 

2013). Knowlton et al. (2012) summarized sublethal entanglement in North Atlantic right whales for the 

period between 1980 and 2009. Of 626 individual animals, 83 percent had been entangled at least once 

and 59 percent had been entangled more than once (Knowlton et al., 2012). 

Noise

In some locations, especially where urban or industrial activities or commercial shipping is intense, 

anthropogenic noise can be a potential habitat level stressor (Clark et al., 2009; Dunlop, 2016; Dyndo et 

al., 2015; Erbe et al., 2014; Frisk, 2012; Gedamke et al., 2016; Hermannsen et al., 2014; Li et al., 2015; 

Melcón et al., 2012; Miksis-Olds & Nichols, 2015; Nowacek et al., 2015; Pine et al., 2016; Williams et al., 

2014b). Noise is of particular concern to marine mammals because many species use sound as a primary 

sense for navigating, finding prey, avoiding predators, and communicating with other individuals. Noise 

may cause marine mammals to leave a habitat, impair their ability to communicate, or cause 

physiological stress (Erbe, 2002; Erbe et al., 2015; Hildebrand, 2009; Rolland et al., 2012; Tyack et al., 

2011). Noise can cause behavioral disturbances, mask other sounds (including their own vocalizations), 

may result in injury, and, in some cases, may result in behaviors that ultimately lead to death (Erbe et 

al., 2014; Erbe et al., 2015; National Research Council, 2003, 2005; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 

2009; Tyack, 2009; Würsig & Richardson, 2008). Anthropogenic noise is generated from a variety of 

sources, including commercial shipping, oil and gas exploration and production activities, commercial 

and recreational fishing (including fish-finding sonar, fathometers, shoreline construction projects, and 

acoustic deterrent and harassment devices), foreign navies, recreational boating and whale-watching 

activities, offshore power generation (including offshore windfarms), and research (including sound 

from air guns, sonar, and telemetry).

Vessel noise in particular is a major contributor to noise in the ocean and intensively used inland waters. 

Commercial shipping’s contribution to ambient noise in the ocean has increased by as much as 

12 decibels (dB) between the 1960s and 2005 (Hildebrand, 2009; McDonald et al., 2008). Frisk (2012)

confirms 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. The increase in noise is associated with an increase in commercial 

shipping, which correlates with global economic growth (Frisk, 2012). Subsequently, Miksis-Olds and 

Nichols (2015) have demonstrated that increasing trends of low-frequency ocean sound levels are not 

uniform across the globe. 

In 2016, construction to expand the Panama Canal was completed, which increased the canal’s capacity 

to accommodate larger container ships. In July 2016, the Port of Baltimore received the first container 

ship, a 1,095-ft. Taiwanese cargo ship, that traveled through the expanded canal (Campbell, 2016). One 

potential impact from this expansion includes a shift of vessel traffic from the West Coast to the Gulf 

and East Coasts, increasing the number of larger container ships transiting through the Atlantic and Gulf 

Coasts. Key international trade advisers predict that no more than 5 percent of containerized imports 

currently routed through the West Coast would be diverted to the Gulf and East Coasts; however, it is 

still too early to evaluate the impact to U.S. ports from the expansion (Kruse, 2016) or how it will impact 

ocean noise levels. 

In many areas of the world, oil and gas seismic exploration in the ocean is undertaken using groups of air 

guns towed behind large research vessels. The airguns convert high pressure air into very strong shock 

wave impulses that are designed to return information off the various buried layers of sediment under 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-22

3.7 Marine Mammals

the seafloor. Seismic exploration surveys last many days and cover vast overlapping swaths of the ocean 

area being explored. Most of the impulse energy produced by these airguns is heard as low frequency 

sound, which can travel long distances and has the potential to impact marine mammals. The NMFS 

routinely issues permits for the taking of marine mammals associated with these commercial activities.

Hunting

Commercial hunting, as in whaling and sealing operations, provided the original impetus for marine 

mammal management efforts and has driven much of the early research on cetaceans and pinnipeds 

(Twiss & Reeves, 1999). With the enactment of the MMPA and the 1946 International Convention for 

the Regulation of Whaling, hunting-related mortality has decreased over the last 40 years. Unregulated 

harvests are still considered as direct threats; however, since passage of the MMPA, there have been 

relatively few serious calls for culls of marine mammals in the United States compared with other 

countries, including Canada (Roman et al., 2013). 

Since 1971 the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been regulating the commercial 

hunting of seals, including harp, hooded, and gray seals. Of the six species of seals found off the Atlantic 

coast of Canada, the harp seal is the most abundant and accounts for almost all the seals harvested 

commercially, followed by small numbers of gray seals and very few hooded seals (Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada, 2011). Ringed and bearded seals are primarily harvested for subsistence purposes, but it is 

prohibited to harvest harbor seals (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2011). Approximately 70 percent of 

Canadian seal harvests occurs in an area off the north and east coasts of Newfoundland and southern 

Labrador. Total allowable catches for each species are established and based on the long-term impacts 

of various harvest levels. For the 2016 hunting season, total allowable catches for hooded seals and harp 

seals are 8,200 and 400,000 animals, respectively, which includes remaining quotas rolled over from the 

2015 hunting season (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2016a). Harp seal quotas are shared as percentages 

for the Quebec North Shore, Magdalen Islands, Western Newfoundland, and Gulf/Maritime Provinces

(Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2011). Hooded seals are not authorized to be harvested in the Gulf of St. 

Lawrence. Gray seal hunts typically occur along the eastern shore of Nova Scotia and in the Southern 

Gulf of St. Lawrence, from early February to early March. The total allowable catch for 2016 is 60,000 

gray seals and includes a rollover from 2015 quotas (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2016b). The Front 

Sealing Areas, covering nearshore areas of Newfoundland and Labrador, and portions of the Gulf of St. 

Lawrence area, covering nearshore areas of Nova Scotia, overlap with the AFTT Study Area. 

Vessel Strike

Ship strikes are also a growing issue for most large marine mammals, although mortality may be a more 

significant concern for species that occupy areas with high levels of vessel traffic, because the likelihood 

of encounter would be greater (Van der Hoop et al., 2013). 

Since 1995, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard have reported all known or suspected vessel collisions 

with whales to NMFS. The assumed underreporting of whale collisions by vessels other than U.S. Navy 

or U.S. Coast Guard makes any comparison of data involving vessel strikes between Navy vessels and 

other vessels heavily biased. Between 2010 and 2014, there were 71 confirmed vessel strikes of baleen 

whales reported along the Atlantic Canadian Provinces, the U.S. Atlantic Coast, and the Gulf of Mexico, 

34 of which resulted in mortality (Henry et al., 2016). Forty-seven of these strikes either occurred or 

likely occurred within U.S. waters. Species impacted included North Atlantic right whale, humpback

whale, fin whale, sei whale, and minke whale. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-23

3.7 Marine Mammals

An investigation of large whale strandings, mortalities, and necropsies reported between 1970 and 2009 

on the Atlantic coasts of the United States and Canada found that, while vessel strike was the third 

leading cause of death for all marine mammal species combined, it was the main leading cause of death 

for fin and right whales alone (Van der Hoop et al., 2013). Impacts from ship strikes may have 

population-level implications for specific marine mammal species, particularly in small populations and 

possibly on larger scales (Laist et al., 2001; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007; Vanderlaan et al., 2009). Based 

on their behavior, North Atlantic right whales are significantly more vulnerable to ship strikes, and their 

small population size increases the likelihood of negative consequences to their population compared 

with other marine mammal species (Huntington, 2009; Knowlton & Kraus, 2001; Vanderlaan & Taggart, 

2007). The North Atlantic right whale is two orders of magnitude more prone to vessel strike when the 

number of species-specific strikes are normalized by population sizes (Vanderlaan & Taggart, 2007). 

Findings also indicate that, to date, regulations and restrictions (both mandatory and voluntary) on 

vessel speeds and routing have not had a measurable effect on reducing the number of marine mammal 

mortalities from vessel strikes (Van der Hoop et al., 2015). For example, female right whales appear to 

be struck more often than males, which has detrimental effects for species recovery (Van der Hoop et 

al., 2012). Indeed, it has been suggested that preventing two female right whale mortalities per year 

may increase population growth to recovery levels (Fujiwara & Caswell, 2001). Similarly, West Indian 

manatees are highly susceptible to vessel strikes due to their inland and coastal distribution and overlap 

with high levels of vessel traffic, making vessel strikes the leading anthropogenic cause of manatee

mortality (Rommel et al., 2007). 

Power Plant Entrainment

Coastal power plants use seawater as a coolant during power plant operation. Intakes into these plants 

can sometimes trap (i.e., entrain) marine mammals that swim too close to the intake pipe. Power plant 

entrainment contributes to human-related mortalities for gray seals (Waring et al., 2016). Conversely, 

Florida manatees rely on warm-water refuges typically associated with warm-water discharges from 

coastal power plants for winter habitats (Laist et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.1.5.3 Disease and Parasites

Just as in humans, disease affects marine mammal health, especially older animals. Occasionally, disease 

epidemics can also injure or kill a large percentage of a population (Keck et al., 2010; Paniz-Mondolfi & 

Sander-Hoffmann, 2009). For example, since July 2013, bottlenose dolphins from all age classes have 

been stranding at elevated rates along the Atlantic coast from New York to Florida. Some live animals 

have stranded, but most were found dead. NMFS has attributed this unusual mortality event to 

cetacean morbillivirus (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, 2016). 

Mass die-offs of some marine mammal species have been linked to toxic algal blooms, which occur as 

larger organisms consume multiple prey containing those toxins, thereby accumulating fatal doses. An 

example is domoic acid poisoning of California sea lions and northern fur seals from the diatom Pseudo 

nitzschia spp. (Doucette et al., 2006; Fire et al., 2008; Lefebvre 2010; Torres de la Riva et al., 2009). A 

comprehensive study that sampled over 900 marine mammals across 13 species, including several 

mysticetes, odontocetes, pinnipeds, and mustelids, found detectable concentrations of domoic acid in 

all 13 species and saxitoxin, a toxin absorbed from ingesting dinoflagellates, in 10 of the 13 species 

(Lefebvre et al., 2016). 

Mass mortality events of bottlenose dolphins and Florida manatees in Gulf waters and along the Florida 

Atlantic coast have been caused by severe blooms of Karenia brevis, a toxic algal species responsible for 

red tides (Fire et al., 2008; Fire et al., 2015; Keck et al., 2010; Paniz-Mondolfi & Sander-Hoffmann, 2009). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-24

3.7 Marine Mammals

Additionally, all marine mammals have parasites that, under normal circumstances, probably do little 

overall harm but, under certain conditions, can cause serious health problems or even death (Bull et al., 

2006; Fauquier et al., 2009; Jepson et al., 2005). 

3.7.2.1.5.4 Invasive Species

There are no known threats to marine mammals from invasive species in the Study Area.

3.7.2.1.5.5 Climate Change

The global climate is warming and impacting some populations of marine mammals (Baker et al., 2016; 

Fleming et al., 2015; Salvadeo et al., 2010; Shirasago-Germán et al., 2015; Simmonds & Eliott, 2009). 

Climate change can affect marine mammal species directly through habitat loss (especially for species 

that depend on ice or terrestrial areas) or gain, which may result in shifting distribution to match 

physiological tolerance under changing environmental conditions (Doney et al., 2012). Climate change 

can also affect marine mammals indirectly via impacts on prey, changing prey distributions and 

locations, and changes in water temperature. Species or populations with limited ranges, specialized 

diets, or similarly limiting ecological features may be particularly vulnerable to a changing climate (Baker 

et al., 2016). In more northern latitudes, the loss of sea ice and changing ice habitat are impacting 

marine mammals that are dependent on ice for resting, foraging, and reproduction (Jay et al., 2012; 

Rode et al., 2014). Changes in prey can impact marine mammal foraging success, which in turn affects 

reproduction success and survival. Warmer ocean temperatures may appear to benefit cold-sensitive 

marine species, such as the Florida manatee; however, findings suggest that major threats to manatee 

populations, including vessel strikes from increased vessel traffic and harmful algal blooms, would likely 

increase as a result of climate change (Edwards, 2013). 

Harmful algal blooms may become more prevalent in warmer ocean temperatures with increased 

salinity levels, such that blooms will begin earlier, last longer, and cover a larger geographical range 

(Edwards, 2013; Moore, 2008). Warming ocean waters have been linked to the spread of harmful algal 

blooms into the North Pacific where waters had previously been too cold for most of these algae to 

thrive. The spread of the algae and associated blooms has led to disease in marine mammals in locations 

where algae-caused diseases had not been previously known (Lefebvre et al., 2016). 

Climate change may indirectly influence marine mammals through changes in human behavior, such as

increased shipping and oil and gas extraction, which benefit from sea ice loss (Alter et al., 2010). 

Ultimately, impacts from global climate change may result in an intensification of current and ongoing 

threats to marine mammals (Edwards, 2013). In addition, the ability of marine mammals to alter 

behaviors may serve as a buffer against measurable climate change–induced impacts and could delay or 

mask any adverse effects until critical thresholds are reached (Baker et al., 2016). 

Marine mammals are influenced by climate-related phenomena, such as storms and other extreme 

weather patterns such as the 2015–2016 El Niño in the ocean off the U.S. west coast. Generally, not 

much is known about how large storms and other weather patterns affect marine mammals other than 

the fact that mass strandings (when two or more marine mammals become beached or stuck in shallow 

water) sometimes coincide with hurricanes, typhoons, and other tropical storms (Bradshaw et al., 2006; 

Marsh, 1989; Rosel & Watts, 2008) or other oceanographic conditions. There have also been 

correlations in time and space between strandings and the occurrence of earthquakes. However, there 

has been no scientific investigation demonstrating evidence for or against a relationship between 

earthquakes and the occurrence of marine mammal strandings. Indirect impacts may include altered 

water chemistry in estuaries (low dissolved oxygen or increased nutrient loading), causing massive fish 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-25

3.7 Marine Mammals

kills (Burkholder et al., 2004), changing prey distribution and availability for cetaceans (Stevens et al., 

2006). Human responses to extreme weather events may indirectly affect behavior and reproductive 

rates of marine mammals. For example, Miller et al. (2010) reported an increase in reproductive rates in 

bottlenose dolphins in the Mississippi Sound after Hurricane Katrina, presumably resulting from an 

increase in fish abundance due to a reduction in fisheries landings, a decrease in recreational and 

commercial boat activities (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007b), and an increase in the number of 

reproductively active females available during the breeding seasons following the storm. Smith et al. 

(2013) supplemented the findings from this study and documented a marked increase in foraging 

activity in newly identified foraging areas that were observed during the 2-year study period after the 

storm. 

Habitat deterioration and loss is a major concern for almost all coastal and inshore species of marine 

mammals, with effects ranging from depleting a habitat’s prey base to the complete loss of habitat 

(Ayres et al., 2012; Kemp, 1996; Smith et al., 2009). Many researchers predict that if oceanic 

temperatures continue to rise with an associated effect on marine habitat and prey availability, then 

either changes in foraging or life history strategies, including poleward shifts in many marine mammal 

species distributions, should be anticipated (Alter et al., 2010; Fleming et al., 2015; Ramp et al., 2015;

Salvadeo et al., 2010; Sydeman et al., 2015). Poloczanska et al. (2016) analyzed climate change impact 

data that integrate multiple climate-influenced changes in ocean conditions (i.e., temperature, 

acidification, dissolved oxygen, and rainfall) to assess anticipated changes to a number of key ocean 

fauna across representative areas. In relation to the AFTT Study Area, the density of krill, an important 

prey item for marine mammals, has likely decreased in the southwest Atlantic because phytoplankton, a 

food source for krill, are also declining with warming temperatures and decreasing sea ice extent 

(Poloczanska et al., 2016). However, Poloczanska et al. (2016) also reports that zooplankton have 

displayed the highest rate of range expansion within the northeast Atlantic, supporting the general 

expectation that marine species will shift poleward within open oceans. On the other hand, for the 

northern Gulf of Mexico where coastlines prohibit poleward distributional shifts, marine species 

distributions, including fish and marine invertebrates, have displayed a depth shift toward cooler waters 

(Poloczanska et al., 2016). A similar marine mammal distributional response may occur based on 

observations made on select prey species, but marine mammal responses to climate change are 

currently unknown (Poloczanska et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.1.5.6 Marine Debris

Marine debris is a global threat to marine mammals (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Marine Debris Program, 2014). A literature review by Baulch and Perry (2014), found that 56 percent of 

cetacean species are documented as having ingested marine debris. Interactions between marine 

mammals and marine debris, including derelict fishing gear and plastics, are significant sources of injury 

and mortality (Baulch & Perry, 2014). Comparing the Baulch and Perry review with that conducted by

Laist (1997), the percentage of marine mammal species with documented records of entanglement in or 

ingestion of marine debris has increased from 43 to 66 percent over the past 18 years (Bergmann et al., 

2015). Ingestion of marine debris by marine mammals is a less well-documented cause of mortality than 

entanglement, but it is a growing concern (Bergmann et al., 2015; Jacobsen et al., 2010). Baulch and 

Perry (2014) found that ingestion of debris has been documented in 48 cetacean species, with rates of 

ingestion as high as 31 percent in some populations. Attributing cause of death to marine debris 

ingestion is difficult (Laist, 1997), but ingestion of plastic bags and Styrofoam has been identified as a 

cause of injury or death of minke whales (De Pierrepont et al., 2005) and deep-diving odontocetes, 

including beaked whales (Baulch & Perry, 2014), pygmy sperm whales (Stamper et al., 2006; Tarpley & 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-26

3.7 Marine Mammals

Marwitz, 1993), and sperm whales (Jacobsen et al., 2010; Sadove & Morreale, 1989). Manatee rescue

records from 1993 to 2007 show that 27 percent of the cases were directly or indirectly associated with 

entanglement in or ingestion of marine debris, making entanglement and ingestion the top reason for 

rescuing manatees (Reinert et al., 2011). 

In late 2009 through 2010, seafloor surveys were conducted about 64 kilometers (km) off the coast of 

Jacksonville, Florida, encompassing an area of approximately 754 square kilometers and about 86 km

east of Mayport, Florida, of an area approximately 2,400 square kilometers within the Jacksonville 

Operating Area (OPAREA) (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2010, 2011c). These surveys were conducted to 

provide bottom mapping and habitat characterization in the Undersea Warfare Training Range within 

the Jacksonville OPAREA. Incidentally, images from a remotely operated vehicle used during groundtruthing operations revealed a few types of military expended materials, including a marine location 

marker (smoke float) used for antisubmarine warfare and search and rescue operations, as well as a 76-

millimeter (mm) cartridge like that expended from U.S. Navy frigate usage (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2010, 2011c). While the amount of marine debris (non-military) observed during the surveys far 

exceeded the amount of military expended materials that was encountered, the reports did not quantify 

the levels of either marine debris or military expended materials present in the area. 

An estimated 75 percent or more of marine debris consists of plastic (Derraik, 2002; Hardesty & Wilcox, 

2017). High concentrations of floating plastic have been reported in the central areas of the North 

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (Cozar et al., 2014). Plastic pollution found in the oceans is primarily 

dominated by particles smaller than 1 centimeter (cm), commonly referred to as microplastics (HidalgoRuz et al., 2012). Other researchers have defined microplastics as particles with a diameter ranging from 

a few micrometers up to 5 mm and are not readily visible to the naked eye (Andrady, 2011). 

Microplastic fragments and fibers found throughout the oceans result from the breakdown of larger 

items, such as clothing, packaging, and rope and have accumulated in the pelagic zone and sedimentary 

habitats (Thompson et al., 2004). Results from the investigation by Browne et al. (2011) have also 

suggested that microplastic fibers are discharged in sewage effluent resulting from the washing of 

synthetic fiber clothes. The region of highest plastic concentration in the Northwest Atlantic is 

associated with the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre, and lower concentrations were measured along the 

Florida coast and the Gulf of Maine (Law et al., 2010). Adjacent to the AFTT Study Area, Lusher et al. 

(2014) calculated the microplastic density in the Northeast Atlantic to be 2.46 particles per cubic meter. 

Filter feeders, such as baleen whales, routinely encounter microplastics without any apparent ill effects 

because there are no enzymes to breakdown the synthetic polymers, so they are never digested or 

absorbed (Andrady, 2011). Besseling et al. (2015) documented the first occurrence of microplastics in 

the intestines of a humpback whale, and while the primary cause of the stranding was not determined,

the researchers found multiple types of microplastics ranging in size from 1 mm to 17 cm. There is still a 

large knowledge gap about possible negative effects of microplastics but it remains a concern (Besseling 

et al., 2015). Specifically, the propensity of plastics to absorb and concentrate dissolved pollutant 

chemicals, such as persistent organic pollutants, is a concern because microfauna may be able to digest 

plastic nanoparticles, facilitating the delivery of dissolved pollutant chemicals across trophic levels and

making them bioavailable to larger marine organisms, such as marine mammals (Andrady, 2011). 

Marine mammals as a whole are subject to the various influences and factors delineated in this section. 

If specific threats to individual species in the Study Area are known, those threats are described below in 

individual species accounts.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-27

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.2 Endangered Species Act-Listed Species

As shown in Table 3.7-1 the marine mammal species and applicable stocks listed under the ESA and 

occurring within in the Study Area are bowhead whale, North Atlantic right whale, blue whale, fin whale, 

sei whale, sperm whale, polar bear, and West Indian manatee. The following subsections provide 

detailed species descriptions, including status and management, habitat and geographic range, 

population trends, predator and prey interactions, and species-specific threats. 

3.7.2.2.1 Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) 

3.7.2.2.1.1 Status and Management

The bowhead whale is listed as endangered under the ESA and is designated as depleted and considered 

a strategic stock under the MMPA. Three geographically distinct bowhead whale stocks are recognized 

in the Atlantic: the Spitsbergen, Baffin Bay-Davis Strait, and Hudson Bay-Fox Basin stocks (Allen & 

Angliss, 2010; Muto & Angliss, 2016; Rugh et al., 2003; Wiig et al., 2007). Satellite tracking studies of 

whales tagged from the Baffin Bay-Davis Strait and Hudson Bay-Fox Basin stocks suggested and 

confirmed these two stocks should be considered as one stock (Eastern Canada-West Greenland stock) 

based on overlapping wintering areas (Frasier et al., 2015; Heide-Jorgensen et al., 2006). These stocks do 

not occur within U.S. Atlantic waters and are not managed under NMFS jurisdiction. The Eastern 

Canada-West Greenland stock is designated as a species of special concern by the Committee on the 

Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (Frasier et al., 2015). 

3.7.2.2.1.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Bowhead whales are the northernmost of all whales and are found in arctic and subarctic regions of the 

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (55° N to 85° N). They are also found in the Bering, Beaufort, Chukchi, and 

Okhotsk Seas, as well as in the northern parts of Hudson Bay (Wiig et al., 2007). Their range can expand 

and contract depending on access through ice-filled Arctic straits (Rugh et al., 2003). Habitat selection 

varies seasonally, although this is clearly the most polar species of whale. Bowhead whales are found in 

continental slope and shelf waters during spring and summer while feeding on abundant zooplankton 

(Citta et al., 2015; Wiig et al., 2007). 

Migration is associated with ice edge movements. All but the Sea of Okhotsk stock reside in higher Arctic 

latitudes during summer and move south in fall as the ice edge grows, spending their winters within the 

marginal ice zone in lower-latitude areas (Jefferson et al., 2015). The Eastern Canada-West Greenland 

stock spends winters in northern Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait, and from Labrador across to west 

Greenland and move north to spend summers in the Canadian High Arctic and around Baffin Island 

(Heide-Jorgensen et al., 2003). Summer aggregation areas are in northern Hudson Bay and around Baffin 

Island.

Bowhead whales would likely be found only in the Labrador Current open ocean area. The winter range 

of the Eastern Canada-West Greenland stock includes the shelf areas of west Greenland, northeastern 

Hudson Bay and Hudson Strait, the mouths of Cumberland Sound and Frobisher Bay on southeast Baffin 

Island, and northern Labrador. Bowhead whales would be expected to occur in winter within the 

Newfoundland-Labrador and Western Greenland Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems from November 

through April (Heide-Jorgensen et al., 2006). Two bowhead whales were stranded on Newfoundland in 

1998 and 2005, from 45° N to 47° N and 52° W to 56° W, which at the time represented the 

southernmost records of this species in the western North Atlantic (Ledwell et al., 2007). In March 2012, 

a bowhead whale was observed in Cape Cod Bay and the same whale (identified from photographs) was 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-28

3.7 Marine Mammals

again observed in Cape Cod Bay in April 2014 (Schweitzer, 2014). These sightings, in the Northeast U.S. 

Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem now represent the southernmost record of this species in the

western North Atlantic.

3.7.2.2.1.3 Population Trends

All estimates suggest that the population numbers have increased significantly since protection of 

bowheads from commercial whaling began in the first half of the 20th century (Committee on the Status 

of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 2009). 

3.7.2.2.1.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Killer whales are the primary natural predator of the bowhead whale (George et al., 1994). Scars from 

killer whale attacks are observed on some individuals (Jefferson et al., 2015; Rugh & Shelden, 2009). 

Bowheads feed at the surface, in the water column, and near the seafloor (Rugh & Shelden, 2009). 

Preferred prey are various species of copepods and euphausiids (Budge et al., 2008; Rugh & Shelden, 

2009; Wiig et al., 2007). Laidre et al. (2007) found calanoid copepods were the primary prey of bowhead 

whales feeding off west Greenland.

3.7.2.2.1.5 Species-Specific Threats

Threats to bowhead whales include ship strikes, entanglement in fishing gear, contaminants, 

anthropogenic noise, especially from offshore oil exploration and development, and climate change. 

Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.2.2 North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) 

3.7.2.2.2.1 Status and Management 

The North Atlantic right whale population is considered one of the most critically endangered 

populations of large whales in the world (Clapham et al., 1999). The size of this stock is considered 

extremely low relative to the Optimum Sustainable Population in the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic 

Zone, and this species is listed as endangered under the ESA. A recovery plan for the North Atlantic right 

whale is in effect (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2005a). The North Atlantic right whale has been 

protected from commercial whaling since 1949 by the International Convention for the Regulation of 

Whaling (62 Stat. 1716; 161 United Nations Treaty Series 72). A NMFS ESA status review in 1996 

concluded that the western North Atlantic stock remains endangered. This conclusion was reinforced by 

the International Whaling Commission (Best et al., 2003), which expressed grave concern regarding the 

status of this stock. Relative to populations of southern right whales, there are also concerns about 

growth rate, percentage of reproductive females, and calving intervals in the North Atlantic right whale 

population. The total level of human-caused mortality and serious injury is unknown, but reported 

human-caused mortality was a minimum of three right whales per year from 2006 through 2010. Any 

mortality or serious injury to individuals within this stock should be considered significant. This is a 

strategic stock because the average annual human-related mortality and serious injury rates exceed 

potential biological removal and because the North Atlantic right whale is an endangered species.

Two ESA-designated critical habitats (Figure 3.7-3) for North Atlantic right whales have been designated 

by NMFS to encompass physical and biological features essential to conservation of the species 

(81 Federal Register 4838–4874, January 27, 2016). The northern unit includes the Gulf of Maine and 

Georges Bank region, which are key areas essential for right whale foraging. The southern unit includes 

the coast of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, which are key areas essential for 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-29

3.7 Marine Mammals

calving. These two ESA-designated critical habitats were established in January 2016 to replace three 

smaller previously ESA-designated critical habitats (Cape Cod Bay/Massachusetts Bay/Stellwagen Bank, 

Great South Channel, and the coastal waters of Georgia and Florida in the southeastern United States) 

that had been designated by NMFS in 1994 (59 Federal Register 28805, June 3, 1994). Two additional 

critical habitat areas in Canadian waters, Grand Manan Basin and Roseway Basin, were identified in 

Canada’s final recovery strategy for the North Atlantic right whale (Brown et al., 2009). 

3.7.2.2.2.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

The western North Atlantic right whale population ranges primarily from calving grounds in coastal 

waters of the southeastern United States to feeding grounds in New England waters and the Canadian 

Bay of Fundy, Scotian Shelf, and Gulf of St. Lawrence. Generally, right whales can likely be found in 

Labrador Current, North Atlantic Gyre, and Gulf Stream open ocean areas, based on limited satellite tag, 

sighting, and historical whaling data. 

Research suggests the existence of seven major habitats or congregation areas for western North 

Atlantic right whales. These include winter breeding grounds in the coastal waters of the southeastern 

United States and summer feeding grounds in the Great South Channel, Jordan Basin, Georges Bank

along its northeastern edge, Cape Cod and Massachusetts Bays, the Bay of Fundy, and the Roseway 

Basin on the Scotian Shelf. Movements within and between habitats are extensive, evidenced by one 

whale making the round-trip migration from Cape Cod to Georgia and back at least twice during the 

winter (Brown & Marx, 2000). Results from satellite tags clearly indicate that sightings separated by 

perhaps 2 weeks should not necessarily be assumed to indicate a stationary or resident animal. Instead, 

telemetry data show rather lengthy and somewhat distant excursions, including into deep water off the 

continental shelf (Baumgartner & Mate, 2005; Mate et al., 1997). 

The summer range for North Atlantic right whales includes the northeastern United States continental 

shelf, Scotian Shelf, and Newfoundland-Labrador shelf large marine ecosystems. New England waters 

are an important feeding habitat for right whales. Research suggests that right whales must locate and 

exploit extremely dense patches of zooplankton to feed efficiently (Mayo & Marx, 1990). These dense 

zooplankton patches are likely a primary characteristic of the spring, summer, and fall right whale 

habitats (Kenney et al., 1986; Kenney et al., 1995). Although feeding in the coastal waters off 

Massachusetts has been better studied than in other areas, right whale feeding has also been observed 

on the margins of Georges Bank, in the Great South Channel, in the Gulf of Maine, in the Bay of Fundy, 

and over the Scotian Shelf. The consistency with which right whales occur in such locations is relatively 

high, but these studies also highlight the high interannual variability in right whale use of some habitats. 

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified three seasonal right whale feeding areas located in or near the Study 

Area (Figure 3.7-2) based on vessel and aerial survey efforts: (1) February to April on Cape Cod Bay and 

Massachusetts Bay, (2) April to June in the Great South Channel and on the northern edge of Georges 

Bank, and (3) June and July and October to December on Jeffreys Ledge in the western Gulf of Maine. A 

potential mating area was identified in the central Gulf of Maine (from November through January) 

based on a demographic study of North Atlantic right whale habitats, and the migratory corridor area 

along the U.S. East Coast between the southern calving grounds and northern feeding areas. The 

migratory corridor was substantiated through vessel- and aerial-based survey data, photo-identification 

data, radio-tracking data, and expert judgment. North Atlantic right whales migrate south to calving 

grounds in November and December and migrate north to the feeding areas in March and April. 

Passive acoustic monitoring is demonstrating that the current understanding of the distribution and 

movements of right whales in the Gulf of Maine and surrounding waters is incomplete. Right whale calls 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-30

3.7 Marine Mammals

have been detected by autonomous passive acoustic sensors deployed between 2005 and 2010 at three 

sites (Massachusetts Bay, Stellwagen Bank, and Jeffreys Ledge) in the southern Gulf of Maine (Morano 

et al., 2012a; Mussoline et al., 2012). Acoustic detections demonstrate that right whales are present 

more than aerial survey observations indicate. Comparisons between detections from passive acoustic 

recorders with observations from aerial surveys in Cape Cod Bay between 2001 and 2005 demonstrated 

that aerial surveys found whales on approximately two-thirds of the days during which acoustic 

monitoring detected whales (Clark et al., 2010). 

The winter range for North Atlantic right whales includes the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large 

Marine Ecosystem. LaBrecque et al. (2015b) used habitat analyses of sea surface temperatures and 

water depths and aerial sightings data to delineate a calving area in the southeast Atlantic, extending 

from Cape Lookout, North Carolina, to Cape Canaveral, Florida, that overlaps with the AFTT Study Area. 

This area, identified as biologically important, encompasses waters from the shoreline to the 25-meter

(m) isobath from mid-November through late April. Passive acoustic monitoring conducted offshore of 

Cape Hatteras and in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, in 2011 and 2007, respectively, confirmed winter 

occurrence of North Atlantic right whales in these areas (McLellan et al., 2014). 

Since 2004, consistent aerial survey efforts have been conducted during the migration and calving 

season (November 15 to April 15) in coastal areas of Georgia and South Carolina to the north of 

currently defined ESA-designated critical habitat (Glass & Taylor, 2006; Khan & Taylor, 2007; Sayre & 

Taylor, 2008; Schulte & Taylor, 2010). Results suggest that this region may not only be part of the 

migratory route but also a seasonal residency area. Results from an analysis by Schick et al. (2009)

suggest that the migratory corridor of North Atlantic right whales is broader than initially estimated and 

that suitable habitat exists beyond the 20-nautical mile (NM) coastal buffer presumed to represent the 

primary migratory pathway (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2008b). Results were based on data 

modeled from two females with satellite-monitored radio tags as part of a previous study. 

Four right whale sightings were documented during monthly aerial surveys approximately 50 miles (mi.) 

(80 km) offshore of Jacksonville, Florida, from 2009 to May 2016, including a female that was observed 

giving birth in 2010 (Foley et al., 2011). These sightings occurred well outside existing ESA-designated 

critical habitat for the right whale (Foley et al., 2011; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011b). However, 

sighting data alone may not accurately represent North Atlantic right whale distribution. Beginning in 

April 2009 through May 2015, marine autonomous recording units have been deployed between 60 and 

150 km offshore from Jacksonville, Florida. While sightings have generally occurred within continental 

shelf waters offshore from northeastern Florida and southeastern Georgia, recordings of North Atlantic 

right whales were detected in deeper waters during these monitoring efforts (Kumar et al., 2013; Norris 

et al., 2012), suggesting that distribution of this species extends further offshore than sighting data 

previously indicated (Oswald et al., 2016). 

Right whales have occasionally been recorded in the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem (Moore & 

Clark, 1963; Ward-Geiger et al., 2011), but their occurrence there is likely extralimital. The few published 

records from the Gulf of Mexico represent either distributional anomalies, normal wanderings of 

occasional animals, or a more extensive historical range beyond the sole known calving and wintering

ground in the waters of the southeastern United States (Moore & Clark, 1963; Ward-Geiger et al., 2011). 

3.7.2.2.2.3 Population Trends 

The population growth rate reported for 1986–1992 by Knowlton et al. (1994) was 2.5 percent 

(CV=0.12), suggesting that the stock was showing signs of slow recovery. However, subsequent work 

suggested that survival probability of an individual (averaged at the population level) declined from 

0.99 per year in 1980 to 0.94 in 1994 (Best et al., 2001; Caswell et al., 1999). Historical patterns of 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-31

3.7 Marine Mammals

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area; SINKEX: Sinking Exercise 

Figure 3.7-2: Designated Critical Habitat Areas for North Atlantic Right Whale in the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-32

3.7 Marine Mammals

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-33

3.7 Marine Mammals

mortalities, including those in the first half of 2005, suggest an increase in the annual mortality rate 

(Kraus et al., 2005). Despite this, examination of the minimum number alive population index calculated 

from the individual sightings database (as it existed on October 25, 2013) for 1990–2010 suggests a 

positive trend and slowly accelerating trend in numbers. These data reveal a significant increase in the 

number of catalogued whales alive during this period, with a mean growth rate of 2.6 percent (Waring 

et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.2.2.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

The North Atlantic right whale is preyed on by killer whales and large sharks. Calves and juveniles are 

known to be the primary target of killer whales, and analysis of scars on some individuals suggests that 

they are also attacked by false killer whales (Jefferson et al., 2015; Kenney, 2008). 

The North Atlantic right whale preys primarily on the copepod Calanus finmarchicus (a type of 

zooplankton) and on other copepods and small invertebrates, such as krill and larval barnacles (Jefferson 

et al., 2015). Right whales are skim feeders and are known to feed below or at the surface (Kenney et al., 

2001) or within a few meters of the seafloor on near-bottom aggregations of copepods (Baumgartner, 

2009; Baumgartner et al., 2009; Warren, 2009). The copepod Calanus finmarchicus is one of the most 

common species of prey found throughout the North Atlantic right whale’s range (Baumgartner & Mate, 

2003; Jefferson et al., 2015). 

3.7.2.2.2.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Primary sources of human-caused serious injury and mortality include entanglement in fishing gear and 

ship strikes. From 2008 to 2012, the minimum annual average human-induced mortality and serious 

injury incurred by this stock was 4.55 right whales per year (Waring et al., 2016). Entanglement records 

from 1990 through 2007 maintained by NMFS Northeast Regional Office included 46 confirmed right 

whale entanglements, including right whales in weirs (stationary nets fixed in place), gillnets, and trailing 

line and buoys. Because whales often free themselves of gear following an entanglement event, scarring 

may be a better indicator of fisheries interaction than entanglement records. A review of scars detected 

on identified individual right whales over a period of 30 years (1980–2009) documented 1,032 definite, 

unique entanglement events on the 626 individual whales identified (Knowlton et al., 2012). Most 

individual whales (83 percent) were entangled at least once, and almost half of them (306 of 626) were 

definitely entangled more than once. About a quarter of the individuals identified in each year 

(26 percent) were entangled during that year. Juveniles and calves were entangled at higher rates than 

were adults. Scarring rates suggest that entanglements are occurring at about an order of magnitude 

greater than that detected from observations of whales with gear on them.

Ship strikes pose a particularly serious threat to the North Atlantic right whale. Vessel speed as well as 

angle of approach can influence the severity of ship strikes (Silber et al., 2010). Research shows that the 

probability of right whales dying after being struck by a ship is more than 80 percent when a vessel is 

traveling at 15 knots or more; when speeds are reduced to 10 knots or less, the chance of mortality 

drops to just above 20 percent. To reduce the number of ship strikes, NMFS has established regulations 

(73 Federal Register 60173–60191, October 10, 2008) imposing speed restrictions in seasonal 

management areas for commercial ships 65 ft. or longer. For additional detail on ship strikes and right 

whales, refer to Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-34

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.2.3 Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) 

3.7.2.2.3.1 Status and Management

Blue whales are listed as endangered under the ESA, and the species is designated as a depleted and 

strategic stock under the MMPA. Critical habitat is not designated for blue whales. A recovery plan is in 

place for the blue whale in U.S. waters (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998). Blue whales in the 

western North Atlantic are classified as a single stock (Waring et al., 2010). 

Widespread whaling over the last century is believed to have decreased the worldwide population to 

approximately 1 percent of its pre-whaling population size; some authors have concluded that their 

population was about 200,000 animals before whaling (Branch, 2007). There was a documented 

increase in the blue whale population size in some areas between 1979 and 1994, but there is no 

evidence to suggest an increase in the population since then (Barlow & Taylor, 2001). 

3.7.2.2.3.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

The distribution of the blue whale in the western North Atlantic generally extends from the Arctic to at 

least mid-latitude waters. Blue whales are most frequently sighted in the waters off eastern Canada, 

with the majority of recent records from the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Members of the North Atlantic 

population spend much of their time on continental shelf waters from eastern Canada (near the Quebec 

north shore) to the St. Lawrence Estuary and Strait of Belle Isle. Sightings were reported along the 

southern coast of Newfoundland during late winter and early spring (Reeves et al., 2004). Blue whales 

may be found in Labrador Current, North Atlantic Gyre, and Gulf Stream open ocean areas. Migratory 

movements in the western North Atlantic Ocean are largely unknown, but acoustic data indicate that 

blue whales winter as far north as Newfoundland and as far south as Bermuda and Florida, and they 

have been sighted along the mid-Atlantic ridge (Ryan et al., 2013). 

The blue whale is best considered as an occasional visitor in U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone 

waters, which may represent the current southern limit of its feeding range (Cetacean and Turtle 

Assessment Program, 1982). All five sightings described in the foregoing two references occurred in 

August. Using the U.S. Navy’s Sound Surveillance System, blue whales were detected and tracked 

acoustically in much of the North Atlantic, including in subtropical waters north of the West Indies and 

in deep water east of the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone, indicating the potential for longdistance movements (Clark, 1995). Most of the acoustic detections were around the Grand Banks area 

of Newfoundland and west of the British Isles. Historical blue whale observations collected by Reeves et 

al. (2004) show a broad longitudinal distribution in tropical and warm temperate latitudes during the 

winter months, with a narrower, more northerly distribution in summer. Blue whales tagged in the Gulf 

of St. Lawrence in late fall left the St. Lawrence Estuary and used habitat more than 1,000 km offshore, 

as well as shelf and coastal waters of the eastern United States and Canada (Lesage et al., 2016). 

Although the exact extent of their southern boundary and wintering grounds are not well understood, 

blue whales are occasionally found in waters off the U.S. Atlantic coast (Waring et al., 2013). Monthly 

aerial surveys have been conducted offshore of Cape Hatteras and Onslow Bay, North Carolina, since 

May 2011, although no visual sightings of blue whales have been documented. However, acoustic 

monitoring has also been conducted in the same region since 2011 and resulted in the detections of 

blue whales on bottom-mounted high-frequency acoustic recording packages (McLellan et al., 2014; 

Read et al., 2014). Yochem & Leatherwood (1985) summarized records that suggested an occurrence of 

this species south to Florida and the Gulf of Mexico, although the actual southern limit of the species’ 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-35

3.7 Marine Mammals

range is unknown. Blue whale strandings have been recorded as far south as the Caribbean and the Gulf 

of Mexico (Waring et al., 2010). 

3.7.2.2.3.3 Population Trends 

There are insufficient data to determine population trends for this species (Waring et al., 2010). 

3.7.2.2.3.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

This species preys almost exclusively on various types of zooplankton, especially krill. They lunge feed 

and consume approximately 6 tons (5,500 kilograms) of krill per day (Jefferson et al., 2015; Pitman et al., 

2007). They often feed at depths greater than 100 m, where their prey maintains dense groupings 

(Acevedo-Gutiérrez et al., 2002; Calambokidis et al., 2009; Croll et al., 2001). Blue whales are 

documented as being preyed on by killer whales (Jefferson et al., 2015; Pitman et al., 2007). There is 

little evidence that killer whales attack this species in the North Atlantic or southern hemisphere, but 25 

percent of photo-identified whales in the Gulf of California carry rake scars from killer whale attacks 

(Sears & Perrin, 2008). 

3.7.2.2.3.5 Species-Specific Threats

Threats to North Atlantic blue whales are poorly known but may include ship strikes, pollution, 

entanglement in fishing gear, and long-term changes in climate that may affect their prey distribution. 

Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals. 

3.7.2.2.4 Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) 

3.7.2.2.4.1 Status and Management 

The fin whale is listed as endangered under the ESA and is considered a depleted and strategic stock

under the MMPA. A final recovery plan was published in July 2010 for fin whales in U.S. waters. The 

International Whaling Commission recognizes seven management stocks of fin whales in the North 

Atlantic Ocean: (1) Nova Scotia (2) Newfoundland-Labrador, (3) West Greenland, (4) East GreenlandIceland, (5) North Norway, (6) West Norway-Faroe Islands, and (7) British Isles-Spain-Portugal. NMFS 

assumes management of the western North Atlantic stock, which is likely equivalent to the Nova Scotia 

management stock. The stock identity of North Atlantic fin whales has received relatively little attention, 

and whether the current stock boundaries define biologically isolated units has long been uncertain

(Waring et al., 2016). Fin whales in the Gulf of St. Lawrence may be a separate stock (Ramp et al., 2014). 

3.7.2.2.4.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Fin whales prefer temperate and polar waters and are rarely seen in warm tropical waters (Reeves et al., 

2002a). They typically congregate in areas of high productivity and spend most of their time in coastal 

and shelf waters but can often be found in waters approximately 2,000 m deep (Aissi et al., 2008; 

Reeves et al., 2002a). Fin whales are often seen closer to shore after periodic patterns of upwelling 

(underwater motion) and the resultant increased krill density (Azzellino et al., 2008). This species is 

highly adaptable, following prey, typically off the continental shelf (Azzellino et al., 2008; Panigada et al., 

2008). Fin whales are likely common in Labrador Current, North Atlantic Gyre, and Gulf Stream open 

ocean areas while undergoing seasonal migrations. However, some fin whales remain in higher latitudes 

during colder months and in lower latitudes during warmer months, indicating that seasonal fin whale 

movements differ from the seasonal migrations of other mysticetes, such as blue whales and humpback 

whales (Edwards et al., 2015). Fin whales are also common off the Atlantic coast of the United States in 

waters immediately off the coast seaward to the continental shelf (at about the 1,000-fathom contour). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-36

3.7 Marine Mammals

In the mid-Atlantic region, they tend to occur north of Cape Hatteras where they accounted for about 

46 percent of the large whales observed in surveys conducted between 1978 and 1982 (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2010). During the summer, fin whales in this region tend to congregate in feeding 

areas between 41°20’ N and 51°00’ N, from the shore seaward to the 1,000-fathom contour. In the 

western Atlantic, they winter from the edge of sea ice (near the Gulf of St. Lawrence) south to the Gulf 

of Mexico and the West Indies (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2010). 

Fin whales are observed in the Gulf of Maine, the Bay of Fundy, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and in offshore 

areas of Nova Scotia (Coakes et al., 2005; Johnston et al., 2005). Near the Bay of Fundy, fin whales are 

known to congregate close to the tip of Campobello Island, where they feed within localized upwellings 

and fronts in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (Johnston et al., 2005). 

Fin whale sightings and acoustic detections are greatest in New England waters during spring and 

summer, with scattered sightings over the northeast shelf in winter, indicating that some fin whales are 

present during the non-feeding season (Hain et al., 1992; Morano et al., 2012b; Waring et al., 2014). Fin 

whales are also observed in the Gulf of Maine, the Bay of Fundy, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and in 

offshore areas of Nova Scotia (Coakes et al., 2005; Johnston et al., 2005). Near the Bay of Fundy, fin 

whales are known to congregate close to the tip of Campobello Island, where they feed within localized 

upwellings and fronts in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (Johnston et al., 

2005). Acoustic data from the U.S. Navy’s Sound Surveillance System arrays suggest that animals 

undertaking southward migrations in the fall generally travel south past Bermuda to the West Indies 

(Clark, 1995); however, a migration corridor for fin whales in the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone is 

not known (LaBrecque et al., 2015b). 

New England waters are considered a major feeding ground for fin whales, and there is evidence that 

females continually return to this site (Waring et al., 2010). Forty-nine percent of fin whales sighted in 

the feeding grounds of Massachusetts Bay were sighted again within the same year, and 45 percent 

were sighted again in multiple years (Waring et al., 2010). LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified three 

feeding areas for fin whales in the North Atlantic within the Study Area: (1) June to October in the 

northern Gulf of Maine, (2) year-round in the southern Gulf of Maine, and (3) March to October east of 

Montauk Point, as substantiated through vessel-based survey data, photo-identification data, and 

expert judgment.

Calving may take place during October to January in latitudes of the U.S. mid-Atlantic region; however, it 

is unknown where calving, mating, and wintering occur for most of the population (Hain et al., 1992). 

Results from the Navy’s Sound Surveillance System (Clark, 1995) indicate a substantial deep-ocean 

distribution of fin whales. It is likely that fin whales occurring in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the 

Atlantic Ocean undertake migrations into Canadian waters, open-ocean areas, and perhaps even 

subtropical or tropical regions. However, the popular notion that entire fin whale populations make 

distinct annual migrations like some other mysticetes has questionable support from the data. 

Aerial surveys conducted monthly around the Norfolk Canyon began in January 2015 and have resulted 

in eight fin whale sightings, six of which were documented in May 2016.

Fin whales have been detected frequently throughout the winter months during passive acoustic 

monitoring efforts conducted from 2007 through 2015 within the continental shelf break and slope 

waters off Onslow Bay, North Carolina (Hodge et al., 2014, 2015, 2016; U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2013c). Aerial surveys conducted monthly offshore of Cape Hatteras since May 2011 have resulted in 

seven total sightings of fin whales, primarily during the fall and spring (McLellan et al., 2014). Additional 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-37

3.7 Marine Mammals

sightings during small vessel fieldwork conducted off the coast of Cape Hatteras survey area between 

July 2009 and December 2014 occurred in 2012 (one individual) and 2013 (two individuals) (Foley et al., 

2015b). Visual surveys, acoustic and satellite tagging, passive acoustic monitoring, biopsy, and photoidentification efforts conducted from January 2014 to December 2014 resulted in three biopsy samples 

in 2013 and a new photo-identification catalogue in 2014 for a fin whale that was previously observed 

offshore of Cape Hatteras in 2013 (Foley et al., 2015b). 

Visual surveys and passive acoustic monitoring conducted from 2007 to 2011 in Onslow Bay, North 

Carolina, indicate fin whale occurrence in this area between late fall and early spring (Hodge, 2011). 

Monthly aerial surveys conducted between June 2007 and April 2011 only resulted in one sighting of fin 

whales in March 2010. However, high-frequency recording packages deployed between November 2007 

and April 2010 in Onslow Bay detected 20-Hz pulses from fin whales primarily in the winter months, 

starting in November and continuing through mid-April, suggesting that fin whales are migrating past 

Onslow Bay during this time (Hodge, 2011). 

In the western Atlantic, limited data indicate that some fin whales winter from the edge of sea ice (near 

the Gulf of St. Lawrence) south to the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies (Clark, 1995). 

3.7.2.2.4.3 Population Trends 

A population trend analysis has not been conducted for this stock (Waring et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.2.4.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

This species preys on small invertebrates such as copepods, as well as squid and schooling fishes such as 

capelin, herring, and mackerel (Goldbogen et al., 2006; Jefferson et al., 2015). The fin whale is not 

known to have a significant number of predators. However, in regions where killer whales are abundant, 

some fin whales exhibit attack scars on their flippers, flukes, and flanks, suggesting possible predation by 

killer whales (Aguilar, 2009). 

3.7.2.2.4.5 Species-Specific Threats

Fin whales are susceptible to both ship strikes and entanglement in fishing gear. Section 3.7.2.1.5

(General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.2.5 Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis) 

3.7.2.2.5.1 Status and Management 

The sei whale is listed as endangered under the ESA and is considered a depleted and strategic stock

under the MMPA. Critical habitat is not designated for sei whales. A recovery plan for the sei whale was 

finalized in 2011 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2011b). There are two stocks for the sei whale in 

the North Atlantic: a Nova Scotia stock and a Labrador Sea stock (Waring et al., 2013; Waring et al., 

2016). The Nova Scotia stock is considered in the management unit under NMFS jurisdiction; it includes 

the continental shelf waters of the northeastern United States and extends northeastward to south of 

Newfoundland. The Labrador Sea stock is outside of NMFS jurisdiction but occurs within the Study Area. 

3.7.2.2.5.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Sei whales have a worldwide distribution and are found primarily in cold temperate to subpolar 

latitudes. Sei whales are typically found in the open ocean and are rarely observed near the coast

(Jefferson et al., 2015); (Horwood, 2009). They are generally found between 10° and 70° latitudes. 

Satellite tagging data indicate sei whales feed and migrate east to west across large sections of the 

North Atlantic (Olsen et al., 2009); they are not often seen within the equatorial Atlantic. In the Study 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-38

3.7 Marine Mammals

Area, the open ocean range includes the Labrador Current, North Atlantic Gyre, and Gulf Stream open 

ocean areas. 

During the winter, sei whales are found from 20° N to 23° N and during the summer from 35° N to 50° N 

(Horwood, 2009; Masaki, 1976, 1977; Smultea et al., 2010). They are considered absent or at very low 

densities in most equatorial areas and in the Arctic Ocean. Sei whales spend the summer feeding in 

subpolar high latitudes and return to lower latitudes to calve in winter. However, no migratory corridor 

for sei whales has been identified in U.S. Atlantic waters (LaBrecque et al., 2015b). There are no known 

sei whale mating or calving grounds in U.S. Atlantic waters (LaBrecque et al., 2015b). Whaling data 

provide some evidence of varied migration patterns, based on reproductive class, with females arriving 

at and departing from feeding areas earlier than males (Horwood, 1987; Perry et al., 1999). Sei whales 

are known to swim at speeds greater than 25 km per hour and may be one of the fastest cetaceans, 

after the fin whale (Horwood, 1987; Jefferson et al., 2015). 

The range of the Nova Scotia stock includes the continental shelf waters of the northeastern United 

States and extends northeastward to south of Newfoundland. During the feeding season, a large portion 

of the Nova Scotia sei whale stock is centered in northerly waters of the Scotian Shelf (Waring et al., 

2013). The range of the Labrador Sea stock likely includes continental shelf waters near Labrador and 

Newfoundland, although satellite tag data indicate that most of that stock may use the deeper water 

areas between Greenland and Labrador (Prieto et al., 2014). Using data from vessel-based surveys, 

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) delineated a feeding area for sei whales in the northeast Atlantic between the 

25-m contour off coastal Maine and Massachusetts to the 200-m contour in central Gulf of Maine, 

including the northern shelf break area of Georges Bank. The feeding area also includes the southern 

shelf break area of Georges Bank from 100 to 2,000 m and the Great South Channel. Feeding activity in 

the U.S. Atlantic waters is concentrated from May through November with a peak in July and August. 

The southern portion of the species’ range during spring and summer includes the northern portions of 

the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank. 

During spring and summer, sei whales occur in waters from the Bay of Fundy to northern Narragansett 

Bay. Large concentrations are often observed along the northern flank, eastern tip, and southern shelf 

break of Georges Bank. During the fall, sei whales may be found in limited shelf areas of the Northeast 

Channel and in the western Gulf of Maine (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Stimpert et 

al., 2003). Spring is the period of greatest abundance in Georges Bank and into the Northeast Channel 

area, along the Hydrographer Canyon (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Waring et al., 

2010). Although uncommon near the coastline, two strandings of sei whales have been reported on the 

Virginia coast in 2003 and 2011 (King, 2011; Swingle et al., 2014). 

Passive acoustic monitoring conducted offshore of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, since 2011 resulted in 

the detections of sei whales on bottom-mounted high-frequency acoustic recording packages that were 

not observed during visual surveys (McLellan et al., 2014). Passive acoustic monitoring conducted

offshore of Jacksonville, Florida, from 2009 through 2012 also included detections of sei whales on 

marine acoustic recording units during the winter of 2009–2010 (Oswald et al., 2016) and possible 

detections on high-frequency acoustic recording packages during the winter of 2010 and 2011 (Hodge & 

Read, 2013). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-39

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.2.5.3 Population Trends

Commercial whaling in the 19th and 20th centuries depleted populations in all areas throughout the 

species’ range. While they appear to be recovering in the northern hemisphere as a result of legal

protection, a trend analysis has not been conducted for this stock (Waring et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.2.5.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Sei whales feed on copepods, amphipods, euphausiids, shoaling fish, and squid (Horwood, 2009); 

(Nemoto & Kawamura, 1977). Feeding occurs primarily around dawn, which appears to be correlated 

with vertical migrations of prey species (Horwood, 2009). Unlike other rorquals, the sei whale skims to 

obtain its food, although like other rorqual species, it does some lunging and gulping (Horwood, 2009). 

Sei whales, like other baleen whales, are likely subject to occasional attacks by killer whales. 

3.7.2.2.5.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to sei whales in the northwest Atlantic. Section 3.7.2.1.5

(General Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.2.6 Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) 

3.7.2.2.6.1 Status and Management

The sperm whale has been listed as an endangered species since 1970 under the precursor to the ESA 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009) and is listed as depleted and strategic under the MMPA.

Whether the northwestern Atlantic population is discrete from northeastern Atlantic is currently 

unresolved. The International Whaling Commission recognizes one stock for the North Atlantic, based 

on reviews of many types of stock studies (e.g., tagging, genetics, catch data, mark and recapture, 

biochemical markers). A recovery plan is in place for the sperm whale in U.S. waters (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1998). There are currently two stocks of sperm whales recognized within the Study 

Area managed under NMFS jurisdiction: the western North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico stocks. In 

2013, NMFS determined that a petition to list the Gulf of Mexico stock as a distinct population segment 

was not warranted based on a review of best available information on physical, physiological, ecological, 

and behavioral factors (78 Federal Register 68032–68037, November 13, 2013). A 5-year review for 

sperm whales was finalized in 2015 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015b). 

3.7.2.2.6.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Sperm whales are found throughout the world’s oceans in deep waters to the edge of the ice at both 

poles (Leatherwood & Reeves, 1983; Rice, 1989; Whitehead, 2002). Sperm whales show a strong 

preference for deep waters (Rice, 1989; Whitehead, 2003). Their distribution is typically associated with 

waters over the continental shelf break, over the continental slope, and into deeper waters and midocean regions. However, in some areas, adult males are reported to consistently frequent waters with 

bottom depths less than 100 m and as shallow as 40 m (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015; 

Romero et al., 2001). Typically, sperm whale concentrations correlate with areas of high productivity. 

These areas are generally near drop-offs and areas with strong currents and steep topography (Gannier 

& Praca, 2007; Jefferson et al., 2015). Sperm whales form large matrilineal social groups consisting of 

adult females and their offspring, which generally inhabit waters greater than 1,000 m deep at latitudes 

less than 40°. Young males stay with the matrilineal group for 4 to 21 years, then leave to join bachelor 

schools consisting of young males. As males age, they are found in progressively smaller groups and at 

progressively higher latitudes. Sperm whale migration is not well understood and is not as seasonally 

based as that observed in mysticete whales.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-40

3.7 Marine Mammals

Sperm whales may be found in Labrador Current, North Atlantic Gyre, and Gulf Stream open ocean 

areas. Sperm whales are found throughout the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Gyre, and adult male 

distribution likely extends into the Labrador Current. In 1972, extensive survey cruises covering much of 

the western and central North Atlantic Ocean found high densities of sperm whales in the Gulf Stream 

region, between 40° N and 50° N and over the North Atlantic Ridge (National Marine Fisheries Service, 

2006). 

Off Nova Scotia, coastal whalers found sperm whales primarily in deep continental slope waters, 

especially in submarine canyons and around the edges of banks. During late spring and throughout the 

summer, sperm whales are found on the continental shelf in waters less than 100 m deep on the 

southern Scotian Shelf and into the northeast United States (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2006; 

Palka, 2006). High densities of sperm whales were also found in the Grand Banks of Newfoundland 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2006). 

Sperm whales that occur in the eastern U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the Atlantic Ocean likely 

represent only a fraction of the total stock. The nature of linkages of the U.S. habitat with those to the 

south, north, and offshore is unknown. Historical whaling records compiled by Schmidly (1981)

suggested an offshore distribution off the southeast United States, over the Blake Plateau, and into 

deep ocean waters. Distribution along the East Coast of the United States is centered along the shelf 

break and over the slope. In winter, sperm whales are concentrated east and northeast of Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina. In spring, the center of distribution shifts northward to east of Delaware and 

Virginia and is widespread throughout the central portion of the mid-Atlantic Bight and the southern 

portion of Georges Bank. In summer, the distribution is similar but now also includes the area east and 

north of Georges Bank and into the Northeast Channel region, as well as the continental shelf (inshore 

of the 100-m isobath) south of New England. In fall, sperm whale occurrence south of New England on 

the continental shelf is at its highest level, and there remains a continental shelf edge occurrence in the 

mid-Atlantic Bight. Similar inshore (less than 200 m) observations were made on the southwestern and 

eastern Scotian Shelf, particularly in the region of “the Gully” (Whitehead & Weilgart, 1991). 

Beginning January 2015, monthly aerial surveys have been conducted around the Norfolk Canyon, which 

to date has resulted in four sperm whale sightings during the summer and fall. Aerial surveys conducted 

offshore of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, since 2011 have resulted in common occurrence of sperm 

whales, primarily in the spring and summer months (McLellan et al., 2014). Since 2012, passive acoustic 

monitoring has been conducted within continental shelf break and slope waters off Cape Hatteras.

Sperm whale clicks have been detected consistently throughout the recording days; however, there is 

significant difference between day and night occurrence (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013c). 

Additional passive acoustic monitoring continued in this area through 2015, which resulted in detection 

of sperm whale foraging clicks on 70 percent of the recording days, demonstrating seasonal variability

patterns (Stanistreet et al., 2015). Tagging studies conducted between January and December 2014 

resulted in two sperm whale encounters between May and October and one biopsy sample collected in 

June, and the first sperm whale photo-identification catalogue match occurred in 2014 with a sperm 

whale last seen in May 2013 (Foley et al., 2015b). 

Passive acoustic monitoring conducted in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, between 2007 and 2013 

confirmed year-round occurrence of sperm whales, along with a nocturnal increase in occurrence of 

clicks and greater vocal activity on recorders located in deeper waters of the monitoring area (Hodge, 

2011; Read et al., 2014; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013c). Researchers confirmed occurrence of 

sperm whale vocalizations in Onslow Bay on a recorder deployed at water depths of 230 m and 366 m, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-41

3.7 Marine Mammals

along with regular nocturnal occurrence of sperm whale clicks near the shelf break, suggesting that 

foraging activities were occurring at that time (Hodge et al., 2013). This diel pattern is in contrast to 

what was recorded offshore of Cape Hatteras (Stanistreet et al., 2013). Habitat models also support 

findings of sperm whale occurrence in the U.S. Economic Exclusion Zone waters offshore of Onslow Bay

(Best et al., 2012). Visual surveys in Onslow Bay and analysis of remotely sensed oceanographic data 

were used to determine the effects of dynamic oceanography. The findings from this study indicate that 

the presence of Gulf Stream frontal eddies and the location of the Gulf Stream Front influenced sperm 

whale vocalization rates, among other species (Thorne et al., 2012). 

Monthly aerial surveys conducted since January 2009 offshore of Jacksonville, Florida, have only 

documented two sperm whale sightings in pelagic waters of the survey area (Cummings et al., 2016). 

Deployment of high frequency acoustic recording packages off Jacksonville from 2009 through 2015 

have resulted in zero sperm whale detections. However, sperm whales were one of the most commonly 

detected species on marine autonomous recording units deployed just beyond the shelf in approximate 

water depth of 183 m during the fall and winter of 2009 and 2010 offshore of Jacksonville (Oswald et al., 

2016). Sperm whales detections were recorded exclusively near the continental shelf break during the 

fall deployment with detections recorded every day. They were also the third most common species 

with detections on all but 2 days during the winter deployment (Oswald et al., 2016). Recordings 

showed a strong diel pattern with almost all vocalization events occurring between sunset and sunrise

(Kumar et al., 2013; Oswald et al., 2016). 

The sperm whale is the most common large cetacean in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Palka & Johnson, 

2007). The distribution of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico is strongly linked to surface oceanography, 

such as Loop Current eddies that locally increase production and availability of prey (O'Hern & Biggs, 

2009). Most sperm whale groups were found within regions of enhanced sea surface chlorophyll 

(O'Hern & Biggs, 2009). Ship-based and aerial based surveys indicate that sperm whales are widely 

distributed only in waters deeper than 200 m in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Waring et al., 2014), 

specifically inhabiting the continental slope and oceanic waters (Fulling et al., 2003; Maze-Foley & 

Mullin, 2006; Mullin & Hoggard, 2000; Mullin & Fulling, 2004; Mullin et al., 2004). Seasonal aerial 

surveys confirm that sperm whales are present in the northern Gulf of Mexico in all seasons (Hansen et 

al., 1996; Mullin et al., 1994a; Mullin & Hoggard, 2000). Sperm whales aggregate at the mouth of the 

Mississippi River and along the continental slope in or near cyclonic cold-core eddies (counterclockwise 

water movements in the northern hemisphere with a cold center) or anticyclone eddies (clockwise 

water movements in the northern hemisphere) (Davis et al., 2007). Habitat models for sperm whale 

occurrence indicate a high probability of suitable habitat along the shelf break off the Mississippi delta, 

Desoto Canyon, and western Florida (Best et al., 2012). Due to the nutrient-rich freshwater plume from 

the Mississippi Delta the continental slope waters south of the Mississippi River Delta and the 

Mississippi Canyon play an important ecological role for sperm whales (Davis et al., 2002; Weller et al., 

2000). Sightings during extensive surveys in this area consisted of mixed-sex groups of females, 

immature males, and mother-calf pairs as well as groups of bachelor males (Jochens et al., 2008; Weller 

et al., 2000). Female sperm whales have displayed a high level of site fidelity and year-round utilization 

off the Mississippi River Delta compared to males (Jochens et al., 2008), suggesting this area may also 

support year-round feeding, breeding, and nursery areas (Baumgartner et al., 2001; National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2010), although the seasonality of breeding in Gulf of Mexico sperm whales is not 

known (Jochens et al., 2008). 

In the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the continental slope waters west of the Florida Keys and the Dry 

Tortugas also support sperm whale occurrence (Maze-Foley & Mullin, 2006; Mullin & Fulling, 2004), 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-42

3.7 Marine Mammals

likely due to the influence of the Loop Current and eddies on primary productivity and prey availability

in the area (Biggs et al., 2005; Oey et al., 2005). The information for southern Gulf of Mexico waters is 

more limited, but there are sighting and stranding records from each season, with sightings widely 

distributed in continental slope waters of the western Bay of Campeche (Ortega-Ortiz, 2002). 

NMFS winter ship surveys of waters surrounding Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands indicate that 

sperm whales inhabit continental slope and oceanic waters (Roden & Mullin, 2000; Swartz & Burks, 

2000; Swartz et al., 2002). Earlier sightings from the northeastern Caribbean were reported by Erdman 

(1970), Erdman et al. (1973), and Taruski and Winn (1976), and these and other sightings from Puerto 

Rican waters are summarized by Mignucci-Giannoni (1988). For years up to 1989, Mignucci-Giannoni 

found 43 records for sperm whales in waters of Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and British Virgin Islands 

and suggested these whales occur from late fall through winter and early spring but are rare from April 

to September. In addition, sperm whales are one of the most common species to strand in waters of 

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (Mignucci-Giannoni et al., 1999). In the southeast Caribbean, both 

large and small adults, as well as calves and juveniles of different sizes, are reported (Watkins et al., 

1985). 

3.7.2.2.6.3 Population Trends 

There has been considerable variation in point estimates of northern Gulf of Mexico sperm whale 

abundance based on data collected from 1991 to 2009. Differences in temporal abundance will be 

difficult to interpret without a Gulf of Mexico-wide (including waters belonging to Mexico and Cuba) 

understanding of sperm whale abundance. Studies based on abundance and distribution surveys 

restricted to U.S. waters are unable to detect temporal shifts in distribution beyond U.S. waters that 

might account for changes in abundance (Waring et al., 2016). As a result, a trend analysis for the North 

Atlantic stock of sperm whales has not been conducted (Waring et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.2.6.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Sperm whales socialize for predator defense as well as foraging. Sperm whales feed on squid, other 

cephalopods (a type of mollusc), and bottom-dwelling fish and invertebrates (Davis et al., 2007; 

Marcoux et al., 2007; Rice, 1989). Exactly how sperm whales search for, detect, and capture their prey 

remains uncertain. Site-specific ecological factors, such as predation pressure and food availability, likely 

influence fundamental aspects of sperm whale social organization (Fais et al., 2015; Jaquet & Gendron, 

2009). False killer whales, pilot whales, and killer whales have been documented harassing and, on 

occasion, attacking sperm whales (Baird, 2009b). 

3.7.2.2.6.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to sperm whales in the northwest Atlantic or Gulf of 

Mexico. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals. 

3.7.2.2.7 Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) 

3.7.2.2.7.1 Status and Management

In May 2008, the polar bear was added as a threatened species under the ESA due to loss of sea ice 

habitat caused by climate change; it is also considered a strategic and depleted stock under the MMPA. 

Critical habitat was designated for areas of the Alaska coast in 2010, but there is no ESA-designated 

critical habitat within the AFTT Study Area. The polar bear is managed by the USFWS under the 

Department of the Interior, but it does not occur within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the Atlantic 

Ocean. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-43

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.2.7.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Polar bears can be found in multi-year pack ice throughout the Arctic, but they generally prefer annual 

ice over the continental shelf (Stirling, 2009). Typically, they are found near the floe edge and in areas of 

moving ice (Stirling, 2009). They appear to prefer areas with ice concentrations greater than 50 percent

but less than 100 percent (Rozhnov et al., 2015) and have displayed repeated annual and seasonal 

movements to the same areas within their habitat range (i.e., home-range fidelity) (Sahanatien et al., 

2015). However, they are also known to make migrations of 2,000 to 4,000 km (Jefferson et al., 2015). 

Polar bears generally do not spend much time on land, unless the ice has melted and they have no 

access to ice (Amstrup & DeMaster, 1988). Polar bears in Davis Strait, Foxe Bay, Hudson Bay, and Baffin 

Bay spend summer and autumn on shore during the ice-free period (Peacock et al., 2013). During light 

or late ice years elsewhere, polar bears undertake more extended swimming than in heavier ice years

(Durner et al., 2011; Pagano et al., 2012). During aerial surveys in the Beaufort Sea conducted between 

1987 and 2003, 3.8 percent of sightings were made in open water, and in aerial surveys conducted in 

2004, 19.9 percent of sightings occurred in open water (Monnett & Gleason, 2006). Observations of 

free-swimming polar bears from 1987 to 2003 showed that they can occur at a distance of 4.9 to 

75.3 km from land and 22 to 349 km from pack ice (Monnett & Gleason, 2006). An adult female polar 

bear in the Beaufort Sea swam continuously for 687 km over 9 days (Durner et al., 2011). 

The polar bear occurs at the northern extreme of the Study Area in association with pack ice between 

Canada and Greenland. Polar bears are found throughout the Canadian Arctic to Greenland and 

Svalbard, Norway. Historically, they were found as far south as James Bay, Newfoundland, and Iceland in 

the North Atlantic (Amstrup & DeMaster, 1988; DeMaster & Stirling, 1981). The Davis Strait polar bear 

subpopulation, which accounts for most of the polar bears that occur in the Study Area, is distributed in 

the Labrador Sea, eastern Hudson Strait, Davis Strait, and southwest Greenland (Committee on the 

Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 2002). 

3.7.2.2.7.3 Population Trends 

The Davis Strait subpopulation of polar bear is the most likely to occur within the Study Area, but the 

Foxe Basin and Baffin Bay subpopulations also occur near the Study Area (Committee on the Status of 

Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 2002; Hutchings & Festa-Bianchet, 2009). The subpopulation in Baffin 

Bay appears to be declining, whereas the subpopulations in Foxe Basin and Davis Strait are stable 

(International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2017). 

3.7.2.2.7.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Sea ice is the main platform from which polar bears forage (Auger-Methe et al., 2016). Polar bears 

obtain most of their prey from the sea but rarely hunt directly in the water (Amstrup, 2003; Jefferson et 

al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015). They feed mainly on ringed seals but are also known to take bearded, 

hooded, and harp seals (Jefferson et al., 2015). Although seals are their primary source of prey, they are 

known to hunt larger animals, such as walruses and even small beluga whales and narwhals (Rugh & 

Shelden, 1993; Stirling, 2009). Similar to other bear species, polar bears will feed on human refuse and, 

when trapped on land for long periods, are known to feed on small amounts of terrestrial vegetation 

(Amstrup, 2003). They are also known to take birds, bird eggs, and caribou (Gormezano & Rockwell, 

2013; Iles et al., 2013; Iverson et al., 2014), as well as Arctic cod (Jefferson et al., 2015). Polar bears in 

Hudson Bay and southeastern Baffin Island are known to fast for many months, while ice is melting 

during the summer, returning to the ice when it re-forms in the autumn. It appears that these animals 

have amazing fasting abilities but generally do not fast if they have regular access to sea ice throughout 

the year. Polar bears hunt by waiting near a hole in the ice used by seals for breathing and then attack 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-44

3.7 Marine Mammals

when the seal surfaces to breathe. They have a well-developed sense of smell, which they use to do 

much of their hunting (Amstrup, 2003). In at least some areas, the diets of polar bears have shifted from 

species associated with ice (ringed and bearded seals) to species less associated with ice (harbor, harp 

and hooded seals) (McKinney et al., 2009). Polar bears have no natural predators.

3.7.2.2.7.5 Species-Specific Threats

The primary threat to this species is climate change and associated sea ice loss. Changes in sea ice 

patterns thought to be caused by climate change is reducing the size, growth, reproduction, and survival 

of polar bears in affected areas and is significantly shrinking their available habitat (Amstrup, 2003; 

Durner et al., 2009). 

3.7.2.2.8 West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) 

3.7.2.2.8.1 Status and Management

In 2017, the USFWS issued a final rule to downlist the West Indian manatee from endangered to 

threatened under the ESA (82 Federal Register 16668–16704, April 5, 2017). The West Indian manatee is 

still considered a depleted and strategic stock under the MMPA. 

The West Indian manatee is divided into the Florida (Trichechus manatus latirostris) and Antillean 

(Trichechus manatus manatus) subspecies (Lefebvre et al., 2001). Both subspecies may be found in the

Study Area, although the Antillean manatee only occurs in the Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem, 

extending eastward to Puerto Rico (Lefebvre et al., 2001). The Antillean manatee (Puerto Rico stock) is 

managed by the USFWS Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office in Boqueron, Puerto Rico with 

jurisdiction only in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014a). This 

population is considered as a single population with minimal, if any subdivisions within the island. 

The Florida population is closely monitored and managed by the USFWS and the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014b). The Florida manatee 

population is divided into four management units: the Upper St. Johns River (4 percent of the 

population), Atlantic Coast (46 percent), Southwest Florida (38 percent), and Northwest Florida 

(12 percent). Data indicate that the Upper St. Johns River and Northwest Florida management units are 

flourishing, and the Atlantic Coast management unit is likely stable. The USFWS is researching the status 

of the Southwest Florida management unit (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). Preliminary analyses 

from the USFWS indicate that all four management units are doing well. 

Critical habitat is designated at multiple inland rivers and coastal waterways throughout Florida, 

although the designation does not define any primary constituent elements. The ESA-designated critical 

habitat only overlaps with the Study Area within the St. Johns River (Mayport), Banana River (Port 

Canaveral), St. Mary’s River entrance channel (Kings Bay), and a small portion of inland waters 

encompassed by the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range boundary (Figure 3.7-3). 

However, the Mayport basin and the Trident basin are not considered ESA-designated critical habitat by 

the USFWS. A petition to revise manatee ESA-designated critical habitat was submitted in 2009, and a 

12-month finding on that petition by the USFWS stated that revisions should be made, including defining 

primary constituent elements. However, sufficient funding is not currently available (75 Federal Register

1574–1581, January 12, 2010). In 2012, the USFWS issued a final rule establishing a manatee refuge in 

Kings Bay, Citrus County, Florida, which includes its tributaries and connected waters (77 Federal 

Register 15617–15635, March 16, 2012). However, this new refuge does not overlap with the Study 

Area. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-45

3.7 Marine Mammals

Notes: AFTT: Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing; OPAREA: Operating Area

Figure 3.7-3: Designated Critical Habitat Areas for Florida Manatee in the Study Area
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-46

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.2.8.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Manatees are found in coastal marine, brackish, and freshwater habitats. They are typically found in 

seagrass beds, canals, creeks, embayments, and lagoons near the mouths of rivers and sloughs (Lefebvre 

et al., 2000). Habitat selection is influenced by food, water temperatures, and freshwater resources. 

Females with calves are influenced by additional factors when selecting habitats, including ambient 

noise, currents, and increased amounts of forage (Gannon et al., 2007). Groups of manatees, sometimes 

in the hundreds, often congregate near sources of warm water (Deutsch et al., 2003; Jefferson et al., 

2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015). 

Florida manatees are found throughout the southeastern United States. Because manatees are a 

subtropical species with little tolerance for cold, they are generally restricted to the inland and coastal 

waters of peninsular Florida during the winter, when they shelter in or near warm-water springs, 

industrial effluents, and other warm-water sites (Hartman, 1979; Lefebvre et al., 2001; Stith et al., 2006). 

In warmer months, manatees leave these sites and can disperse great distances. Individuals have been 

sighted as far north as Massachusetts, as far west as Texas, and in all states in between (Fertl et al., 

2005; Rathbun, 1988). Warm-weather sightings are most common in Florida, coastal Georgia, and 

Alabama, but increased sightings have been reported in Mid-Atlantic states such as North Carolina and 

Virginia between June and October (Cummings et al., 2014). 

As part of the 12-month finding to revise ESA-designated critical habitat, the USFWS recognizes the 

significance of warm water to the survival of the Florida manatee and the importance of availability and 

adequacy of warm-water refugia. Additional features to be considered in the analysis for revising ESAdesignated critical habitat may include adequate forage within dispersal distance of a warm-water 

refuge, areas needed for calving and nursing, and important travel corridors for movements throughout 

Florida and beyond (75 Federal Register 1574–1581, January 12, 2010).

In the Study Area, the West Indian manatee (Florida subspecies) occurs from the southeastern U.S. to 

the Caribbean (Jefferson et al., 2015; Morales-Vela et al., 2003). The West Indian manatee’s primary 

range extends along both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of Florida, while the secondary range extends 

north to the coastal waters of North Carolina on the east side and into the Gulf of Mexico on the west 

side. They are reported regularly in coastal rivers of Georgia and South Carolina in warmer months 

(Lefebvre et al., 2001). Manatees are common in the St. Johns River and Port Canaveral and may have 

limited seasonal occurrence in the Pascagoula River, Great Bay, Sabine Lake, and Galveston Bay. 

The Antillean subspecies of West Indian manatee is only found in eastern Mexico and Central America, 

northern and eastern South America, and in the Greater Antilles (Lefebvre et al., 1989) within the 

Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem. All studies suggest that manatees in Puerto Rico are most often 

detected in protected areas around cays, in secluded bays, and in shallow seagrass beds east of San 

Juan; the east, south, and southwest coasts; and not far from freshwater sources (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Caribbean Field Office, 2009). The distribution of the Antillean manatee extends eastward only 

to Puerto Rico, except for one 1988 report in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, however, transient animals 

are known to occur in the Lesser Antilles (Lefebvre et al., 2001). The offshore islands of Puerto Rico 

including Caja de Muertos, Culebra, and Vieques are considered significant biogeographic features, 

although manatees do not use the western offshore islands of Mona and Desecheo (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2014a). Mona Passage constitutes a migratory barrier to these islands since it is 

characterized by strong currents and high surf. There have been few sightings in Caja de Muertos and 

Culebra Island, which Vieques Island is within the range of the species and manatees have been 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-47

3.7 Marine Mammals

observed traveling to and from the East Coast (Magor, 1979). Radio tagging techniques in Puerto Rico 

have documented general behavior of manatee populations, where males displayed more extensive 

movements than females (Slone et al., 2006). 

3.7.2.2.8.3 Population Trends 

Demographic analyses indicate that the Florida stock of manatees is increasing or stable throughout 

much of Florida (Runge et al., 2004; Runge et al., 2007). A survival rate analysis for the Florida manatee, 

conducted from 1983 through 2007, identifies a survival rates for four regions in Florida ranging from

97 to 98 percent (Runge et al., 2015). The fastest growing segment of this stock is found in the St. Johns 

River, with a growth rate of 6.2 percent (95 percent confidence interval 3.7 to 8.1 percent) (Runge et al., 

2004). Population modeling of the Florida manatee predicts that assuming all current threats remain 

constant, there is less than a 2.5 percent chance that the southeastern U.S. population of Florida 

manatees will fall below 4,000 individuals over the next 100 years (Runge et al., 2015). 

The USFWS suggests that the Puerto Rico stock of manatees (Antillean subspecies) is at least stable and 

possibly slightly increasing due to increasing numbers detected in annual surveys (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2014a), however they caution that information from direct counts cannot be used to determine 

population trends. Population viability analyses used to predict the likely future status of a given 

population describes the Antillean manatee population with positive growth, which would continue as 

long as human-induced mortality does not exceed 5 percent of the population (Castelblanco-Martinez et 

al., 2012). 

The USFWS’s 12-month finding to reclassify the West Indian manatee from endangered to threatened 

further confirms that populations are improving. Although the ranking of threats to the species have not 

changed, the impacts of those threats is considered lower due to a better understanding of the 

resiliency of the population (Runge et al., 2015). 

3.7.2.2.8.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

West Indian manatees are herbivorous and are known to consume more than 60 species of plants. They 

typically feed on bottom vegetation, plants in the water column, and shoreline vegetation, such as 

hyacinths and marine seagrasses (Reynolds et al., 2009). In some areas, they are known to feed on algae 

and parts of mangrove trees (Jefferson et al., 2015; Mignucci-Giannoni & Beck, 1998). 

Although large sharks, crocodiles, and killer whales are all considered to be potential predators, there is 

little evidence to confirm this (Weller, 2008). 

3.7.2.2.8.5 Species-Specific Threats

The Florida manatee is negatively impacted by cold stress, hurricanes, toxic red tide poisoning, habitat 

destruction (such as loss of seagrass), and other natural and human-made factors. However, vessel 

strikes are the single greatest cause of death for Florida manatees, accounting for 24 percent of 

manatee deaths in Florida during the last 30 years (Jett & Thapa, 2010). A review of research on the 

effectiveness of laws reducing boat speeds in areas of known manatee habitat indicated that reducing 

boat speeds in specific areas is an appropriate, reasonable, and defensible management action, 

although more studies on the effectiveness of boat speed reduction have been recommended (Calleson 

& Frohlich, 2007). 

Unlike the Florida manatee, mass mortalities due to red tide or need for warm water habitats do not 

pose a threat to the Antillean manatee, given their location in tropical habitats. One mass mortality 

(four males and one female) was documented in 2006 when the individuals were impacted by a large 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-48

3.7 Marine Mammals

vessel in the San Juan Bay (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014a). Similar to the Florida manatee, vessel 

strikes are the leading cause of human-induced mortalities of Antillean manatees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2014a). 

3.7.2.3 Species Not Listed Under the Endangered Species Act

As shown Table 3.7-1, most marine mammals are not listed under the ESA; however, all are afforded 

protection under the MMPA. Species not listed under the ESA are discussed in the following subsections. 

3.7.2.3.1 Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

3.7.2.3.1.1 Status and Management

A recent status review identified 15 distinct population segments globally based primarily on breeding 

areas (Bettridge et al., 2015). Partially based on this status review, NMFS issued a final rule to divide the 

globally listed species into 14 distinct population segments and revise the listing status of each breeding 

population (81 Federal Register 62260–62320, September 8, 2016). After evaluating the danger of 

extinction of each distinct population segment, four distinct population segments (Cape Verde 

Islands/Northwest Africa, Western North Pacific, Central America, and Arabian Sea) are currently listed 

under the ESA as endangered and one distinct population segment (Mexico) is listed as threatened. The 

remaining nine distinct population segments, including the West Indies distinct population segment that 

occurs within the AFTT Study Area, do not warrant listing under the ESA because they are neither in 

danger of extinction nor likely to become so in the foreseeable future. All humpback whales feeding in 

the North Atlantic are considered part of the West Indies distinct population segment (Bettridge et al., 

2015), including the Gulf of Maine stock. The West Indies distinct population segment feeding range 

primarily includes the Gulf of Maine, eastern Canada, and western Greenland (80 Federal Register

22304–22345, April 21, 2015) and breeding grounds include waters of the Dominican Republic and 

Puerto Rico (81 Federal Register 62260–62320, September 8, 2016). 

For management purposes in U.S. waters, NMFS identified stocks that are based on feeding areas. 

Although the western North Atlantic population was once treated as a single management stock, the 

Gulf of Maine stock has been identified as a discrete subpopulation based on strong fidelity of 

humpbacks feeding in that region (Waring, 2016). The Gulf of Maine stock is the only stock of 

humpbacks in the Atlantic managed under NMFS jurisdiction. However, it should be noted that several 

other discrete humpback whale subpopulations, based on feeding grounds, are in the western North 

Atlantic, including the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland/Labrador, and western Greenland (Waring et 

al., 2016). 

3.7.2.3.1.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Humpback whales are distributed worldwide in all major oceans and most seas. Most humpback whale 

sightings are in nearshore and continental shelf waters; however, humpback whales frequently travel 

through deep oceanic waters during migration (Calambokidis et al., 2001; Clapham & Mattila, 1990). 

Humpback whales of the western North Atlantic are typically found in Labrador Current, North Atlantic 

Gyre, and Gulf Stream open ocean areas during seasonal migrations from northern latitude feeding 

grounds, occupied during the summer, to southern latitude calving and breeding grounds occupied in 

the winter. (Waring et al., 2016). The Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland Grand Banks, West 

Greenland, and Scotian Shelf are summer feeding grounds for humpbacks (Cetacean and Turtle 

Assessment Program, 1982; Kenney & Winn, 1986; Stevick et al., 2006; Whitehead, 1982). The Gulf of 

Maine is also one of the principal summer feeding grounds for humpback whales in the North Atlantic. 

The largest numbers of humpback whales are present from mid-April to mid-November. Other feeding 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-49

3.7 Marine Mammals

locations in this ecosystem are Stellwagen Bank, Jeffreys Ledge, the Great South Channel, the edges and 

shoals of Georges Bank, Cashes Ledge, and Grand Manan Banks (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment 

Program, 1982; Kenney & Winn, 1986; Stevick et al., 2006; Weinrich et al., 1997; Whitehead, 1982). 

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) delineated a humpback whale feeding area in the Gulf of Maine, Stellwagen 

Bank, and Great South Channel, substantiated through vessel-and aerial-based survey data, photoidentification data, radio-tracking data, and expert judgment. Humpback whales feed in this area from 

March through December. Humpback feeding habitats are typically shallow banks or ledges with high 

seafloor relief (Hamazaki, 2002; Payne et al., 1990). 

On breeding grounds, females with calves occur in much shallower waters than other groups of whales, 

and breeding adults use deeper more offshore waters (Ersts & Rosenbaum, 2003; Smultea, 1994). The 

habitat requirements of wintering humpbacks appear to be controlled by the conditions necessary for 

calving, such as warm water and relatively shallow, low-relief ocean bottom in protected areas, created 

by islands or reefs (Clapham, 2000; Craig & Herman, 2000; Smultea, 1994). 

Individual variability in the timing of migrations may result in the presence of individuals in high-latitude 

areas throughout the year (Straley, 1990). Records of humpback whales off the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast 

(New Jersey to North Carolina) from January through March suggest these waters may represent a 

supplemental winter feeding ground used by juvenile and mature humpback whales of United States 

and Canadian North Atlantic stocks (LaBrecque et al., 2015b). 

Humpbacks are most likely to occur near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay and coastal waters of 

Virginia Beach between January and March; however, they could be found in the area year-round, based 

on sighting and stranding data in both mid-Atlantic waters and the Chesapeake Bay itself (Barco et al., 

2002). Photo-identification data support the repeated use of the mid-Atlantic region by individual 

humpback whales (Barco et al., 2002). Preliminary results of vessel surveys offshore of Virginia show site 

fidelity in the AFTT Study Area for some individuals and a high level of occurrence within the shipping 

channels—an important high-use area by both the Navy and commercial traffic (Aschettino et al., 2015). 

Beginning January 2015, the offshore Norfolk Canyon Region was added to the monthly aerial survey 

efforts offshore of Virginia, which documented five sightings of humpback whales, mostly during the 

spring months. Line-transect survey efforts in the Mine Warfare Exercise box within Warning Area-50 of 

the Virginia Capes Range Complex from August 2012 through August 2015 have resulted in 26 

humpback whale sightings across fall, winter, and spring months (Engelhaupt et al., 2015; Engelhaupt et 

al., 2016). 

Aerial and vessel monitoring conducted offshore of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, in Onslow Bay, North 

Carolina, and offshore of Jacksonville, Florida confirmed winter occurrence of humpback whales in these 

three areas of the Atlantic as well as observations in Onslow Bay during the spring months (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2013c). 

There are occasional reports of humpback whales in the Gulf of Mexico but those sightings should be 

considered extralimital. 

3.7.2.3.1.3 Population Trends

Current data suggest that the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock is steadily increasing in numbers 

(Waring et al., 2016). This is consistent with an estimated average growth trend of 3.1 percent 

(SE=0.005) in the North Atlantic population overall for the period 1979–1993 (Stevick et al., 2003). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-50

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.1.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Humpback whales feed on a variety of invertebrates and small schooling fishes. The most common 

invertebrate prey are krill; the most common fish prey are herring, mackerel, sand lance, sardines, 

anchovies, and capelin (Clapham & Mead, 1999). Feeding occurs both at the surface and in deeper 

waters, wherever prey is abundant. The humpback whale is the only species of baleen whale that shows 

strong evidence of cooperation when feeding in large groups (D'Vincent et al., 1985). Humpback whales 

were observed using “bubble nets” to herd prey (Jefferson et al., 2015). Bubble nets are a feeding 

strategy where the whales dive and release bubbles of air that float up in a column and trap prey inside; 

the humpbacks then lunge through the column of trapped prey to feed.

Sensors attached to humpback whales foraging on Stellwagen Bank, Massachusetts allowed researchers 

to measure in fine detail the orientation and movement patterns of both humpback whales and their 

prey at meaningful ecological scales (Friedlaender et al., 2009). Findings indicate that differences 

between surface and bottom feeding behaviors in humpback whales correlated with vertical changes in 

the distribution and abundance of their primary prey, sand lance. In addition to prey abundance, other 

factors relate to humpback whale surface feeding in the Gulf of Maine, such as time of day and the 

height of the tides (Hazen et al., 2009). Characteristics of the prey, such as light emitted and the shape 

of the schools formed by the prey, also relate to humpback whale surface-feeding. 

This species is known to be attacked by both killer whales and false killer whales, as evidenced by tooth 

rake scars on their bodies and fins (Jefferson et al., 2015). 

3.7.2.3.1.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Minimum annual rates of human-caused mortality and serious injury to the Gulf of Maine humpback 

whale stock averaged 10.3 animals per year from 2008 to 2012 (Waring et al., 2016). Mortalities and 

serious injuries were recorded for large whales in the Northwest Atlantic from 1970–2009 (Van der 

Hoop et al., 2013). Of 473 records of humpback whales, cause of death could be attributed for 203. Of 

the 203, 116 (57 percent) mortalities were caused by entanglements in fishing gear, and 31 (15 percent) 

were attributable to vessel strikes. Annually updated inferences made from scar prevalence and 

multistate models of Gulf of Mexico humpback whales indicate that (1) younger animals are more likely 

to become entangled than adults, (2) juvenile scarring rates may be trending upward, (3) maybe less 

than 10 percent of humpback entanglements are ever reported, and (4) 3 percent of the population may 

be dying annually as the result of entanglements (Robbins, 2009, 2010). NMFS has declared an unusual 

mortality event for humpback whale strandings along the Atlantic coast beginning January 2016 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2017). Increased mortalities have been observed from Maine 

through North Carolina. As of the development of this document, 42 cases have been reported and 20 

cases have been examined. Of those examined, 10 cases showed evidence of vessel strikes; however, 

investigations are still underway to determine the cause of the strandings. 

3.7.2.3.2 Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata acutorostrata)

3.7.2.3.2.1 Status and Management 

Minke whales are the smallest species of mysticete in the Study Area and are classified as a single 

species with three subspecies recently recognized: Balaenoptera acutorostrata davidsoni in the North 

Atlantic, Balaenoptera acutorostrata scammoni in the North Pacific, and a subspecies that is formally 

unnamed but generally called the dwarf minke whale, which mainly occurs in the southern hemisphere 

(Jefferson et al., 2015). Waring et al. (2016) uses B. a. acutorostrata for the Canadian East Coast stock.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-51

3.7 Marine Mammals

There are four recognized populations in the North Atlantic: Canadian east coast, west Greenland, 

central North Atlantic, and northeastern North Atlantic (Donovan, 1991). As stock structure is still being 

researched Minke whales off the eastern coast of the United States are considered for now to be part of 

the Canadian east coast stock, which inhabits the area from the western half of the Davis Strait (45°W) 

to the Gulf of Mexico (Waring et al., 2016). The relationship between this stock and the other three 

stocks is uncertain. 

3.7.2.3.2.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Minke whales have a cosmopolitan distribution in temperate and tropical waters and generally occupy 

waters over the continental shelf, including inshore bays and even occasionally estuaries (Waring et al., 

2016). However, records from whaling catches and research surveys worldwide indicate there may be 

an open-ocean component to the minke whale’s habitat (Jefferson et al., 2015; Perrin & Brownell, 

2008), including the Labrador Current, Gulf Stream, and North Atlantic Gyre Open Ocean Areas while 

undergoing seasonal migrations. They have an extensive distribution in polar, temperate, and tropical 

waters in the northern and southern hemispheres (Jefferson et al., 2015; Perrin & Brownell, 2008), and

are less common in the tropics than in cooler waters. 

The minke whale is common and widely distributed within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the 

Atlantic Ocean (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982). There appears to be a strong seasonal 

component to minke whale distribution. Like most other baleen whales, minke whales generally occupy 

the continental shelf proper rather than the continental shelf edge region (Waring et al., 2016). As with 

several other cetacean species, the possibility of a deep-ocean component to the distribution of minke 

whales exists but remains unconfirmed.

Minke whales generally undergo annual migrations between low-latitude breeding grounds in the 

tropics and subtropics in the winter and high-latitude feeding grounds (such as Gulf of Maine as well as 

the Saguenay-St. Lawrence region [Quebec]) in the summer (Kuker et al., 2005). Timing of movements 

between high-latitude summer feeding grounds to low-latitude winter habitats occurs between late 

September and late October (Risch et al., 2014a). Migration paths indicate a clockwise movement 

pattern, where whales are distributed closer to the shelf break edge during their northbound migration, 

following the currents of the Gulf Stream and prey availability in the spring and then follow a more 

directed southerly route in the fall, reaching warmer waters faster and avoiding swimming against the 

Gulf Stream (Risch et al., 2014a). 

During summer and early fall, minke whales are found throughout the lower Bay of Fundy (Ingram et al., 

2007). Spring and summer are times of relatively widespread and common occurrence, and are the 

seasons when the whales are most abundant in New England waters. In New England waters during fall 

there are fewer minke whales, while during winter the species appears to be largely absent. 

(LaBrecque et al., 2015b) delineated two minke whale feeding areas: (1) waters less than 200 m in the 

southern and southwestern section of the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank, the Great South 

Channel, Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts Bay, and Stellwagen Bank, and (2) shallow waters around Parker 

Ridge and Cashes Ledges in the central Gulf of Maine. These feeding areas were substantiated by vesseland aerial-based surveys, sightings from whale-watching vessels, and expert judgment. Minke whales 

would be expected in both feeding areas from March through November.

Minke whales occur in the warmer waters of the southern United States during winter. While no minke 

whale mating or calving founds have been found in U.S. Atlantic waters (LaBrecque et al., 2015b), other 

data suggest a potential winter breeding area offshore the southeastern United States and the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-52

3.7 Marine Mammals

Caribbean based on seasonal migration patterns, acoustic survey results, calf stranding records, and 

sightings of mother-calf pairs in Onslow Bay and offshore of Jacksonville, Florida (Risch et al., 2014a). 

Since January 2015, monthly aerial surveys have been conducted by the Navy in the offshore area near

Norfolk Canyon and have recorded three minke whale sightings (McAlarney et al., 2016). In addition,

aerial and vessel surveys conducted offshore of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina since 2011, Onslow Bay, 

North Carolina since 2007 and Jacksonville, Florida since 2009 resulted in minke whale encounters 

primarily during the winter months at all three locations (McLellan et al., 2014). High-frequency acoustic 

recording packages have been deployed at various locations offshore of Cape Hatteras, Onslow Bay, 

Jacksonville, and the offshore area near Norfolk Canyon since 2012, 2007, 2009, and 2014, respectively. 

Minke whale calls have shown a winter pattern of occurrence on the Cape Hatteras and Onslow Bay

deployment sites, a few detections at the Norfolk Canyon Site, and detections between December and 

March in Jacksonville (Hodge et al., 2015, 2016; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013c). Additional 

acoustic monitoring using marine autonomous recording units deployed between 60 and 150 km

offshore of Jacksonville, Florida in 2009 and 2010 revealed continuous vocalizations at the deep water 

sites during the winter deployment, while vocalization events were completely absent during the fall 

deployment suggesting a strong seasonal pattern of occurrence in this area (Oswald et al., 2016). 

Ongoing acoustic monitoring efforts offshore of Cape Hatteras since March 2012 in water depths of 950 

m resulted in frequent detections of minke whales (Debich et al., 2016; Stanistreet et al., 2013), 

suggesting spring occurrence in this area as minke whales begin to migrate to northern feeding grounds

for the summer months. 

Although they are not typically expected to occur within the Gulf of Mexico, observation records exist 

for mostly immature individuals in the Gulf of Mexico and Florida Keys (Stewart & Leatherwood, 1985; 

Waring et al., 2013). Mitchell (1991) summarized several winter records of minke whale sightings off the 

southeast United States, Cuba Puerto Rico and the Antilles, hinting at a possible winter distribution in 

the West Indies, and in the mid-ocean south and east of Bermuda. 

3.7.2.3.2.3 Population Trends 

A trend analysis has not been conducted for this stock (Waring et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.3.2.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

This species preys on small invertebrates and schooling fishes, such as capelin, haddock, sand eels, 

pollock, herring, and cod (Jefferson et al., 2015; Kuker et al., 2005; Lindstrom & Haug, 2001; Reeves et 

al., 2002b). Similar to other rorquals, minke whales are lunge feeders, often plunging through patches of 

shoaling fish or krill (Hoelzel et al., 1989; Jefferson et al., 2015). 

Minke whales are prey for killer whales (Ford et al., 2005); a common minke was observed under attack 

by killer whales near British Columbia (Weller, 2008). 

3.7.2.3.2.5 Species-Specific Threats

Minke whales are documented as bycatch in gillnets in the mid-Atlantic and northeast fisheries. This 

species was also documented as bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean, 

Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico (Zollett, 2009). Minke whale mortality and serious injury has also been 

documented as a result of interactions with an unknown Canadian fishery. During 2008 to 2012, the 

minimum detected average annual mortality and serious injury was 3.2 minke whales per year in 

Canadian fisheries, as determined from stranding and entanglement records confirmed to be of 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-53

3.7 Marine Mammals

Canadian origin or of records of such events first sighted in Canadian waters (Waring et al., 2016). 

Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses general threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.3 Bryde’s Whale (Balaenoptera brydei/edeni) 

3.7.2.3.3.1 Status and Management 

Bryde’s whales are the only baleen whale known to occur year-round in the Gulf of Mexico (Jefferson & 

Schiro, 1997; Waring et al., 2013). Bryde’s whales are among the least known of the baleen whales. The 

species-level taxonomy remains unresolved as well as the number of species or subspecies (Alves et al., 

2010; Jefferson et al., 2015; Kato & Perrin, 2009). The Society for Marine Mammalogy’s Committee on 

Taxonomy (2016) recognizes two subspecies of Bryde’s whale: (1) B. edeni (Eden’s whale) and (2) B. 

brydei (offshore Bryde’s whale). In addition a Bryde’s whale’s “pygmy form” known as Omura’s whale

(Kato & Perrin, 2009; Rice, 1998) has been described. Rosel and Wilcox (2014) found that the Gulf of 

Mexico Bryde’s whale population has a unique lineage and appears to be phylogenetically most closely 

related to Eden’s whale, the smaller form found in coastal and continental shelf waters of the northern 

Indian Ocean and the western Pacific Ocean. Bryde’s whales in the Gulf of Mexico are genetically distinct 

from other Bryde’s whales and not genetically diverse within the Gulf of Mexico (Rosel & Wilcox, 2014). 

The International Whaling Commission continues to use the name Balaenoptera edeni for all Bryde’s-like 

whales, although at least two species are recognized. 

Current genetic research confirms that gene flow among Bryde’s whale populations is low and suggests 

that management actions treat each as a distinct entity to ensure survival of the species (Kanda et al., 

2007). Bryde’s whales found in the northern Gulf of Mexico may represent a resident stock and are thus 

considered a separate stock for management purposes; however, there are no data to suggest genetic 

differentiation from the North Atlantic stock (Waring et al., 2010). In April 2015, NMFS announced a 90-

day finding on a petition to list the Gulf of Mexico population of Bryde’s whale as an endangered distinct 

population segment under the ESA (80 Federal Register 18343–18346, April 6, 2015). NMFS determined 

that petition presented substantial information and a status review of the species would be conducted 

to determine if listing this distinct population segment under the ESA is warranted. 

3.7.2.3.3.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Unlike other baleen whale species, Bryde’s whales are restricted to tropical and subtropical waters and 

do not generally occur beyond latitude 40° in either the northern or southern hemisphere (Jefferson et 

al., 2015; Kato & Perrin, 2009). The primary range of Bryde’s whales in the Atlantic is in tropical waters 

south of the Caribbean, outside the Study Area, with the exception of the Gulf of Mexico. Bryde’s whales 

may range as far north as Virginia (Kato & Perrin, 2009). This species is thought to be the most common 

baleen whale in the Gulf of Mexico (Würsig et al., 2000). Long migrations are not typical of Bryde’s 

whales, although limited shifts in distribution toward and away from the equator in winter and summer 

were observed (Best, 1996; Cummings, 1985).

Bryde’s whales are unlikely to be found in any open ocean area. In the Gulf of Mexico, Bryde’s whales 

were sighted near the shelf break in DeSoto Canyon (Davis & Fargion, 1996; Davis et al., 2000; Jefferson 

& Schiro, 1997). Most of the sighting records of Bryde’s whales in the northern Gulf of Mexico (i.e., 

U.S. Gulf of Mexico) are from NMFS abundance surveys (Waring et al., 2013), which were conducted 

during the spring (Davis & Fargion, 1996; Davis et al., 2000; Hansen et al., 1995; Hansen et al., 1996; 

Jefferson & Schiro, 1997; Maze-Foley & Mullin, 2006; Mullin & Hoggard, 2000; Mullin & Fulling, 2004). In 

addition, there are stranding records from throughout the year (Würsig et al., 2000). The area between 

the 100- and 300-m isobaths in the eastern Gulf of Mexico from south of Pensacola (head of DeSoto 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-54

3.7 Marine Mammals

Canyon) to northwest of Tampa Bay, Florida, has been identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a) as a small 

and resident population. 

3.7.2.3.3.3 Population Trends 

There are insufficient data to assess population trends for this species (Waring et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.3.3.4 Predator and Prey Interactions 

Bryde’s whales primarily feed on schooling fishes and are lunge feeders. Prey includes anchovy, sardine, 

mackerel, herring, krill, and pelagic red crab (Baker & Madon, 2007; Jefferson et al., 2015; Nemoto & 

Kawamura, 1977). Like humpback whales, Bryde’s whales were observed using “bubble nets” to herd 

prey (Jefferson et al., 2015; Kato & Perrin, 2009). Bryde’s whale is known to be prey for killer whales, as 

evidenced by an aerial observation of 15 killer whales attacking a Bryde’s whale in the Gulf of California 

(Weller, 2008). 

3.7.2.3.3.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to Bryde’s whales in the northwest Atlantic or Gulf of 

Mexico. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.4 Dwarf/Pygmy Sperm Whale (Kogia sima and Kogia breviceps) 

3.7.2.3.4.1 Status and Management 

Before 1966, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales were thought to be a single species, until form and 

structure distinction were shown (Handley, 1966); misidentifications of these two species are still 

common (Jefferson et al., 2015). Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales are not often observed at sea, but they 

are among the more frequently stranded cetaceans (Caldwell & Caldwell, 1989; Jefferson et al., 2015; 

McAlpine, 2009). Rare sightings indicate they may avoid human activity, and they are rarely active at the 

sea surface. They usually appear slow and sluggish, often resting motionless at the surface with no 

visible blow (Baird, 2005; Jefferson et al., 2015). Because of the scarcity of biological information 

available for individual dwarf and pygmy sperm whales, the difficulty of species-level identifications, and 

the lack of data on individual stock structure and abundance estimates, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales 

are presented collectively here with species-specific information if available.

Although virtually nothing is known of population status for these species, stranding frequency suggests 

they may not be as uncommon as sighting records would suggest (Jefferson et al., 2015; Maldini et al., 

2005). The western North Atlantic population(s) and the northern Gulf of Mexico population(s) are 

considered separate stocks for management purposes, but there is no genetic evidence that these two 

populations differ (Waring et al., 2010). 

3.7.2.3.4.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales appear to be distributed worldwide in temperate to tropical waters 

(Caldwell & Caldwell, 1989; McAlpine, 2002). Both species may be found in the Gulf Stream and North 

Atlantic Gyre open ocean areas. Most sightings are in the Gulf Stream, perhaps an artifact of survey 

effort rather than a reflection of actual distribution. Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales can occur close to 

shore and sometimes over the outer continental shelf. However, several studies show that they may 

also generally occur beyond the continental shelf edge (Bloodworth & Odell, 2008; MacLeod et al., 

2004). The pygmy sperm whale may frequent more temperate habitats than the dwarf sperm whale, 

which is more of a tropical species. The dwarf sperm whale may also have a more pelagic distribution, 

and dive deeper during feeding bouts, than pygmy sperm whales (Barros & Wells, 1998). Although deep 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-55

3.7 Marine Mammals

oceanic waters may be the primary habitat for this species, there are very few oceanic sighting records 

offshore (Waring et al., 2014). The lack of sightings may have more to do with the difficulty of detecting 

and identifying these animals at sea and lack of effort than with any real distributional preferences. 

In the Study Area, dwarf and pygmy sperm whales are found primarily in the Northeast and Southeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems, the Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea (Bloodworth & 

Odell, 2008; Caldwell & Caldwell, 1989; Cardona-Maldonado & Mignucci-Giannoni, 1999). A stranded 

pygmy sperm on the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence represents the northernmost record for this 

species in the western Atlantic (Measures et al., 2004). 

Aerial surveys conducted monthly offshore of Cape Hatteras since May 2011 have only resulted in three 

total sightings of dwarf and sperm whales, to date. Similarly, monthly aerial surveys offshore of 

Jacksonville since 2009 have only documented one sighting of these species. However, passive acoustic 

monitoring has been more successful in documenting dwarf and pygmy sperm whale occurrence in the 

Study Area. Analysis of vocalizations collected during passive acoustic monitoring efforts conducted 

offshore of Onslow Bay, North Carolina between 2007 and 2013 indicate that dwarf and pygmy sperm 

whales only occur sporadically in this area (Hodge, 2011; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013c). 

Additional passive acoustic data collected in Onslow Bay between August 2011 and October 2012

resulted in dwarf and pygmy sperm whales click detections during August to December 2011 and July to 

October 2012 deployments with a peak in vocal activity in late November 2011 (Hodge et al., 2013). 

Dwarf/pygmy sperm whale clicks were present throughout a deployment period from October 2012 

through the end of March 2013 with no specific temporal pattern in occurrence. This deployment 

resulted in more detections of dwarf/pygmy sperm whale clicks than any other deployment in Onslow 

Bay (Hodge & Read, 2015). 

Aerial surveys conducted offshore of Jacksonville, Florida between January 2009 and December 2015 

resulted in only one sighting of a dwarf/pygmy sperm whale (Cummings et al., 2016). 

Pygmy sperm whales were one of the most commonly sighted species in the northern Gulf of Mexico 

from 1992 to 1994 and from 1996 to 2001 (Mullin & Fulling, 2004). Fulling and Fertl (2003) noted a 

concentration of sightings in continental slope waters near the Mississippi River Delta. The delta is 

considered an important area for cetaceans in the northern Gulf of Mexico because of its high levels of 

productivity associated with oceanographic features. Data from the Gulf of Mexico suggest that dwarf 

and pygmy sperm whales may associate with frontal regions along the continental shelf break and upper 

continental slope, where squid densities are higher (Baumgartner et al., 2001; Jefferson et al., 2015). 

3.7.2.3.4.3 Population Trends 

A trend analysis has not been conducted for dwarf and pygmy sperm whales in the western North 

Atlantic stock. Furthermore, there are insufficient data to determine the population trends for northern 

Gulf of Mexico dwarf sperm whales due to uncertainty in species identification at sea (Waring et al., 

2014). 

3.7.2.3.4.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales feed on cephalopods and, less often, on deep-sea fishes and shrimp 

(Beatson, 2007; Caldwell & Caldwell, 1989). A study showed cephalopods (squid) were the primary prey 

of pygmy sperm whales in the Pacific Ocean, making up 78.7 percent of prey abundance and 93.4 

percent contribution by mass. Stomach samples revealed an extreme diversity of cephalopod prey, with 

38 species from 17 families (West et al., 2009). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-56

3.7 Marine Mammals

Dwarf and pygmy sperm whales are likely subject to occasional killer whale predation, as are other 

whale species.

3.7.2.3.4.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to Kogia in the northwest Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico. 

Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.5 Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) 

3.7.2.3.5.1 Status and Management

The only stocks of beluga whales managed under NMFS jurisdiction occur outside of the Study Area in 

Alaska. Two recognized stocks of beluga whales may occur within the Study Area: the Eastern High 

Arctic/Baffin Bay and the West Greenland (Jefferson et al., 2015). Beluga whales should be listed as Near 

Threatened, based on classifications under the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List 

Categories and Criteria (Jefferson et al., 2012). At the global level, the species does not qualify for a 

status of threatened, although there is substantial uncertainty about numbers and trends for some parts 

of their range. Moreover, national and international, taxon-specific conservation programs that 

currently monitor and manage hunting could result in the beluga whale qualifying for threatened status 

(under criterion A3) within 5 years. 

3.7.2.3.5.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Beluga whales are found only in high latitudes of the northern hemisphere. Belugas are found in Arctic 

and subarctic waters along the northern coasts of Canada, Alaska, Russia, Norway, and Greenland 

(O'Corry-Crowe, 2008; Stewart & Stewart, 1989). 

Beluga whales occur primarily in coastal waters, as shallow as 1 to 3 m, although they can also be found 

in offshore waters greater than 800 m deep (Jefferson et al., 2008a; Jefferson et al., 2015; Richard et al., 

2001). During the winter, beluga whales are believed to occur in offshore waters associated with pack 

ice, but little is known about the distribution, ecology, or behavior in winter. In most regions, beluga

whales are believed to migrate in the direction of the advancing polar ice front. However, in some areas, 

they may remain behind this front and overwinter in enclosed areas of unfrozen water and ice leads. In 

the spring, they migrate to warmer shallow water in coastal estuaries, bays, and rivers for molting and 

calving (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, 2000). 

Beluga whales may be found in the Labrador Current open ocean area. This species is also known to 

occur in the extreme northwestern portion of the Study Area. Beluga whales are found on the west 

coast of Greenland and along the Newfoundland coast (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife 

in Canada, 2003), but are not normally seen farther south. In June 2014, a beluga whale was observed in 

several bays and inlets of Rhode Island and Massachusetts (Swaintek, 2014). This sighting likely 

represents an extralimital beluga whale occurrence in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 

Ecosystem. 

3.7.2.3.5.3 Population Trends 

The current population trend for beluga whales within the Eastern High Arctic/Baffin Bay and the West 

Greenland stocks is unknown (Jefferson et al., 2012). 

3.7.2.3.5.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Beluga whales prey on various types of fish and invertebrates. In some parts of their range, it is clear 

that beluga whales are feeding in nearshore waters on seasonally abundant coastal fishes, such as 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-57

3.7 Marine Mammals

salmon, herring, capelin, smelt, and saffron cod. Much of their prey depends on distribution and 

seasonal availability (Jefferson et al., 2008a; Jefferson et al., 2015). Killer whales and polar bears are 

predators of beluga whales. 

3.7.2.3.5.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to beluga whales in the Northwest Atlantic. Section 

3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.6 Narwhal (Monodon monoceros) 

3.7.2.3.6.1 Status and Management

There is no stock of narwhal that occurs in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the Atlantic Ocean; 

however, populations from Hudson Strait and Davis Strait may extend into the Study Area at its 

northwest extreme (Heide-Jorgensen, 2009). 

3.7.2.3.6.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Narwhals prefer cold Arctic waters, and are the most northerly cetacean. They are also known to be a 

deepwater species. In the summer, they are found in more northern areas, and as ice begins to form, 

they tend to follow the ice to more open waters for the winter. They are often found in deep fjords and 

cracks and leads in the ice (Heide-Jorgensen, 2009; Reeves & Tracey, 1980). Narwhals may be found in 

the Labrador Current open ocean area. 

Narwhals winter in the regions of Hudson Strait and Baffin Bay-Davis Strait, as well as Disko Bay in West 

Greenland. Narwhals wintering in Hudson Strait in smaller numbers are assumed to belong to the 

northern Hudson Bay summer population. Tagged narwhals in the summering grounds in Admiralty Inlet 

showed their annual migration following the ice during the autumn to more open waters of Melville Bay 

and Eclipse Sound in central and southern Baffin Bay and northern Davis Strait (Dietz et al., 2008; HeideJorgensen, 2009). Before the fast ice forms in the fall, narwhals move into deep water along the edge of 

the continental shelf, with depths of up to 1,000 to 2,000 m (Heide-Jorgensen, 2009). 

3.7.2.3.6.3 Population Trends 

There are insufficient data to assess population trends for this species (Muto et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.3.6.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Narwhals feed mainly on fish and squid, but much depends on seasonal availability. A large part of their 

diet consists of medium to large fish, such as turbot and cod (Jefferson et al., 2015). A recent study on 

stomach content analysis showed that in summer, their diet is mainly Arctic cod, polar cod, and squid 

(Heide-Jorgensen, 2009). In fall, squid is the main source of prey, and in winter, Greenland halibut and 

squid are the main sources (Laidre et al., 2003; Laidre & Heide-Jorgensen, 2005). This species uses 

suction to bring prey into the mouth. 

Killer whales and polar bears are the only known predators of narwhals (Heide-Jorgensen, 2009). Killer 

whales hunt them in the summer open-water season, and polar bears hunt them from sea ice in winter 

and spring (Heide-Jorgensen, 2009). 

3.7.2.3.6.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to narwhals in the northwest Atlantic, although climate 

change may be a concern because this species inhabits an extreme northern range. Section 3.7.2.1.5

(General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-58

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.7 Beaked Whales (Various Species)

Six species of beaked whales are known in the western North Atlantic Ocean: Cuvier’s beaked whale 

(Ziphius cavirostris), northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus) (discussed in Section 3.7.2.3.8, 

Northern Bottlenose Whale), and four members of the genus Mesoplodon —True’s (M. mirus), Gervais’ 

(M. europaeus), Blainville’s (M. densirostris), and Sowerby’s (M. bidens) beaked whales. Cuvier’s, 

Blainville’s, and Gervais’ beaked whales are also known to regularly occur in the Gulf of Mexico, based 

on stranding or sighting data (Hansen et al., 1995; Würsig et al., 2000). Sowerby’s beaked whale in the 

Gulf of Mexico is considered extralimital because there is only one known stranding of this species 

(Bonde & O'Shea, 1989) and because it normally occurs in northern temperate waters of the North 

Atlantic (Mead, 1989a). With the exception of the Cuvier’s beaked whale and northern bottlenose 

whale, beaked whales are nearly indistinguishable at sea (Coles, 2001). Because of the scarcity of 

biological information available for individual species, the difficulty of species-level identifications for 

Mesoplodon, and the lack of data on individual stock structure and abundance estimates, Cuvier’s, 

True’s, Gervais’, Blainsville’s, and Sowerby’s beaked whales are presented collectively here with speciesspecific information if available.

3.7.2.3.7.1 Status and Management 

Stock structure of beaked whales in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Virgin Islands is unknown; 

however, these are assumed to be separate for management purposes.

3.7.2.3.7.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Cuvier’s, True’s, Gervais’, Blainville’s, and Sowerby’s beaked whales are found in Labrador Current, 

North Atlantic Gyre, and Gulf Stream open ocean areas and are also known to occur in the Northeast 

U.S. Continental Shelf, Scotian Shelf, and Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems. The 

continental shelf margins from southern Nova Scotia to Cape Hatteras have been identified as key areas 

for beaked whales in a global review by MacLeod and Mitchell (2006). Cuvier’s, Gervais’, Blainville’s, and 

True’s beaked whales may also occur in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem, 

while Cuvier’s, Gervais’ and Blainville’s beaked whales may occur in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean 

Sea Large Marine Ecosystems. 

Cuvier’s beaked whale is one of the more commonly seen and the best known. Similar to other beaked 

whale species, this oceanic species generally occurs in waters past the edge of the continental shelf and 

occupies almost all temperate, subtropical, and tropical waters of the world, as well as subpolar and 

even polar waters in some areas (Waring et al., 2014). The distribution of Cuvier’s beaked whales is 

poorly known, and is based mainly on stranding records (Leatherwood et al., 1976). Strandings were 

reported from Nova Scotia along the eastern U.S. coast south to Florida, around the Gulf of Mexico, and 

within the Caribbean (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Heyning, 1989; Houston, 1990; 

Leatherwood et al., 1976; MacLeod, 2006; Mignucci-Giannoni et al., 1999). Cuvier’s beaked whale 

sightings have occurred principally along the continental shelf edge in the mid-Atlantic region off the 

northeast U.S. coast (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Hamazaki, 2002; Palka, 2006; 

Waring et al., 1992; Waring et al., 2001) in late spring or summer, although strandings and sightings 

were reported in the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico as well (Dalebout et al., 2006). Cuvier’s 

beaked whales are generally sighted in waters with a bottom depth greater than 200 m and are 

frequently recorded in waters with bottom depths greater than 1,000 m (Falcone et al., 2009; Jefferson 

et al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-59

3.7 Marine Mammals

True’s beaked whales appear to occur only in temperate waters, and possibly only in warm temperate 

waters. Most records of it occurring in the northwest Atlantic suggest a probable relation with the Gulf 

Stream (MacLeod, 2000; Mead, 1989b). 

Gervais’ beaked whale occurs only in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, within a range both north 

and south of the equator to a latitude of 40° (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015; MacLeod, 

2006). Although the distribution seems to range across the entire temperate and tropical Atlantic, most 

records are from the western North Atlantic waters from New York to Texas (more than 40 published 

records), and they are the most common species of Mesoplodon to strand along the U.S. Atlantic coast

(Waring et al., 2014). 

Sowerby’s beaked whales appear to inhabit more temperate waters than many other members of the 

genus. They are the most northerly distributed of Atlantic species of Mesoplodon, and are found in cold 

temperate waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, generally north of 30 ̊ N. In the Study Area, they range 

from Massachusetts to Labrador (MacLeod et al., 2006; Mead, 1989a). There were several at-sea 

sightings off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, from New England waters north to the ice pack (MacLeod 

et al., 2006; Waring et al., 2010). Sowerby’s beaked whale occurrence in the Gully Marine Protected 

Area (east of Nova Scotia) increased during the period from 1988 to 2011 (Whitehead, 2013). 

Blainville’s beaked whales are one of the most widely distributed of the distinctive toothed whales in the 

Mesoplodon genus (Jefferson et al., 2008b; MacLeod et al., 2006). In the Study Area, this species is 

known to occur in enclosed deepwater seas, such as the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. There are 

records for this species from the eastern coast of the United States and Canada, from as far north as 

Nova Scotia and south to Florida and the Bahamas (MacLeod & Mitchell, 2006; Mead, 1989a). 

Starting January 2015, monthly aerial surveys have been conducted in the offshore area near Norfolk 

Canyon and have resulted in only one True’s beaked whale sighting to date. Passive acoustic monitoring 

conducted offshore of Cape Hatteras between March and April 2012 recorded beaked whale clicks on 

nearly 40 percent of the recording days (Stanistreet et al., 2013). Closer examination of these beaked 

whale click events suggested they belonged to Cuvier’s and Gervais’ beaked whales (Stanistreet et al., 

2012). During aerial surveys conducted between May 2011 and December 2014, beaked whales were 

observed in every month of the year offshore of Cape Hatteras, with Cuvier’s beaked whale being the 

most commonly encounter beaked whale species (McLellan et al., 2015). The highest number of beaked 

sightings occurred between May and August and all sightings occurred along the continental shelf break 

(McLellan et al., 2015). Tag data obtained from three Cuvier’s beaked whales offshore of Cape Hatteras

in September 2014 provided the first long-distance movement information for Cuvier’s beaked whales 

off the U.S. Atlantic coast (Baird et al., 2015). Two individuals were tagged in the same encounter in 

September 2014 but remained separated by distances up to 214 km during the tag period. The three 

tagged whales exhibited varied movement patterns, transiting north and south of the tagging location, 

with two individuals returning to the tagging location. These results suggest some degree of residency 

for beaked whales in this area (Baird et al., 2015). Median water depths at tagging locations ranged from 

1,725 to 2,274 m, with a maximum water depth of 3,015 m. Diving data captured by the tags showed a 

maximum dive depth of 2,800 m suggesting that many of the dives were likely to, or close to, the 

seafloor (Baird et al., 2015).

Passive acoustic monitoring conducted between 2007 and 2013 in Onslow Bay, North Carolina resulted 

in detections of multiple beaked whale vocalization events. Beaked whale detections were documented 

throughout the monitoring period with no specific diel pattern, but there were more detections from 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-60

3.7 Marine Mammals

October 2012 through the end of March 2013 (Hodge & Read, 2015). Gervais’ beaked whales were 

detected significantly more than any other beaked whale species. Cuvier’s beaked whale clicks were 

detected in November 2012 and Blainville’s beaked whale clicks were detected primarily in April and 

May 2013 (Hodge & Read, 2015). True’s and Sowerby’s beaked whales were not detected during this 

effort, but there were two detections in December 2012 of a click type assigned to an unidentified 

beaked whale species. 

MacLeod and Mitchell (2006) described the northern Gulf of Mexico continental shelf margin as “a key 

area” for beaked whales. Beaked whales were seen in all seasons during GulfCet aerial surveys of the 

northern Gulf of Mexico (i.e., U.S. Gulf of Mexico) (Hansen et al., 1996; Mullin & Hoggard, 2000). Some 

of the aerial survey sightings may have included Cuvier’s beaked whale, but identification of beaked 

whale species from aerial surveys is problematic. Beaked whale sightings made during spring and 

summer vessel surveys were widely distributed in waters greater than 500 m deep.

3.7.2.3.7.3 Population Trends 

A trend analysis has not been conducted for the western North Atlantic Cuvier’s beaked whale stock. 

Additionally, trend analyses have not been conducted for any of the four species of Mesoplodon in the 

western North Atlantic (Waring et al., 2014). 

Further analysis of northern Gulf of Mexico Cuvier’s beaked whale survey data from 1991–2009 is 

required in order to determine whether changes in abundance have occurred over this period (Waring 

et al., 2013). Additionally, a Gulf-wide assessment of Cuvier’s beaked whale abundance has not been 

made (Waring et al., 2013). There are insufficient data to determine population trends for Blainville’s 

and Gervais’ beaked whales in the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

3.7.2.3.7.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Beaked whales are generally deepwater feeders and prey on both squid and fish. Examination of 

stomach contents from stranded Mesoplodon indicates that they feed primarily on deep-water 

cephalopods (MacLeod et al., 2003). Stomach content analyses of captured and stranded Mesoplodon

suggest that beaked whales are deep divers that feed at or close to the bottom in deep oceanic waters, 

taking whatever suitable prey they encounter or feeding on whatever species are locally abundant 

(Ohizumi, 2002). Stomach content analyses from Cuvier’s beaked whales show that they feed mostly on 

deep-sea squid, fish, and crustaceans (Hickmott, 2005; Santos et al., 2007). Data show that Cuvier’s 

beaked whales use suction to ingest prey (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015; Werth, 2006). 

3.7.2.3.7.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Impacts from anthropogenic noise have become a serious concern with regard to beaked whales over 

the past decade. Section 3.7.3.1.1.6 (Stranding) summarizes several stranding events that have been 

associated with the use of naval sonar. In addition, disturbance by anthropogenic noise may prove to be 

an important habitat issue in some areas of beaked whales’ range, notably in areas of concentrated 

military activity, oil and gas activity, or shipping. Ongoing studies are being conducted to address this 

issue and its impact, if any, on this and other marine species. 

3.7.2.3.8 Northern Bottlenose Whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus) 

3.7.2.3.8.1 Status and Management

There are two populations of northern bottlenose whales in the western North Atlantic: one on the 

Scotian Shelf in the area referred to as the Gully and a second in Davis Strait off northern Labrador. The 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-61

3.7 Marine Mammals

Gully is a unique ecosystem that appears to have long provided a stable year-round habitat for a distinct 

population of bottlenose whales (Dalebout et al., 2006). The Scotian Shelf population of northern 

bottlenose whales is listed as endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 

Canada and the Davis Strait-Baffin Bay-Labrador Sea population is designated as a population of special 

concern (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 2011). 

3.7.2.3.8.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Northern bottlenose whales are largely a deep-water species and seldom found in waters less than 

2,000 m deep (Mead, 1989b). Distribution is concentrated in areas of high relief, including shelf breaks 

and submarine canyons.

Northern bottlenose whales are commonly found in the Labrador Current and likely occur in the Gulf 

Stream open ocean areas. The Gully straddles the Scotian Shelf and Gulf Stream areas. 

Northern bottlenose whales are distributed in the North Atlantic primarily from Nova Scotia to about 

70° in the Davis Strait, along the east coast of Greenland to 77°, and from England to the west coast of 

Spitzbergen (Waring et al., 2015). There are two main centers of bottlenose whale distribution in the 

western North Atlantic, the Scotian Shelf (including the Gully), and Davis Strait off northern Labrador 

(Reeves et al., 1993). Genetic studies have shown that these two populations are likely distinct from one 

another (Dalebout et al., 2006). Northern bottlenose whales have been sighted in deep waters off New 

England, but are uncommon in U.S. waters. Strandings have occurred as far south as North Carolina, 

although that is outside of the natural range or at the edge of the southern range for this more subarctic 

species (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015; MacLeod et al., 2006). 

3.7.2.3.8.3 Population Trends

There are insufficient data to determine population trends for northern bottlenose whales. 

3.7.2.3.8.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

This species preys primarily on squid of the genus Gonatus but will also take fishes, sea cucumbers, 

seastars, and prawns, as confirmed by stomach content analyses (Clarke & Kristensen, 1980; Gowans, 

2009). They appear to be more benthic (bottom of the sea) feeders, foraging at depths of between 500 

and 1,500 m (Hooker & Whitehead, 2002; Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015). 

3.7.2.3.8.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to northern bottlenose whales in the northwest Atlantic. 

Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.9 Rough-Toothed Dolphin (Steno bredanensis) 

3.7.2.3.9.1 Status and Management 

Rough-toothed dolphins are among the most widely distributed species of tropical dolphins, but little 

information is available on population status (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson, 2009; Jefferson et al., 

2015). The Western North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico populations of the rough-toothed dolphin are 

considered two separate stocks for management purposes, but there is insufficient genetic information 

to differentiate these stocks (Waring et al., 2013; Wimmer & Whitehead, 2004). 

3.7.2.3.9.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

The distribution of the rough-toothed dolphin is poorly understood worldwide. These dolphins are 

thought to be a tropical to warm-temperate species and historically have been reported in deep oceanic 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-62

3.7 Marine Mammals

waters in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans and the Mediterranean and Caribbean Seas (Gannier & 

West, 2005; Leatherwood & Reeves, 1983; Perrin & Walker, 1975; Reeves et al., 2003). Rough-toothed 

dolphins occur in the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Gyre open ocean areas. 

Rough-toothed dolphins were observed in both shelf and oceanic waters in the northern Gulf of Mexico 

(Fulling et al., 2003; Mullin & Fulling, 2003) and off the U.S. East Coast from North Carolina to Delaware

(Waring et al., 2014). In the western North Atlantic, tracking of five rough-toothed dolphins that were 

rehabilitated and released following a mass stranding on the East Coast of Florida in 2005 demonstrated 

a variety of ranging patterns (Wells et al., 2008b). All tagged rough-toothed dolphins moved through a 

large range of water depths averaging greater than 100 ft. (30 m), though each of the five tagged 

dolphins transited through very shallow waters at some point, with most of the collective movements 

recorded over a gently sloping seafloor. Monthly aerial surveys conducted offshore of Cape Hatteras, 

North Carolina since 2011 have only resulted in one sighting of four individual rough-toothed dolphins 

just beyond the 100 m isobaths (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013c). 

Since 2007, monthly aerial surveys offshore of Onslow Bay, North Carolina have been conducted, but 

only three rough-toothed dolphin surveys have been documented during these efforts. However, 

passive acoustic monitoring efforts have supplemented the limited sighting data of this species. Analysis 

of clicks and whistles recorded during towed hydrophone array line-transect surveys in Onslow Bay, 

North Carolina between September 2007 and August 2010 characterized one recording session with 

vocalizations belonging to rough-toothed dolphins, which corresponded with one visual sighting of the 

species in 2009 (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013c). 

Aerial surveys conducted between 2009 and 2016 offshore of Jacksonville, Florida resulted in nine 

sightings of rough-toothed dolphins in primarily in the summer and fall months. Sightings from aerial 

surveys have been documented inside the 100 m isobaths in continental shelf waters (Cummings et al., 

2016; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013c). 

3.7.2.3.9.3 Population Trends 

A trend analysis has not been conducted for the Western North Atlantic stock of rough-toothed dolphins

(Waring et al., 2014). 

Further analysis of Gulf of Mexico rough-toothed dolphin survey data from 2003–2004 and 2009 is 

required in order to determine whether changes in abundance have occurred (Waring et al., 2013). 

Additionally, a Gulf-wide assessment of rough-toothed dolphin abundance has not been made (Waring 

et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.3.9.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Prey of rough-toothed dolphins includes fish and cephalopods. They are known to feed on large fishes 

such as mahi mahi (Miyazaki & Perrin, 1994; Pitman & Stinchcomb, 2002). They also prey on reef fish, 

and Perkins and Miller (1983) noted that parts of reef fish were found in the stomachs of stranded 

rough-toothed dolphins in Hawaii. Rough-toothed dolphins also feed during the day on near-surface 

fishes, including flying fishes (Gannier & West, 2005). 

Predation on rough-toothed dolphins has not been documented, but they may be subject to predation 

by killer whales.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-63

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.9.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to rough-toothed dolphins in the northwest Atlantic or 

Gulf of Mexico. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.10 Common Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 

3.7.2.3.10.1 Status and Management 

Along the U.S. East Coast and northern Gulf of Mexico, the bottlenose dolphin stock structure is well 

studied. There are currently 53 management stocks identified by NMFS in the western North Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico, including oceanic, coastal, and estuarine stocks (Waring et al., 2016). Most stocks in 

the Study Area are designated as Strategic or Depleted under the MMPA. For a complete listing of 

currently identified stocks within the Study Area, see Table 3.7-1. 

3.7.2.3.10.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

The bottlenose dolphin occurs in tropical to temperate waters of the Atlantic Ocean as well as inshore, 

nearshore, and offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. East Coast (Waring et al., 2016). They 

generally do not range north or south of 45° latitude (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015; Wells 

& Scott, 2008). They occur in most enclosed or semi-enclosed seas in habitats ranging from shallow, 

murky, estuarine waters to deep, clear offshore waters in oceanic regions (Jefferson et al., 2008b; 

Jefferson et al., 2015; Wells et al., 2009). Open ocean populations occur far from land; however, 

population density appears to be highest in nearshore areas (Scott & Chivers, 1990). Bottlenose dolphins 

occur in the North Atlantic Gyre and Gulf Stream open ocean areas. 

There are two morphologically and genetically distinct bottlenose dolphin morphotypes (distinguished 

by physical differences) (Duffield, 1987; Duffield et al., 1983) described as coastal and offshore forms. 

Both inhabit waters in the western North Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico (Curry & Smith, 1997; Hersh 

& Duffield, 1990; Mead & Potter, 1995) along the U.S. Atlantic coast. The coastal morphotype of 

bottlenose dolphin is continuously distributed along the Atlantic coast south of Long Island, New York, 

around the Florida peninsula, and along the Gulf of Mexico coast. The range of the offshore bottlenose 

dolphin includes waters beyond the continental slope (Kenney, 1990), and offshore bottlenose dolphins 

may move between the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic (Wells et al., 1999). Dolphins with characteristics 

of the offshore type have stranded as far south as the Florida Keys.

In Canadian waters, bottlenose dolphins were occasionally sighted on the Scotian Shelf, particularly in 

the Gully (Gowans & Whitehead, 1995). Seasonally, bottlenose dolphins occur over the outer 

continental shelf and inner slope as far north as Georges Bank (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment 

Program, 1982; Kenney, 1990). Sightings occurred along the continental shelf break from Georges Bank 

to Cape Hatteras during spring and summer (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Kenney, 

1990). 

Acoustic monitoring data indicate that dolphins are present in coastal waters of Norfolk and Virginia

Beach nearly every day (Lammers et al., 2015). Seasonally, diminished acoustic activity was observed in 

that area for the February timeframe. A combination of visual line-transect surveys, photoidentification, and acoustic monitoring methods were employed between August 2012 and December 

2014 off the Atlantic coast Virginia. The majority of the sightings consisted of bottlenose dolphins, on 

which further analyses indicated spatial and seasonal variation in density and abundance (Engelhaupt et 

al., 2015). The greatest abundance was observed during the fall in an area from the shore out to 3.7 km, 

extending from Naval Station Norfolk down to the Virginia/North Carolina border (Engelhaupt et al., 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-64

3.7 Marine Mammals

2015). Diel patterns with increased detections during nighttime hours were documented at two sites 

near Naval Station Norfolk, and one site near Joint Expeditionary Base-Little Creek (Engelhaupt et al., 

2015). 

North of Cape Hatteras, the coastal and offshore morphotypes are separated across bathymetry during 

summer months. Aerial surveys flown during 1979–1981 indicated a concentration of bottlenose 

dolphins in waters less than 25 m deep corresponding to the coastal morphotype, and an area of high 

abundance along the shelf break corresponding to the offshore stock (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment 

Program, 1982; Kenney, 1990). During winter months and south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, the 

ranges of the coastal and offshore morphotypes overlap to some degree. Bottlenose dolphins have been 

sighted regularly during surveys conducted offshore of Cape Hatteras from 2009 through 2014 (Baird et 

al., 2016a; Foley et al., 2015b). Monthly aerial and vessel surveys conducted between June 2007 and 

June 2010 offshore of Onslow Bay, North Carolina showed the fauna was also dominated strongly by 

bottlenose dolphins, with year-round occurrence. Most bottlenose dolphin encounters occurred just off 

the shelf break (Read et al., 2014). 

Similar with other U.S. Atlantic coast areas, bottlenose dolphins were among the most frequently 

observed cetacean species during vessel surveys conducted along the continental shelf break and 

pelagic waters offshore of Jacksonville, Florida from July 2009 through December 2013. Bottlenose 

dolphins were encountered throughout the area including within deeper pelagic waters (Swaim et al., 

2014). Genetic analyses of biopsy samples confirmed that all sampled bottlenose dolphins were off the 

offshore morphotype, suggesting there is limited overlap between coastal and offshore populations in 

this area of the Atlantic Ocean (Swaim et al., 2014). Photo-identification catalogs of bottlenose dolphins 

from Cape Hatteras, Onslow Bay, Jacksonville survey areas have been compared, but no matches have 

been identified (Foley et al., 2015b; Swaim et al., 2014) suggesting a high degree of residency to these 

areas. 

Several lines of evidence support a distinction between coastal stock dolphins and those present 

primarily in the inshore waters of the bays, sounds, and estuaries (LaBrecque et al., 2015a). Photoidentification and genetic studies support the existence of more than 40 stock populations in bays, 

sounds, and estuaries. These populations inhabit estuaries and bays from North Carolina to the Gulf of 

Mexico coast (Caldwell, 2001; Gubbins, 2002; Gubbins et al., 2003; Litz, 2007; Mazzoil et al., 2005; 

Zolman, 2002). 

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified nine small and resident bottlenose dolphin population areas within 

estuarine areas along the U.S. East Coast. These areas include estuarine and nearshore areas extending 

from Pamlico Sound, North Carolina down to Florida Bay, Florida and were substantiated through 

vessel- and aerial based survey data, photo-identification data, genetic analyses, and expert judgment 

(LaBrecque et al., 2015b). The Northern North Carolina, Southern North Carolina, Charleston Harbor 

partially overlaps with nearshore portions of the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex and Jacksonville 

Estuarine System Populations partially overlaps with nearshore portions of the Jacksonville Range 

Complex. The Southern Georgia Estuarine System Population area also overlaps with the Jacksonville

Range Complex, specifically within Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Kings Bay, Georgia and includes 

estuarine and intercoastal waterways from Altamaha Sound, to the Cumberland River (LaBrecque et al., 

2015b). The remaining four biologically important areas are outside but adjacent to the AFTT Study Area 

boundaries. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-65

3.7 Marine Mammals

In the Gulf of Mexico alone, 32 distinct stocks are recognized, although the structure of these stocks is 

uncertain but appears to be complex. Residency patterns of dolphins in bays, sounds, and estuaries 

range from transient to seasonally migratory to stable resident communities, and various stocks may 

overlap at times. Year-round residency patterns of some individual bottlenose dolphins in bays, sounds, 

and estuaries have been reported for almost every survey area where photo-identification or tagging 

studies have been conducted. 

LaBrecque et al. (2015a) delineated 11 small and resident population areas for bottlenose dolphins 

within the Gulf of Mexico. These areas include bays, sounds, and estuaries ranging from Aransas Pass, 

Texas to the Florida Keys, Florida and were substantiated through a combination of extensive photoidentification data, genetic analyses, radio-tracking data, and expert knowledge (LaBrecque et al., 

2015a). Of the 11 biologically important areas identified for bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico, 3 

overlap with the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex (Aranas Pass Area, Texas; Mississippi Sound Area, 

Mississippi; and St. Joseph Bay Area, Florida) and 8 are located adjacent to the AFTT Study Area 

boundaries. 

3.7.2.3.10.3 Population Trends 

A trend analysis has not been conducted for the following stocks of bottlenose dolphins: Western North 

Atlantic Offshore Stock and Northern Gulf of Mexico Oceanic Stock (Waring et al., 2016). 

There are insufficient data to determine the population trends for the following stocks of bottlenose 

dolphins: Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf Stock; Northern North Carolina Estuarine System 

Stock; Southern North Carolina Estuarine System Stock; Northern South Carolina Estuarine System 

Stock; Charleston Estuarine System Stock; Northern Georgia/Southern South Carolina Estuarine System 

Stock; Central Georgia Estuarine System Stock; Southern Georgia Estuarine System Stock; Jacksonville 

Estuarine System Stock; Indian River Lagoon Estuarine System Stock; Biscayne Bay Stock; Florida Bay 

Stock; Gulf of Mexico Eastern Coastal Stock; Gulf of Mexico Northern Coastal Stock; Gulf of Mexico 

Western Coastal Stock; most of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Bay, Sound, and Estuary Stocks, Barataria 

Bay Estuarine System Stock; Mississippi Sound Stock; Lake Borgne Bay Boudreau Stock; St. Joseph Bay 

Stock; Choctawhatchee Bay Stock; and Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Stock (Waring et al., 2012; 

Waring et al., 2015). 

There are limited data available to assess population trends for the following stocks of bottlenose 

dolphins: Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal Stock, Western North Atlantic Southern 

Migratory Coastal Stock, Western North Atlantic South Carolina-Georgia Coastal Stock, Western North 

Atlantic Northern Florida Coastal Stock, and Western North Atlantic Central Florida Coastal Stock

(Waring et al., 2013, 2014). 

3.7.2.3.10.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Bottlenose dolphins are opportunistic feeders, taking a variety of fishes, cephalopods, and crustaceans 

(Wells & Scott, 1999) and using a variety of feeding strategies (Barros & Myrberg, 1987; Barros & Wells, 

1998; Shane et al., 1986). Nearshore bottlenose dolphins prey predominantly on coastal fishes and 

cephalopods, while offshore individuals prey on open ocean cephalopods and a large variety of nearsurface and mid-water fishes (Mead & Potter, 1995). 

This species is known to be preyed on by killer whales and sharks (Wells & Scott, 1999). As many as half 

the observed bottlenose dolphin in Florida exhibit scars from shark attacks. Primary shark predators are 

considered to be the bull, tiger, great white, and dusky sharks (Wells & Scott, 1999). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-66

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.10.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to bottlenose dolphins in the northwest Atlantic or Gulf 

of Mexico. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.11Pantropical Spotted Dolphin (Stenella attenuata) 

3.7.2.3.11.1 Status and Management 

The western North Atlantic and northern Gulf of Mexico populations are considered separate stocks for 

management purposes, although there is currently not enough information to distinguish them (Waring 

et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.3.11.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

The pantropical spotted dolphin is distributed in offshore tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic 

Ocean between about 40° N and 40° S (Baldwin et al., 1999; Perrin, 2008d). The species is much more 

abundant in the lower latitudes of its range. It is found mostly in deeper offshore waters but does 

approach the coast in some areas (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015; Perrin, 2001). 

Pantropical spotted dolphins may occur in the Gulf Stream open ocean area. 

The pantropical spotted dolphin is the most commonly sighted species of cetacean in the oceanic waters 

of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Pantropical spotted dolphins were seen in all seasons during GulfCet 

aerial surveys of the northern Gulf of Mexico between 1992 and 1998 (Hansen et al., 1996; Mullin & 

Hoggard, 2000). Most sightings of this species in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean occur over the lower 

continental slope (Mignucci-Giannoni et al., 2003; Moreno et al., 2005). Pantropical spotted dolphins in 

the offshore Gulf of Mexico do not appear to have a preference for any one specific habitat type, such as 

within the Loop Current, inside cold-core eddies, or along the continental slope (Baumgartner et al., 

2001). Along the U.S. Atlantic coast, sightings have been concentrated in the slope waters east of New 

England and Florida, and sightings extend into the deeper slope and offshore waters of the mid-Atlantic 

east of Cape Hatteras (Waring et al., 2014). 

3.7.2.3.11.3 Population Trends 

There are insufficient data to determine population trends for the western North Atlantic Stock of 

pantropical spotted dolphins, because prior to 1998, spotted dolphins were not differentiated during 

surveys (Waring et al., 2007). 

Further analysis of Gulf of Mexico pantropical spotted dolphin survey data from 1991–2009 is required 

in order to determine whether changes in abundance have occurred (Waring et al., 2015). Additionally, 

a Gulf-wide assessment of pantropical spotted dolphin abundance has not been made (Waring et al., 

2015). 

3.7.2.3.11.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Pantropical spotted dolphins prey on near-surface fishes, squid, and crustaceans and on some midwater species (Perrin & Hohn, 1994). Results from various tracking and food habit studies suggest that 

pantropical spotted dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific and off Hawaii feed primarily at night on 

surface and mid-water species that rise after dark with the deep scattering layer (stratified zones in the 

ocean, usually composed of marine organisms that migrate vertically from depth to surface and back 

again at different times of day) (Baird et al., 2001; Evans, 1994; Robertson & Chivers, 1997). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-67

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pantropical spotted dolphins may be preyed on by killer whales and sharks and were observed fleeing 

killer whales in Hawaiian waters (Baird et al., 2006). Other predators may include the pygmy killer 

whale, false killer whale, and occasionally the short-finned pilot whale (Perrin, 2008d). 

3.7.2.3.11.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to pantropical spotted dolphins in the northwest 

Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.12Atlantic Spotted Dolphin (Stenella frontalis) 

3.7.2.3.12.1 Status and Management 

The Atlantic spotted dolphin occurs in two forms that may be distinct subspecies (Perrin et al., 1987; 

Rice, 1998): the large, heavily spotted form, which inhabits the continental shelf and is usually found 

inside or near the 200-m isobath; and the smaller, less spotted island and offshore form, which occurs in 

the Atlantic Ocean but is not known to occur in the Gulf of Mexico (Fulling et al., 2003; Mullin & Fulling, 

2003, 2004). The western North Atlantic population is provisionally being considered a separate stock 

from the Gulf of Mexico stock(s) for management purposes based on genetic analysis (Waring et al., 

2014; Waring et al., 2016). The U.S. Virgin Islands population is provisionally being considered a separate 

stock, although there is currently no information to differentiate this stock from the Atlantic Ocean and 

Gulf of Mexico stocks.

3.7.2.3.12.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

The Atlantic spotted dolphin is found in nearshore tropical to warm-temperate waters, predominantly 

over the continental shelf and upper slope (Waring et al., 2013, 2014). In the eastern Gulf of Mexico, for 

instance, the species often occurs over the mid-shelf (Griffin & Griffin, 2003). In the western Atlantic, 

this species is distributed from New England to Brazil and is found in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the 

Caribbean Sea (Perrin, 2008a). Atlantic spotted dolphins may occur in the Gulf Stream open ocean area. 

The large, heavily spotted coastal form of the Atlantic spotted dolphin typically occurs over the 

continental shelf but usually at least 4.9 to 12.4 mi. offshore (Davis et al., 1998; Perrin, 2002). Atlantic 

spotted dolphin sightings have been concentrated in the slope waters north of Cape Hatteras, but in the 

shelf waters south of Cape Hatteras sightings extend into the deeper slope and offshore waters of the 

mid-Atlantic (Mullin & Fulling, 2003; Waring et al., 2014). Vessel surveys conducted between January 

2009 and December 2014 offshore of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina resulted in multiple sightings of 

Atlantic spotted dolphins annually from 2011 to 2014 (Foley et al., 2015b; U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2013c). Aerial and shipboard surveys conducted between 2007 and 2010 in offshore waters of Onslow 

Bay, North Carolina indicate that spotted dolphins have a strong preference for waters over the 

continental shelf and do not typically occur beyond the shelf break (Read et al., 2014). Numerous resightings of multiple individuals over several years and across seasons supports the existence of 

considerable fine-scale population structure and a degree of residency for Atlantic spotted dolphins in 

Onslow Bay (Swaim et al., 2014). 

Photo-identification catalogs of Atlantic spotted dolphins from Cape Hatteras, Onslow Bay, Jacksonville 

survey areas have been compared, but no matches have been identified (Foley et al., 2015b; Swaim et 

al., 2014) suggesting a high degree of residency to these areas. Atlantic spotted dolphins were one of 

the dominant species sighted during vessel surveys conducted along the continental shelf break and 

pelagic waters offshore of Jacksonville, Florida from July 2009 through December 2013 (Swaim et al., 

2014). Sightings were restricted to the relatively shallow shelf waters of the survey area. Photo-
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-68

3.7 Marine Mammals

identification catalogs of Atlantic spotted dolphins from Cape Hatteras, Onslow Bay, Jacksonville survey 

areas have been compared, but no matches have been identified (Foley et al., 2015b; Swaim et al.,

2014) further supporting some degree of residency to these areas. 

Higher numbers of spotted dolphins are reported over the west Florida continental shelf from 

November to May than during the rest of the year, suggesting that this species may migrate seasonally 

(Griffin & Griffin, 2003). 

In the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic spotted dolphins occur primarily from continental shelf waters 10-200 m 

deep to slope waters greater than 500 m deep (Fulling et al., 2003; Maze-Foley & Mullin, 2006; Mullin & 

Fulling, 2004). Atlantic spotted dolphins were seen in all seasons during GulfCet aerial surveys of the 

northern Gulf of Mexico from 1992 to 1998 (Hansen et al., 1996; Mullin & Hoggard, 2000). 

3.7.2.3.12.3 Population Trends 

Due to imprecise abundance estimates and long periods of time between surveys, a trend analysis has 

not been conducted for the western North Atlantic Stock of Atlantic spotted dolphins (Waring et al., 

2014). 

The current population size for the Atlantic spotted dolphin in the northern Gulf of Mexico is unknown 

because the survey data from the continental shelf that covers the majority of this stock’s range are 

more than 8 years old (Wade & Angliss, 1997). Additionally, there are insufficient data to determine the 

population trend for the Northern Gulf of Mexico Stock of Atlantic spotted dolphins (Waring et al., 2013)

and for the Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands stock of Atlantic spotted dolphins (Waring et al., 2012). 

3.7.2.3.12.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Atlantic spotted dolphins feed on small cephalopods, fishes, and benthic invertebrates. Atlantic spotted 

dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico were observed feeding cooperatively on clupeid fishes and are known to 

feed in association with shrimp trawlers (Fertl & Würsig, 1995; Fertl & Leatherwood, 1997). In the 

Bahamas, this species was observed to chase and catch flying fish (MacLeod et al., 2004). The diet of the 

Atlantic spotted dolphin varies depending on its location (Jefferson et al., 2015). This species was 

documented to be prey for killer whales and sharks (Jefferson et al., 2015). 

3.7.2.3.12.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to Atlantic spotted dolphins in the northwest Atlantic or 

Gulf of Mexico. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.13Spinner Dolphin (Stenella longirostris) 

3.7.2.3.13.1 Status and Management 

For management purposes, the western North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico populations of spinner 

dolphins are considered separate stocks, although there is currently insufficient data to differentiate 

them (Waring et al., 2014). 

3.7.2.3.13.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

This is presumably an offshore, deep-water species (Perrin & Gilpatrick, 1994) and its distribution in the 

Atlantic is very poorly known. 

Spinner dolphins likely occur in the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Gyre open ocean areas, based on 

their preference for waters greater than 2,000 m deep. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-69

3.7 Marine Mammals

In the western North Atlantic, these dolphins occur in deep water along most of the U.S. coast south to 

the West Indies and Venezuela, including the Gulf of Mexico (Waring et al., 2014). Spinner dolphin 

sightings have occurred exclusively in deeper (greater than 2,000 m) oceanic waters of the northeast 

U.S. coast (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Waring et al., 1992). Stranding records exist 

from North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Puerto Rico in the Atlantic and in Texas and Florida in 

the Gulf of Mexico, and there was one recent sighting during summer 2011 in oceanic waters off North 

Carolina (Waring et al., 2014). Monthly aerial surveys offshore of Cape Hatteras conducted since May 

2011 have only resulted in one sighting of spinner dolphins in a mixed group of Clymene dolphins within 

the northern offshore waters of the survey area (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2012). Although spinner 

dolphins were sighted and stranded off the southeastern U.S. coast, they are not common in those 

waters, except perhaps off southern Florida (Waring et al., 2010). In the northern Gulf of Mexico, 

spinner dolphins are found mostly in offshore waters beyond the edge of the continental shelf and 

primarily east of the Mississippi River (Waring et al., 2013). This species was seen during all seasons in 

the northern Gulf of Mexico during aerial surveys between 1992 and 1998 (Waring et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.3.13.3 Population Trends 

Due to imprecise abundance estimates and long periods of time between surveys, a trend analysis has 

not been conducted for the western North Atlantic Stock of spinner dolphins (Waring et al., 2014). 

Further analysis of northern Gulf of Mexico spinner dolphin survey data from 1991–2009 is required in 

order to determine whether changes in abundance have occurred over this period (Waring et al., 2013). 

Additionally, a Gulf-wide assessment of spinner dolphin abundance has not been made (Waring et al., 

2013). 

There are insufficient data to determine the population trends for the Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands 

stock of spinner dolphins (Waring et al., 2012). 

3.7.2.3.13.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Spinner dolphins feed primarily on small mid-water fishes, squids, and shrimp and dive to at least 1,300 

ft. (400 m) (Perrin & Gilpatrick, 1994). Studies of spinner dolphins in the Pacific suggest they forage 

primarily at night, when the mid-water community migrates toward the surface and the shore (BenoitBird et al., 2001; Benoit-Bird, 2004). Spinner dolphins track the horizontal migrations of their prey 

(Benoit-Bird & Au, 2003), allowing foraging efficiencies (Benoit-Bird & Au, 2003; Benoit-Bird, 2004). 

Foraging behavior was also linked to lunar phases in scattering layers off the island of Hawaii (BenoitBird & Au, 2004). Similar foraging behavior is expected for spinner dolphins that occur in the AFTT Study 

Area.

Spinner dolphins may be preyed on by sharks, killer whales, pygmy killer whales, and short-finned pilot 

whales (Perrin, 2008c). 

3.7.2.3.13.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to spinner dolphins in the northwest Atlantic or Gulf of 

Mexico. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.14Clymene Dolphin (Stenella clymene) 

3.7.2.3.14.1 Status and Management 

The Clymene dolphin has an extensive range in the tropical Atlantic Ocean. For management purposes, 

the western North Atlantic and Northern Gulf of Mexico populations are considered separate stocks. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-70

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.14.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Clymene dolphins are a tropical to subtropical species, primarily sighted in deep waters well beyond the 

edge of the continental shelf (Fertl et al., 2003). Clymene dolphins likely occur in the Gulf Stream open 

ocean area. 

In the western North Atlantic, Clymene dolphins were observed as far north as New Jersey, although 

sightings were primarily in offshore waters east of Cape Hatteras over the continental slope and are 

likely to be strongly influenced by oceanographic features of the Gulf Stream (Fertl et al., 2003; Moreno 

et al., 2005; Mullin & Fulling, 2003). Monthly aerial surveys conducted offshore of Cape Hatteras since

May 2011 have resulted in 10 total Clymene dolphin sightings, including one sighting of Clymene 

dolphins in a mixed group of spinner dolphins within the northern offshore waters of the survey area in 

2011 (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013c). All Clymene dolphin sightings were documented primarily 

during the summer and fall months. 

Clymene dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico are observed most frequently on the lower slope and deepwater 

areas, primarily west of the Mississippi River, in regions of cyclonic or confluent circulation (Davis et al., 

2002; Mullin et al., 1994a). Clymene dolphins were seen in the winter, spring and summer during 

GulfCet aerial surveys of the northern Gulf of Mexico during 1992 to 1998 (Hansen et al., 1996; Mullin & 

Hoggard, 2000). 

3.7.2.3.14.3 Population Trends 

There are insufficient data to determine population trends for the western North Atlantic stock of 

Clymene dolphins (Waring et al., 2013, 2014). Further analysis of northern Gulf of Mexico Clymene 

dolphin survey data from 1991–2009 is required in order to determine whether changes in abundance 

have occurred over this period (Waring et al., 2013). Additionally, a Gulf-wide assessment of Clymene 

dolphin abundance has not been made (Waring et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.3.14.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Available information on feeding habits is very limited. This species preys on small fish and squid at 

moderate depths and feeds primarily at night (Fertl et al., 1997; Jefferson et al., 2015; Perrin et al., 

1981). 

This species is possibly preyed on by killer whales and large sharks, as evidenced by scars observed on 

their bodies, although actual predation was not observed (Jefferson, 2008; Jefferson et al., 2008b; 

Jefferson et al., 2015). 

3.7.2.3.14.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to Clymene dolphins in the northwest Atlantic or Gulf of 

Mexico. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.15Striped Dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) 

3.7.2.3.15.1 Status and Management 

For management purposes, the Gulf of Mexico population of striped dolphin is provisionally considered 

a separate stock, although there are not sufficient genetic data to differentiate the Gulf of Mexico stock 

from the western North Atlantic stock (Waring et al., 2010). There is very little information on stock 

structure in the western North Atlantic and insufficient data to assess population trends of this species 

(Waring et al., 2010). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-71

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.15.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

The striped dolphin is one of the most common and abundant dolphin species, with a worldwide range 

that includes both tropical and temperate waters (Waring et al., 2014). Although primarily a warm-water 

species, the range of the striped dolphin extends higher into temperate regions than those of any other 

species in the genus Stenella (spotted, spinner, Clymene, and striped dolphins). Striped dolphins are 

found in the western North Atlantic from Nova Scotia south to at least Jamaica as well as in the Gulf of 

Mexico. In general, striped dolphins appear to prefer continental slope waters offshore to the Gulf 

Stream (Leatherwood et al., 1976; Perrin et al., 1994b; Schmidly, 1981). 

Striped dolphins are relatively common in the cooler offshore waters of the U.S. East Coast. Along the 

mid-Atlantic ridge in oceanic waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, striped dolphins are sighted in 

significant numbers south of 50° N (Waring et al., 2010). In waters off the northeastern U.S. coast, 

striped dolphins are distributed along the continental shelf edge from Cape Hatteras to the southern 

margin of Georges Bank and also occur offshore over the continental slope and rise in the mid-Atlantic 

region (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Mullin & Fulling, 2003). Continental shelf edge 

sightings in the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program (1982) were generally centered along the 

1,000-m depth contour in all seasons. During 1990 and 1991 cetacean habitat-use surveys, striped 

dolphins were associated with the Gulf Stream north wall and warm-core ring features (Waring et al., 

1992). Striped dolphins seen in a survey of the New England Sea Mounts (Palka, 1997) were in waters 

that were between 20 degrees Celsius (°C) and 27°C and deeper than about 3,000 ft. (900 m). 

In January 2015, monthly aerial surveys began in the offshore area near Norfolk Canyon and to date six 

striped dolphin sightings have been recorded during these efforts (McAlarney et al., 2016). Monthly 

aerial surveys have been ongoing offshore of Cape Hatteras since May 2011, which have resulted in a 

total of five striped dolphin sightings, primarily in late winter and early spring. 

Striped dolphins are also found throughout the deep, offshore waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico. 

Sightings of striped dolphins in the northern Gulf of Mexico typically occur in oceanic waters and during 

all seasons (Waring et al., 2010). 

3.7.2.3.15.3 Population Trends 

A trend analysis has not been conducted for the western North Atlantic stock of striped dolphins 

(Waring et al., 2014). 

Further analysis of northern Gulf of Mexico striped dolphin survey data from 1991–2009 is required in 

order to determine whether changes in abundance have occurred over this period (Waring et al., 2013). 

Additionally, a Gulf-wide assessment of striped dolphin abundance has not been made (Waring et al., 

2013). 

3.7.2.3.15.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Striped dolphins often feed in open sea or sea bottom zones along the continental slope or just beyond 

it in oceanic waters. Most of their prey possess light-emitting organs, suggesting that striped dolphins 

may be feeding at great depths, possibly diving to 655 to 2,295 ft. (200 to 700 m) (Archer & Perrin, 

1999). Striped dolphins may feed at night to take advantage of the deep scattering layer’s diurnal 

vertical movements. Small mid-water fishes (in particular lanternfishes) and squids are the predominant 

prey (Perrin et al., 1994b). 

This species was documented to be preyed on by sharks (Ross & Bass, 1971). It may also be subject to 

predation by killer whales.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-72

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.15.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to striped dolphins in the northwest Atlantic or Gulf of 

Mexico. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.16Fraser’s Dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) 

3.7.2.3.16.1 Status and Management 

The Gulf of Mexico population of Fraser’s dolphin is provisionally being considered a separate stock for 

management purposes, although there are no genetic data to differentiate this stock from the western 

North Atlantic stock (Waring et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.3.16.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Fraser’s dolphin is a tropical, oceanic species, except where deep water approaches the coast (Dolar, 

2008). Frasier’s dolphins likely occur in the Gulf Stream open ocean area. 

This species is assumed to occur in the tropical western North Atlantic, although only a single sighting of 

approximately 250 individuals was recorded in waters 3,300 m deep in the waters off Cape Hatteras 

during a 1999 vessel survey. Monthly aerial surveys offshore of Cape Hatteras since May 2011 have

resulted in only one sighting of Fraser’s dolphins offshore of the 1,500 m isobaths (U.S. Department of 

the Navy, 2013c). The first record for the Gulf of Mexico was a mass stranding in the Florida Keys in 1981 

(Hersh & Odell, 1986; Leatherwood et al., 1993). Since then, there have been documented strandings on 

the west coast of Florida and in southern Texas (Yoshida et al., 2010). Sightings of Fraser’s dolphin in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico typically occur in oceanic waters greater than 200 m. This species was observed 

in the northern Gulf of Mexico during all seasons.

3.7.2.3.16.3 Population Trends 

There are insufficient data to determine population trends for the western North Atlantic stock of 

Fraser’s dolphins (Waring et al., 2007). 

There are also insufficient data to determine population trends for the northern Gulf of Mexico stock of 

Fraser’s dolphins. The large relative changes in the total abundances of Fraser’s dolphin are probably 

due to a number of factors. Fraser’s dolphin is most certainly a resident species in the Gulf of Mexico but 

probably occurs in low numbers, and the survey effort is not sufficient to estimate the abundance of 

uncommon or rare species with precision. Also, these temporal abundance estimates are difficult to 

interpret without a Gulf of Mexico-wide understanding of Fraser’s dolphin abundance. Studies based on 

abundance and distribution surveys restricted to U.S. waters are unable to detect temporal shifts in 

distribution beyond U.S. waters that might account for any changes in abundance (Waring et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.3.16.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Fraser’s dolphin feeds on mid-water fishes, squids, and shrimps and has not been documented to be 

prey to any other species (Jefferson & Leatherwood, 1994; Perrin et al., 1994a). However, this species 

may be subject to predation by killer whales.

3.7.2.3.16.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to Fraser’s dolphins in the northwest Atlantic or Gulf of 

Mexico. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-73

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.17Risso’s Dolphin (Grampus griseus) 

3.7.2.3.17.1 Status and Management

For management purposes, Risso’s dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean are currently 

considered two separate stocks (Waring et al., 2010; Waring et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.3.17.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Risso’s dolphins are distributed worldwide in tropical and temperate waters along the continental shelf 

break and over the continental slope and outer continental shelf (Baumgartner, 1997; Canadas et al., 

2002; Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Davis et al., 1998; Green et al., 1992; Kruse et al., 

1999; Mignucci-Giannoni, 1998). Risso’s dolphins were also found in association with submarine canyons 

(Mussi et al., 2004). The range of the Risso’s dolphin distribution in open-ocean waters of the North 

Atlantic is known to include the Gulf Stream and the southwestern portions of the North Atlantic Gyre. 

In the northwest Atlantic, Risso’s dolphins occur from Florida to eastern Newfoundland (Baird & Stacey, 

1991; Leatherwood et al., 1976). Off the northeast U.S. coast, Risso’s dolphins are distributed along the 

continental shelf edge from Cape Hatteras northward to Georges Bank during spring, summer, and 

autumn (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Payne et al., 1984). In winter, the range is in 

the mid-Atlantic Bight and extends outward into oceanic waters. In general, the population occupies the 

mid-Atlantic continental shelf edge year-round and is rarely seen in the Gulf of Maine. During 1990, 

1991, and 1993, spring/summer surveys conducted along the continental shelf edge and in deeper 

oceanic waters sighted Risso’s dolphins associated with strong bathymetric features, Gulf Stream warm 

core rings, and the Gulf Stream north wall (Hamazaki, 2002; Waring et al., 1992, 1993). 

Monthly aerial survey efforts began in January 2015 in the offshore area near Norfolk Canyon and have 

resulted in seven Risso’s dolphin sightings to date. 

Monthly aerial surveys offshore of Cape Hatteras since May 2011 have documented 24 Risso’s dolphin 

sightings, primarily during the summer months. Vessel surveys conducted offshore of Cape Hatteras, 

North Carolina from January 2009 to December 2014 also resulted in regular sightings of Risso’s 

dolphins (Foley et al., 2015b; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013c). Risso’s dolphins were also sighted 

from inside the 100 m isobath out to 2,000 m water depth during aerial surveys conducted between 

January to December 2014 (McAlarney et al., 2014). 

Risso’s dolphins were also one of the most commonly encountered pelagic dolphins found during 

surveys conducted in Onslow Bay, North Carolina and offshore of Jacksonville, Florida (U.S. Department 

of the Navy, 2013c). Risso’s dolphins observed during aerial and vessel surveys conducted monthly 

between June 2007 and June 2010 offshore of Onslow Bay, North Carolina were exclusively found over 

the continental shelf break and in deeper waters of the survey area (Read et al., 2014; U.S. Department 

of the Navy, 2013c). Passive acoustic monitoring in Onslow Bay preliminarily indicated that Risso’s 

dolphins are present in that area throughout the year (Hodge, 2011). High-frequency acoustic recording 

packages were deployed from July 2010 through March 2011 and showed an increase in nocturnal 

increases in Risso’s dolphin click occurrences (Hodge & Read, 2013). Additional deployments of highfrequency acoustic recording packages from October 2012 through June 2013 at water depth of 853 m 

detected calls of Risso’s dolphins mainly during spring and summer months (April to June) and no 

detections were recorded during fall and winter (October through late February) (Hodge & Read, 2015). 

Vessel surveys conducted offshore of Jacksonville, Florida between July 2009 and December 2014 have 

resulted in a few Risso’s dolphin sightings including two sightings in 2010, one sighting in May 2013 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-74

3.7 Marine Mammals

(Swaim et al., 2014) and one sighting in October 2014 (Swaim et al., 2015). Aerial surveys conducted 

between July 2010 and December 2011 documented higher numbers of Risso’s dolphin encounters, with 

16 sightings occurring within deeper waters of the survey area (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013c).

Risso’s dolphins in the northern Gulf of Mexico occur throughout oceanic waters but are concentrated in 

continental slope waters (Baumgartner, 1997; Maze-Foley & Mullin, 2006). Risso’s dolphins were seen in 

all seasons during GulfCet aerial surveys of the northern Gulf of Mexico between 1992 and 1998 

(Hansen et al., 1996; Mullin & Hoggard, 2000). 

3.7.2.3.17.3 Population Trends 

A trend analysis has not been conducted for the western North Atlantic stock or for the Gulf of Mexico 

stock of Risso’s dolphins (Waring et al., 2015). 

Further analysis of northern Gulf of Mexico Risso’s dolphin survey data from 1991–2009 is required in 

order to determine whether changes in abundance have occurred over this period (Waring et al., 2015). 

Additionally, a Gulf-wide assessment of Risso’s dolphin abundance has not been made (Waring et al., 

2015). 

3.7.2.3.17.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Cephalopods and crustaceans are the primary prey for the Risso’s dolphins (Clarke, 1996), with feeding 

occurring mainly at night (Baird, 2009a; Jefferson et al., 2008b). 

This dolphin may be preyed on by both killer whales and sharks, although there is no documented 

report of predation by either species (Weller, 2008). 

3.7.2.3.17.5 Species-Specific Threats

Risso’s dolphins were included in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan to reduce bycatch

associated with Atlantic pelagic longline fishery to a level approaching a zero mortality and serious injury 

rate within 5 years of implementation (74 Federal Register 23351–23351, May 19, 2009). Section 

3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.18Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) 

3.7.2.3.18.1 Status and Management 

Three stocks of the Atlantic white-sided dolphin in the western North Atlantic Ocean were suggested for 

conservation management: Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Labrador Sea (Palka et al., 1997; 

Waring et al., 2004). However, genetic analysis indicates that no definite stock structure exists. The 

species is considered abundant in the North Atlantic (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Waring et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.3.18.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

This species is found primarily in cold temperate to subpolar continental shelf waters to the 328 ft. 

(100 m) depth contour (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Mate et al., 1994; Selzer & 

Payne, 1988). Occurrence of Atlantic white-sided dolphins in the northeastern United States probably 

reflects fluctuations in food availability as well as oceanographic conditions (Palka et al., 1997; Selzer & 

Payne, 1988). Before the 1970s, Atlantic white-sided dolphins were found primarily offshore in waters 

over the continental slope; however, since then, they occur primarily in waters over the continental 

shelf, replacing white-beaked dolphins, which were previously sighted in the area. This shift may have 

been the result of an increase in sand lance and a decline in herring in continental shelf waters (Payne et 

al., 1990). Areas of feeding importance are around Cape Cod and on the northwest edge of Georges 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-75

3.7 Marine Mammals

Bank, in an area defined as the Great South Channel-Jeffreys Ledge corridor (Cetacean and Turtle 

Assessment Program, 1982; Palka et al., 1997). Selzer and Payne (1988) sighted white-sided dolphins 

more frequently in areas of high seafloor relief and where sea surface temperatures and salinities were 

low, although these environmental conditions might be only secondarily influencing dolphin 

distribution; seasonal variation in sea surface temperature and salinity and local nutrient upwelling in 

areas of high seafloor relief may affect preferred prey abundances, which in turn might affect dolphin 

distribution (Selzer & Payne, 1988). 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins would be expected to occur in the Labrador Current and possibly in the 

northern extent of the Gulf Stream open ocean area. Atlantic white-sided dolphins are common in 

waters of the continental slope from New England to southern Greenland (Cipriano, 2008; Jefferson et 

al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015). Along the Canadian and U.S. Atlantic coast, this species is most 

common from Hudson Canyon north to the Gulf of Maine (Palka et al., 1997). From January to May, low 

numbers of white-sided dolphins may be found from Georges Bank to Jeffreys Ledge. Even lower 

numbers are found south of Georges Bank (Palka et al., 1997; Payne et al., 1990; Waring et al., 2004). 

From June through September, large numbers of white-sided dolphins are found from Georges Bank to 

the lower Bay of Fundy (Payne et al., 1990; Waring et al., 2004). During this time, strandings occur from 

New Brunswick to New York (Palka et al., 1997). From October to December, white-sided dolphins occur 

at intermediate densities from southern Georges Bank to the southern Gulf of Maine. Sightings occur 

year-round south of Georges Bank, particularly around Hudson Canyon, but in low densities (Cetacean 

and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Palka, 1997; Payne et al., 1990; Waring et al., 2004). A few 

strandings were collected on Virginia and North Carolina beaches, which appear to represent the 

southern edge of the range for this species (Cipriano, 2008; Testaverde & Mead, 1980). 

3.7.2.3.18.3 Population Trends 

A trend analysis has not been conducted for the western North Atlantic stock of Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins (Waring et al., 2015). 

3.7.2.3.18.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

The stomach contents of Atlantic white-sided dolphins caught through fishing bycatch, as well as those 

stranded off of the coast of New England, have included at least 26 fish species and three cephalopod 

species. The most prominent species were the silver hake, spoonarm octopus, and haddock. There is 

seasonal variation in the diet; Atlantic herring was found in more dolphins during the summer than in 

winter (Craddock et al., 2009). This species is known to feed in association with other delphinid (dolphinlike) and large whale species (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015; Palka, 1997). 

This species was not documented to be prey for any other species (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson et 

al., 2015). 

3.7.2.3.18.5 Species-Specific Threats

A review of 405 cases of marine mammal mortalities on Cape Cod and southeastern Massachusetts from 

2000 to 2006 concluded that mass strandings were the main cause of mortality for 69 percent of 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Bogomolni et al., 2010). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-76

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.19 White-Beaked Dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) 

3.7.2.3.19.1 Status and Management 

There are at least two separate stocks of the white-beaked dolphin in the North Atlantic: one in the 

eastern and another in the western North Atlantic.

3.7.2.3.19.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

White-beaked dolphins are found in cold-temperate and subarctic waters of the North Atlantic (Waring 

et al., 2007). In the western North Atlantic Ocean, the white-beaked dolphin occurs throughout northern 

waters of the East Coast of the United States and eastern Canada, from eastern Greenland through the 

Davis Strait and south to Massachusetts (Lien et al., 2001). White-beaked dolphins would be expected to 

occur in the Labrador Current.

Within the Study Area, white-beaked dolphins are concentrated in the western Gulf of Maine and 

around Cape Cod (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Palka et al., 1997). Before the 1970s, 

these dolphins were found primarily in waters over the continental shelf of the Gulf of Maine and 

Georges Bank. Since then, they occur mainly in waters over the continental slope and are replaced by 

large numbers of Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Katona et al., 1993; Palka et al., 1997). This habitat shift 

might be a result of an increase in sand lance and a decline in herring in continental shelf waters (Payne 

et al., 1990). Sightings are common in nearshore waters of Newfoundland and Labrador (Lien et al., 

2001). They also occur in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Waring et al., 2010). During Cetacean and Turtle 

Assessment Program (1982) surveys, white-beaked dolphins were typically sighted in shallow coastal 

waters near Cape Cod and along Stellwagen Bank, with a bottom depth ranging from 43 to 2,454 ft.

(Palka et al., 1997). 

3.7.2.3.19.3 Population Trends 

Abundance has declined in some areas, such as the Gulf of Maine, but this may be more closely related 

to habitat shifts than to direct changes in population size. However, there are insufficient data to 

determine population trends for this species (Waring et al., 2007). 

3.7.2.3.19.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

This species preys on small mid-water and schooling fish, such as herring and haddock, and squid and 

crustaceans (Jefferson et al., 2008b). Cooperative feeding was observed (Jefferson et al., 2008b). 

The white-beaked dolphin is possibly preyed on by killer whales and sharks. Although no attacks were 

documented, groups of white-beaked dolphin were observed fleeing from killer whales (Kinze, 2008). 

3.7.2.3.19.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to white-beaked dolphins in the northwest Atlantic. 

Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.20Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis) 

3.7.2.3.20.1 Status and Management 

Only the short-beaked common dolphin is found within the Study Area: the western North Atlantic stock 

(Jefferson et al., 2009; Waring et al., 2013). A discrete population of long-beaked common dolphins is 

known from the east coast of South America in the western Atlantic (Jefferson et al., 2015); however, 

they are outside of the Study Area and not discussed further.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-77

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.20.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

In the North Atlantic, common dolphins occur over the continental shelf along the 100- to 2,000-m 

isobaths and over prominent underwater topography and east to the mid-Atlantic Ridge (29°W) 

(Doksaeter et al., 2008; Waring et al., 2008). There is a well-studied population of short-beaked common 

dolphins in the western North Atlantic associated with the Gulf Stream (Jefferson et al., 2009). It occurs 

mainly in offshore waters, ranging from Canada maritime provinces to the Florida/Georgia border 

(Waring et al., 2010). 

In waters off the northeastern U.S. coast, common dolphins are distributed along the continental slope 

and are associated with Gulf Stream features (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; 

Hamazaki, 2002; Selzer & Payne, 1988; Stone et al., 1992). They primarily occur from Cape Hatteras 

northeast to Georges Bank (35° to 42°N) during mid-January to May (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment 

Program, 1982; Hain et al., 1981; Payne et al., 1984). Common dolphins move onto Georges Bank and 

the Scotian Shelf from mid-summer to autumn. Selzer and Payne (1988) reported very large 

aggregations (greater than 3,000 animals) on Georges Bank in autumn. Common dolphins are 

occasionally found in the Gulf of Maine (Selzer & Payne, 1988). Migration onto the Scotian Shelf and 

continental shelf off Newfoundland occurs during summer and autumn when water temperatures 

exceed 11°C (Gowans & Whitehead, 1995; Sergeant et al., 1970). The species is less common south of 

Cape Hatteras, although schools were reported as far south as the Georgia/South Carolina border (32°

N) (Jefferson et al., 2009). 

The short-beaked common dolphin was one of the many species sighted in more than 5 years of aerial 

and vessel monitoring of waters off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and Jacksonville, Florida. Aerial 

surveys offshore of Cape Hatteras conducted between August 2011 through July 2012 resulted in eight 

sightings of 675 common dolphins just beyond the 100 m isobath (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013c), 

three sightings in March and May 2013 between the 100 m and 1,000 m isobaths (McAlarney et al., 

2014). From January 2009 through December 2014, common dolphin sightings have occurred each year 

between 2011 through 2014 (Foley et al., 2015a). A single location-only tag was deployed on a shortbeaked common dolphin offshore of Cape Hatteras in June 2014, and location data were obtained over 

a 40-day period. This individual was observed to remain primarily over the continental shelf break and 

continental slope, and traveled north away from the tagging location to shallower continental shelf 

waters off New England during the mid-summer (Baird et al., 2015). The median depth of tagged animal 

locations over the 40-day span was 297 m (Baird et al., 2015).

3.7.2.3.20.3 Population Trends 

A trend analysis has not been conducted for the western North Atlantic stock of common dolphins

(Waring et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.3.20.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Common dolphins feed primarily on organisms in the vertically migrating deep scattering layer, including 

fish and squid (dos Santos & Haimovici, 2001; Meynier et al., 2008; Overholtz & Waring, 1991; Pusineri 

et al., 2007). Diel (a 24-hour cycle that often involves a day and the adjoining night) fluctuations in vocal 

activity, with more vocal activity during late evening and early morning, appear to be linked to feeding in 

the deep scattering layer, which rises in this same time frame (Goold, 2000). In the western North 

Atlantic, oceanic dolphins feed more on squid than those in more nearshore waters (Perrin, 2008b). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-78

3.7 Marine Mammals

Short-beaked common dolphins are known to be preyed on by killer whales (Visser, 1999) and large 

sharks (Leatherwood et al., 1973), although little is known about the impact of this predation on 

populations.

3.7.2.3.20.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to common dolphins in the northwest Atlantic. Section 

3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.21Melon-Headed Whale (Peponocephala electra) 

3.7.2.3.21.1 Status and Management 

For management purposes, the western North Atlantic population and Gulf of Mexico population of 

melon-headed whales are considered separate stocks, although genetic data that differentiate these 

two stocks is lacking (Waring et al., 2007; Waring et al., 2010, 2013).

3.7.2.3.21.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Melon-headed whales are found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters. They are occasionally 

reported at higher latitudes, but these movements are considered to be beyond their typical range 

because the records indicate these movements occurred during incursions of warm water currents 

(Perryman et al., 1994). Melon-headed whales are most often found in offshore deep waters, and could 

occur in the southern parts of the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Gyre open ocean areas. 

Sightings of whales from the Western North Atlantic stock are rare, but a group of 20 whales was 

sighted during surveys in 1999 offshore of Cape Hatteras, and a group of 80 whales was also sighted off 

Cape Hatteras, in 2002, in waters greater than 2,500 m deep (Waring et al., 2013). 

Deployment of high frequency acoustic recording packages offshore of Cape Hatteras, Onslow Bay, 

Jacksonville and the offshore areas near Norfolk Canyon from 2009 through 2015 have resulted in zero 

melon-headed whale detections. However, passive acoustic data were collected from marine

autonomous recording units deployed on the continental shelf, just beyond the shelf, and offshore from 

the shelf break off Jacksonville, Florida in late 2009 and early 2010. These deployments resulted in 

detections of the melon-headed whales, pygmy killer whales, false killer whales, killer whales, and shortfinned pilot whales. These species were detected every day during deployments but there were no 

obvious or consistent differences in the occurrence of vocalizations relative to water depth or time of 

day (Oswald et al., 2016). The grouping of these five species into the same category may have masked 

any patterns in vocal behaviors (Oswald et al., 2016). 

This species was observed in deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, well beyond the edge of the continental 

shelf and in waters over the abyssal plain, primarily west of Mobile Bay, Alabama (Davis & Fargion, 1996; 

Mullin et al., 1994b; Waring et al., 2010, 2013). Sightings of melon-headed whales in the northern Gulf 

of Mexico were documented in all seasons during GulfCet aerial surveys 1992 and 1998 (Hansen et al., 

1996; Mullin & Hoggard, 2000). 

3.7.2.3.21.3 Population Trends 

There are insufficient data to determine the population trends for the Western North Atlantic stock of 

melon-headed whales (Waring et al., 2007). A trend analysis has not been conducted for the northern 

Gulf of Mexico stock of melon-headed whales (Waring et al., 2013). Further analysis of northern Gulf of 

Mexico melon-headed whale survey data from 1991–2009 is required in order to determine whether 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-79

3.7 Marine Mammals

changes in abundance have occurred over this period. Additionally, a Gulf-wide assessment of melonheaded whale abundance has not been made (Waring et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.3.21.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Little is known on predators of melon-headed whales in the Atlantic, therefore information from other 

geographic areas is likely applicable to the AFTT Study Area. Melon-headed whales are believed to be 

preyed on by killer whales and were observed fleeing from killer whales in Hawaiian waters (Baird et al., 

2006). 

Melon-headed whales prey on squid, pelagic fishes, and occasionally crustaceans (Jefferson & Barros, 

1997; Perryman, 2008). Most of the fish and squid families eaten by this species consist of mid-water 

forms found in waters up to 1,500 m deep, suggesting that feeding takes place deep in the water 

column (Jefferson & Barros, 1997). 

3.7.2.3.21.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to melon-headed whales in the northwest Atlantic or 

Gulf of Mexico. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.22Pygmy Killer Whale (Feresa attenuata) 

3.7.2.3.22.1 Status and Management

For management purposes, the Gulf of Mexico population of pygmy killer whale is considered a separate 

stock although there is not yet sufficient genetic information to differentiate this stock from the western 

North Atlantic stocks (Waring et al., 2007; Waring et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.3.22.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Although the pygmy killer whale has an extensive global distribution, it is not known to occur in high 

densities in any region and is, therefore, probably one of the least abundant pantropical delphinids

(Waring et al., 2013). The pygmy killer whale is generally an open ocean deepwater species (Davis et al., 

2000; Würsig et al., 2000). This species has a worldwide distribution in tropical and subtropical oceans. 

Pygmy killer whales generally do not range poleward of 40° N or of 35° S (Donahue & Perryman, 2008; 

Jefferson et al., 2015). This species occurs in the North Atlantic Gyre and the Gulfstream, although 

sightings are rare. Most observations outside the tropics are associated with strong, warm western 

boundary currents that effectively extend tropical conditions into higher latitudes (Ross & Leatherwood, 

1994). 

A group of 6 pygmy killer whales was sighted during a 1992 vessel survey of the western North Atlantic 

off of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, in waters greater than 1,500 m deep, but this species was not 

sighted during subsequent surveys (Waring et al., 2007). 

Deployment of high frequency acoustic recording packages offshore of Cape Hatteras, Onslow Bay, 

Jacksonville and the offshore areas near Norfolk Canyon from 2009 through 2015 have resulted in zero 

pygmy killer whale detections. However, passive acoustic monitoring data was collected from marine 

autonomous recording units deployed on the continental shelf, just beyond the shelf, and offshore from 

the shelf break off Jacksonville, Florida in late 2009 and early 2010. Recordings included detections of 

pygmy killer whales, along with melon-headed whales, false killer whales, killer whales, and short-finned 

pilot whales. These species were detected every day during monitoring but there were no obvious diel 

patterns or differences in the occurrence of blackfish vocalizations relative to water depth (Oswald et 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-80

3.7 Marine Mammals

al., 2016). Since these five species are combined into the same category, patterns in pygmy killer whale 

vocal behaviors may have masked by the presence of other species (Oswald et al., 2016). 

In the northern Gulf of Mexico, the pygmy killer whale is found primarily in deeper waters off the 

continental shelf and in waters over the abyssal plain (Davis et al., 2000; Würsig et al., 2000). The 

majority of sightings are in the eastern oceanic Gulf of Mexico. 

3.7.2.3.22.3 Population Trends 

There are insufficient data to determine population trends for the western North Atlantic stock of 

pygmy killer whales (Waring et al., 2007). 

A trend analysis has not been conducted for the northern Gulf of Mexico stock of pygmy killer whales

(Waring et al., 2013). Further analysis of northern Gulf of Mexico pygmy killer whale survey data from 

1991–2009 is required in order to determine whether changes in abundance have occurred over this 

period. Additionally, a Gulf-wide assessment of pygmy killer whale abundance has not been made 

(Waring et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.3.22.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

The pygmy killer whale has no documented predators in the Atlantic of Gulf of Mexico; however, it may 

be subject to predation by killer whales and large sharks. Pygmy killer whales feed predominantly on fish 

and squid (Clarke, 1986; Donahue & Perryman, 2008; dos Santos & Haimovici, 2001). They are known to 

attack other dolphin species, apparently as prey, although this is not common (Jefferson et al., 2015; 

Perryman & Foster, 1980; Ross & Leatherwood, 1994). 

3.7.2.3.22.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to pygmy killer whales in the northwest Atlantic or Gulf 

of Mexico. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.23False Killer Whale (Pseudorca crassidens) 

3.7.2.3.23.1 Status and Management 

Little is known of the status of most false killer whale populations around the world. While the species is 

not considered rare, few areas of high density are known. The population found in the Gulf of Mexico is 

considered a separate stock from the western North Atlantic stock for management purposes; however, 

there are no genetic data to differentiate between the two stocks (Waring et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.3.23.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

False killer whales occur worldwide throughout warm temperate and tropical oceans in deep openocean waters and around oceanic islands and only rarely come into shallow coastal waters (Baird et al., 

2008; Leatherwood & Reeves, 1983; Odell & McClune, 1999). Occasional inshore movements are 

associated with movements of prey and shoreward flooding of warm ocean currents. False killer whales 

are unlikely to be found in any open ocean area. 

False killer whales have been sighted in U.S. Atlantic waters from southern Florida to Maine (Schmidly, 

1981). There are periodic records (primarily stranding) from southern Florida to Cape Hatteras dating 

back to 1920 (Schmidly, 1981). Few false killer whales have been sighted during shipboard or aerial 

surveys, but one sighting of 11 animals occurred during a shipboard survey conducted in summer 2011

(Waring et al., 2016). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-81

3.7 Marine Mammals

Deployment of high frequency acoustic recording packages offshore of Cape Hatteras, Onslow Bay, 

Jacksonville and the offshore areas near Norfolk Canyon from 2009 through 2015 have resulted in zero 

false killer whale detections. However, deployments of marine autonomous recording units on the 

continental shelf, just beyond the shelf, and offshore from the shelf break off Jacksonville, Florida 

occurred in late 2009 and early 2010. Recordings included detections of false killer whales, along with 

melon-headed whales, pygmy killer whales, killer whales, and short-finned pilot whales. These species 

were detected every day during monitoring but there were no obvious differences in the occurrence of 

vocalizations relative to water depth and no diel patterns were evident (Oswald et al., 2016). Since these

five species are combined into the same category, false killer whale vocalization patterns and behaviors 

may have masked by the presence of other species (Oswald et al., 2016). 

Sightings of this species in the northern Gulf of Mexico (i.e., U.S. Gulf of Mexico) occur in oceanic waters, 

primarily in the eastern Gulf (Maze-Foley & Mullin, 2006; Mullin & Fulling, 2004). False killer whales 

were seen only in the spring and summer during GulfCet aerial surveys of the northern Gulf of Mexico 

between 1992 and 1998 (Hansen et al., 1996; Mullin & Hoggard, 2000) and in the spring during vessel 

surveys (Mullin et al., 2004). 

3.7.2.3.23.3 Population Trends 

There are insufficient data to determine population trends for the western North Atlantic stock of false 

killer whales (Waring et al., 2016). A trend analysis has not been conducted for the northern Gulf of 

Mexico stock of false killer whales (Waring et al., 2013). Further analysis of northern Gulf of Mexico false 

killer whale survey data from 1991–2004 is required in order to determine whether changes in 

abundance have occurred over this period. Additionally, a Gulf-wide assessment of false killer whale 

abundance has not been made (Waring et al., 2013). 

3.7.2.3.23.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

False killer whales feed primarily on deep-sea cephalopods and fish (Odell & McClune, 1999). They may 

prefer large fish species, such as mahi mahi and tuna. Twenty-five false killer whales that stranded off 

the coast of the Strait of Magellan (outside of the Study Area) were examined and found to feed 

primarily on cephalopods and fish. Squid beaks were found in nearly half of the stranded animals. The 

most important prey species were found to be squid, followed by Patagonian grenadier, a coastal fish

(Koen-Alonso et al., 1999). 

False killer whales were observed attacking dolphins and large whales, such as humpback and sperm 

whales (Hooker et al., 2009). They are known to behave aggressively toward small cetaceans in tuna 

purse seine nets. Unlike other whales or dolphins, false killer whales frequently pass prey back and forth 

among individuals before they start to eat the fish, in what appears to be a way of affirming social bonds 

(Baird et al., 2010). This species is believed to be preyed on by large sharks and killer whales (Baird, 

2009b). 

3.7.2.3.23.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to false killer whales in the northwest Atlantic or Gulf of 

Mexico. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-82

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.24Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) 

3.7.2.3.24.1 Status and Management

Although some populations of killer whales, particularly in the northwest Pacific, are extremely well 

studied, little is known about killer whale populations in most areas including the northwest Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico. Killer whales are apparently not highly abundant anywhere but are observed in higher 

concentration in Antarctic waters. For management purposes, the western North Atlantic population 

and Gulf of Mexico population are considered separate stocks (Waring et al., 2010, 2013; 2016). 

3.7.2.3.24.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Killer whales are found in all marine habitats, from the coastal zone (including most bays and inshore 

channels) to deep oceanic basins and from equatorial regions to the polar pack ice zones of both 

hemispheres. Although killer whales are also found in tropical waters and the open ocean, they are 

generally most numerous in coastal waters and at higher latitudes (Dahlheim & Heyning, 1999). Killer 

whales are likely found in Labrador Current, Gulf Stream, and North Atlantic Gyre open ocean areas. 

Killer whales are considered rare and uncommon in waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the 

Atlantic Ocean (Katona et al., 1988; Waring et al., 2010, 2013). During the 1978 to 1981 Cetacean and 

Turtle Assessment Program surveys, there were 12 killer whale sightings, which made up 0.1 percent of 

the 11,156 cetacean sightings in the surveys (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Waring et 

al., 2010, 2013). Nearshore observations are rare. Forty animals were observed in the southern Gulf of 

Maine in September 1979 and 29 animals in Massachusetts Bay in August 1986 (Katona et al., 1988; 

Waring et al., 2010). 

Deployment of high frequency acoustic recording packages offshore of Cape Hatteras, Onslow Bay, 

Jacksonville and the offshore areas near Norfolk Canyon from 2009 through 2015 have resulted in zero 

killer whale detections. During the fall and winter of 2009 and 2010, passive acoustic monitoring was 

conducted by marine autonomous recording units deployed over the continental shelf, just beyond the 

shelf, and offshore from the shelf break off Jacksonville, Florida. Recordings included detections of the 

blackfish group of cetaceans, which includes killer whales, along with melon-headed whales, pygmy 

killer whales, false killer whales, and short-finned pilot whales. Blackfish were detected every day during 

monitoring but there were no obvious differences in the occurrence of blackfish vocalizations relative to 

water depth and diel patterns were not apparent (Oswald et al., 2016). Since five species are combined 

into the blackfish category, vocalization patterns and behaviors may have masked by the presence of 

other species (Oswald et al., 2016). 

Sightings of killer whales in the Gulf of Mexico on surveys from 1921 to 1995 were in water depths 

ranging from 840 to 8,700 ft., with an average of 4,075 ft., and were most frequent in the north-central 

region of the Gulf of Mexico (Waring et al., 2013). Killer whales were seen only in the summer during 

GulfCet aerial surveys of the northern Gulf of Mexico between 1992 and 1998 (Hansen et al., 1996; 

Mullin & Hoggard, 2000), were reported from May through June during vessel surveys (Maze-Foley & 

Mullin, 2006; Mullin & Fulling, 2004) and recorded in May, August, September and November by earlier 

opportunistic ship-based sources (O’Sullivan & Mullin, 1997). 

3.7.2.3.24.3 Population Trends 

There are insufficient data to determine population trends for the western North Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico stocks of killer whales (Waring et al., 2013). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-83

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.24.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Killer whales are apex predators and feed on a variety of prey, including bony fishes, elasmobranchs (a 

class of fish composed of sharks, skates, and rays), cephalopods, seabirds, sea turtles, and other marine 

mammals (Fertl et al., 1996; Jefferson et al., 2015). Some populations are known to specialize in specific 

types of prey (Jefferson et al., 2015; Krahn et al., 2004; Wade et al., 2009). The killer whale has no 

known natural predators; it is considered to be the top predator of the oceans (Ford et al., 2005). 

3.7.2.3.24.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats to killer whales in the northwest Atlantic or Gulf of 

Mexico. Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.25Long-Finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala melas melas) 

There are two species of pilot whales in the western Atlantic: the long-finned pilot whale, Globicephala 

melas melas, and the short-finned pilot whale, G. macrorhynchus. These species are difficult to 

differentiate at sea; therefore, the ability to separately assess the two stocks in U.S. Atlantic waters is 

limited (Waring et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.3.25.1 Status and Management 

The structure of the Western North Atlantic stock of long-finned pilot whales is uncertain (Fullard et al., 

2000; International Council of the Exploration of the Sea, 1993). Morphometric (Bloch & Lastein, 1993)

and genetic (Fullard et al., 2000) studies have provided little support for stock structure across the 

Atlantic (Fullard et al., 2000). However, Fullard et al. (2000) have proposed a stock structure that is 

related to sea-surface temperature: (1) a cold-water population west of the Labrador/North Atlantic 

Current and (2) a warm-water population that extends across the Atlantic in the Gulf Stream. The area 

of overlap between the long-finned and short-finned pilot whales occurs primarily along the shelf break 

off the coast of New Jersey between 38°N and 40°N latitude (Waring et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.3.25.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Long-finned pilot whales occur along the continental shelf break, in continental slope waters, and in 

areas of high topographic relief, inhabiting temperate and subpolar zones from North Carolina to North 

Africa (and the Mediterranean) and north to Iceland, Greenland and the Barents Sea (Abend & Smith, 

1999; Buckland et al., 1993; Leatherwood et al., 1976; Sergeant, 1962). Long-finned pilot whales are 

likely found in the Gulf Stream and Labrador Current open ocean areas, and might be found in the North 

Atlantic Gyre. 

In U.S. Atlantic waters, pilot whales (Globicephala spp.) are distributed principally along the continental 

shelf edge off the northeastern U.S. coast in winter and early spring, moving onto Georges Bank and into 

the Gulf of Maine and more northern waters in late spring (Abend & Smith, 1999; Cetacean and Turtle

Assessment Program, 1982; Hamazaki, 2002; Payne & Heinemann, 1993). They remain in these areas 

through late autumn (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982; Payne & Heinemann, 1993). Pilot 

whales tend to occupy areas of high relief or submerged banks. They are also associated with the Gulf 

Stream wall and thermal fronts along the continental shelf edge. Long- and short-finned pilot whales 

overlap spatially along the mid-Atlantic shelf break between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and New 

Jersey (Payne & Heinemann, 1993). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-84

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.25.3 Population Trends 

A trend analysis has not been conducted for the western North Atlantic stock of long-finned pilot whales

(Waring et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.3.25.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Both pilot whale species feed primarily on squid but also eat fish, including mackerel, cod, turbot, 

herring, hake, and dogfish (Bernard & Reilly, 1999). They are also known to feed on shrimp (Gannon et 

al., 1997; Jefferson et al., 2015). Feeding generally takes place at depths between 200 and 500 m 

(Jefferson et al., 2015), but dives may be as deep as 800 m (Heide-Jorgensen et al., 2002). Some 

accounts of pilot whale attacks on small marine mammals are known, but pilot whales generally are not 

known to prey on marine mammals (Weller et al., 1996). Killer whales are possible predators of longfinned pilot whales. 

3.7.2.3.25.5 Species-Specific Threats

Long-finned pilot whales were included in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan to reduce 

bycatch associated with Atlantic pelagic longline fishery to a level approaching a zero mortality and 

serious injury rate within 5 years of implementation (74 Federal Register 23351–23351, May 19, 2009). 

Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.26Short-Finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus)

3.7.2.3.26.1 Status and Management 

Studies are currently being conducted at the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center to evaluate 

genetic population structure in short-finned pilot whales (Waring et al., 2016). The short-finned pilot 

whale population is managed as three stocks: Western North Atlantic stock, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin 

Islands stock, and Gulf of Mexico Oceanic stock. 

3.7.2.3.26.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

There are two species of pilot whales in the western Atlantic: the long-finned pilot whale, Globicephala 

melas melas, and the short-finned pilot whale, G. macrorhynchus. These species are difficult to 

differentiate at sea; therefore, the ability to separately assess the two stocks in U.S. Atlantic waters is 

limited (Waring et al., 2016). Only the short-finned pilot whale occurs in the Gulf of Mexico and 

Caribbean.

Short-finned pilot whales range throughout warm temperate to tropical waters of the world, generally 

in deep offshore areas (Waring et al., 2016). Thus, the species occupies waters over the continental shelf 

break, in slope waters, and in areas of high topographic relief (Olson, 2009). While pilot whales are 

typically distributed along the continental shelf break, movements over the continental shelf are 

commonly observed in the northeastern United States. Genetic analysis of stranded pilot whales, 

evaluated as a function of sea surface temperature and water depth, indicated that short-finned pilots 

whales were not likely to be found at water temperatures less than 22°C and highly likely to occur where 

water temperatures were greater than 25°C. Probability of a short-finned pilot whale also increased 

with increasing water depth. The area of overlap between short-finned and long-finned pilot whales 

occurs primarily along the shelf break off the coast of New Jersey between 38°N and 40°N latitude 

(Waring et al., 2014). Short-finned pilot whales are likely found in the Gulf Stream open ocean area.

Sightings of pilot whales (Globicephala spp.) in the western North Atlantic occur primarily near the 

continental shelf break ranging from Florida to the Nova Scotian Shelf (Mullin & Fulling, 2003). Long-
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-85

3.7 Marine Mammals

finned and short-finned pilot whales overlap spatially along the mid-Atlantic shelf break between Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina, and New Jersey (Payne & Heinemann, 1993). 

Pilot whales are one of the most common cetacean species observed off Cape Hatteras during aerial 

surveys, specifically from the 100 m isobaths out to water depths greater than 2,000 m (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2013c). Satellite tagging efforts were conducted in the summers of 2014 and 

2015 in an area off Cape Hatteras. Twenty satellite tags were deployed on short-finned pilot whales in 

2014 and 19 were deployed in 2015. The satellite tag study provided the first information on long-term 

and long-distance movements of short-finned pilot whales in the area, other than information obtained 

from tags on previously stranded and rehabilitated individuals. While photo-ID work suggests that shortfinned pilot whales display a high degree of residence off Cape Hatteras, satellite tagging demonstrates 

that these animals cover a significant range up and down the continental slope, from Georges Bank in 

the north, down to Cape Lookout Shoals in the south, with movements at least occasionally into waters 

beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (Baird et al., 2015, 2016a).

Deployment of high frequency acoustic recording packages offshore of Cape Hatteras, Onslow Bay, 

Jacksonville and the offshore areas near Norfolk Canyon from 2009 through 2015 have resulted in zero 

short-finned pilot whale detections. Passive acoustic data were collected from marine autonomous 

recording units deployed on the continental shelf, just beyond the shelf, and offshore from the shelf 

break off Jacksonville, Florida in late 2009 and early 2010. These deployments resulted in detections of 

short-finned pilot whales, along with melon-headed whales, pygmy killer whales, false killer whales, and 

killer whales. These species were detected every day during deployments but there were no obvious or 

consistent differences in the occurrence of vocalizations relative to water depth or time of day (Oswald 

et al., 2016). The fact that five species are combined into the same category may have masked any 

patterns in vocal behaviors (Oswald et al., 2016). 

Short-finned pilot whales are also documented along the continental shelf and continental slope in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico (Hansen et al., 1996; Mullin & Hoggard, 2000; Mullin & Fulling, 2003), and in 

the Caribbean. Short-finned pilot whales were seen in all seasons during GulfCet aerial surveys of the 

northern Gulf of Mexico between 1992 and 1998 (Hansen et al., 1996; Mullin & Hoggard, 2000). 

3.7.2.3.26.3 Population Trends 

A trend analysis has not been conducted for the western North Atlantic stock of short-finned pilot 

whales (Waring et al., 2016). 

A trend analysis has not been conducted for the northern Gulf of Mexico stock of short-finned pilot 

whales (Waring et al., 2016). Further analysis of northern Gulf of Mexico short-finned pilot whale survey 

data from 1991–2004 is required in order to determine whether changes in abundance have occurred 

over this period. Additionally, a Gulf-wide assessment of short-finned pilot whale abundance has not 

been made (Waring et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.3.26.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Pilot whales feed primarily on squid, to which they are generally well adapted (Jefferson et al., 2008b; 

Werth, 2006), but they also take fish (Bernard & Reilly, 1999). Pilot whales are not generally known to 

prey on other marine mammals, but records from the eastern tropical Pacific suggest that the shortfinned pilot whale does occasionally chase and attack, and may even eat, dolphins during fishery 

operations (Olson, 2009; Perryman & Foster, 1980). They were also observed harassing sperm whales in 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-86

3.7 Marine Mammals

the Gulf of Mexico (Weller et al., 1996). This species is not known to have any predators (Weller, 2008), 

but it may be subject to predation by killer whales.

3.7.2.3.26.5 Species-Specific Threats

Short-finned pilot whales were included in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan to reduce 

bycatch associated with Atlantic pelagic longline fishery to a level approaching a zero mortality and 

serious injury rate within 5 years of implementation (74 Federal Register 23351–23351, May 19, 2009). 

Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals. 

3.7.2.3.27Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena phocoena) 

3.7.2.3.27.1 Status and Management

The Gulf of Maine–Bay of Fundy stock is the only stock of harbor porpoise under NMFS management 

within the Study Area. There are three additional harbor porpoise populations that occur within the

Study Area–Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, and Greenland (Gaskin, 1992). 

3.7.2.3.27.2 Habitat and Geographic Range 

Harbor porpoises inhabit cool temperate-to-subpolar waters, often where prey aggregations are 

concentrated (Watts & Gaskin, 1985). Thus, they are frequently found in shallow waters, most often 

near shore, but they sometimes move into deeper offshore waters. Harbor porpoises are rarely found in 

waters warmer than 63°F (17°C) (Read, 1999) and closely follow the movements of their primary prey, 

Atlantic herring (Gaskin, 1992). 

Harbor porpoise would likely be found only in the Labrador Current open ocean area. In the western 

North Atlantic, harbor porpoise range from Cumberland Sound on the east coast of Baffin Island, southeast along the eastern coast of Labrador to Newfoundland and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, thence southwest to about 34°N on the coast of North Carolina (Waring et al., 2016). Harbor porpoise are also found 

in southwest Greenland. During summer (July to September), harbor porpoises are concentrated in the 

northern Gulf of Maine and southern Bay of Fundy region, generally in waters less than 150 ft. deep 

(Gaskin, 1977; Kraus et al., 1983; Palka, 1995a; Palka, 1995b), with a few sightings in the upper Bay of 

Fundy and on the northern edge of Georges Bank (Palka, 2000). 

They are seen from the coastline to deep waters (greater than 5,906 ft.) (Westgate et al., 1998).) 

(Westgate et al., 1998), although most of the population is found over the continental shelf. During 

winter (January to March), intermediate densities of harbor porpoises can be found in waters off New 

Jersey to North Carolina, and lower densities are found in waters off New York to New Brunswick, 

Canada (Waring et al., 2016). Harbor porpoises sighted off the mid-Atlantic states during winter include 

porpoises from other western North Atlantic populations (Rosel et al., 1999). There does not appear to 

be a temporally coordinated migration or a specific migratory route to and from the Bay of Fundy region 

(Waring et al., 2016). 

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified a small and resident population area for harbor porpoise in the Gulf 

of Maine (Figure 3.7-1) based on sightings documented by NOAA Fisheries ship and aerial surveys, 

strandings, and animals taken incidental to fishing reported by NOAA Fisheries observers. From July to 

September, harbor porpoises are concentrated in waters less than 150 m deep in the northern Gulf of 

Maine and southern Bay of Fundy. During fall (October to December) and spring (April to June), harbor 

porpoises are widely dispersed from New Jersey to Maine, with lower densities farther north and south

(LaBrecque et al., 2015b). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-87

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.27.3 Population Trends 

A trend analysis has not been conducted for the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoises 

(Palka, 2012). Since there are no population estimates available for the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 

Newfoundland, or Greenland stocks, trend analyses have not been conducted for these populations 

either (Waring et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.3.27.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

This species preys on a variety of fish, especially high fat pelagic species such as herring, sprat and 

anchovy, and cephalopods (Berrow & Rogan, 1996; Bjorge & Tolley, 2009; Santos & Pierce, 2003). The 

harbor porpoise is known to be attacked and killed by killer whales and common bottlenose dolphins 

(Jefferson et al., 2015). 

3.7.2.3.27.5 Species-Specific Threats

Harbor porpoises have been documented as bycatch in a variety of fisheries, including sink and drift 

gillnets, herring weirs, and pelagic long-lines (Waring et al., 2013; Waring et al., 2016; Zollett, 2009). 

3.7.2.3.28Bearded Seal (Erignathus barbatus) 

3.7.2.3.28.1 Status and Management

There are two generally accepted subspecies of bearded seal; Erignathus barbatus barbatus inhabits the 

North Atlantic Ocean, including Hudson Bay, and the Barents and Laptev Seas; Erignathus barbatus 

nauticus inhabits Arctic waters of eastern Russia, Alaska, the Bering Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, and the 

central Canadian Arctic (Jefferson et al., 2015; Rice, 1998). The bearded seal does not occur within the 

Exclusive Economic Zone of the eastern United States and is not managed by NMFS in the Atlantic Ocean

(Kovacs, 2009). While bearded seals inhabiting the North Atlantic are not listed under the ESA, the 

Okhotsk distinct population segment is listed as threatened (Muto et al., 2016). However this distinct 

population segment does not occur in the AFTT Study Area, and is therefore not addressed. The 

population structure of bearded seals within the western North Atlantic is not well understood.

3.7.2.3.28.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Bearded seals have a circumpolar distribution in the Arctic, generally south of 80° N latitude, and are 

subarctic in some areas, such as the western North Atlantic. The preferred habitat is drifting pack ice in 

shallow water (Cleator, 1996; Kovacs, 2009). Bearded seals spend most of their time near where the 

coastal ice forms and in less than 200 m of water (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015; Kovacs, 

2009). While they are typically strongly tied to ice, bearded seals are known to haul out on land, swim 

up rivers, and live in open-ocean areas for extended periods (Cleator, 1996; Jefferson et al., 2008b). 

In the western Atlantic bearded seals occur in the waters of Greenland, Northern Labrador, Baffin BayDavis Strait, and Hudson Complex. Sightings outside the species’ typical range have been reported as far 

south as Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Sardi & Merigo, 2006), and Florida (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2016c). 

3.7.2.3.28.3 Population Trends 

Due to the patchy distribution of individuals moving with ice floes, it is difficult to make accurate 

abundance estimates for this species (Kovacs, 2009); no estimates exist specifically for the western 

Atlantic. The global population is estimated at 450,000 to 500,000 seals but may be as large as 700,000;

approximately half are thought to inhabit the Bering and Chukchi Seas (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson 

et al., 2015). The number inhabiting various regions of the Atlantic Ocean are mostly unknown 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-88

3.7 Marine Mammals

(Jefferson et al., 2015). Rough estimates based on aerial surveys conducted over a 35-year period 

indicated densities in Canadian waters of approximately 0.24 seal per square kilometer (km2

) in 

preferred habitat; the population estimate for bearded seals in Canadian waters during the survey 

period was 190,000 (Cleator, 1996). Due to uncertainty associated with the population abundance, 

population trends are unknown.

3.7.2.3.28.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

The bearded seal diet is composed largely of demersal fish and benthic invertebrate species (Jefferson 

et al., 2015; Kovacs, 2009). In Baffin Bay, sculpins and Arctic cod make up most of the diet in the 

summer, but eelpouts and polar cod are also taken; whelks and shrimp make up the majority of 

invertebrates consumed, but clams, sea cucumbers, anemones, cephalopods, and worms are also taken 

(Finley & Evans, 1983). Dominant prey items vary according to season, region, and ice cover (Hindell et 

al., 2012), as well as age (Jefferson et al., 2015). 

Polar bears, killer whales, and Greenland sharks are known bearded seal predators (Kovacs, 2009). 

3.7.2.3.28.5 Species-Specific Threats

Loss of sea ice is a potentially significant threat to the habitat of bearded seals (Kovacs et al., 2011). 

3.7.2.3.29Hooded Seal (Cystophora cristata) 

3.7.2.3.29.1 Status and Management

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea/Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization 

Working Group on Harp and Hooded Seals currently recognizes two separate stocks of hooded seals: the 

Northwest Atlantic and Greenland Sea stocks (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 

2014). The western North Atlantic stock (synonymous with the Northwest Atlantic Stock) pups off the 

coast of eastern Canada; the whelping area for the Greenland Sea stock is in the “West Ice” near Jan 

Mayen Island, east of Greenland (Kovacs, 2008). 

3.7.2.3.29.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Hooded seals are distributed in the Arctic and the cold temperate North Atlantic Ocean (Bellido et al., 

2007). At sea, hooded seals stay primarily near continental coastlines but are known to wander widely. 

This species follows the seasonal movement of pack ice, on which it breeds. In the Study Area, its 

primary range is around the Newfoundland-Labrador, West Greenland, and Scotian Shelf. 

Most hooded seals occur in the western Atlantic (Stenson et al., 1996). They migrate between 

winter/spring pupping areas along the Canadian coast, and summer and molting areas off Greenland. 

The western North Atlantic stock breeds and pups at three main areas around Canada, including the 

Gulf of St. Lawrence, north of Newfoundland in an area that is known as the Front, and Davis Strait 

(Hammill et al., 1997; Jefferson et al., 2008b; Kovacs, 2008). Based on data from satellite relay data 

loggers deployed on hooded seals during 2004–2008, males appeared to prefer areas with complex 

seabed relief such as Davis Strait and the Flemish cap, whereas females preferred the Labrador Shelf 

(Andersen et al., 2013). 

Hooded seals are highly migratory and may wander as far south as Puerto Rico (Mignucci-Giannoni & 

Odell, 2001), with increased occurrences from Maine to Florida. These appearances usually occur 

between January and May in New England waters, and in summer and autumn off the southeast 

U.S. coast and in the Caribbean (Harris et al., 2001; McAlpine et al., 1999; Mignucci-Giannoni & Odell, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-89

3.7 Marine Mammals

2001). Six hooded seal strandings were also reported between 1975 and 1996 in North Carolina, Florida, 

Georgia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Mignucci-Giannoni & Odell, 2001). 

3.7.2.3.29.3 Population Trends

The number of hooded seals in the western North Atlantic is relatively well known and is derived from 

pup production estimates produced from pack-ice whelping pack surveys. Available data are insufficient 

to determine a population estimate for U.S. waters (Waring et al., 2007); thus, population trends are 

also unknown. 

3.7.2.3.29.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

The main prey species of hooded seals are redfish and cod, but they forage on squid and Greenland 

halibut as well (Hammill et al., 1997; Hauksson & Bogason, 1997). Some overlap and competition exists 

for prey between hooded and harp seals (Tucker et al., 2009). This species is preyed on by polar bears 

and killer whales (Kovacs, 2009). 

3.7.2.3.29.5 Species-Specific Threats

Although hooded seals are documented to be taken incidentally in commercial fishing gear, the level of 

take is very small compared to the size of the population. Hooded seals are also hunted commercially in 

Canada. The hooded seal is likely one of the most sensitive arctic marine mammal species to climate 

change due to its dependence on ice and specialized feeding habits (Laidre et al., 2008). 

3.7.2.3.30Harp Seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) 

3.7.2.3.30.1 Status and Management

Three distinct populations or stocks of harp seals are generally recognized, including one in the Barents 

Sea that breeds on the “East Ice” in the White Sea, a population off eastern Greenland that breeds on 

the “West Ice” near Jan Mayen, and a third population in the northwest Atlantic off eastern Canada 

(Lavigne, 2008). The Western North Atlantic stock is the largest and is divided into two breeding herds: 

the Front herd, which breeds off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Gulf herd, which 

breeds near the Magdalen Islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Reeves et al., 2002b; Waring et al., 2004; 

Waring et al., 2014).

3.7.2.3.30.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The primary range of harp seals is throughout the Arctic, but the secondary range includes the western 

waters of the Scotian Shelf and the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. Harp seals are closely associated 

with drifting pack ice, where they breed, molt, and forage in the surrounding waters (Lydersen & Kovacs, 

1993; Ronald & Healey, 1981). Harp seals make extensive movements over much of the continental 

shelf within their winter range in the waters off Newfoundland (Bowen & Siniff, 1999). 

Typically, harp seals are distributed in the pack ice of the North Atlantic segment of the Arctic Ocean and 

through Newfoundland and the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Reeves et al., 2002b). Most western North Atlantic 

harp seals congregate off the east coast of Newfoundland-Labrador (the Front) to pup and breed; the 

remainder (the Gulf herd) gathers to pup near the Magdalen Islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence 

(Morissette et al., 2006; Ronald & Dougan, 1982). 

The number of sightings and strandings of harp seals off the northeastern United States has been 

increasing since the 1990s, based on records from Maine to New Jersey, primarily during the months of 

January to May (Harris et al., 2002; McAlpine & Walker, 1999; Stevick & Fernald, 1998). A few sightings 

and strandings are also reported annually for Virginia and North Carolina (Lloyd, 2015; Soulen et al., 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-90

3.7 Marine Mammals

2013; Swingle et al., 2016). An increase in strandings along the U.S. East Coast has been correlated with 

poor ice conditions in the Gulf of St. Lawrence whelping area (Soulen et al., 2013). Harp seals 

occasionally enter the Bay of Fundy, but McAlpine and Walker (1999) suggested that winter ocean 

surface currents might limit the probability of occurrences in the Bay of Fundy.

3.7.2.3.30.3 Population Trends 

Currently available data are insufficient to determine a minimum population estimate for U.S. waters 

(Waring et al., 2013); thus, population trends are also unknown.

3.7.2.3.30.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Harp seals feed on a variety of prey, which vary with age class, season, location, and year (Lavigne, 

2008). Prey preference studies have revealed that harp seals prefer small fish to crustaceans (Lindstrom 

et al., 1998). The main prey species of harp seals are capelin, Greenland halibut, and Arctic and polar cod 

(Hauksson & Bogason, 1997; Lavigne, 2008; Morissette et al., 2006). Harp seals rarely eat commercially 

important Atlantic cod (Lavigne, 2008). Most foraging occurs at depths of less than 90 m, although dives 

as deep as 568 m have been recorded (Folkow et al., 2004; Lydersen & Kovacs, 1993). Harp seals feed 

intensively during the winter and summer and less so during the spring and fall migrations or during 

pupping and molting (Ronald & Healey, 1981). Some overlap and competition exists for prey between 

hooded and harp seals. This species is preyed on by polar bears, killer whales, and sharks (Lavigne, 

2008). 

3.7.2.3.30.5 Species-Specific Threats

Although harp seals are documented to be taken incidentally in commercial fishing gear, the level of 

take is small compared to the size of the population. Harp seals are also hunted commercially in Canada 

and Greenland. Climate change may also threaten whelping areas (Bajzak et al., 2011). 

3.7.2.3.31Gray Seal (Halichoerus grypus) 

3.7.2.3.31.1 Status and Management

There are three main populations of gray seal in the North Atlantic, including eastern Canada, 

northwestern Europe, and the Baltic Sea (Katona et al., 1993; Waring et al., 2010; Waring et al., 2016). 

These stocks are separated by geography, different breeding seasons, and genetic variation (Waring et 

al., 2010). In eastern Canada there are three major breeding areas: Sable Island, the pack ice in the Gulf 

of St. Lawrence, and the coast of Nova Scotia (Laviguer & Hammill, 1993). 

3.7.2.3.31.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The Western North Atlantic stock corresponds to the eastern Canada population, ranging from New 

Jersey to Labrador (Waring et al., 2016). This gray seal population is centered in the Canadian Maritimes, 

including the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic coasts of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Labrador. 

In the Study Area, the primary range of this species includes the northwestern waters of the 

Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf, the Scotian Shelf, and the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf (Davies, 1957; 

Hall & Thompson, 2008). 

The gray seal is considered a coastal species and may forage far from shore but does not appear to leave 

the continental shelf regions (Lesage & Hammill, 2001). Gray seals haul out on land-fast ice, exposed 

reefs, or beaches of undisturbed islands (Hall & Thompson, 2008; Lesage & Hammill, 2001). Remote 

uninhabited islands tend to have the largest gray seal haul-outs (Reeves et al., 1992). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-91

3.7 Marine Mammals

The Canadian population is divided into three groups for management purposes: Sable Island, Gulf of St. 

Lawrence, and Coastal Nova Scotia (Hammill et al., 2014a). The largest pupping site of gray seals in the 

world is located at Sable Island (Bowen et al., 2007). In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, gray seals pup on the 

pack-ice (Davies, 1957; Hammill & Gosselin, 1995; Hammill et al., 1998); this is second largest breeding 

colony in eastern Canada (Hammill et al., 2014a). Smaller numbers of seals pup on islands along the 

coast of Nova Scotia (Hammill et al., 2014a). 

Gray seals range south into the northeastern United States, with strandings and sightings as far south as 

North Carolina (Hammill et al., 1998; Waring et al., 2004). Gray seal distribution along the U.S. Atlantic 

coast has shifted in recent years, with an increased number of seals reported in southern New England

(Kenney, 2014; Waring et al., 2016). Recent sightings included a gray seal in lower Chesapeake Bay 

during the winter of 2014–2015 (Rees et al., 2016). Along the coast of the United States, gray seals are 

known to pup at three or more colonies, including Muskeget Island, Massachusetts, which is the 

southernmost breeding site (Andrews & Mott, 1967; Rough, 1995; Waring et al., 2004), and Green and 

Seal Islands, Maine (Waring et al., 2016). Pupping has also been reported at Matinicus Rock and Mount 

Desert Rock in Maine (Waring et al., 2016). Gray seals are observed in New England outside of the 

pupping season on Muskeget Island and Monomoy and locations along the shoreline between southern 

Maine and Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

3.7.2.3.31.3 Population Trends 

Gray seal abundance is likely increasing in the U.S. waters, but the rate of increase is unknown (Waring 

et al., 2016). Single-day pup counts at three U.S. established colonies detected an increase from the 

2001-2002 through the 2007-2008 pupping season (Wood LaFond, 2009). However, no recent surveys or 

modeling of gray seal abundance in U.S. Atlantic waters are available (Waring et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.3.31.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Gray seals prey on a variety of demersal and bottom-dwelling organisms, as well as schooling fish, 

cephalopods and other mollusks, and occasionally sea birds (Jefferson et al., 2015). Atlantic cod, Atlantic 

herring, sandlance, mackerel, flatfish, and white hake were the most prominent types of fish in the diet 

of gray seals off Nova Scotia, Canada (Hammill et al., 2014b). They also likely prey on harbor porpoise

(Haelters et al., 2012; Leopold et al., 2015) and harbor seals (van Neer et al., 2015). Feeding during the 

breeding season is minimal (Hauksson & Bogason, 1997). 

This species is preyed on by sharks (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015). They are also probably 

prey of killer whales (Weller, 2008). 

3.7.2.3.31.5 Species-Specific Threats

A review of 405 cases of marine mammal mortalities on Cape Cod and southeastern Massachusetts from 

2000 to 2006 concluded that gray seals are highly susceptible to human interaction; 45 percent of gray 

seal deaths were due to interactions with humans (Bogomolni et al., 2010). Stranding and bycatch data 

from Cape Cod, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York coasts between 1990 through 2012 were 

collected and analyzed to identify changes in stranding and by catch trends for gray seals. The analysis 

suggests that gray seal strandings and bycatch are increasing at rates between 18 and 22 percent since 

the early 1990s in the southern New England region (Johnston et al., 2015). The researchers note that 

beach counts of gray seals are also increasing in this area and it is possible the increase in stranding and 

bycatch rates is attributable to the growth in population. For the period 2009–2013, the total estimated 

human caused mortality and serious injury to gray seals was 5,004 per year (Waring et al., 2016). The 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-92

3.7 Marine Mammals

average was derived from five components: (1) 1,193 from the U.S. observed fishery; (2) 8 from nonfishery related, human interaction stranding mortalities; (3) 172 from the Canadian hunt; (4) 82 from 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada scientific collections; and (5) 3,549 removals of nuisance animals in 

Canada.

3.7.2.3.32Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida) 

3.7.2.3.32.1 Status and Management

The Arctic subspecies of ringed seal (Phoca hispida hispida) was listed as threatened under the ESA in 

2012; but in 2016, the U.S. District Court issued a decision vacating NOAA Fisheries’ December 28, 2012 

listing of the Arctic ringed seal as threatened. Therefore, at this time, Arctic ringed seals are not listed as 

a threatened species under the ESA. This species does not occur within the Exclusive Economic Zone of 

the eastern United States and is not managed by NMFS in the Atlantic. Although there is no genetic 

evidence or other data to differentiate stocks of ringed seals, the North Atlantic Marine Mammal 

Commission Scientific Committee recognizes three stock areas in the North Atlantic based on the low 

probability of mixing between areas: Area 1 includes Baffin Bay, northeastern Canada, and West 

Greenland and coincides with the northern extreme of the Study Area; Area 2 encompasses the 

Greenland Sea; and Area 3 comprises the Barents and Kara Seas (North Atlantic Marine Mammal

Commission, 1997).

3.7.2.3.32.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

Ringed seals have a circumpolar distribution throughout the Arctic basin, Hudson Complex, and the 

Bering, Okhotsk, and Baltic Seas. The distribution of ringed seals is strongly correlated with pack and 

land-fast ice (Born et al., 2002; Jefferson et al., 2015) in areas over virtually any water depth (Reeves, 

1998). Although they are generally not considered migratory, ringed seals are known to make longdistance movements (Teilmann et al., 1999). 

In the western Atlantic, ringed seals occur as far south as northern Newfoundland, northward to the 

pole, and throughout the Canadian Arctic. They also occur throughout the Greenland Large Marine 

Ecosystem and can be found as far south as Labrador off the Canadian east coast in the NewfoundlandLabrador Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (Hammill, 2009). 

3.7.2.3.32.3 Population Trend 

Abundance of ringed seals is difficult to estimate because of their inaccessible habitat and tendency to 

spend much of the breeding season, when many pinniped estimates are made, hidden from view in 

dens or snow caves. Therefore, any estimates are of questionable accuracy and are probably 

underestimates. The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission Scientific Committee derived a rough 

estimate of the abundance of ringed seals in Area 1 (coincident with the northern extreme of the Study 

Area) of approximately 1.3 million seals (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, 1997). Due to 

uncertainty associated with the abundance estimate, population trends are unknown.

3.7.2.3.32.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Ringed seals are opportunistic feeders and consume a wide variety of prey, including fish and 

invertebrates (Hammill, 2009). They mostly forage solitarily or in small groups typically in deep water, 

under ice floes, and in the benthic communities of shallower water. The amphipod Themisto libellula is 

known to be the dominant prey type in the diet of immature ringed seals from Grise Fiord, whereas 

Arctic and polar cod compose the diet of adult ringed seals (Holst et al., 2001; Jefferson et al., 2015). 

Arctic cod was also important in the diet of ringed seals in other parts of the eastern Canadian Arctic 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-93

3.7 Marine Mammals

(Matley et al., 2015). There are seasonal changes in the diet (Chambellant et al., 2013; Young & 

Ferguson, 2013). 

Polar bears are the primary ringed seal predator, but some may also be taken by killer whales, 

Greenland sharks, and walruses (Hammill, 2009). 

3.7.2.3.32.5 Species-Specific Threats

Ringed seals are harvested for subsistence use in the Arctic and are also caught incidentally in fishing 

gear. Climate change is potentially the most serious threat to ringed seal populations since much of their 

habitat depends on seasonal ice coverage (Kovacs et al., 2011). 

3.7.2.3.33Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina) 

3.7.2.3.33.1 Status and Management

Western Atlantic harbor seals (P. v. concolor) that occur along the coast of the eastern United States and 

Canada represent a single population (Temte et al., 1991; Waring et al., 2010; Waring et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.3.33.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

The harbor seal is one of the most widely distributed seals, found in temperate to polar coastal waters 

of the northern hemisphere (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015). Harbor seals occur in 

nearshore waters and are rarely found more than 20 km from shore; they frequently occupy bays, 

estuaries, and inlets (Baird, 2001). Individual seals have been observed several kilometers upstream in 

coastal rivers (Baird, 2001). Haul-out sites vary but include intertidal and subtidal rock outcrops, 

sandbars, sandy beaches, and even peat banks in salt marshes (Burns, 2008; Gilbert & Guldager, 1998; 

Prescott, 1982; Schneider & Payne, 1983; Wilson, 1978). Harbor seals occur in the cold and temperate 

nearshore waters of the northwest Atlantic, typically north of 35° N (Waring et al., 2016). In the Study 

Area, their approximate year-round coastal range includes the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Scotian Shelf, Gulf 

of Maine, Bay of Fundy, and northeast U.S. continental shelf down to the Virginia/North Carolina border. 

Harbor seals are found year-round in the coastal waters of eastern Canada and Maine; from September 

to May they also occur from southern New England to New Jersey (Katona et al., 1993; Waring et al., 

2010). A general southward movement from the Bay of Fundy to southern New England waters occurs 

in autumn and early winter (Barlas, 1999; Jacobs & Terhune, 2000; Rosenfeld et al., 1988; Whitman & 

Payne, 1990). A northward movement from southern New England to Maine and eastern Canada occurs 

before the pupping season, which takes place from mid-May through June along the Maine coast 

(DeHart, 2002; Kenney, 1994; Richardson et al., 1995b; Whitman & Payne, 1990; Wilson, 1978). In 

northeastern United States, breeding and pupping normally occur north of the New Hampshire and 

Maine borders, although breeding has been recorded historically as far south as Cape Cod (Katona et al., 

1993; Waring et al., 2010). Several thousand seals overwinter between New Hampshire and 

Massachusetts (Waring et al., 2010). 

Harbor seal distribution along the U.S. Atlantic coast has shifted in recent years, with an increased 

number of seals reported in southern New England to the mid-Atlantic region (Kenney, 2014; Waring et

al., 2016). During systematic land-based counts by the U.S. Navy during 2014–2015 near Naval Station 

Newport, Narragansett Bay, harbor seals were observed on 24 out of 46 survey days; the average 

number hauled out was 15, but as many as 44 seals were hauled out on April 16, 2015 (Rees et al., 

2016). In addition, 112 locations with harbor seal occurrences were recorded for Rhode Island during 

1992–2013 by Save the Bay (Rees et al., 2016). Winter haul-out sites for a small number of seals (less 

than 50) have also been reported for Chesapeake Bay and near Oregon Inlet, North Carolina (Waring et 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-94

3.7 Marine Mammals

al., 2016). During land-based counts in lower Chesapeake Bay from November 2014 to May 2015, 112 

occurrences were recorded at four different haul-out sites during 12 survey days; peak numbers were 

recorded during March (Rees et al., 2016). Follow-up surveys in the lower Chesapeake Bay were 

conducted between October 2015 to May 2016 and resulted in 184 harbor seal sightings between

December 2015 and April 2016; similar to the 2014–2015 season, the highest counts were recorded in 

the months of February and March (Rees et al., 2016). Surveys were also conducted in Narragansett Bay 

between November 2015 and April 2016 and similar to the 2014–2015 season, the highest counts were 

recorded in the months of February and March with peak numbers observed in March (Rees et al., 

2016). Many strandings were reported for the coast of Virginia (Swingle et al., 2016). South of Oregon 

Inlet, North Carolina rare sightings and strandings were recorded as far south as Florida (Waring et al., 

2013; Waring et al., 2016). 

3.7.2.3.33.3 Population Trends 

The number of harbor seals in U.S. Atlantic waters increased since the 1980s to 2010 (Waring et al., 

2010). The current population trend is unknown, but it is possible that the population along the Maine 

coast may be declining (Waring et al., 2009). 

3.7.2.3.33.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

The main prey species of the harbor seal are cod, hake, mackerel, herring, salmon, sardines, smelt, shad,

capelin, sand eels, sculpins, and flatfish (Burns, 2008). Sand eels are the main prey for individuals 

foraging in the southern portion of their range, while cod is the main prey in other geographic areas.

Harbor seals are also known to feed on cephalopods and crustaceans (Burns, 2008). Shrimp appears to 

be important in the diet of newly weaned pups (Burns, 2008). Off Massachusetts, harbor seals are 

known to depredate monkfish, skate, and flounder from gillnets (Rafferty et al., 2012). There is no 

seasonal variation in prey species, but capelin and herring are more numerous in the fall and winter 

(Hauksson & Bogason, 1997; Jefferson et al., 2015; Reeves et al., 1992). Killer whales and sharks are 

known to prey on adult harbor seals and pups may be preyed on by eagles, ravens, gulls, and coyotes 

(Burns, 2008; Weller, 2008). 

3.7.2.3.33.5 Species-Specific Threats

There are no significant species-specific threats for harbor seals in the western North Atlantic, although 

some animals are bycaught in commercial fisheries (Hammill et al., 2010; Waring et al., 2016). Stranding 

and bycatch data from Cape Cod, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York coasts between 1990 through 

2012 were collected and analyzed to identify changes in stranding and by catch trends for gray seals. 

Section 3.7.2.1.5 (General Threats) discusses threats to marine mammals.

3.7.2.3.34Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) 

3.7.2.3.34.1 Status and Management

The walrus is managed by the USFWS under the Department of the Interior, but does not occur in U.S.

East Coast waters. Five subpopulations of the Atlantic subspecies (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) are 

suggested, based on genetic analysis. These subpopulations inhabit Hudson Strait, West Greenland, 

Northwest Greenland, East Greenland, and Franz Josef Land-Svalbard (Andersen et al., 2009). The 

Hudson Strait subpopulation occurs within the northern extreme of the Study Area. The Hudson Strait 

subpopulation proposed by Andersen et al. (2009) corresponds to the Hudson Bay-Davis Strait stock 

identified by the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (2017), which recognizes nine stocks in the 

Atlantic.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-95

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.2.3.34.2 Habitat and Geographic Range

In the Atlantic, walruses occur from the central Canadian Arctic through Greenland, Svalbard and Franz 

Josef Land, to the Barents, White, and Kara seas (Kastelein, 2009). Walruses occur in shallow, 

continental shelf areas and are seldom found in deep waters. They haul out on ice floes and sandy 

beaches or rocky shores, along remote stretches of mainland coastlines or islands (Jefferson et al., 

2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015). 

Walruses are found along the coast of Greenland, Labrador, Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, and the Hudson 

Complex (Jefferson et al., 2008b; Jefferson et al., 2015). Migration of the subpopulations between 

Hudson Strait and west Greenland suggests that there is a perennial migration in the Baffin Bay region 

for the Atlantic subspecies (Andersen et al., 2009). Walruses may migrate northward with ice break-up 

along the western coast of Greenland, when warm water is brought in by the Irminger Current from the 

south.

3.7.2.3.34.3 Population Trends 

Abundance estimates are difficult to derive as walruses have clumped distributions, occur on ice as well 

as in water, and have variable group sizes (Heide-Jorgensen et al., 2014). The (North Atlantic Marine 

Mammal Commission, 2017) recognizes nine stocks in the Atlantic with variable population trends. 

Surveys were conducted in summer 2007 in Hoare Bay, Baffin Island on the Hudson Bay-Davis Strait 

stock but a population trend could not be determined (Stewart et al., 2014). In 2008, surveys of the 

West Greenland/Baffin Island population suggested this population may be increasing (Witting & Born, 

2013). 

3.7.2.3.34.4 Predator and Prey Interactions

Walruses are likely preyed on by killer whales and polar bears. Walruses are primarily benthic feeders, 

with a large proportion of their prey consisting of molluscs (Andersen et al., 2009; Kastelein & 

Wiepkema, 1989; Stewart et al., 2003). They use their snouts to plow through the bottom sediments 

and dig up prey, most of which they find in the upper few centimeters of sediment or on or just above 

the bottom. Walrus diet consists of snails, soft-shell crabs, amphipods, shrimp, sea cucumbers, 

tunicates, and slow-moving fish; some prey on seals, small whales, and seabirds and may occasionally 

scavenge marine mammal carcasses (Kastelein, 2009). 

3.7.2.3.34.5 Species-Specific Threats 

Over-hunting, pollutants, and human disturbance near haul-outs pose potentially significant threats to 

walrus (Kastelein, 2009). Laidre et al. (2008) suggested that walruses may be sensitive to climate change, 

based on their dependence on haul-out sites (such as sea ice) in proximity to shallow foraging areas.

3.7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section evaluates how and to what degree the activities described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) potentially impact marine mammals known to occur within the Study 

Area. Table 2.6-2 through Table 2.6-5 present the proposed training and testing activity locations for 

Alternatives 1 and 2. The stressors vary in intensity, frequency, duration, and location within the Study 

Area. General characteristics of all Navy stressors were introduced in Section 3.0.3.3 (Identification of 

Stressors for Analysis), and living resources’ general susceptibilities to stressors were introduced in 

Section 3.0.3.6 (Biological Resource Methods). The stressors analyzed for marine mammals are: 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-96

3.7 Marine Mammals

• 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; lasers) 

• Physical disturbance and strike (vessels and in-water devices; military expended materials; 

seafloor devices) 

• Entanglement (wires and cables; decelerators/parachutes; biodegradable polymer) 

• Ingestion (military expended materials – munitions; military expended materials other than 

munitions) 

• Secondary stressors (impacts on habitat; impacts on prey availability) 

In this analysis, marine mammal species are grouped together based on similar biology (e.g., hearing) or 

behaviors (e.g., feeding or expected reaction to stressors) when most appropriate for the discussion. In 

addition, for some stressors species are grouped based on their taxonomic relationship and discussed as 

follows: mysticetes (baleen whales), odontocetes (toothed whales), pinnipeds (seals and the walrus), the 

polar bear, and the West Indian manatee. 

When impacts are expected to be similar to all species or when it is determined there is no impact on 

any species, the discussion will be general and not species-specific. However, when impacts are not the 

same to certain species or groups of species, the discussion will be as specific as the best available data 

allow. In addition, if activities only occur in or will be concentrated in certain areas, the discussion will be 

geographically specific. Based on acoustic thresholds and criteria developed with NMFS, impacts from 

sound sources as acoustic stressors will be quantified at the species or stock level as is required 

pursuant to authorization of the proposed actions under the MMPA. 

The analysis includes consideration of the mitigation that the Navy will implement to avoid potential 

impacts on marine mammals from acoustics, explosives, and physical disturbance and strike stressors. 

Mitigation for marine mammals will be coordinated with NMFS and USFWS through the consultation 

processes. 

3.7.3.1 Acoustic Stressors

Assessing whether a sound may disturb or injure a marine mammal involves understanding the 

characteristics of the acoustic sources, the marine mammals that may be present in the vicinity of the 

sources, and the effects that sound may have on the physiology and behavior of those marine mammals. 

Although it is known that sound is important for marine mammal communication, navigation, and 

foraging (National Research Council, 2003, 2005), there are many unknowns in assessing impacts such as 

the potential interaction of different effects and the significance of responses by marine mammals to 

sound exposures (Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). Furthermore, many other factors besides 

just the received level of sound may affect an animal’s reaction such as the duration of the sound 

producing activity, the animal’s physical condition, prior experience with the sound, activity at the time 

of exposure (e.g., feeding, traveling, resting), the context of the exposure (e.g., in a semi-enclosed bay vs 

open ocean), and proximity to the source of the sound.

The ways in which an acoustic exposure could result in immediate effects or long-term consequences for 

an animal are explained in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-97

3.7 Marine Mammals

Activities (Section 3.0.3.6.1). The following Background section discusses what is currently known about 

acoustic effects to marine mammals. These effects could hypothetically extend from physical injury or 

trauma to a behavioral or stress response that may or may not be detectable. Injury (physical trauma) 

can occur to organs or tissues of an animal (Section 3.7.3.1.1.1, Injury). Hearing loss (Section 3.7.3.1.1.2, 

Hearing Loss and Auditory Injury) is a noise-induced decrease in hearing sensitivity, which can either be 

temporary or permanent. Masking (Section 3.7.3.1.1.4, Masking) can occur when the perception of a 

biologically important sound (i.e., signal) is interfered with by a second sound (i.e., noise). Physiological 

stress (Section 3.7.3.1.1.3, Physiological Stress) is an adaptive process that helps an animal cope with 

changing conditions, however too much stress can result in physiological effects. Behavioral response 

(Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions) ranges from brief distractions to avoidance of a sound source 

to prolonged flight. Extreme behavioral or physiological responses can lead to stranding (Section 

3.7.3.1.1.6, Stranding). Long-term consequences (Section 3.7.3.1.1.7, Long Term Consequences) are 

those impacts, or accumulation of impacts, that can result in decreases in individual fitness or 

population changes. In order to reduce or avoid as many of these impacts as possible, the Navy 

implements marine mammal mitigation measures during most Navy training and testing activities (see 

Chapter 5, Mitigation).

3.7.3.1.1 Background

3.7.3.1.1.1 Injury

Injury (i.e., physical trauma) refers to the effects on the tissues or organs of an animal due to exposure 

to pressure waves. Injury due to exposure to non-explosive acoustic stressors such as sonar is discussed 

below. Moderate- to low-level sound sources including vessel and aircraft noise would not cause any 

injury. The Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities (see 

Section 3.0.3.6.1) provides additional information on injury (i.e., physical trauma) and the framework 

used to analyze this potential impact.

Several mechanisms of acoustically-induced tissue damage (non-auditory) have been proposed and are 

discussed below.

Injury due to Sonar-Induced Acoustic Resonance

An object exposed to its resonant frequency will tend to amplify its vibration at that frequency, a 

phenomenon called acoustic resonance. Acoustic resonance has been proposed as a mechanism by 

which a sonar or sources with similar operating characteristics could damage tissues of marine 

mammals. In 2002, NMFS convened a panel of government and private scientists to investigate the 

potential for acoustic resonance to occur in marine mammals (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2002). They modeled and evaluated the likelihood that Navy mid-frequency sonar 

caused resonance effects in beaked whales that eventually led to their stranding. The conclusions of the 

group were that resonance in air-filled structures was not likely to have caused the Bahamas stranding 

in 2000. The frequency at which resonance was predicted to occur in the animals’ lungs was 50 Hz, well 

below the frequencies utilized by the mid-frequency sonar systems associated with the Bahamas event. 

Furthermore, air cavity vibrations, even at resonant frequencies, were not considered to be of sufficient 

amplitude to cause tissue damage, even under an unrealistic scenario in which air volumes would be 

undamped (unrestrained) by surrounding tissues and the amplitude of the resonant response would be 

greatest. These same conclusions would apply to other training and testing activities involving acoustic 

sources. Therefore, the Navy concludes that acoustic resonance would not occur under realistic 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-98

3.7 Marine Mammals

conditions during training and testing activities, and this type of impact is not considered further in this 

analysis.

Nitrogen Decompression

Marine mammals are thought to deal with nitrogen loads in their blood and other tissues, caused by gas 

exchange from the lungs under conditions of high ambient pressure during diving, through anatomical, 

behavioral, and physiological adaptations (Hooker et al., 2012). 

Although not a direct injury, variations in marine mammal diving behavior or avoidance responses could 

result in nitrogen off-gassing in super-saturated tissues, possibly to the point of deleterious vascular and 

tissue bubble formation (Hooker et al., 2012; Jepson et al., 2003; Saunders et al., 2008) with resulting 

symptoms similar to decompression sickness (also known as “the bends”). The process has been under 

debate in the scientific community (Hooker et al., 2012; Saunders et al., 2008), although analyses of bycaught and drowned animals has demonstrated that nitrogen bubble formation can occur once animals 

are brought to the surface and tissues are supersaturated with nitrogen (Bernaldo de Quiros et al., 

2013b; Moore et al., 2009). Deep diving whales, such as beaked whales, normally have higher nitrogen 

loads in body tissues, which may make them more susceptible to decompression for certain modeled 

changes in dive behavior (Fahlman et al., 2014b; Fernández et al., 2005; Hooker et al., 2012; Jepson et 

al., 2003). 

Researchers have examined how dive behavior affects tissue supersaturation conditions that could put 

an animal at risk of gas bubble embolism. An early hypothesis was that if exposure to a startling sound 

elicits a rapid ascent to the surface, tissue gas saturation sufficient for the evolution of nitrogen bubbles 

might result (Fernández et al., 2005; Jepson et al., 2003). However, modeling suggested that even 

unrealistically rapid rates of ascent from normal dive behaviors are unlikely to result in supersaturation 

to the extent that bubble formation would be expected in beaked whales (Zimmer & Tyack, 2007). 

Instead, emboli observed in animals exposed to mid-frequency active sonar (Fernández et al., 2005; 

Jepson et al., 2003) could stem from a behavioral response that involves repeated dives, shallower than 

the depth of lung collapse (Hooker et al., 2012; Tyack et al., 2006; Zimmer & Tyack, 2007). Longer times 

spent diving at mid-depths above lung collapse would allow gas exchange from the lungs to continue 

under high hydrostatic pressure conditions, increasing potential for supersaturation; below the depth of 

lung collapse, gas exchange from the lungs to the blood would likely not occur (Fahlman et al., 2014b). 

However, Costidis and Rommel (Costidis & Rommel, 2016) suggest that gas exchange may continue to 

occur across the tissues of air-filled sinuses in deep-diving odontocetes below the depth of lung collapse, 

if hydrostatic pressures are high enough to drive gas exchange across into non-capillary veins, 

contributing to tissue gas loads. To examine the potential for gas bubble formation, a bottlenose dolphin 

was trained to dive repetitively to depths shallower than lung collapse to elevate nitrogen saturation to 

the point that asymptomatic nitrogen bubble formation was predicted to occur. However, inspection of 

the vascular system of the dolphin via ultrasound did not demonstrate the formation of any nitrogen gas 

bubbles (Houser et al., 2009). To estimate risk of decompression sickness, Kvadsheim et al. (2012)

modeled gas exchange in the tissues of sperm, pilot, killer, and beaked whales based on actual dive 

behavior during exposure to sonar in the wild. Results indicated that venous supersaturation was within 

the normal range for these species, which have naturally high levels of nitrogen loading. Researchers 

have also considered the role of accumulation of carbon dioxide produced during periods of high activity 

by an animal, theorizing that accumulating carbon dioxide, which cannot be removed by gas exchange 

below the depth of lung collapse, may facilitate the formation of bubbles in nitrogen saturated tissues 

(Bernaldo de Quiros et al., 2012; Fahlman et al., 2014b). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-99

3.7 Marine Mammals

Modeling has suggested that the long, deep dives performed regularly by beaked whales over a lifetime 

could result in the saturation of long-halftime tissues (i.e., tissues that take longer to give off nitrogen, 

e.g., fat and bone lipid) to the point that they are supersaturated when the animals are at the surface 

(Fahlman et al., 2014b; Hooker et al., 2009; Saunders et al., 2008). The presence of osteonecrosis (bone 

death due to reduced blood flow) in deep diving sperm whales has been offered as evidence of chronic 

supersaturation (Moore & Early, 2004). Proposed adaptations for prevention of bubble formation under 

conditions of persistent tissue saturation have been suggested (Fahlman et al., 2006; Hooker et al., 

2009), while the condition of supersaturation required for bubble formation in these tissues has been 

demonstrated in marine mammals drowned at depth as fisheries bycatch and brought to the surface 

(Moore et al., 2009). For beaked whale strandings associated with sonar use, one theory is that 

observed bubble formation may be caused by long periods of compromised blood flow caused by the 

stranding itself (which reduces ability to remove nitrogen from tissues) following rapid ascent dive 

behavior that does not allow for typical management of nitrogen in supersaturated, long-halftime 

tissues (Houser et al., 2009). 

A fat embolic syndrome (out of place fat particles, typically in the bloodstream) was identified by 

Fernández et al. (2005) coincident with the identification of bubble emboli in stranded beaked whales. 

The fat embolic syndrome was the first pathology of this type identified in marine mammals and was 

thought to possibly arise from the formation of bubbles in fat bodies, which subsequently resulted in the

release of fat emboli into the blood stream. 

Dennison et al. (2011) reported on investigations of dolphins stranded in 2009–2010 and, using 

ultrasound, identified gas bubbles in kidneys of 21 of the 22 live-stranded dolphins and in the liver of

2 of the 22. The authors postulated that stranded animals are unable to recompress by diving, and thus 

may retain bubbles that are otherwise re-absorbed in animals that can continue to dive. The researchers 

concluded that the minor bubble formation observed could be tolerated since the majority of stranded 

dolphins released did not re-strand. 

The appearance of extensive bubble and fat emboli in beaked whales is unique to strandings associated 

with certain high intensity sonar events; the phenomenon has not been observed in other stranded 

marine mammals, including other beaked whale strandings not associated with sonar use. Thus, it is 

uncertain as to whether there is some mechanism for this phenomenon specific to beaked whales or 

whether the phenomenon occurs only following rapidly occurring stranding events (i.e., when whales 

are not capable of sufficiently decompressing). Because of the lack of evidence for extensive nitrogen 

bubble formation while diving, Navy believes that the potential for marine mammals to get “the bends” 

following acoustic exposure to be unlikely and does not consider it in its effect analysis. 

Acoustically-Induced Bubble Formation due to Sonars

A suggested cause of injury to marine mammals is rectified diffusion (Crum & Mao, 1996), the process of 

increasing the size of a microscopic gas bubble by exposing it to a sound field. The process is dependent 

upon a number of factors including the sound pressure level (SPL) and duration. Under this hypothesis, 

microscopic bubbles assumed to exist in the tissues of marine mammals may experience one of three 

things: (1) bubbles grow to the extent that tissue hemorrhage (injury) occurs, (2) bubbles develop to the 

extent that a complement immune response is triggered or the nervous tissue is subjected to enough 

localized pressure that pain or dysfunction occurs (a stress response without injury), or (3) the bubbles 

are cleared by the lung without negative consequence to the animal. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-100

3.7 Marine Mammals

Rectified diffusion is facilitated if the environment in which the ensonified bubbles exist is 

supersaturated with gas. As discussed above, repetitive diving by marine mammals can cause the blood 

and some tissues to become supersaturated (Ridgway & Howard, 1979). The dive patterns of some 

marine mammals (e.g., beaked whales) are predicted to induce greater supersaturation (Houser et al., 

2001). If rectified diffusion were possible in marine mammals exposed to high-level sound, conditions of 

tissue supersaturation could theoretically speed the rate and increase the size of bubble growth. 

Subsequent effects due to tissue trauma and emboli would presumably mirror those observed in 

humans suffering from decompression sickness.

It is unlikely that the short duration of sonar pulses would be long enough to drive bubble growth to any 

substantial size, if such a phenomenon occurs. However, an alternative but related hypothesis has also 

been suggested: stable microbubbles could be destabilized by high-level sound exposures such that 

bubble growth then occurs through static diffusion of gas out of supersaturated tissues. In such a 

scenario, the marine mammal would need to be in a gas-supersaturated state for a long enough time for 

bubbles to become a problematic size. The phenomena of bubble growth due to a destabilizing 

exposure was shown by Crum et al. (2005) by exposing highly supersaturated ex vivo bovine tissues to a 

37 kHz source at 214 dB re 1 μPa. Although bubble growth occurred under the extreme conditions 

created for the study, these conditions would not exist in the wild because the levels of tissue 

supersaturation in the study (as high as 400–700 percent) are substantially higher than model 

predictions for marine mammals (Fahlman et al., 2009; Fahlman et al., 2014b; Houser et al., 2001; 

Saunders et al., 2008), and such high exposure level would only occur in very close proximity to the most 

powerful sonars. It is improbable that this mechanism is responsible for stranding events or traumas 

associated with beaked whale strandings. 

There has been considerable disagreement among scientists as to the likelihood of this phenomenon 

(Evans & Miller, 2003; Piantadosi & Thalmann, 2004). Although it has been argued that traumas from 

beaked whale strandings are consistent with gas emboli and bubble-induced tissue separations 

(Fernández et al., 2005; Jepson et al., 2003), nitrogen bubble formation as the cause of the traumas has 

not been verified. The presence of bubbles postmortem, particularly after decompression, is not 

necessarily indicative of bubble pathology (Bernaldo de Quiros et al., 2012; Bernaldo de Quiros et al., 

2013a; Bernaldo de Quiros et al., 2013b; Dennison et al., 2011; Moore et al., 2009). 

3.7.3.1.1.2 Hearing Loss and Auditory Injury

Exposure to intense sound may result in noise-induced hearing loss that persists after cessation of the 

noise exposure. Hearing loss may be temporary or permanent, depending on factors such as the 

exposure frequency, received sound pressure level, temporal pattern, and duration. The frequencies 

affected by hearing loss will vary depending on the frequency of the fatiguing noise, with frequencies at 

and above the noise frequency most strongly affected. The amount of hearing loss may range from 

slight to profound, depending on the ability of the individual to hear at the affected frequencies. 

The Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities (see Section 

3.0.3.6.1) provides additional information on hearing loss and the framework used to analyze this 

potential impact. Hearing loss has only been studied in a few species of marine mammals, although 

hearing studies with terrestrial mammals are also informative. 

Hearing loss is typically quantified in terms of threshold shift (TS) — the amount (in dB) that hearing 

thresholds at one or more specified frequencies are elevated, compared to their pre-exposure values, at 

some specific time after the noise exposure. The amount of TS measured usually decreases with 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-101

3.7 Marine Mammals

increasing recovery time — the amount of time that has elapsed since a noise exposure. If the TS 

eventually returns to zero (i.e., the hearing threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), the threshold 

shift is called a temporary threshold shift (TTS). If the TS does not completely recover (the threshold 

remains elevated compared to the pre-exposure value), the remaining TS is called a permanent 

threshold shift (PTS). Figure 3.7-4 shows two hypothetical TSs: one that completely recovers, a TTS, and 

one that does not completely recover, leaving some PTS. By definition, TTS is a function of the recovery 

time, therefore comparing the severity of noise exposures based on the amount of induced TTS can only 

be done if the recovery times are also taken into account. For example, a 20-dB TTS measured 24 hr 

post-exposure indicates a more hazardous exposure than one producing 20 dB of TTS measured only 2 

min after exposure; if the TTS is 20 dB after 24 hr, the TTS measured after 2 min would have likely been 

much higher. Conversely, if 20 dB of TTS was measured after 2 min, the TTS measured after 24 hr would 

likely have been much smaller.

Studies have revealed that intense noise exposures may also cause auditory system injury that does not 

result in PTS; i.e., hearing thresholds return to normal after the exposure, but there is injury 

nonetheless. Kujawa and Liberman (2009) found that noise exposures sufficient to produce a TTS in 

neural thresholds of 40 dB, measured 24 hr post-exposure, resulted in acute loss of nerve terminals and 

delayed degeneration of the cochlear nerve in mice. Lin et al. (2011) found a similar result in guinea pigs, 

that a TTS in auditory evoked potential of up to approximately 50 dB, measured 24 hr post-exposure, 

resulted in neural degeneration. These studies demonstrate that PTS should not be used as the sole 

indicator of auditory injury, since exposures producing high levels of TTS (40 to 50 dB measured 24 hr 

after exposure) — but no PTS — may result in auditory injury. 

Figure 3.7-4: Two Hypothetical Threshold Shifts

TTS: temporary threshold shift; TS: threshold shift; PTS: permanent threshold shift

There are no simple functional relationships between TTS and the occurrence of PTS or other auditory 

injury (e.g., neural degeneration). However, TTS and PTS are, by definition, mutually exclusive: An 

exposure that produces TTS cannot also produce PTS in the same individual; conversely, if an initial 

threshold shift only partially recovers, resulting in some amount PTS, the difference between the initial 

TS and the PTS is not called TTS. As TTS increases, the likelihood that additional exposure SPL or duration 

will result in PTS and/or other injury also increases. Exposure thresholds for the occurrence of PTS or 

other auditory injury can therefore be defined based on a specific amount of TTS; i.e., although an 

exposure has been shown to produce only TTS, we assume that any additional exposure may result in 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-102

3.7 Marine Mammals

some PTS or other injury. The specific upper limit of TTS is based on experimental data showing amounts 

of TTS that have not resulted in PTS or injury. In other words, we do not need to know the exact 

functional relationship between TTS and PTS or other injury; we only need to know the upper limit for 

TTS before some PTS or injury is possible. 

A variety of human and terrestrial mammal data indicate that threshold shifts up to 40 to 50 dB may be 

induced without PTS, and that 40 dB is a reasonable upper limit for allowable threshold shift to prevent 

PTS (e.g., Kryter et al., 1965; Miller et al., 1963; Ward, 1960; Ward et al., 1958; Ward et al., 1959). It is 

reasonable to assume the same relationship would hold for marine mammals, since there are many 

similarities between the inner ears of marine and terrestrial mammals and experiments with marine 

mammals have revealed similarities to terrestrial mammals for features such as TTS, age-related hearing 

loss, drug-induced hearing loss, masking, and frequency selectivity (Finneran et al., 2005a; Finneran, 

2015; Ketten, 2000). Therefore, we assume that sound exposures sufficient to produce 40 dB of TTS 

measured ~4 min after exposure represent the limit of a non-injurious exposure; i.e., higher level 

exposures have the potential to cause auditory injury. Exposures sufficient to produce a TTS of 40 dB, 

measured ~4 min after exposure, therefore represent the threshold for auditory injury. The predicted 

injury could consist of either hair cell damage/loss resulting in PTS, or other auditory injury such as the 

delayed neural degeneration identified by Kujawa and Liberman (2009) and Lin et al. (2011), that may 

not result in PTS. 

Numerous studies have directly examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran, 

2015). In these studies, hearing thresholds were measured in marine mammals before and after 

exposure to intense sounds. The difference between the pre-exposure and post-exposure thresholds 

was then used to determine the amount of TTS at various post-exposure times. The major findings from 

these studies include the following:

• The method used to test hearing may affect the resulting amount of measured TTS, with 

neurophysiological measures producing larger amounts of TTS compared to psychophysical 

measures (Finneran et al., 2007; Finneran, 2015). 

• The amount of TTS varies with the hearing test frequency. As the exposure SPL increases, the 

frequency at which the maximum TTS occurs also increases (Kastelein et al., 2014b). For high 

level exposures, the maximum TTS typically occurs one-half to one octave above the exposure 

frequency (Finneran et al., 2007; Mooney et al., 2009a; Nachtigall et al., 2004; Popov et al., 

2011; Popov et al., 2013; Schlundt et al., 2000). The overall spread of TTS from tonal exposures 

can therefore extend over a large frequency range; i.e., narrowband exposures can produce 

broadband (greater than one octave) TTS.

• The amount of TTS increases with exposure SPL and duration, and is correlated with sound 

exposure level (SEL), especially if the range of exposure durations is relatively small (Kastak et 

al., 2007; Kastelein et al., 2014b; Popov et al., 2014). As the exposure duration increases, 

however, the relationship between TTS and SEL begins to break down. Specifically, duration has 

a more significant effect on TTS than would be predicted on the basis of SEL alone (Finneran et 

al., 2010a, 2010b; Kastak et al., 2005; Mooney et al., 2009a). This means if two exposures have 

the same SEL but different durations, the exposure with the longer duration (thus lower SPL) will 

tend to produce more TTS than the exposure with the higher SPL and shorter duration. In most 

acoustic impact assessments, the scenarios of interest involve shorter duration exposures than 

the marine mammal experimental data from which impact thresholds are derived; therefore, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-103

3.7 Marine Mammals

use of SEL tends to over-estimate the amount of TTS. Despite this, SEL continues to be used in 

many situations because it is relatively simple, more accurate than SPL alone, and lends itself 

easily to scenarios involving multiple exposures with different SPL.

• The amount of TTS depends on the exposure frequency. Sounds at low frequencies, well below 

the region of best sensitivity, are less hazardous than those at higher frequencies, near the 

region of best sensitivity (Finneran & Schlundt, 2013). The onset of TTS — defined as the 

exposure level necessary to produce 6 dB of TTS (i.e., clearly above the typical variation in 

threshold measurements) — also varies with exposure frequency. At low frequencies onset-TTS 

exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity. 

• TTS can accumulate across multiple exposures, but the resulting TTS will be less than the TTS 

from a single, continuous exposure with the same SEL (Finneran et al., 2010a; Kastelein et al., 

2014b; Kastelein et al., 2015b; Mooney et al., 2009b). This means that TTS predictions based on 

the total, cumulative SEL will overestimate the amount of TTS from intermittent exposures such 

as sonars and impulsive sources. 

• The amount of observed TTS tends to decrease with increasing time following the exposure; 

however, the relationship is not monotonic (i.e., increasing exposure does not always increase 

TTS). The time required for complete recovery of hearing depends on the magnitude of the 

initial shift; for relatively small shifts recovery may be complete in a few minutes, while large 

shifts (e.g., ~40 dB) may require several days for recovery. Under many circumstances TTS 

recovers linearly with the logarithm of time (Finneran et al., 2010a, 2010b; Finneran & Schlundt, 

2013; Kastelein et al., 2012a; Kastelein et al., 2012b; Kastelein et al., 2013a; Kastelein et al., 

2014b; Kastelein et al., 2014c; Popov et al., 2011; Popov et al., 2013; Popov et al., 2014). This 

means that for each doubling of recovery time, the amount of TTS will decrease by the same 

amount (e.g., 6 dB recovery per doubling of time).

Due to the higher exposure levels or longer exposure durations required to induce hearing loss, only a 

few types of man-made sound sources have the potential to cause a threshold shift to a marine 

mammal in the wild. These include some sonars and other transducers and impulsive sound sources 

such as air guns and impact pile driving. 

Threshold Shift due to Sonars and Other Transducers

TTS in mid-frequency cetaceans exposed to non-impulsive sound has been investigated in multiple 

studies (Finneran et al., 2005b; Finneran et al., 2010b; Finneran & Schlundt, 2013; Mooney et al., 2009a; 

Mooney et al., 2009b; Nachtigall et al., 2003; Nachtigall et al., 2004; Popov et al., 2013; Popov et al., 

2014; Schlundt et al., 2000) from two species, bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales. Two highfrequency cetacean species have been studied for TTS due to non-impulsive sources: the harbor 

porpoise (Kastelein et al., 2012b) and the finless porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides) (Popov et al., 

2011). TTS from non-impulsive sounds has also been investigated in three pinniped species: harbor seal 

(Phoca vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and Northern elephant seal (Mirounga 

angustirostris) (e.g., Kastak et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012a). These data are reviewed in detail in 

Finneran (2015) and the major findings are summarized above. 

Threshold Shift due to Impulsive Sound Sources 

Marine mammal TTS data from impulsive sources are limited to two studies with measured TTS of 6 dB 

or more: Finneran et al. (2002) reported behaviorally-measured TTS of 6 and 7 dB in a beluga exposed to 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-104

3.7 Marine Mammals

single impulses from a seismic water gun and Lucke et al. (2009) reported AEP-measured TTS of 7 to 20 

dB in a harbor porpoise exposed to single impulses from a seismic air gun. 

In addition to these data, Kastelein et al. (2015a) reported behaviorally-measured mean TTS of 4 dB at 8 

kHz and 2 dB at 4 kHz after a harbor porpoise was exposed to a series of impulsive sounds produced by 

broadcasting underwater recordings of impact pile driving strikes through underwater sound projectors. 

The cumulative SEL was approximately 180 dB re 1 μPa2

s. The pressure waveforms for the simulated pile 

strikes exhibited significant “ringing” not present in the original recordings and most of the energy in the 

broadcasts was between 500 and 800 Hz. As a result, some questions exist regarding whether the 

fatiguing signals were representative of underwater pressure signatures from impact pile driving.

Several impulsive noise exposure studies have also been conducted without behaviorally measurable 

TTS. Finneran et al. (2000) exposed dolphins and belugas to single impulses from an “explosion 

simulator” and Finneran et al. (2015) exposed three dolphins to sequences of 10 impulses from a seismic 

air gun (maximum cumulative SEL = 193 to 195 dB re 1 μPa2

s, peak SPL =196 to 210 dB re 1 μPa) without 

measurable TTS. Finneran et al. (2003b) exposed two sea lions to single impulses from an arc-gap 

transducer with no measurable TTS (maximum unweighted SEL = 163 dB re 1 μPa2

s, peak SPL = 183 dB 

re 1 μPa). 

3.7.3.1.1.3 Physiological Stress

The growing field of conservation physiology relies in part on the ability to monitor stress hormones in 

populations of animals, particularly those that are threatened or endangered. The ability to make 

predictions from stress hormones about impacts to individuals and populations exposed to various 

forms of stressors, natural and human-caused, relies on understanding the linkages between changes in 

stress hormones and resulting physiological impacts. At this time, the sound characteristics that 

correlate with specific stress responses in marine mammals are poorly understood, as are the ultimate 

consequences due to these changes. Navy-funded efforts are underway to try to improve understanding 

of and the ability to predict how stressors ultimately affect marine mammal populations (e.g., King et al., 

2015; New et al., 2013a; New et al., 2013b; Pirotta et al., 2015a). With respect to acoustically-induced 

stress, this includes not only determining how and to what degree various types of anthropogenic sound 

cause stress in marine mammals, but what factors can mitigate those responses. Factors potentially 

affecting an animal’s response to a stressor include the mammal’s life history stage, sex, age, 

reproductive status, overall physiological and behavioral plasticity, and whether they are naïve or 

experienced with the sound [e.g., prior experience with a stressor may result in a reduced response due 

to habituation (Finneran & Branstetter, 2013; St. Aubin & Dierauf, 2001)]. Because there are many 

unknowns regarding the occurrence of acoustically-induced stress responses in marine mammals, the 

Navy assumes in its effect analysis that any physiological response (e.g., hearing loss or injury) or 

significant behavioral response is also associated with a stress response. 

Marine mammals naturally experience stressors within their environment and as part of their life 

histories. Changing weather and ocean conditions, exposure to disease and naturally occurring toxins, 

lack of prey availability, and interactions with predators all contribute to the stress a marine mammal 

experiences (Atkinson et al., 2015). Breeding cycles, periods of fasting, social interactions with members 

of the same species, and molting (for pinnipeds) are also stressors, although they are natural 

components of an animal’s life history. Anthropogenic activities have the potential to provide additional 

stressors beyond those that occur naturally (Fair et al., 2014; Meissner et al., 2015; Rolland et al., 2012). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-105

3.7 Marine Mammals

Anthropogenic stressors potentially include such things as fishery interactions, pollution, and ocean 

noise.

The stress response is a suite of physiological changes that are meant to help an organism mitigate the 

impact of a stressor (Moberg & Mench, 2000). However, if the magnitude and duration of the stress 

response is too great or too long, then it can have negative consequences to the organism (e.g., 

decreased immune function, decreased reproduction). The generalized stress response is classically 

characterized by the release of cortisol, a hormone that has many functions including elevation of blood 

sugar, suppression of the immune system, and alteration of the biochemical pathways that affect fat, 

protein, and carbohydrate metabolism. However, it is now known that the endocrine response 

(glandular secretions of hormones into the blood) to a stressor can extend to other hormones. For 

instance, thyroid hormones can also vary under the influence of certain stressors, particularly food 

deprivation. These types of responses typically occur on the order of minutes to days. The “fight or 

flight” response, an acute stress response, is characterized by the very rapid release of hormones that 

stimulate glucose release, increase heart rate, and increase oxygen consumption. 

What is known about the function of the various stress hormones is based largely upon observations of 

the stress response in terrestrial mammals. The endocrine response of marine mammals to stress may 

not be the same as that of terrestrial mammals because of the selective pressures marine mammals 

faced during their evolution in an ocean environment (Atkinson et al., 2015). For example, due to the 

necessity of breath-holding while diving and foraging at depth, the physiological role of the epinephrine 

and norepinephrine (the catecholamines) may have changed. Catecholamines increase during breathhold diving in seals, co-occurring with a reduction in heart rate, peripheral vasoconstriction (constriction 

of blood vessels), and an increased reliance on anaerobic metabolism during extended dives (Hance et 

al., 1982; Hochachka et al., 1995; Hurford et al., 1996); the catecholamine increase is not associated 

with an increased heart rate, glycemic release, and increased oxygen consumption typical of terrestrial 

mammals. Other hormone functions may also be different, such as aldosterone, which has been 

speculated to not only contribute to electrolyte balance, but possibly also the maintenance of blood 

pressure during periods of vasoconstriction (Houser et al., 2011). In marine mammals, aldosterone is 

thought to play a particular role in stress mediation because of its noted response to handling stress (St. 

Aubin & Geraci, 1989; St. Aubin & Dierauf, 2001). 

Relatively little information exists on the linkage between anthropogenic sound exposure and stress in 

marine mammals, and even less information exists on the ultimate consequences of sound-induced 

stress responses (either acute or chronic). Most studies to date have focused on acute responses to 

sound either by measuring catecholamines or by measuring heart rate as an assumed proxy for an acute 

stress response. Belugas demonstrated no catecholamine response to the playback of oil drilling sounds 

(Thomas et al., 1990b) but showed a small but statistically significant increase in catecholamines 

following exposure to impulsive sounds produced from a seismic water gun (Romano et al., 2004). A 

bottlenose dolphin exposed to the same seismic water gun signals did not demonstrate a catecholamine 

response, but did demonstrate a statistically significant elevation in aldosterone (Romano et al., 2004), 

albeit the increase was within the normal daily variation observed in this species (St. Aubin et al., 1996). 

Increases in heart rate were observed in bottlenose dolphins to which known calls of other dolphins 

were played, although no increase in heart rate was observed when background tank noise was played 

back (Miksis et al., 2001). Unfortunately, in this study, it cannot be determined whether the increase in 

heart rate was due to stress or an anticipation of being reunited with the dolphin to which the 

vocalization belonged. Similarly, a young beluga’s heart rate was observed to increase during exposure 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-106

3.7 Marine Mammals

to noise, with increases dependent upon the frequency band of noise and duration of exposure, and 

with a sharp decrease to normal or below normal levels upon cessation of the exposure (Lyamin et al., 

2011). However, this response may have been in part due to the conditions during testing and the young 

age of the animal, and therefore heart rate may not be a good predictor of a stress response in

cetaceans. Kvadsheim et al. (2010) measured the heart rate of captive hooded seals during exposure to 

sonar signals, and found an increase in the heart rate of the seals during exposure periods vs. control 

periods when the animals were at the surface. When the animals dove, the normal dive-related 

bradycardia (decrease in heart rate) was not impacted by the sonar exposure. Similarly, Thompson et al. 

(1998) observed a rapid but short-lived decrease in heart rates in harbor and gray seals exposed to 

seismic air guns (cited in Gordon et al., 2003). Williams et al. (2017) found a non-linear increase in 

oxygen consumption with both stroke rate and heart rate in swimming and diving bottlenose dolphins, 

and found that the average energy expended per stroke increased from 2.81 J/kg/stroke during 

preferred swim speeds to a maximum cost of 6.41 J/kg/stroke when freely following a boat. Collectively, 

these results demonstrate the difficulty in interpreting the sparse amount of available information on 

acute stress responses to sound in marine mammals.

Whereas a limited amount of work has addressed the potential for acute sound exposures to produce a 

stress response, almost nothing is known about how chronic exposure to acoustic stressors affect stress 

hormones in marine mammals, particularly as it relates to survival or reproduction. In what is probably 

the only study of chronic noise exposure in marine mammals associating changes in a stress hormone 

with changes in anthropogenic noise, Rolland et al. (2012) compared the levels of cortisol metabolites in 

North Atlantic right whale feces collected before and after September 11, 2001. Following the events of 

September 11, shipping was significantly prohibited in the region where fecal collections were made and 

regional ocean background noise declined. Fecal cortisol metabolites significantly decreased during the 

period of reduced ship traffic and ocean noise (Rolland et al., 2012). Considerably more work has been 

conducted in an attempt to determine the potential effect of boating on smaller cetaceans, particularly 

killer whales (Bain, 2002; Erbe, 2002; Lusseau, 2006; Noren et al., 2009; Pirotta et al., 2015b; Read et al., 

2014; Rolland et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2006; Williams et al., 2009; Williams et al., 2014a; Williams et 

al., 2014b). Most of these efforts focused primarily on estimates of metabolic costs associated with 

altered behavior or inferred consequences of boat presence and noise, but did not directly measure 

stress hormones. However, Ayres et al. (2012) investigated southern resident killer whale fecal thyroid 

hormone and cortisol metabolites to assess two potential threats to the species recovery: lack of prey 

(salmon) and impacts from exposure to the physical presence of vessel traffic (but without measuring 

vessel traffic noise). Ayres et al. (2012) concluded from these stress hormone measurements that the 

lack of prey overshadowed any population-level physiological impacts on southern resident killer whales 

due to vessel traffic. Collectively, these studies indicate the difficulty in teasing out factors that are 

dominant in exerting influence on the secretion of stress hormones, including the separate and additive 

effects of vessel presence and vessel noise. Nevertheless, although the reduced presence of the ships 

themselves cannot be ruled out as potentially contributing to the reduction in fecal cortisol metabolites 

in North Atlantic right whales, the work of Rolland et al. (2012) represents the most provocative link 

between ocean noise and cortisol in cetaceans to date.

Navy-funded efforts are underway to try and improve our understanding and ability to predict how 

stressors ultimately affect marine mammal populations (King et al., 2015; e.g., New et al., 2013a; New et 

al., 2013b; Pirotta et al., 2015a), and whether they are naïve or experienced with the sound (e.g., prior 

experience with a stressor) may result in a reduced response due to habituation (St. Aubin & Dierauf, 

2001). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-107

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.1.1.4 Masking 

Masking occurs when one sound, distinguished as the “noise,” interferes with the detection or 

recognition of another sound. The quantitative definition of masking is the amount in decibels an 

auditory detection or discrimination threshold is raised in the presence of a masker (Erbe et al., 2015). 

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and 

Explosive Stressors), masking can effectively limit the distance over which a marine mammal can 

communicate, detect biologically relevant sounds, and echolocate (odontocetes). Masking only occurs in 

the presence of the masking noise and does not persist after the cessation of the noise. Masking can 

lead to vocal changes (e.g., Lombard effect, increasing amplitude, or changing frequency) and behavior 

changes (e.g., cessation of foraging, leaving an area) to both signalers and receivers, in an attempt to 

compensate for noise levels (Erbe et al., 2015). 

Critical ratios are the lowest signal-to-noise ratio in detection occurs (Finneran & Branstetter, 2013; 

Johnson et al., 1989; Southall et al., 2000). When expressed in dB, critical ratios can easily be calculated 

by subtracting the noise level (in dB re 1 μPa2 /Hz) from the signal level (in dB re 1 μPa) at threshold. 

Critical ratios have been measured for pinnipeds (Southall et al., 2000, 2003), odontocetes (Figure 3.7-5) 

(Au & Moore, 1990; Johnson et al., 1989; Kastelein & Wensveen, 2008; Lemonds et al., 2011; Thomas et 

al., 1990a), manatees (Gaspard et al., 2012), and sea otters (Ghoul & Reichmuth, 2014). Critical ratios 

are directly related to the bandwidth of auditory filters and as a result, critical ratios increase as a 

function of signal frequency (Au & Moore, 1990; Lemonds et al., 2011). Higher frequency noise is more 

effective at masking higher frequency signals. Although critical ratios are typically estimated in 

controlled laboratory conditions using Gaussian (white) noise, critical ratios can vary considerably 

depending on the noise type (Branstetter et al., 2013; Trickey et al., 2010). 

Figure 3.7-5: Critical Ratios (in dB) Measured in Different Odontocetes Species (from Finneran 

& Branstetter, 2013)

Clark et al. (2009) developed a method for estimating masking effects on communication signals for lowfrequency cetaceans, including calculating the cumulative impact of multiple noise sources. For 

example, their technique calculates that a right whale’s optimal communication space (around 20 km) is 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-108

3.7 Marine Mammals

decreased by 84 percent when two commercial ships pass through it. Similarly, Aguilar de Soto et al. 

(2006) found that a 15 dB increase in background noise due to vessels led to a communication range of 

only 18 percent of its normal value for foraging beaked whales. This method relies on empirical data on 

source levels of calls (which is unknown for many species) and requires many assumptions such as preindustrial ambient noise conditions and simplifications of animal hearing and behavior, but it is an 

important step in determining the impact of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. Erbe (2015)

developed a model with a noise source-centered view of masking to examine how a call may be masked 

from a receiver by a noise as a function of caller, receiver, and noise-source location, distance relative to 

each other and received level of the call. 

Vocal changes in response to anthropogenic noise can occur across the repertoire of sound production 

modes used by marine mammals, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. 

Vocalization changes may result from a need to compete with an increase in background noise and 

include increasing the source level, modifying the frequency, increasing the call repetition rate of 

vocalizations, or ceasing to vocalize in the presence of increased noise (Hotchkin & Parks, 2013). In 

cetaceans, vocalization changes were reported from exposure to anthropogenic noise sources such as 

sonar, vessel noise, and seismic surveying (Gordon et al., 2003; Holt et al., 2008; Holt et al., 2011; Lesage 

et al., 1999; McDonald et al., 2009; Rolland et al., 2012) as well as changes in the natural acoustic 

environment (Dunlop et al., 2014). Vocal changes can be temporary, or can be permanent, as seen in the 

increase in starting frequency for the North Atlantic right whale upcall over the last 50 years (Tennessen 

& Parks, 2016). This shift in frequency was modeled, and it was found that it lead to increase detection 

ranges between right whales; the frequency shift, coupled with an increase in call intensity by 20 dB, led 

to a call detectability range of less than 3 km to over 9 km (Tennessen & Parks, 2016). In some cases, 

these vocal changes may have fitness consequences, such as an increase in metabolic rates and oxygen 

consumption, as was found for bottlenose dolphins when increasing their call amplitude (Holt et al., 

2015). A switch from vocal communication to physical, surface-generated sounds such as pectoral fin 

slapping or breaching was observed for humpback whales in the presence of increasing natural 

background noise levels, indicating that adaptations to masking may also move beyond vocal 

modifications (Dunlop et al., 2010). These changes all represent possible tactics by the sound-producing 

animal to reduce the impact of masking. The receiving animal can also reduce masking by using active 

listening strategies such as orienting to the sound source, moving to a different location to improve 

binaural cues (time or intensity differences between the ears due to a sound source’s location relative to 

the animal’s head), or going still to reduce noise associated with hydrodynamic flow. The structure of 

some noises (e.g., amplitude modulation) may also provide some release from masking through 

comodulation masking release (the difference in masking when a noise is broadband versus having the 

same bandwidth as the signal) (Branstetter & Finneran, 2008; Branstetter et al., 2013). Signal 

characteristics (e.g., whether the signal has harmonics, or is frequency modulated) may further enhance 

the detectability of a signal in noise (Cunningham et al., 2014). 

Evidence suggests that at least some marine mammals have the ability to acoustically identify potential 

predators (Allen et al., 2014; Cummings & Thompson, 1971; Curé et al., 2015; Fish & Vania, 1971), which 

may be reduced in the presence of a masking noise, particularly if it occurs in the same frequency band. 

Therefore, the occurrence of masking may prevent marine mammals from responding to the acoustic 

cues produced by their predators. Whether this is a possibility depends on the duration of the masking 

and the likelihood of encountering a predator during the time that detection and identification of 

predator cues are impeded. For example, harbor seals that reside in the coastal waters off British 

Columbia are frequently targeted by certain groups of killer whales. The seals discriminate between the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-109

3.7 Marine Mammals

calls of threatening and non-threatening killer whales (Deecke et al., 2002), a capability that should 

increase survivorship while reducing the energy required to attend to all killer whale calls. Similarly, 

sperm whales (Curé et al., 2016; Isojunno et al., 2016), long-finned pilot whales (Visser et al., 2016), and 

humpback whales (Curé et al., 2015) changed their behavior in response to killer whale vocalization 

playbacks; these findings indicate that some recognition of predator cues could be missed if the killer 

whale vocalizations were masked.

Masking as a Result of Impulsive Noise

Masking could occur in mysticetes due to the overlap between their low-frequency vocalizations and the 

dominant frequencies of air gun pulses, however, masking in odontocetes or pinnipeds is less likely 

unless the seismic survey activity is in close range when the pulses are more broadband. For example, 

differential vocal responses in marine mammals were documented in the presence of seismic survey 

noise. An overall decrease in vocalizations during active surveying was noted in large marine mammal 

groups (Potter et al., 2007), while blue whale feeding/social calls increased when seismic exploration 

was underway (Di Lorio & Clark, 2010), indicative of a possible compensatory response to the increased 

noise level. Bowhead whales were found to increase call rates in the presence of seismic air gun noise at 

lower received levels (below 100 dB re: 1 μPa2

s cumulative SEL), but once the received level rose above 

127 dB re 1 μPa2

s cumulative SEL the call rate began decreasing, and stopped altogether once received 

levels reached 170 dB re 1 μPa2

s cumulative SEL (Blackwell et al., 2015). Nieukirk et al. (2012) recorded 

both seismic surveys and fin whale 20 Hz calls at various locations around the mid-Atlantic Ocean, and 

hypothesized that distant seismic noise could mask those calls thereby decreasing the communication 

range of fin whales, whose vocalizations may propagate over 400 km to reach conspecifics (Spiesberger 

& Fristrup, 1990). 

Masking as a Result of Sonar and Other Transducers

Masking as a result of duty-cycled low-frequency or mid-frequency active sonar with relatively low duty 

cycles is unlikely for most marine mammals as sonar tones occur over a relatively short duration and 

narrow bandwidth that does not overlap with vocalizations for most species. While dolphin vocalizations 

can occur in the same bandwidth as mid-frequency active sonar, the duty cycle of most low-frequency 

and mid-frequency active sonars are low enough that delphinid whistles might be masked only a small 

percentage of the time they are whistling, and so masking by sonar would not likely have any short- or 

long-term consequences. Low-frequency active sonar could also overlap with mysticete vocalizations 

(e.g., minke and humpback whales). For example, in the presence of low-frequency active sonar, 

humpback whales were observed to increase the length of their songs (Fristrup et al., 2003; Miller et al., 

2000), possibly due to the overlap in frequencies between the whale song and the low-frequency active 

sonar. 

Newer high duty cycle or continuous active sonars also have more potential to mask vocalizations, 

particularly for delphinids and other mid-frequency cetaceans. These sonars transmit more frequently 

(greater than 80 percent duty cycle) than traditional sonars, but at a substantially lower source level. 

Similarly, high frequency acoustic sources such as pingers that operate at higher repetition rates (e.g., 2-

10 kHz with harmonics up to 19 kHz, 76–77 pings per minute (Culik et al., 2001), also operate at lower 

source levels. While the lower source levels of these systems limits the range of impact compared to 

more traditional systems, animals close to the sonar source are likely to experience masking on a much 

longer time scale than those exposed to traditional sonars. The frequency range at which high duty cycle 

systems operate overlaps the vocalization frequency of a number of mid-frequency cetaceans. 

Continuous noise at the same frequency of communicative vocalizations may cause disruptions to 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-110

3.7 Marine Mammals

communication, social interactions, and acoustically-mediated cooperative behaviors such as foraging or 

reproductive activities. Similarly, because the systems are mid-frequency, there is the potential for the 

sonar signals to mask important environmental cues like predator vocalizations (e.g. killer whales), 

possibly affecting survivorship for targeted animals. While there are currently no available studies of the 

impacts of high duty cycle sonars on marine mammals, masking due to these systems is likely analogous 

to masking produced by other continuous sources (e.g. vessel noise and low-frequency cetaceans), and 

will likely have similar short term consequences, though longer in duration due to the duration of the 

masking noise. These may include changes to vocalization amplitude and frequency (Brumm & 

Slabbekoorn, 2005; Hotchkin & Parks, 2013) and behavioral impacts such as avoidance of the area and 

interruptions to foraging or other essential behaviors (Gordon et al., 2003). Long term consequences 

could include changes to vocal behavior and vocalization structure (Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 

2007), abandonment of habitat if masking occurs frequently enough to significantly impair 

communication (Brumm & Slabbekoorn, 2005), a potential decrease in survivorship if predator 

vocalizations are masked (Brumm & Slabbekoorn, 2005), and a potential decrease in recruitment if 

masking interferes with reproductive activities or mother-calf communication (Gordon et al., 2003). 

Masking as a Result of Vessel and Vibratory Pile Driving Noise

Masking is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such 

as vessels and vibratory pile driving. For example, right whales were observed to shift the frequency 

content of their calls upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic noise 

(Parks et al., 2007) as well as increasing the amplitude (intensity) of their calls (Parks, 2009; Parks et al., 

2011). Right whales also had their communication space reduced by up to 84 percent in the presence of 

vessels (Clark et al., 2009). Although humpback whales did not change the frequency or duration of their 

vocalizations in the presence of ship noise, their source levels were lower than expected based on 

source level changes to wind noise, potentially indicating some signal masking (Dunlop, 2016). 

Multiple delphinid species have also been shown to increase the minimum or maximum frequencies of 

their whistles in the presence of anthropogenic noise (Papale et al., 2015). More specifically, Williams et 

al. (2014a) found that in median noise conditions in Haro Strait, killer whales lose 62 percent of their 

acoustic communication space due to vessel traffic noise, and in peak traffic hours lose up to 97 percent 

of that space. Holt et al. (2008; 2011) showed that southern resident killer whales in the waters 

surrounding the San Juan Islands increased their call source level as vessel noise increased. Hermannsen 

et al. (2014) estimated that broadband vessel noise could extend up to 160 kHz at ranges from 60–1200 

m, and that the higher frequency portion of that noise might mask harbor porpoise clicks. However, this 

may not be an issue as harbor porpoises may avoid vessels and so may not be close enough to have 

their clicks masked (Dyndo et al., 2015; Polacheck & Thorpe, 1990; Sairanen, 2014b). Furthermore, 

Hermannsen et al. (2014) estimated that a 6 dB elevation in noise would decrease the hearing range of a 

harbor porpoise by 50 percent, and a 20-dB increase in noise would decrease the hearing range by 

90 percent. Dugong vocalizations were recorded in the presence of passing boats, and although the call 

rate, intensity or frequency of the calls did not change, the duration of the vocalizations was increased, 

as was the presence of harmonics. This may indicate more energy was being used to vocalize in order to 

maintain the same received level (Ando-Mizobata et al., 2014). Gervaise et al. (2012) estimated that 

beluga whales in the St. Lawrence Marine Park had their estimated communication space under typical 

background noise conditions already reduced to 30 percent due to vessel traffic, which was further 

reduced to only 15 percent of their communication space during peak vessel traffic hours coinciding 

with the arrival and departure of whale watching vessels. Lesage et al. (1999) found belugas in the St. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-111

3.7 Marine Mammals

Lawrence River estuary to reduce overall call rates but increase the production of certain call types 

when ferry and small outboard motor boats were approaching, and to increase the vocalization 

frequency band when vessels were in close proximity.

Vibratory pile driving noise is a continuous, broadband noise source similar to vessel noise. Wang et al. 

(2014) found that whistles of humpback dolphins could be masked by a very large vibration pile driving 

hammer within 200 m, but clicks would not be masked. 

3.7.3.1.1.5 Behavioral Reactions

As discussed in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Activities 

(Section 3.0.3.6.1), any stimuli in the environment can cause a behavioral response in marine mammals. 

These stimuli include noise from anthropogenic sources such as vessels, sonar, air guns, or pile driving, 

but could also include the physical presence of a vessel or aircraft. However, these stimuli could also 

influence how or if a marine mammal responds to a sound such as the presence of predators, prey, or 

conspecifics. Furthermore, the response of a marine mammal to an anthropogenic sound may depend 

on the frequency, duration, temporal pattern and amplitude of the sound as well as the animal’s prior 

experience with the sound and their behavioral state (i.e., what the animal is doing and their energetic 

needs at the time of the exposure) (Ellison et al., 2011). The distance from the sound source and 

whether it is approaching or moving away can also affect the way an animal responds to a sound 

(Wartzok et al., 2003). 

For marine mammals, a review of responses to anthropogenic sound was first conducted by Richardson 

et al. (1995b). Other reviews (Gomez et al., 2016; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007) addressed 

studies conducted since 1995 and focused on observations where the received sound level of the 

exposed marine mammal(s) was known or could be estimated, and also examined the role of context. 

Southall et al. (2007) synthesized data from many behavioral studies and observations to determine the 

likelihood of behavioral reactions at specific sound levels. While in general, the louder the sound source 

the more intense the behavioral response, it was clear that the proximity of a sound source and the 

animal’s experience, motivation, and conditioning were also critical factors influencing the response 

(Southall et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2016). Ellison et al. (2011) outlined an approach to assessing the 

effects of sound on marine mammals that incorporates these contextual-based factors. They 

recommend considering not just the received level of sound, but also in what activity the animal is 

engaged, the nature and novelty of the sound (i.e., is this a new sound from the animal’s perspective), 

and the distance between the sound source and the animal. They submit that this “exposure context,” 

as described, greatly influences the type of behavioral response exhibited by the animal (see technical 

report Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects to Marine Mammals and Sea 

Turtles U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017e). Forney et al. (2017) also point out that an apparent lack of 

response (e.g. no displacement or avoidance of a sound source) may not necessarily mean there is no 

cost to the individual or population, as some resources or habitats may be of such high value that 

animals may choose to stay, even when experiencing stress or hearing loss. Forney et al. (2017)

recommend considering both the costs of remaining in an area of noise exposure such as TTS, PTS or 

masking, which could lead to an increased risk of predation or other threats or a decreased capability to 

forage, and the costs of displacement, including potential increased risk of vessel strike or bycatch, 

increased risks of predation or competition for resources, or decreased habitat suitable for foraging, 

resting, or socializing. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-112

3.7 Marine Mammals

Behavioral reactions could result from a variety of sound sources, including impulsive sources such as 

explosives, air guns, and impact pile driving, and non-impulsive sources such as sonar and other active 

acoustic sources (e.g., pingers), and vessel and aircraft noise. For some of these noise sources numerous 

studies exist (e.g., sonar), whereas for others the data are sparse (e.g., pile driving), and surrogate sound 

sources must be relied upon to assess the potential for behavioral response. Similarly, there is data on 

the reactions of some species in different behavioral states, providing evidence on the importance of 

context in gauging a behavioral response. However, for most species, little or no data exist on behavioral 

responses to any sound source, and so all species have been grouped into broad taxonomic groups from 

which general response information can be inferred [see technical report Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. 

Navy Acoustic and Explosive Effects to Marine mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2017e). 

Behavioral Reactions to Impulsive Sound Sources

Impulsive signals, particularly at close range, have a rapid rise time and higher instantaneous peak 

pressure than other signal types, making them more likely to cause startle responses or avoidance 

responses. However, at long distances the rise time increases as the signal duration lengthens (similar to 

a “ringing” sound), making the impulsive signal more similar to a non-impulsive signal. Data on 

behavioral responses to impulsive sound sources are limited across all marine mammal groups, with 

only a few studies available for mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds. No data currently exist for 

manatees or polar bears. Most data have come from seismic surveys that occur over long durations 

(e.g., on the order of days to weeks), and typically utilize large multi-air gun arrays that fire repeatedly. 

While seismic data provide the best available science for assessing behavioral responses to impulsive 

sounds by marine mammals, it is likely that these responses represent a worst-case scenario as 

compared to responses to Navy impulsive sources analyzed in this document such as single air guns and 

small, short-duration pile driving activities.

Mysticetes

Baleen whales have shown a variety of responses to impulsive sound sources, including avoidance, 

attraction to the source, reduced surface intervals, altered swimming behavior, and changes in 

vocalization rates (Gordon et al., 2003; McCauley et al., 2000; Richardson et al., 1995b; Southall et al., 

2007). Studies have been conducted on many baleen whale species, including gray, humpback, blue, fin 

and bowhead whales; it is assumed that these responses are representative of all baleen whale species. 

The behavioral state of the whale seems to be an integral part of whether or not the animal responds 

and how they respond, as does the location and movement of the sound source, more than the received 

level of the sound. 

Migratory behavior seems to lead to a higher likelihood of response, with some species demonstrating 

more sensitivity than others. For example, migrating gray whales showed avoidance responses to 

seismic vessels at received levels between 164 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (Malme et al., 1986, 1988). Similarly, 

migrating humpback whales showed avoidance behavior at ranges of 5–8 km from a seismic array 

during observational studies and controlled exposure experiments in one Australian study (McCauley et 

al., 1998), and in another Australian study decreased their dive times and reduced their swimming 

speeds (Dunlop et al., 2015). However, when comparing received levels and behavioral responses when 

using ramp-up versus a constant noise level of airguns, humpback whales did not change their dive 

behavior but did deviate from their predicted heading and decreased their swim speeds (Dunlop et al., 

2016). In addition, the whales demonstrated more course deviation during the constant source trials but 

reduced travel speeds more in the ramp-up trials; in either case there was no dose-response 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-113

3.7 Marine Mammals

relationship with the received level of the air gun noise, and similar responses were observed in control 

trials with vessel movement but no airguns so some of the response was likely due to the presence of 

the vessel and not the received level of the airguns. McDonald et al. (1995) tracked a blue whale with 

seafloor seismometers and reported that it stopped vocalizing and changed its travel direction at a 

range of 10 km from the seismic vessel (estimated received level 143 dB re 1 μPa peak-to-peak). 

Bowhead whales seem to be the most sensitive species, perhaps due to a higher overlap between 

bowhead whale distribution and seismic surveys in Arctic and sub-Arctic waters, as well as a recent 

history of being hunted. While most bowhead whales did not show active avoidance until within 8 km of 

seismic vessels (Richardson et al., 1995b), some whales avoided vessels by more than 20 km at received 

levels as low as 120 dB re 1 μPa. Additionally, Malme et al. (1988) observed clear changes in diving and 

breathing patterns in bowheads at ranges up to 73 km from seismic vessels, with received levels as low 

as 125 dB re 1 μPa. Bowhead whales may also avoid the area around seismic surveys, from 6–8 km 

(Koski and Johnson 1987, as cited in Gordon et al., 2003) out to 20 or 30 km (Richardson et al., 1999). 

However, work by Robertson (2014) supports the idea that behavioral responses are contextually 

dependent, and that during seismic operations bowhead whales may be less “available” for counting 

due to alterations in dive behavior but that they may not have left the area after all. 

In contrast, noise from seismic surveys was not found to impact feeding behavior or exhalation rates in 

western gray whales while resting or diving off the coast of Russia (Gailey et al., 2007; Yazvenko et al., 

2007); however, the increase in vessel traffic associated with the surveys and the proximity of the 

vessels to the whales did affect the orientation of the whales relative to the vessels and shortened their 

dive-surface intervals (Gailey et al., 2016). Todd et al. (1996) found no clear short-term behavioral 

responses by foraging humpbacks to explosions associated with construction operations in 

Newfoundland but did see a trend of increased rates of net entanglement closer to the noise source, 

possibly indicating a reduction in net detection associated with the noise through masking or TTS.

Distributions of fin and minke whales were modeled with a suite of environmental variables along with 

the occurrence or absence of seismic surveys, and no evidence of a decrease in sighting rates relative to 

seismic activity was found for either species (Vilela et al., 2016). Their distributions were driven entirely 

by environmental variables, particularly those linked to prey including warmer sea surface 

temperatures, higher Chlorophyll-a values, and higher photosynthetically available radiation (a measure 

of primary productivity).

Vocal responses to seismic surveys have been observed in a number of baleen whale species, including a 

cessation of calling, a shift in frequency, increases in amplitude or call rate, or a combination of these 

strategies. Blue whale feeding/social calls were found to increase when seismic exploration was 

underway, with seismic pulses at average received SELs of 131 dB re 1 μPa2

s (Di Lorio & Clark, 2010), a 

potentially compensatory response to increased noise level. Responses by fin whales to a 10-day seismic 

survey in the Mediterranean Sea included possible decreased 20-Hz call production and movement of 

animals from the area based on lower received levels and changes in bearings (Castellote et al., 2012). 

However, similarly distant seismic surveys elicited no apparent vocal response from fin whales in the 

mid-Atlantic Ocean; instead, Nieukirk et al. (2012) hypothesized that 20-Hz calls may have been masked 

from the receiver by distant seismic noise. Models of humpback whale song off Angola showed 

significant seasonal and diel variation, but also showed a decrease in the number of singers with 

increasing received levels of air gun pulses (Cerchio et al., 2014). Bowhead whale calling rates decreased 

significantly at sites near seismic surveys (41–45 km) where received levels were between 116–129 dB 

re 1 μPa, and did not decrease at sites further from the seismic surveys (greater than 104 km) where 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-114

3.7 Marine Mammals

received levels were 99–108 dB re 1 μPa (Blackwell et al., 2013). In fact, bowhead whale calling rates 

increased at the lower received levels, began decreasing at around 127 dB re 1 μPa2

s cumulative SEL, 

and ceased altogether at received levels over 170 dB re 1 μPa2

s cumulative SEL (Blackwell et al., 2015). 

Mysticetes seem to be the most sensitive taxonomic group of marine mammals to impulsive sound 

sources, with possible avoidance responses occurring out to 30 km and vocal changes occurring in 

response to sounds over 100 km away. However, responses appear to be behaviorally mediated, with 

most avoidance responses occurring during migration behavior and little observed response during 

feeding behavior. These response patterns are likely to hold true for Navy impulsive sources; however, 

Navy impulsive sources would largely be stationary (e.g., pile driving), short term (on the order of hours 

rather than days or weeks), and lower source level (e.g., swimmer defense air guns) than were found in 

these studies and so responses would likely occur in closer proximity or not at all. 

Odontocetes

Few data are available on odontocete responses to impulsive sound sources, with only a few studies on 

responses to seismic surveys, pile driving and construction activity available. However, odontocetes 

appear to be less sensitive to impulsive sound than mysticetes, with responses occurring at much closer 

distances. This may be due to the predominance of low-frequency sound associated with these sources 

that propagates long distances and overlaps with the range of best hearing for mysticetes but is below 

that range for odontocetes. The exception to this is the harbor porpoise, which has been shown to be 

highly sensitive to most sound sources, avoiding both stationary (e.g., pile driving) and moving (e.g., 

seismic survey vessels) impulsive sound sources out to approximately 20 km (e.g., Haelters et al., 2014; 

Pirotta et al., 2014). However, even this response is short-term, with porpoises returning to the area 

within hours after the cessation of the noise.

Madsen et al. (2006) and Miller et al. (2009) tagged and monitored eight sperm whales in the Gulf of 

Mexico exposed to seismic air gun surveys. Sound sources were from approximately 2 to 7 NM away 

from the whales, and received levels were as high as 162 dB SPL re 1 μPa (Madsen et al., 2006). The 

whales showed no horizontal avoidance, however one whale rested at the water’s surface for an 

extended period of time until air guns ceased firing (Miller et al., 2009). While the remaining whales 

continued to execute foraging dives throughout exposure, tag data suggested there might have been 

subtle effects of noise on foraging behavior (Miller et al., 2009). Similarly, Weir (2008) observed that 

seismic air gun surveys along the Angolan coast did not significantly reduce the encounter rate of sperm 

whales during the 10-month survey period, nor were avoidance behaviors to air gun impulsive sounds 

observed. In contrast, Atlantic spotted dolphins did show a significant, short-term avoidance response to 

air gun impulses within approximately 1 km of the source (Weir, 2008). The dolphins were observed at 

greater distances from the vessel when the air gun was in use, and when the air gun was not in use they 

readily approached the vessel to bow ride.

Captive bottlenose dolphins sometimes vocalized or were reluctant to return to the test station after 

exposure to single impulses from a seismic water gun (Finneran et al., 2002). When exposed to multiple 

impulses from a seismic air gun, some dolphins turned their heads away from the sound source just 

before the impulse, showing that they could anticipate the timing of the impulses and perhaps reduce 

the received level (Finneran et al., 2015). During construction (including the blasting of old bastions) of a 

bridge over a waterway commonly used by the Tampa Bay, FL stock of bottlenose dolphins, the use of 

the area by females decreased while males displayed high site fidelity and continued using the area, 

perhaps indicating differential habitat uses between the sexes (Weaver, 2015). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-115

3.7 Marine Mammals

A study was conducted on the response of harbor porpoises to a seismic survey using aerial surveys and 

C-PODs (an autonomous recording device that counts odontocete clicks); the animals appeared to have 

left the area of the survey, and decreased their foraging activity within 5–10 km, as evidenced by both a 

decrease in vocalizations near the survey and an increase in vocalizations at a distance (Pirotta et al., 

2014; Thompson et al., 2013). However, the animals returned within a day after the air gun operation 

ceased, and the decrease in occurrence over the survey period was small relative to the observed 

natural seasonal decrease compared to the previous year. A number of studies (Brandt et al., 2011; 

Dähne et al., 2014; Haelters et al., 2014; Thompson et al., 2010; Tougaard et al., 2005; Tougaard et al., 

2009); also found strong avoidance responses by harbor porpoises out to 20 km during pile driving; 

however, all studies found that the animals returned to the area after the cessation of pile driving. 

Kastelein et al. (2013b) exposed a captive harbor porpoise to impact pile driving sounds, and found that 

above 136 dB re 1 μPa (zero-to-peak) the animal’s respiration rates increased, and at higher levels it 

jumped more frequently. Bergstrom et al. (2014) found that although there was a high likelihood of 

acoustic disturbance during wind farm construction (including pile driving), the impact was short-term.

Odontocete behavioral responses to impulsive sound sources are likely species- and context-dependent, 

with most species demonstrating little to no apparent response. Responses might be expected within 

close proximity to a noise source, under specific behavioral conditions such as females with offspring, or 

for sensitive species such as harbor porpoises.

Pinnipeds

A review of behavioral reactions by pinnipeds to impulsive noise can be found in Richardson et al. 

(1995b) and Southall et al. (2007). Blackwell et al. (2004) observed that ringed seals exhibited little or no 

reaction to pipe-driving noise with mean underwater levels of 157 dB re 1 μPa and in air levels of 112 dB 

re 20 μPa, suggesting that the seals had habituated to the noise. In contrast, captive California sea lions 

avoided sounds from an underwater impulsive source at levels of 165–170 dB re 1 μPa (Finneran et al., 

2003b). Harbor and gray seals were also observed to avoid a seismic air gun by rapidly swimming away, 

and ceased foraging during exposure, but returned to normal behavior afterwards (Thompson et al. 

1998, cited in Gordon et al., 2003). In another study, few responses were observed by New Zealand fur 

seals to a towed air gun array operating at full power; rather, when responses were observed it seemed 

to be to the physical presence of the vessel and tow apparatus, and these only occurred when the vessel 

was within 200 m and sometimes as close as 5 m (Lalas & McConnell, 2016). Captive Steller sea lions 

were exposed to a variety of tonal, sweep, impulsive and broadband sounds to determine what might 

work as a deterrent from fishing nets. The impulsive sound had a source level of 120 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m, 

and caused the animals to haul out and refuse to eat fish presented in a net (Akamatsu et al., 1996). 

Steller sea lions exposed to in-air explosive blasts increased their activity levels and often re-entered the 

water when hauled out (Demarchi et al., 2012). However, these responses were short-lived and within 

minutes, the animals had hauled out again, and there were no lasting behavioral impacts in the days 

following the blasts.

Experimentally, Götz & Janik (2011) tested underwater startle responses to a startling sound (sound 

with a rapid rise time and a 93 dB sensation level [the level above the animal’s hearing threshold at that 

frequency]) and a nonstartling sound (sound with the same level, but with a slower rise time) in wildcaptured gray seals. The animals exposed to the startling treatment avoided a known food source, 

whereas animals exposed to the nonstartling treatment did not react or habituated during the exposure 

period. The results of this study highlight the importance of the characteristics of the acoustic signal in 

an animal’s response of habituation.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-116

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pinnipeds may be the least sensitive taxonomic group to most noise sources, although some species 

may be more sensitive than others, and are likely to only respond to loud impulsive sound sources at 

close ranges by startling, jumping into the water when hauled out, or even cease foraging, but only for 

brief periods before returning to their previous behavior (Southall et al., 2007). Pinnipeds may even 

experience TTS (Section 3.7.3.1.1.2, Hearing Loss and Auditory Injury) before exhibiting a behavioral 

response (Southall et al., 2007). 

Behavioral Reactions to Sonar and Other Transducers

Sonar and other transducers can range in frequency from less than 1 kHz (e.g., low-frequency active 

sonar) to over 200 kHz (e.g., fish finders), with duty cycles that range from one ping per minute to an 

almost continuous sound. Although very-high-frequency sonars are out of the hearing range of most 

marine mammals, some of these sources may contain artifacts at lower frequencies that could be 

detected (Deng et al., 2014; Hastie et al., 2014). High duty-cycle sonar systems operate at lower source 

levels, but with a more continuous sound output. These sources can be stationary, or on a moving 

platform, and there can be more than one source present at a time. Guan et al. (2017) also found that 

sound levels in the mid-frequency sonar bandwidth remained elevated at least 5 dB above background 

levels for the first 7 – 15 seconds (within 2 km) after the emission of a sonar ping; depending on the 

length of the sonar ping and the inter-ping interval this reverberation could increase cumulative SEL 

estimates during periods of active sonar. This variability in parameters associated with sonar and other 

transducers makes the estimation of behavioral responses to these sources difficult, with observed 

responses ranging from no apparent change in behavior to more severe responses that could lead to 

some costs to the animal. As discussed in Section 3.0.3.6.1 (Conceptual Framework) and Section 

3.7.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions), responses may also occur in the presence of different contextual 

factors regardless of received level, including the proximity and number of vessels, the behavioral state 

and prior experience of an individual, and even characteristics of the signal itself or the propagation of 

the signal through the environment. 

In order to explore this complex question, behavioral response studies have been conducted through 

the collaboration of various research and government organizations in Bahamian, United States (off 

Southern California), Mediterranean, Australian, and Norwegian waters. These studies have attempted 

to define and measure responses of beaked whales and other cetaceans to controlled exposures of 

sonar and other sounds to understand their potential impacts better. While controlling for as many 

variables as possible (e.g., the distance and movement of the source), these studies also introduce 

additional variables that do not normally occur in a real Navy training or testing activity, including the 

tagging of whales, following the tagged animals with multiple vessels, and continually approaching the 

animal to create a dose escalation. In addition, distances of the sound source from the whales during 

behavioral response studies were always within 1–8 km. Some of these studies have suggested that

ramping-up a source from a lower source level would act as a protective measure to mitigate higher 

order (e.g., TTS or PTS) impacts of sonar; however, this practice may only be effective for more 

responsive animals, and for short durations (e.g., 5 min) of ramp-up (Von Benda-Beckmann et al., 2014; 

von Benda-Beckmann et al., 2016). Therefore, while these studies have provided the most information 

to date on behavioral responses of marine mammals to sonar, there are still many contextual factors to 

be teased apart and determining what might produce a significant behavioral response is not a trivial 

task.

Passive acoustic monitoring and visual observational behavioral response studies have also been 

conducted on Navy ranges, taking advantage of the existing seafloor hydrophones and real testing and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-117

3.7 Marine Mammals

training activity and associated sources to assess behavioral responses (Deakos & Richlen, 2015; 

Henderson et al., 2016; Manzano-Roth et al., 2016; Martin et al., 2015b; McCarthy et al., 2011; Mobley 

& Deakos, 2015; Moretti et al., 2014; Tyack et al., 2011). In addition, extensive aerial, visual, and 

acoustic monitoring is conducted before, during and after training events to watch for behavioral 

responses during training and look for injured or stranded animals after training (Campbell et al., 2010; 

Farak et al., 2011; HDR, 2011; Norris et al., 2012; Smultea & Mobley, 2009; Smultea et al., 2009; Trickey 

et al., 2015; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011d, 2013c, 2014b, 2015). During all of these monitoring 

efforts, very few behavioral responses were observed, and no injured or dead animal was observed that 

was directly related to a training event (some dead animals were observed but typically before the 

event or appeared to have been deceased prior to the event; e.g., Smultea et al., 2011). While passive 

acoustic studies are limited to observations of vocally-active marine mammals and visual studies are 

limited to what can be observed at the surface, these study types have the benefit of occurring in the 

absence of some of the added contextual variables in the controlled exposure studies. Furthermore, 

when visual and passive acoustic data collected during a training event are combined with ship 

movements and sonar use they provide a unique and realistic scenario for analysis. In addition to these 

types of observational behavioral response studies, Harris & Thomas (2015) highlighted additional 

research approaches that may provide further information on behavioral responses to sonars and other 

transducers beyond behavioral response type studies or passive acoustic monitoring, including 

conducting controlled exposures on captive animals with scaled sources (smaller sized and deployed at 

closer proximity), on wild animals with both scaled and real but directed sources, and predator playback 

studies, all of which will be discussed below. 

The above behavioral response studies and observations have been conducted on a number of 

mysticete and odontocete species, which can be extrapolated to other similar species in these 

taxonomic groups. No field studies of pinniped behavioral responses to sonar have been conducted, 

however there are several captive studies on some pinniped and odontocete species that can provide 

insight into how these animals may respond in the wild. The captive studies typically represent a more 

controlled approach, which allow researchers to better estimate the direct impact of the received level 

of sound leading to behavioral responses, and to potentially link behavioral to physiological responses. 

However, there are still contextual factors that must be acknowledged, including previous training to 

complete tasks and the presence of food rewards upon completion. There are no corresponding captive 

studies on mysticete whales, therefore some of the responses to higher level exposures must be 

extrapolated from odontocetes. Likewise, there are no field or captive studies of active acoustic sources 

on sirenians, although several studies have used echosounders to detect manatees and characterize 

their habitat. 

Mysticetes

As with impulsive sounds, the responses of mysticetes to sonar and other duty-cycled tonal sounds are 

highly dependent upon the characteristics of the signal, the behavioral state of the animal, the particular 

sensitivity and previous experience of an individual, and other contextual factors including distance of 

the source, movement of the source, and the physical presence of vessels in addition to the sonar 

(Goldbogen et al., 2013; Harris et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2015b; Sivle et al., 2015). Behavioral response 

studies have been conducted over a variety of contextual and behavioral states, helping to identify 

which contextual factors may lead to a response beyond just the received level of the sound. Observed 

reactions during behavioral response studies have not been consistent across individuals based on 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-118

3.7 Marine Mammals

received sound levels alone, and likely were the result of complex interactions between these 

contextual factors. 

Surface feeding blue and humpback whales did not show a change in behavior in response to midfrequency simulated and real sonar sources with received levels between 90 and 179 dB re 1 μPa, but 

deep feeding and non-feeding whales showed temporary reactions including cessation of feeding, 

reduced initiation of deep foraging dives, generalized avoidance responses, and changes to dive 

behavior (DeRuiter et al., 2017; Goldbogen et al., 2013; Sivle et al., 2015). These findings indicate that 

the behavioral state of the animal plays a role in the type and severity of a behavioral response. In fact, 

when the prey field was mapped and used as a covariate in similar models looking for a response in blue 

whales, the response in deep-feeding behavior by blue whales was even more apparent, reinforcing the

need for contextual variables to be included when assessing behavioral responses (Friedlaender et al., 

2016). However, even when responses did occur the animals quickly returned to their previous behavior 

after the sound exposure ended (Goldbogen et al., 2013; Sivle et al., 2015). In another study, humpback 

whales exposed to a 3 kHz pinger meant to act as a net alarm to prevent entanglement did not respond 

or change course, even when within 500 m (Harcourt et al., 2014). However, five out of six North 

Atlantic right whales exposed to an acoustic alarm interrupted their foraging dives; in this case, the 

alarm was comprised of a mixture of signals with frequencies from 500 to 4500 Hz, was long in duration 

lasting several minutes, and was purposely designed to elicit a reaction from the animals as a 

prospective means to protect them from ship strikes (Nowacek et al., 2004a). Although the animals’ 

received SPL was similar in the latter two studies (133–150 dB re 1 μPa), the frequency, duration, and 

temporal pattern of signal presentation were different. 

Humpback whales in another behavioral response experiment in Australia also responded to a 2 kHz 

tone stimulus by changing their course during migration to move more offshore and surfaced more 

frequently, but otherwise did not respond (Dunlop et al., 2013). Humpback whales in the Norwegian 

behavioral response study may have habituated slightly between the first and second sonar exposure 

(Sivle et al., 2015), and actually responded more severely to killer whale vocalization playbacks than they 

did to the sonar playbacks. Several humpback whales have been observed during aerial or visual surveys 

during Navy training exercises involving sonar; no avoidance or other behavioral responses were ever 

noted, even when the whales were observed within 5 km of a vessel with active (or possibly active) 

sonar and maximum received levels were estimated to be between 135 and 161 dB re 1 μPa (Mobley & 

Milette, 2010; Mobley, 2011; Mobley & Pacini, 2012; Mobley et al., 2012; Smultea et al., 2009). In fact, 

one group of humpback whales approached a vessel with active sonar so closely that the sonar was 

shut-down and the vessel slowed; the animals continued approaching and swam under the bow of the 

vessel (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011a). Another group of humpback whales continued heading 

towards a vessel with active sonar as the vessel was moving away for almost 30 minutes, with an 

estimated median received level of 143 dB re 1 μPa. This group was observed producing surface active 

behaviors such as pec slaps, tail slaps and breaches, however these are very common behaviors in 

competitive pods during the breeding season and were not considered to have occurred in response to 

the sonar (Mobley et al., 2012). 

The strongest baleen whale response in any behavioral response study was observed in a minke whale 

in the 3S2 study, which responded at 146 dB re 1 μPa by strongly avoiding the sound source (Kvadsheim 

et al., 2017; Sivle et al., 2015). Although the minke whale increased their swim speed, directional 

movement and respiration rate, none of these were greater than rates observed in baseline behavior, 

and their dive behavior remained similar to baseline dives. A minke whale tagged in the SOCAL BRS 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-119

3.7 Marine Mammals

study also responded by increasing their directional movement, but maintained their speed and dive 

patterns, so did not demonstrate as strong of a response (Kvadsheim et al., 2017). In addition, the 3S2 

minke whale demonstrated some of the same avoidance behavior during the controlled ship approach 

with no sonar, indicating at least some of the response was to the vessel (Kvadsheim et al., 2017). 

Martin et al. (2015b) found that the density of calling minke whales was reduced during periods of Navy 

training involving sonar relative to the periods before training, and increased again in the days after 

training was completed. The responses of individual whales could not be assessed, so in this case it is 

unknown whether the decrease in calling animals indicated that the animals left the range, or simply 

ceased calling. Similarly, minke whale detections made using Marine Acoustic Recording Instruments off 

Jacksonville, Florida were reduced or ceased altogether during periods of sonar use (Norris et al., 2012; 

U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013c) especially with an increased ping rate (Charif et al., 2015). Two 

minke whales also stranded in shallow water after the US Navy training event in the Bahamas in 2000, 

although these animals were successfully returned to deep water with no physical examinations, 

therefore no final conclusions were drawn on whether the sonar led to their stranding (Filadelfo et al., 

2009a; Filadelfo et al., 2009b; U.S. Department of Commerce & U.S. Department of the Navy, 2001). 

Baleen whales have also been exposed to lower frequency sonars, with the hypothesis that these whales 

may react more strongly to lower frequency sounds that overlap with their vocalization range. One 

series of studies was undertaken in 1997–1998 pursuant to the Navy’s Low-Frequency Sound Scientific 

Research Program. The frequency bands of the low-frequency sonars used were between 100 and 500 

Hz, with received levels between 115 and 150 dB re 1 μPa, and the source was always stationary. Fin 

and blue whales were targeted on foraging grounds, singing humpback whales were exposed on 

breeding grounds, and gray whales were exposed during migratory behavior. These studies found only 

short-term responses to low-frequency sound by some fin and humpback whales, including changes in 

vocal activity and avoidance of the source vessel, while other fin, humpback, and blue whales did not 

respond at all. When the source was in the path of migrating gray whales they changed course up to 2 

km to avoid the sound, but when the source was outside their path, little response was observed (Clark 

& Fristrup, 2001; Croll et al., 2001; Fristrup et al., 2003; Miller et al., 2000; Nowacek et al., 2007). Lowfrequency signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate sound source were also not found to 

affect dive times of humpback whales in Hawaiian waters (Frankel & Clark, 2000). 

Opportunistic passive acoustic based studies have also detected behavioral responses to sonar, although 

definitive conclusions are harder to draw. Blue whales exposed to mid-frequency sonar in the Southern 

California Bight were less likely to produce low-frequency calls usually associated with feeding behavior, 

beginning at received levels of 110–120 dB re 1 μPa (Melcón et al., 2012); however, without visual 

observations it is unknown whether there was another factor that contributed to the reduction in 

foraging calls, such as the presence of conspecifics. In another example, Risch et al. (2012); (Risch et al., 

2014b) determined that humpback whale song produced in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary was reduced, and since the timing was concurrent with an Ocean Acoustic Waveguide 

Remote Sensing experiment occurring 200 km away, they concluded that the reduced song was a result 

of the Ocean Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing experiment. However, Gong et al. (2014) analyzed 

the same data set while also looking at the presence of herring in the region, and found that the singing 

humpbacks were actually located on nearby Georges Bank and not on Stellwagen, and that the song rate 

in their data did not change in response to the Ocean Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing experiment, 

but could be explained by natural causes.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-120

3.7 Marine Mammals

Although some strong responses have been observed in mysticetes to sonar and other active acoustic 

sources (e.g., the single minke whale), for the most part mysticete responses appear to be fairly 

moderate across all received levels. While some responses such as cessation of foraging or changes in 

dive behavior could carry short-term impacts, in all cases behavior returned to normal after the signal 

stopped. Mysticete responses also seem to be highly mediated by behavioral state, with no responses 

occurring in some behavioral states, and contextual factors and signal characteristics having more 

impact than received level alone. Many of the contextual factors resulting from the behavioral response 

studies (e.g., close approaches by multiple vessels or tagging) would never be introduced in real Navy 

testing and training scenarios. While there is a lack of data on behavioral responses of mysticetes to 

continuously active sonars, these species are known to be able to habituate to novel and continuous 

sounds (Nowacek et al., 2004a), suggesting that they are likely to have similar responses to high duty 

cycle sonars. Therefore mysticete behavioral responses to Navy sonar will likely be a result of the 

animal’s behavioral state and prior experience rather than external variables such as ship proximity; 

thus, if significant behavioral responses occur they will likely be short-term. In fact, no significant 

behavioral responses such as panic, stranding or other severe reactions have been observed during 

monitoring of actual training exercises (Smultea et al., 2009; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2011d, 

2014a; Watwood et al., 2012). 

Odontocetes

Behavioral response studies have been conducted on odontocete species since 2007, with a focus on 

beaked whale responses to active sonar transmissions or controlled exposure playback of simulated 

sonar on various military ranges (Claridge et al., 2009; Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, 

2007; Henderson et al., 2015; McCarthy et al., 2011; Moretti et al., 2009; Southall et al., 2011; Southall 

et al., 2012; Southall et al., 2013; Southall et al., 2014; Southall et al., 2015; Tyack et al., 2011). Through 

analyses of these behavioral response studies, a preliminary overarching effect of greater sensitivity to 

most anthropogenic exposures was seen in beaked whales compared to the other odontocetes studied 

(Southall et al., 2009). 

Observed reactions by Blainville’s, Cuvier’s, and Baird’s beaked whales to mid-frequency sonar sounds 

have included cessation of clicking, termination of foraging dives, changes in direction to avoid the 

sound source, slower ascent rates to the surface, and other unusual dive behavior (Boyd et al., 2008; 

Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, 2007; DeRuiter et al., 2013b; Miller et al., 2015; Southall et 

al., 2011; Stimpert et al., 2014; Tyack et al., 2011). A similar response was observed in a northern 

bottlenose whale, which conducted the longest and deepest dive on record for that species after the 

sonar exposure and continued swimming away from the source for over 7 hours (Miller et al., 2015). 

Responses occurred at received levels between 95 and 150 dB re 1 μPa; although all of these exposures 

occurred within 1–8 km of the focal animal, within a few hours of tagging the animal, and with one or 

more boats within a few kilometers to observe responses and record acoustic data. One Cuvier’s beaked 

whale was also incidentally exposed to real Navy sonar located over 100 km away, and the authors did 

not detect similar responses at comparable received levels. Received levels from the mid-frequency 

active sonar signals from the controlled and incidental exposures were calculated as 84–144 and 78–106 

dB re 1 μPa, respectively, indicating that context of the exposures (e.g., source proximity, controlled 

source ramp-up) may have been a significant factor in the responses to the simulated sonars (DeRuiter 

et al., 2013b). Furthermore, recent long-term tagging work has demonstrated that the longer duration 

dives considered a behavioral response by DeRuiter et al. (2013b) fell within the normal range of dive 

durations found for eight tagged Cuvier’s beaked whales on the Southern California Offshore Range 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-121

3.7 Marine Mammals

(Schorr et al., 2014). However, the longer inter-deep dive intervals found by DeRuiter et al. (2013b) were 

among the longest found by Schorr et al. (2014) and could indicate a response to sonar. In addition, 

Williams et al. (2017) note that in normal deep dives or during fast swim speeds, beaked whales and 

other marine mammals use strategies to reduce their stroke rates, including leaping or wave surfing 

when swimming, and interspersing glides between bouts of stroking when diving. They determined that 

in the post-exposure dives by the tagged Cuvier's beaked whales described in DeRuiter et al. (2013b), 

the whales ceased gliding and swam with almost continuous strokes. This change in swim behavior was 

calculated to increase metabolic costs about 30.5 percent and increase the amount of energy expending 

on fast swim speeds from 27 to 59 percent of their overall energy budget. This repartitioning of energy 

was detected in the model up to 1.7 hours after the single sonar exposure. Therefore while the overall 

post-exposure dive durations were similar, the metabolic energy calculated by Williams et al. (2017) was 

higher.

On Navy ranges, Blainville’s beaked whales located on the range appear to move off-range during sonar 

use and return only after the sonar transmissions have stopped, sometimes taking several days to do so 

(Claridge et al., 2009; Henderson et al., 2015; Manzano-Roth et al., 2016; McCarthy et al., 2011; Moretti 

et al., 2009; Tyack et al., 2011). However, Blainville’s beaked whales remain on the range to forage 

throughout the rest of the year (Henderson et al., 2016), possibly indicating that this a preferred 

foraging habitat regardless of the effects of the noise, or it could be that there are no long term 

consequences of the sonar activity. Similarly, photo identification studies in the Southern California 

Range Complex have identified approximately 100 individual Cuvier’s beaked whale individuals, with 40 

percent having been seen in 1 or more prior years, with re-sightings up to 7 years apart, indicating a 

possibly resident population on the range (Falcone et al., 2009; Falcone & Schorr, 2014). 

Tyack et al. (2011) hypothesized that beaked whale responses to sonar may represent an anti-predator 

response. To test this idea, vocalizations of a potential predator—a killer whale—were also played back 

to a Blainville’s beaked whale. This exposure resulted in a similar but more pronounced reaction than 

that elicited by sonar playback, which included longer inter-dive intervals and a sustained straight-line 

departure of more than 20 km from the area (Allen et al., 2014; Tyack et al., 2011). This anti-predator 

hypothesis was also tested by playing back killer whale vocalizations to pilot whales, sperm whales, and 

even other killer whales, to determine responses by both potential prey and conspecifics (Miller et al., 

2011; Miller et al., 2012). Results varied, from no response by killer whales to an increase in group size 

and attraction to the source in pilot whales (Cure et al., 2012). 

While there has been a focus on beaked whale responses to sonar, other species have been studied 

during behavioral response studies as well, including pilot whales, killer whales, and sperm whales. 

Responses by these species have also included horizontal avoidance, changes in behavioral state, and 

changes in dive behavior (Antunes et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2012). 

Additionally, separation of a killer whale calf from its group during exposure to mid-frequency sonar 

playback was observed (Miller et al., 2011). Received level thresholds at the onset of avoidance behavior 

were generally higher for pilot whales (mean 150 dB re 1 μPa) and sperm whales (mean 140 dB re 1 μPa) 

than killer whales (mean 129 dB re 1μPa) (Antunes et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2012). A 

close examination of the tag data from the Norwegian groups showed that responses seemed to be 

behaviorally or signal frequency mediated. For example, killer whales only changed their dive behavior 

when doing deep dives at the onset of 1–2 kHz sonar (sweeping across frequencies), but did not change 

their dive behavior if they were deep diving during 6–7 kHz sonar (sweeping across frequencies). Nor did 

they change their dive behavior if they were conducting shallow dives at the onset of either type of 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-122

3.7 Marine Mammals

sonar. Similarly, pilot whales and sperm whales performed normal deep dives during 6–7 kHz sonar, 

while during 1–2 kHz sonar the pilot whales conducted fewer deep dives and the sperm whales 

performed shorter and shallower dives (Sivle et al., 2012). In addition, pilot whales were also more likely 

to respond to lower received levels when non-feeding than feeding during 6–7 kHz sonar exposures, but 

were more likely to respond at higher received levels when non-feeding during 1–2 kHz sonar 

exposures. Furthermore, pilot whales exposed to a 38 kHz downward-facing echosounder did not 

change their dive and foraging behavior during exposure periods, although the animals’ heading 

variance increased and fewer deep dives were conducted (Quick et al., 2017). In contrast, killer whales 

were more likely to respond to either sonar type when non-feeding than when feeding (Harris et al., 

2015). These results again demonstrate that the behavioral state of the animal mediates the likelihood 

of a behavioral response, as do the characteristics (e.g., frequency) of the sound source itself.

Other responses during behavioral response studies included the synchronization of pilot whale 

surfacings with sonar pulses during one exposure, possibly as a means of mitigating the sound 

(Wensveen et al., 2015), and mimicry of the sonar with whistles by pilot whales (Alves et al., 2014), false

killer whales (DeRuiter et al., 2013b), and Risso’s dolphins (Smultea et al., 2012). In contrast, in another 

study melon-headed whales had “minor transient silencing” (a brief, non-lasting period of silence) after 

each 6–7 kHz signal, and (in a different oceanographic region) pilot whales had no apparent response 

(DeRuiter et al., 2013a). The probability of detecting delphinid vocalizations (whistles, clicks, and buzzes) 

increased during periods of sonar relative to the period prior to sonar in a passive acoustic study using 

Marine Autonomous Recording Units in the Jacksonville Range Complex, while there was no impact of 

sonar to the probability of detecting sperm whale clicks (Charif et al., 2015; U.S. Department of the 

Navy, 2013a). 

In addition, killer whale sighting data from the same region in Norway as the behavioral response study 

was used to compare the presence or absence of whales from other years against the period with sonar. 

The authors found a strong relationship between the presence of whales and the abundance of herring, 

and only a weak relationship between the whales and sonar activity (Kuningas et al., 2013). Baird et al. 

(2013a; 2014; 2017) also tagged four shallow-diving odontocete species (rough toothed dolphins, pilot 

whales, bottlenose dolphins, and false killer whales) in Hawaii off the Pacific Missile Range Facility 

before Navy training exercises. None of the tagged animals demonstrated a large-scale avoidance 

response to the sonar as they moved on or near the range, in some cases even traveling towards areas 

of higher noise levels, while estimated received SPLs varied from 130–168 dB re 1 μPa and distances 

from sonar sources ranged between 3.2 – 94.4 km. However, one pilot whale did have reduced dive 

rates (from 2.6 dives per hour before to 1.6 dives per hour during) and deeper dives (from a mean of 

124 m to 268 m) during a period of sonar exposure. Baird et al. (2016b) also tagged four short-finned 

pilot whales from both the resident island-associated population and from the pelagic population. The 

core range for the pelagic population was over 20 times larger than for the pelagic population, leading 

Baird et al. (2016b) to hypothesize that that likelihood of exposure to mid-frequency active sonar, and 

therefore the potential for response, would be very different between the two populations. These 

diverse examples demonstrate that responses can be varied, are often context- and behaviorally-driven, 

and can be species and even exposure specific.

Other opportunistic observations of behavioral responses to sonar have occurred as well, although in 

those cases it is difficult to attribute observed responses directly to the sonar exposure, or to know 

exactly what form the response took. For example, both sperm and pilot whales potentially ceased 

sound production during the Heard Island feasibility test, with transmissions centered at 57 Hz and up to 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-123

3.7 Marine Mammals

220 dB re 1 μPa (Bowles et al., 1994), although it could not be determined whether the animals ceased 

sound production or left the area. In May 2003, killer whales in Haro Strait, Washington exhibited what 

were believed by some observers to be aberrant behaviors, during which time the USS Shoup was in the 

vicinity and engaged in mid-frequency active sonar operations. Sound fields modeled for the USS Shoup 

transmissions (Fromm, 2009; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2005b; U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2003) estimated a mean received SPL of approximately 169 dB re 1 μPa at the location of the killer 

whales at the closest point of approach between the animals and the vessel (estimated SPLs ranged 

from 150 to 180 dB re 1 μPa). However, attributing the observed behaviors to any one cause is 

problematic given there were six nearby whale watch vessels surrounding the pod, and subsequent 

research has demonstrated that “Southern Residents modify their behavior by increasing surface activity 

(breaches, tail slaps, and pectoral fin slaps) and swimming in more erratic paths when vessels are close” 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2014). Several odontocete species, including 

bottlenose dolphins, Risso’s dolphins, Pacific white-sided dolphins, and common dolphins have been 

observed near the Southern California Offshore Range during periods of mid-frequency active sonar; 

responses included changes in or cessation of vocalizations, changes in behavior, and leaving the area, 

and at the highest received levels animals were not present in the area at all (Henderson et al., 2014). 

However, these observations were conducted from a vessel off-range, and so any observed responses 

could not be attributed to the sonar with any certainty. Research on sperm whales in the Caribbean in 

1983 coincided with the U.S. intervention in Grenada, where animals were observed scattering and 

leaving the area in the presence of military sonar, presumably from nearby submarines (Watkins & 

Schevill, 1975; Watkins et al., 1985). The authors did not report received levels from these exposures 

and reported similar reactions from noise generated by banging on their boat hull; therefore, it was 

unclear if the sperm whales were reacting to the sonar signal itself or to a potentially new unknown 

sound in general. 

During aerial and visual monitoring of Navy training events involving sonar, rough-toothed dolphins and 

unidentified dolphins were observed approaching the vessel with active sonar as if to bowride, while 

spotted dolphins were observed nearby but did not avoid or approach the vessel (HDR, 2011; U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2011a; Watwood et al., 2012). During small boat surveys near the Navy’s

Southern California Offshore Range in southern California, more dolphins were encountered in June 

compared to a similar survey conducted the previous November after 7 days of mid-frequency sonar 

activity; it was not investigated if this change was due to the sonar activity or was a seasonal difference 

that was also observed in other years (Campbell et al., 2010). There were also fewer passive acoustic 

dolphin detections during and after longer sonar activities in the Marianas Islands Range Complex, with 

the post-activity absence lasting longer than the mean dolphin absence of 2 days when sonar was not 

present (Munger et al., 2014; Munger et al., 2015). 

Acoustic harassment devices and acoustic deterrent devices have been used to deter marine mammals 

from fishing gear both to prevent entanglement and to reduce depredation (taking fish). These devices 

have been used successfully to deter harbor porpoises and beaked whales from getting entangled in 

fishing nets. For example, Kyhn et al. (2015) tested two types of pingers, one with a 10 kHz tone and one 

with a broadband 30–160 kHz sweep. Porpoise detection rates were reduced by 65 percent for the 

sweep and 40 percent for the tone, and while there was some gradual habituation after the first 

2 to 4 exposures, longer term exposures (over 28 days) showed no evidence of additional habituation. 

Additionally, sperm whales in the Caribbean stopped vocalizing when presented with sounds from 

nearby acoustic pingers (Watkins & Schevill, 1975). However, acoustic harassment devices used to deter 

marine mammals from depredating long lines or aquaculture enclosures have proven less successful. For 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-124

3.7 Marine Mammals

example, Tixier et al. (2014) used a 6.5 kHz pinger with a source level of 195 dB re 1 μPa on a longline to 

prevent depredation by killer whales, and although two groups of killer whales fled over 700 m away 

during the first exposure, they began depredating again after the third and seventh exposures, 

indicating rapid habituation. In a review of marine mammal deterrents, Schakner & Blumstein (2013)

point out that both the characteristics of deterrents and the motivation of the animal play a role in the 

effectiveness of acoustic harassment devices. Deterrents that are strongly aversive or simulate a 

predator or are otherwise predictive of a threat are more likely to be effective, unless the animal 

habituates to the signal or learns that there is no true threat associated with the signal. In some cases 

the net pingers may create a “dinner bell effect”, where marine mammals have learned to associate the 

signal with the availability of prey (Jefferson & Curry, 1996; Schakner & Blumstein, 2013). This may be 

why net pingers have been more successful at reducing entanglements for harbor porpoise and beaked 

whales since these species are not depredating from the nets but are getting entangled when foraging in 

the area and are unable to detect the net (Carretta et al., 2008; Schakner & Blumstein, 2013). Additional 

behavioral studies have been conducted with captive harbor porpoises using acoustic alarms, such as 

those used on fishing nets to help deter marine mammals from becoming caught or entangled (Kastelein 

et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2001). These studies have found that high-frequency sources with varied 

duration, interval, and sweep characteristics can prove to be effective deterrents for harbor porpoises 

(Kastelein et al., 2017). 

Controlled experiments have also been conducted on captive animals to estimate received levels at 

which behavioral responses occur. In one study, bottlenose dolphin behavioral responses were recorded 

when exposed to 3 kHz sonar-like tones between 115 and 185 dB re 1 μPa (Houser et al., 2013b), and in 

another study bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales were presented with 1-second tones up to 203 dB 

re 1 μPa to measure TTS (Finneran et al., 2001; Finneran et al., 2003a; Finneran & Schlundt, 2004; 

Finneran et al., 2005b; Schlundt et al., 2000). During these studies, responses included changes in 

respiration rate, fluke slaps, and a refusal to participate or return to the location of the sound stimulus. 

This refusal included what appeared to be deliberate attempts to avoid a sound exposure or to avoid the 

location of the exposure site during subsequent tests (Finneran et al., 2002; Schlundt et al., 2000). In the 

behavioral response experiment, bottlenose dolphins demonstrated a 50 percent probability of 

response at 172 dB re 1 μPa over 10 trials, and in the TTS study bottlenose dolphins exposed to 1-

second intense tones exhibited short-term changes in behavior above received sound levels of 178 to 

193 dB re 1 μPa, and beluga whales did so at received levels of 180 to 196 dB re 1 μPa and above. In 

some instances, animals exhibited aggressive behavior toward the test apparatus (Ridgway et al., 1997; 

Schlundt et al., 2000). While animals were commonly reinforced with food during these studies, the 

controlled environment and ability to measure received levels provide insight on received levels at 

which animals will behaviorally responds to noise sources. 

Behavioral responses to a variety of sound sources have been studied in harbor porpoises, including 

acoustic alarms (Kastelein et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2001), emissions for underwater data 

transmission (Kastelein et al., 2005b), and tones, including 1–2 kHz and 6–7 kHz sweeps with and 

without harmonics (Kastelein et al., 2014d), and 25 kHz with and without sidebands (Kastelein et al., 

2015e; Kastelein et al., 2015f). Responses include increased respiration rates, more jumping, or 

swimming further from the source, but responses were different depending on the source. For example, 

harbor porpoises responded to the 1–2 kHz upsweep at 123 dB re 1 μPa, but not to the downsweep or 

the 6–7 kHz tonal at the same level (Kastelein et al., 2014d). When measuring the same sweeps for a 

startle response, the 50 percent response threshold was 133 and 101 dB re 1 μPa for 1–2 kHz and 6–7 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-125

3.7 Marine Mammals

kHz sweeps respectively when no harmonics were present, and decreased to 90 dB re 1 μPa for 1–2 kHz 

sweeps with harmonics present (Kastelein et al., 2014d). Harbor porpoises responded to seal scarers 

with broadband signals up to 44 kHz with a slight respiration response at 117 dB re 1 μPa and an 

avoidance response at 139 dB re 1 μPa, but another scarer with a fundamental (lowest and strongest) 

frequency of 18 kHz didn’t have an avoidance response until 151 dB re 1 μPa (Kastelein et al., 2014a). 

Exposure of the same acoustic pinger to a striped dolphin under the same conditions did not elicit a 

response (Kastelein et al., 2006), again highlighting the importance in understanding species differences 

in the tolerance of underwater noise, although sample sizes in these studies was small so these could 

reflect individual differences as well. 

Behavioral responses by odontocetes to sonar and other transducers appear to run the full gamut from 

no response at all to responses that could potentially lead to long-term consequences for individual 

animals (e.g., mother-calf separation). This is likely in part due to the fact that this taxonomic group is so 

broad and includes some of the most sensitive species (e.g., beaked whales and harbor porpoise) as well 

as some of the least sensitive species (e.g., bottlenose dolphins). This is also the only group for which 

both field behavioral response studies and captive controlled exposure experiments have been 

conducted, leading to the assessment of both contextually-driven responses as well as dose-based 

responses. This wide range in both exposure situations and individual- and species-sensitivities makes 

reaching general conclusions difficult. However, it does appear as though exposures in close proximity, 

with multiple vessels that approach the animal lead to higher-level responses in most odontocete 

species regardless of received level or behavioral state. In contrast, in more “real-world” exposure 

situations, with distant sources moving in variable directions, behavioral responses appear to be driven 

by behavioral state, individual experience or species-level sensitivities. These responses may also occur 

more in-line with received level such that the likelihood of a response would increase with increased 

received levels. However, these “real-world” responses are more likely to be short-term, lasting the 

duration of the exposure or even shorter as the animal assesses the sound and (based on prior 

experience or contextual cues) determines a threat is unlikely. Therefore, while odontocete behavioral 

responses to Navy sonar will vary across species, populations, and individuals, they are not likely to lead 

to long-term consequences or population-level effects.

Pinnipeds

Different responses displayed by captive and wild phocid seals to sound judged to be “unpleasant” or 

threatening have been reported, including habituation by captive seals (they did not avoid the sound), 

and avoidance behavior by wild seals (Götz & Janik, 2010). Captive seals received food (reinforcement) 

during sound playback, while wild seals were exposed opportunistically. These results indicate that 

motivational state (e.g., reinforcement via food acquisition) can be a factor in whether or not an animal 

tolerates or habituates to novel or unpleasant sounds. Another study found that captive hooded seals 

reacted to 1–7 kHz sonar signals, in part with displacement (i.e., avoidance) to the areas of least SPL, at 

levels between 160 and 170 dB re 1 μPa (Kvadsheim et al., 2010); however, the animals adapted to the 

sound and did not show the same avoidance behavior upon subsequent exposures. Captive harbor seals 

responded differently to three signals at 25 kHz with different waveform characteristics and duty cycles. 

The seals responded to the frequency modulated signal at received levels over 137 dB re 1 μPa by 

hauling out more, swimming faster, and raising their heads or jumping out of the water, but did not 

respond to the continuous wave or combination signals at any received level (up to 156 dB re 1 

μPa)(Kastelein et al., 2015d). Captive California sea lions were exposed to mid-frequency sonar at 

various received levels (125–185 dB re 1 μPa) during a repetitive task (Houser et al., 2013a). Behavioral 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-126

3.7 Marine Mammals

responses included a refusal to participate, hauling out, an increase in respiration rate, and an increase 

in the time spent submerged. Young animals (less than 2 years old) were more likely to respond than 

older animals. Dose-response curves were developed both including and excluding those young animals. 

The majority of responses below 155 dB re 1 μPa were changes in respiration, whereas over 170 dB re 1 

μPa more severe responses began to occur (such as hauling out or refusing to participate); many of the 

most severe responses came from the younger animals. 

Low-frequency signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate sound source centered at 75 Hz, 

with received levels between 118 and 137 dB re 1 μPa, were not found to overtly affect elephant seal 

dives (Costa et al., 2003). However, they did produce subtle effects that varied in direction and degree 

among the individual seals, again illustrating the equivocal nature of behavioral effects and consequent 

difficulty in defining and predicting them.

Harbor seals exposed to seal scarers (i.e., acoustic harassment devices) used to deter seals from fishing 

nets did not respond at levels of 109–134 dB re 1 μPa and demonstrated minor responses by 

occasionally hauling out at 128–138 dB re 1 μPa (Kastelein et al., 2015c). Pingers have also been used to 

deter marine mammals from fishing nets; in some cases this has led to the “dinner bell effect” where 

the pinger becomes an attractant rather than a deterrent (Carretta & Barlow, 2011). Steller sea lions 

were exposed to a variety of tonal, sweep, impulse and broadband sounds. The broadband sounds did 

not cause a response, nor did the tones at levels below 165 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m, but the 8 kHz tone and 

1–4 kHz sweep at source levels of 165 dB re 1 μPa caused the sea lions to haul out (Akamatsu et al., 

1996). 

Similar to the other taxonomic groups assessed, pinniped behavioral responses to sonar and other 

active acoustic sources seem to be mediated by the contextual factors of the exposure, including the 

proximity of the source, the characteristics of the signal, and the behavioral state of the animal. 

However, all pinniped behavioral response studies have been conducted in captivity, so while these 

results may be broadly applied to real-world exposure situations, it must be done with caution. Based on 

exposures to other sound sources in the wild (e.g., impulsive sounds and vessels), pinnipeds are not 

likely to respond strongly to Navy sonar that is not in close proximity to the animal or approaching the 

animal. 

Sirenians

Few data exist on manatee responses to sonar; however, there has been some work using side-scan and 

fish-finding sonar to detect manatees (Gonzalez-Socoloske et al., 2009; Gonzalez-Socoloske & OliveraGomez, 2012; Niezrecki, 2010). These are typically very high frequency systems, with frequencies over 

200 kHz, although in some cases frequencies of 50 kHz were used. The response of the manatees to the 

sonar was not the focus of these studies, but, when reported, the authors stated that no response was 

observed. Studies have also been conducted on the efficacy of using pingers to warn manatees about 

the presence of vessels or fishing gear. Bowles et al. (2001) observed brief startle responses to pingers 

sweeping 10–80 kHz in two of nine manatees tested, but gear with pingers continued to be manipulated 

even in the presence of pingers. Dugongs in Australia were exposed to 3.5 and 10 kHz pingers with 

source levels around 133 dB re 1 μPa, with no significant responses observed and continued foraging 

throughout the experiment (Hodgson & Marsh, 2007). In contrast, wild dugongs in Thailand exposed to 

3.5 kHz tones at 141 dB re 1 μPa did not approach the source within 100 m, while playbacks of dugong 

calls elicited approaches within 10 m (Ichikawa et al., 2009). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-127

3.7 Marine Mammals

These limited data may indicate that sirenians are relatively robust to sonar and other active acoustic 

sources; however, with the lack of focused studies on these sound sources it is difficult to draw any 

conclusions.

Behavioral Reactions to Vessels

Sound emitted from large vessels, such as cargo ships, is the principal source of low-frequency noise in 

the ocean today, and marine mammals are known to react to or be affected by that noise (Hatch & 

Wright, 2007; Hildebrand, 2005; Richardson et al., 1995b). For example, Erbe et al. (2012) estimated the 

maximum annual underwater SEL from vessel traffic near Seattle was 215 dB re 1 μPa2

s, and Bassett et 

al. (2010) measured mean SPLs at Admiralty Inlet from commercial shipping at 117 dB re 1 μPa with a 

maximum exceeding 135 dB re 1 μPa on some occasions. Similarly, Veirs et al. (2015) found average 

broadband noise levels in Haro Strait to be 110 dB re 1 μPa that extended up to 40 kHz, well into the 

hearing range of odontocetes. 

Cargo ships, bulk carriers and tankers account for almost two-thirds of commercial vessel traffic in the 

AFTT Study Area, which occurs throughout the Study Area but is heaviest along the U.S. East Coast and 

northern Gulf of Mexico (Mintz, 2012). Annual commercial vessel traffic in AFTT was estimated to be 

almost 10 million hours in 2009, compared to just over 70,000 hours for Navy vessel traffic, which was 

generally concentrated along the U. S. East Coast between Jacksonville and the Chesapeake Bay (Mintz, 

2012). 

Many studies of behavioral responses by marine mammals to vessels have been focused on the shortand long-term impacts of whale watching vessels. In short-term studies, researchers noted changes in 

resting and surface behavior states of cetaceans to whale watching vessels (Acevedo, 1991; Aguilar de 

Soto et al., 2006; Arcangeli & Crosti, 2009; Au & Green, 2000; Christiansen et al., 2010; Erbe, 2002; 

Noren et al., 2009; Stockin et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2009). Received levels were often not reported so 

it is difficult to distinguish responses to the presence of the vessel from responses to the vessel noise. 

Most studies examined the short-term response to vessel sound and vessel traffic (Aguilar de Soto et al., 

2006; Magalhães et al., 2002; Richardson et al., 1995b; Watkins, 1981), with behavioral and vocal 

responses occurring when received levels were over 20 dB greater than ambient noise levels. Other 

research has attempted to quantify the effects of whale watching using focused experiments (Meissner 

et al., 2015; Pirotta et al., 2015b). 

The impact of vessel noise has received increased consideration, particularly as whale watching and 

shipping traffic has risen (McKenna et al., 2012; Pirotta et al., 2015b; Veirs et al., 2015). Odontocetes 

and mysticetes in particular have received increased attention relative to vessel noise and vessel traffic, 

with pinnipeds less so. Sirenians have also received direct attention relative to this stressor, as small 

boat strikes and increased traffic in manatee habitat has become a concern. Still, not all species in all 

taxonomic groups have been studied, and so results do have to be extrapolated across these broad 

categories in order to assess potential impacts. Information on the potential effects of vessel noise on 

polar bears is not available. 

Mysticetes 

Baleen whales demonstrate a variety of responses to vessel traffic and noise, from not responding at all 

to both horizontal (swimming away) and vertical (increased diving) avoidance (Baker et al., 1983; Gende 

et al., 2011; Watkins, 1981). Other common responses include changes in vocalizations, surface time, 

swimming speed, swimming angle or direction, respiration rates, dive times, feeding behavior, and 

social interactions (Au & Green, 2000; Richter et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2002a). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-128

3.7 Marine Mammals

The likelihood of response may be driven by the distance or speed of the vessel, the animal’s behavioral 

state, or by the prior experience of the individual or population. For example, in one study fin and 

humpback whales largely ignored vessels that remained 100 m or more away (Watkins, 1981). In 

another study, minke whales in the Antarctic did not show any apparent response to a survey vessel 

moving at normal cruising speeds (about 12 knots) at a distance of 5.5 NM. However, when the vessel 

drifted or moved at very slow speeds (about 1 knot), many whales approached it (Leatherwood et al., 

1982). Similarly, Bernasconi et al. (2012) observed the reactions of six individual baleen whales of 

unknown species at distances of 50 to 400 m from a fishing vessel conducting an acoustic survey of 

pelagic fisheries, with only a slight change in swim direction when the vessel began moving around the 

whales. Sei whales have been observed ignoring the presence of vessels entirely and even passing close 

to the vessel (Reeves et al., 1998), and North Atlantic right whales tend not to respond to the sounds of 

oncoming vessels and continue to use habitats in high vessel traffic areas (Nowacek et al., 2004a). 

Studies show that North Atlantic right whales demonstrate little if any reaction to sounds of vessels 

approaching or the presence of the vessels themselves. This lack of response may be due to habituation 

to the presence and associated noise of vessels in right whale habitat, or may be due to propagation 

effects that may attenuate vessel noise near the surface (Nowacek et al., 2004a; Terhune & Verboom, 

1999). 

When baleen whales do respond to vessels, responses can be as minor as a change in breathing patterns 

(e.g., Baker et al., 1983; Jahoda et al., 2003), or can be evidenced by a decrease in overall presence, as 

was observed during a construction project in the UK, when fewer minke whales were observed as 

vessel traffic increased (Anderwald et al., 2013). Avoidance responses can be as simple as an alteration 

in swim patterns or direction by increasing speed and heading away from the vessel (Jahoda et al., 

2003), or by increasing swim speed, changing direction to avoid, and staying submerged for longer 

periods of time (Au & Green, 2000). For example, in the presence of approaching vessels, blue whales 

perform shallower dives accompanied by more frequent surfacing but otherwise do not exhibit strong 

reactions (Calambokidis et al., 2009). In another study in Hawaii, humpback whales exhibited two forms 

of behavioral avoidance: horizontal avoidance (changing direction or speed) when vessels were between 

2,000 m and 4,000 m away, and vertical avoidance (increased dive times and change in diving pattern) 

when vessels were less than 2,000 m away (Baker et al., 1983). Similarly, humpback whales in Australia 

demonstrated variable responses to whale watching vessels, including both horizontal avoidance, 

approaching, and changes in dive and surface behavior (Stamation et al., 2009). Humpback whales 

avoided a Navy vessel by increasing their dive times and decreasing respiration rates at the surface 

(Smultea et al., 2009). Williamson et al. (2016) specifically looked at close approaches to humpback 

whales by small research boats for the purposes of tagging. They found that while dive behavior did not 

change for any groups, some groups did increase their speed and change their course during or right 

after the approach, but resumed pre-approach speed and heading shortly thereafter. Only mother-calf 

groups were found to increase their speed during the approach and maintain the increased speed for 

longer after the approach, but these groups too resumed normal swim speeds after about 40 minutes. It 

should be noted that there were no responses by any groups that were approached closely but with no 

attempts at tagging, indicating that the responses were not due to the vessel presence but to the 

tagging attempt. In addition, none of the observed changes in behavior were outside the normal range 

of swim speeds or headings for these migrating whales.

Mysticetes have been shown to both increase and decrease calling behavior in the presence of vessel 

noise. Based on passive acoustic recordings and in the presence of sounds from passing vessels, Melcón 

et al. (2012) reported that blue whales had an increased likelihood of producing certain types of calls. An 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-129

3.7 Marine Mammals

increase in feeding call rates and repetition by humpback whales in Alaskan waters is associated with 

vessel noise (Doyle et al., 2008), while decreases in singing activity have been noted near Brazil due to 

boat traffic (Sousa-Lima & Clark, 2008). Frequency parameters of fin whale calls also decreased in the 

presence of increasing background noise due to shipping traffic (Castellote et al., 2012). Bowhead 

whales avoided the area around icebreaker ship noise and increased their time at the surface and 

number of blows (Richardson et al., 1995a). Right whales increase the amplitude or frequency of their 

vocalizations or call at a lower rate in the presence of increased vessel noise (Parks et al., 2007; Parks et 

al., 2011), and these vocalization changes may persist over long periods if background noise levels 

remained elevated.

The long term consequences of vessel noise are not well understood (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.7, Long-Term 

Consequences). In a short-term study, minke whales on feeding grounds in Iceland responded to 

increased whale-watching vessel traffic with a decrease in foraging, both during deep dives and at the 

surface (Christiansen et al., 2013). They also increased their avoidance of the boats while decreasing 

their respiration rates, likely leading to an increase in their metabolic rates. Christiansen and Lusseau 

(2015) and Christiansen et al. (2014) followed up this study by modeling the cumulative impacts of 

whale watching boats on minke whales, but found that although the boats cause temporary feeding 

disruptions, there were not likely to be long-term consequences as a result. This suggests that shortterm responses may not lead to long-term consequences, and that over time animals may habituate to 

the presence of vessel traffic. Using historical records, Watkins (1986) showed that the reactions of four 

species of mysticetes to vessel traffic and whale watching activities in Cape Cod had changed over the 

25-year period examined (1957–1982). Reactions of minke whales changed from initially more positive 

reactions, such as coming towards the boat or research equipment to investigate, to more uninterested 

reactions towards the end of the study. Fin whales, the most numerous species in the area, showed a 

trend from initially more negative reactions, such as swimming away from the boat with limited 

surfacing, to more uninterested (ignoring) reactions allowing boats to approach within 30 m. Right 

whales showed little change over the study period, with a roughly equal number of reactions judged to 

be negative and uninterested; no right whales were noted as having positive reactions to vessels. 

Humpback whales showed a trend from negative to positive reactions with vessels during the study 

period. The author concluded that the whales had habituated to the human activities over time 

(Watkins, 1986). 

Overall baleen whale responses to vessel noise and traffic are varied but are generally minor, and 

habituation or disinterest seems to be the predominant long-term response. When baleen whales do 

avoid ships they do so by altering their swim and dive patterns to move away from the vessel, but no 

strong reactions have been observed. In fact, in many cases the whales do not appear to change their 

behavior at all. This may result from habituation by the whales, but may also result from reduced 

received levels near the surface due to propagation, or due to acoustic shadowing of the propeller 

cavitation noise by the ship’s hull. Although a lack of response in the presence of a vessel may minimize 

potential disturbance from passing ships, it does increase the whales’ vulnerability to vessel strike, 

which may be of greater concern for baleen whales than vessel noise (see Section 3.7.3.4, Physical 

Disturbance and Strike Stressors). 

Odontocetes

Most odontocetes react neutrally to vessels, although both avoidance and attraction behavior have 

been observed (Hewitt, 1985; Würsig et al., 1998). Würsig et al. (1998) found that Kogia whales and 

beaked whales were the most sensitive species to vessels, and reacted by avoiding marine mammal 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-130

3.7 Marine Mammals

survey vessels in 73 percent of sightings, more than any other odontocetes. Avoidance reactions include 

a decrease in resting behavior or change in travel direction (Bejder et al., 2006a). Incidents of attraction 

include common, rough-toothed, and bottlenose dolphins bow riding and jumping in the wake of a 

vessel (Norris & Prescott, 1961; Ritter, 2002; Shane et al., 1986; Würsig et al., 1998). A study of vessel 

reactions by dolphin communities in the eastern tropical Pacific found that populations that were often 

the target of tuna purse-seine fisheries (spotted, spinner, and common dolphins) showed evasive 

behavior when approached; however, populations that live closer to shore (within 100 NM; coastal 

spotted and bottlenose dolphins) that are not set on by purse-seine fisheries tend to be attracted to 

vessels (Archer et al., 2010). The presence of vessels has also been shown to interrupt feeding behavior 

in delphinids (Meissner et al., 2015; Pirotta et al., 2015b). 

Short-term displacement of dolphins due to tourist boat presence has been documented (Carrera et al., 

2008), while longer term or repetitive/chronic displacement for some dolphin groups due to chronic 

vessel noise has been noted (Haviland-Howell et al., 2007). Delphinid behavioral states also change in 

the presence of tourist boats that often approach animals, with travel increasing and foraging 

decreasing (Meissner et al., 2015). Most studies of the behavioral reactions to vessel traffic of 

bottlenose dolphins have documented at least short-term changes in behavior, activities, or vocalization 

patterns when vessels are near, although the distinction between vessel noise and vessel movement has 

not been made clear (Acevedo, 1991; Arcangeli & Crosti, 2009; Berrow & Holmes, 1999; Gregory & 

Rowden, 2001; Janik & Thompson, 1996; Lusseau, 2004; Mattson et al., 2005; Scarpaci et al., 2000). 

Steckenreuter et al. (2011) found bottlenose dolphin groups to feed less, become more tightly clustered, 

and have more directed movement when approached to 50 m than groups approached to 150 m or 

approached in a controlled manner. Guerra et al. (2014) demonstrated that bottlenose dolphins 

subjected to chronic noise from tour boats responded to boat noise by alterations in group structure 

and in vocal behavior but also found the dolphins’ reactions varied depending on whether the observing 

research vessel was approaching or moving away from the animals being observed. This demonstrates 

that the influence of the sound exposure cannot be decoupled from the physical presence of a surface 

vessel, thus complicating interpretations of the relative contribution of each stimulus to the response. 

Indeed, the presence of surface vessels, their approach and speed of approach, seemed to be significant 

factors in the response of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng & Leung, 2003). 

The effects of tourism and whale watching have highly impacted killer whales, such as the Northern and 

Southern Resident populations. These animals are targeted by numerous small whale-watching vessels 

in the Pacific Northwest and, from 1998 to 2012 during the viewing season, have had an annual monthly 

average of nearly 20 vessels of various types within 0.5 mile of their location during daytime hours 

(Clark, 2015; Eisenhardt, 2014; Erbe et al., 2014). These vessels have source levels that ranged from 145 

to 169 dB re 1 μPa and produce broadband noise up to 96 kHz and 116 dB re 1 μPa. They have the 

potential to result in behavioral disturbance, interfere with communication, and affect the killer whales’ 

hearing capabilities via masking (Erbe, 2002; Veirs et al., 2015). Killer whales foraged significantly less 

and traveled significantly more when boats were within 100 m of the whales (Kruse, 1991; Lusseau et 

al., 2009; Trites & Bain, 2000; Williams et al., 2002a; Williams et al., 2002b; Williams et al., 2009). These 

short-term feeding activity disruptions may have important long-term population-level effects (Lusseau 

et al., 2009; Noren et al., 2009). As with other delphinids, the reaction of the killer whales to whalewatching vessels may be in response to the vessel pursuing them rather than to the noise of the vessel 

itself, or to the number of vessels in their proximity. Williams et al. (2014a) modeled behavioral 

responses of killer whales to vessel traffic by looking at their surface behavior relative to the received 

level of three large classes of ships. The authors found that the severity of the response was largely 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-131

3.7 Marine Mammals

dependent on seasonal data (e.g., year and month) as well as the animal’s prior experience with vessels 

(e.g., age and sex), and the number of other vessels present, rather than the received level of the larger 

ships (Williams et al., 2014a). 

Sperm whales generally react only to vessels approaching within several hundred meters; however, 

some individuals may display avoidance behavior, such as quick diving (Magalhães et al., 2002; Würsig et 

al., 1998) or a decrease in time spent at the surface (Isojunno & Miller, 2015). One study showed that 

after diving, sperm whales showed a reduced timeframe before they emitted the first click than prior to 

a vessel interaction (Richter et al., 2006). Smaller whale watching and research vessels generate more 

noise in higher-frequency bands and are more likely to approach odontocetes directly, and to spend 

more time near an individual whale. Azzara et al. (2013) also found a reduction in sperm whale clicks 

while a vessel was passing, as well as up to a half hour after the vessel had passed. It is unknown 

whether the whales left the area, ceased to click, or surfaced during this period. However, some of the 

reduction in click detections may be due to masking of the clicks by the vessel noise, particularly during 

the closest point of approach. 

Little information is available on the behavioral impacts of vessels or vessel noise on beaked whales (Cox 

et al., 2006), although it seems most beaked whales react negatively to vessels by quick diving and other 

avoidance maneuvers (Würsig et al., 1998). Limited evidence suggests that beaked whales respond to 

vessel noise, anthropogenic noise in general, and mid-frequency sonar at similar sound levels (Aguilar de 

Soto et al., 2006; Tyack, 2009; Tyack et al., 2011). An observation of vocal disruption of a foraging dive 

by a Cuvier’s beaked whale when a large noisy vessel passed suggests that some types of vessel traffic 

may disturb foraging beaked whales (Aguilar de Soto et al., 2006). Tyack et al. (2011) noted the result of 

a controlled exposure to pseudorandom noise suggests that beaked whales would respond to vessel 

noise at similar received levels to those noted previously for mid-frequency sonar. Pirotta et al. (2012)

found that the distance to a vessel did not change the duration of a foraging dive, however, the 

proximity of the vessel may have restricted the movement of the group. The maximum distance at 

which this change was significant was 5.2 km, with an estimated received level of 135 dB re 1 μPa. 

Small dolphins and porpoises may also be more sensitive to vessel noise. Both finless porpoises (Li et al., 

2008) and harbor porpoises (Polacheck & Thorpe, 1990) routinely avoid and swim away from large 

motorized vessels, and harbor porpoises may click less when near large ships (Sairanen, 2014a). 

Although most vessel noise is constrained to lower frequencies below 1 kHz, at close range vessel noise 

can extend into mid- and high-frequencies (into the tens of kHz) (Hermannsen et al., 2014; Li et al., 

2015); these frequencies are what harbor porpoises are likely responding to, at M-weighted received 

SPLs with a mean of 123 dB re 1 μPa (Dyndo et al., 2015). The vaquita, which is closely related to the 

harbor porpoise, appears to avoid large vessels at about 900 m (Jaramillo-Legorreta et al., 1999). 

Odontocetes have been shown to make short-term changes to vocal parameters such as intensity as an 

immediate response to vessel noise, as well as increase the pitch, frequency modulation, and length of 

whistling (May-Collado & Wartzok, 2008). For example, bottlenose dolphins in Portuguese waters 

decrease their call rates and change the frequency parameters of whistles in the presence of boats (Luís 

et al., 2014), while dolphin groups with calves increase their whistle rates when tourist boats are within 

200 m and when the boats increase their speed (Guerra et al., 2014). Likewise, modification of multiple 

vocalization parameters was shown in belugas residing in an area known for high levels of commercial 

traffic. These animals decreased their call rate, increased certain types of calls, and shifted upward in 

frequency content in the presence of small vessel noise (Lesage et al., 1999). Another study detected a 

measurable increase in the amplitude of their vocalizations when ships were present (Scheifele et al., 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-132

3.7 Marine Mammals

2005). Killer whales are also known to modify their calls during increased noise. For example, the source 

level of killer whale vocalizations was shown to increase with higher background noise levels associated 

with vessel traffic (the Lombard effect) (Holt et al., 2008). In addition, calls with a high-frequency 

component have higher source levels than other calls, which may be related to behavioral state, or may 

reflect a sustained increase in background noise levels (Holt et al., 2011). On the other hand, long-term 

modifications to vocalizations may be indicative of a learned response to chronic noise, or of a genetic 

or physiological shift in the populations. This type of change has been observed in killer whales off the 

northwestern coast of the United States between 1973 and 2003. This population increased the 

duration of primary calls once a threshold in observed vessel density (e.g., whale watching) was 

reached, which is suggested as being a long-term response to increased masking noise produced by the 

vessels (Foote et al., 2004). 

The long-term and cumulative implications of ship sound on odontocetes is largely unknown (National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2007a), although some long-term consequences have been reported (Lusseau 

& Bejder, 2007). Repeated exposure to acoustic and other anthropogenic stimuli has been studied in 

several cases, especially as related to vessel traffic and whale watching. Common dolphins in New 

Zealand responded to dolphin-watching vessels by interrupting foraging and resting bouts, and took 

longer to resume behaviors in the presence of the vessel (Stockin et al., 2008). The authors speculated 

that repeated interruptions of the dolphins’ foraging behaviors could lead to long-term implications for 

the population. Bejder et al. (2006a) studied responses of bottlenose dolphins to vessel approaches and 

found stronger and longer lasting reactions in populations of animals that were exposed to lower levels 

of vessel traffic overall. The authors indicated that lesser reactions in populations of dolphins regularly 

subjected to high levels of vessel traffic could be a sign of habituation, or it could be that the more 

sensitive animals in this population previously abandoned the area of higher human activity. 

Similar to mysticetes, odontocete responses to vessel noise are varied, although many odontocete 

species seem to be more sensitive to vessel presence and vessel noise, and these two factors are 

difficult to tease apart. Some species, in particular killer whales and porpoises, may be sensitized to 

vessels and respond at further distances and lower received levels than other delphinids. In contrast, 

many odontocete species also approach vessels to bowride, indicating either that these species are less 

sensitive to vessels, or that the behavioral drive to bowride supersedes any impact of the associated 

noise. With these broad and disparate responses, it is difficult to assess the impacts of vessel noise on 

odontocetes.

Pinnipeds

Pinniped reactions to vessels are variable and reports include a wide spectrum of possibilities from 

avoidance and alert, to cases where animals in the water are attracted, and cases on land where there is 

lack of significant reaction suggesting habituation to or tolerance of vessels (Richardson et al., 1995b). 

Specific case reports in Richardson et al. (1995b) vary based on factors such as routine anthropogenic 

activity, distance from the vessel, engine type, wind direction, and ongoing subsistence hunting. As with 

reactions to sound reviewed by Southall et al. (2007), pinniped responses to vessels are affected by the 

context of the situation and by the animal’s experience. 

Anderwald et al. (2013) investigated gray seal reactions to an increase in vessel traffic off Ireland’s coast 

in association with construction activities, and their data suggests the number of vessels had an 

indeterminate effect on the seals’ presence. Harbor seals haul out on tidewater glaciers in Alaska, and 

most haul outs occur during pupping season. Blundell & Pendleton (2015) found that the presence of 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-133

3.7 Marine Mammals

any vessel reduces haul out time, but cruise ships and other large vessels in particular shorten haul out 

times. Another study of reactions of harbor seals hauled out on ice to cruise ship approaches in 

Disenchantment Bay, Alaska, revealed that animals are more likely to flush and enter the water when 

cruise ships approach within 500 m and four times more likely when the cruise ship approaches within 

100 m (Jansen et al., 2010). Karpovich et al. (2015) also found that harbor seal heart rates increased 

when vessels were present during haul out periods, and increased further when vessels approached and 

animals re-entered the water. 

Sirenians

The West Indian manatee responds to vessel movement via acoustic and possibly visual cues by moving 

away from the approaching vessel, increasing its swimming speed, and moving toward deeper water 

(Miksis-Olds et al., 2007; Nowacek et al., 2004b). The degree of response varies with the individual 

manatee and may be more pronounced in deeper water, where they are more easily able to determine 

the direction of the approaching vessel (Nowacek et al., 2004b). This disturbance is a temporary 

response to the approaching vessel. West Indian manatees have also been shown to seek out areas with 

a lower density of vessels (Buckingham et al., 1999). West Indian manatees exhibit a clear behavioral 

response to vessels within distances of 25 to 50 m, but it is unclear at what distance the manatees first 

detect the presence of vessels (Nowacek et al., 2004b). Vessel traffic and recreation activities that 

disturb West Indian manatees may cause them to leave preferred habitats and may alter biologically 

important behaviors, such as feeding, suckling, or resting (Haubold et al., 2006). 

In manatees, call rates and call amplitude were affected by noise that shared dominant frequencies of 

watercraft, with call rates decreasing during feeding and socializing. Differential effects were also seen 

on call type based on the presence or absence of calves (Miksis-Olds & Tyack, 2009). Similarly, call rates 

in dugongs did not change in the presence of vessels, but call durations were longer and more 

harmonics were present when boats passed within 400 m (Ando-Mizobata et al., 2014). These changes 

in vocalizations varied with the frequency of the noise, the type of call being produced, and the 

behavioral or social context; taken together, these changes may indicate that responses to vessel noise 

are dependent on behavioral and environmental contexts. 

Behavioral Reactions to Aircraft Noise

The following paragraphs summarize what is known about the reaction of various marine mammal 

species to overhead flights of many types of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, as well as unmanned 

aerial vehicles. Thorough reviews of the subject and available information is presented in Richardson et 

al. (1995b) and elsewhere (e.g., Efroymson et al., 2001; Holst et al., 2011; Luksenburg & Parsons, 2009; 

Smith et al., 2016). The most common responses of cetaceans to overflights were short surfacing 

durations, abrupt dives, and percussive behavior (breaching and tail slapping) (Nowacek et al., 2007). 

Other behavioral responses such as flushing and fleeing the area of the source of the noise have also 

been observed (Holst et al., 2011; Manci et al., 1988). Richardson et al. (1995b) noted that marine 

mammal reactions to aircraft overflight largely consisted of opportunistic and anecdotal observations 

lacking clear distinction between reactions potentially caused by the noise of the aircraft and the visual 

cue an aircraft presents. In addition, it was suggested that variations in the responses noted were due to 

generally other undocumented factors associated with overflights (Richardson et al., 1995b). These 

factors could include aircraft type (single engine, multi-engine, jet turbine), flight path (altitude, 

centered on the animal, off to one side, circling, level and slow), environmental factors (e.g., wind 

speed, sea state, cloud cover) and locations where native subsistence hunting continues and animals are 

more sensitive to anthropogenic impacts, including the noise from aircraft. Christiansen et al. (2016b)
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-134

3.7 Marine Mammals

measured the in air and underwater noise levels of two unmanned aerial vehicles, and found that in air 

the broadband source levels were around 80 dB re 20 μPa, while at a meter underwater received levels 

were 95 - 100 dB re 1 μPa when the vehicle was only 5 – 10 m above the surface, and were not 

quantifiable above ambient noise levels when the vehicle was higher. Therefore if an animal is near the 

surface and the unmanned aerial vehicle is low, it may be detected, but in most cases these vehicles are 

operated at much higher altitudes (e.g. over 30 m) and so are not likely to be heard.

The impact of aircraft overflights is one of the least well-known sources of potential behavioral response 

by any species or taxonomic group, and so many generalities must be made based on the little data 

available. There is some data for each taxonomic group; taken together it appears that in general, 

marine mammals have varying levels of sensitivity to overflights depending on the species and context.

Mysticetes

Mysticetes either ignore or occasionally dive in response to aircraft overflights (Koski et al., 1998). 

Richardson (1985; 1995b) found no evidence that single or occasional aircraft flying above mysticetes 

causes long-term displacement of these mammals. 

Bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea exhibited a transient behavioral response to fixed-wing aircraft and 

vessels. Reactions were frequently observed at less than 1,000 ft. (304.8 m) above sea level, 

infrequently observed at 1,500 ft. (457.2 m), and not observed at all at 2,000 ft. (609.6 m) (Richardson et 

al., 1985). Bowhead whales reacted to helicopter overflights by diving, breaching, changing direction or 

behavior, and altering breathing patterns. Behavioral reactions decreased in frequency as the altitude of 

the helicopter increased to 150 m or higher. The bowheads exhibited fewer behavioral changes than did 

the odontocetes in the same area (Patenaude et al., 2002). It should be noted that bowhead whales in 

this study may have more acute responses to anthropogenic activity than many other marine mammals 

since these animals were presented with restricted egress due to limited open water between ice floes. 

Additionally, these animals are hunted by Alaska Natives, which could lead to animals developing 

additional sensitivity to human noise and presence.

A pilot study was conducted on the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to observe bowhead whales; flying 

at altitudes between 120 to 210 m above the surface, no behavioral responses were observed in any 

animals (Koski et al., 1998; Koski et al., 2015). Similarly, Christiansen et al. (2016a) did not observe any 

responses to an unmanned aerial vehicle flown 30 – 120 m above the water when taking photos of 

humpback whales to conduct photogrammetry and assess fitness. Acevedo-Whitehouse et al. (2010)

successfully maneuvered a remote controlled helicopter over large baleen whales to collect samples of 

their blows, with no more avoidance behavior than noted for typical photo-id vessel approaches. These 

vehicles are much smaller and quieter than typical aircraft and so are less likely to cause a behavioral 

response, although they may fly at much lower altitudes (Smith et al., 2016). 

Odontocetes

Variable responses to aircraft have been observed in toothed whales, though overall little change in 

behavior has been observed during flyovers. Some toothed whales dove, slapped the water with their 

flukes or flippers, or swam away from the direction of the aircraft during overflights; others did not 

visibly react (Richardson et al., 1995b). Würsig et al. (1998) found that beaked whales were the most 

sensitive cetacean and reacted by avoiding marine mammal survey aircraft in 89 percent of sightings 

and at more than twice the rate as Kogia whales, which was the next most reactive of the odontocetes 

in 39 percent of sightings; these are the same species that were sensitive to vessel traffic.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-135

3.7 Marine Mammals

During standard marine mammal surveys at an altitude of 750 ft., some sperm whales remained on or 

near the surface the entire time the aircraft was in the vicinity, while others dove immediately or a few 

minutes after being sighted. Other authors have corroborated the variability in sperm whales’ reactions 

to fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters (Green et al., 1992; Richter et al., 2003; Richter et al., 2006; Smultea 

et al., 2008a; Würsig et al., 1998). In one study, sperm whales showed no reaction to a helicopter until 

they encountered the downdrafts from the rotors (Richardson et al., 1995b). A group of sperm whales 

responded to a circling aircraft (altitude of 800 to 1,100 ft. by moving closer together and forming a 

defensive fan-shaped semicircle, with their heads facing outward. Several individuals in the group 

turned on their sides, apparently to look up toward the aircraft (Smultea et al., 2008b). Whale-watching 

aircraft (fixed-wing airplanes and helicopters) apparently caused sperm whales to turn more sharply but 

did not affect blow interval, surface time, time to first click, or the frequency of aerial behavior (Richter 

et al., 2003). 

Smaller delphinids generally react to overflights either neutrally or with a startle response (Würsig et al., 

1998). Beluga whales reacted to helicopter overflights by diving, breaching, changing direction or 

behavior, and altering breathing patterns to a greater extent than mysticetes in the same area 

(Patenaude et al., 2002). These reactions increased in frequency as the altitude of the helicopter 

dropped below 150 m. A change in travel direction was noted in a group of pilot whales as the aircraft 

circled while conducting monitoring (HDR, 2011). 

Much like mysticetes, odontocetes have demonstrated no responses to unmanned aerial vehicles. For 

example, Durban et al. (2015) conducted photogrammetry studies of killer whales using a small 

hexacopter flown 35–40 m above the animals with no disturbance noted. However, odontocete 

responses may increase with reduced altitude, due either to noise or the shadows created by the vehicle 

(Smith et al., 2016). 

Pinnipeds

Richardson et al. (1995b) noted that responsiveness to aircraft overflights generally was dependent on 

the altitude of the aircraft, the abruptness of the associated aircraft sound, and life cycle stage 

(breeding, molting, etc.). In general, pinnipeds are unresponsive to overflights, and may startle, orient 

towards the sound source or increase vigilance, or may briefly re-enter the water, but typically remain 

hauled out or immediately return to their haul out location (Blackwell et al., 2004; Gjertz & Børset, 

1992). Adult females, calves and juveniles are more likely to enter the water than males, and stampedes 

resulting in mortality to pups (by separation or crushing) can occur when disturbance is severe, although 

they are rare (Holst et al., 2011). Responses may also be dependent on the distance of the aircraft. For 

example, reactions of walruses on land varied in severity and included minor head raising at a distance 

of 2.5 km, orienting toward or entering the water at less than 150 m and 1.3 km in altitude, to full flight 

reactions at horizontal ranges of less than 1 km at altitudes as high as 1,000–1,500 m (Richardson et al., 

1995b). 

Helicopters are used in studies of several species of seals hauled out and are considered an effective 

means of observation (Bester et al., 2002; Gjertz & Børset, 1992), although they have been known to 

elicit behavioral reactions such as fleeing (Hoover, 1988). For California sea lions and Steller sea lions at 

a rocky haulout of Crescent City in northern California, helicopter approaches to landing sites typically 

caused the most severe response of diving into the water (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2010). Responses were also dependent on the species, with Steller sea lions being more 

sensitive and California sea lions more tolerant. Depending on the time between subsequent 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-136

3.7 Marine Mammals

approaches, animals hauled out in between and fewer animals reacted upon subsequent exposures 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010). 

Pinniped reactions to rocket launches and overflight at San Nicholas Island were studied from August 

2001 to October 2008 (Holst et al., 2011). California sea lions startled and increased vigilance for up to 

2 minutes after a rocket overflight, with some individuals moving down the beach or returning to the 

water. Northern elephant seals showed little reaction to any overflight. Harbor seals had the most 

pronounced reactions of the three species observed with most animals within approximately 4 km of 

the rocket trajectory leaving their haul-out sites for the water and not returning for several hours. The 

authors concluded that the effects of the rocket launches were minor with no effects on local 

populations evidenced by the growing populations of pinnipeds on San Nicholas Island (Holst et al., 

2011). 

Pinnipeds may be more sensitive to unmanned aerial vehicles, especially those flying at low altitudes, 

due to their possible resemblance to predatorial birds (Smith et al., 2016), which could lead to flushing 

behavior (Olson, 2013). Responses may also vary by species, age class, behavior, and habituation to 

other anthropogenic noise, as well as by the type, size, and configuration of unmanned aerial vehicle 

used (Pomeroy et al., 2015). However, in general pinnipeds have demonstrated little to no response to 

unmanned aerial vehicles, with some orienting towards the vehicle, other alerting or movement 

behavior, or short-term flushing possible (Moreland et al., 2015; Sweeney et al., 2015). 

Sirenians

There are few data on the effects of aircraft overflight on sirenians. Rathbun (1988) studied the reaction 

of West Indian manatees to both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters used during census surveys 

(Rathbun, 1988). The manatees did not react to a fixed-wing aircraft moving at approximately 130 km/hr 

at 160 m altitude; however, animals did react to a helicopter below approximately 100 m moving at 

speeds of 0 (hovering) 20 km/hr by startling from rest and diving to deeper waters. This again 

demonstrates that distance to the aircraft impacts if and how an animal may respond.

Hodgson et al. (2013) conducted a pilot study to conduct aerial surveys of dugongs using an unmanned 

aerial vehicle flown at altitudes of 500, 750 and 1,000 ft.; no behavioral responses were mentioned but 

noise levels were much lower than for a typical fixed-fixed wing aircraft. Similarly, manatees were not 

disturbed by a fixed-wing unmanned vehicle flying at 100 m (Jones IV et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2016). 

3.7.3.1.1.6 Stranding

Marine mammals are subjected to a variety of natural and anthropogenic factors, acting alone or in 

combination, which may cause a marine mammal to strand (Geraci et al., 1999; Geraci & Lounsbury, 

2005). When a marine mammal (alive or dead) swims or floats onto shore and becomes beached or 

incapable of returning to sea, the event is termed a “stranding” (Geraci et al., 1999; Geraci & Lounsbury, 

2005; Perrin & Geraci, 2002). A stranding can also occur away from the shore if the animal is unable to 

cope in its present situation (e.g. disabled by a vessel strike, out of habitat) (Geraci & Lounsbury, 2005). 

Specifically, under U.S. law, a stranding is an event in the wild in which: (A) a marine mammal is dead 

and is (i) on a beach or shore of the United States; or (ii) in waters under the jurisdiction of the United 

States (including any navigable waters); or (B) a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on a beach or shore of 

the United States and is unable to return to the water; (ii) on a beach or shore of the United States and, 

although able to return to the water, is in need of medical attention; or (iii) in the waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters), but is unable to return to its natural 

habitat under its own power or without assistance” (16 U.S.C. section 1421h).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-137

3.7 Marine Mammals

Natural factors related to strandings include limited food availability or following prey inshore, 

predation, disease, parasitism, natural toxins, echolocation disturbance, climatic influences, and aging 

(Bradshaw et al., 2006; Culik, 2004; Geraci et al., 1999; Geraci & Lounsbury, 2005; Huggins et al., 2015; 

National Research Council, 2006; Perrin & Geraci, 2002; Walker et al., 2005). Anthropogenic factors 

include pollution (Hall et al., 2006; Jepson et al., 2005), vessel strike (Geraci & Lounsbury, 2005; Laist et 

al., 2001), fisheries interactions (Read et al., 2006), entanglement (Baird & Gorgone, 2005; Saez et al., 

2012; Saez et al., 2013), human activities (e.g., feeding, gunshot) (Dierauf & Gulland, 2001; Geraci & 

Lounsbury, 2005), and noise (Cox et al., 2006; National Research Council, 2003; Richardson et al., 

1995b). For some stranding events, environmental factors (e.g., ocean temperature, wind speed, and 

topographic conditions) can be utilized in predictive models to aid in understanding why marine 

mammals strand in certain areas more than others (Berini et al., 2015). In most instances, even for the 

more thoroughly investigated strandings involving post-stranding data collection and necropsies, the 

cause (or causes) for strandings remains undetermined.

Along the coasts of the continental United States and Alaska between 2001 and 2009, there were on 

average approximately 12,545 cetacean strandings and 39,104 pinniped strandings (51,649 total) per 

year (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2016b). Several mass strandings (strandings that involve two or 

more cetaceans of the same species, excluding a single mother-calf pair) that have occurred over the 

past two decades have been associated with anthropogenic activities that introduced sound into the 

marine environment such as naval operations and seismic surveys. An in-depth discussion of strandings 

is in the Navy’s Technical Report on Marine Mammal Strandings Associated with U.S. Navy Sonar 

Activities (U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program, 2017). 

Sonar use during exercises involving the U.S. Navy has been identified as a contributing cause or factor 

in five specific mass stranding events: Greece in 1996; the Bahamas in March 2000; Madeira Island, 

Portugal in 2000; the Canary Islands in 2002, and Spain in 2006 (Cox et al., 2006; Fernandez, 2006; U.S. 

Navy Marine Mammal Program, 2017). These five mass strandings have resulted in about 40 known 

cetacean deaths consisting mostly of beaked whales and with potential linkages to mid-frequency active 

sonar activity. In these circumstances, exposure to non-impulsive acoustic energy was considered a 

potential indirect cause of death of the marine mammals (Cox et al., 2006). Strandings of other marine 

mammal species have not been as closely linked to sonar exposure, but rather, have typically been 

attributed to natural or anthropogenic factors. The Navy has reviewed training requirements, safety 

procedures, and possible mitigation measures and implemented changes to reduce the potential for 

acoustic related strandings to occur in the future. Discussions of procedures associated with these and 

other training and testing events are presented in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), which details all mitigations.

Multiple hypotheses regarding the relationship between non-impulsive sound exposure and stranding 

have been proposed. These range from direct impact of the sound on the physiology of the marine 

mammal, to behavioral reactions contributing to altered physiology (e.g., “gas and fat embolic 

syndrome” (Fernández et al., 2005; Jepson et al., 2003; Jepson et al., 2005), to behaviors directly 

contributing to the stranding (e.g., beaching of fleeing animals). Unfortunately, without direct 

observation of not only the event but also the underlying process, and the potential for artefactual 

evidence (e.g. chronic condition, previous injury) to complicate conclusions from the post-mortem 

analyses of stranded animals (Cox et al., 2006), it has not been possible to determine with certainty the 

exact mechanism underlying these strandings. 

Historically, stranding reporting and response efforts have been inconsistent, although they have 

improved considerably over the last 25 years. Although reporting forms have been standardized 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-138

3.7 Marine Mammals

nationally, data collection methods, assessment methods, detail of reporting and procedures vary by 

region and are not yet standardized across the United States. Conditions such as weather, time, 

location, and decomposition state may also affect the ability to thoroughly examine a specimen 

(Carretta et al., 2016b; Moore et al., 2013). Because of this, the current ability to interpret long-term 

trends in marine mammal stranding is limited. While the investigation of stranded animals provides 

insight into the types of threats marine mammal populations face, investigations are only conducted on 

a small fraction of the total number of strandings that occur, limiting our understanding of the causes of 

strandings (Carretta et al., 2016a). 

3.7.3.1.1.7 Long-Term Consequences

Long-term consequences to a population are determined by examining changes in the population 

growth rate (Figure 3.0-16). Physical effects that could lead to a reduction in the population growth rate 

include mortality or injury, which could remove animals from the reproductive pool, and permanent 

hearing impairment or chronic masking, which could impact navigation, foraging, predator avoidance, or 

communication. The long-term consequences due to individual behavioral reactions and short-term or 

chronic instances of physiological stress are especially difficult to predict because individual experience 

over time can create complex contingencies, especially for long-lived animals like marine mammals. For 

example, a lost reproductive opportunity could be a measureable cost to the individual, or for very small 

populations to the population as a whole (e.g., North Atlantic right whales); however, short-term costs 

may be recouped during the life of an otherwise healthy individual. These factors are taken into 

consideration when assessing risk of long-term consequences. It is more likely that any long-term 

consequences to an individual would be a result of costs accumulated over a season, year, or life stage 

due to multiple behavioral or stress responses resulting from exposure to many sound-producing 

activities over significant periods.

Marine mammals exposed to high levels of human activities may leave the area, habituate to the 

activity, or tolerate the disturbance and remain in the area (Wartzok et al., 2003). Longer-term 

displacement can lead to changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the species in the affected 

region (Bejder et al., 2006b; Blackwell et al., 2004; Teilmann et al., 2006). Gray whales in Baja California 

abandoned a historical breeding lagoon in the mid-1960s due to an increase in dredging and commercial 

shipping operations. However, whales did repopulate the lagoon after shipping activities had ceased for 

several years (Bryant et al., 1984). Mysticetes in the northwest Atlantic tended to adjust to vessel traffic 

over a number of years, trending towards more neutral responses to passing vessels (Watkins, 1986), 

indicating that some animals may habituate or otherwise learn to cope with high levels of human 

activity. Bejder et al. (2006a) studied responses of bottlenose dolphins to vessel approaches and found 

that lesser reactions in populations of dolphins regularly subjected to high levels of vessel traffic could 

be a sign of habituation, or it could be that the more sensitive animals in this population previously 

abandoned the area of higher human activity. 

Moore and Barlow (2013) noted a decline in the overall beaked whale population in a broad area of the 

Pacific Ocean along the U.S. west coast. Moore and Barlow (2013) provide several hypotheses for the 

decline of beaked whales in those waters, one of which is anthropogenic sound including the use of 

sonar by the U.S. Navy; however, new data has been published raising uncertainties over whether a 

decline in the beaked whale population occurred off the U.S. west coast between 1996–2014 (Barlow, 

2016). In addition, studies on the Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center instrumented range in 

the Bahamas have shown that some Blainville’s beaked whales may be resident during all or part of the 

year in the area. Individuals may move off the range for several days during and following a sonar event, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-139

3.7 Marine Mammals

but return within a few days (McCarthy et al., 2011; Tyack et al., 2011). Photo identification studies in 

the Southern California Range Complex have identified approximately 100 individual Cuvier’s beaked 

whale individuals, with 40 percent having been seen in one or more prior years and re-sightings up to 

7 years apart (Falcone et al., 2009; Falcone & Schorr, 2014). These results indicate long-term residency 

by individuals in an intensively used Navy training and testing area, which may suggest a lack of longterm consequences as a result of exposure to Navy training and testing activities, but could also be 

indicative of high-value resources that exceed the cost of remaining in the area. Long-term residency 

does not mean there has been no impact to population growth rates and there are no data existing on 

the reproductive rates of populations inhabiting the Navy range area around San Clemente Island as 

opposed to beaked whales from other areas. In that regard however, recent results from photoidentifications are beginning to provide critically needed calving and weaning rate data for resident 

animals on the Navy’s Southern California range. Three adult females that had been sighted with calves 

in previous years were again sighted in 2016, one of these was associated with her second calf, and a 

fourth female that was first identified in 2015 without a calf, was sighted in 2016 with a calf (Schorr et 

al., 2017). Resident females documented with and without calves from year to year will provide the data 

for this population that can be applied to future research questions.

Research involving three tagged Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Southern California Range Complex 

reported on by Falcone and Schorr (2012, 2014) has documented movements in excess of hundreds of 

kilometers by some of those animals. Schorr et al. (2014) reported the results for an additional eight 

tagged Cuvier’s beaked whales in the same area. Five of these eight whales made journeys of 

approximately 250 km from their tag deployment location, and one of these five made an extra-regional 

excursion over 450 km south to Mexico and back again. Given that some beaked whales may routinely 

move hundreds of kilometers as part of their normal pattern (Schorr et al., 2014), temporarily leaving an 

area to avoid sonar or other anthropogenic activity may have little cost. 

Another approach has been an attempt to link short-term effects to individuals due to anthropogenic 

stressors with long-term consequences to populations using population models. Population models are 

well known from many fields in biology including fisheries and wildlife management. These models 

accept inputs for the population size and changes in vital rates of the population such as the mean 

values for survival age, lifetime reproductive success, and recruitment of new individuals into the 

population. Unfortunately, for acoustic and explosive impacts on marine mammal populations, many of 

the inputs required by population models are not known. Nowacek et al. (2016) reviewed new 

technologies, including passive acoustic monitoring, tagging, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, 

that can improve scientists’ abilities to study these model inputs and link behavioral changes to 

individual life functions and ultimately population-level effects. The linkage between immediate 

behavioral or physiological effects to an individual due to a stressor such as sound, the subsequent 

effects on that individual’s vital rates (growth, survival, and reproduction), and in turn the consequences 

for the population have been reviewed in National Research Council (2005). 

The Population Consequences of Acoustic Disturbance model (National Research Council 2005) proposes 

a conceptual model for determining how changes in the vital rates of individuals (i.e., a biologically 

significant consequence to the individual) translates into biologically significant consequences to the 

population. In 2009, the U.S. Office of Naval Research set up a working group to transform the 

Population Consequences of Acoustic Disturbance framework into a mathematical model and include 

other stressors potentially causing disturbance in addition to noise. The model, now called Population 

Consequences of Disturbance, has been used for case studies involving bottlenose dolphins, North 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-140

3.7 Marine Mammals

Atlantic right whales, beaked whales, southern elephant seals, California sea lions, blue whales, 

humpback whales, and harbor porpoise (Costa et al., 2016a; Costa et al., 2016b; Harwood & King, 2014; 

Hatch et al., 2012; King et al., 2015; New et al., 2013a; New et al., 2013b; New et al., 2014), but the 

Population Consequences of Disturbance model is still in the preliminary stages of development.

Costa et al. (2016a) emphasized taking into account the size of an animal’s home range, whether 

populations are resident and non-migratory or if they migrate over long areas and share their feeding or 

breeding areas with other populations. These factors, coupled with the extent, location, and duration of 

a disturbance can lead to markedly different impact results. For example, Costa et al. (2016a) modeled 

seismic surveys with different radii of impacts on the foraging grounds of Bering Sea humpback whales, 

West Antarctic Peninsula humpback whales, and California Current blue whales, and used data from 

tagged whales to determine foraging locations and effort on those grounds. They found that for the blue 

whales and the West Antarctic humpback whales, less than 19 percent and 16 percent (respectively) of 

each population would be exposed, and less than 19 percent and 6 percent of foraging behavior would 

be disturbed. This was likely due to the fact that these populations forage for krill over large areas. In 

contrast, the Bering Sea population of humpback whales had over 90 percent of the population exposed 

when the disturbance zones extended beyond 50 km, and 100 percent of their foraging behavior was 

disturbed when the zone was over 25 km. These animals forage for fish over a much smaller area, 

thereby having a limited range for foraging that can be disturbed. Similarly, Costa et al. (2016b) placed 

similar disturbance zones in the foraging and transit areas of northern elephant seals and California sea 

lions. Again, the location and radius of disturbance impacted how many animals were exposed and for 

how long, with California sea lions disturbed for a longer period than elephant seals, which extend over 

a broader foraging and transit area. However, even the animals exposed for the longest periods had 

negligible modeled impacts to their reproduction and pup survival rates. 

Using the Population Consequences of Disturbance framework, modeling of the long-term 

consequences of exposure has been conducted for a variety of marine mammal species and stressors. 

Even when high and frequent exposure levels are included, few long-term consequences have been 

predicted. For example, De Silva et al. (2014) conducted a population viability analysis on the long-term 

impacts of pile driving and construction noise on harbor porpoises and bottlenose dolphins. Despite 

including the extreme and unlikely assumptions that 25 percent of animals that received PTS would die, 

and that behavioral displacement from an area would lead to breeding failure, the model only found 

short-term impacts to the population size and no long-term effects on population viability. Similarly, 

King et al. (2015) developed a Population Consequences of Disturbance framework using expert 

elicitation data on impacts from wind farms on harbor porpoises, and even under the worst case 

scenarios predicted less than a 0.5 percent decline in harbor porpoise populations. Nabe-Nelson et al. 

(2014) also modeled the impact of noise from wind farms on harbor porpoises and predicted that even 

when assuming a 10 percent reduction in population size if prey is impacted up to 2 days, the presence 

of ships and wind turbines did not deplete the population. In contrast, Heinis and Jong (2015) used the 

Population Consequences of Disturbance framework to estimate impacts from both pile driving and 

seismic exploration on harbor porpoises and found a 23 percent in population size over 6 years, with an 

increased risk for further reduction with additional disturbance days.

The Population Consequences of Disturbance model developed by New et al. (2013b) predicted that 

beaked whales require energy dense prey and high quality habitat, and that non-lethal disturbances that 

displace whales from that habitat could lead to long-term impacts on fecundity and survival; however, 

the authors were forced to use many conservative assumptions within their model since many 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-141

3.7 Marine Mammals

parameters are unknown for beaked whales. As discussed above in Schorr et al. (2014), beaked whales 

have been tracked roaming over distances of 250 km or more indicating that temporary displacement 

from a small area may not preclude finding energy dense prey or high quality habitat. Another 

Population Consequences of Disturbance model developed in New et al. (2014) predicted elephant seal 

populations to be relatively robust even with a greater than 50 percent reduction in foraging trips (only 

a 0.4 percent population decline in the following year). It should be noted that in all of these models, 

assumptions were made and many input variables were unknown and so were estimated using available 

data. It is still not possible to utilize individual short-term behavioral responses to estimate long-term or 

population level effects. 

The best assessment of long-term consequences from Navy training and testing activities will be to 

monitor the populations over time within the Study Area. A U.S. workshop on Marine Mammals and 

Sound (Fitch et al., 2011) indicated a critical need for baseline biological data on marine mammal 

abundance, distribution, habitat, and behavior over sufficient time and space to evaluate impacts from 

human-generated activities on long-term population survival. The Navy has developed and implemented 

comprehensive monitoring plans since 2009 for protected marine mammals occurring on Navy ranges 

with the goal of assessing the impacts of training and testing activities on marine species and the 

effectiveness of the Navy’s current mitigation practices. The results of this long-term monitoring are 

now being compiled and analyzed for trends in occurrence or abundance over time (e.g., Martin et al., 

2017); preliminary results of this analysis at PMRF indicate no changes in detection rates for several 

species over the past decade. Continued monitoring efforts over time will be necessary to begin to 

evaluate the long-term consequences of exposure to noise sources. 

3.7.3.1.2 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers

Sonar and other transducers proposed for use could be used throughout the Study Area. Sonar and 

other transducers emit sound waves into the water to detect objects, safely navigate, and communicate. 

General categories of these systems are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). 

Sonar induced acoustic resonance and bubble formation phenomena are very unlikely to occur under 

realistic conditions, as discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.1 (Injury). Non-auditory injury (i.e., other than PTS) 

and mortality from sonar and other transducers is so unlikely as to be discountable under normal 

conditions and is therefore not considered further in this analysis. 

The most probable impacts from exposure to sonar and other transducers are PTS, TTS, behavioral 

reactions, masking, and physiological stress (Sections 3.7.3.1.1.2, Hearing Loss and Auditory Injury; 

3.7.3.1.1.3, Physiological Stress; 3.7.3.1.1.4, Masking; and 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). 

3.7.3.1.2.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and Other Transducers

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number of times that marine mammals 

could be affected by sonars and other transducers used during Navy training and testing activities. The 

Navy Acoustic Effects Model is used to produce initial estimates of the number of animals that may 

experience these effects; these estimates are further refined by considering animal avoidance of soundproducing activities and implementation of mitigation. A detailed explanation of this analysis is provided 

in the technical report titled Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to 

Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-142

3.7 Marine Mammals

Criteria and Thresholds Used to Estimate Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers

See the technical report titled Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to 

Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017e) for detailed information on how 

the criteria and thresholds were derived.

Auditory Weighting Functions

Animals are not equally sensitive to noise at all frequencies. To capture the frequency-dependent nature 

of the effects of noise, auditory weighting functions are used (Figure 3.7-6). Auditory weighting 

functions are mathematical functions that adjust received sound levels to emphasize ranges of best 

hearing and de-emphasize ranges with less or no auditory sensitivity. They are based on a generic band 

pass filter and incorporates species-specific hearing abilities to calculate a weighted received sound level 

in units SPL or SEL. Due to the band pass nature of auditory weighting functions, they resemble an 

inverted “U” shape with amplitude plotted as a function of frequency. The flatter portion of the plotted 

function, where the amplitude is closest to zero, is the emphasized frequency range (i.e., the pass-band), 

while the frequencies below and above this range (where amplitude declines) are de-emphasized. 

Note: HF = High-Frequency Cetacean, LF = Low-Frequency Cetacean, MF = Mid-Frequency Cetacean, PW = Phocid (In-water), 

and SI = Sirenian. For parameters used to generate the functions and more information on weighting function derivation 

see U.S. Department of the Navy (2017e). 

Figure 3.7-6: Navy Auditory Weighting Functions for All Species Groups 

Hearing Loss from Sonar and Other Transducers

Defining the TTS and PTS exposure functions (Figure 3.7-7) requires identifying the weighted exposures 

necessary for TTS and PTS onset from sounds produced by sonar and other transducers. The criteria 

used to define threshold shifts from non-impulsive sources (e.g., sonar) determines TTS onset as the SEL 

necessary to induce 6 dB of threshold shift. An SEL 20 dB above the onset of TTS is used in all hearing 

groups of marine mammals underwater to define the PTS threshold (Southall et al., 2007). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-143

3.7 Marine Mammals

Note: The solid curve is the exposure function for TTS onset and the large dashed curve is the exposure function for PTS onset. 

Small dashed lines and asterisks indicate the SEL threshold for TTS and PTS onset in the frequency range of best hearing.

Figure 3.7-7: TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Sonar and Other Active Acoustic Sources

Behavioral Responses from Sonar and Other Transducers

Behavioral response criteria are used to estimate the number of animals that may exhibit a behavioral 

response to sonar and other transducers. See the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and 

Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles Technical Report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2017e) for detailed information on how the Behavioral Response Functions were derived. Developing 

the new behavioral criteria involved multiple steps. All peer-reviewed published behavioral response 

studies conducted both in the field and on captive animals were examined in order to understand the 

breadth of behavioral responses of marine mammals to sonar and other transducers. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-144

3.7 Marine Mammals

The data from the behavioral studies were analyzed by looking for significant responses, or lack thereof, 

for each experimental session. The terms “significant response” or “significant behavioral response” are 

used in describing behavioral observations from field or captive animal research that may rise to the 

level of “harassment” for military readiness activities. Under the MMPA, for military readiness activities, 

such as Navy training and testing, behavioral “harassment” is: “any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb

a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to 

a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered.” (Section 315(f) of Public 

Law 107-314; 16 U.S.C. 703 note). Due to the nature of behavioral response research to date, it is not 

currently possible to ascertain the types of observed reactions that would lead to an abandonment or 

significant alteration of a natural behavior pattern. Therefore, the Navy has developed a methodology to 

estimate the possible significance of behavioral reactions and impacts on natural behavior patterns.

Behavioral response severity is described herein as “low,” “moderate,” or “high.” These are derived 

from the Southall et al. (2007) severity scale. Low severity responses are those behavioral responses 

that fall within an animal’s range of typical (baseline) behaviors and are unlikely to disrupt an individual 

to a point where natural behavior patterns are significantly altered or abandoned. Low severity 

responses include an orientation or startle response, change in respiration, change in heart rate, and 

change in group spacing or synchrony.

Moderate severity responses could become significant if sustained over a longer duration. What 

constitutes a long-duration response is different for each situation and species, although it is likely 

dependent upon the magnitude of the response and species characteristics such as age, body size, 

feeding strategy, and behavioral state at the time of the exposure. In general, a response could be 

considered “long-duration” if it lasted for a few tens of minutes to a few hours, or enough time to 

significantly disrupt an animal’s daily routine. 

Moderate severity responses included:

• alter migration path

• alter locomotion (speed, heading)

• alter dive profiles

• stop/alter nursing

• stop/alter breeding

• stop/alter feeding/foraging

• stop/alter sheltering/resting

• stop/alter vocal behavior if tied to foraging or social cohesion

• avoidance of area near sound source 

For the derivation of behavioral criteria, a significant duration was defined as a response that lasted for 

the duration of exposure or longer, regardless of how long the exposure session may have been. This 

assumption was made because it was not possible to tell if the behavioral responses would have 

continued if the exposure had continued. The costs associated with these observed behavioral reactions 

were not measured so it is not possible to judge whether reactions would have risen to the level of 

significance as defined above, although it was conservatively assumed the case. High severity responses 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-145

3.7 Marine Mammals

include those responses with immediate consequences (e.g., stranding, mother-calf separation), and 

were always considered significant behavioral reactions regardless of duration. 

Marine mammal species were placed into behavioral criteria groups based on their known or suspected 

behavioral sensitivities to sound (Figure 3.7-8 through Figure 3.7-11). In most cases, these divisions are 

driven by taxonomic classifications (e.g., mysticetes, pinnipeds). For groups that did not have adequate 

behavioral response data (i.e., sirenians), a surrogate behavioral risk function based on behavioral 

characteristics and taxonomy was assigned. 

The information currently available regarding harbor porpoises suggests a very low threshold level of 

response for both captive and wild animals. Threshold levels at which both captive (Kastelein et al., 

2000; Kastelein et al., 2005b) and wild harbor porpoises (Johnston, 2002) responded to sound (e.g., 

acoustic harassment devices, acoustic deterrent devices, or other non-impulsive sound sources) are very 

low, approximately 120 dB re 1 μPa. Therefore, a SPL of 120 dB re 1 μPa is used in this analysis as a 

threshold for predicting behavioral responses in harbor porpoises.

For all taxa, distances beyond which significant behavioral responses to sonar and other active acoustic 

sources are unlikely to occur, denoted as “cutoff distances,” were defined based on existing data (Table 

3.7-3). The distance between the animal and the sound source is a strong factor in determining that 

animal’s potential reaction (e.g., DeRuiter et al., 2013b). For training and testing exercises that contain 

multiple platforms or tactical sonar sources that exceed 215 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m, this cutoff distance is 

substantially increased (i.e., doubled) from values derived from the literature. The use of multiple 

platforms and intense sound sources are factors that probably increase responsiveness in marine 

mammals overall. There are currently few behavioral observations under these circumstances; 

therefore, the Navy will conservatively predict significant behavioral responses at further ranges for 

these more intense activities. 

Figure 3.7-8: Behavioral Response Function for Odontocetes
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-146

3.7 Marine Mammals

Figure 3.7-9: Behavioral Response Function for Pinnipeds

Figure 3.7-10: Behavioral Response Function for Mysticetes and Manatees
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-147

3.7 Marine Mammals

Figure 3.7-11: Behavioral Response Function for Beaked Whales

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

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

Exceeding 215 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m

Criteria Group Moderate SL / Single 

Platform Cutoff Distance

High SL / Multi-Platform 

Cutoff Distance

Odontocetes 10 km 20 km

Pinnipeds 5 km 10 km

Mysticetes and Manatees 10 km 20 km

Beaked Whales 25 km 50 km

Harbor Porpoise 20 km 40 km

dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal at 1 meter; km: kilometer; SL: source level

Assessing the Severity of Behavioral Responses from Sonar

As discussed above, the terms “significant response” or “significant behavioral response” are used in 

describing behavioral reactions that may lead to an abandonment or significant alteration of a natural 

behavior pattern. Due to the limited amount of behavioral response research to date and relatively 

short durations of observation, it is not possible to ascertain the true significance of the majority of the 

observed reactions. When deriving the behavioral criteria, it was assumed that most reactions that 

lasted for the duration of the sound exposure or longer were significant, even though many of the 

exposures lasted for 30 minutes or less. Furthermore, the experimental designs used during many of the 

behavioral response studies were unlike Navy activities in many important ways. These differences 

include tagging subject animals, following subjects for sometimes hours before the exposure, vectoring 

towards the subjects after animals began to avoid the sound source, and multiple close passes on focal 

groups. This makes the estimated behavioral impacts from Navy activities using the criteria derived from 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-148

3.7 Marine Mammals

these experiments difficult to interpret. It is not currently possible to distinguish between significant and 

insignificant behavioral reactions using the functions derived using this data, although it is assumed for 

the purposes of this analysis that more intense and longer duration activities would lead to a higher 

probability of animals having significant behavioral reactions. 

The estimated behavioral reactions from the Navy’s quantitative analysis are grouped into several 

categories based on the most powerful sonar source, the number of platforms, the duration, and 

geographic extent of each Navy activity attributed to the predicted impact. Activities that occur on Navy 

instrumented ranges or within Navy homeports require special consideration due to the repeated 

nature of activities in these areas. 

Low severity responses are within an animal’s range of typical (baseline) behaviors and are unlikely to 

disrupt an individual to a point where natural behavior patterns are significantly altered or abandoned. 

Although the derivation of the Navy’s behavioral criteria did not count low severity responses as 

significant behavioral responses, in practice, some reactions estimated using the behavioral criteria are 

likely to be low severity (Figure 3.7-12). 

Figure 3.7-12: Relative Likelihood of a Response Being Significant Based on the Duration and 

Severity of Behavioral Reactions

High severity responses are those with a higher potential for direct consequences to growth, 

survivability, or reproduction. Examples include prolonged separation of females and dependent 

offspring, panic, flight, stampede, or stranding. High severity reactions would always be considered 

significant, however these types of reactions are probably rare under most conditions and may still not 

lead to direct consequences on survivability. For example, a separation of a killer whale mother-calf pair 

was observed once during a behavioral response study to an active sonar source (Miller et al., 2014), but 

the animals were rejoined as soon as the ship had passed. Therefore, although this was a severe 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-149

3.7 Marine Mammals

response, it did not lead to a negative outcome. Five beaked whale strandings have also occurred 

associated with U.S. Navy active sonar use as discussed above (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.6 Stranding), but 

the confluence of factors that contributed to those strandings is now better understood, and the 

avoidance of those factors has resulted in no known marine mammal strandings associated with U.S. 

Navy sonar activities for over a decade. The Navy is unable to predict these high severity responses for 

any activities since the probability of occurrence is apparently very low, although the Navy 

acknowledges that severe reactions could occasionally occur. In fact, no significant behavioral responses 

such as panic, stranding or other severe reactions have been observed during monitoring of actual 

training or testing activities.

Many of the responses estimated using the Navy’s quantitative analysis are most likely to be moderate 

severity. Moderate severity responses would be considered significant if they were sustained for a 

duration long enough that it caused an animal to be outside of normal daily variations in feeding, 

reproduction, resting, migration/movement, or social cohesion. As mentioned previously, the behavioral 

response functions used within the Navy’s quantitative analysis were primarily derived from 

experiments using short-duration sound exposures lasting, in many cases, for less than 30 minutes. If 

animals exhibited moderate severity reactions for the duration of the exposure or longer, then it was 

conservatively assumed that the animal experienced a significant behavioral reaction. However the 

experiments did not include measurements of costs to animals beyond the immediately observed 

reactions, and no direct correlations exist between an observed behavioral response and a cost that may 

result in long-term consequences. Within the Navy’s quantitative analysis, many behavioral reactions 

are estimated from exposure to sonar that may exceed an animal’s behavioral threshold for only a single 

ping to several minutes. It is likely that many of the estimated behavioral reactions within the Navy’s 

quantitative analysis would not constitute significant behavioral reactions; however, the numbers of 

significant verses non-significant behavioral reactions are currently impossible to predict. 

Marine Mammal Density

A quantitative analysis of impacts on a species requires data on their abundance and distribution in the 

potentially impacted area. The most appropriate metric for this type of analysis is density, which is the 

number of animals present per unit area. To characterize the marine species density for large areas such 

as the Study Area, the Navy compiled data from several sources. The Navy developed a protocol to 

select the best available data sources based on species, area, and time (season). The resulting 

Geographic Information System database called the Navy Marine Species Density Database includes 

seasonal density values for every marine mammal species present within the Study Area (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2017c). 

The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model

The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model calculates sound energy propagation from sonar and other 

transducers during naval activities and the sound received by animat dosimeters. Animat dosimeters are 

virtual representations of marine mammals distributed in the area around the modeled naval activity 

that each records its individual sound “dose.” The model bases the distribution of animats over the 

Study Area on the density values in the Navy Marine Species Density Database and distributes animats 

in the water column proportional to the known time that species spend at varying depths. 

The model accounts for environmental variability of sound propagation in both distance and depth 

when computing the received sound level on the animats. The model conducts a statistical analysis 

based on multiple model runs to compute the estimated effects on animals. The number of animats that 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-150

3.7 Marine Mammals

exceed the thresholds for effects is tallied to provide an estimate of the number of marine mammals 

that could be affected. 

Assumptions in the Navy model intentionally err on the side of overestimation when there are 

unknowns. Naval activities are modeled as though they would occur regardless of proximity to marine 

mammals (i.e., mitigation is not modeled) and without any avoidance of the activity by the animal. The 

final step of the quantitative analysis of acoustic effects is to consider the implementation of mitigation 

and the possibility that marine mammals would avoid continued or repeated sound exposures.

The model estimates the impacts caused by individual training and testing exercises. During any 

individual modeled event, impacts to individual animats are considered over 24-hour periods. The 

animats do not represent actual animals, but rather allow for a statistical analysis of the number of 

instances that marine mammals may be exposed to sound levels resulting in an effect. Therefore, the 

model estimates the number of instances in which an effect threshold was exceeded over the course of 

a year, but does not estimate the number of individual marine mammals that may be impacted over a 

year (i.e., some marine mammals could be impacted several times, while others would not experience 

any impact). A detailed explanation of the Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model is provided in the technical 

report Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea 

Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b). 

Accounting for Mitigation

The Navy implements mitigation measures (described in Chapter 5, Mitigation) during activities that use 

sonar and other transducers, including the power-down or shut-down (i.e., power-off) of sonar when a 

marine mammal is observed in the mitigation zone. The mitigation zones encompass the estimated 

ranges to injury (including PTS) for a given sonar exposure. Therefore, the impact analysis quantifies the 

potential for mitigation to reduce the risk of PTS. Two factors are considered when quantifying the 

effectiveness of mitigation: (1) the extent to which the type of mitigation proposed for a soundproducing activity (e.g., active sonar) allows for observation of the mitigation zone prior to and during 

the activity; and (2) the sightability of each species that may be present in the mitigation zone, which is 

determined by species-specific characteristics and the viewing platform. A detailed explanation of the 

analysis is provided in the technical report Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive 

Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b). 

In the quantitative analysis, consideration of mitigation measures means that, for activities where 

mitigation is feasible, some model-estimated PTS is considered mitigated to the level of TTS. The impact 

analysis does not analyze the potential for mitigation to reduce TTS or behavioral effects, even though 

mitigation could also reduce the likelihood of these effects. In practice, mitigation also protects all 

unobserved (below the surface) animals in the vicinity, including other species, in addition to the 

observed animal. However, the analysis assumes that only animals sighted at the water surface would 

be protected by the applied mitigation. The analysis, therefore, does not capture the protection 

afforded to all marine species that may be near or within the mitigation zone.

The ability to observe the range to PTS was estimated for each training or testing event. The ability of 

Navy Lookouts to detect marine mammals in or approaching the mitigation zone is dependent on the 

animal’s presence at the surface and the characteristics of the animal that influence its sightability (such 

as group size or surface active behavior). The behaviors and characteristics of some species may make 

them easier to detect. For example, based on small boat surveys between 2000 and 2012 in the 

Hawaiian Islands, pantropical spotted dolphins and striped dolphins were frequently observed leaping 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-151

3.7 Marine Mammals

out of the water and Cuvier’s beaked whales (Baird et al., 2013b) and Blainville’s beaked whales (HDR, 

2012) were occasionally observed breaching. These behaviors are visible from a great distance and likely 

increase sighting distances and detections of these species. Environmental conditions under which the 

training or testing activity could take place are also considered such as the sea surface conditions, 

weather (e.g., fog or rain), and day versus night.

Marine Mammal Avoidance of Sonar and Other Transducers

Because a marine mammal is assumed to initiate avoidance behavior after an initial startle reaction 

when exposed to relatively high received levels of sound, a marine mammal could reduce its cumulative 

sound energy exposure over a sonar event with multiple pings (i.e., sound exposures). This would 

reduce risk of both PTS and TTS, although the quantitative analysis conservatively only considers the 

potential to reduce instances of PTS by accounting for marine mammals swimming away to avoid 

repeated high-level sound exposures. All reductions in PTS impacts from likely avoidance behaviors are 

instead considered TTS impacts.

3.7.3.1.2.2 Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers

The following section provides range to effects for sonar and other active acoustic sources to specific 

criteria determined using the Navy Acoustic Effects Model. Marine mammals within these ranges would 

be predicted to receive the associated effect. Range to effects is important information in not only 

predicting acoustic impacts, but also in verifying the accuracy of model results against real-world 

situations and determining adequate mitigation ranges to avoid higher level effects, especially 

physiological effects to marine mammals. 

The ranges to the PTS threshold for an exposure of 30 seconds are shown in Table 3.7-4 relative to the 

marine mammal’s functional hearing group. This period (30 seconds) was chosen based on examining 

the maximum amount of time a marine mammal would realistically be exposed to levels that could 

cause the onset of PTS based on platform (e.g., ship) speed and a nominal animal swim speed of 

approximately 1.5 meters per second. The ranges provided in the table include the average range to 

PTS, as well as the range from the minimum to the maximum distance at which PTS is possible for each 

hearing group. For a SQS-53C (i.e., bin MF1) sonar transmitting for 30 seconds at 3 kHz and a source 

level of 235 dB re 1 μPa2

-s at 1 m, the average range to PTS for the most sensitive species (the highfrequency cetaceans) extends from the source to a range of 192 m. PTS ranges for all other functional 

hearing groups, besides high-frequency cetaceans, are much shorter. Since any hull-mounted sonar, 

such as the SQS-53, engaged in anti-submarine warfare training would be moving at between 10–15 

knots and nominally pinging every 50 seconds, the vessel will have traveled a minimum distance of 

approximately 257 m during the time between those pings (note: 10 knots is the speed used in the Navy 

Acoustic Effects Model). As a result, there is little overlap of PTS footprints from successive pings, 

indicating that in most cases, an animal predicted to receive PTS would do so from a single exposure 

(i.e., ping). For all other bins (besides MF1), PTS ranges are short enough that marine mammals (with a 

nominal swim speed of approximately 1.5 meters per second) should be able to avoid higher sound 

levels capable of causing onset PTS within this 30-second period. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-152

3.7 Marine Mammals

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

Functional 

Hearing Group

Approximate PTS (30 seconds) Ranges (meters)1

Sonar Bin LF5 

(Low Frequency 

Sources <180 dB 

Source Level)

Sonar Bin MF1 

(e.g., SQS-53

ASW Hull 

Mounted Sonar)

Sonar Bin MF4 

(e.g., AQS-22 

ASW Dipping 

Sonar)

Sonar Bin MF5 

(e.g., SSQ-62

ASW Sonobuoy)

Sonar Bin HF4 

(e.g., SQS-20 

Mine Hunting 

Sonar)

Low-frequency 

Cetaceans

0

(0—0)

66

(65—80)

15

(15—18)

0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

Mid-frequency 

Cetaceans

0

(0—0)

16

(16—16)

3

(3—3)

0

(0—0)

1

(0—2)

High-frequency 

Cetaceans

0

(0—0)

192

(170—270)

31

(30—40)

9

(8—13)

34

(20—85)

Phocid Seals 0

(0—0)

46

(45—55)

11

(11—13)

0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

Sirenia 0

(0—0)

16

(16—16) NA NA 0(0—0) 1 PTS ranges extend from the sonar or other active acoustic sound source to the indicated distance. The average range to PTS is

provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to PTS in parenthesis.

ASW: anti-submarine warfare; HF: high frequency; LF: low frequency; MF: mid-frequency; PTS: permanent threshold shift; NA: 

Not applicable because there is no overlap between species and sound source

For all other functional hearing groups (low-frequency cetaceans, mid-frequency cetaceans, phocid 

seals, and sirenia), 30-second average PTS zones are substantially shorter. A scenario could occur where 

an animal does not leave the vicinity of a ship or travels a course parallel to the ship, however, the close 

distances required make PTS exposure unlikely. For a Navy vessel moving at a nominal 10 knots, it is 

unlikely a marine mammal could maintain the speed to parallel the ship and receive adequate energy 

over successive pings to suffer PTS. 

The tables below illustrate the range to TTS for 1, 30, 60, and 120 seconds from five representative 

sonar systems (see Table 3.7-5 through Table 3.7-9). Due to the lower acoustic thresholds for TTS versus 

PTS, ranges to TTS are longer. Therefore, successive pings can be expected to add together, further 

increasing the range to onset-TTS. 

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

Range of Environments Within the Study Area

Functional Hearing Group

Approximate TTS Ranges (meters)1

Sonar Bin LF5 (Low Frequency Sources <180 dB Source Level)

1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

Low-frequency Cetaceans 4

(0—5)

4

(0—5)

4

(0—5)

4

(0—5)

Mid-frequency Cetaceans 222

(200—310)

222

(200—310)

331

(280—525)

424

(340—800)

High-frequency Cetaceans 0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

Phocid Seals 0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

Sirenia 0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

0

(0—0) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in which 

animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to TTS is provided as 

well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parenthesis. 

TTS: temporary threshold shift
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-153

3.7 Marine Mammals

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

Range of Environments Within the Study Area

Functional 

Hearing Group

Approximate TTS Ranges (meters)1

Sonar Bin MF1 (e.g., SQS-53 ASW Hull Mounted Sonar)

1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

Low-frequency 

Cetaceans

1111

(650—2775)

1111

(650—2775)

1655

(800—3775)

2160

(900—6525)

Mid-frequency 

Cetaceans

222

(200—310)

222

(200—310)

331

(280—525)

424

(340—800)

High-frequency 

Cetaceans

3001

(1275—8275)

3001

(1275—8275)

4803

(1525—13525)

6016

(1525—16775)

Phocid Seals 784

(575—1275)

784

(575—1275)

1211

(850—3025)

1505

(1025—3775)

Sirenia 223

(200—310)

223

(200—310)

331

(270—525)

423

(330—800) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in 

which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to 

TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parenthesis. 

ASW: anti-submarine warfare; MF: mid-frequency; TTS: temporary threshold shift

Note: Ranges for 1-sec and 30-sec periods are identical for Bin MF1 because this system nominally pings every 50 

seconds, therefore these periods encompass only a single ping. 

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

Range of Environments Within the Study Area

Functional 

Hearing Group

Approximate TTS Ranges (meters)1

Sonar Bin MF4 (e.g., AQS-22 ASW Dipping Sonar)

1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

Low-frequency 

Cetaceans

89

(85—120)

175

(160—280)

262

(220—575)

429

(330—875)

Mid-frequency 

Cetaceans

22

(22—25)

36

(35—45)

51

(45—60)

72

(70—95)

High-frequency 

Cetaceans

270

(220—575)

546

(410—1025)

729

(525—1525)

1107

(600—2275)

Phocid Seals 67

(65—90)

119

(110—180)

171

(150—260)

296

(240—700) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in 

which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to 

TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parenthesis. 

ASW: anti-submarine warfare; MF: mid-frequency; TTS: temporary threshold shift
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-154

3.7 Marine Mammals

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

Range of Environments Within the Study Area

Functional 

Hearing Group

Approximate TTS Ranges (meters)1

Sonar Bin MF5 (e.g., SSQ-62 ASW Sonobuoy)

1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

Low-frequency 

Cetaceans

11

(0—14)

11

(0—14)

16

(0—20)

23

(0—25)

Mid-frequency 

Cetaceans

5

(0—10)

5

(0—10)

12

(0—15)

17

(0—22)

High-frequency 

Cetaceans

122

(110—320)

122

(110—320)

187

(150—525)

286

(210—750)

Phocid Seals 9

(8—13)

9

(8—13)

15

(14—18)

22

(21—25) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in 

which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to 

TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parenthesis.

ASW: anti-submarine warfare; MF: mid-frequency; TTS: temporary threshold shift

Table 3.7-9: Ranges to Temporary Threshold Shift for Sonar BinHF4 over a Representative 

Range of Environments Within the Study Area

Functional 

Hearing Group

Approximate TTS Ranges (meters)1

Sonar Bin HF4 (e.g., SQS-20 Mine Hunting Sonar) 

1 second 30 seconds 60 seconds 120 seconds

Low-frequency 

Cetaceans

1

(0—3)

3

(0—5)

5

(0—7)

7

(0—12)

Mid-frequency 

Cetaceans

10

(7—17)

19

(11—35)

27

(17—60)

39

(22—100)

High-frequency 

Cetaceans

242

(100—975)

395

(170—1775)

524

(230—2775)

655

(300—4275)

Phocid Seals 2

(0—5)

5

(0—8)

8

(5—13)

12

(8—20)

Sirenia 0

(0—2)

1

(0—3)

1

(0—5)

2

(0—8) 1 Ranges to TTS represent the model predictions in different areas and seasons within the Study Area. The zone in 

which animals are expected to suffer TTS extend from onset-PTS to the distance indicated. The average range to 

TTS is provided as well as the range from the estimated minimum to the maximum range to TTS in parenthesis. 

HF: high frequency; TTS: temporary threshold shift

The range to received sound levels in 6-dB steps from five representative sonar bins and the percentage 

of animals that may exhibit a significant behavioral response under each behavioral response function 

(or step function in the case of the harbor porpoise) are shown in Table 3.7-7 through Table 3.7-14, 

respectively. See Section 3.7.3.1.2.1 (Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and Other 

Transducers) for details on the derivation and use of the behavioral response functions, thresholds, and 

the cutoff distances. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-155

3.7 Marine Mammals

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

Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area 

Received 

Level (dB re 

1 μPa)

Mean Range (m) with 

minimum to maximum 

values in parentheses

Probability of Behavioral Response

Odontocetes Mysticetes Pinnipeds Beaked 

Whales

Harbor 

Porpoises

196 0 (0—0) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

190 0 (0—0) 100% 98% 99% 100% 100%

184 0 (0—0) 99% 88% 98% 100% 100%

178 1 (0—1) 97% 59% 92% 100% 100%

172 2 (1—2) 91% 30% 76% 99% 100%

166 4 (1—6) 78% 20% 48% 97% 100%

160 10 (1—13) 58% 18% 27% 93% 100%

154 21 (1—25) 40% 17% 18% 83% 100%

148 46 (1—60) 29% 16% 16% 66% 100%

142 104 (1—140) 25% 13% 15% 45% 100%

136 242 (120—430) 23% 9% 15% 28% 100%

130 573 (320—1,275) 20% 5% 15% 18% 100%

124 1,268 (550—2,775) 17% 2% 14% 14% 100%

118 2,733 (800—6,525) 12% 1% 13% 12% 0%

112 5,820 (1,025—18,275) 6% 0% 9% 11% 0%

106 13,341 (1,275—54,525) 3% 0% 5% 11% 0%

100 31,026 (2,025—100,000*) 1% 0% 2% 8% 0%

* Indicates maximum range of acoustic model, a distance of approximately 100 kilometers from the sound source.

Note: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance cutoff range for a 

particular hearing group. Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are included in the estimated impacts. Cutoff ranges in this table are for activities with high source levels and/or multiple platforms (see Table 3.7-3 for behavioral cutoff distances).

dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; m: meters
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-156

3.7 Marine Mammals

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

a Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area 

Received 

Level (dB re 

1 μPa)

Mean Range (m) with 

minimum to maximum 

values in parentheses

Probability of Behavioral Response

Odontocetes Mysticetes Pinnipeds Beaked 

Whales

Harbor 

Porpoises

196 109 (100—150) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

190 257 (220—370) 100% 98% 99% 100% 100%

184 573 (400—1,000) 99% 88% 98% 100% 100%

178 1,235 (725—3,525) 97% 59% 92% 100% 100%

172 3,007 (875—9,775) 91% 30% 76% 99% 100%

166 6,511 (925—19,525) 78% 20% 48% 97% 100%

160 11,644 (975—36,275) 58% 18% 27% 93% 100%

154 18,012 (975—60,775) 40% 17% 18% 83% 100%

148 26,037 (1,000—77,525) 29% 16% 16% 66% 100%

142 33,377 (1,000—100,000*) 25% 13% 15% 45% 100%

136 41,099 (1,025—100,000*) 23% 9% 15% 28% 100%

130 46,618 (3,275—100,000*) 20% 5% 15% 18% 100%

124 50,173 (3,525—100,000*) 17% 2% 14% 14% 100%

118 52,982 (3,775—100,000*) 12% 1% 13% 12% 0%

112 56,337 (4,275—100,000*) 6% 0% 9% 11% 0%

106 60,505 (4,275—100,000*) 3% 0% 5% 11% 0%

100 62,833 (4,525—100,000*) 1% 0% 2% 8% 0%

* Indicates maximum range of acoustic model, a distance of approximately 100 kilometers from the sound source.

Note: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance cutoff range for a 

particular hearing group. Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are included in the estimated impacts. Cutoff ranges in this table are for activities with high source levels and/or multiple platforms (see Table 3.7-3 for behavioral cutoff distances).

dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; m: meters
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-157

3.7 Marine Mammals

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

a Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area 

Received 

Level (dB re 

1 μPa)

Mean Range (m) with 

minimum to maximum 

values in parentheses

Probability of Behavioral Response

Odontocetes Mysticetes Pinnipeds Beaked 

Whales

Harbor 

Porpoises

196 8 (1—10) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

190 17 (1—21) 100% 98% 99% 100% 100%

184 35 (1—40) 99% 88% 98% 100% 100%

178 71 (1—95) 97% 59% 92% 100% 100%

172 156 (110—410) 91% 30% 76% 99% 100%

166 431 (280—1,275) 78% 20% 48% 97% 100%

160 948 (490—3,525) 58% 18% 27% 93% 100%

154 1,937 (750—10,025) 40% 17% 18% 83% 100%

148 3,725 (1,025—20,525) 29% 16% 16% 66% 100%

142 7,084 (1,525—38,525) 25% 13% 15% 45% 100%

136 11,325 (1,775—56,275) 23% 9% 15% 28% 100%

130 16,884 (1,775—74,275) 20% 5% 15% 18% 100%

124 24,033 (2,275—80,775) 17% 2% 14% 14% 100%

118 31,950 (2,275—100,000*) 12% 1% 13% 12% 0%

112 37,663 (2,525—100,000*) 6% 0% 9% 11% 0%

106 41,436 (2,775—100,000*) 3% 0% 5% 11% 0%

100 44,352 (2,775—100,000*) 1% 0% 2% 8% 0%

* Indicates maximum range of acoustic model, a distance of approximately 100 kilometers from the sound source.

Note: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance cutoff range for a 

particular hearing group. Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are included in the estimated impacts. Cutoff ranges in this table are for activities with high source levels and/or multiple platforms (see Table 3.7-3 for behavioral cutoff distances).

dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; m: meters
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-158

3.7 Marine Mammals

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

a Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area 

Received 

Level (dB re 

1 μPa)

Mean Range (m) with 

minimum to maximum 

values in parentheses

Probability of Behavioral Response

Odontocetes Mysticetes Pinnipeds Beaked 

Whales

Harbor 

Porpoises

196 0 (0—0) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

190 2 (1—3) 100% 98% 99% 100% 100%

184 4 (1—9) 99% 88% 98% 100% 100%

178 14 (1—18) 97% 59% 92% 100% 100%

172 29 (1—35) 91% 30% 76% 99% 100%

166 61 (1—80) 78% 20% 48% 97% 100%

160 141 (1—400) 58% 18% 27% 93% 100%

154 346 (1—1,000) 40% 17% 18% 83% 100%

148 762 (420—2,525) 29% 16% 16% 66% 100%

142 1,561 (675—5,525) 25% 13% 15% 45% 100%

136 2,947 (1,025—10,775) 23% 9% 15% 28% 100%

130 5,035 (1,025—17,275) 20% 5% 15% 18% 100%

124 7,409 (1,275—22,525) 17% 2% 14% 14% 100%

118 10,340 (1,525—29,525) 12% 1% 13% 12% 0%

112 13,229 (1,525—38,025) 6% 0% 9% 11% 0%

106 16,487 (1,525—46,025) 3% 0% 5% 11% 0%

100 20,510 (1,775—60,525) 1% 0% 2% 8% 0%

Note: Cells are shaded if the mean range value for the specified received level exceeds the distance cutoff range for a 

particular hearing group. Any impacts within the cutoff range for a criteria group are included in the estimated impacts. Cutoff ranges in this table are for activities with high source levels and/or multiple platforms (see Table 3.7-3 for behavioral cutoff distances).

dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; m: meters
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-159

3.7 Marine Mammals

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

Representative Range of Environments Within the Study Area

Received 

Level (dB re 

1 μPa)

Mean Range (m) with 

minimum to maximum 

values in parentheses

Probability of Behavioral Response

Odontocetes Mysticetes Pinnipeds Beaked 

Whales

Harbor 

Porpoises

196 3 (1—6) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

190 8 (1—14) 100% 98% 99% 100% 100%

184 18 (1—35) 99% 88% 98% 100% 100%

178 37 (1—100) 97% 59% 92% 100% 100%

172 78 (1—300) 91% 30% 76% 99% 100%

166 167 (1—725) 78% 20% 48% 97% 100%

160 322 (25—1,525) 58% 18% 27% 93% 100%

154 555 (45—3,775) 40% 17% 18% 83% 100%

148 867 (70—6,775) 29% 16% 16% 66% 100%

142 1,233 (150—12,775) 25% 13% 15% 45% 100%

136 1,695 (260—20,025) 23% 9% 15% 28% 100%

130 2,210 (470—29,275) 20% 5% 15% 18% 100%

124 2,792 (650—40,775) 17% 2% 14% 14% 100%

118 3,421 (950—49,775) 12% 1% 13% 12% 0%

112 4,109 (1,025—49,775) 6% 0% 9% 11% 0%

106 4,798 (1,275—49,775) 3% 0% 5% 11% 0%

100 5,540 (1,275—49,775) 1% 0% 2% 8% 0%

dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; m: meters

3.7.3.1.2.3 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under the Action Alternatives

Sonar and other transducers emit sound waves into the water to detect objects, safely navigate, and 

communicate. Use of sonar and other transducers would typically be transient and temporary. General 

categories and characteristics of sonar systems and the number of hours these sonars would be 

operated during training under Alternative 1 and 2 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic 

Stressors). Activities using sonars and other transducers would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 

(Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). The 

major differences between the Action Alternatives for the purposes of analyzing impacts to marine 

mammals are:

• Under Alternative 1, for training, the number of major training exercises and Civilian Port 

Defense activities would fluctuate annually. In addition, Alternative 1 accounts for the portion of 

Unit Level Surface Ship ASW that is met during participation in other ASW exercises or through 

the use of synthetic trainers for very basic levels of training. Training activities using sonar and 

other transducers could occur throughout the Study Area, although use would generally occur 

within Navy range complexes, on Navy testing ranges, or around inshore locations identified in 

Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives). Use of sonars associated with AntiSubmarine Warfare would be greatest in the Jacksonville and Virginia Capes Range Complexes.

• Under Alternative 1, for testing, the number of testing activities would fluctuate annually. 

Testing activities using sonar and other transducers could occur throughout the Study Area, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-160

3.7 Marine Mammals

although use would generally occur within Navy range complexes, on Navy testing ranges, or 

around inshore locations identified in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives). 

• Under Alternative 2, for training, the maximum number of major training exercises could occur 

every year, an additional major training exercise would be conducted in the Gulf of Mexico

Range Complex annually, and only the number of Civilian Port Defense activities would fluctuate 

annually. In addition, all unit level surface ship ASW training requirements would be completed 

through individual events conducted at sea, rather than through leveraging other ASW training 

exercises or the use of synthetic trainers. Training activities using sonar and other transducers 

could occur throughout the Study Area, although use would generally occur within Navy range 

complexes, on Navy testing ranges, or around inshore locations identified in Chapter 2 

(Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives). Use of sonars associated with Anti-Submarine 

Warfare would be greatest in the Jacksonville and Virginia Capes Range Complexes.

• Under Alternative 2, for testing, the maximum number of nearly all testing activities would 

occur every year. This would result in an increase of sonar use compared to Alternative 1. 

Testing activities using sonar and other transducers could occur throughout the Study Area, 

although use would generally occur within Navy range complexes, on Navy testing ranges, or 

around inshore locations identified in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives). 

Major training exercises (Composite Training Unit Exercise, Fleet Exercise/Sustainment Exercise) are 

multi-day exercises that transition across large areas and involve multiple anti-submarine warfare 

assets. These exercises take place in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, or Gulf of 

Mexico (Alternative 2 only) Range Complexes. It is important to note that while major training exercises 

focus on anti-submarine warfare, there are significant periods when active anti-submarine warfare 

sonars are not in use. Nevertheless, behavioral reactions are assumed more likely to be significant than 

during other anti-submarine warfare activities due to the duration (i.e., multiple days) and scale (i.e., 

multiple sonar platforms) of the major training exercises. Although major training exercises tend to 

progress to different locations as the event unfolds, some animals could be exposed multiple times over 

the course of a few days.

Anti-submarine warfare activities also include unit-level training and coordinated/integrated training, 

and anti-submarine warfare sonar systems would be active when conducting surface ship and 

submarine sonar maintenance. Submarine and surface ship sonar maintenance activities involve the use 

of a single system in a limited manner; therefore, significant reactions to maintenance are less likely 

than with most other anti-submarine warfare activities. Furthermore, sonar maintenance activities 

typically occur either pierside or within entrances to harbors where higher levels of anthropogenic 

activity, including elevated noise levels, already exist. Unit level training activities typically involve the 

use of a single vessel or aircraft and last for only a few hours over a small area of ocean. These unit-level 

training and maintenance activities are limited in scope and duration; therefore, significant behavioral 

reactions are less likely than with other anti-submarine warfare activities with greater intensity and 

duration. Unit level training activities are more likely to occur close to homeports and in the same 

general locations each time, so resident animals could be more frequently exposed to these types of 

activities. Coordinated/integrated exercises involve multiple assets and can last for several days 

transiting across large areas of a range complex. Repeated exposures to some individual marine 

mammals are likely during coordinated/integrated exercises. However, due to the shorter duration and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-161

3.7 Marine Mammals

smaller footprint compared to major training exercises, impacts from these activities are less likely to be 

significant with the possible exception of resident animals near homeports or Navy instrumented ranges 

that may incur some repeated exposures.

Anti-submarine warfare testing activities are typically similar to unit level training. Vessel evaluation 

testing activities also use the same anti-submarine warfare sonars on ships and submarines. Testing 

activities that use anti-submarine warfare sonars typically occur in water deeper than approximately 200 

m and therefore out of most nearshore habitats where productivity is typically higher (i.e., more food) 

and many marine mammals have higher abundances. Therefore, significant reactions to anti-submarine 

warfare and vessel evaluation testing activities are less likely than with larger anti-submarine warfare 

training activities discussed above in Section 3.7.3.1.2.3 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Under the Action Alternatives). Anti-submarine warfare and vessel evaluation testing activities are more 

likely to occur close to homeports and testing facilities and in the same general locations each time, so 

resident animals could be more frequently exposed to these types of activities. These testing activities 

are limited in scope and duration; therefore, many of the impacts estimated by the quantitative analysis 

are unlikely to rise to the level of a significant behavioral response. 

Mine warfare training activities typically involve a ship, helicopter, or unmanned vehicle using a minehunting sonar to locate mines. Most mine warfare sonar systems have a lower source level, higherfrequency, and narrower, often downward facing beam pattern as compared to most anti-submarine 

warfare sonars. Significant reactions in marine mammals have not been reported due to exposure to 

mine warfare sonars. While individual animals could show short term and minor responses to mine 

warfare sonar training activities, these reactions are very unlikely to lead to any costs or long-term 

consequences for individuals or populations.

Mine warfare testing activities typically involve a ship, helicopter, or unmanned vehicle testing a minehunting sonar system. Unmanned underwater vehicle testing also employs many of the same sonar 

systems as mine warfare testing and usually involves only a single sonar platform (i.e., unmanned 

underwater vehicle). Most of the sonar systems and other transducers used during these testing 

activities typically have a lower source level, higher-frequency, and narrower, often downward facing 

beam pattern as compared to most anti-submarine warfare sonars. Significant reactions in marine 

mammals have not been reported due to exposure to these types of systems sonars. Animals are most 

likely to show short-term and minor to moderate responses to these testing activities; therefore, many 

of the impacts estimated by the quantitative analysis are unlikely to rise to the level of a significant 

behavioral response.

Navigation and object detection activities typically employ ship and submarine based sonar systems and 

other transducers to navigate and avoid underwater objects. Significant reactions in marine mammals 

have not been reported due to exposure to most of the sonars and other transducers typically used in 

these activities. Some hull-mounted anti-submarine warfare sonars (e.g., Bin MF1) have a mode to look 

for objects in the water such as mines, but this mode uses different source characteristics as compared 

to the anti-submarine warfare mode. Significant behavioral reactions have not been observed in relation 

to hull-mounted sonars using object-detection mode, however significant reactions may be more likely 

than for all other sonar systems and transducers used within these activities due to the additional 

presence of a moving vessel and higher source levels. Individual animals could show short term and 

minor to moderate responses to these systems, although these reactions are very unlikely to lead to any 

costs or long-term consequences for individuals or populations.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-162

3.7 Marine Mammals

Acoustic and Oceanographic Science and Research uses a number of different sonar systems and other 

transducers to sense and measure the parameters of the ocean (e.g., temperature) and conduct 

research on the ways sound travels underwater. Many of these systems generate only moderate sound 

levels and are stationary. Significant reactions in marine mammals have not been reported due to 

exposure to the sonars and other transducers typically used in these activities. Animals are most likely to 

show short-term and minor to moderate responses to these testing activities; therefore, many of the 

impacts estimated by the quantitative analysis are unlikely to rise to the level of a significant behavioral 

response.

Other testing activities include testing of individual sonar systems and other transducers for 

performance and acoustic signature. Most sources used during these exercises have moderate source 

levels between 160 and 200 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m and are used for a limited duration, up to a few hours in 

most cases. Significant reactions in marine mammals have not been reported due to exposure to the 

sonars and other transducers typically used in these activities. Animals are most likely to show shortterm and minor to moderate responses to these testing activities; therefore, many of the impacts 

estimated by the quantitative analysis are unlikely to rise to the level of a significant behavioral 

response. Most anti-submarine warfare activities occur in water deeper than approximately 200 m and 

therefore out of most nearshore habitats where productivity is typically higher (i.e., more food) and 

many marine mammals have higher abundances. 

Presentation of Estimated Impacts from the Quantitative Analysis

The results of the analysis of potential impacts to marine mammals from sonars and other transducers 

(Section 3.7.3.1.2.1, Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and Other Transducers) are discussed 

below. The numbers of potential impacts estimated for individual species and stocks of marine 

mammals from exposure to sonar for training and testing activities under each action alternative are 

shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles Under the Proposed 

Action) and presented below in figures for each species of marine mammal with any estimated effects. 

The Activity Categories that are most likely to cause impacts and the most likely region in which impacts 

could occur are represented in the pie charts of each figure. There is a potential for impacts to occur 

anywhere within the Study Area where sound from sonar and the species overlap, although only 

Regions or Activity Categories where 0.5 percent of the impacts or greater are estimated to occur are 

graphically represented on the pie charts below. All (i.e., grand total) estimated impacts for that species 

are included in the bar plots, regardless of region or category. 

Note that the numbers of activities planned under Alternative 1 can vary from year-to-year. Results are 

presented for a “minimum sonar use year” and a “maximum sonar use year” to provide a range of 

potential impacts that could occur. Planned activities for Alternative 2 are more consistent from year to 

year so only maximum annual impacts are presented. The number of hours these sonars would be 

operated under each alternative are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors).

It is important to note when examining the results of the quantitative analysis that the behavioral 

response functions used to predict the numbers of reactions in this analysis are largely derived from 

several studies (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). These behavioral response studies 

represent a significant portion of the best available science used for deriving these criteria; however, 

many of the factors inherent in these studies that potentially increased the likelihood and severity of 

observed responses (e.g., close approaches by multiple vessels, tagging animals, and vectoring towards 

animals that have already begun avoiding the sound source) would not occur during Navy activities. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-163

3.7 Marine Mammals

Because the Navy purposely avoids approaching marine mammals, many of the behavioral responses 

estimated by the quantitative analysis are unlikely to occur or unlikely to rise to the severity observed 

during many of the behavioral response studies. 

Although the statutory definition of Level B harassment for military readiness activities requires that the 

natural behavior patterns of a marine mammal be significantly altered or abandoned, the current state 

of science for determining those thresholds is somewhat unsettled. Therefore, in its analysis of impacts 

associated with acoustic sources, the Navy is adopting a conservative approach that overestimates the 

number of takes by Level B harassment. Many of the responses estimated using the Navy’s quantitative 

analysis are most likely to be moderate severity. Moderate severity responses would be considered 

significant if they were sustained for a duration long enough that it caused an animal to be outside of 

normal daily variations in feeding, reproduction, resting, migration/movement, or social cohesion. As 

discussed in section 3.7.3.1.2.1, the behavioral response functions used within the Navy’s quantitative 

analysis were primarily derived from experiments using short-duration sound exposures lasting, in many 

cases, for less than 30 minutes. If animals exhibited moderate severity reactions for the duration of the 

exposure or longer, then it was conservatively assumed that the animal experienced a significant 

behavioral reaction. However the experiments did not include measurements of costs to animals 

beyond the immediately observed reactions, and no direct correlations exist between an observed 

behavioral response and a cost that may result in long-term consequences. Within the Navy’s 

quantitative analysis, many behavioral reactions are estimated from exposure to sound that may exceed 

an animal’s behavioral threshold for only a single exposure to several minutes. It is likely that many of 

the estimated behavioral reactions within the Navy’s quantitative analysis would not constitute 

significant behavioral reactions; however, the numbers of significant verses non-significant behavioral 

reactions are currently impossible to predict. Consequently, there is a high likelihood that significant 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to acoustic sources are not significantly altering or abandoning 

their natural behavior patterns. As such, the overall impact of acoustic sources from military readiness 

activities on marine mammal species and stocks is negligible, i.e. cannot be reasonably expected to, and 

is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.

Mysticetes

Mysticetes may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. Most low- (less than 1 kHz) and mid- (1–10 kHz) frequency sonars and 

other transducers produce sounds that are likely to be within the hearing range of mysticetes (Section 

3.7.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization). Some high-frequency sonars (greater than 10 kHz) also produce 

sounds that should be audible to mysticetes, although only smaller species of mysticetes such as minke 

whales are likely to be able to hear higher frequencies, presumably up to 30 kHz. Therefore, some highfrequency sonars and other transducers with frequency ranges between 10 and 30 kHz may also be 

audible to some mysticetes. If a sound is within an animal’s hearing range then behavioral reactions, 

physiological stress, masking and hearing loss are potential impacts that must be analyzed. If a marine 

mammal cannot hear a sound, then behavioral reactions, physiological stress, masking, or hearing loss is 

not likely to occur. Impact ranges for mysticetes are discussed under low-frequency cetaceans in Section 

3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers).

A few behavioral reactions in mysticetes resulting from exposure to sonar could take place at distances 

of up to 20 km. Behavioral reactions, however, are much more likely within a few kilometers of the 

sound source. As discussed above in Assessing the Severity of Behavioral Responses from Sonar and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-164

3.7 Marine Mammals

other Transducers, the quantitative analysis very likely overestimated the numbers of behavioral 

reactions due to the underlying nature of the data used to derive the behavioral response functions. 

Research shows that if mysticetes do respond they may react in a number of ways, depending on the 

characteristics of the sound source, their experience with the sound source, and whether they are 

migrating or on seasonal grounds (i.e., breeding or feeding). Behavioral reactions may include alerting; 

breaking off feeding dives and surfacing; or diving or swimming away. Overall, mysticetes have been 

observed to be more reactive to acoustic disturbance when a noise sources is located directly on their 

migration route. Mysticetes disturbed while migrating could pause their migration or route around the 

disturbance. Animals disturbed while engaged in other activities such as feeding or reproductive 

behaviors may be more likely to ignore or tolerate the disturbance and continue their natural behavior 

patterns. Therefore, most behavioral reactions from mysticetes are likely to be short-term and low to 

moderate severity. 

Some mysticetes may avoid larger activities such as a major training exercise as it moves through an 

area, although these activities generally do not use the same training locations day-after-day during 

multi-day activities. Therefore, displaced animals could return quickly after the major training exercise 

finishes. It is unlikely that most mysticetes would encounter a major training exercise more than once 

per year. In the ocean, the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources is transient and is unlikely to 

expose the same population of animals repeatedly over a short period except around homeports and 

fixed instrumented ranges. However, a few behavioral reactions per year by a single individual are 

unlikely to produce long-term consequences for that individual.

Behavioral research indicates that mysticetes most likely avoid sound sources at levels that would cause 

any hearing loss (i.e., TTS) (Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). Therefore, it is likely that the 

quantitative analysis overestimates PTS and TTS in marine mammals because it does not account for 

animals avoiding sound sources at closer ranges. Mysticetes that do experience PTS or TTS from sonar 

sounds may have reduced ability to detect biologically important sounds around the frequency band of 

the sonar until their hearing recovers. Recovery from hearing loss begins almost immediately after the 

noise exposure ceases and can take a few minutes to a few days to fully recover, depending on the 

magnitude of the initial threshold shift. TTS would be recoverable and PTS would leave some residual 

hearing loss. Most TTS, if it does actually occur, would be more likely to be minor to moderate (i.e., less 

than 20 dB of TTS directly after the exposure) and would recover within a matter of minutes to hours. 

Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all hearing frequencies equally, and typically manifest 

themselves at the exposure frequency or within an octave above the exposure frequency. During the 

period that a mysticete had hearing loss, social calls from conspecifics could be more difficult to detect 

or interpret if they fell in the octave band of the sonar frequency. Killer whales are a primary predator of 

mysticetes. Some hearing loss could make killer whale calls more difficult to detect at farther ranges 

until hearing recovers. It is unclear how or if mysticetes use sound for finding prey or feeding; therefore, 

it is unknown whether hearing loss would affect a mysticete’s ability to locate prey or rate of feeding. A 

single or even a few minor TTS (less than 20 dB of TTS) to an individual mysticete per year are unlikely to 

have any long-term consequences for that individual.

Research and observations of masking in marine mammals are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.4

(Masking). Most anti-submarine warfare sonars and countermeasures use mid-frequency ranges and a 

few use low frequency ranges. Most of these sonar signals are limited in the temporal, frequency, and 

spatial domains. The duration of most individual sounds is short, lasting up to a few seconds each. Some 

systems operate with higher duty cycles or nearly continuously, but typically use lower power. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-165

3.7 Marine Mammals

Nevertheless, masking may be more prevalent at closer ranges to these high-duty cycle and continuous 

active sonar systems. Most anti-submarine warfare activities are geographically dispersed and last for 

only a few hours, often with intermittent sonar use even within this period. Most anti-submarine 

warfare sonars also have a narrow frequency band (typically less than one-third octave). These factors 

reduce the likelihood of sources causing significant masking in mysticetes. High-frequency (greater than 

10 kHz) sonars fall outside of the best hearing and vocalization ranges of mysticetes (see Section 

3.7.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization). Furthermore, high frequencies (above 10 kHz) attenuate more 

rapidly in the water due to absorption than do lower frequency signals, thus producing only a small zone 

of potential masking. High-frequency sonars are typically used for mine hunting, navigation, and object 

detection (avoidance). Masking in mysticetes due to exposure to high-frequency sonar is unlikely. 

Potential costs to mysticetes from masking are similar to those discussed above for mild to moderate 

levels of TTS, with the primary difference being that the effects of masking are only present when the 

sound source (i.e., sonar) is actively pinging and the effect is over the moment the sound has ceased. By 

contrast, hearing loss lasts beyond the exposure for a period. Nevertheless, mysticetes that do 

experience some masking for a short period from low- or mid-frequency sonar may have their ability to 

communicate with conspecifics reduced, especially at further ranges. However, larger mysticetes (e.g., 

blue whale, fin whale, sei whale) communicate at frequencies below those of mid-frequency sonar and 

even most low frequency sonars. Mysticetes that communicate at higher frequencies (e.g., minke 

whale) may be affected by some short-term and intermittent masking. Sounds from mid-frequency 

sonar could mask killer whale vocalizations making them more difficult to detect, especially at further 

ranges. It is unknown whether a masking would affect a mysticete’s ability to feed since it is unclear how 

or if mysticetes use sound for finding prey or feeding. A single or even a few short periods of masking, if 

it were to occur, to an individual mysticete per year are unlikely to have any long-term consequences for 

that individual.

Many activities such as submarine under ice certification and most mine hunting exercises use only highfrequency sonars that are not within mysticetes’ hearing range; therefore, there were no predicted 

effects. Section 3.7.2.1.4 (Hearing and Vocalization) discusses low-frequency cetacean (i.e., mysticetes) 

hearing abilities. 

North Atlantic Right Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

As discussed in Section 5.4.3 (Mitigation Areas off the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United States), in 

the Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area from 15 November through 15 April, the Navy 

will not conduct low-frequency, mid-frequency, or high-frequency active sonar, except for sources that 

will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable during helicopter dipping, navigation training, and 

object detection exercises. Within the Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area, the Navy 

would conduct navigation training and object detection exercises when surface ships or submarines 

enter or exit ports located in Kings Bay, Georgia, and Mayport, Florida. In addition, training or testing 

activities involving helicopter dipping sonar would occur off Mayport, Florida. The Southeast North 

Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area encompasses a portion of the North Atlantic right whale migration 

and calving areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) and a portion of the southeastern North Atlantic 

right whale critical habitat. Outside of the Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area, active 

sonar would be used for anti-submarine warfare activities and for pierside sonar testing at Kings Bay, 

Georgia. As stated in 3.7.2.2.2 (North Atlantic Right Whale [Eubalaena glacialis]), the best available 

density data for the Study Area shows that the areas of highest density are off the southeastern United 

States in areas that coincide with the Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area. Therefore, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-166

3.7 Marine Mammals

the majority of active sonar use would occur outside of the areas of highest seasonal North Atlantic right 

whale density off the southeastern United States. 

As discussed in detail in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), before transiting through or conducting any training or 

testing activities within the southeast North Atlantic right whale mitigation area during calving season 

(November 15 to April 15), the Navy will initiate communication with the Fleet Area Control and 

Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville to obtain Early Warning System North Atlantic right whale sightings 

data. When transiting within the mitigation area, all Navy vessels will exercise extreme caution and 

proceed at the slowest speed that is consistent with safety, mission, training, and operations. This high 

level of awareness will further enhance the Navy’s mitigation effectiveness for reducing potential 

acoustic impacts to North Atlantic right whales. 

Hull-mounted sonar would not be used during training or testing activities in the northeast North 

Atlantic right whale mitigation area. See Chapter 5 (Mitigation) for a description of the area. A limited 

number of torpedo activities (non-explosive) would be conducted in August and September, after many 

North Atlantic right whales have migrated south out of the area. These torpedo areas were established 

during previous ESA consultations with NMFS. Under all alternatives, torpedo training or testing 

activities would not occur within 2.7 NM of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

North Atlantic right whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-13 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-167

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-13: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-168

3.7 Marine Mammals

As previously described in 3.7.2.2.2 (North Atlantic Right Whale [Eubalaena glacialis]) a migratory 

corridor, a calving area, a mating area, and feeding areas for North Atlantic right whales have been 

identified by LaBrecque et al., (2015b) that seasonally overlap with Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, 

Jacksonville, and the Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Navy mitigation areas in the 

Northeast, Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes prescribe additional mitigation measures 

for North Atlantic right whales (Section 5.4.1, North Atlantic Right Whale Southeast Mitigation Area, 

through Section 5.4.3, North Atlantic Right Whale Mid-Atlantic Mitigation Area) that would further 

reduce any potential impacts to this species in these areas. Navy training activities that use sonar could 

occur in these range complexes year-round. Impacts to feeding and mating behaviors could occur due to 

sonar training activities on the feeding or mating areas identified by LaBrecque et al., (2015b). Impacts 

in this area are primarily due to navigation and object avoidance activities taking place at Groton, 

Connecticut, although impacts to feeding and mating behaviors from these activities are likely to be 

short-term and minor to moderate within the feeding and mating areas identified by LaBrecque et al., 

(2015b). North Atlantic right whale migration behaviors could be impacted within the Virginia Capes, 

Navy Cherry Point, or Jacksonville Range Complex, which overlap the identified migration corridor. 

Mysticetes disturbed during migration have been observed pausing or rerouting around an activity using 

sonar only if it is directly on their path; therefore, impacts to migration behavior are likely to be shortterm and moderate if they were to occur within the migratory corridor identified by LaBrecque et al., 

(2015b). Impacts to North Atlantic right whales could occur within designated calving areas that overlap 

the Jacksonville and Navy Cherry Point Range Complexes. Impact in this area are primarily due to 

navigation and object avoidance activities taking place at Mayport, Florida and Port Canaveral, Florida, 

although impacts to calving behaviors from these activities are likely to be short-term and minor to 

moderate within the calving area identified by LaBrecque et al., (2015b). 

As discussed above and in Section 3.7.2.2.2.1, the Study Area does overlap North Atlantic right whale 

critical habitat and some limited use of sonar and other transducers does take place within these areas; 

however, the sound from sonar and other transducers would not affect the biological or physical 

features that are essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, 

conservation and recovery of the northern right whale population.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of North Atlantic right whales incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from the NMFS as required by section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed North Atlantic right whales and would have no effect on North 

Atlantic right whale critical habitats. The Navy will consult with the NMFS 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

North Atlantic right whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-14 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-169

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-14: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-170

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS and behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

As previously described in Sections 3.7.2.2.2 (North Atlantic Right Whale [Eubalaena glacialis]) a 

migratory corridor, a calving area, a mating area, and feeding areas for North Atlantic right whales have 

been identified by LaBrecque et al., (2015b) that seasonally overlap with Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry 

Point, Jacksonville, and the Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Navy testing activities 

that use sonar could occur in these range complexes year-round. Impacts to feeding and mating 

behaviors could occur due to sonar testing activities on the feeding or mating areas identified by 

LaBrecque et al., (2015b). Impacts to feeding and mating behaviors from these activities are likely to be 

short-term and minor to moderate within the feeding and mating areas identified by LaBrecque et al., 

(2015b). North Atlantic right whale migration behaviors could be impacted within the Virginia Capes, 

Navy Cherry Point, or Jacksonville Range Complex, which overlap the identified migration corridor. 

Mysticetes disturbed during migration have been observed pausing or rerouting around an activity using 

sonar only if it is directly on their path; therefore, impacts to migration behavior are likely to be shortterm and moderate if they were to occur within the migratory corridor identified by LaBrecque et al., 

(2015b). Impacts to North Atlantic right whales could occur within designated calving areas that overlap 

the Jacksonville and Navy Cherry Point Range Complexes. Impacts to calving behaviors from these 

activities are likely to be short-term and minor to moderate within the calving area identified by 

LaBrecque et al., (2015b). 

As discussed above and in Section 3.7.2.2.2.1, the Study Area does overlap North Atlantic right whale

critical habitat and some limited use of sonar and other transducers does take place within these areas; 

however, the sound from sonar and other transducers would not affect the biological or physical 

features that are essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, 

conservation and recovery of the northern right whale population.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of North Atlantic right whales incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed North Atlantic right whales and will have no effect on North Atlantic 

right whale critical habitat. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 

in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

North Atlantic right whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-15 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-171

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-15: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-172

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of North Atlantic right whales incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed North Atlantic right whales and will have no effect on North Atlantic 

right whale critical habitat. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 

in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

North Atlantic right whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-16 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-173

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-16: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-174

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of North Atlantic right whales incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed North Atlantic right whales and will have no effect on North Atlantic 

right whale critical habitat. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 

in that regard. 

Blue Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Blue whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See below Figure 3.7-17 or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-175

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

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

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-176

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of blue whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed blue whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS 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

Blue whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See below Figure 3.7-18 or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-177

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

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

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-178

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of blue whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed blue whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Blue whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See below Figure 3.7-19 or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-179

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

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

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-180

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of blue whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed blue whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Blue whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-20 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-181

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

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

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-182

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of blue whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed blue whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Bryde’s Whales

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Bryde’s whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See below Figure 3.7-21 or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-183

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-21: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-184

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for Bryde’s whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a) overlaps 

the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex within the Study Area. Navy training activities that use sonar and 

other transducers could occur year-round within the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex Range Complex; 

however, the quantitative analysis indicates no impacts to Bryde’s whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Bryde’s 

whales residing in this area could be exposed to sound from sonar; however, impacts to natural 

behaviors or abandonment of the area would not be anticipated within Bryde’s whale small and resident 

population area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a). 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Bryde’s whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-22 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-185

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-22: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-186

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for Bryde’s whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a) overlaps 

the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex within the Study Area. Navy testing activities that use sonar and 

other transducers could occur year-round within the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex; however, the 

quantitative analysis indicates no impacts to Bryde’s whales within these areas. Impacts to natural 

behaviors or abandonment of the area would not be anticipated within Bryde’s whale small and resident 

population area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a). 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Bryde’s whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-23 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-187

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-23: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-188

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Bryde’s whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under Alternative 

2. See Figure 3.7-24 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species are discussed 

in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-189

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action). 

Figure 3.7-24: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-190

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Fin Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Fin whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-25 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-191

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

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

During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-192

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

The feeding area for fin whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast Range 

Complexes within the Study Area. Navy training activities that use sonar and other transducers could 

occur year-round within the Northeast Range Complexes. Impacts to fin whale feeding behavior could 

occur on the fin whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). As discussed above, fin whale 

reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate; therefore, significant impacts to fin 

whale feeding behaviors are unlikely to occur within the feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. 

(2015b) from training with sonar and other transducers.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed fin whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS 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

Fin whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-26 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-193

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

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

During Testing Under Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-194

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS could reduce an animal’s ability to detect biologically important 

sounds; however, as discussed above, hearing loss beyond a minor TTS is unlikely. Nevertheless, PTS 

could have minor long-term consequences for individuals if it were to occur. This minor consequence for 

an individual is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks. Considering these 

factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), 

long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

The feeding area for fin whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast Range 

Complexes within the Study Area. Navy testing activities that use sonar and other transducers could 

occur year-round within the Northeast Range Complexes. Impacts to fin whale feeding behavior could 

occur on the fin whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). As discussed above, fin whale 

reactions to sonar reactions are most likely short-term and mild to moderate to sonar; therefore, 

significant impacts to fin whale feeding behaviors are unlikely to occur within the feeding area identified 

by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) from testing with sonar and other transducers.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed fin whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Fin whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-27 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-195

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

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

During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-196

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed fin whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Fin whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-28 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-197

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-28: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Testing Under Alternative 2.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-198

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed fin whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Humpback Whales 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Humpback whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-29 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-199

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-29: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-200

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

The feeding area for humpback whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast 

Range Complexes within the Study Area. Navy training activities that use sonar and other transducers 

could occur year-round within the Northeast Range Complexes. Impacts to humpback feeding behavior 

could occur on the humpback whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). As discussed 

above, humpback whale reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate; therefore, 

significant impacts to humpback whale feeding behaviors are unlikely to occur within the feeding area 

identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) from training with sonar and other transducers.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Humpback whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-30 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-201

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-30: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-202

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

The feeding area for humpback whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast 

Range Complexes within the Study Area. Navy testing activities that use sonar and other transducers 

could occur year-round within the Northeast Range Complexes. Impacts to humpback feeding behavior 

could occur on the humpback whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). As discussed 

above, humpback whale reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate; therefore, 

significant impacts to humpback whale feeding behaviors are unlikely to occur within the feeding area 

identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) from testing with sonar and other transducers.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Humpback whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-31 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-203

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-31: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-204

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Humpback whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-32 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-205

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-32: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-206

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Minke Whales

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Minke whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under Alternative 

1. See Figure 3.7-33 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species are discussed 

in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-207

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-33: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-208

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

The feeding area for minke whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast Range 

Complexes within the Study Area. Navy training activities that use sonar and other transducers could 

occur year-round within the Northeast Range Complexes. Impacts to minke feeding behavior could 

occur on the minke whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). As discussed above, minke 

whale reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and moderate; therefore, only few impacts to minke 

whale feeding behaviors are likely to occur within the feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b)

from training with sonar and other transducers.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Minke Whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-34 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-209

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-34: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-210

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS could reduce an animal’s ability to detect biologically important 

sounds. Nevertheless, PTS could have minor long-term consequences for individuals if it were to occur. 

This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species 

or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described 

in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

The feeding area for minke whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast Range 

Complexes within the Study Area. Navy testing activities that use sonar and other transducers could 

occur year-round within the Northeast Range Complexes. Impacts to minke feeding behavior could 

occur on the minke whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). As discussed above, minke 

whale reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and moderate; therefore, only few impacts to minke 

whale feeding behaviors are likely to occur within the feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b)

from testing with sonar and other transducers. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Minke whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-35 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-211

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-35: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-212

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential PTS is estimated under Alternative 2, unlike under Alternative 1. Otherwise, potential impacts 

under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in sonar use 

associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1. PTS could reduce an animal’s 

ability to detect biologically important sounds. Nevertheless, PTS could have minor long-term 

consequences for individuals if it were to occur. This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to 

have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Minke Whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-36 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-213

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-36: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-214

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Sei Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed) 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Sei whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-37 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-215

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-37: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-216

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

The feeding area for sei whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast Range 

Complexes within the Study Area. Navy training activities that use sonar and other transducers could 

occur year-round within the Northeast Range Complexes. Impacts to sei feeding behavior could occur on 

the sei whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). As discussed above, sei whale 

reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate; therefore, significant impacts to sei 

whale feeding behaviors are unlikely to occur within the feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. 

(2015b) from training with sonar and other transducers.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed sei whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS 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

Sei whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-38 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-217

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-38: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-218

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

The feeding area for sei whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast Range 

Complexes within the Study Area. Navy testing activities that use sonar and other transducers could 

occur year-round within the Northeast Range Complexes. Impacts to sei feeding behavior could occur on 

the sei whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). As discussed above, sei whale 

reactions to sonar are most likely short-term and mild to moderate; therefore, significant impacts to sei 

whale feeding behaviors are unlikely to occur within the feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. 

(2015b) from testing with sonar and other transducers.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed sei whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Sei whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-39 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-219

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-39: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-220

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed sei whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Sei whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-40 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-221

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-40: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-222

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed sei whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Odontocetes

Odontocetes may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. Low- (less than 1 kHz), mid- (1–10 kHz), high-frequency (10–100 kHz), and 

very high-frequency (100–200 kHz) sonars produce sounds that are likely to be within the audible range 

of odontocetes (see Section 3.7.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization). If a sound is within an animal’s hearing 

range then behavioral reactions, physiological stress, masking and hearing loss are potential impacts 

that must be analyzed. If a marine mammal cannot hear a sound, then behavioral reactions, 

physiological stress, masking, or hearing loss could not occur. Impact ranges for odontocetes are 

discussed under mid-frequency cetaceans in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).

A few behavioral reactions in odontocetes (except beaked whales and harbor porpoise) resulting from 

exposure to sonar could take place at distances of up to 20 km. Beaked whales and harbor porpoise 

have demonstrated a high level of sensitivity to human made noise and activity; therefore, the 

quantitative analysis assumes that some harbor porpoises and some beaked whales could experience 

significant behavioral reactions at distance of up to 40 km and 50 km from the sound source, 

respectively. Behavioral reactions, however, are much more likely within a few kilometers of the sound 

source for most species of odontocetes such as delphinids and sperm whales. On the other hand, harbor 

porpoises and beaked whales have generally demonstrated a high level of sensitivity to human made 

sound and disturbance. Even for harbor porpoise and beaked whales, as discussed above in Assessing 

the Severity of Behavioral Responses from Sonar, the quantitative analysis very likely overestimated the 

numbers of behavioral reactions due to the underlying nature of the data used to derive the behavioral 

response functions. 

Research shows that if odontocetes do respond they may react in a number of ways, depending on the 

characteristics of the sound source and their experience with the sound source. Behavioral reactions 

may include alerting; breaking off feeding dives and surfacing; or diving or swimming away. Animals 

disturbed while engaged in other activities such as feeding or reproductive behaviors may be more likely 

to ignore or tolerate the disturbance and continue their natural behavior patterns. Therefore, most 

behavioral reactions from odontocetes are likely to be short-term and low to moderate severity. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-223

3.7 Marine Mammals

Large odontocetes such as killer whales and pilot whales have been the subject of behavioral response 

studies (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). Based on these studies, a number of reactions 

could occur such as a short-term cessation of natural behavior such as feeding, avoidance of the sound 

source, or even attraction towards the sound source as seen in pilot whales. Due to the factors involved 

in Navy training and testing activities versus the conditions under which pilot whales and killer whales 

were exposed during behavioral response studies, large odontocetes are unlikely to have more than 

short-term and moderate severity reactions to sounds from sonar or other human disturbance, and 

typically only at ranges within a few kilometers. Most estimated impacts are due to anti-submarine 

warfare activities, which could vary in duration and intensity. Anti-submarine warfare unit-level 

activities and maintenance typically last for a matter of a few hours and involves a limited amount of 

sonar use so significant responses would be less likely than with longer and more intense exercises 

(more sonar systems and vessel). Coordinated/integrated anti-submarine warfare exercises involve 

multiple sonar systems and can last for a period of days, making significant response more likely. A 

single or few short-lived TTS or behavioral reactions per year are unlikely to have any significant costs or 

long-term consequences for individuals.

Small odontocetes have been the subject of behavioral response studies and observations in the field 

(see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). Based on these studies, small odontocetes (dolphins) 

appear to be less sensitive to sound and human disturbance than other cetacean species. If reactions did 

occur, they could consist of a short-term behavior response such as cessation of feeding, avoidance of 

the sound source, or even attraction towards the sound source. Small odontocetes are unlikely to have 

more than short-term and moderate severity reactions to sounds from sonar or other human 

disturbance, and typically only at ranges within a few kilometers. Most estimated impacts are due to 

anti-submarine warfare activities, which could vary in duration and intensity. Anti-submarine warfare 

unit-level training and testing activities and maintenance typically last for a matter of a few hours and 

involve a limited amount of sonar use so significant responses would be less likely than with longer and 

more intense exercises (more sonar systems and vessels). Coordinated/integrated anti-submarine 

warfare exercises involve multiple sonar systems and can last for a period of days, making significant 

response more likely. Navigation and object avoidance (detection) activities normally involve a single 

ship or submarine using a limited amount of sonar, therefore significant reactions are unlikely. A single 

or few short-lived TTS or behavioral reactions per year are unlikely to have any significant costs or longterm consequences for individuals.

Some odontocetes may avoid larger activities such as a major training exercise as it moves through an 

area, although these activities typically do not use the same training locations day-after-day during 

multi-day activities. Sensitive species of odontocetes, such as beaked whales, may avoid the area for the 

duration of the event. Section 3.7.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions) discusses these species’ observed 

reactions to sonar and other active acoustic sources. Displaced animals would likely return after the 

sonar activity subsides within an area, as seen in Blainville’s beaked whales in the Bahamas (Tyack et al., 

2011) and Hawaii (Henderson et al., 2015; Henderson et al., 2016; Manzano-Roth et al., 2016). This 

would allow the animal to recover from any energy expenditure or missed resources, reducing the 

likelihood of long-term consequences for the individual. It is unlikely that most animals would encounter 

a major training exercise more than once per year. Outside of Navy instrumented ranges and 

homeports, the use of sonar and other active acoustic sources is transient and is unlikely to expose the 

same population of animals repeatedly over a short period. However, a few behavioral reactions per 

year from a single individual are unlikely to produce long-term consequences for that individual.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-224

3.7 Marine Mammals

Behavioral research indicates that most odontocetes avoid sound sources at levels that would cause any 

temporary hearing loss (i.e., TTS) (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). TTS and even PTS is 

more likely for high-frequency cetaceans, such as harbor porpoises and Kogia whales, because hearing 

loss thresholds for these animals are lower than for all other marine mammals. These species, especially 

harbor porpoises, have demonstrated a high level of sensitivity to human made sound and activities and 

may avoid at further distances. This could avoid or minimize hearing loss for these species as well, 

especially as compared to the estimates from the quantitative analysis. Therefore, it is likely that the 

quantitative analysis overestimates TTS and PTS in marine mammals because it does not account for 

animals avoiding sound sources at closer ranges. Recovery from hearing loss begins almost immediately 

after the noise exposure ceases and can take a few minutes to a few days to fully recover, depending on 

the magnitude of the initial threshold shift. TTS would be recoverable and PTS would leave some 

residual hearing loss. Most TTS, if it does actually occur, would be more likely to be minor to moderate 

(i.e., less than 20 dB of TTS directly after the exposure) and would recover within a matter of minutes to 

hours. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all hearing frequencies equally, and typically manifest 

themselves at the exposure frequency or within an octave above the exposure frequency. During the 

period that an odontocete had hearing loss, social calls from conspecifics could be more difficult to 

detect or interpret. Killer whales are a primary predator of odontocetes. Some hearing loss could make 

killer whale calls more difficult to detect at further ranges until hearing recovers. Odontocetes use 

echolocation clicks to find and capture prey. These echolocation clicks and vocalizations are at 

frequencies above a few tens of kHz for delphinids, beaked whales, and sperm whales, and above 100 

kHz for harbor porpoise and Kogia whales. Therefore, echolocation associated with feeding and 

navigation in odontocetes is unlikely to be affected by threshold shift at lower frequencies and should 

not have any significant effect on an odontocete’s ability to locate prey or navigate, even in the shortterm. Therefore, a single or even a few minor TTS (less than 20 dB of TTS) to an individual odontocete 

per year are unlikely to have any long-term consequences for that individual. Minor PTS in an individual 

could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals. 

Research and observations of masking in marine mammals are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.4

(Masking). Many anti-submarine warfare sonars and countermeasures use low- and mid-frequency 

sonar. Most low- and mid-frequency sonar signals (i.e., sounds) are limited in their temporal, frequency, 

and spatial domains. The duration of most individual sounds is short, lasting up to a few seconds each. 

Some systems operate with higher duty cycles or nearly continuously, but typically use lower power. 

Nevertheless, masking may be more prevalent at closer ranges to these high-duty cycle and continuous 

active sonar systems. Most anti-submarine warfare activities are geographically dispersed and last for 

only a few hours, often with intermittent sonar use even within this period. Most anti-submarine 

warfare sonars also have a narrow frequency band (typically much less than one-third octave). These 

factors reduce the likelihood of sources causing significant masking in odontocetes due to exposure to 

sonar used during anti-submarine warfare activities. Odontocetes may experience some limited masking 

at closer ranges from high-frequency sonars and other transducers; however, the frequency band of the 

sonar is narrow, limiting the likelihood of masking. High frequency sonars are typically used for mine 

hunting, navigation, and object detection (avoidance). Potential costs to odontocetes from masking are 

similar to those discussed above for mild to moderate levels of TTS, with the primary difference being 

that the effects of masking are only present when the sound source (i.e., sonar) is actively pinging and 

the effect is over the moment the sound has ceased. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-225

3.7 Marine Mammals

Nevertheless, odontocetes that do experience some masking from sonar or other transducers may have 

their ability to communicate with conspecifics reduced, especially at further ranges. Sounds from midfrequency sonar could mask killer whale vocalizations making them more difficult to detect, especially at 

further ranges. As discussed above for TTS, odontocetes use echolocation to find prey and navigate. The 

echolocation clicks of odontocetes are above the frequencies of most sonar systems, especially those 

used during anti-submarine warfare. Therefore, echolocation associated with feeding and navigation in 

odontocetes is unlikely to be masked by sounds from sonars or other transducers. A single or even a few 

short periods of masking, if it were to occur, to an individual odontocete per year are unlikely to have 

any long-term consequences for that individual.

Sperm Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed) 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Sperm whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-41 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed sperm whales. The Navy will consult with 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

3.7-226

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-41: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-227

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Sperm whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-42 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-42: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-228

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed sperm whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Sperm whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-43 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-229

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-43: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-230

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed sperm whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Sperm whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-44 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-231

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-44: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-232

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed sperm whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Kogia Whales

Kogia whales include two species that are often difficult to distinguish from one another: dwarf sperm 

whales and pygmy sperm whales.

The quantitative analysis predicts a few PTS per year; however, as discussed above for odontocetes 

overall, Kogia whales would likely avoid sound levels that could cause higher levels of TTS (greater than 

20 dB) or PTS. TTS and PTS thresholds for high-frequency cetaceans, including Kogia whales, are lower 

than for all other marine mammals, which leads to a higher number of estimated impacts relative to the 

number of animals exposed to the sound as compared to other hearing groups (e.g., mid-frequency 

cetaceans). Kogia whales that do experience hearing loss (i.e., TTS or PTS) from sonar sounds may have 

reduced ability to detect biologically important sounds until their hearing recovers. TTS would be 

recoverable and PTS would leave some residual hearing loss. During the period that a Kogia whale had 

hearing loss, biologically important sounds could be more difficult to detect or interpret. Odontocetes, 

including Kogia whales, use echolocation clicks to find and capture prey. These echolocation clicks are at 

frequencies above a few tens of kHz in Kogia whales; therefore, a threshold shift at lower frequencies is 

unlikely to affect echolocation and should not affect a Kogia whale’s ability to locate prey or rate of 

feeding. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Kogia whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and a few PTS per 

year under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-45 and Figure 3.7-46 below or Appendix E for tabular results. 

Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-233

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-45: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-234

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-46: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-235

3.7 Marine Mammals

A few minor to moderate TTS or short-term behavioral reactions in an individual animal within a given 

year are unlikely to have any long-term consequences for that individual. PTS could reduce an animal’s 

ability to detect biologically important sounds; however, as discussed above, a small threshold shift due 

to exposure to sonar is unlikely to affect the hearing range that Kogia whales rely upon. Nevertheless, 

PTS could have minor long-term consequences for individuals. This minor consequence for an individual 

is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks. Considering these factors and 

the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term 

consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Kogia whales (dwarf sperm whales and 

pygmy sperm whales) incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as 

required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Kogia whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and a few PTS per 

year under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-47 and Figure 3.7-48 below or Appendix E for tabular results. 

Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-236

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-47: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-237

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-48: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-238

3.7 Marine Mammals

A few minor to moderate TTS or short-term behavioral reactions in an individual animal within a given 

year are unlikely to have any long-term consequences for that individual. PTS could reduce an animal’s 

ability to detect biologically important sounds; however, as discussed above, a small threshold shift due 

to exposure to sonar is unlikely to affect the hearing range that Kogia whales rely upon. Nevertheless, 

PTS could have minor long-term consequences for individuals. This minor consequence for an individual 

is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks. Considering these factors and 

the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term 

consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Kogia whales (dwarf sperm whales and 

pygmy sperm whales) incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as 

required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Kogia whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and a few PTS per 

year under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-49 and Figure 3.7-50 below or Appendix E for tabular results. 

Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-239

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-49: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-240

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-50: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-241

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Kogia whales (dwarf sperm whales and 

pygmy sperm whales) incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as 

required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Kogia whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and a few PTS per 

year under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-51 and Figure 3.7-52 below or Appendix E for tabular results. 

Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-242

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-51: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-243

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-52: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-244

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Kogia whales (dwarf sperm whales and 

pygmy sperm whales) incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as 

required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Beaked Whales 

Beaked whales are a group of species which within the AFTT Study Area includes: Cuvier’s beaked 

whales, True’s beaked whales, Gervais’ beaked whales, Sowerby’s beaked whales, Blainville’s beaked 

whales, and Northern bottlenose whales.

As discussed above for odontocetes overall, the quantitative analysis overestimates hearing loss in 

marine mammals because behavioral response research has shown that most marine mammals are 

likely to avoid sound levels that could cause more than minor to moderate TTS (6–20 dB). Specifically for 

beaked whales, behavioral response research discussed below and in Section 3.7.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral 

Reactions) has demonstrated that beaked whales are sensitive to sound from sonars and usually avoid 

sound sources by 10 or more kilometers. These are well beyond the ranges to TTS for mid-frequency 

cetaceans such as beaked whales. Therefore, any TTS predicted by the quantitative analysis is unlikely to 

occur in beaked whales. 

Research and observations (3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions) show that if beaked whales are exposed 

to sonar or other active acoustic sources they may startle, break off feeding dives, and avoid the area of 

the sound source at levels ranging between 95 and 157 dB re 1 μPa (McCarthy et al., 2011). 

Furthermore, in research done at the Navy’s fixed tracking range in the Bahamas and Hawaii, animals 

leave the immediate area of the anti-submarine warfare training exercise but return within a few days 

after the event ends (Henderson et al., 2015; Henderson et al., 2016; Manzano-Roth et al., 2016; Tyack 

et al., 2011). Populations of beaked whales and other odontocetes on Navy fixed ranges that have been 

operating for decades appear to be stable. Significant behavioral reactions seem likely in most cases if 

beaked whales are exposed to anti-submarine sonar within a few tens of kilometers, especially for 

prolonged periods (a few hours or more) since this is one of the most sensitive marine mammal groups 

to human-made sound of any species or group studied to date. 

Based on the best available science, the Navy believes that beaked whales that exhibit a significant 

behavioral reaction due to sonar and other active acoustic training or testing activities would generally 

not have long-term consequences for individuals or populations. However, because of a lack of scientific 

consensus regarding the causal link between sonar and stranding events, NMFS has stated in a letter to 

the Navy dated October 2006 that it “cannot conclude with certainty the degree to which mitigation 

measures would eliminate or reduce the potential for serious injury or mortality.” The Navy does not 

anticipate that marine mammal strandings or mortality will result from the operation of sonar during 

Navy exercises within the Study Area. Additionally, through the MMPA process (which allows for 

adaptive management), NMFS and the Navy will determine the appropriate way to proceed in the event 

that a causal relationship were to be found between Navy activities and a future stranding. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Beaked whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-53 through Figure 3.7-58 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-245

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-53: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-246

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-54: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-247

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-55: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-248

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

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

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-249

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-57: Sowersby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-250

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-58: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-251

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of beaked whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Beaked whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-59 through Figure 3.7-64 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-252

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-59: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-253

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-60: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-254

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-61: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-255

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-62: Northern Bottlenose Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-256

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-63: Sowersby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-257

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-64: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-258

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of beaked whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Beaked whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-65 through Figure 3.7-70 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-259

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-65: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-260

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-66: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-261

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-67: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-262

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-68: Northern Bottlenose Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-263

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-69: Sowersby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-264

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-70: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-265

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of beaked whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Beaked whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-71 through Figure 3.7-76 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-266

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-71: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-267

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-72: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-268

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-73: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-269

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-74: Northern Bottlenose Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-270

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-75: Sowersby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-271

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-76: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-272

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Sonar and other Transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of beaked whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Atlantic spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-77 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-273

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-77: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-274

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic spotted dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Atlantic spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-78 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-275

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-78: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-276

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic spotted dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Atlantic spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-79 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-277

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-79: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-278

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Sonar and other Transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 2, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic spotted dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Atlantic spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-80 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-279

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-80: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-280

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic spotted dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphins 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Atlantic white-sided dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-81 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-281

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-81: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-282

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic white-sided dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Atlantic white-sided dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-82 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-283

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-82: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-284

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic white-sided dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Atlantic white-sided dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-83 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-285

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-83: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-286

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Sonar and other Transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic white-sided dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Atlantic white-sided dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-84 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-287

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-84: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-288

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic white-sided dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA in that regard. 

Bottlenose Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Bottlenose dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-85 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-289

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-85: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. 

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-290

3.7 Marine Mammals

consequences for that individual. PTS, if it were to occur, would leave some residual hearing loss after 

recovery from the initial threshold shift. Minor PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term 

consequences for individuals. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

There are 21 small and resident population areas for bottlenose dolphins identified by LaBrecque et al. 

(2015a, 2015b) which overlap, or are directly adjacent to, the AFTT Study Area. These identified areas 

are within bays and estuaries where the Navy does not typically train with sonar and other transducers. 

Bottlenose dolphins in the identified small and resident population areas identified by LaBrecque et al. 

(2015a, 2015b) would not typically be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers; therefore, 

impacts to natural behaviors or abandonment of the area would not be anticipated within the identified 

bottlenose dolphin small and resident population areas from training with explosives.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Bottlenose dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-86 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-291

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-86: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. 

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-292

3.7 Marine Mammals

consequences for that individual. PTS, if it were to occur, would leave some residual hearing loss after 

recovery from the initial threshold shift. Minor PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term 

consequences for individuals. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

There are 21 small and resident population areas for bottlenose dolphins identified by LaBrecque et al. 

(2015a, 2015b) which overlap, or are directly adjacent to, the AFTT Study Area. These identified areas 

are within bays and estuaries where the Navy does not typically test with sonar and other transducers. 

Bottlenose dolphins in the identified small and resident population areas identified by LaBrecque et al. 

(2015a, 2015b) would not typically be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers; therefore, 

impacts to natural behaviors or abandonment of the area would not be anticipated within the identified 

bottlenose dolphin small and resident population areas. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Bottlenose dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-87 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-293

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-87: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-294

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Bottlenose dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-88 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-295

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-88: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-296

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Clymene Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Clymene dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-89 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-297

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-89: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-298

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of clymene dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Clymene dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-90 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-299

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-90: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-300

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of clymene dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Clymene dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-91 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-301

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-91: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-302

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of clymene dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Clymene dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-92 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-303

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-92: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-304

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of clymene dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

False Killer Whales

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

False killer whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-93 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-305

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-93: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-306

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

False killer whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-94 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-307

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-94: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-308

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

False killer whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-95 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-309

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-95: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-310

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

False killer whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-96 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-311

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-96: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-312 

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Fraser’s Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Fraser’s dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-97 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-313

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-97: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-314

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Fraser’s dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-98 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-315

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-98: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-316

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Fraser’s dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-99 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-317

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-99: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-318

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Fraser’s dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-100 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-319

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-100: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-320

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Killer Whales

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Killer whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-101 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-321

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-101: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-322

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of killer whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Killer whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-102 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-323

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-102: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-324

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of killer whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Killer whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-103 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-325

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-103: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-326

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of killer whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Killer whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-104 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-327

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-104: Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. Footnote: No PTS is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-328

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of killer whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Melon-Headed Whales

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Melon-headed whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-105 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-329

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-105: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-330

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Melon-headed whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-106 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-331

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-106: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-332

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Melon-headed whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-107 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-333

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-107: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-334

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Melon-headed whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-108 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-335

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-108: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-336

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Pantropical Spotted Dolphins 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Pantropical spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-109 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-337

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-109: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this 

species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-338

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Pantropical spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-110 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-339

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-110: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this 

species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-340

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Pantropical spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-111 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-341

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-111: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this 

species.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-342

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Pantropical spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-112 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-343

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-112: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this 

species. 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-344

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to 

those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of 

the MMPA in that regard. 

Pilot Whales

Pilot whales include two species that are often difficult to distinguish from one another: long-finned 

pilot whales and short-finned pilot whales.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Pilot whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1 for both long-finned and short-finned pilot whales. See Figure 3.7-113 and Figure 3.7-114

below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-345

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-113: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-346

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-114: Short-finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-347

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of pilot whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Pilot whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1 for both long-finned and short-finned pilot whales. See Figure 3.7-115 and Figure 3.7-116

below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-348

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-115: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-349

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-116: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-350

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of pilot whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Pilot whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2 for both long-finned and short-finned pilot whales. See Figure 3.7-117 and Figure 3.7-118

below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-351

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-117: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-352

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-118: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-353

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of pilot whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Pilot whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2 for both long-finned and short-finned pilot whales. See Figure 3.7-119 and Figure 3.7-120

below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-354

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-119: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-355

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-120: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-356

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of pilot whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Pygmy Killer Whales 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Pygmy killer whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-121 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-357

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-121: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-358

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Pygmy killer whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-122 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-359

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-122: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-360

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Pygmy killer whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-123 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-361

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-123: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-362

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Pygmy killer whales may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-124 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-363

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-124: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-364

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Risso’s Dolphins 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Risso’s dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-125 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-365

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-125: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-366

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Risso’s dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-126 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-367

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-126: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-368

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Risso’s dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-127 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-369

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-127: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-370

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Risso’s dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-128 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-371

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-128: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-372

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Rough-Toothed Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Rough-toothed dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-129 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-373

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-129: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-374

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Rough-toothed dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-130 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-375

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-130: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-376

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Rough-toothed dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS 

under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-131 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-377

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-131: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-378

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Rough-toothed dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-132 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-379

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-132: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-380

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Short-Beaked Common Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Short-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used 

during training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions 

and TTS under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-133 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges 

for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-381

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-133: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this 

species. 

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-382

3.7 Marine Mammals

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental 

to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) 

of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Short-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used 

during testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions 

and TTS under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-134 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges 

for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-383

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-134: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this 

species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-384

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental 

to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) 

of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Short-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used 

during training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions 

and TTS under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-135 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges 

for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-385

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-135: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this 

species. 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-386

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental 

to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) 

of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Short-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used 

during testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions 

and TTS under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-136 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges 

for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-387

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-136: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and 

Other Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this 

species. 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-388

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental 

to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) 

of the MMPA in that regard. 

Spinner Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Spinner dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-137 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-389

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-137: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-390

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Spinner dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-138 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-391

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-138: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-392

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Spinner dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-139 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-393

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-139: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-394

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Spinner dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-140 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-395

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-140: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-396

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Striped Dolphins

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Striped dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-141 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-397

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-141: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-398

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Striped dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-142 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-399

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-142: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-400

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Striped dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-143 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-401

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-143: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-402

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Striped dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-144 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-403

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-144: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-404

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

White-Beaked Dolphin 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

White-beaked dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-145 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-405

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-145: White-Beaked Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-406

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of white-beaked dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

White-beaked dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-146 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-407

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-146: White-Beaked Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-408

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of white-beaked dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

White-beaked dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-147 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-409

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-147: White-Beaked Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-410

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of white-beaked dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

White-beaked dolphins may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-148 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-411

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-148: White-Beaked Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-412

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of white-beaked dolphins incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Harbor Porpoises

Harbor porpoise are most likely to respond to exposures to sonar and other transducers with behavioral 

reactions or minor to moderate TTS that would fully recover quickly (i.e., a few minutes to a few hours). 

The quantitative analysis predicts a few PTS per year; however, as discussed above, marine mammals 

would likely avoid sound levels that could cause higher levels of TTS (greater than 20 dB) or PTS. TTS and 

PTS thresholds for high-frequency cetaceans, including Harbor porpoise, are lower than for all other 

marine mammals, which leads to a higher number of estimated impacts relative to the number of 

animals exposed to the sound as compared to other hearing groups (e.g., mid-frequency cetaceans). 

Harbor porpoises are particularly sensitive to human-made noise and disturbance and will avoid sound 

levels between 120 and 140 dB re 1 μPa at distances up to 30 km for more intense activities (as 

discussed below). This means that the quantitative analysis greatly overestimates hearing loss in harbor 

porpoises because most animals would avoid sound levels that could cause TTS or PTS. Harbor porpoises 

that do experience hearing loss (i.e., TTS or PTS) from sonar sounds may have reduced ability to detect 

biologically important sounds until their hearing recovers. TTS would be recoverable and PTS would 

leave some residual hearing loss. During the period that a harbor porpoise had hearing loss, biologically 

important sounds could be more difficult to detect or interpret. Harbor porpoises use echolocation 

clicks, which are at frequencies above 100 kHz, to find and capture prey. Therefore, echolocation is 

unlikely to be affected by a threshold shifts at lower frequencies and should not affect a harbor 

porpoise’s ability to locate prey or rate of feeding. 

Research and observations (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions) of harbor porpoises show that 

this small species is very wary of human activity and will avoid anthropogenic sound sources in many 

situations at levels down to 120 dB re 1 μPa. This level was determined by observing harbor porpoise 

reactions to acoustic deterrent and harassment devices used to drive away animals from around fishing 

nets and aquaculture facilities. Avoidance distances typically were about 1 km or more to these lowlevel acoustic sources (i.e., transducers). It is unlikely that animals would react similarly if the sound 

source were at a distance of tens of kilometers based on observed responses to seismic noise extending 

at most to 30 km. Harbor porpoises may startle and leave the immediate area of the anti-submarine 

warfare training exercise but return within a few days after the cessation of the event. Significant 

behavioral reactions seem more likely than with most other odontocetes. Since these species are 

typically found in nearshore and inshore habitats, animals that are resident during all or part of the year 

near Navy ports or fixed ranges could receive multiple exposures over a short period and throughout the 

year. Animals that do exhibit a significant behavioral reaction would likely recover from any incurred 

costs, reducing the likelihood of long-term consequences for the individual or population.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Harbor porpoises may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and a few 

PTS per year under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-151 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-413

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-149: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-414

3.7 Marine Mammals

A few behavioral reactions in an individual animal within a given year are unlikely to have any long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS could reduce an animal’s ability to detect biologically important 

sounds; however, as discussed above, hearing loss beyond a minor TTS is unlikely and a small threshold 

shift due to exposure to sonar is unlikely to affect the hearing range that harbor porpoise rely upon if it 

did occur. Nevertheless, PTS could have minor long-term consequences for individuals if it were to 

occur. This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the 

species or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

A small and resident population area for harbor porpoises identified by (LaBrecque et al., 2015b)

overlaps a portion of the northeast corner of the Northeast Range Complexes. Navy training activities 

that use sonar and other transducers could occur year-round within the Northeast Range Complexes. 

Impacts to harbor porpoises could occur within the small and resident population area identified by 

(LaBrecque et al., 2015b). As discussed above, harbor porpoise reactions to sonar could be significant in 

some cases. Due to the limited overlap of the identified harbor porpoise area and the Northeast Range 

Complexes, only a subset of estimated behavioral reactions would occur within the identified harbor 

porpoise small and resident population area. It is unlikely that these behavioral reactions would have 

significant impacts on the natural behavior of harbor porpoises or cause abandonment of the harbor 

porpoise small and resident population area identified by (LaBrecque et al., 2015b). 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of harbor porpoises incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Harbor porpoises may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and a few 

PTS per year under Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-150 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-415

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-150: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-416

3.7 Marine Mammals

A few behavioral reactions in an individual animal within a given year are unlikely to have any long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS could reduce an animal’s ability to detect biologically important 

sounds; however, as discussed above, hearing loss beyond a minor TTS is unlikely and a small threshold 

shift due to exposure to sonar is unlikely to affect the hearing range that harbor porpoise rely upon if it 

did occur. Nevertheless, PTS could have minor long-term consequences for individuals if it were to 

occur. This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any long-term consequences for the 

species or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

A small and resident population area for harbor porpoises identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b)

overlaps a portion of the northeast corner of the Northeast Range Complexes. Navy testing activities 

that use sonar and other transducers could occur year-round within the Northeast Range Complexes. 

Impacts to harbor porpoises could occur within the small and resident population area identified by 

LaBrecque et al. (2015b). As discussed above, harbor porpoise reactions to sonar could be significant in 

some cases. Due to the limited overlap of the identified harbor porpoise area and the Northeast Range 

Complexes, only a subset of estimated behavioral reactions would occur within the identified harbor 

porpoise small and resident population area. It is unlikely that these behavioral reactions would have 

significant impacts on the natural behavior of harbor porpoises or cause abandonment of the harbor 

porpoise small and resident population area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of harbor porpoises incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Harbor porpoises may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and a few 

PTS per year under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-151 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-417

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-151: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-418

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of harbor porpoises incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Harbor porpoises may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and a few 

PTS per year under Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-152 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of harbor porpoises incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-419

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-152: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-420

3.7 Marine Mammals

Phocid Seals

Phocid seals in AFTT Study Area include harbor seals, gray seals, harp seals, and hooded seals. 

Phocid seals may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers associated with training 

activities throughout the year. Low- (less than 1 kHz), mid- (1–10 kHz), and high-frequency (10–100 kHz) 

sonars produce sounds that are likely to be within the audible range of phocid seals (see Section 

3.7.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization). If a sound is within an animal’s hearing range then behavioral 

reactions, physiological stress, masking and hearing loss are potential impacts that must be analyzed. If a 

marine mammal cannot hear a sound, then behavioral reactions, physiological stress, masking, or 

hearing loss could not occur. 

A few behavioral reactions in phocid seals resulting from exposure to sonar could take place at distances 

of up to 10 km. Behavioral reactions, however, are much more likely within a kilometer or less of the 

sound source (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). As discussed above in Assessing the 

Severity of Behavioral Responses from Sonar, the quantitative analysis very likely overestimated the 

numbers of behavioral reactions due to the underlying nature of the data used to derive the behavioral 

response functions. Almost all of the impacts estimated by the quantitative assessment are due to 

navigation and object avoidance (detection) activities in navigation lanes entering Groton, Connecticut. 

Navigation and object avoidance (detection) activities normally involve a single ship or submarine using 

a limited amount of sonar, therefore significant reaction are unlikely, especially in phocid seals. 

Research shows that pinnipeds in the water are generally tolerant of human made sound and activity 

(see 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). If seals are exposed to sonar or other active acoustic sources, 

they may react in various ways, depending on their experience with the sound source and what activity 

they are engaged in at the time of the acoustic exposure. Seals may not react at all until the sound 

source is approaching within a few hundred meters and then may alert, ignore the stimulus, change 

their behaviors, or avoid the immediate area by swimming away or diving. The use of sonar from 

navigation and object avoidance in Groton, Connecticut likely exposes the same sub-population of 

animals multiple times throughout the year. However, as discussed above phocid seals do not appear 

sensitive to sound in the water so few of the impacts estimated by the quantitative analysis are likely to 

be significant. Significant behavioral reactions would not be expected in most cases, and long-term 

consequences for individual seals from a single or several impacts per year are unlikely.

Behavioral research indicates that most phocid seals probably avoid sound sources at levels that could 

cause higher levels of TTS (greater than 20 dB of TTS) and PTS. Recovery from TTS begins almost 

immediately after the noise exposure ceases and can take a few minutes to a few days to fully recover, 

depending on the magnitude of the initial threshold shift. Most TTS, if it does actually occur, would be 

more likely to be minor to moderate (i.e., less than 20 dB of TTS directly after the exposure) and would 

recover within a matter of minutes to hours. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all hearing 

frequencies equally, and typically manifest themselves at the exposure frequency or within an octave 

above the exposure frequency. During the short period that a phocid seal had TTS, social calls from 

conspecifics could be more difficult to detect or interpret. Killer whales are a primary predator of phocid 

seals. Some TTS could make killer whale calls more difficult to detect at further ranges until hearing 

recovers. Phocid seals probably use sound and vibrations to find and capture prey underwater. 

Therefore, it could be more difficult for phocid seals with TTS to locate food for a short period before 

their hearing recovers. Because TTS would likely be minor to moderate (less than 20 dB of TTS), costs 

would be short-term and could be recovered. A single or even a few mild to moderate TTS per year are 

unlikely to have any long-term consequences for that individual.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-421

3.7 Marine Mammals

Research and observations of masking in marine mammals are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.4

(Masking). Many low- (less than 1 kHz), mid- (1–10 kHz), and high-frequency (10–100 kHz) sonars 

produce sounds that are likely to be within the hearing range of phocid seals. Many anti-submarine 

warfare (anti-submarine warfare) sonars and countermeasures use low- and mid-frequency ranges. 

Most low- and mid-frequency sonar signals (i.e., sounds) are limited in the temporal, frequency, and 

spatial domains. The duration of most individual sounds is short, lasting up to a few seconds each. Some 

systems operate with higher duty cycles or nearly continuously, but typically use lower power. 

Nevertheless, masking may be more prevalent at closer ranges to these high-duty cycle and continuous 

active sonar systems. Most anti-submarine warfare activities are geographically dispersed and last for 

only a few hours, often with intermittent sonar use even within this period. Most anti-submarine 

warfare sonars also have a narrow frequency band (typically less than one-third octave). These factors 

reduce the likelihood of sources causing significant masking in phocid seals due to exposure to sonar 

used during anti-submarine warfare activities. Phocid seals may experience some limited masking at 

closer ranges from high-frequency sonars and other transducers; however, the frequency band of the 

sonar is narrow, limiting the likelihood of masking. Sonars that employ high frequencies are typically 

used for mine hunting, navigation, and object detection (avoidance). Potential costs to phocid seals from 

masking are similar to those discussed above for mild to moderate levels of TTS, with the primary 

difference being that the effects of masking are only present when the sound source (i.e., sonar) is 

actively transmitting and the effect is over the moment the sound has ceased. Nevertheless, phocid 

seals that do experience some masking for a short period from sonar or other transducers may have 

their ability to communicate with conspecifics reduced, especially at further ranges. Sounds from midfrequency sonar could mask killer whale vocalizations making them more difficult to detect, especially at 

further ranges. Phocid seals probably use sound and vibrations to find and capture prey underwater. 

Therefore, it could be more difficult for phocid seals to locate food if masking is occurring. A single or 

even a few short periods of masking, if it were to occur, to an individual phocid per year are unlikely to 

have any long-term consequences for that individual.

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Phocid seals may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-153 through Figure 3.7-156 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-422

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-153: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-423

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-154: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-424

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-155: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training Under Alternative 1. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-425

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-156: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-426

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS could reduce an animal’s ability to detect biologically important sounds; however, as discussed 

above, hearing loss beyond a minor TTS is unlikely. Nevertheless, PTS could have minor long-term 

consequences for individuals if it were to occur. This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to 

have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks. 

It is likely that the same sub-population of seals that are resident during all or part of the year at Groton, 

Connecticut are exposed to navigation and object detection (avoidance) sonar and other transducers 

multiple times per year; however, phocid seals are likely to only have minor and short-term behavioral 

reactions to these types of activities. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would 

be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of phocid seals incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Phocid seals may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-157 through Figure 3.7-160 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-427

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-157: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Testing Under Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-428

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-158: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-429

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-159: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-430

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-160: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-431

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS could reduce an animal’s ability to detect biologically important sounds; however, as discussed 

above, hearing loss beyond a minor TTS is unlikely. Nevertheless, PTS could have minor long-term 

consequences for individuals if it were to occur. This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to 

have any long-term consequences for the species or stocks. Considering these factors and the mitigation 

measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for 

the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of phocid seals incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Phocid seals may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-161 through Figure 3.7-164 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-432

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-161: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-433

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-162: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-434

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-163: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Training Under Alternative 2.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-435

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-164: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-436

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of phocid seals incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Phocid seals may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-165 through Figure 3.7-168 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other 

Transducers).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of phocid seals incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-437

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-165: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Testing Under Alternative 2.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-438

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-166: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-439

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-167: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers Used 

During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-440

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-168: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other Transducers 

Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-441

3.7 Marine Mammals

Manatees (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

Manatees may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers associated with training activities 

throughout the year. Low- (less than 1 kHz), mid- (1–10 kHz), and high-frequency (10–100 kHz) sonars 

produce sounds that are likely to be within the audible range of manatees (see Section 3.7.2.1.4, 

Hearing and Vocalization). If a sound is within an animal’s hearing range then behavioral reactions, 

physiological stress, masking and hearing loss are potential impacts that must be analyzed. If a marine 

mammal cannot hear a sound, then behavioral reactions, physiological stress, masking, or hearing loss 

could not occur. 

It is assumed in the quantitative analysis that a few behavioral reactions in manatees resulting from 

exposure to sonar or other transducers could take place at distances of up to 20 km, although manatees 

typically live in inland water with limited open water. As discussed above in Assessing the Severity of 

Behavioral Responses from Sonar, the quantitative analysis very likely overestimated the numbers of 

behavioral reactions due to the underlying nature of the data used to derive the behavioral response 

functions, especially for manatees. Most manatee impacts are estimated due to navigation and object 

detection (avoidance) training and testing since these activities typically occur entering and leaving Navy 

homeports that overlap the distribution of coastal populations of this species. Navigation and object 

detection (avoidance) activities normally involve a single ship or submarine using a limited amount of 

sonar, therefore significant reactions are unlikely. Reactions to anti-submarine warfare activities are 

more likely; however, research shows that manatees are generally tolerant, or perhaps habituated, to 

high levels of human-made noise and activity. Manatees that have been observed reacting have done so 

by alerting and swimming to deeper water. Manatees may not react at all until the sound source is 

approaching within a few hundred meters. Animals disturbed while engaged in important behaviors 

such as feeding or mating may be more likely to ignore or tolerate the disturbance and continue their 

natural behavior patterns. Therefore, the quantitative analysis overestimates the number of behavioral 

reaction in manatees and behavioral reactions, if they were to occur, are likely to be short-term and low 

severity.

As with other marine mammals, manatees are likely to avoid sound sources at levels that would cause 

any hearing loss (i.e., TTS) and would certainly avoid sound levels that could cause higher levels of TTS 

(greater than 20 dB of TTS). Therefore, it is likely that the quantitative analysis overestimates TTS in 

marine mammals because it does not account for animals avoiding sound sources at closer ranges. 

Manatees that do experience TTS from sonar sounds may have reduced ability to detect biologically 

important sounds until their hearing recovers. Recovery from TTS begins almost immediately after the 

noise exposure ceases and can take a few minutes to a few days to fully recover, depending on the 

magnitude of the initial threshold shift. Most TTS, if it does actually occur, would be more likely to be 

minor to moderate (i.e., less than 20 dB of TTS directly after the exposure) and would recover within a 

matter of minutes to hours. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all hearing frequencies equally, 

and typically manifest themselves at the exposure frequency or within an octave above the exposure 

frequency. During the short period that a mysticete had TTS, social calls from conspecifics could be more 

difficult to detect or interpret. Manatees feed on sea grass and macroalgae, so it unlikely that they use 

sound for feeding; therefore, a TTS would not affect a manatee’s ability to feed. A single or even a few 

minor TTS (less than 20 dB of TTS) to an individual manatee per year are unlikely to have any long-term 

consequences for that individual.

Research and observations of masking in marine mammals are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.4

(Masking). Many low- (less than 1 kHz), mid- (1–10 kHz), and high-frequency (10–100 kHz) sonars 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-442

3.7 Marine Mammals

produce sounds that are likely to be within the audible range of manatees. Many anti-submarine 

warfare (anti-submarine warfare) sonars and countermeasures use these frequency ranges. Most midand low-frequency sonar signals (i.e., sounds) are limited in the temporal, frequency, and spatial 

domains. The duration of most individual sounds is short, lasting up to a few seconds each. Some 

systems operate with higher duty cycles or nearly continuously, but typically use lower power. 

Nevertheless, masking may be more prevalent at closer ranges to these high-duty cycle and continuous 

active sonar systems. Most anti-submarine warfare activities are geographically dispersed and last for 

only a few hours, often with intermittent sonar use even within this period. Most anti-submarine 

warfare sonars also have a narrow frequency band (typically less than one-third octave). These factors 

reduce the likelihood of sources causing significant masking in manatees. High-frequency (greater than 

10 kHz) sonars fall outside of the best hearing and vocalization ranges of manatees (Section 3.7.2.1.4, 

Hearing and Vocalization). Furthermore, high frequencies (above 10 kHz) attenuate more rapidly in the 

water than do lower frequency signals, thus producing only a small zone of potential masking. Sonars 

that employ high frequencies are typically used for mine hunting, navigation, and object detection 

(avoidance). Masking in manatees due to exposure to high-frequency sonar is unlikely. Potential costs to 

manatees from masking are similar to those discussed above for mild to moderate levels of TTS, with the 

primary difference being that the effects of masking are only present when the sound source (i.e., sonar) 

is actively pinging and the effect is over the moment the sound has ceased. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Manatees may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-171 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-443

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-169: West Indian Manatee Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-444

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in 

Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Manatees within the Port Canaveral and Mayport portions of the designated West Indian manatee 

critical habitat areas may be exposed to sound from sonar and other active acoustic sources. The 

primary constituent elements of the habitat required by the West Indian manatee for feeding and 

breeding have been reported as the presence of seagrasses and warm water refuges, which would not 

be affected by these proposed activities. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of manatee incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from USFWS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed manatees and will have no effect on manatee critical habitat. The 

Navy will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 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

Manatees may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 1. See Figure 3.7-170 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-445

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-170: West Indian Manatee Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 1. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-446

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in 

Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Manatees within the Port Canaveral and Mayport portions of the designated West Indian manatee 

critical habitat areas may be exposed to sound from sonar and other active acoustic sources. The 

primary constituent elements of the habitat required by the West Indian manatee for feeding and 

breeding have been reported as the presence of seagrasses and warm water refuges, which would not 

be affected by these proposed activities. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of manatee incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from USFWS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 may affect ESA-listed manatees and will have no effect on manatee critical habitat. The 

Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Manatees may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-171 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with training activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of manatee incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from USFWS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed manatees and will have no effect on manatee critical habitat. The 

Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Manatees may be exposed to sound from sonar and other transducers used during testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions and TTS under 

Alternative 2. See Figure 3.7-172 below or Appendix E for tabular results. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Sonar and Other Transducers).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-447

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-171: West Indian Manatee Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Training Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-448

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-172: West Indian Manatee Impacts Estimated per Year from Sonar and Other 

Transducers Used During Testing Under Alternative 2. No PTS is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-449

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from sonar and other transducers would be similar in type as for 

Alternative 1, although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in 

sonar use associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described 

under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of manatee incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from USFWS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of sonar and other transducers during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 may affect ESA-listed manatees and will have no effect on manatee critical habitat. The 

Navy will consult with the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.7.3.1.2.4 Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under the No Action Alternative 

for Training and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, training or testing activities associated with the Proposed Action would 

not be conducted in the AFTT Study Area. Based on the analysis presented in Section 3.7.3.1.2.3

(Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers Under the Action Alternatives), impacts on individual

marine mammals from activities that use sonar and other transducers could occur under either 

alternative, but impacts on marine mammal populations are not anticipated. Therefore, discontinuing 

activities that use sonar and other transducers under the No Action Alternative would remove the 

potential for impacts on individual marine mammals, but would not measurably improve the status of 

marine mammal populations or otherwise contribute to the recovery of threatened or endangered 

species that occur in the Study Area.

3.7.3.1.3 Impacts from Air Guns

Air guns use bursts of pressurized air to create broadband, impulsive sounds. Any use of air guns would 

typically be transient and temporary. Section 3.0.3.3.1.2 (Air Guns) provides additional details on the use 

and acoustic characteristics of the small air guns used in these activities. 

3.7.3.1.3.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Air Guns

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number times that marine mammals could 

be affected by air guns used during Navy testing activities. The Navy Acoustic Effects Model was used to 

produce initial estimates of the number of instances that animals may experience these effects. Inputs 

to the quantitative analysis included marine mammal density estimates; marine mammal depth 

distributions; oceanographic and environmental data; and criteria and thresholds for levels of potential 

impacts. A detailed explanation of this analysis is provided in the technical report Quantitative Analysis 

for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of 

the Navy, 2017b). 

Criteria and Thresholds used to Predict Impacts to Marine Mammals from Air Guns

See the technical report titled Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to 

Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017e) for detailed information on how 

the criteria and thresholds were derived.

Auditory Weighting Functions

Weighting functions are specific to each hearing group, but are the same across all noise types (e.g., 

sonar, air guns, and pile driving). See Auditory Weighting Functions under Section 3.7.3.1.2.1 (Methods 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-450

3.7 Marine Mammals

for Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and Other Transducers), for information on the weighting thresholds 

used for analyzing sound from air guns.

Hearing Loss from Air Guns

Criteria used to define threshold shifts from impulsive sound sources were derived from the two known 

studies designed to induce TTS in marine mammals from impulsive sources. Finneran et al. (2002)

reported behaviorally-measured TTS of 6 and 7 dB in a beluga exposed to single impulses from a seismic 

water gun and Lucke et al. (2009) reported auditory evoked potential-measured TTS of 7 to 20 dB in a 

harbor porpoise exposed to single impulses from a seismic air gun. Since marine mammal PTS data from 

impulsive noise exposures do not exist, onset-PTS levels for all groups were estimated by adding 15 dB 

to the onset TTS SEL threshold for impulsive sources and 6 dB to the onset TTS peak SPL thresholds. This 

relationship was derived by Southall et al. (2007). These frequency dependent thresholds are depicted 

by the exposure functions for each group’s range of best hearing (see Figure 3.7-173 and Table 3.7-15).

Table 3.7-15: Thresholds for Onset of TTS and PTS for Underwater Air Gun Sounds

Hearing Group

Onset TTS Onset PTS

SEL

dB re 1 μPa2s 

(weighted)

SPL peak

dB re 1 μPa

(unweighted)

SEL

dB re 1 μPa2s 

(weighted)

SPL peak

dB re 1 μPa

(unweighted)

Low-frequency Cetaceans 168 213 183 219

Mid-frequency Cetaceans 170 224 185 230

High-frequency Cetaceans 140 196 155 202

Sirenians (Manatees) 175 220 190 226

Phocid seals in water 170 212 185 218

PTS: permanent threshold shift; SEL: sound exposure level; SPL: sound pressure level; TTS: temporary threshold shift
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-451

3.7 Marine Mammals

The solid dark curve is the exposure function for TTS onset and the large dashed curve is the exposure function for PTS onset. 

Small dashed lines indicate the SEL threshold for TTS and PTS onset at each group’s most sensitive frequency (i.e., the weighted 

SEL threshold).

Figure 3.7-173: Temporary Threshold Shift and Permanent Threshold Shift Exposure Functions 

for Air Guns 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-452

3.7 Marine Mammals

Behavioral Responses from Air Guns

The existing NMFS Level B disturbance threshold of 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) is applied to the unique 

sounds generated by air guns. The root mean square calculation for air guns is based on the duration 

defined by 90 percent of the cumulative energy in the impulse.

Marine Mammal Density

A quantitative analysis of impacts on a species requires data on their abundance and distribution in the 

potentially impacted area. The most appropriate metric for this type of analysis is density, which is the 

number of animals present per unit area. To characterize the marine species density for large areas such 

as the Study Area, the Navy compiled data from several sources. The Navy developed a protocol to 

select the best available data sources based on species, area, and time (season). The resulting 

Geographic Information System database called the Navy Marine Species Density Database includes 

seasonal density values for every marine mammal species present within the Study Area (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2017c). 

The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model

The Navy’s quantitative analysis estimates the sound and energy received by marine mammals 

distributed in the area around planned Navy activities involving air guns. See the technical report titled 

Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles 

(U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b) for additional details. 

3.7.3.1.3.2 Impact Ranges for Air Guns

Table 3.7-16 and Table 3.7-17 present the approximate ranges in meters to PTS, TTS, and potential 

behavioral reactions for air guns for 10 and 100 pulses, respectively. Ranges are specific to the AFTT 

Study area and also to each marine mammal hearing group, dependent upon their criteria and the 

specific locations where animals from the hearing groups and the air gun activities could overlap. 

Table 3.7-16: Range to Effects from Air Guns for 10 pulses

Range to Effects for Airguns1 for 10 pulses (m)

Hearing Group

PTS

(SEL)

PTS

(Peak SPL)

TTS

(SEL)

TTS

(Peak SPL) Behavioral2

High-Frequency Cetacean

0 

(0—0)

15

(15—15) 

0 

(0—0)

25

(25—25) 

809 

(250–5,525)

Low-Frequency Cetacean

13

(12—13)

2

(2—2)

72

(70—80)

4

(4—4)

794

(170–5,525)

Mid-Frequency Cetacean

0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

790

(160–5,525)

Phocids

0

(0—0)

2

(2—2)

3

(3—3)

4

(4—4)

816

(220–5,525) 1Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which 

are in parentheses. 

2 Behavioral values depict the ranges produced by RMS hearing threshold criteria levels.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-453

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-17: Range to Effects from Air Guns for 100 pulses

Range to Effects for Airguns1 for 100 pulses (m)

Hearing Group

PTS

(SEL)

PTS

(Peak SPL)

TTS

(SEL)

TTS

(Peak SPL) Behavioral2

High-Frequency Cetacean

4

(4—4)

40

(40—40)

48

(45—50)

66

(65—70)

809 

(250–5,525)

Low-Frequency Cetacean

122

(120—130)

3

(3—3)

871

(600—1,275)

13

(12—13)

794

(170–5,525)

Mid-Frequency Cetacean

0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

0

(0—0)

790

(160–5,525)

Phocids

3

(2—3)

3

(3—3)

25

(25—25)

14

(14—15)

816

(220–5,525)

1Average distance (m) to PTS, TTS, and behavioral thresholds are depicted above the minimum and maximum distances which 

are in parentheses.

2Behavioral values depict the ranges produced by RMS hearing threshold criteria levels.

3.7.3.1.3.3 Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Training activities do not include the use of air guns.

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Characteristics of air guns and the number of times they would be operated during testing under 

Alternative 1 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). Activities using air guns would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A 

(Navy Activity Descriptions). Under Alternative 1, small air guns (12–60 in.3

) would be fired 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. 

Single, small air guns lack the peak pressures that could cause non-auditory injury (see Finneran et al. 

(2015); also Section 3.7.3.2.1.1, Injury, in Explosive Stressors). Potential impacts could include temporary 

hearing loss, behavioral reactions, physiological stress and masking, although the quantitative analysis 

only estimates behavioral responses (see Figure 3.7-174 and Appendix E for tabular results). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-454

3.7 Marine Mammals

No impacts are anticipated for any other species within the AFTT Study Area. See Appendix E for tabular results.

Figure 3.7-174: Estimated Annual Behavioral Responses from Air Gun Use. No TTS or PTS is 

estimated for any species. 

Research and observations (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions) show that if marine mammals 

are exposed to sounds from air guns they could potentially react with short-term behavioral reactions 

and physiological stress. It is important to point out that many observations of marine mammal 

reactions to air guns are from oil and gas exploration activities that use large air gun arrays and operate 

continuously for multiple weeks to cover large areas of the ocean. Navy activities, in contrast, only use 

single air guns over a much shorter period over a limited area. Reactions to single air guns, which are 

used in a limited fashion, are less likely to occur or rise to the same level of severity. Cetaceans (both 

mysticetes and odontocetes) may react in a variety of ways to impulsive sounds, which may include 

alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, diving or swimming away, changing 

vocalization, or showing no response at all. Research shows that pinnipeds may be the least sensitive 

taxonomic group to most noise sources, and are likely to respond to loud impulsive sound sources only 

at close ranges by startling or ceasing foraging, but only for brief periods before returning to their 

previous behavior. Pinnipeds may even experience mild TTS before exhibiting a behavioral response 

(Southall et al., 2007). Marine mammals disturbed while engaged in activities such as feeding or 

reproductive behaviors may be more likely to ignore or tolerate the disturbance and continue their 

natural behavior patterns. Because noise from air gun activities is short-term and intermittent, it is 

unlikely that a marine mammal would be exposed to noise that would result in any more than a shortterm and mild to moderate behavioral responses. 

The sound from air gun shots is broadband, but they have a very short duration, lasting for less than a 

second each, and are used intermittently. This limits the potential for any significant masking in marine 

mammals. Potential costs to marine mammals from masking, if it were to occur, are similar to those 

discussed above for mild to moderate levels of TTS, with the primary difference being that the effects of 

masking are only present when the sound source is actively producing sound and the effect is over the 

moment the sound has ceased. Given these factors, significant masking is unlikely to occur in marine 

mammals due to exposure to sound from air guns.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-455

3.7 Marine Mammals

As discussed above, estimated impacts to marine mammals from air gun sounds associated with testing 

activities are likely to consist of a small number of behavioral responses. Because these activities only 

occur a few times per year, have a small footprint of potential impacts with no impacts estimated for 

most species, and mitigation measures would be conducted as discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), longterm consequences for any marine mammal species or stocks would be unlikely.

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified a North Atlantic right whale migration area, a reproduction area, and 

feeding areas, which overlap the Northeast and Virginia Capes Range Complexes. Although use of air 

guns would occur in these range complexes, the quantitative analysis estimates that no North Atlantic 

right whales would be exposed to levels of air gun sound that would result in any behavioral responses.

Feeding areas for sei, humpback, minke, and fin whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlap 

the Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Similarly, the quantitative analysis estimates that 

no fin, humpback, or minke whales would be exposed to levels of air gun sound that would result in any 

behavioral responses.

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified a small resident population area for harbor porpoises that overlaps 

the Northeast Range Complexes. Navy air gun testing activities could occur year-round within the 

identified area. Similarly, the quantitative analysis estimates that no harbor porpoises would be exposed 

to levels of air gun sound that would result in any behavioral responses.

There are 21 small and resident population areas for common bottlenose dolphins identified by 

LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b) which overlap, or are directly adjacent to, the AFTT Study Area. The 

quantitative analysis estimates behavioral responses in bottlenose dolphins from air gun sounds; 

however, as discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to single air guns are 

likely to be minor and short-term. Therefore, it is unlikely that the sound from single air guns would 

affect bottlenose dolphin’s natural behavior patterns or cause abandonment of the small and resident 

population areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b). 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of air guns during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will 

result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins, clymene dolphins, gray seals, and harbor seals 

incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, air gun use during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would not 

affect ESA-listed marine mammals. Air gun use would not take place within designated West Indian 

Manatee critical habitat. Some use could take place with the Northeast North Atlantic right whale 

critical habitat; although, sound from air guns would not affect the biological or physical features that 

are essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, conservation and 

recovery of the northern right whale population. 

3.7.3.1.3.4 Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Training activities do not include the use of air guns.

Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Air gun activities planned under Alternative 2 are identical to those planned under Alternative 1; 

therefore, the estimated impacts would be identical. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-456

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of air guns during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 will 

result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins, clymene dolphins, gray seals, and harbor seals 

incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, air gun use during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would not 

affect ESA-listed marine mammals. Air gun use would not take place within designated West Indian 

Manatee critical habitat. Some use could take place with the Northeast North Atlantic right whale 

critical habitat; although, sound from air guns would not affect the biological or physical features that 

are essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, conservation and 

recovery of the northern right whale population. 

3.7.3.1.3.5 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, training or testing activities associated with the Proposed Action would 

not be conducted in the AFTT Study Area. Based on the analysis presented in Sections 3.7.3.1.3.3

(Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 1) and 3.7.3.1.3.4 (Impacts from Air Guns Under Alternative 

2), impacts on individual marine mammals from air gun activities could occur under either action 

alternative, but impacts on marine mammal populations are not anticipated. Therefore, discontinuing 

air gun activities under the No Action Alternative would remove the potential for impacts on individual 

marine mammals, but would not measurably improve the status of marine mammal populations or 

otherwise contribute to the recovery of threatened or endangered species that occur in the Study Area.

3.7.3.1.4 Impacts from Pile Driving 

Marine mammals could be exposed to sounds from impact and vibratory pile driving during the 

construction and removal phases of the Elevated Causeway System described in Chapter 2 (Description 

of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.3-1. The training involves the use of an impact hammer to 

drive the 24-inch (in.) steel piles into the sediment followed by a vibratory hammer to remove the piles 

that support the causeway structure. Impact pile driving operations to install the piles averages about 

20 days, and removal of the piles at the end of the exercise takes approximately 10 days. Section 

3.0.3.3.1.3 (Pile Driving) provides additional details on pile driving and noise levels measured from 

similar operations. 

3.7.3.1.4.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Pile Driving

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number of marine mammals that could be 

impacted by pile driving used during Navy training activities. Inputs to the quantitative analysis included 

marine mammal density estimates and criteria for levels of potential effects. 

Criteria and Thresholds Used to Estimate Impacts to Marine Mammals from Pile Driving

See the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles technical report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017e) for detailed information on how the 

criteria and thresholds were derived.

Auditory Weighting Functions

Weighting functions are specific to each hearing group, but are the same across all noise types (e.g., 

sonar, air guns, and pile driving). See Auditory Weighting Functions under Section 3.7.3.1.2.1 (Methods 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-457

3.7 Marine Mammals

for Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and Other Transducers) for information on the weighting functions 

used for analyzing sound from pile driving.

Hearing Loss from Pile Driving

Because vibratory pile removal produces continuous, non-impulsive noise, the criteria used to assess the 

onset of TTS and PTS due to exposure to sonars are used to assess auditory impacts to marine mammals 

(see Hearing Loss from Sonar and Other Transducers in Section 3.7.3.1.2.1, Methods for Analyzing 

Impacts from Sonars and Other Transducers). 

Because impact pile driving produces impulsive noise, the criteria used to assess the onset of TTS and 

PTS are identical to those used for air guns (see Hearing Loss from Air Guns in Section 3.7.3.1.3.1, 

Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Air Guns.

Behavioral Responses from Pile Driving

Existing NMFS risk criteria are applied to estimate behavioral effects from impact and vibratory pile 

driving (Table 3.7-18).

Table 3.7-18: Pile Driving Level B Thresholds Used in this Analysis to Predict Behavioral 

Responses from Marine Mammals

Pile Driving Level B Disturbance Threshold (Sound Pressure Level, dB re 1 μPa)

Underwater Vibratory Underwater Impact

120 dB rms 160 dB rms

Note: Root mean square calculation for impact pile driving is based on the duration defined by 90 percent 

of the cumulative energy in the impulse. Root mean square for vibratory pile driving is calculated based on 

a representative time series long enough to capture the variation in levels, usually on the order of a few 

seconds.

dB: decibel; dB re 1 μPa: decibel referenced to 1 micro pascal; rms: root mean square

Marine Mammal Density

A quantitative analysis of impacts on a species requires data on their abundance and distribution in the 

potentially impacted area. The most appropriate metric for this type of analysis is density, which is the 

number of animals present per unit area. To characterize the marine species density for large areas such 

as the Study Area, the Navy compiled data from several sources. The Navy developed a protocol to 

select the best available data sources based on species, area, and time (season). The resulting 

Geographic Information System database called the Navy Marine Species Density Database includes 

seasonal density values for every marine mammal species present within the Study Area (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2017c). 

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 

System (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.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-458

3.7 Marine Mammals

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 

about 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.

The exposures predicted from Elevated Causeway System assessment rely on the assumption that 

marine mammals are uniformly distributed within the ocean waters adjacent the proposed event 

locations. In fact, animal presence in the surf zone and nearshore waters of Joint Expeditionary Base 

Little Creek-Fort Story and Camp Lejeune (within a few kilometers) is known to be patchy and infrequent 

with the exception of a few coastal species (e.g., bottlenose dolphins).

3.7.3.1.4.2 Impact Ranges for Pile Driving

Table 3.7-19 and Table 3.7-20 present the approximate ranges in meters to PTS, TTS, and potential 

behavioral reactions for impact pile driving and vibratory pile removal, respectively. 

Table 3.7-19: Average Ranges to Effects from Impact Pile Driving

Hearing Group PTS (m) TTS (m) Behavioral (m)

Low-frequency Cetaceans 65 529 870

Mid-frequency Cetaceans 2 16 870

High-frequency Cetaceans 65 529 870

Phocids 19 151 870

PTS: permanent threshold shift; TTS: temporary threshold shift

Table 3.7-20: Average Ranges to Effect from Vibratory Pile Extraction

Hearing Group PTS (m) TTS (m) Behavioral (m)

Low-frequency Cetaceans 0 3 376

Mid-frequency Cetaceans 0 4 376

High-frequency Cetaceans 7 116 376

Phocids 0 2 376

PTS: permanent threshold shift; TTS: temporary threshold shift

3.7.3.1.4.3 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Characteristics of pile driving and the number of times pile driving for the Elevated Causeway System 

would occur during training under Alternative 1 are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). 

Activities with pile driving would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). This activity would take place 

nearshore and within the surf zone, up to two times per year, once at Joint Expeditionary Base Little 

Creek/Fort Story, Virginia, and once at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. 

These coastal areas tend to have high ambient noise levels due to natural and anthropogenic sources 

and typically have limited numbers of sensitive marine mammal species present. The quantitative 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-459

3.7 Marine Mammals

analysis (see Figure 3.7-175 and Appendix E for tabular results) estimates only behavioral reactions in a 

few species due to exposure to pile driving activities associated with the construction and removal of 

the Elevated Causeway System. 

Sounds from the impact hammer are impulsive, broadband and dominated by lower frequencies. The 

impulses are within the hearing range of marine mammals. Sounds produced from a vibratory hammer 

are similar in frequency range as that of the impact hammer, except the levels are much lower than for 

the impact hammer and the sound is continuous while operating. 

No impacts are anticipated for any other species within the AFTT Study Area. See Appendix E for tabular results.

Figure 3.7-175: Estimated Annual Impacts (Assuming Two Events per Year) from Pile Driving 

and Extraction Associated with the Construction and Removal of the Elevated Causeway 

Behavioral responses due to impact pile driving could occur out to a distance of approximately 1 km. The 

vibratory hammer produces a much lower source level than the impact hammer, especially when 

extracting piles from sandy, nearshore ground; therefore, the potential for reactions in marine mammals 

due to vibratory pile extraction are unlikely. Short-term behavioral reactions to impact pile driving are 

much more likely. 

Research and observations (see 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions) show that if marine mammals are 

exposed to sounds from pile driving or extraction they could potentially react with short-term 

behavioral reactions and physiological stress. Mysticetes may react in a variety of ways, which may 

include alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, diving or swimming away, changing 

vocalization, or showing no response at all. Overall, mysticetes have been observed to be more reactive 

to acoustic disturbance when a noise sources is located directly on their migration route, although 

training associated with the Elevated Causeway System is conducted nearshore, outside of any 

migratory paths for mysticetes. Odontocete reactions could include alerting, startling, breaking off 

feeding dives and surfacing, diving or swimming away, change in vocalization, or showing no response at 

all. Research shows that pinnipeds may be the least sensitive taxonomic group to most noise sources, 

and are likely to respond to loud impulsive sound sources only at close ranges by startling or ceasing 

foraging, but only for brief periods before returning to their previous behavior. Pinnipeds may even 

experience mild TTS before exhibiting a behavioral response (Southall et al., 2007). Marine mammals 

disturbed while engaged in activities such as feeding or reproductive behaviors may be more likely to 

ignore or tolerate the disturbance and continue their natural behavior patterns. Because noise from pile 

driving activities is short-term, intermittent, and occurs within a nearshore environment with high levels 

of ambient noise, it is unlikely that a marine mammal would be exposed to noise that would result in 

any more than a short term and mild to moderate behavioral responses. Additionally, mitigation 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-460

3.7 Marine Mammals

measure discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) would be conducted to further reduce any potential for 

impacts. 

The vibratory hammer is broadband and continuous, creating the potential to cause some masking in 

marine mammals, but the effect would be temporary because extracting a pile only takes about 6 

minutes, with a pause between each pile. Due to the low source level of vibratory pile extraction, the 

zone for potential masking would only extend a few hundred meters from where the hammer is 

operating. For impact pile driving, the rate of strikes (30–50 per minute) has the potential to result in 

some masking in marine mammals. The effect would be temporary as each pile only takes about 15 

minutes to drive, with a pause of up to an hour before the next pile is driven. Furthermore, the Elevated 

Causeway System is constructed in shallow, nearshore areas where ambient noise levels are already 

typically high. Potential costs to marine mammals from masking, if it were to occur, are similar to those 

discussed above for mild to moderate levels of TTS, with the primary difference being that the effects of 

masking are only present when the sound source is actively producing sound and the effect is over the 

moment the sound has ceased. Given these factors, significant masking is unlikely to occur in marine 

mammals due to exposure to sound from impact pile driving or vibratory pile extraction.

As discussed above, estimated impacts to marine mammals from pile driving and extraction associated 

with the construction and removal of the Elevated Causeway System consist of primarily short-term 

behavioral reactions. Because these activities only occur a few weeks per year and have a small 

footprint of potential impacts, the same animal would not be expected to be impacted more than a few 

times in a given year due to exposure pile driving sound. A single behavioral reaction in an individual 

animal within a given year is very unlikely to have any long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors, and the low number of overall estimated impacts, long-term consequences 

for marine mammal species or stocks would be unlikely.

Construction and removal of the Elevated Causeway System at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina would take place within the North Atlantic right whale reproduction area, which is active midNovember through April, or within the North Atlantic right whale migration area identified by LaBrecque 

et al. (2015b). Animals could be exposed to sound from pile driving within these identified areas; 

however, the quantitative analysis estimates no impacts to North Atlantic right whales due to exposure 

to pile driving activities. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to limited 

amount of pile driving in the nearshore and surf zones are likely to be minor and short-term. Therefore, 

sounds from pile driving associated with Navy training activities are unlikely to significantly impact North 

Atlantic right whale reproductive (calving) behaviors in the reproductive area or migratory behaviors in 

the migration area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

Construction and removal of the Elevated Causeway System at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina would take place within 2 of the 21 small and resident population areas for common bottlenose 

dolphins identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b). Construction and removal of the Elevated 

Causeway System could occur during any time of year at Camp Lejeune. Bottlenose dolphins in the 

identified small and resident population areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b) may be 

exposed to sound or energy from pile driving. The quantitative analysis estimates behavioral reactions. 

Odontocete reactions to impulsive sound would most likely be short-term and mild to moderate, 

especially when sound sources are located more than a few kilometers away and when the animals are 

engaged in important biological behaviors such as feeding. Therefore, it is unlikely that pile-driving noise 

would affect bottlenose dolphin’s natural behavior patterns or cause abandonment of these small and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-461

3.7 Marine Mammals

resident population areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) as a result of pile driving and extraction 

associated with the construction and removal of the Elevated Causeway System. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the pile driving and removal during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic spotted dolphins and bottlenose dolphins 

incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, pile driving and removal during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

would not affect ESA-listed marine mammals. Pile driving and removal would not take place within 

designated North Atlantic right whale or West Indian Manatee critical habitat. 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities do not include pile driving.

3.7.3.1.4.4 Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Pile driving activities planned under Alternative 2 are identical to those planned under Alternative 1; 

therefore, the estimated impacts would be identical. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the pile driving and removal during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic spotted dolphins and bottlenose dolphins 

incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, pile driving and removal during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

would not affect ESA-listed marine mammals. Pile driving and removal would not take place within

designated North Atlantic right whale or West Indian Manatee critical habitat. 

Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Testing activities do not include pile driving.

3.7.3.1.4.5 Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Pile Driving Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, training or testing activities associated with the Proposed Action would 

not be conducted in the AFTT Study Area. Based on the analysis presented in Sections 3.7.3.1.4.3

(Impacts from Pile Driving Under Alternative 1) and 3.7.3.1.4.4 (Impacts from Pile Driving Under 

Alternative 2), impacts on individual marine mammals from pile driving activities could occur under 

either action alternative, but impacts on marine mammal populations are not anticipated. Therefore, 

discontinuing pile driving activities under the No Action Alternative would remove the potential for 

impacts on individual marine mammals, but would not measurably improve the status of marine 

mammal populations or otherwise contribute to the recovery of threatened or endangered species that 

occur in the Study Area.

3.7.3.1.5 Impacts from Vessel Noise 

Marine mammals may be exposed to noise from vessel movement. A detailed description of the 

acoustic characteristics and typical sound levels of vessel noise are in Section 3.0.3.3.1.4 (Vessel Noise). 

Vessel movements involve transits to and from ports to various locations within the Study Area. Many 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-462

3.7 Marine Mammals

ongoing and proposed training and testing activities within the Study Area involve maneuvers by various 

types of surface ships, boats, and submarines (collectively referred to as vessels). 

Noise from vessels generally lacks the amplitude and duration to cause any hearing loss in marine 

mammals under realistic conditions. Noise from vessels is generally low frequency (10 to hundreds Hz), 

although at close range or in shallow water it can extend above 100 kHz at received levels above 100 dB 

re 1 μPa (Hermannsen et al., 2014). Although periods of broadband noise tend to be brief, occurring 

only as a vessel is passing within a few hundred meters, vessel noise could lead to short-term masking 

for all marine mammal species (Section 3.7.3.1.1.4, Masking). Vessel noise has been linked to behavioral 

responses (Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions), although it is difficult to separate responses to the 

noise from reactions to the physical presence of the vessel. Physiological stress has also been linked to 

chronic vessel noise, such as that in shipping lanes or heavily trafficked whale-watch areas (Section 

3.7.3.1.1.3, Physiological Stress). However, based on the generally short duration, relatively low source 

levels of many Navy vessels, and the transient nature of Navy vessel noise, behavioral, physiological 

stress and masking reactions, if they occur, are unlikely to be significant.

3.7.3.1.5.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Vessel Noise

Responses to vessel noise have been observed for marine mammals when the noise is chronic and 

persistent such as near constricted ocean shipping lanes, and while Navy vessels do transit over regular 

areas, the number of ships is several magnitudes smaller than found in shipping lanes. Navy vessels also 

maneuver to avoid marine mammals when possible; therefore, significant responses to passing vessels 

are unlikely. The amount of radiated sound from Navy vessels is based on measured levels (see Section 

3.0.3.3.1.4, Vessel Noise). These sound levels, along with operational characteristics of the vessel (e.g., 

source level due to cavitation, speed), are compared to situations where researchers have observed 

behavioral reactions (see Behavioral Responses to Vessel Noise under Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral 

Reactions) or masking (see 3.7.3.1.1.4, Masking) in marine mammals. The likelihood of behavioral and 

physiological stress reactions or masking due to Navy vessel noise is then discussed in light of this 

research.

3.7.3.1.5.2 Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Characteristics of Navy vessel noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). Activities with 

vessel noise would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Vessel movements involve transits to and 

from ports to various locations within the Study Area, and many ongoing and proposed activities within 

the Study Area involve maneuvers by various types of surface ships, boats, and submarines (collectively 

referred to as vessels), as well as unmanned vehicles. Activities involving vessel movements occur 

intermittently and are variable in duration, ranging from a few hours up to 2 weeks. A study of Navy 

vessel traffic found that traffic was heaviest just offshore of Norfolk and Jacksonville, as well as along 

the coastal waters between the two ports (Mintz & Filadelfo, 2011; Mintz, 2012). 

Activities involving vessel movements are variable in duration, ranging from a few hours up to 2 weeks, 

but are typically episodic. During training, speeds generally range from 10 to 14 knots; however, vessels 

can and will, on occasion, operate within the entire spectrum of their specific operational capabilities. In 

addition, a variety of smaller craft will be operated within the Study Area. Small craft types, sizes, and 

speeds vary. In all cases, the vessels will be operated in a safe manner consistent with the local 

conditions. Section 3.7.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions) discusses scientific studies and observations of 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-463

3.7 Marine Mammals

marine mammal reactions, while potential masking from vessel noise is discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.4

(Masking). 

Vessel traffic related to the proposed activity would pass near marine mammals only on an incidental 

basis. Navy mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) include several provisions to avoid 

approaching marine mammals, which would further reduce any potential impacts. Navy ports such as 

Mayport and Norfolk are heavily trafficked with private and commercial vessels in addition to naval 

vessels. Because Navy ships make up only a small proportion of the total ship traffic, even in the most 

concentrated port and inshore areas, proposed Navy vessel transits are unlikely to cause significant 

behavioral responses or long-term abandonment of habitat by a marine mammal. 

Vessel noise can potentially mask vocalizations and other biologically important sounds (e.g., sounds of 

prey or predators) that marine mammals may rely on. Potential masking can vary depending on the 

ambient noise level within the environment, the received level and frequency of the vessel noise, and 

the received level and frequency of the sound of biological interest. In the open ocean, ambient noise 

levels are between about 60 and 80 dB re 1 μPa in the band between 10 Hz and 10 kHz due to a 

combination of natural (e.g., wind) and anthropogenic sources (Urick, 1983), while inshore noise levels, 

especially around busy ports, can exceed 120 dB re 1 μPa. When the noise level is above the sound of 

interest, and in a similar frequency band, masking could occur (Section 3.7.3.1.1.4, Masking). This 

analysis assumes that any sound that is above ambient noise levels and within an animal’s hearing range 

may potentially cause masking. However, the degree of masking increases with increasing noise levels; a 

noise that is just detectable over ambient levels is unlikely to cause any substantial masking. Masking by 

passing ships or other sound sources transiting the Study Area would be short term and intermittent, 

and therefore unlikely to result in any substantial costs or consequences to individual animals or 

populations. Areas with increased levels of ambient noise from anthropogenic noise sources such as 

areas around busy shipping lanes and near harbors and ports may cause sustained levels of masking for 

marine mammals, which could reduce an animal’s ability to find prey, find mates, socialize, avoid 

predators, or navigate. However, Navy vessels make up a very small percentage of the overall traffic 

(two orders of magnitude lower than commercial ship traffic in the Study Area), and the rise of ambient 

noise levels in these areas is a problem related to all ocean users, including commercial and recreational 

vessels and shoreline development and industrialization.

Surface combatant ships (e.g., guided missile destroyer, guided missile cruiser, and Littoral Combat Ship) 

and submarines are designed to be very quiet to evade enemy detection and typically travel at speeds of 

10 or more knots. Actual acoustic signatures and source levels of combatant ships and submarines are 

classified; however, they are quieter than most other motorized ships. Still, these surface combatants 

and submarines are likely to be detectable by marine mammals over open-ocean ambient noise levels at 

distances of up to a few kilometers, which could cause some masking to marine mammals for a few 

minutes as the vessel passes by. Other Navy ships and small vessels have higher source levels, similar to 

equivalently sized commercial ships and private vessels. Ship noise tends to be low frequency and 

broadband; therefore, it may have the largest potential to mask mysticetes that vocalize and hear at

lower frequencies than other marine mammals. Noise from large vessels and outboard motors on small 

craft can produce source levels of 160 to over 200 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. Therefore, in the open ocean, 

noise from noncombatant Navy vessels may be detectable over ambient levels for tens of kilometers, 

and some masking, especially for mysticetes, is possible. In noisier inshore areas around Navy ports and 

ranges, vessel noise may be detectable above ambient for only several hundred meters. Some masking 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-464

3.7 Marine Mammals

to marine mammals is likely from noncombatant Navy vessels, on par with similar commercial and 

recreational vessels, especially in quieter, open-ocean environments. 

Vessel noise has the potential to disturb marine mammals and elicit an alerting, avoidance, or other 

behavioral reaction. Most studies have reported that marine mammals react to vessel sounds and traffic 

with short-term interruption of feeding, resting, or social interactions (Magalhães et al., 2002; 

Richardson et al., 1995b; Watkins, 1981). Some species respond negatively by retreating or responding 

to the vessel antagonistically, while other animals seem to ignore vessel noises altogether or are 

attracted to the vessel (Watkins, 1986). Marine mammals are frequently exposed to vessels due to 

research, ecotourism, commercial and private vessel traffic, and government activities. It is difficult to 

differentiate between responses to vessel sound and visual cues associated with the presence of a 

vessel; thus, it is assumed that both play a role in prompting reactions from animals.

Based on studies of a number of species, mysticetes are not expected to be disturbed by vessels that 

maintain a reasonable distance from them, which varies with vessel size, geographic location, and 

tolerance levels of individuals. Odontocetes could have a variety of reactions to passing vessels, 

including attraction, increased traveling time, decreased feeding behaviors, diving, or avoidance of the

vessel, which may vary depending on their prior experience with vessels. Kogia species, harbor 

porpoises, and beaked whales have been observed avoiding vessels. For pinnipeds, data indicate 

tolerance of vessel approaches, especially for animals in the water. Navy vessels do not purposefully 

approach marine mammals and are not expected to elicit significant behavioral responses. Most Navy 

activities occur more than 3 NM offshore, where manatees are uncommon; however, at pierside 

locations and within inland waters along the southeastern United States and in the Gulf of Mexico, 

manatees could co-occur with Navy vessels. In studies, manatees have reacted to vessels by moving 

away from the approaching vessel, increasing their swimming speed, and moving toward deeper water. 

Overall, marine mammal reactions to vessel noise associated with training activities are likely to be 

minor and short term, leading to no significant reactions and no long-term consequences.

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified a North Atlantic right whale migration area, reproduction areas, and 

feeding areas, which overlap with the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville

Range Complexes within the Study Area. Vessel noise from Navy training activities could occur 

throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to 

vessel noise are likely to be short-term and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that 

Navy vessel noise would significantly impact North Atlantic right whale feeding, reproduction or 

migrating behavior on those respective areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

Feeding areas for sei, humpback, minke, and fin whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlap 

the Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Vessel noise from Navy training activities could 

occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions 

to vessel noise are likely to be short-term and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that 

vessel noise would affect the feeding behaviors of sei, humpback, minke, or fin whales on their 

respective feeding areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

An area for the small resident Bryde’s whale population in the Gulf of Mexico was identified by 

LaBrecque et al. (2015a). Vessel noise from Navy training activities could occur throughout the Study 

Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to vessel noise are likely to 

be short-term and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that vessel noise would affect 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-465

3.7 Marine Mammals

Bryde’s whale natural behavior patterns or cause abandonment of this small and resident population 

area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a). 

Vessel noise may overlap with 21 habitats that have been identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b)

adjacent to or within the Study Area for small resident populations of bottlenose dolphins. However, 

most vessel noise radiated into these habitat areas will be from distant Navy vessel traffic. As discussed 

above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to vessel noise are likely to be short-term and 

minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that vessel noise would affect bottlenose dolphin’s 

natural behavior patterns or cause abandonment of these small and resident population areas identified 

by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b). 

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified a small resident population for harbor porpoises that overlaps the 

Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Vessel noise from Navy training activities could occur 

throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to 

vessel noise are likely to be short-term and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that 

vessel noise would significantly impact harbor porpoise natural behavior patterns or cause 

abandonment of these small and resident population areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

Vessel noise would be generated within designated West Indian Manatee critical habitat and Northeast 

North Atlantic right whale critical habitat; although, sound from vessels would not affect the biological 

or physical features that are essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, 

conservation and recovery of these species. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, vessel noise generated during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. Vessel noise would not affect the designated critical habitat of the North 

Atlantic right whale or the West Indian manatee. The Navy will consult with the NMFS and USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Characteristics of Navy vessel noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors). Activities with 

vessel noise would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and 

Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Testing activities under Alternative 1 include 

vessel movement during many events. Because many testing activities would use the same or similar 

vessels as Navy training events, the general locations and types of effects due to vessel noise described 

above for training would be similar for many testing activities. In addition, smaller vessels would 

typically be used on Navy testing ranges. 

Activities involving vessel movements occur intermittently and are variable in duration, ranging from a 

few hours up to 2 weeks, but are typically episodic. In addition, a variety of smaller craft will be 

operated within the Study Area. Small craft types, sizes, and speeds vary. During testing, speeds 

generally range from 10 to 14 knots; however, vessels can and will, on occasion, operate within the 

entire spectrum of their specific operational capabilities. In all cases, the vessels will be operated in a 

safe manner consistent with the local conditions. 

Based on studies on a number of species, mysticetes are not expected to be disturbed by vessels that 

maintain a reasonable distance from them, which varies with vessel size, geographic location, and 

tolerance levels of individuals. Odontocetes could have a variety of reactions to passing vessels, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-466

3.7 Marine Mammals

including attraction, increased traveling time, decreased feeding behaviors, diving, or avoidance of the 

vessel, which may vary depending on their prior experience with vessels. Kogia whales, harbor 

porpoises, and beaked whales have been observed avoiding vessels. For pinnipeds, data indicate 

tolerance of vessel approaches, especially for animals in the water. Navy vessels do not purposefully 

approach marine mammals and are not expected to elicit significant behavioral responses. Most Navy 

activities occur more than 3 NM offshore, where manatees are uncommon; however, at pierside 

locations and within inland waters along the southeastern United States and in the Gulf of Mexico, 

manatees could co-occur with Navy vessels. In studies, manatees have reacted to vessels by moving 

away from the approaching vessel, increasing their swimming speed, and moving toward deeper water. 

Overall, marine mammal reactions to vessel noise associated with testing activities are likely to be minor 

and short-term, leading to no significant reactions and no long-term consequences.

Proposed testing activities under Alternative 1 that involve vessel movement differ in number and 

location from training activities under Alternative 1; however the types and severity of impacts would 

not be discernible from those described above in Alternative 1 for Training Activities. 

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified a North Atlantic right whale migration area, reproduction areas, and 

feeding areas, which overlap with the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville

Range Complexes within the Study Area. Vessel noise from Navy testing activities could occur 

throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to 

vessel noise are likely to be short-term and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that 

Navy vessel noise would significantly impact North Atlantic right whale feeding, reproduction or 

migrating behavior on those respective areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

Feeding areas for sei, humpback, minke, and fin whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlap 

the Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Vessel noise from Navy testing activities could 

occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions 

to vessel noise are likely to be short-term and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that 

vessel noise would affect the feeding behaviors of sei, humpback, minke, or fin whales on their 

respective feeding areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

An area for the small resident Bryde’s whale population in the Gulf of Mexico was identified by 

LaBrecque et al. (2015a). Vessel noise from Navy testing activities could occur throughout the Study 

Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to vessel noise are likely to 

be short-term and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that vessel noise would affect 

Bryde’s whale natural behavior patterns or cause abandonment of this small and resident population 

area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a). 

Vessel noise may overlap with 21 habitats that have been identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b)

adjacent to or within the Study Area for small resident populations of bottlenose dolphins. However, 

most vessel noise radiated into these habitat areas will be from distant Navy vessel traffic. As discussed 

above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to vessel noise are likely to be short-term and 

minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that vessel noise would affect bottlenose dolphin’s 

natural behavior patterns or cause abandonment of these small and resident population areas identified 

by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b). 

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified a small resident population for harbor porpoises that overlaps the 

Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Vessel noise from Navy testing activities could occur 

throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-467

3.7 Marine Mammals

vessel noise are likely to be short-term and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that 

vessel noise would significantly impact harbor porpoise natural behavior patterns or cause 

abandonment of these small and resident population areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

Vessel noise would be generated within designated West Indian Manatee critical habitat and Northeast 

North Atlantic right whale critical habitat; although, sound from vessels would not affect the biological 

or physical features that are essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, 

conservation and recovery of these species. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, vessel noise generated during testing activities as described under Alternative 1

will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. Vessel noise would not affect the designated critical habitat of the North 

Atlantic right whale or the West Indian manatee. The Navy will consult with the NMFS and USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.7.3.1.5.3 Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Proposed Training Activities under Alternative 2 that involve vessel movement would increase compared 

to Alternative 1. Under Alternative 2, the maximum number of major training exercises could occur 

every year, an additional major training exercise would be conducted in the Gulf of Mexico Range 

Complex annually, and only the number of Civilian Port Defense activities would fluctuate annually. In 

addition, all unit level training requirements would be completed at sea rather than synthetically. Still, 

the locations, types, and severity of impacts would be similar to those described above in Section 

3.7.3.1.5.2 (Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities).

Vessel noise would be generated within designated West Indian Manatee critical habitat and Northeast 

North Atlantic right whale critical habitat; although, sound from vessels would not affect the biological 

or physical features that are essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, 

conservation and recovery of these species. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, vessel noise generated during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. Vessel noise would not affect the designated critical habitat of the North 

Atlantic right whale or the West Indian manatee. The Navy will consult with the NMFS and USFWS 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 in Section 3.7.3.1.5.2 (Impacts from Vessel Noise Under 

Alternative 1 for Testing Activities).

Vessel noise would be generated within designated West Indian Manatee critical habitat and Northeast 

North Atlantic right whale critical habitat; although, sound from vessels would not affect the biological 

or physical features that are essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, 

conservation and recovery of these species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-468

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, vessel noise generated during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, vessel noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. Vessel noise would not affect the designated critical habitat of the North 

Atlantic right whale or the West Indian manatee. The Navy will consult with the NMFS and USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.7.3.1.5.4 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, training or testing activities associated with the Proposed Action would 

not be conducted in the AFTT Study Area. Based on the analysis presented in Sections 3.7.3.1.5.2

(Impacts from Vessel Noise Under Alternative 1) and 3.7.3.1.5.3 (Impacts from Vessel Noise Under 

Alternative 2), impacts on individual marine mammals from vessel noise could occur under either action 

alternative, but impacts on marine mammal populations are not anticipated. Therefore, discontinuing 

activities involving vessel noise under the No Action Alternative would remove the potential for impacts 

on individual marine mammals, but would not measurably improve the status of marine mammal 

populations or otherwise contribute to the recovery of threatened or endangered species that occur in 

the Study Area.

3.7.3.1.6 Impacts from Aircraft Noise 

Marine mammals may be exposed to aircraft-generated noise throughout the Study Area. Fixed- and 

rotary-wing aircraft are used for a variety of training and testing activities throughout the Study Area. 

Most of these sounds would be concentrated around airbases and fixed ranges within each of the range 

complexes. Aircraft produce extensive airborne noise from either turbofan or turbojet engines. An 

infrequent type of aircraft noise is the sonic boom, produced when the aircraft exceeds the speed of 

sound. Rotary-wing aircraft (helicopters) produce low-frequency sound and vibration (Pepper et al., 

2003). A detailed description of aircraft noise as a stressor is in Section 3.0.3.3.1.5 (Aircraft Overflight 

Noise).

Sound from aircraft noise, including occasional sonic booms, lack the amplitude or duration to cause any 

hearing loss in marine mammals underwater (see Section 3.0.3.3.1.5, Aircraft Overflight Noise). Aircraft 

would pass quickly overhead and rotary-wing aircraft (e.g., helicopters) may hover for a few minutes at 

a time over the ocean. Due to the brief and dispersed nature of aircraft overflights, masking is also 

unlikely. Potential impacts from overflight noise are limited to brief behavioral and physiological stress 

reactions as aircraft passes overhead. Based on the short duration of potential exposure to overflight 

noise, behavioral and physiological stress reactions, if they did occur, are unlikely to be significant.

3.7.3.1.6.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Aircraft Noise

Potential impacts to marine mammals due to exposure to aircraft noise are analyzed qualitatively. As 

mentioned above in the summary, behavioral reactions and physiological stress are the only potential 

impacts to marine mammals from aircraft and missile overflight; therefore, the analysis focuses on the 

potential for those impacts. The amount of sound entering the water from aircraft is based on measured 

and modeled levels (see Section 3.0.3.3.1.5, Aircraft Noise). These sound levels, along with the 

operational characteristics of the aircraft (e.g., altitude, speed), are compared to situations where 

researchers have observed behavioral responses in marine mammals (see Behavioral Reactions to 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-469

3.7 Marine Mammals

Aircraft Noise under Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). The likelihood of behavioral and 

physiological stress reactions due to Navy aircraft noise is then discussed in light of this research.

3.7.3.1.6.2 Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Characteristics of aircraft noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors) and the number of 

training activities that include aircraft under Alternative 1 are shown in Section 3.0.3.3.4.4 (Aircraft). 

Training activities with aircraft would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed 

Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Aircraft overflights would usually 

occur near Navy airfields, installations, and in special use airspace within Navy range complexes. Aircraft 

flights during training would be most concentrated within the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, 

Jacksonville, and Key West Range Complexes.

Marine mammals may respond to both the physical presence and to the noise generated by aircraft, 

making it difficult to attribute causation to one or the other stimulus. In addition to noise produced, all 

low-flying aircraft make shadows, which can cause animals at the surface to react. Helicopters may also 

produce strong downdrafts, a vertical flow of air that becomes a surface wind, which can also affect an 

animal’s behavior at or near the surface. 

Transmission of sound from a moving airborne source to a receptor underwater is influenced by 

numerous factors, but significant acoustic energy is primarily transmitted into the water directly below 

the craft in a narrow cone, as discussed in detail in Appendix D (Acoustic And Explosive Concepts). 

Underwater sounds from aircraft are strongest just below the surface and directly under the aircraft. 

Section 3.0.3.3.1.5 (Aircraft Overflight Noise) provides additional information on aircraft noise 

characteristics. 

Section 3.7.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions) reviews research and observations regarding marine mammal 

behavioral reactions to aircraft overflights; many of the observations cited in this section are of marine 

mammal reactions to aircraft flown for whale-watching and marine research purposes. Marine mammal 

survey aircraft are typically used to locate, photograph, track, and sometimes follow animals for long 

distances or for long periods of time, all of which results in the animal being much more frequently 

located directly beneath the aircraft (in the cone of the loudest noise and potentially in the shadow of 

the aircraft) for extended periods. Navy aircraft would not follow marine mammals. In contrast to 

whale-watching excursions or research efforts, Navy overflights would not result in prolonged exposure 

of marine mammals to overhead noise or encroachment. 

In most cases, exposure of a marine mammal to fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters aircraft presence and 

noise would last for only seconds as the aircraft quickly passes overhead. Animals would have to be at or 

near the surface at the time of an overflight to be exposed to appreciable sound levels. Takeoffs and 

landings occur at established airfields as well as on vessels at sea at unspecified locations across the 

Study Area. Takeoffs and landings from Navy vessels could startle marine mammals; however, these 

events only produce in-water noise at any given location for a brief period as the aircraft climbs to 

cruising altitude. Some sonic booms from aircraft could startle marine mammals, but these events are 

transient and happen infrequently at any given location within the Study Area. Repeated exposure to 

most individuals over short periods (days) is extremely unlikely, except for animals that are resident in 

inshore areas around Navy ports, on Navy fixed ranges (e.g., the Undersea Warfare Training Range), or 

during major training exercises. These animals could be subjected to multiple overflights per day; 

however, aircraft would pass quickly overhead, typically at altitudes above 3,000 ft., which would make 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-470

3.7 Marine Mammals

marine mammals unlikely to respond. No long-term consequences for individuals or populations would 

be expected.

Low flight altitudes of helicopters during some anti-submarine warfare and mine warfare activities, 

often under 100 ft., may elicit a somewhat stronger behavioral response due to the proximity to marine 

mammals, the slower airspeed and therefore longer exposure duration, and the downdraft created by 

the helicopter’s rotor. Marine mammals would likely avoid the area under the helicopter. It is unlikely 

that an individual would be exposed repeatedly for long periods because these aircraft typically transit 

open ocean areas within the Study Area. The consensus of all the studies reviewed is that aircraft noise 

would cause only small temporary changes in the behavior of marine mammals. Specifically, marine 

mammals at or near the surface when an aircraft flies overhead at low altitude may startle, divert their 

attention to the aircraft, or avoid the immediate area by swimming away or diving. No more than shortterm reactions are likely. No long-term consequences for individuals, species or stocks would be 

expected.

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified a North Atlantic right whale migration area, reproduction areas, and 

feeding areas, which overlap with the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville

Range Complexes within the Study Area. Aircraft noise from Navy training activities could occur 

throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to 

aircraft noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that aircraft 

noise would significantly impact North Atlantic right whale feeding, reproduction or migrating behavior 

on those respective areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

Feeding areas for sei, humpback, minke, and fin whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlap 

the Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Aircraft noise from Navy training activities could 

occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions 

to aircraft noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that 

aircraft noise would affect the feeding behaviors of sei, humpback, minke, or fin whales on their 

respective feeding areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

An area for the small resident Bryde’s whale population in the Gulf of Mexico was identified by 

LaBrecque et al. (2015a). Aircraft noise from Navy training activities could occur throughout the Study 

Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to aircraft noise are likely to 

be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that aircraft noise would affect Bryde’s 

whale natural behavior patterns or cause abandonment of this small and resident population area 

identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a). 

Aircraft noise may overlap with 21 habitats that have been identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b)

adjacent to or within the Study Area for small resident populations of bottlenose dolphins. Aircraft noise 

from Navy training activities could occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine 

mammals overall, behavioral reactions to aircraft noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred 

at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that aircraft noise would affect bottlenose dolphin’s natural behavior 

patterns or cause abandonment of these small and resident population areas identified by LaBrecque et 

al. (2015a, 2015b). 

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified a small resident population for harbor porpoises that overlaps the 

Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Aircraft noise from Navy training activities could 

occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions 

to aircraft noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-471

3.7 Marine Mammals

aircraft noise would significantly impact harbor porpoise natural behavior patterns or cause 

abandonment of these small and resident population areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

Aircraft noise would be generated within designated West Indian Manatee critical habitat and Northeast 

North Atlantic right whale critical habitat; although, sound from aircraft would not affect the biological 

or physical features that are essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, 

conservation and recovery of these species. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, aircraft noise generated during training activities as described under Alternative 

1 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. Aircraft noise would not affect the designated critical habitat of the North 

Atlantic right whale or the West Indian manatee. The Navy will consult with the NMFS and USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Characteristics of aircraft noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors) and the number of 

testing activities with aircraft under Alternative 1 are shown in Section 3.0.3.3.4.4 (Aircraft). Testing 

activities using aircraft would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action 

and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). Aircraft overflights would usually occur 

near Navy airfields, installations, and in special use airspace within Navy range complexes. Testing

activities with aircraft would be most concentrated in the Virginia Capes Range Complex. The types and 

severity of impacts would be similar to those described above in Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under 

Alternative 1 for Training Activities. 

Aircraft noise would be generated within designated West Indian Manatee critical habitat and Northeast 

North Atlantic right whale critical habitat; although, sound from aircraft would not affect the biological 

or physical features that are essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, 

conservation and recovery of these species. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, aircraft noise generated during testing activities as described under Alternative 

1 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. Aircraft noise would not affect the designated critical habitat of the North 

Atlantic right whale or the West Indian manatee. The Navy will consult with the NMFS and USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.7.3.1.6.3 Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

There would be a minor increase in aircraft overflights during training activities under Alternative 2 

compared to Alternative 1; however, the types of impacts would not be discernible from those 

described for training under Alternative 1. 

Aircraft noise would be generated within designated West Indian Manatee critical habitat and Northeast 

North Atlantic right whale critical habitat; although, sound from aircraft would not affect the biological 

or physical features that are essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, 

conservation and recovery of these species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-472

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, aircraft noise generated during training activities as described under Alternative 

2 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. Aircraft noise would not affect the designated critical habitat of the North 

Atlantic right whale or the West Indian manatee. The Navy will consult with the NMFS and USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

There would be a minor increase in aircraft overflights under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; 

however, the types of impacts would not be discernible from those described for testing under 

Alternative 1. 

Aircraft noise would be generated within designated West Indian Manatee critical habitat and Northeast 

North Atlantic right whale critical habitat; although, sound from aircraft would not affect the biological 

or physical features that are essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, 

conservation and recovery of these species. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, aircraft noise generated during testing activities as described under Alternative 

2 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, aircraft noise during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals. Aircraft noise would not affect the designated critical habitat of the North 

Atlantic right whale or the West Indian manatee. The Navy will consult with the NMFS and USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.7.3.1.6.4 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, training or testing activities associated with the Proposed Action would 

not be conducted in the AFTT Study Area. Based on the analysis presented in Sections 3.7.3.1.6.2

(Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1) and 3.7.3.1.6.3 (Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under 

Alternative 2), impacts on individual marine mammals from activities that produce aircraft noise could 

occur under either action alternative, but impacts on marine mammal populations are not anticipated. 

Therefore, discontinuing activities involving aircraft noise under the No Action Alternative would remove 

the potential for impacts on individual marine mammals, but would not measurably improve the status 

of marine mammal populations or otherwise contribute to the recovery of threatened or endangered 

species that occur in the Study Area.

3.7.3.1.7 Impacts from Weapons Noise

Marine mammals may be exposed to sounds caused by the firing of weapons, objects in flight, and inert 

impact of non-explosive munitions on the water's surface, which are described in Section 3.0.3.3.1.6 

(Weapons Noise). In general, these are impulsive sounds generated in close vicinity to or at the water 

surface, with the exception of items that are launched underwater. The firing of a weapon may have 

several components of associated noise. Firing of guns could include sound generated in air by firing a 

gun (muzzle blast) and a crack sound due to a low amplitude shock wave generated by a supersonic 

projectile flying through the air. Most in-air sound would be reflected at the air-water interface. 

Underwater sounds would be strongest just below the surface and directly under the firing point. Any 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-473

3.7 Marine Mammals

sound that enters the water only does so within a narrow cone below the firing point or path of the 

projectile. Vibration from the blast propagating through a ship’s hull, the sound generated by the impact 

of an object with the water surface, and the sound generated by launching an object underwater are 

other sources of impulsive sound in the water. Sound due to missile and target launches is typically at a 

maximum at initiation of the booster rocket and rapidly fades as the missile or target travels downrange.

Reactions by marine mammals to these specific stressors have not been recorded; however, marine 

mammals would be expected to react to weapons noise as they would other transient sounds 

(Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). 

3.7.3.1.7.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Weapons Noise

Potential impacts to marine mammals due to exposure to weapons noise are analyzed qualitatively. 

Observations of behavioral reactions to these specific types of noise do not exist; however, observations 

of marine mammal reactions to other impulsive and transient sounds give some indication as to how 

marine mammals may react to weapons noise. The amount of sound entering the water from various 

types of weapons noise is based on measured levels (see Section 3.0.3.3.1.6, Weapons Noise). These 

sound levels are compared to situations where researchers have observed behavioral responses in 

marine mammals (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5, Behavioral Reactions). The likelihood of behavioral and 

physiological stress reactions due to exposure to weapons noise is then discussed in light of this 

research.

3.7.3.1.7.2 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Activities using weapons and deterrents would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). General characteristics 

of types of weapons noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Weapons Noise), and quantities and 

locations of expended non-explosive practice munitions and explosives (fragment-producing) for 

training under Alternative 1 are shown in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials). For 

explosive munitions, only associated firing noise is considered in the analysis of weapons noise. The 

noise produced by the detonation of explosive weapons is analyzed in Section 3.7.3.2 (Explosive 

Stressors). 

Use of weapons during training would occur in the range complexes, with greatest use of most types of 

munitions in the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville 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. 

A gun fired from a ship on the surface of the water propagates a blast wave away from the gun muzzle 

into the water (see Section 3.0.3.3.1.6, Weapons Noise). Average peak sound pressure in the water 

measured directly below the muzzle of the gun and under the flight path of the shell (assuming it 

maintains an altitude of only a few meters above the water’s surface) was approximately 200 dB re 

1 μPa. Animals at the surface of the water, in a narrow footprint under a weapons trajectory, could be 

exposed to naval gunfire noise and may exhibit brief startle reactions, avoidance, diving, or no reaction 

at all. Due to the short-term, transient nature of gunfire noise, animals are unlikely to be exposed 

multiple times within a short period. Behavioral reactions would likely be short term (minutes) and are 

unlikely to lead to substantial costs or long-term consequences for individuals, species, or stocks.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-474

3.7 Marine Mammals

Sound due to missile and target launches is typically at a maximum at initiation of the booster rocket 

and rapidly fades as the missile or target travels downrange. These sounds would be transient and of 

short duration, lasting no more than a few seconds at any given location. Many missiles and targets are 

launched from aircraft, which would produce minimal noise in the water due to the altitude of the 

aircraft at launch. Missiles and targets launched by ships or near the water’s surface may expose marine 

mammals to levels of sound that could produce brief startle reactions, avoidance, or diving. Due to the 

short-term, transient nature of launch noise, animals are unlikely to be exposed multiple times within a 

short period. Behavioral reactions would likely be short-term (minutes) and are unlikely to lead to longterm consequences for individual, species, or stocks. 

Some objects, such as hyperkinetic projectiles and non-explosive practice munitions, could impact the 

water with great force and produce a large impulse (see Section 3.0.3.3.1.6, Weapons Noise). Marine 

mammals within a few meters could experience some temporary hearing loss, although the probability 

is low of the non-explosive ordnance landing within this range while a marine mammal is near the 

surface. Animals within the area may hear the impact of non-explosive ordnance on the surface of the 

water and would likely alert, startle, dive, or avoid the immediate area. Significant behavioral reactions 

from marine mammals would not be expected due to non-explosive ordnance impact noise; therefore, 

long-term consequences for the individual, species, or stocks are unlikely. 

To further avoid the potential for impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation for weapons firing noise 

that includes ceasing large-caliber gunnery activities if a marine mammal is observed in the mitigation 

zone, as discussed in Section 5.3.2 (Acoustic Stressors).

Manatees prefer inland waters and are unlikely to encounter noise from weapons use associated with 

proposed Navy training activities that typically occur more than 12 NM from shore. 

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified a North Atlantic right whale migration area, reproduction areas, and 

feeding areas, which overlap with the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville

Range Complexes within the Study Area. Weapons noise from Navy training activities could occur 

throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, any behavioral reactions to 

weapons noise are likely to be brief and minor. Therefore, it is unlikely that weapons noise would 

significantly impact North Atlantic right whale feeding, reproduction, or migrating behavior on those 

respective areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

Feeding areas for sei, humpback, minke, and fin whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlap 

the Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Weapons noise from Navy training activities 

could occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral 

reactions to weapons firing, launch, and impact noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at 

all. Therefore, it is unlikely that weapons noise would affect the feeding behaviors of sei, humpback, 

minke, or fin whales on their respective feeding areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

An area for the small resident Bryde’s whale population in the Gulf of Mexico was identified by 

LaBrecque et al. (2015a). Weapons noise from Navy training activities could occur throughout the Study 

Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, any behavioral reactions to weapons noise are 

likely to be brief and minor. Therefore, it is unlikely that weapons noise would affect Bryde’s whale 

natural behavior patterns or cause abandonment of this small and resident population area identified by 

LaBrecque et al. (2015a). 

Twenty-one habitats have been identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b) adjacent to or within the 

Study Area for small resident populations of bottlenose dolphins. Navy training activities involving 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-475

3.7 Marine Mammals

weapons noise could occur throughout the Study Area; however, these activities typically occur at 3 NM 

or greater from shore and not within the nearshore and inshore habitats that comprise the bottlenose 

dolphin identified areas. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to 

weapons noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, weapons noise would 

not affect bottlenose dolphins’ natural behavior patterns or cause abandonment of these small and 

resident population areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b). 

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified a small resident population for harbor porpoises that overlaps the 

Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Weapons noise from Navy training activities could 

occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions 

to weapons noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that 

weapons noise would significantly impact harbor porpoise natural behavior patterns or cause 

abandonment of these small and resident population areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

Weapons noise would not be generated within designated West Indian Manatee critical habitat. Some 

weapons noise could be generated within Northeast North Atlantic right whale critical habitat; although, 

sound from weapons would not affect the biological or physical features that are essential for the 

reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, conservation and recovery of this species. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, weapons noise generated during training activities as described under 

Alternative 1 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise generated during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

may affect ESA-listed marine mammals. Weapons noise would not affect the designated critical habitat 

of the North Atlantic right whale or the West Indian manatee. The Navy will consult with the NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Activities using weapons and deterrents would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). General characteristics 

of types of weapons noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Weapons Noise), and quantities and 

locations of expended non-explosive practice munitions and explosives (fragment-producing) for testing 

under Alternative 1 are shown in 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials). (For explosive munitions, 

only associated firing noise is considered in the analysis of weapons noise. The noise produced by the 

detonation of explosive weapons is analyzed in Section 3.7.3.2, Explosive Stressors). 

Use of weapons during testing would typically occur on the range complexes, with some activity also 

occurring on testing ranges. Most activities involving large-caliber naval gunfire or the launching of 

targets, missiles, bombs, or other munitions are typically conducted more than 12 NM from shore. 

The associated impacts would differ in quantity and location from training activities; however, the types 

and severity of impacts would not be discernible from those described above for training activities. 

To further avoid the potential for impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation for weapons firing noise 

that includes ceasing large-caliber gunnery activities if a marine mammal is observed in the mitigation 

zone, as discussed in Section 5.3.2 (Acoustic Stressors).

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified a North Atlantic right whale migration area, reproduction areas, and 

feeding areas, which overlap with the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville

Range Complexes within the Study Area. Weapons noise from Navy testing activities could occur 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-476

3.7 Marine Mammals

throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to 

weapons noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that 

weapons noise would significantly impact North Atlantic right whale feeding, reproduction or migrating 

behavior on those respective areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

Feeding areas for sei, humpback, minke, and fin whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlap 

the Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Weapons noise from Navy testing activities 

could occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral 

reactions to weapons noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely 

that weapons noise would affect the feeding behaviors of sei, humpback, minke, or fin whales on their 

respective feeding areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

An area for the small resident Bryde’s whale population in the Gulf of Mexico was identified by 

LaBrecque et al. (2015a). Weapons noise from Navy testing activities could occur throughout the Study 

Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to weapons noise are likely 

to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that weapons noise would affect 

Bryde’s whale natural behavior patterns or cause abandonment of this small and resident population 

area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a). 

Twenty-one habitats have been identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b) adjacent to or within the 

Study Area for small resident populations of bottlenose dolphins. Navy testing activities involving 

weapons noise could occur throughout the Study Area; however, these activities typically occur at 3 NM 

or greater from shore and not within the nearshore and inshore habitats that comprise the bottlenose 

dolphin identified areas. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions to 

weapons noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, weapons noise would 

not affect bottlenose dolphin’s natural behavior patterns or cause abandonment of these small and 

resident population areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b). 

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) identified a small resident population for harbor porpoises that overlaps the 

Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Weapons noise from Navy testing activities could 

occur throughout the Study Area. As discussed above for marine mammals overall, behavioral reactions 

to weapons noise are likely to be brief and minor if they occurred at all. Therefore, it is unlikely that 

weapons noise would significantly impact harbor porpoise natural behavior patterns or cause 

abandonment of these small and resident population areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). 

Weapons noise would not be generated within designated West Indian Manatee critical habitat. Some 

weapons noise could be generated within Northeast North Atlantic right whale critical habitat; although, 

sound from weapons would not affect the biological or physical features that are essential for the 

reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, conservation and recovery of this species. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, weapons noise generated during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities. 

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise generated during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

may affect ESA-listed marine mammals. Weapons noise would not affect the designated critical habitat 

of the North Atlantic right whale or the West Indian manatee. The Navy will consult with the NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-477

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.1.7.3 Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Weapons Firing, Launch, and Impact Noise Under Alternative 2 for Training 

Activities

Activities using weapons and deterrents would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). General characteristics 

of types of weapons noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Weapons Noise), and quantities and 

locations of expended non-explosive practice munitions and explosives (fragment-producing) for 

training under Alternative 2 are shown in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials). (For 

explosive munitions, only associated firing noise is considered in the analysis of weapons noise. The 

noise produced by the detonation of explosive weapons is analyzed in Section 3.7.3.2, Explosive 

Stressors). 

There would be a minor increase in these activities under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; 

however, the types and severity of impacts would not be discernible from those described above in 

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities. To further avoid the potential for 

impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation for weapons firing noise that includes ceasing large-caliber 

gunnery activities if a marine mammal is observed in the mitigation zone, as discussed in Section 5.3.2 

(Acoustic Stressors).

Weapons noise would not be generated within designated West Indian Manatee critical habitat. Some 

weapons noise could be generated within Northeast North Atlantic right whale critical habitat; although, 

sound from weapons would not affect the biological or physical features that are essential for the 

reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, conservation and recovery of this species. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, weapons noise generated during training activities as described under 

Alternative 2 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise generated during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

may affect ESA-listed marine mammals. Weapons noise would not affect the designated critical habitat 

of the North Atlantic right whale or the West Indian manatee. The Navy will consult with the NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Activities using weapons and deterrents would be conducted as described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives) and Appendix A (Navy Activity Descriptions). General characteristics 

of types of weapons noise are described in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Weapons Noise), and quantities and 

locations of expended non-explosive practice munitions and explosives (fragment-producing) for testing 

under Alternative 2 are shown in Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials). (For explosive 

munitions, only associated firing noise is considered in the analysis of weapons noise. The noise 

produced by the detonation of explosive weapons is analyzed in Section 3.7.3.2, Explosive Stressors).

There would be a minor increase in these activities under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1; 

however, the types and severity of impacts would not be discernible from those described above in 

Impacts from Aircraft Noise Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities. To further avoid the potential for 

impacts, the Navy will implement mitigation for weapons firing noise that includes ceasing large-caliber 

gunnery activities if a marine mammal is observed in the mitigation zone, as discussed in Section 5.3.2 

(Acoustic Stressors).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-478

3.7 Marine Mammals

Weapons noise would not be generated within designated West Indian Manatee critical habitat. Some 

weapons noise could be generated within Northeast North Atlantic right whale critical habitat; although, 

sound from weapons would not affect the biological or physical features that are essential for the 

reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, conservation and recovery of this species. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, weapons noise generated during testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities.

Pursuant to the ESA, weapons noise generated during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

may affect ESA-listed marine mammals. Weapons noise would not affect the designated critical habitat 

of the North Atlantic right whale or the West Indian manatee. The Navy will consult with the NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.7.3.1.7.4 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, training or testing activities associated with the Proposed Action will 

not be conducted in the AFTT Study Area. Based on the analysis presented in Sections 3.7.3.1.7.2

(Impacts from Weapons Noise Under Alternative 1) and 3.7.3.1.7.3 (Impacts from Weapons Noise Under 

Alternative 2), impacts on individual marine mammals from activities that produce weapons noise could 

occur under either alternative, but impacts on marine mammal populations are not anticipated. 

Therefore, discontinuing activities that involve weapons noise under the No Action Alternative would 

remove the potential for impacts on individual marine mammals, but would not measurably improve 

the status of marine mammal populations or otherwise contribute to the recovery of threatened or 

endangered species that occur in the Study Area.

3.7.3.2 Explosive Stressors 

Assessing whether an explosive detonation may disturb or injure a marine mammal involves 

understanding the characteristics of the explosive sources, the marine mammals that may be present 

near the sources, the physiological effects of a close explosive exposure, and the effects of impulsive 

sound on marine mammal hearing and behavior. Many other factors besides just the received level or 

pressure wave of an explosion such as the animal’s physical condition and size; prior experience with the 

explosive sound; and proximity to the explosion may influence physiological effects and behavioral 

reactions.

The ways in which an explosive exposure could result in immediate effects or lead to long-term 

consequences for an animal are explained in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from 

Acoustic and Explosive Stressors (Section 3.0.3.6.1). The following Background section discusses what is 

currently known about explosive effects to marine mammals. 

3.7.3.2.1 Background 

3.7.3.2.1.1 Injury

Injury refers to the direct effects on the tissues or organs of an animal due to exposure to pressure 

waves. Injury in marine mammals can be caused directly by exposure to explosives. The Conceptual 

Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Stressors (see Section 3.0.3.6.1) provides 

additional information on injury and the framework used to analyze this potential impact.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-479

3.7 Marine Mammals

Injury due to Explosives

Explosive injury to marine mammals would consist of primary blast injury, which refers to those injuries 

that result from the compression of a body exposed to a blast wave and is usually observed as 

barotrauma of gas-containing structures (e.g., lung and gut) and structural damage to the auditory 

system (Greaves et al., 1943; Office of the Surgeon General, 1991; Richmond et al., 1973). The near 

instantaneous high magnitude pressure change near an explosion can injure an animal where tissue 

material properties significantly differ from the surrounding environment, such as around air-filled 

cavities such as in the lungs or gastrointestinal tract. Large pressure changes at tissue-air interfaces in 

the lungs and gastrointestinal tract may cause tissue rupture, resulting in a range of injuries depending 

on degree of exposure. The lungs are typically the first site to show any damage, while the solid organs 

(e.g., liver, spleen, and kidney) are more resistant to blast injury (Clark & Ward, 1943). Recoverable 

injuries would include slight lung injury, such as capillary interstitial bleeding, and contusions to the 

gastrointestinal tract. More severe injuries, such as tissue lacerations, major hemorrhage, organ 

rupture, or air in the chest cavity (pneumothorax), would significantly reduce fitness and likely cause 

death in the wild. Rupture of the lung may also introduce air into the vascular system, producing air 

emboli that can cause a stroke or heart attack by restricting oxygen delivery to critical organs. 

If an animal is exposed to an explosive blast underwater, the likelihood of injury depends on the charge 

size, the geometry of the exposure (distance to the charge, depth of the animal and the charge), and the 

size of the animal. In general, an animal would be less susceptible to injury near the water surface 

because the pressure wave reflected from the water surface would interfere with the direct path 

pressure wave, reducing positive pressure exposure. Susceptibility would increase with depth, until 

normal lung collapse (due to increasing hydrostatic pressure) and increasing ambient pressures again 

reduce susceptibility. See Appendix D (Acoustic and Explosive Concepts) for an overview of explosive 

propagation and an explanation of explosive effects on gas cavities.

The only known occurrence of mortality or injury to a marine mammal due to a Navy training or testing 

event involving explosives occurred in March 2011 in nearshore waters off San Diego, California, at the 

Silver Strand Training Complex. This area had been used for underwater demolitions training for at least 

three decades without prior known incident. On this occasion, however, a group of approximately 100-

150 long-beaked common dolphins entered the mitigation zone surrounding an area where a timedelayed firing device had been initiated on an explosive with a net explosive weight (NEW) of 

8.76 pounds (3.97 kilograms [kg]) placed at a depth of 48 ft. (14.6 m). Approximately 1 minute after 

detonation, three animals were observed dead at the surface. The Navy recovered those animals and 

transferred them to the local stranding network for necropsy. A fourth animal was discovered stranded 

and dead 42 NM to the north of the detonation 3 days later. It is unknown exactly how close those four 

animals were to the detonation. Upon necropsy, all four animals were found to have sustained typical 

mammalian primary blast injuries (Danil & St. Ledger, 2011). 

Relatively little is known about auditory system trauma in marine mammals resulting from explosive 

exposure, although it is assumed that auditory structures would be vulnerable to blast injuries. Auditory 

trauma was found in two humpback whales that died following the detonation of a 5,000 kg explosive 

used off Newfoundland during demolition of an offshore oil rig platform (Ketten et al., 1993), but the 

proximity of the whales to the detonation was unknown. Eardrum rupture was examined in submerged 

terrestrial mammals exposed to underwater explosions (Richmond et al., 1973; Yelverton et al., 1973); 

however, results may not be applicable to the anatomical adaptations for underwater hearing in marine 

mammals. In this discussion, primary blast injury to auditory tissues is considered gross structural tissue 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-480

3.7 Marine Mammals

damage distinct from threshold shift or other auditory effects (see Section 3.7.3.2.1.2, Hearing Loss and 

Auditory Injury). 

Controlled tests with a variety of lab animals (mice, rats, dogs, pigs, sheep and other species) are the 

best data sources on actual injury to mammals due to underwater exposure to explosions. In the early 

1970s, the Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research conducted a series of tests in an 

artificial pond at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico to determine the effects of underwater explosions 

on mammals, with the goal of determining safe ranges for human divers. The resulting data were 

summarized in two reports (Richmond et al., 1973; Yelverton et al., 1973). Specific physiological 

observations for each test animal are documented in Richmond et al. (1973). Gas-containing internal 

organs, such as lungs and intestines, were the principle damage sites in submerged terrestrial mammals; 

this is consistent with earlier studies of mammal exposures to underwater explosions in which lungs 

were consistently the first areas to show damage, with less consistent damage observed in the 

gastrointestinal tract (Clark & Ward, 1943; Greaves et al., 1943). Results from all of these tests suggest 

two explosive metrics are predictive of explosive injury: peak pressure and impulse.

Impulse as a Predictor of Explosive Injury

In the Lovelace studies, acoustic impulse was found to be the metric most related to degree of injury, 

and size of an animal’s gas-containing cavities was thought to play a role in blast injury susceptibility. 

The lungs of most marine mammals are similar in proportion to overall body size as those of terrestrial 

mammals, so the magnitude of lung damage in the tests may approximate the magnitude of injury to 

marine mammals when scaled for body size. Within the marine mammals, mysticetes and deeper divers 

(e.g., Kogiidae, Physeteridae, Ziphiidae) tend to have lung to body size ratios that are smaller and more 

similar to terrestrial animal ratios than the shallow diving odontocetes (e.g., Phocoenidae, Delphinidae) 

and pinnipeds (Fahlman et al., 2014a; Piscitelli et al., 2010). The use of test data with smaller lung to 

body ratios to set injury thresholds may result in a more conservative estimate of potential for damaging 

effects (i.e., lower thresholds) for animals with larger lung to body ratios.

For these shallow exposures of small terrestrial mammals (masses ranging from 3.4 to 50 kg) to 

underwater detonations, Richmond et al. (1973) reported that no blast injuries were observed when 

exposures were less than 6 pounds per square inch per millisecond (psi-ms) (40 Pa-s), no instances of 

slight lung hemorrhage occurred below 20 psi-ms (140 Pa-s), and instances of no lung damage were 

observed in some exposures at higher levels up to 40 psi-ms (280 Pa-s). An impulse of 34 psi-ms 

(230 Pa-s) resulted in about 50 percent incidence of slight lung hemorrhage. About half of the animals 

had gastrointestinal tract contusions (with slight ulceration, i.e., some perforation of the mucosal layer) 

at exposures of 25-27 psi-ms (170-190 Pa-s). Lung injuries were found to be slightly more prevalent than 

GI tract injuries for the same exposure.

The Lovelace subject animals were exposed near the water surface; therefore, depth effects were not 

discernible in this data set. In addition, this data set included only small terrestrial animals, whereas 

marine mammals may be several orders of magnitude larger and have respiratory structures adapted for 

the high pressures experienced at depth. Goertner (1982) examined how lung cavity size would affect 

susceptibility to blast injury by considering both marine mammal size and depth in a bubble oscillation 

model of the lung. Animal depth relates to injury susceptibility in two ways: injury is related to the 

relative increase in explosive pressure over hydrostatic pressure, and lung collapse with depth reduces 

the potential for air cavity oscillatory damage. The period over which an impulse must be delivered to 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-481

3.7 Marine Mammals

cause damage is assumed to be related to the natural oscillation period of an animal’s lung, which 

depends on lung size. 

Because gas-containing organs are more vulnerable to primary blast injury, adaptations for diving that 

allow for collapse of lung tissues with depth may make animals less vulnerable to lung injury with depth. 

Adaptations for diving include a flexible thoracic cavity, distensible veins that can fill space as air 

compresses, elastic lung tissue, and resilient tracheas with interlocking cartilaginous rings that provide 

strength and flexibility (Ridgway, 1972). Older literature suggested complete lung collapse depths at 

approximately 70 m for dolphins (Ridgway & Howard, 1979) and 20–50 m for phocid seals (Falke et al., 

1985; Kooyman et al., 1972). Follow-on work by Kooyman and Sinnett (1982), in which pulmonary 

shunting was studied in harbor seals and sea lions, suggested that complete lung collapse for these 

species would be about 170 m and about 180 m, respectively. More recently, evidence in sea lions 

suggests that complete collapse might not occur until depths as great as 225 m; although the depth of 

collapse and depth of the dive are related, sea lions can affect the depth of lung collapse by varying the 

amount of air inhaled on a dive (McDonald & Ponganis, 2012). This is an important consideration for all 

divers who can modulate lung volume and gas exchange prior to diving via the degree of inhalation and 

during diving via exhalation (Fahlman et al., 2009); indeed, there are noted differences in pre-dive 

respiratory behavior with some marine mammals exhibiting pre-dive exhalation to reduce the lung 

volume [e.g., phocid seals (Kooyman et al., 1973)].

Peak Pressure as a Predictor of Explosive Injury

High instantaneous peak pressures can cause damaging tissue distortion. Goertner (1982) suggested a

peak overpressure gastrointestinal tract injury criterion because the size of gas bubbles in the GI tract 

are variable, and their oscillation period could be short relative to primary blast wave exposure duration. 

The potential for gastrointestinal tract injury, therefore, may not be adequately modeled by the single 

oscillation bubble methodology used to estimate lung injury due to impulse. Like impulse, however, high 

instantaneous pressures may damage many parts of the body, but damage to the gastrointestinal tract 

is used as an indicator of any peak pressure-induced injury due to its vulnerability.

Older military reports documenting exposure of human divers to blast exposure generally describe peak 

pressure exposures around 100 psi (237 dB re 1 μPa peak) to feel like slight pressure or stinging 

sensation on skin, with no enduring effects (Christian & Gaspin, 1974). Around 200 psi, the shock wave 

felt like a blow to the head and chest. Data from the Lovelace Foundation experiments show instances 

of gastrointestinal tract contusions after exposures up to 1147 psi peak pressure, while exposures of up 

to 588 psi peak pressure resulted in many instances of no observed gastrointestinal tract effects. The 

lowest exposure for which slight contusions to the gastrointestinal tract were reported was 237 dB re 1 

μPa peak. As a vulnerable gas-containing organ, the gastrointestinal tract is vulnerable to both high peak 

pressure and high impulse, which may vary to differing extents due to blast exposure conditions (i.e., 

animal depth, distance from the charge). This likely explains the range of effects seen at similar peak 

pressure exposure levels and shows the utility of considering both peak pressure and impulse when 

analyzing the potential for injury due to explosives.

3.7.3.2.1.2 Hearing Loss and Auditory Injury

Exposure to intense sound may result in noise-induced hearing loss that persists after cessation of the 

noise exposure. Hearing loss may be temporary or permanent, depending on factors such as the 

exposure frequency, received SPL, temporal pattern, and duration. The frequencies affected by hearing 

loss may vary depending on the exposure frequency, with frequencies at and above the exposure 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-482

3.7 Marine Mammals

frequency most strongly affected. The amount of hearing loss may range from slight to profound, 

depending on the ability of the individual to hear at the affected frequencies. The Conceptual 

Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Stressors (see Section 3.0.3.6.1) provides 

additional information on hearing loss and the framework used to analyze this potential impact. 

Hearing loss has only been studied in a few species of marine mammals, although hearing studies with 

terrestrial mammals are also informative. There are no direct measurements of hearing loss in marine 

mammals due to exposure to explosive sources. The sound resulting from an explosive detonation is 

considered an impulsive sound and shares important qualities (i.e., short duration and fast rise time) 

with other impulsive sounds such as those produced by air guns. General research findings regarding 

TTS and PTS in marine mammals as well as findings specific to exposure to other impulsive sound 

sources are discussed in Hearing Loss and Auditory Injury under Acoustic Stressors above (see Section 

3.7.3.1.1.2). 

3.7.3.2.1.3 Physiological Stress

Marine mammals naturally experience stress within their environment and as part of their life histories. 

The stress response is a suite of physiological changes that are meant to help an organism mitigate the 

impact of a stressor. However, if the magnitude and duration of the stress response is too great or too 

long, then it can have negative consequences to the organism (e.g., decreased immune function, 

decreased reproduction). The Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive 

Stressors (see Section 3.0.3.6.1) provides additional information on physiological stress and the 

framework used to analyze this potential impact. 

There are no direct measurements of physiological stress in marine mammals due to exposure to 

explosive sources. General research findings regarding physiological stress in marine mammals due to 

exposure to sound and other stressors are discussed in detail in Physiological Stress under Acoustic 

Stressors above (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.3). Because there are many unknowns regarding the occurrence 

of acoustically induced stress responses in marine mammals, it is assumed that any physiological 

response (e.g., hearing loss or injury) or significant behavioral response is also associated with a stress 

response. 

3.7.3.2.1.4 Masking 

Masking occurs when one sound, distinguished as the “noise,” interferes with the detection or 

recognition of another sound. The quantitative definition of masking is the amount in decibels an 

auditory detection or discrimination threshold is raised in the presence of a masker (Erbe et al., 2015). 

As discussed in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Stressors 

(Section 3.0.3.6.1), masking can effectively limit the distance over which a marine mammal can 

communicate, detect biologically relevant sounds, and echolocate (odontocetes). Masking only occurs in 

the presence of the masking noise and does not persist after the cessation of the noise. Masking may 

lead to a change in vocalizations or a change in behavior (e.g., cessation of foraging, leaving an area).

There are no direct observations of masking in marine mammals due to exposure to explosive sources. 

General research findings regarding masking in marine mammals due to exposure to sound and other 

stressors are discussed in detail in Masking under Acoustic Stressors above (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.4). 

Potential masking from explosive sounds is likely to be similar to masking studied for other impulsive 

sounds such as air guns. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-483

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.2.1.5 Behavioral Reactions

As discussed in the Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Stressors 

(Section 3.0.3.6.1), any stimuli in the environment can cause a behavioral response in marine mammals, 

including noise from explosions. There are no direct observations of behavioral reactions from marine 

mammals due to exposure to explosive sounds. Behavioral reactions from explosive sounds are likely to 

be similar to reactions studied for other impulsive sounds such as those produced by air guns. Impulsive 

signals, particularly at close range, have a rapid rise time and higher instantaneous peak pressure than 

other signal types, making them more likely to cause startle responses or avoidance responses. Most 

data has come from seismic surveys that occur over long durations (e.g., on the order of days to weeks), 

and typically utilize large multi-air gun arrays that fire repeatedly. While seismic air gun data (as 

presented in 3.7.3.1 Acoustic Stressors) provides the best available science for assessing behavioral 

responses to impulsive sounds (i.e., sounds from explosives) by marine mammals, it is likely that these 

responses represent a worst-case scenario compared to most Navy explosive noise sources. 

General research findings regarding behavioral reactions from marine mammals due to exposure to 

impulsive sounds, such as those associated with explosions, are discussed in detail in Behavioral 

Reactions under Acoustic Stressors above (see Section 3.7.3.1.1.5).

3.7.3.2.1.6 Stranding

When a marine mammal (alive or dead) swims or floats onto shore and becomes beached or incapable 

of returning to sea, the event is termed a “stranding” (Geraci et al., 1999; Geraci & Lounsbury, 2005; 

Perrin & Geraci, 2002). Specifically, under U.S. law, a stranding is an event in the wild where: (A) a 

marine mammal is dead and is (i) on a beach or shore of the United States; or (ii) in waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters); or (B) a marine mammal is alive and is 

(i) on a beach or shore of the United States and is unable to return to the water; (ii) on a beach or shore 

of the United States and, although able to return to the water, is in need of medical attention; or (iii) in 

the waters under the jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters), but is unable to 

return to its natural habitat under its own power or without assistance” (16 U.S.C. section 1421h).

Impulsive sources (e.g., explosions) also have the potential to contribute to strandings, but such 

occurrences are even less common than those that have been related to certain sonar activities. During 

a Navy training event on March 4, 2011, at the Silver Strand Training Complex in San Diego, California, 

three long-beaked common dolphins were killed by an underwater detonation. Further details are 

provided above. Discussions of procedures associated with these and other training and testing 

exercises are presented in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), which details all mitigations. 

3.7.3.2.1.7 Long-Term Consequences

Long-term consequences to a population are determined by examining changes in the population 

growth rate. For additional information on the determination of long-term consequences, see 

Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Acoustic and Explosive Stressors (Section 3.0.3.6.1). 

Physical effects from explosive sources that could lead to a reduction in the population growth rate 

include mortality or injury, which could remove animals from the reproductive pool, and permanent 

hearing impairment or chronic masking, which could impact navigation, foraging, predator avoidance, or 

communication. The long-term consequences due to individual behavioral reactions, masking and shortterm instances of physiological stress are especially difficult to predict because individual experience 

over time can create complex contingencies, especially for long-lived animals like marine mammals. For 

example, a lost reproductive opportunity could be a measureable cost to the individual; however, short-
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-484

3.7 Marine Mammals

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. 

3.7.3.2.2 Impacts from Explosives

Marine mammals could be exposed to energy, sound, and fragments from underwater explosions 

associated with the proposed activities. Energy from an explosion is capable of causing mortality, injury,

hearing loss, a behavioral response, masking, or physiological stress, depending on the level and 

duration of exposure. 

The death of an animal would eliminate future reproductive potential, which is considered in the 

analysis of potential long-term consequences to the population. Exposures that result in non-auditory 

injuries or PTS may limit an animal’s ability to find food, communicate with other animals, or interpret 

the surrounding environment. Impairment of these abilities can decrease an individual’s chance of 

survival or impact its ability to successfully reproduce. TTS can also impair an animal’s abilities, but the 

individual is likely recover quickly with little significant effect. 

Explosions in the ocean or near the water surface can introduce loud, impulsive, broadband sounds into 

the marine environment. These sounds, which are within the audible range of most marine mammals, 

could cause behavioral reactions, masking and elevated physiological stress. Behavioral responses can 

include shorter surfacings, shorter dives, fewer blows (breaths) per surfacing, longer intervals between 

blows, ceasing or increasing vocalizations, shortening or lengthening vocalizations, and changing 

frequency or intensity of vocalizations (National Research Council 2005). Sounds from explosives could 

also mask biologically important sounds; however, the duration of individual sounds is very short,

reducing the likelihood of substantial auditory masking. 

3.7.3.2.2.1 Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Explosives

The Navy performed a quantitative analysis to estimate the number times that marine mammals could 

be impacted by explosives used during Navy training and testing activities. The Navy Acoustic Effects 

Model is used to produce initial estimates of the number of instances that animals that may experience 

these effects; these estimates are further refined by considering animal avoidance of sound-producing 

activities and implementation of mitigation. A detailed explanation of this analysis is provided in the 

technical report Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine 

Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b). 

Criteria and Thresholds used to Estimate Impacts to Marine Mammals from Explosives

See the Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles technical report (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b) for detailed information on how the 

criteria and thresholds were derived.

Mortality and Injury from Explosives 

As discussed above in Section 3.7.3.2.1.1 (Injury), two metrics have been identified as predictive of 

injury: impulse and peak pressure. Peak pressure contributes to the “crack” or “stinging” sensation of a 

blast wave, compared to the “thump” associated with received impulse. Older military reports 

documenting exposure of human divers to blast exposure generally describe peak pressure exposures 

around 100 psi (237 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak) to feel like slight pressure or stinging sensation on skin, with 

no enduring effects (Christian & Gaspin, 1974). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-485

3.7 Marine Mammals

Because data on explosive injury do not indicate a set threshold for injury, rather a range of risk for 

explosive exposures, two sets of criteria are provided for use in non-auditory injury assessment. The first

set provides thresholds to estimate the number of animals that may be affected during Navy training 

and testing activities (see Table 3.7-21). The second set (Table 3.7-22) provides thresholds for the onset 

of the effect to estimate farthest range for potential occurrence of an effect. Both sets of criteria are 

useful for assessing potential effects to marine mammals and the range at which mitigation could be 

effective. Increasing animal mass and increasing animal depth both increase the impulse thresholds (i.e., 

decrease susceptibility), whereas smaller mass and decreased animal depth reduce the impulse 

thresholds (i.e., increase susceptibility). For impact assessment, marine mammal populations are 

assumed to be 70 percent adult and 30 percent calf/pup. Sub-adult masses are used to determine onset 

of effect, in order to estimate the farthest range at which an effect may first be observable. The 

derivation of these injury criteria and the species mass estimates are provided in the technical report 

Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea 

Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017e). 

Table 3.7-21: Criteria to Quantitatively Assess Non-Auditory Injury Due to 

Underwater Explosions

Impact Assessment Criterion Threshold

50% Mortality (Impulse)

144MM1 3� �1 + DD

10.1

�

1 6�

Pa-s

50% Injury (Impulse)

65.8MM1 3� �1 + DD

10.1

�

1 6�

Pa-s 

Injury (Peak Pressure) 243 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak

dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; Pa-s: pascal second; SPL: sound 

pressure level; D: depth of animal (m); M: mass of animal (kg) 

Table 3.7-22: Criteria for Estimating Ranges to Potential Effect for Mitigation Purposes

Mitigation Criterion Threshold

Onset Mortality (Impulse)

103MM1 3� �1 + DD

10.1

�

1 6�

Pa-s 

Onset Injury (Impulse) 47.5MM1 3� �1 + DD

10.1

�

1 6�

Pa-s 

Onset Injury (Peak Pressure) 237 dB re 1 μPa SPL peak

dB re 1 μPa: decibels referenced to 1 micropascal; Pa-s: pascal second; SPL: sound 

pressure level; D: depth of animal (m); M: mass of animal (kg)
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-486

3.7 Marine Mammals

When explosive ordnance (e.g., bomb or missile) detonates, fragments of the weapon are thrown at 

high-velocity from the detonation point, which can injure or kill marine mammals if they are struck. Risk 

of fragment injury reduces exponentially with distance as the fragment density is reduced. Fragments 

underwater tend to be larger than fragments produced by in-air explosions (Swisdak & Montaro, 1992). 

Underwater, the friction of the water would quickly slow these fragments to a point where they no 

longer pose a threat. On the other hand, the blast wave from an explosive detonation moves efficiently 

through the seawater. Because the ranges to mortality and injury due to exposure to the blast wave are 

likely to far exceed the zone where fragments could injure or kill an animal, the above threshold are 

assumed to encompass risk due to fragmentation. 

Auditory Weighting Functions

Animals are not equally sensitive to noise at all frequencies. To capture the frequency-dependent nature 

of the effects of noise, auditory weighting functions are used. Auditory weighting functions are 

mathematical functions based on a generic band-pass filter and incorporate species-specific hearing 

abilities to calculate a weighted received sound level in units SPL or SEL. Due to the band pass nature of 

auditory weighting functions, they resemble an inverted “U” shape with amplitude plotted as a function 

of frequency. The flatter portion of the plotted function, where the amplitude is closest to zero, is the 

emphasized frequency range (i.e., the pass-band), while the frequencies below and above this range 

(where amplitude declines) are de-emphasized. 

For parameters used to generate the functions and more information on weighting function derivation see U.S. Department 

of the Navy (2017e). 

MF: Mid-Frequency Cetacean; HF: High-Frequency Cetacean; LF: Low-Frequency Cetacean; SI: Sirenian; PW: Phocid (inwater). The dark dashed curve is the exposure function for PTS onset, the solid black curve is the exposure function for TTS 

onset, and the light grey curve is the exposure function for behavioral response. Small dashed lines indicate the SEL threshold 

for behavioral response, TTS, and PTS onset at each group’s most sensitive frequency (i.e., the weighted SEL threshold).

Figure 3.7-176: Navy Phase III Weighting Functions for All Species Groups. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-487

3.7 Marine Mammals

Hearing Loss from Explosives

Criteria used to define threshold shifts from explosions is derived from the two known studies designed 

to induce TTS in marine mammals from impulsive sources. Finneran et al. (2002) reported behaviorallymeasured TTS of 6 and 7 dB in a beluga exposed to single impulses from a seismic water gun and Lucke 

et al. (2009) reported auditory evoked potential-measured TTS of 7 to 20 dB in a harbor porpoise 

exposed to single impulses from a seismic air gun. Since marine mammal PTS data from impulsive noise 

exposures do not exist, onset-PTS levels for all groups were estimated by adding 15 dB to the threshold 

for non-impulsive sources. This relationship was derived by Southall et al. (2007) from impulsive noise 

TTS growth rates in chinchillas. These frequency dependent thresholds are depicted by the exposure 

functions for each group’s range of best hearing (see Figure 3.7-177 and Table 3.7-23).

The dark dashed curve is the exposure function for PTS onset, the solid black curve is the exposure function for TTS onset, 

and the light grey curve is the exposure function for behavioral response. Small dashed lines indicate the SEL threshold for 

behavioral response, TTS, and PTS onset at each group’s most sensitive frequency (i.e., the weighted SEL threshold).

Figure 3.7-177: Navy Phase III Behavioral, TTS and PTS Exposure Functions for Explosives. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-488

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-23: Navy Phase III Weighted Sound Exposure Thresholds for Underwater Explosive 

Sounds

Hearing Group

Explosive Sound Source

Behavior (SEL) 

weighted (dB)

TTS (SEL) 

weighted (dB)

TTS (Peak SPL) 

unweighted (dB)

PTS (SEL) 

weighted (dB)

PTS (Peak SPL) 

unweighted (dB)

Low-frequency Cetacean 163 168 213 183 219

Mid-frequency Cetacean 165 170 224 185 230

High-frequency Cetacean 135 140 196 155 202

Sirenian (Manatee) 170 175 220 190 226

Phocid seal in water 165 170 212 185 218

dB: decibels; PTS: permanent threshold shift; SEL: sound exposure level; SPL: sound pressure level; TTS: temporary threshold 

shift

Behavioral Responses from Explosives

If more than one explosion or explosive cluster occurs within any given 24-hour period within a training 

or testing activity, criteria are applied to predict the number of animals that may have a behavioral 

reaction. For exercises with multiple explosions, the behavioral threshold used in this analysis is 5 dB 

less than the TTS onset threshold (in SEL). This value is derived from observed onsets of behavioral 

response by test subjects (bottlenose dolphins) during non-impulsive TTS testing (Schlundt et al., 2000). 

Some multiple explosive exercises, such as certain naval gunnery exercises, may be treated as a single 

event because a few explosions occur closely spaced within a very short time (a few seconds). For single 

explosions at received sound levels below hearing loss thresholds, the most likely behavioral response is 

a brief alerting or orienting response. Since no further sounds follow the initial brief impulses, significant 

behavioral reactions would not be expected to occur. This reasoning was applied to previous shock trials 

(63 FR 230; 66 FR 87; 73 FR 143) and is extended to the criteria used in this analysis. 

Marine Mammal Density

A quantitative analysis of impacts on a species requires data on their abundance and distribution in the 

potentially impacted area. The most appropriate metric for this type of analysis is density, which is the 

number of animals present per unit area. To characterize the marine species density for large areas such 

as the Study Area, the Navy compiled data from several sources. The Navy developed a protocol to 

select the best available data sources based on species, area, and time (season). The resulting 

Geographic Information System database called the Navy Marine Species Density Database includes 

seasonal density values for every marine mammal species present within the Study Area (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2017c). 

The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model

The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model calculates sound energy propagation from explosives during naval 

activities and the sound received by animat dosimeters. Animat dosimeters are virtual representations 

of marine mammals distributed in the area around the modeled naval activity that each record its 

individual sound ‘dose.’ The model bases the distribution of animats over the Study Area on the density 

values in the Navy Marine Species Density Database and distributes animats in the water column 

proportional to the known time that species spend at varying depths. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-489

3.7 Marine Mammals

The model accounts for environmental variability of sound propagation in both distance and depth 

when computing the received sound level on the animats. The model conducts a statistical analysis 

based on multiple model runs to compute the estimated effects on animals. The number of animats that 

exceed the thresholds for effects is tallied to provide an estimate of the number of marine mammals 

that could be affected. 

Assumptions in the Navy model intentionally err on the side of overestimation when there are 

unknowns. 

• Naval activities are modeled as though they would occur regardless of proximity to marine 

mammals (i.e., mitigation is not modeled) and without any avoidance of the activity by the 

animal. The final step of the quantitative analysis of acoustic effects is to consider the 

implementation of mitigation and the possibility that marine mammals would avoid continued 

or repeated sound exposures.

• Explosions from ordnances such as bombs and missiles could occur upon impact with abovewater targets. However, for this analysis, sources such as these were modeled as exploding 

underwater. This overestimates the amount of explosive and acoustic energy entering the 

water. 

The model estimates the impacts caused by individual training and testing exercises. During any 

individual modeled event, impacts to individual animats are considered over 24-hour periods. The 

animats do not represent actual animals, but rather allow for a statistical analysis of the number of 

instances that marine mammals may be exposed to sound levels resulting in an effect. Therefore, the 

model estimates the number of instances in which an effect threshold was exceeded over the course of 

a year, but does not estimate the number of individual marine mammals that may be impacted over a 

year (i.e., some marine mammals could be impacted several times, while others would not experience 

any impact). A detailed explanation of the Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model is provided in the technical 

report Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea 

Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b). 

Accounting for Mitigation

The Navy implements mitigation measures (described in Chapter 5, Mitigation) during explosive 

activities, including delaying detonations when a marine mammal or marine mammal is observed in the 

mitigation zone. The mitigation zones encompass the estimated ranges to mortality for a given 

explosive. Therefore, the impact analysis quantifies the potential for mitigation to reduce the risk of 

mortality due to exposure to explosives. Two factors are considered when quantifying the effectiveness 

of mitigation: (1) the extent to which the type of mitigation proposed for a sound-producing activity 

(e.g., active sonar) allows for observation of the mitigation zone prior to and during the activity; and (2) 

the sightability of each species that may be present in the mitigation zone, which is determined by 

species-specific characteristics and the viewing platform. A detailed explanation of the analysis is 

provided in the technical report Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive Impacts to 

Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2017b). 

In the quantitative analysis, consideration of mitigation measures means that, for activities where 

mitigation is feasible, model-estimated mortality is considered mitigated to the level of injury. The 

impact analysis does not analyze the potential for mitigation to reduce TTS or behavioral effects, even 

though mitigation could also reduce the likelihood of these effects. In practice, mitigation also protects 

all unobserved (below the surface) animals in the vicinity, including other species, in addition to the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-490

3.7 Marine Mammals

observed animal. However, the analysis assumes that only animals sighted at the water surface would 

be protected by the applied mitigation. The analysis, therefore, does not capture the protection 

afforded to all marine species that may be near or within the mitigation zone.

3.7.3.2.2.2 Impact Ranges from Explosives

The following section provides the range (distance) over which specific physiological or behavioral 

effects are expected to occur based on the explosive criteria (Section 3.7.3.2.2.1, Methods for Analyzing 

Impacts from Explosives: Criteria and Thresholds Used to Estimate Impacts to Marine Mammals from 

Explosives) and the explosive propagation calculations from the Navy Acoustic Effects Model (Section

3.7.3.2.2.1, Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Explosives: The Navy’s Acoustic Effects Model). The 

range to effects are shown for a range of explosive bins (Section 3.7.3.2.2.2, Impact Ranges from 

Explosives), from E1 (up to 0.25 lb. NEW) to E17 (up to 58,000 lb. NEW). Ranges are determined by 

modeling the distance that noise from an explosion will need to propagate to reach exposure level 

thresholds specific to a hearing group that will cause behavioral response, TTS, PTS, and non-auditory 

injury. Range to effects is important information in not only predicting impacts from explosives, but also 

in verifying the accuracy of model results against real-world situations and determining adequate 

mitigation ranges to avoid higher level effects, especially physiological effects to marine mammals. 

Table 3.7-24 shows the minimum, average, and maximum ranges due to varying propagation conditions 

to non-auditory injury as a function of animal mass and explosive bin (i.e., NEW). Ranges to 

gastrointestinal tract injury typically exceed ranges to slight lung injury; therefore, the maximum range 

to effect is not mass-dependent. Animals within these water volumes would be expected to receive 

minor injuries at the outer ranges, increasing to more substantial injuries, and finally mortality as an 

animal approaches the detonation point. Ranges to mortality, based on animal mass, are shown in Table 

3.7-25. 

The following tables (Table 3.7-25 to Table 3.7-35) show the minimum, average, and maximum ranges to 

onset of auditory and behavioral effects based on the thresholds described in Section 3.7.3.2.2.1, 

(Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Explosives: Criteria and Thresholds Used to Estimate Impacts to 

Marine Mammals from Explosives). Ranges are provided for a representative source depth and cluster 

size for each bin. For events with multiple explosions, sound from successive explosions can be expected 

to accumulate and increase the range to the onset of an impact based on SEL thresholds. Modeled 

ranges to TTS and PTS based on peak pressure for a single explosion generally exceed the modeled 

ranges based on SEL even when accumulated for multiple explosions. Peak pressure based ranges are 

estimated using the best available science; however, data on peak pressure at far distances from 

explosions are very limited. For additional information on how ranges to impacts from explosions were 

estimated, see the technical report Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles: 

Methods and Analytical Approach for Phase III Training and Testing (U.S. Department of the Navy, 

2017d). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-491

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-24: Ranges1 to 50 % Non-Auditory Injury Risk for All Marine Mammal Hearing 

Groups 

Bin Range (m)

E1 22

(22—35)

E2 25

(25—30)

E3 46

(35—75)

E4 63

(0—130)

E5 75

(55—130)

E6 97

(65—390)

E7 232

(200—270)

E8 170

(0—490)

E9 215

(100—430)

E10 251

(110—700)

E11 604

(400—2,525)

E12 436

(130—1,025)

E16 1,844

(925—3,025)

E17 3,649

(1,000—14,025)

1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and 

maximum distances due to varying propagation environments in parentheses. 

Modeled ranges based on peak pressure for a single explosion generally exceed 

the modeled ranges based on impulse (related to animal mass and depth).

 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-492

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-25: Ranges1 to 50 % Mortality Risk for All Marine Mammal Hearing Groups as a 

Function of Animal Mass

Bin

Representative Animal Mass (kg)

10 250 1,000 5,000 25,000 72,000

E1 4 

(3—5)

1 

(0—3)

0 

(0—0)

0 

(0—0)

0 

(0—0)

0 

(0—0)

E2 5 

(5—7)

3 

(0—5)

0 

(0—2)

0 

(0—0)

0 

(0—0)

0 

(0—0)

E3 11

(9—15)

6 

(3—11)

3 

(2—4)

0 

(0—2)

0 

(0—0)

0 

(0—0)

E4 20

(0—45)

11

(0—30)

5 

(0—13)

3 

(0—6)

1 

(0—2)

0 

(0—2)

E5 18

(14—50)

10

(5—35)

5 

(3—11)

3 

(2—6)

0 

(0—3)

0 

(0—2)

E6 26

(17—75)

14

(0—55)

7 

(0—20)

4 

(3—10)

2 

(0—4)

1 

(0—3)

E7 100

(75—130)

49

(25—95)

21

(17—30)

13

(11—15)

7 

(6—7)

5 

(4—6)

E8 69

(0—140)

36

(0—100)

16

(0—30)

12

(0—17)

6 

(0—8)

5 

(0—7)

E9 58

(40—200)

26

(17—55)

14

(11—18)

9 

(8—11)

5 

(4—5)

4 

(3—5)

E10 107

(40—320)

39

(19—220)

18

(14—35)

12

(10—21)

6 

(6—9)

5 

(4—6)

E11 299

(230—675)

163

(90—490)

74

(55—150)

45

(35—85)

24

(21—40)

19

(15—30)

E12 194

(60—460)

82

(25—340)

22

(18—30)

15

(12—17)

8 

(7—9)

6 

(5—7)

E16 1,083

(925—1,525)

782

(500—1,025)

423

(350—550)

275

(230—300)

144

(130—150)

105

(90—120)

E17 1,731

(925—2,525)

1,222

(700—2,275)

857

(575—1,025)

586

(470—825)

318

(290—340)

244

(210—280)

1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying 

propagation environments in parentheses.

 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-493

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-26: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for HighFrequency Cetaceans

Range to Effects for Explosives: High Frequency Cetaceans1

Bin Source Depth (m) Cluster Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 0.1 

1 446

(180—975)

1,512

(525—3,775)

2,591

(800—6,775)

20 1,289

(440—3,025)

4,527

(1,275—10,775)

6,650

(1,525—16,525)

E2 0.1 

1 503

(200—1,025)

1,865

(600—3,775)

3,559

(1,025—6,775)

2 623

(250—1,275)

2,606

(750—5,275)

4,743

(1,275—8,525)

E3 18.25 

1 865

(525—2,525)

3,707

(1,025—6,775)

5,879

(1,775—10,025)

50 4,484

(1,275—7,775)

10,610

(2,275—19,775)

13,817

(2,275—27,025)

E4

15 

1 1,576

(1,025—2,275)

6,588

(4,525—8,775)

9,744

(7,275—13,025)

5 3,314

(2,275—4,525)

10,312

(7,525—14,775)

14,200

(9,775—20,025)

19.8 2 1,262

(975—2,025)

4,708

(1,775—7,525)

6,618

(2,025—11,525)

198 2 1,355

(875—2,775)

4,900

(2,525—8,275)

6,686

(3,025—11,275)

E5 0.1 25 3,342

(925—8,025)

8,880

(1,275—20,525)

11,832

(1,525—25,025)

E6

0.1 1 1,204

(550—3,275)

4,507

(1,275—10,775)

6,755

(1,525—16,525)

30 1 2,442

(1,525—5,025)

7,631

(4,525—10,775)

10,503

(4,775—15,025)

E7 15 1 3,317

(2,525—4,525)

10,122

(7,775—13,275)

13,872

(9,775—17,775)

E8

0.1 1 1,883

(675—4,525)

6,404

(1,525—14,525)

9,001

(1,525—19,775)

45.75 1 2,442

(1,025—5,525)

7,079

(2,025—12,275)

9,462

(2,275—17,025)

305 1 3,008

(2,025—4,025)

9,008

(6,025—10,775)

12,032

(8,525—14,525)

E9 0.1 1 2,210

(800—4,775)

6,088

(1,525—13,275)

8,299

(1,525—19,025)

E10 0.1 1 2,960

(875—7,275)

8,424

(1,525—19,275)

11,380

(1,525—24,275)

E11 

18.5 1 4,827

(1,525—8,775)

11,231

(2,525—20,025)

14,667

(2,525—26,775)

45.75 1 3,893

(1,525—7,525)

9,320

(2,275—17,025)

12,118

(2,525—21,525)

E12 0.1 1 3,046

(1,275—6,775)

7,722

(1,525—18,775)

10,218

(2,025—22,525)

E16 61 1 5,190

(2,275—9,775)

7,851

(3,525—19,525)

9,643

(3,775—25,775)

E17 61 1 6,173

(2,525—12,025)

11,071

(3,775—29,275)

13,574

(4,025—37,775) 1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-494

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-27: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for High-Frequency 

Cetaceans

Range to Effects for Explosives: High Frequency Cetaceans1

Bin Source Depth (m) PTS TTS

E1 0.1 579

(200—975)

883

(300—3,025)

E2 0.1 493

(230—1,275)

879

(360—3,525)

E3 18.25 2,052

(950—5,025)

3,580

(1,025—8,275)

E4

15 3,324

(2,025—5,025)

7,679

(3,775—12,775)

19.8 2,205

(1,275—4,275)

3,549

(2,275—5,525)

198 2,841

(1,775—6,275)

4,009

(2,775—7,275)

E5 0.1 1,459

(490—7,775)

2,805

(875—17,775)

E6

0.1 1,956

(800—7,775)

4,071

(1,275—23,025)

30 4,339

(2,025—10,025)

7,633

(3,025—17,025)

E7 15 9,900

(5,025—18,025)

15,456

(8,775—27,775)

E8

0.1 4,312

(1,025—26,775)

7,430

(1,525—53,275)

45.75 6,941

(1,775—20,275)

11,610

(1,775—36,525)

305 6,518

(3,275—10,775)

9,129

(4,525—18,025)

E9 0.1 4,129

(1,525—40,275)

6,770

(1,525—71,275)

E10 0.1 7,509

(1,525—53,775)

12,597

(1,775—76,775)

E11

18.5 14,627

(2,275—44,775)

22,673

(4,025—68,275)

45.75 13,105

(2,025—41,775)

22,150

(2,775—65,775)

E12 0.1 6,551

(1,525—71,275)

11,162

(2,275—85,275)

E16 61 29,544

(17,525—59,275)

39,829

(24,525—92,775)

E17 61 39,317

(18,775—99,275)

52,954

(23,025—98,775) 1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-495

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-28: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for LowFrequency Cetaceans

Range to Effects for Explosives: Low Frequency Cetaceans1

Bin Source Depth (m) Cluster Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 0.1 

1 54

(45—80)

259

(130—390)

137

(90—210)

20 211

(110—320)

787

(340—1,525)

487

(210—775)

E2 0.1 

1 64

(55—75)

264

(150—400)

154

(100—220)

2 87

(70—110)

339

(190—500)

203

(120—300)

E3 18.25 

1 211

(190—390)

1,182

(600—2,525)

588

(410—1,275)

50 1,450

(675—3,275)

8,920

(1,525—24,275)

4,671

(1,025—10,775)

E4

15 

1 424

(380—550)

3,308

(2,275—4,775)

1,426

(1,025—2,275)

5 1,091

(950—1,525)

6,261

(3,775—9,525)

3,661

(2,525—5,275)

19.8 2 375

(350—400)

1,770

(1,275—3,025)

1,003

(725—1,275)

198 2 308

(280—380)

2,275

(1,275—3,525)

1,092

(850—2,275)

E5 0.1 25 701

(300—1,525)

4,827

(750—29,275)

1,962

(575—22,525)

E6

0.1 1 280

(150—450)

1,018

(460—7,275)

601

(300—1,525)

30 1 824

(525—1,275)

4,431

(2,025—7,775)

2,334

(1,275—4,275)

E7 15 1 1,928

(1,775—2,275)

8,803

(6,025—14,275)

4,942

(3,525—6,525)

E8

0.1 1 486

(220—1,000)

3,059

(575—20,525)

1,087

(440—7,775)

45.75 1 1,233

(675—3,025)

7,447

(1,275—19,025)

3,633

(1,000—9,025)

305 1 937

(875—975)

6,540

(3,025—12,025)

3,888

(2,025—6,525)

E9 0.1 1 655

(310—1,275)

2,900

(650—31,025)

1,364

(500—8,525)

E10 0.1 1 786

(340—7,275)

7,546

(725—49,025)

3,289

(550—26,525)

E11 

18.5 1 3,705

(925—8,775)

16,488

(2,275—40,275)

9,489

(1,775—22,775)

45.75 1 3,133

(925—8,275)

16,365

(1,775—50,275)

8,701

(1,275—23,775)

E12 0.1 1 985

(400—6,025)

7,096

(800—72,775)

2,658

(625—46,525)

E16 61 1 10,155

(2,025—21,525)

35,790

(18,025—69,775)

25,946

(14,025—58,775)

E17 61 1 17,464

(8,275—39,525)

47,402

(21,025—93,275)

34,095

(16,275—86,275) 1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-496

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-29: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Low-Frequency 

Cetaceans

Range to Effects for Explosives: Low Frequency Cetaceans1

Bin Source Depth (m) PTS TTS

E1 0.1 127

(75—170)

226

(100—270)

E2 0.1 120

(85—150)

189

(110—270)

E3 18.25 336

(260—1,275)

674

(420—2,275)

E4

15 522

(410—875)

1,159

(775—2,025)

19.8 431

(390—575)

892

(700—1,275)

198 401

(360—490)

840

(650—1,775)

E5 0.1 387

(150—500)

622

(210—1,275)

E6

0.1 459

(230—625)

724

(370—1,525)

30 871

(550—1,775)

1,519

(925—2,525)

E7 15 1,914

(1,525—2,275)

3,643

(3,025—4,525)

E8

0.1 703

(360—1,525)

1,062

(525—5,275)

45.75 1,438

(675—3,525)

2,443

(975—7,025)

305 1,153

(975—2,025)

3,210

(1,525—5,025)

E9 0.1 926

(480—3,775)

1,409

(600—5,025)

E10 0.1 997

(500—5,275)

1,993

(650—11,025)

E11

18.5 2,855

(950—7,525)

5,356

(1,025—15,525)

45.75 2,642

(975—7,525)

4,485

(1,025—14,025)

E12 0.1 1,294

(575—4,775)

2,216

(750—17,275)

E16 61 5,118

(1,275—15,275)

12,416

(4,025—25,275)

E17 61 11,226

(3,525—22,775)

18,059

(8,275—37,275) 1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-497

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-30: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for MidFrequency Cetaceans

Range to Effects for Explosives: Mid-Frequency Cetaceans1

Bin Source Depth (m) Cluster Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 0.1 

1 26

(25—50)

139

(95—370)

218

(120—550)

20 113

(80—290)

539

(210—1,025)

754

(270—1,525)

E2 0.1 

1 35

(30—45)

184

(100—300)

276

(130—490)

2 51

(40—70)

251

(120—430)

365

(160—700)

E3 18.25 

1 40

(35—45)

236

(190—800)

388

(280—1,275)

50 304

(230—1,025)

1,615

(750—3,275)

2,424

(925—5,025)

E4

15 

1 74

(60—100)

522

(440—750)

813

(650—1,025)

5 192

(140—260)

1,055

(875—1,525)

1,631

(1,275—2,525)

19.8 2 69

(65—70)

380

(330—470)

665

(550—750)

198 2 48

(0—55)

307

(260—380)

504

(430—700)

E5 0.1 25 391

(170—850)

1,292

(470—3,275)

1,820

(575—5,025)

E6

0.1 1 116

(90—290)

536

(310—1,025)

742

(380—1,525)

30 1 110

(85—310)

862

(600—2,275)

1,281

(975—3,275)

E7 15 1 201

(190—220)

1,067

(1,025—1,275)

1,601

(1,275—2,025)

E8

0.1 1 204

(150—500)

802

(400—1,525)

1,064

(470—2,275)

45.75 1 133

(120—200)

828

(525—2,025)

1,273

(775—2,775)

305 1 58

(0—110)

656

(550—750)

1,019

(900—1,025)

E9 0.1 1 241

(200—370)

946

(450—1,525)

1,279

(500—2,275)

E10 0.1 1 339

(230—750)

1,125

(490—2,525)

1,558

(550—4,775)

E11 

18.5 1 361

(230—750)

1,744

(800—3,775)

2,597

(925—5,025)

45.75 1 289

(230—825)

1,544

(800—3,275)

2,298

(925—5,025)

E12 0.1 1 382

(270—550)

1,312

(525—2,775)

1,767

(600—4,275)

E16 61 1 885

(650—1,775)

3,056

(1,275—5,025)

3,689

(1,525—6,525)

E17 61 1 1,398

(925—2,275)

3,738

(1,525—6,775)

4,835

(1,775—9,275) 1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-498

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-31: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Mid-Frequency 

Cetaceans

Range to Effects for Explosives: Mid-Frequency Cetaceans1

Bin Source Depth (m) PTS TTS

E1 0.1 44

(35—75)

80

(60—110)

E2 0.1 52

(45—70)

82

(70—95)

E3 18.25 101

(95—220)

188

(170—600)

E4

15 139

(120—230)

278

(230—500)

19.8 123

(120—130)

243

(230—300)

198 113

(0—160)

229

(180—270)

E5 0.1 142

(85—170)

252

(110—320)

E6

0.1 175

(100—220)

306

(160—390)

30 268

(190—575)

514

(370—1,275)

E7 15 415

(330—470)

924

(650—1,025)

E8

0.1 290

(140—350)

476

(230—925)

45.75 433

(340—1,525)

890

(575—2,275)

305 333

(250—420)

649

(575—800)

E9 0.1 418

(260—500)

676

(380—1,025)

E10 0.1 457

(220—775)

732

(370—2,025)

E11

18.5 904

(525—2,275)

1,686

(750—4,275)

45.75 978

(600—2,525)

1,713

(675—5,525)

E12 0.1 608

(340—975)

940

(460—3,775)

E16 61 3,143

(1,000—7,525)

4,580

(1,025—11,025)

E17 61 4,035

(1,025—11,025)

6,005

(1,275—15,275) 1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-499

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-32: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for Phocids

Range to Effects for Explosives: Phocids1

Bin Source Depth (m) Cluster Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 0.1 

1 50

(45—85)

242

(120—470)

360

(160—650)

20 197

(110—380)

792

(300—1,275)

1,066

(410—2,275)

E2 0.1 

1 65

(55—85)

267

(140—430)

378

(190—675)

2 85

(65—100)

345

(180—575)

476

(230—875)

E3 18.25 

1 121

(110—220)

689

(500—1,525)

1,074

(725—2,525)

50 859

(600—2,025)

4,880

(1,525—10,525)

7,064

(1,775—16,275)

E4

15 

1 213

(190—260)

1,246

(1,025—1,775)

2,006

(1,525—3,025)

5 505

(450—600)

2,933

(2,275—4,275)

4,529

(3,275—6,775)

19.8 2 214

(210—220)

1,083

(900—2,025)

1,559

(1,025—2,525)

198 2 156

(150—180)

1,141

(825—2,275)

2,076

(1,275—3,525)

E5 0.1 25 615

(250—1,025)

2,209

(850—9,775)

3,488

(1,025—15,275)

E6

0.1 1 210

(160—380)

796

(480—1,275)

1,040

(600—3,275)

30 1 359

(280—625)

1,821

(1,275—2,775)

2,786

(1,775—4,275)

E7 15 1 557

(525—650)

3,435

(2,775—4,525)

5,095

(3,775—6,775)

E8

0.1 1 346

(230—600)

1,136

(625—4,025)

1,708

(850—6,025)

45.75 1 469

(380—1,025)

2,555

(1,275—6,025)

3,804

(1,525—9,775)

305 1 322

(310—330)

3,222

(1,775—4,525)

4,186

(2,275—5,775)

E9 0.1 1 441

(330—575)

1,466

(825—5,775)

2,142

(950—9,775)

E10 0.1 1 539

(350—900)

1,914

(875—8,525)

3,137

(1,025—15,025)

E11

18.5 1 1,026

(700—2,025)

5,796

(1,525—12,775)

8,525

(1,775—19,775)

45.75 1 993

(675—2,275)

4,835

(1,525—13,525)

7,337

(1,775—18,775)

E12 0.1 1 651

(420—900)

2,249

(950—11,025)

3,349

(1,275—16,025)

E16 61 1 2,935

(1,775—5,025)

6,451

(2,275—16,275)

10,619

(3,275—24,025)

E17 61 1 3,583

(1,775—7,525)

12,031

(3,275—29,275)

18,396

(7,275—41,025)

1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-500

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-33: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Phocids

Range to Effects for Explosives: Phocids1

Bin Source Depth (m) PTS TTS

E1 0.1 141

(80—200)

250

(100—310)

E2 0.1 129

(90—170)

204

(120—300)

E3 18.25 377

(290—1,275)

762

(575—2,025)

E4

15 591

(450—1,000)

1,280

(850—2,025)

19.8 499

(460—625)

1,046

(775—2,025)

198 458

(430—650)

1,011

(775—2,025)

E5 0.1 430

(150—725)

695

(220—1,275)

E6

0.1 509

(250—775)

791

(410—2,025)

30 996

(575—2,025)

1,677

(975—2,775)

E7 15 2,109

(1,775—3,025)

3,803

(3,025—4,525)

E8

0.1 775

(390—2,025)

1,211

(575—5,275)

45.75 1,630

(1,025—4,275)

2,814

(1,275—7,025)

305 1,793

(1,025—3,275)

3,800

(2,025—5,775)

E9 0.1 1,045

(575—3,775)

1,626

(825—7,275)

E10 0.1 1,153

(525—5,275)

2,379

(750—15,775)

E11

18.5 3,232

(1,275—8,275)

5,978

(1,525—15,775)

45.75 3,072

(1,525—7,775)

5,135

(1,525—14,525)

E12 0.1 1,499

(775—5,025)

2,603

(1,025—17,275)

E16 61 6,256

(2,025—14,775)

13,649

(8,525—25,775)

E17 61 12,665

(5,025—25,775)

19,689

(11,775—36,275) 1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-501

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-34: SEL-Based Ranges to Onset PTS, Onset TTS, and Behavioral Reaction for Sirenians

Range to Effects for Explosives: Sirenians1

Bin Source Depth (m) Cluster Size PTS TTS Behavioral

E1 0.1 

1 26

(25—45)

109

(85—300)

195

(120—550)

20 90

(75—240)

385

(180—975)

646

(250—1,775)

E2 0.1 

1 35

(30—40)

164

(100—250)

288

(140—500)

2 48

(40—65)

218

(120—370)

375

(170—700)

E3 18.25 

1 42

(40—45)

252

(200—460)

532

(370—1,275)

50 326

(250—625)

1,595

(800—3,525)

2,985

(1,025—6,775)

E4

15 

1 76

(65—100)

513

(450—700)

988

(825—1,275)

5 191

(160—240)

1,080

(925—1,525)

2,118

(1,525—3,275)

19.8 2 76

(75—80)

461

(400—550)

795

(675—900)

198 2 0

(0—0)

303

(290—330)

640

(575—775)

E5 0.1 25 280

(150—750)

923

(330—2,775)

1,683

(390—5,525)

E6

0.1 1 95

(75—240)

402

(180—900)

634

(260—1,525)

30 1 101

(85—120)

697

(550—925)

1,211

(950—2,025)

E7 15 1 199

(190—210)

1,143

(1,025—1,275)

2,254

(1,775—3,025)

E8

0.1 1 156

(100—410)

604

(240—1,525)

937

(340—2,025)

45.75 1 142

(130—180)

754

(525—1,775)

1,299

(775—3,025)

305 1 0

(0—12)

620

(600—650)

1,178

(1,025—1,275)

E9 0.1 1 162

(120—290)

638

(290—2,025)

1,033

(400—2,525)

E10 0.1 1 254

(140—625)

840

(310—2,275)

1,450

(410—4,025)

E11 

18.5 1 383

(260—725)

1,728

(800—3,275)

3,231

(1,025—6,525)

45.75 1 271

(240—400)

1,273

(750—3,025)

2,215

(1,025—5,025)

E12 0.1 1 258

(150—480)

909

(370—2,025)

1,561

(420—6,025)

E16 61 1 720

(625—875)

2,131

(1,275—3,275)

3,118

(1,775—4,775)

E17 61 1 1,073

(800—1,275)

2,998

(1,525—4,525)

4,654

(2,275—14,525)

1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-502

3.7 Marine Mammals

Table 3.7-35: Peak Pressure Based Ranges to Onset PTS and Onset TTS for Sirenians

Range to Effects for Explosives: Sirenians1

Bin Source Depth (m) PTS TTS

E1 0.1 55

(50—75)

82

(70—150)

E2 0.1 67

(60—85)

110

(80—130)

E3 18.25 148

(120—160)

281

(210—450)

E4

15 200

(190—300)

422

(370—700)

19.8 193

(190—200)

362

(320—400)

198 56

(50—60)

293

(290—300)

E5 0.1 150

(100—240)

252

(130—550)

E6

0.1 201

(110—300)

328

(150—725)

30 296

(250—360)

560

(410—1,000)

E7 15 569

(470—850)

1,740

(1,275—2,025)

E8

0.1 328

(150—525)

533

(210—2,275)

45.75 509

(370—1,775)

897

(550—2,025)

305 435

(430—440)

906

(875—950)

E9 0.1 419

(180—750)

713

(260—4,025)

E10 0.1 484

(200—2,025)

771

(280—5,275)

E11

18.5 1,165

(625—3,275)

2,106

(825—8,025)

45.75 918

(550—2,525)

1,667

(850—5,025)

E12 0.1 655

(230—3,775)

949

(340—5,025)

E16 61 1,782

(1,025—2,775)

3,514

(1,275—10,025)

E17 61 3,009

(1,275—10,025)

9,174

(2,775—20,275) 1 Distances in meters (m). Average distance is shown with the minimum and maximum distances due to varying propagation 

environments in parentheses.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-503

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.2.2.3 Impacts from Explosives Under the Action Alternatives

• As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.6-2, and

Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors), training activities under Alternative 1 would use 

underwater detonations and explosive ordnance. Training activities involving explosions would 

be conducted throughout the Study Area but 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, and the Northeast Range Complexes, although training activities could 

occur anywhere within the Study Area. Within Alternative 1, most training activities that use 

explosives reoccur on an annual basis, with some variability year-to-year. Activities that involve 

underwater detonations and explosive ordnance typically occur more than 3 NM from shore and 

often in areas designated for explosive use. 

• As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.6-3 through 

Table 2.6-5, and Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors), testing activities under Alternative 1 

would use underwater detonations and explosive ordnance. Within Alternative 1, most testing 

activities that use explosives reoccur on an annual basis. Testing activities using explosions do 

not normally occur within 3 NM of shore; 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. Testing activities under Alternative 1 also include 

Ship Shock Trials that could occur within offshore locations of the Virginia Range Complex, 

Jacksonville Range Complex, and the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex. 

• As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.6-2, and 

Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors), training activities under Alternative 2 would use 

underwater detonations and explosive ordnance. Training activities involving explosions would 

be conducted throughout the Study Area but 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, and the Northeast Range Complexes, although training activities could 

occur anywhere within the Study Area. Within Alternative 2, most training activities that use 

explosives reoccur on an annual basis, with the same number of exercises planned each year. 

Activities that involve underwater detonations and explosive ordnance typically occur more 

than 3 NM from shore and often in areas designated for explosive use. 

• As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.6-3 through 

Table 2.6-5, and Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors), testing activities under Alternative 2 

would use underwater detonations and explosive ordnance. Within Alternative 2, most testing 

activities that use explosives reoccur on an annual basis. Testing activities using explosions do 

not normally occur within 3 NM of shore; 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. Testing activities under Alternative 2 also include 

Ship Shock Trials that could occur within offshore locations of the Virginia Range Complex, 

Jacksonville Range Complex, and the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-504

3.7 Marine Mammals

Presentation of Estimated Impacts from the Quantitative Analysis

The results of the analysis of potential impacts to marine mammals from explosives (see above Section 

3.7.3.2.2.1, Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Sonars and Other Transducers) are discussed below. 

The numbers of potential impacts estimated for individual species of marine mammals from exposure to 

explosive energy and sound for training activities under Alternative 1 and 2 are shown in Appendix E 

(Acoustic Impact Tables). Additionally, estimated numbers of potential impacts from the quantitative 

analysis for each species are presented below (e.g., Figure 3.7-180), with the exception of Ship Shock 

Trial results, which are presented separately, but discussed in each species discussion. The most likely 

regions and activity categories from which the impacts could occur are displayed in the pie charts for 

each species. There is a potential for impacts to occur anywhere within the Study Area where sound and 

energy from explosives and the species overlap, although only areas or categories where 0.5 percent of 

the impacts, or greater, are estimated to occur are graphically represented on the pie charts below. All 

(i.e., grand total) estimated impacts are included in the bar plots, regardless of region or category. 

The numbers of activities planned under Alternative 1 can vary slightly from year-to-year. Alternative 1 

results are presented for a maximum explosive use year; however, during most years, explosive use 

would be less resulting in fewer potential impacts. The numbers of activities planned under Alternative 2 

are consistent from year-to-year. The number of explosives used under each alternative are described in 

Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors).

Estimated Impacts from Ship Shock Trials

As described in Chapter 2 (Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.6-3 through 

Table 2.6-5, and Section 3.0.3.3.2 (Explosive Stressors), testing activities under Alternative 1 and 2 would 

use underwater detonations in Large and Small Ship Shock Trials. Results are presented per species in 

the bar charts below (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impacts per species are the maximum impacts 

for that species for any season and any area for either the large or small ship shock trial. Therefore, the 

results shown represent the maximum number of estimated impacts that could potentially occur to any 

species, but over-estimate the overall potential for impact.

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

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. Potential impacts and any consequences for individuals or populations 

are discussed below under each the discussion of all explosive impacts for each species under each 

testing alternative.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-505

3.7 Marine Mammals

Figure 3.7-178: Estimated Maximum Impacts to Each Species Across All Seasons and Areas in 

Which the Large Ship Shock Trial Could Occur. This event could occur once over a 5-year 

period.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-506

3.7 Marine Mammals

Figure 3.7-179: Estimated Maximum Impacts to Each Species Across All Seasons and Areas in 

Which Small Ship Shock Trials Could Occur. This event could occur up to three times over a 

5-year period.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-507

3.7 Marine Mammals

Mysticetes

Mysticetes may be exposed to sound and energy from explosives associated with training activities 

throughout the year. Explosives produce sounds that are within the hearing range of mysticetes (see 

Section 3.7.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization). Potential impacts from explosive energy and sound include 

non-auditory injury, behavioral reactions, physiological stress, masking, and hearing loss, although the 

quantitative analysis only estimates behavioral reactions and TTS in mysticetes. Impact ranges for 

mysticetes exposed to explosive sound and energy are discussed under low-frequency cetaceans in 

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges for Explosives). 

Mysticetes that do experience TTS from explosive sounds may have reduced ability to detect biologically 

important sounds (e.g., social vocalizations) until their hearing recovers. Recovery from TTS begins

almost immediately after the noise exposure ceases and can take a few minutes to a few days, 

depending on the severity of the initial shift, to fully recover. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect 

all hearing frequencies equally, and typically manifest themselves at the exposure frequency or within 

an octave above the exposure frequency. Noise from explosions is broadband with most energy below a 

few hundred hertz; therefore, any hearing loss from exposure to explosive sounds is likely to be 

broadband with effects predominantly at lower frequencies. During the short period that a mysticete 

had TTS, social calls from conspecifics could be more difficult to detect or interpret, the ability to detect 

predators may be reduced, and the ability to detect and avoid sounds from approaching vessels or other 

stressors might be reduced. It is unclear how or if mysticetes use sound for finding prey or feeding; 

therefore, it is unknown whether a TTS would affect a mysticete’s ability to locate prey or rate of 

feeding. 

Research and observations of auditory masking in marine mammals due to impulsive sounds are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.4 (Masking). Explosions introduce low-frequency, broadband sounds into 

the environment, which could mask hearing thresholds in mysticetes that are nearby, although sounds 

from explosions last for only a few seconds at most. Masking due to time-isolated detonations would 

not be significant. Activities that have multiple detonations such as some naval gunfire exercises could 

create some masking for mysticetes in the area over the short duration of the event. Potential costs to 

mysticetes from masking are similar to those discussed above for TTS, with the primary difference being 

that the effects of masking are only present when the sound from the explosion is present within the 

water and the effect is over the moment the sound has ceased. 

Research and observations (see Behavioral Responses from Explosives) show that if mysticetes are 

exposed to the sound from impulsive sounds such as explosives, they may react in a variety of ways, 

which may include alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, diving or swimming away, 

changing vocalization, or showing no response at all. Overall, mysticetes have been observed to be more 

reactive to acoustic disturbance when a noise sources is located directly on their migration route. 

Mysticetes disturbed while migrating could pause their migration or route around the disturbance. 

Animals disturbed while engaged in other activities such as feeding or reproductive behaviors may be 

more likely to ignore or tolerate the disturbance and continue their natural behavior patterns. Because 

noise from most activities using explosives is short-term and intermittent, and because detonations 

usually occur within a small area, behavioral reactions from mysticetes are likely to be short-term and 

low to moderate severity. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-508

3.7 Marine Mammals

Physiological stress could be caused by injury or hearing loss and could accompany any behavioral 

reaction as well. Research and observations of physiological stress in marine mammals are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.1.3 (Physiological Stress). Due to the short-term and intermittent use of explosives, 

physiological stress is also likely to be short-term and intermittent. Long-term consequences from 

physiological stress due to the sound of explosives would not be expected. 

North Atlantic Right Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

As discussed in detail in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), before transiting through or conducting any training or 

testing activities within the southeast North Atlantic right whale mitigation area during calving season 

(15 November to 15 April), the Navy will initiate communication with the Fleet Area Control and 

Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville to obtain Early Warning System North Atlantic right whale sightings 

data. When transiting within the mitigation area, all Navy vessels will exercise extreme caution and 

proceed at the slowest speed that is consistent with safety, mission, testing, and operations. This high 

level of awareness will further enhance the Navy’s mitigation effectiveness for reducing potential 

explosive impacts to North Atlantic right whales. Additionally, training and testing activities that use 

explosives would not occur within 3 NM of the northeast or southeast North Atlantic right whale 

mitigation area. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

North Atlantic right whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-180 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-509

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-180: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS, or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-510

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in 

Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

As previously described in Section 3.7.2.1.4 (Hearing and Vocalization), a migratory corridor, a calving 

area, a mating area, and feeding areas for North Atlantic right whales have been identified by LaBrecque 

et al. (2015a, 2015b) that seasonally overlap with Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and 

the Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Navy training activities that use explosives could 

occur in these Range Complexes year-round. Impacts to feeding and mating behaviors are not 

anticipated for North Atlantic right whales in the Northeast Range Complexes on identified feeding and 

mating areas due to explosive training activities because these activities within the Northeast Range 

Complexes are typically conducted within Narragansett Bay, which does not overlap the feeding or 

mating areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b). Estimated impacts to North Atlantic right 

whale migration and calving behaviors within the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, which overlaps the 

identified migration and calving areas, are so low as to be unlikely in any given year. A few TTS and 

behavioral responses are estimated from training with explosives in the Virginia Capes Range Complex, 

which overlaps the migratory area, and within the Jacksonville Range Complex, which overlaps the 

identified migratory and calving areas, however significant impacts to migratory or calving behaviors 

within the identified areas are unlikely. 

As discussed above and in Section 3.7.2.2.2.1 (Status and Management), the Study Area does overlap 

North Atlantic right whale critical habitat and some limited use of explosive does take place within these 

areas; however, the sound and energy from explosives would not affect the biological or physical 

features that are essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, 

conservation and recovery of the northern right whale population.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of North Atlantic right whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed North Atlantic right whales and will have no effect on North Atlantic right whale 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 1 for Testing Activities

North Atlantic right whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-181 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative analysis also estimates 

TTS for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are discussed 

in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-511

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-181: North Atlantic Right Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

behavioral responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-512

3.7 Marine Mammals

As previously described in Section 3.7.2.2.2 (North Atlantic Right Whale [Eubalaena glacialis]) a 

migratory corridor, a calving area, a mating area, and feeding areas for North Atlantic right whales have 

been identified by (LaBrecque et al., 2015b) that seasonally overlap with Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry 

Point, Jacksonville, and the Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Navy testing activities 

that use explosives could occur in these range complexes year-round. A few TTS or behavioral responses

are estimated from testing with explosives in the Northeast Range Complexes on identified feeding and 

mating areas. Few impacts overall are predicted within the entire Study Area due to explosive testing 

activities; therefore significant impacts to feeding or mating behaviors within the feeding or mating 

areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) are not anticipated. Estimated impacts to North Atlantic 

right whale migration and calving behaviors within the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, which 

overlaps the identified migration and calving areas, are so low as to be unlikely in any given year. A few 

TTS or behavioral responses are estimated from testing with explosives in the Virginia Capes Range 

Complex, which overlaps the migratory area, and within the Jacksonville Range Complex, which overlaps 

the identified migratory and calving areas. However, since so few impacts are predicted overall within 

the Study Area from testing activities that use explosives, significant impacts to migratory or calving 

behaviors are not anticipated within the designated areas. 

As discussed above and in Section 3.7.2.2.2.1 (Status and Management),, the Study Area does overlap 

North Atlantic right whale critical habitat and some limited use of explosive does take place within these 

areas; however, the sound and energy from explosives would not affect the biological or physical 

features that are essential for the reproduction, rest and refuge, health, continued survival, 

conservation and recovery of the northern right whale population.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of North Atlantic right whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed North Atlantic right whales and will have no effect on North Atlantic right whale 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 Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of North Atlantic right whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed North Atlantic right whales and will have no effect on North Atlantic right whale 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

3.7-513

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts to this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of North Atlantic right whales incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed North Atlantic right whales and will have no effect on North Atlantic right whale critical 

habitat. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Blue Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Blue whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no blue whales would be 

impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training or testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 will not result in the unintentional taking of blue whale incidental to those activities. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

would not affect ESA-listed blue whales. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Blue whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no blue whales would be 

impacted except for estimated TTS for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). 

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in 

Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of blue whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed blue whales. The Navy will consult with 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

3.7-514

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Blue whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no blue whales would be 

impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training or testing activities as described under 

Alternative 2 will not result in the unintentional taking of blue whale incidental to those activities. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

would not affect ESA-listed blue whales. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Blue whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no blue whales would be 

impacted except for impacts due to Ship Shock Trials. Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are 

identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2

will result in the unintentional taking of blue whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed blue whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA in that regard.

Bryde’s Whales

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Bryde’s whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-182 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

A small and resident population area for Bryde’s whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b) 

overlaps the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex within the Study Area. Navy training activities that use 

explosives could occur year-round within the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex; however, the quantitative 

analysis indicates no impacts to Bryde’s whales. Bryde’s whales residing in this area could be exposed to 

sound or energy from explosives; however, impacts to natural behavior patterns or abandonment would 

not be anticipated within the identified Bryde’s whale small and resident population area.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-515

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-182: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most years would be 

less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-516

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Bryde’s whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-183 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative analysis also estimates TTS and 

PTS for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

A small and resident population area for Bryde’s whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a) overlaps 

the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex within the Study Area. Navy testing activities that use explosives 

could occur year-round within the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex; however, the quantitative analysis 

indicates impacts to Bryde’s whales within the Bryde’s whale small and resident population area 

identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a) are so low as to be unlikely in any given year. Furthermore, ship 

shock trials would not take place within this area. Significant impacts to natural behaviors or 

abandonment of the area by Bryde’s whales in the small and resident population area identified by 

LaBrecque et al. (2015a) are unlikely due to Navy testing activities that use explosives. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-517

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-183: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral 

responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-518

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Bryde’s whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-184 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Explosive use would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in explosives use 

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Bryde’s whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-519

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-184: Bryde’s Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No behavioral reactions, PTS, or injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-520

3.7 Marine Mammals

Fin Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Fin whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS and PTS (see Figure 3.7-185 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

A feeding area for fin whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast Range 

Complexes within the Study Area. Navy training activities that use explosives could occur year-round

within the Northeast Range Complexes; however, within the Northeast Range Complexes training with 

explosives typically occurs only within Narragansett Bay, which is outside the fin whale feeding area 

identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). Fin whales within the identified feeding area would not be 

exposed to sound or energy from explosives; therefore, impacts to feeding behaviors would not be 

anticipated within the identified fin whale feeding area from training with explosives.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1

will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed fin whales. The Navy will consult with 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

3.7-521

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-185: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most years would be 

less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses or injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-522

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Fin whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS and PTS (see Figure 3.7-186 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative analysis also estimates 

TTS and PTS for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

The feeding area for fin whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast Range 

Complexes within the Study Area. Navy testing activities that use explosives could occur year-round

within the Northeast Range Complexes. A small number of behavioral reactions or TTS could occur 

within the fin whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). Few impacts overall are 

predicted within the entire Study Area due to explosive testing activities; therefore significant impacts to 

feeding behaviors within the fin whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) are not 

anticipated. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed fin whales. The Navy will consult with 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

3.7-523

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-186: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral 

responses or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-524

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed fin whales. 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

Fin whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-187 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Explosive use would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in explosives use 

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of fin whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed fin whales. 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

3.7-525

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-187: Fin Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No behavioral reactions or injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-526

3.7 Marine Mammals

Humpback Whales 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Humpback whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates TTS and PTS (see Figure 3.7-188 and tabular results in Appendix E). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species 

are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

The feeding area for humpback whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast 

Range Complexes within the Study Area. Navy training activities that use explosives could occur yearround within the Northeast Range Complexes; however, within the Northeast Range Complexes training 

with explosives typically occurs only within Narragansett Bay, which is outside the humpback whale 

feeding area identified LaBrecque et al. (2015b). Humpback whales within the identified feeding area 

would not be exposed to sound or energy; therefore, impacts to feeding behaviors would not be 

anticipated within the identified humpback whale feeding area from training with explosives.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Humpback whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-189 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative analysis also estimates TTS and 

PTS for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-527

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-188: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most years 

would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses or injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-528

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-189: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock 

trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral 

responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-529

3.7 Marine Mammals

The feeding area for humpback whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast 

Range Complexes within the Study Area. Navy testing activities that use explosives could occur yearround within the Northeast Range Complexes. A small number of behavioral reactions or TTS could 

occur within the humpback whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). Few impacts 

overall are predicted within the entire Study Area due to explosive testing activities; therefore 

significant impacts to feeding behaviors within the humpback whale feeding area identified by

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) are not anticipated. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Humpback whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-190 and tabular results in Appendix 

E). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Explosive use would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in explosives use 

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of humpback whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-530

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-190: Humpback Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No behavioral reactions or injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-531

3.7 Marine Mammals

Minke Whales

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Minke whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-191 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

A feeding area for minke whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast Range 

Complexes within the Study Area. Navy training activities that use explosives could occur year-round

within the Northeast Range Complexes; however, within the Northeast Range Complexes training with 

explosives typically occurs only within Narragansett Bay, which is outside the minke whale feeding area 

identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). Minke whales in the identified feeding area would not be 

exposed to sound or energy from explosives; therefore, impacts to feeding behaviors would not be 

anticipated within the identified minke whale feeding area from training with explosives.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Minke whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS and PTS (see Figure 3.7-192 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated 

impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative analysis also estimates 

TTS and PTS for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-532

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-191: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most years would be 

less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-533

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-192: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral 

responses or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-534

3.7 Marine Mammals

The feeding area for minke whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast Range 

Complexes within the Study Area. Navy testing activities that use explosives could occur year-round

within the Northeast Range Complexes. A small number of behavioral reactions or TTS could occur 

within the minke whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). Few impacts overall are 

predicted within the entire Study Area due to explosive testing activities; therefore significant impacts to 

feeding behaviors within the minke whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) are not 

anticipated. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Minke whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-193 and tabular results in Appendix 

E). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-535

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-193: Minke Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No behavioral reactions or injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-536

3.7 Marine Mammals

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Explosive use would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in explosives use 

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of minke whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard.

Sei Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Sei whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-194 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in 

Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

A feeding area for sei whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast Range 

Complexes within the Study Area. Navy training activities that use explosives could occur year-round

within the Northeast Range Complexes; however, within the Northeast Range Complexes, training with 

explosives typically occurs only within Narragansett Bay, which is outside the sei whale feeding area 

identified LaBrecque et al. (2015b). Sei whales within the identified feeding area would not be exposed 

to sound or energy from explosives; therefore, impacts to feeding behaviors would not be anticipated 

within the identified sei whale feeding area from training with explosives.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed sei whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Sei whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-195 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative analysis also estimates TTS and 

PTS for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-537

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-194: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most years would be 

less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-538

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-195: Sei Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral 

responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-539

3.7 Marine Mammals

consequences for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences 

for individuals although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to 

long-term consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that 

would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or 

stock would not be expected.

The feeding area for sei whales identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) overlaps the Northeast Range 

Complexes within the Study Area. Navy testing activities that use explosives could occur year-round

within the Northeast Range Complexes. A small number of behavioral reactions or TTS could occur 

within the sei whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). Few impacts overall are 

predicted within the entire Study Area due to explosive testing activities; therefore significant impacts to 

feeding behaviors within the sei whale feeding area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b) are not 

anticipated. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed sei whales. 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 Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed sei whales. 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

Potential annual impacts to this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-540

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of sei whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested 

authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed sei whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA in that regard. 

Odontocetes

Odontocetes may be exposed to sound and energy from explosives associated with training activities 

throughout the year. Explosives produce sounds that are within the hearing range of odontocetes (see 

Section 3.7.2.1.4, Hearing and Vocalization). Potential impacts from explosive energy and sound include 

non-auditory injury, behavioral reactions, physiological stress, masking and hearing loss. Impact ranges 

for odontocetes exposed to explosive sound and energy are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact 

Ranges for Explosives) under mid-frequency cetaceans for most species, and under high-frequency 

cetaceans for Kogia whales and harbor porpoises. 

Injuries (non-auditory) to odontocetes, if they did occur, could include anything from mild injuries that 

are recoverable and are unlikely to have long-term consequences, to more serious injuries, including 

mortality. It is possible for marine mammals to be injured or killed by an explosion in isolated instances. 

Mitigation measures discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) prescribe pausing detonations when animals 

are sighted within, or entering the mitigation zones around an explosion to protect against injuries. 

Nevertheless, animals that did sustain injury could have long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering that most dolphin species for which these impacts are predicted have populations with tens 

to hundreds of thousands of animals, removing several animals from the population would be unlikely 

to have measurable long-term consequences for the species or stocks. 

Odontocetes that do experience a hearing threshold shift from explosive sounds may have reduced 

ability to detect biologically important sounds (e.g., social vocalizations) until their hearing recovers. 

Recovery from a hearing threshold shift begins almost immediately after the noise exposure ceases. A 

threshold shift can take a few minutes to a few days, depending on the severity of the initial shift, to 

recover. TTS would recover fully and PTS would leave some residual hearing loss. Threshold shifts do not 

necessarily affect all hearing frequencies equally, and typically manifest themselves at the exposure 

frequency or within an octave above the exposure frequency. Noise from explosions is broadband with 

most energy below a few hundred hertz; therefore, any hearing loss from exposure to explosive sounds 

is likely to be broadband with effects predominantly at lower frequencies. During the period that an 

odontocete had hearing loss, social calls from conspecifics and sounds from predators such as killer 

whale vocalizations could be more difficult to detect or interpret, although many of these sounds may 

be above the frequencies of the threshold shift. Odontocetes use echolocation clicks to find and capture 

prey. These echolocation clicks and vocalizations are at frequencies above a few kHz, which are less 

likely to be affected by threshold shift at lower frequencies, and should not affect odontocete’s ability to 

locate prey or rate of feeding. 

Research and observations (see 3.7.3.1.1.5 Behavioral Reactions) show that odontocetes do not typically 

show strong behavioral reactions to impulsive sounds such as explosions. Reactions, if they did occur, 

would likely be limited to short ranges, within a few kilometers of multiple explosions. Reactions could 

include alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, diving or swimming away, change in 

vocalization, or showing no response at all. Animals disturbed while engaged in other activities such as 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-541

3.7 Marine Mammals

feeding or reproductive behaviors may be more likely to ignore or tolerate the disturbance and continue 

their natural behavior patterns. Because noise from most activities using explosives is short-term and 

intermittent, and because detonations usually occur within a small area, behavioral reactions from 

odontocetes are likely to be short-term and low to moderate severity. 

Physiological stress could be caused by injury or hearing loss and could accompany any behavioral 

reaction as well. Research and observations of physiological stress in marine mammals are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.1.3 (Physiological Stress). Due to the short-term and intermittent use of explosives, 

physiological stress is also likely to be short-term and intermittent. Long-term consequences from 

physiological stress due to the sound of explosives would not be expected. 

Research and observations of auditory masking in marine mammals due to impulsive sounds are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.4 (Masking). Explosions introduce low-frequency, broadband sounds into 

the environment, which could mask hearing thresholds in odontocetes that are nearby, although sounds 

from explosions last for only a few seconds at most. Also, odontocetes typically communicate, vocalize, 

and echolocate at higher frequencies that would be less affected by masking noise at lower frequencies 

such as those produced by an explosion. Masking due to time-isolated detonations would not be 

significant. Activities that have multiple detonations such as some naval gunfire activities could create 

some masking for odontocetes in the area over the short duration of the event. Potential costs to 

odontocetes from masking are similar to those discussed above for TTS, with the primary difference 

being that the effects of masking are only present when the sound from the explosion is present within 

the water and the effect is over the moment the sound has ceased. 

Sperm Whales (Endangered Species Act-Listed) 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Sperm whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-196 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-542

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-196: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most years would be 

less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-543

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed sperm whales. The Navy will consult with the NMFS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Sperm whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-197 and tabular results in Appendix 

E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative analysis 

also estimates TTS, PTS, and non-auditory injury for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 

3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long-term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Considering these factors and 

the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term 

consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 may 

affect ESA-listed sperm whales. 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

3.7-544

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-197: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-545

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed sperm whales. 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

Sperm whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-198 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long-term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Considering these factors and 

the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term 

consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of sperm whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 may 

affect ESA-listed sperm whales. 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

3.7-546

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-198: Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-547

3.7 Marine Mammals

Kogia Whales

Kogia whales include two species that are often difficult to distinguish from one another: dwarf sperm 

whales and pygmy sperm whales.

TTS and PTS thresholds for high-frequency cetaceans, such as Kogia whales are lower than for all other 

marine mammals, which leads to a higher number of estimated hearing loss impacts relative to the 

number of animals exposed to the sound as compared to other hearing groups (e.g., mid-frequency 

cetaceans).

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Kogia whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-199, Figure 3.7-200, and 

tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. 

Impact ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of dwarf and pygmy sperm whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Kogia whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-201, Figure 3.7-202, and 

tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. 

The quantitative analysis also estimates TTS and PTS for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 

3.7-179). Impact ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-548

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-199: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-549

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-200: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-550

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-201: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-551

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-202: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-552

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of dwarf and pygmy sperm whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of dwarf and pygmy sperm whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Kogia whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-203, Figure 3.7-204, and 

tabular results in Appendix E). Impact ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2

(Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Explosive use would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in explosives use 

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 2. 

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of dwarf and pygmy sperm whales incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-553

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-203: Dwarf Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-554

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-204: Pygmy Sperm Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-555

3.7 Marine Mammals

Beaked Whales 

Beaked whales are a group of species which within the AFTT Study Area includes: Blainville’s beaked 

whales, Cuvier’s beaked whales, Gervais’ beaked whales, Sowerby’s beaked whales, True’s beaked 

whales, and Northern bottlenose whales.

Research and observations (see Behavioral Responses from Explosives) show that beaked whales are 

sensitive to human disturbance including noise from sonars, although no research on specific reactions 

to impulsive or explosion noise is available. Odontocetes overall have shown little responsiveness to 

impulsive sounds although it is likely that beaked whales are more reactive than most other 

odontocetes. Reactions could include alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, diving 

or swimming away, change in vocalization, or showing no response at all. Beaked whales on Navy ranges 

have been observed leaving the area for a few days during sonar training exercises. It is reasonable to 

expect that animals may leave an area of more intense explosive activity for a few days, however most 

explosive use during Navy activities is short-duration consisting of only a single or few closely timed 

explosions (i.e., detonated within a few minutes) with a limited footprint due to a single detonation 

point. Because noise from most activities using explosives is short-term and intermittent and because 

detonations usually occur within a small area, behavioral reactions from beaked whales are likely to be 

short-term and moderate severity. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Beaked whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-205 through Figure 3.7-23 and 

tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. 

No impacts are estimated for the northern bottlenose whale. Impact ranges for these species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in 

Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Blainville’s, Cuvier’s, Gervais’, Sowerby’s, and True’s beaked 

whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by 

section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-556

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-205: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-557

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-206: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-558

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-207: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-559

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-208: Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-560

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-209: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most years 

would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-561

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Beaked whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-210 through Figure 3.7-214 and 

tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. 

The quantitative analysis also estimates TTS and PTS for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 

3.7-179). Impact ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Blainville’s, Cuvier’s, Gervais’, Sowerby’s, and True’s beaked 

whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by 

section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-562

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-210: Blainville’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS 

or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-563

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-211: Cuvier’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS 

or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-564

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-212: Gervais’ Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS 

or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-565

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-213: Sowerby’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS 

or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-566

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-214: True’s Beaked Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS 

or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-567

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Blainville’s, Cuvier’s, Gervais’, Sowerby’s, and True’s beaked 

whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by 

section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts to these species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under 

Alternative 2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. 

Also, annual numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 

as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the 

number of impacts for these species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Blainville’s, Cuvier’s, Gervais’, Sowerby’s, and True’s beaked 

whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by 

section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Atlantic spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) injury (see Figure 

3.7-215 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-568 

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-215: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-569

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long-term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic spotted dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Atlantic spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) injury (see Figure 

3.7-216 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. The quantitative analysis also estimates TTS, PTS, and injury (non-auditory) for Ship Shock 

Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-570

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-216: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-571

3.7 Marine Mammals

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in 

Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic spotted dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic spotted dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Atlantic spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) injury (see Figure 

3.7-217 and tabular results in Appendix E). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Explosive use would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in explosives use 

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic spotted dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-572

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-217: Atlantic Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-573

3.7 Marine Mammals

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Atlantic white-sided dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-218

and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic white-sided dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-574

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-218: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-575

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Atlantic white-sided dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-219

and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. The quantitative analysis also estimates TTS, PTS, injury (non-auditory), and a single 

mortality for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the 

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual or 

lead to mortality. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic white-sided dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-576

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-219: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding 

full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. 

No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-577

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of 

explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 will result in the unintentional taking 

of Atlantic white-sided dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has requested authorization 

from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Atlantic white-sided dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-220

and tabular results in Appendix E). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2

(Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Explosive use would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in explosives use 

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Atlantic white-sided dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-578

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-220: Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is 

estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-579

3.7 Marine Mammals

Bottlenose Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Bottlenose dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) injury (see Figure 

3.7-221 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long-term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the 

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

There are 21 small and resident population areas for common bottlenose dolphins identified by

LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b) which overlap, or are directly adjacent to the, AFTT Study Area. These 

identified areas are within bays and estuaries where the Navy does not train with explosives. Bottlenose 

dolphins in the identified small and resident population areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 

2015b) would not be exposed to sound or energy from explosives; therefore, impacts would not be 

anticipated within the identified bottlenose dolphin small and resident population areas from training 

with explosives.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-580

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-221: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-581

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Bottlenose dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) injury (see Figure 

3.7-222 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. The quantitative analysis also estimates TTS, PTS, and injury (non-auditory) for Ship Shock 

Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 

3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long-term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the 

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

There are 21 small and resident population areas for common bottlenose dolphins identified by

LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 2015b) which overlap, or are directly adjacent to the, AFTT Study Area. These 

identified areas are within bays and estuaries where the Navy does not test with explosives. Bottlenose 

dolphins in the identified small and resident population areas identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015a, 

2015b) would not be exposed to sound or energy from explosives; therefore, impacts would not be 

anticipated within the identified bottlenose dolphin small and resident population areas from testing 

with explosives.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-582

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-222: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock 

trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-583

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Bottlenose dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) injury (see Figure 

3.7-223 and tabular results in Appendix E). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Explosive use would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in explosives use

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of bottlenose dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-584

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-223: Bottlenose Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-585

3.7 Marine Mammals

Clymene Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Clymene dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-224 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Clymene dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Clymene dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-225 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative 

analysis also estimates TTS, PTS, and injury (non-auditory) for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and 

Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long-term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the 

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1

will result in the unintentional taking of Clymene dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-586

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-224: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most years 

would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-587

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-225: Clymene Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock 

trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-588

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Clymene dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts to this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Clymene dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

False Killer Whales

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

False killer whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-226 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-589

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-226: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most years 

would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-590

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

False killer whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-227 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative 

analysis also estimates TTS and PTS for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-591

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-227: False Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock 

trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-592

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts to this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of false killer whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Fraser’s Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Fraser’s dolphin may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

under Alternative 1 throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no Fraser’s 

dolphin would be impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will not result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphin incidental to those activities. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Fraser’s dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates TTS (see Figure 3.7-228 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative analysis also estimates TTS, PTS, 

and injury (non-auditory) for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS to an individual over the course 

of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. PTS in 

an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single minor 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-593

3.7 Marine Mammals

long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a population. 

Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, any long-term consequences to an 

individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the population are unlikely to occur 

even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the 

mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term 

consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Fraser’s dolphin may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

under Alternative 2 throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no Fraser’s 

dolphin would be impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will not result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphin incidental to those activities. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts to this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Fraser’s dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Killer Whales

Killer whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training or testing 

activities throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no killer whales would 

be impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training or testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 or 2 will not result in the unintentional taking of killer whales incidental to those activities. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-594

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-228: Fraser’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No behavioral 

responses, PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-595

3.7 Marine Mammals

Melon-Headed Whales

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Melon-headed whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-229 and tabular 

results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Melon-headed whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-230 and tabular 

results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The 

quantitative analysis also estimates TTS, PTS, and injury (non-auditory) for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 

3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact 

Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the 

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1

will result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-596

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-229: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-597

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-230: Melon-Headed Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-598

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts to this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of melon-headed whales incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Pantropical Spotted Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Pantropical spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-231

and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-599

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Pantropical spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-232

and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer 

explosions. The quantitative analysis also estimates TTS, PTS, injury (non-auditory), and a single 

mortality for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long-term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the 

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual or 

lead to mortality. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-600

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-231: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-601

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-232: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding 

full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. 

No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-602

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Pantropical spotted dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and non-auditory 

injury (see Figure 3.7-233 and tabular results in Appendix E). Impact ranges for this species are discussed 

in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Explosive use would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in explosives use

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of pantropical spotted dolphins incidental to those activities. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-603

3.7 Marine Mammals

Figure 3.7-233: Pantropical Spotted Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-604

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pilot Whales

Pilot whales include two species that are often difficult to distinguish from one another: long-finned 

pilot whales and short-finned pilot whales.

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Pilot whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-234, Figure 3.7-235 and tabular 

results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact 

ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of long-finned and short-finned pilot whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Pilot whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-236, Figure 3.7-237, and 

tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. 

The quantitative analysis also estimates TTS, PTS, and injury (non-auditory) for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 

3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact 

Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the 

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of long-finned and short-finned pilot whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-605

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-234: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-606

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-235: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-607

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-236: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-608

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-237: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-609

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of long-finned and short-finned pilot whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Pilot whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-238, Figure 3.7-239, and 

tabular results in Appendix E). Impact ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2

(Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Explosive use would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in explosives use

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of long-finned and short-finned pilot whales incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-610

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-238: Long-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-611

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-239: Short-Finned Pilot Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for 

this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-612

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pygmy Killer Whales

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Pygmy killer whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-240 and tabular results 

in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges 

for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Pygmy killer whales may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-241 and tabular results 

in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative 

analysis also estimates TTS and PTS for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-613

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-240: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-614

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-241: Pygmy Killer Whale Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock 

trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-615

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts to this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of pygmy killer whales incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Risso’s Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Risso’s dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-29 and tabular results in Appendix 

E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this 

species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-616

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-242: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using the 

Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most years would be 

less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-617

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Risso’s dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-243 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative 

analysis also estimates TTS and PTS for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-618

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-243: Risso’s Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-619

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts to this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of Risso’s dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Rough-Toothed Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Rough-toothed dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS (see Figure 3.7-244 and tabular results 

in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges 

for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-620

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-244: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions 

Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most 

years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury (non-auditory) is estimated 

for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-621

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Rough-toothed dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing 

activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per 

year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-245 and tabular 

results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The 

quantitative analysis also estimates TTS, PTS, and injury (non-auditory) for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 

3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact 

Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Long-term consequences for the population are unlikely to occur even if 

an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. Considering these factors and the 

mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term 

consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts to this species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for this species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E). Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of rough-toothed dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy 

has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-622

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-245: Rough-Toothed Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions 

Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship 

shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-623

3.7 Marine Mammals

Short-Beaked Common Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Short-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

training activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) 

injury (see Figure 3.7-246 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be 

less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2

(Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the 

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Short-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) 

injury (see Figure 3.7-247 and tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be 

less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative analysis also estimates TTS, PTS, injury (non-auditory), 

and mortality for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the 

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual or 

lead to mortality. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental to those activities. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-624

3.7 Marine Mammals

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-246: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training 

Explosions Using the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts 

most years would be less based on fewer explosions.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-625

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-247: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Using the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding 

full ship shock trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-626

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Short-beaked common dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with 

testing activities throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of 

explosives per year under Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) 

injury (see Figure 3.7-248 and tabular results in Appendix E). Impact ranges for this species are discussed 

in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Explosive use would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in explosives use

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of short-beaked common dolphins incidental to those activities. 

The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in 

that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-627

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-248: Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing 

Explosions Under Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-628

3.7 Marine Mammals

Spinner Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Spinner dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-249 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be 

conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock 

would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Spinner dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-250 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative 

analysis also estimates TTS, PTS, injury (non-auditory), and a single mortality for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 

3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact 

Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the 

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual or 

lead to mortality. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-629

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-249: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most years 

would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-630

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-250: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-631

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Spinner dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-251 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Explosive use would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in explosives use

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of spinner dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-632

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-251: Spinner Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-633

3.7 Marine Mammals

Striped Dolphins

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Striped dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, PTS, and (non-auditory) injury (see Figure 3.7-252 and 

tabular results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions.

Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the 

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Striped dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-253 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative 

analysis also estimates TTS, PTS, and injury (non-auditory) for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and 

Figure 3.7-179). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 

As described for odontocetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an 

individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences 

for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals 

although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term 

consequences for a population. Non-auditory injury includes low severity injuries; following recovery, 

any long term consequences to an individual are expected to be minor. Long-term consequences for the 

population are unlikely to occur even if an injury created long-term consequences for that individual. 

Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as described in Chapter 

5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-634

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-252: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most years

would be less based on fewer explosions.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-635

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-253: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-636

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Striped dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-254 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Explosive use would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in explosives use

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of striped dolphins incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-637

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-254: Striped Dolphin Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under 

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-638

3.7 Marine Mammals

White-Beaked Dolphins

White-beaked dolphins may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training or 

testing activities throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no white-beaked 

dolphins would be impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training or testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 or 2 will not result in the unintentional taking of white-beaked dolphins incidental to those 

activities. 

Harbor Porpoises

TTS and PTS thresholds for high-frequency cetaceans, such as harbor porpoises are lower than for all 

other marine mammals, which leads to a higher number of estimated hearing loss impacts relative to 

the number of animals exposed to the sound as compared to other hearing groups (e.g., mid-frequency 

cetaceans). During the period that a harbor porpoise had hearing loss, vocalizations from conspecifics 

could be more difficult to detect or interpret, however harbor porpoises vocalize at frequencies above 

100 kHz which is likely to be well above the frequency of threshold shift induced by sound from an 

explosion. Odontocetes, including the harbor porpoise, use echolocation clicks to find and capture prey. 

These echolocation clicks and vocalizations are at frequencies above 100 kHz for harbor porpoises and 

are therefore unlikely to be affected by threshold shift at lower frequencies. This should not affect 

harbor porpoise’s ability to locate prey or rate of feeding. 

Research and observations (see Section 3.7.3.2.2.1, Methods for Analyzing Impacts from Explosives: 

Behavioral Responses from Explosives) show that harbor porpoises are sensitive to human disturbance 

including noise from impulsive sources. Observations of harbor porpoises near seismic surveys using air 

guns and pile driving operations show animals avoiding by 5–20 km, but returning quickly to the area 

after activities cease. Reactions could include alerting, startling, breaking off feeding dives and surfacing, 

diving or swimming away, change in vocalization, or showing no response at all. It is reasonable to 

expect that animals may leave an area of more intense explosive activity, but return within a few days, 

however most explosive use during Navy activities is short-duration consisting of only a single or few 

closely timed explosions with a limited footprint due to a single detonation point. Because noise from 

most activities using explosives is short-term and intermittent, and because detonations usually occur 

within a small area, behavioral reactions from harbor porpoises are likely to be short-term and 

moderate severity. 

A few TTS or behavioral reactions in an individual animal within a given year are unlikely to result in any 

long-term consequences. PTS could reduce an animal’s ability to detect biologically important sounds; 

however, as discussed above, a small threshold shift due to low frequency sound from an explosion is 

unlikely to affect the hearing range that harbor porpoises rely upon. Nevertheless, PTS could have minor 

long-term consequences for individuals. This minor consequence for an individual is unlikely to have any 

long-term consequences for the species or stocks. Considering these factors, and the low number of 

overall estimated impacts, long-term consequences for the population would not be expected.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-639

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Harbor porpoises may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-255 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. Impact ranges for 

this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

A small and resident population area for harbor porpoises identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b)

overlaps the Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Navy training activities that involve the 

use of explosives could occur year-round within the Northeast Range Complexes; however, training with 

explosives typically occurs only within Narragansett Bay, which is outside the harbor porpoise small and 

resident population area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). The identified harbor porpoise area 

would not be exposed to sound or energy from explosives; therefore, impacts would not be anticipated 

within the identified small and resident population area for harbor porpoises.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of harbor porpoises incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Harbor porpoises may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-256 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. The quantitative 

analysis also estimates TTS and PTS for Ship Shock Trials (Figure 3.7-178 and Figure 3.7-179). Impact 

ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described for other mysticetes above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to 

an individual over the course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term 

consequences for that individual. PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences 

for individuals although a single minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to 

long-term consequences for a population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that 

would be conducted as described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or 

stock would not be expected.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-640

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-255: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Training Explosions Using 

the Maximum Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1. Estimated impacts most years 

would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-641

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-256: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using 

the Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock 

trials). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-642

3.7 Marine Mammals

A small and resident population area for harbor porpoises identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b)

overlaps the Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Navy testing activities that involve the 

use of explosives could occur year-round within the Northeast Range Complexes including the harbor 

porpoise small and resident population area identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). A small number of 

behavioral reactions, TTS, or PTS could occur within this identified area, although this area only overlaps 

a small portion of the Northeast Range Complexes. This leads to a lower likelihood that impacts 

estimated for harbor porpoises in the Northeast Range Complexes would occur within the small and 

resident population area for harbor porpoises identified by LaBrecque et al. (2015b). Due the low 

number of estimated impacts overall and the intermittent nature of explosive activities that could take 

place within the identified harbor porpoise area, significant impacts to natural behaviors within or 

abandonment of the small and resident population area for harbor porpoises identified by LaBrecque et 

al. (2015b) are not anticipated. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of harbor porpoises incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Potential annual impacts under Alternative 2 from training with explosives would be identical to the 

maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives under Alternative 1 

for Training Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use would be consistent year-to-year 

under Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multiyear period, the number of impacts from training under Alternative 2 may be greater than under 

Alternative 1 (see Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of harbor porpoises incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Harbor porpoises may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 2, estimates behavioral reactions, TTS, and PTS (see Figure 3.7-257 and tabular results in 

Appendix E). Impact ranges for this species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from 

Explosives). 

Potential impacts under Alternative 2 from Explosive use would be similar in type as for Alternative 1, 

although the numbers of impacts would increase slightly based on the slight increase in explosives use

associated with testing activities under Alternative 2 versus Alternative 1.

Potential impacts from Ship Shock Trials are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of harbor porpoises incidental to those activities. The Navy has 

requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-643

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-257: Harbor Porpoise Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Under

Alternative 2 (excluding full ship shock trials). No injury (non-auditory) is estimated for this 

species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-644

3.7 Marine Mammals

Phocid Seals

Phocid seals in AFTT Study Area include harbor seals, gray seals, harp seals, hooded seals, bearded seals 

and ringed seals. Most of these species primary ranges are north of the AFTT Study Area.

Phocid seals that do experience TTS from explosive sounds may have reduced ability to detect 

biologically important sounds until their hearing recovers. Recovery from TTS begins almost immediately 

after the noise exposure ceases and can take a few minutes to a few days, depending on the severity of 

the initial shift, to fully recover. Threshold shifts do not necessarily affect all hearing frequencies equally, 

and typically manifest themselves at the exposure frequency or within an octave above the exposure 

frequency. Noise from explosions is broadband with most energy below a few hundred hertz; therefore, 

any hearing loss from exposure to explosive sounds is likely to be broadband with effects predominantly 

at lower frequencies. During the short period that a phocid seal had TTS, social calls from conspecifics 

could be more difficult to detect or interpret, however most phocid vocalizations may be above the 

frequency of TTS induced by an explosion. Killer whales are one of the phocid seals primary predators. 

Killer whale vocalizations are typically above a few kHz, well above the region of hearing that is likely to 

be affected by exposure to explosive energy. Therefore, TTS in phocid seals due to sound from 

explosions is unlikely to reduce detection of killer whale calls. Phocid seals probably use sound 

underwater to find prey and feed; therefore, a TTS could have a minor and temporary effect on a phocid 

seal’s ability to locate prey. 

Research and observations of auditory masking in marine mammals due to impulsive sounds are 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.1.1.4 (Auditory Masking). Explosions introduce low frequency, broadband 

sounds into the environment, which could mask hearing thresholds in phocid seals that are nearby, 

although sounds from explosions last for only a few seconds at most. Masking due to time-isolated 

detonations would not be significant. Activities that have multiple detonations such as some naval 

gunfire exercises could create some masking for seals in the area over the short duration of the event. 

Potential costs to seals from masking are similar to those discussed above for TTS, with the primary 

difference being that the effects of masking are only present when the sound from the explosion is 

present within the water and the effect is over the moment the sound has ceased. 

Research and observations (see Behavioral Responses from Explosives) show that pinnipeds (including 

phocid seals) may be the least sensitive taxonomic group to most noise sources. They are likely to only 

respond to loud impulsive sound sources at close ranges by startling, jumping into the water when 

hauled out, or even cease foraging, but only for brief periods before returning to their previous 

behavior. Pinnipeds may even experience TTS before exhibiting a behavioral response (Southall et al., 

2007). Because noise from most activities using explosives is short-term and intermittent, and because 

detonations usually occur within a small area, behavioral reactions from phocid seals are likely to be 

short-term and low severity. 

Physiological stress could be caused by injury or hearing loss and could accompany any behavioral 

reaction as well. Research and observations of physiological stress in marine mammals are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.2.1.3 (Physiological Stress). Due to the short-term and intermittent use of explosives, 

physiological stress is also likely to be short-term and intermittent. Long-term consequences from 

physiological stress due to the sound of explosives would not be expected. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-645

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Phocid seals may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities 

under Alternative 1 throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no phocid 

seals would be impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

will not result in the unintentional taking of phocid seals incidental to those activities. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Phocid seals may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with testing activities 

throughout the year. The quantitative analysis, using the maximum number of explosives per year under 

Alternative 1, estimates behavioral reactions and TTS for gray and hooded seals and behavioral 

reactions, TTS, and PTS for harbor and harp seals (see Figure 3.7-258 through Figure 3.7-261 and tabular 

results in Appendix E). Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No 

impacts are estimated for ringed or bearded seals. No impacts are estimated from Ship Shock Trials. 

Impact ranges for these species are discussed in Section 3.7.3.2.2.2 (Impact Ranges from Explosives). 

As described above, even a few minor to moderate TTS or behavioral reactions to an individual over the 

course of a year are unlikely to have any significant costs or long-term consequences for that individual. 

PTS in an individual could have no to minor long-term consequences for individuals although a single 

minor long-term consequence for an individual is unlikely to lead to long-term consequences for a 

population. Considering these factors and the mitigation measures that would be conducted as 

described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), long-term consequences for the species or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will result in the unintentional taking of gray, harbor, harp and hooded seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-646

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-258: Gray Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-647

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-259: Harbor Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-648

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and 

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-260: Harp Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No injury (nonauditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-649

3.7 Marine Mammals

Pie charts show Regions or Activity Categories with at least 0.5 percent of the estimated impacts. Bar plots show impacts due to 

all activities within the Study Area. Tables of impacts are also shown in Appendix E (Estimated Impacts to Marine Mammals and

Sea Turtles Under the Proposed Action).

Figure 3.7-261: Hooded Seal Impacts Estimated per Year from Testing Explosions Using the 

Maximum Annual Number of Explosions Under Alternative 1 (excluding full ship shock trials). 

Estimated impacts most years would be less based on fewer explosions. No PTS or injury 

(non-auditory) is estimated for this species.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-650

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Phocid seals may be exposed to sound or energy from explosions associated with training activities

under Alternative 2 throughout the year, although the quantitative analysis estimates that no phocid 

seals would be impacted. Long-term consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not be 

expected.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training activities as described under Alternative 2 

will not result in the unintentional taking of phocid seals incidental to those activities. 

Impacts from Explosives Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

Potential annual impacts to these species under Alternative 2 from testing with explosives would be 

identical to the maximum use year impacts shown and discussed above in Impacts from Explosives 

under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities. The primary distinction is that explosive use under Alternative 

2 for testing does increase slightly in some locations per year as compared to Alternative 1. Also, annual 

numbers of activities using explosives would be consistent year-to-year under Alternative 2 as compared 

to Alternative 1, which fluctuates annually. Therefore, over a multi-year period, the number of impacts 

for these species from testing under Alternative 2 may be greater than under Alternative 1 (see 

Appendix E).

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will result in the unintentional taking of gray, harbor, harp, and hooded seals incidental to those 

activities. The Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA in that regard. 

Manatees (Endangered Species Act-Listed)

The manatee is primarily an inshore species, with most sightings occurring in warm fresh water, 

estuaries, and occasionally extremely nearshore coastal waters. Training activities that include 

explosions do not typically occur within or near West Indian manatee habitat, and therefore, impacts on 

manatees are unlikely. The quantitative analysis estimates that no manatees would be impacted. Longterm consequences for individuals, the species, or stock would not be expected.

Manatees within the Port Canaveral and Mayport portions of the designated West Indian manatee 

critical habitat areas are unlikely to be exposed to sound or energy from explosives. The primary 

constituent elements of the habitat required by the West Indian manatee for feeding and breeding have 

been reported as the presence of seagrasses and warm water refuges, which would not be affected by 

these proposed activities. 

Pursuant to the MMPA, the use of explosives during training or testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 or 2 will not result in the unintentional taking of manatees incidental to those activities. 

Pursuant to the ESA, the use of explosives during training or testing activities as described under 

Alternative 1 or 2 would not affect ESA-listed manatees and would not affect designated critical habitat. 

3.7.3.2.2.4 Impacts from Explosives Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, training or testing activities associated with the Proposed Action would 

not be conducted in the AFTT Study Area. Based on the analysis presented in Section 3.7.3.2.2.3

(Impacts from Explosives Under the Action Alternatives), impacts on individual marine mammals from 

explosive activities could occur under either alternative, but impacts on marine mammal populations are 

not anticipated. Therefore, discontinuing explosive activities under the No Action Alternative would 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-651

3.7 Marine Mammals

remove the potential for impacts on individual marine mammals, but would not measurably improve 

the status of marine mammal populations or otherwise contribute to the recovery of threatened or 

endangered species that occur in the Study Area.

3.7.3.3 Energy Stressors

This section analyzes the potential impacts of energy stressors used during training and testing activities 

within the Study Area. This section includes analysis of the potential impacts of: (1) in-water 

electromagnetic devices and (2) high-energy lasers. General discussion of impacts can also be found in 

Section 3.0.3.6.2 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Energy-Producing Activities).

3.7.3.3.1 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices 

For a discussion of the types of activities that create an electromagnetic field underwater, refer to 

Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices), and for information on locations and the number of activities 

proposed for each alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices). The devices 

producing an electromagnetic field are towed or unmanned mine countermeasure systems. The 

electromagnetic field is produced to simulate a vessel’s magnetic field. In an actual mine-clearing 

operation, the intent is that the electromagnetic field would trigger an enemy mine designed to sense a 

vessel’s magnetic field.

Neither regulations nor scientific literature provide threshold criteria to determine the significance of 

the potential effects from actions that result in generation of an electromagnetic field. Data regarding 

the influence of electromagnetic fields on cetaceans are inconclusive and are based primarily on the 

assumptions that marine mammals can sense variations in the earth’s magnetic field and that they use 

those magnetic field variations for navigation. There has been renewed interest in this topic of inquiry 

given the potential for electromagnetic fields generated by undersea power cables to possibly affect 

geo-navigation in migrating marine mammals (Gill et al., 2014). 

Most of the early research investigated the possible correlations of where live-stranding locations 

occurred to determine if there was an associated local variation in the earth’s magnetic field (Kirschvink, 

1990; Klinowska, 1985; Walker et al., 1992). Species included long-finned and short-finned pilot whales, 

striped dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, Atlantic white-sided dolphin, fin whale, common dolphin, 

harbor porpoise, sperm whale, and pygmy sperm whale, which had livestranding locations that 

correlated with areas where the earth’s magnetic field was locally weaker than surrounding areas

(Kirschvink, 1990). These statistical associations for locally weaker areas represented a total intensity 

variation of less than 0.05 microtesla in the magnetic field (Kirschvink et al., 1986). While this correlation 

had seemed to have also been demonstrated for bottlenose dolphins in the Atlantic (Kirschvink et al., 

1986), there was no correlation found in the Pacific (Kirschvink, 1990). Subsequent research regarding 

fin whale sightings over the continental shelf off the northeastern United States was consistent with the 

findings involving stranded fin whales (Kirschvink, 1990), supporting the hypothesis that fin whales 

possess a magnetic sense and that they use it to migrate (Walker et al., 1992). Normandeau et al. (2011)

reviewed available information on electromagnetic and magnetic field sensitivity of marine organisms 

(including marine mammals) for impact assessment of offshore wind farms for the U.S. Department of 

the Interior and concluded there is no evidence to suggest any magnetic sensitivity for sea lions, fur 

seals, or sea otters (Normandeau et al., 2011). However, the researchers concluded there was 

behavioral, anatomical, and theoretical evidence indicating that cetaceans sense magnetic fields.

Anatomical evidence suggests the presence of magnetic material in the brain (Pacific common dolphin, 

Dall’s porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, Cuvier’s beaked whale, and the humpback whale) and in the tongue 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-652

3.7 Marine Mammals

and lower jawbones (harbor porpoise) (Bauer et al., 1985; Kirschvink, 1990). Zoeger et al. (1981) found 

what appeared to be nerve fibers associated with the magnetic material in a Pacific common dolphin 

and proposed that it may be used as a magnetic field receptor. Electrosensitivity was found in the 

Guiana dolphin (Czech-Damal et al., 2011). Kuzhetsov (1999) conducted experiments exposing 

bottlenose dolphins to permanent magnetic field intensities of 32, 108, and 168 microteslas and showed

both behavioral and physiological reactions during 79 percent, 63 percent, and 53 percent of the trials, 

respectively (as summarized in Normandeau et al. (2011)). Behavioral reactions included sharp 

exhalations, acoustic activity, and movement, and physiological reactions included a change in heart 

rate. Kremers et al. (2014) conducted another experiment to observe the spontaneous reactions of 

captive bottlenose dolphins from a magnetized device compared to a demagnetized device. Results 

from this experiment confirmed that dolphins are capable of perceiving magnetic fields from a distance 

of more than 1.5 m from the 1.2 tesla magnetic strength device; creating a magnetic field with a 

strength of approximately 0.051–0.240 tesla between 2 to 5 cm from the source (Kremers et al., 2014). 

However, aside from a shorter latency approach response towards the magnetized device compared to 

the demagnetized device, all other behaviors exhibited by the dolphins in the experiment did not differ 

between either stimulus, suggesting that magnetic fields are neither attractive nor repulsive to dolphins 

(Kremers et al., 2014). 

Based on the limited available literature, no evidence suggests any magnetic sensitivity for polar bears, 

fur seals, walrus, earless seals, and manatees (Normandeau et al., 2011). 

Potential impacts on marine mammals associated with electromagnetic fields are most likely dependent 

on the animal’s proximity to the source and the strength of the magnetic field. Because the device 

creating the electromagnetic field is towed or is on an unmanned vehicle, it may not be possible to 

distinguish whether an avoidance reaction of an animal is the result of physical disturbance from the 

towed object or unmanned vehicle (Section 3.7.3.4.1, Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices) or 

from the presence of the electromagnetic field. As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water 

Electromagnetic Devices), electromagnetic fields associated with naval training and testing activities are 

relatively weak (only 10 percent of the earth’s magnetic field at 24 m), temporary, and localized. Once 

the source is turned off or moves from the location, the electromagnetic field is gone. A marine mammal 

would have to be within the electromagnetic field (approximately 200 m from the source) during the 

activity to detect it.

3.7.3.3.1.1 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training 

Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices), offshore training activities that 

use in-water electromagnetic devices would occur within the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, 

Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. In addition, training activities that use in-water 

electromagnetic devices would occur within inland waters surrounding Boston, Massachusetts; Earle, 

New Jersey; Wilmington, Delaware; Delaware Bay, Delaware; Hampton Roads, Virginia; Morehead City, 

North Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; Kings Bay, Georgia; Mayport, Florida; Port Canaveral, Florida; 

Tampa, Florida; Beaumont, Texas; and Corpus Christi, Texas. 

Marine mammal species that do not occur in areas where Navy training activities that use 

electromagnetic devices would be conducted include the bowhead whale, narwhal, beluga whale, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-653

3.7 Marine Mammals

white-beaked dolphin, common dolphin, ringed seal, bearded seal, walrus, and polar bear. These species 

are not further analyzed in this section because they would not be exposed to this energy stressor.

Although it is not fully understood, based on the available evidence described above, it is probable that 

marine mammals use the earth’s magnetic field for orientation or migration (Walker et al., 1992). If a 

marine mammal was in proximity of an electromagnetic field source associated with Navy training, 

emitting a field strong enough to be detected, and that animal is sensitive to the exposure, it is 

conceivable that this electromagnetic field could have an effect on a marine mammal, primarily 

impacting that animal’s navigation. 

Available literature on marine mammals involve investigating their ability to sense an electromagnetic 

field due to the potential it then may have on navigation and migration behaviors. Direct impacts on 

feeding or reproductive behaviors have not been documented, and impacts on marine mammals 

feeding and engaging in reproductive behaviors are not anticipated. If marine mammals are in fact 

sensitive to small variations in electromagnetic fields, any impacts from Navy training would be 

temporary and minor, and natural behavioral patterns would not be significantly altered or abandoned 

based on the Navy’s electromagnetic device having: (1) generated a relatively low-intensity magnetic 

field (essentially mimicking the magnetic field of a steel vessel); (2) a very localized magnetic field 

proximate to the moving electromagnetic device; (3) been maneuvered by the Navy to maintain a 

specified distance away from marine mammals, as stated with regard to vessels and towed in-water 

devices in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), which consequently would provide some avoidance of 

electromagnetic devices that are towed from manned platforms; and (4) a short duration (hours) of use 

for training. 

Electromagnetic device use associated with Navy training would not occur within North Atlantic right 

whale northeast critical habitat area but would be conducted within the southeast critical habitat area. 

Since North Atlantic right whales primarily occur within the southeast critical habitat in the winter, any 

potential overlap of occurrence with Navy training activities in this area would be seasonal. Physical and 

biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale conservation and considered in the critical 

habitat designation include water temperatures, depths, and sea surface conditions that are suitable for 

the southern calving habitats (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). These habitat features would 

not be impacted by in-water electromagnetic devices. 

Training activities involving electromagnetic devices conducted within inland waters surrounding 

Savannah, Georgia; Kings Bay, Georgia; Mayport, Florida; Port Canaveral, Florida; and Tampa, Florida, 

would occur within West Indian manatee critical habitat. Any potential overlap of Navy training activities 

with these areas would be minimal based on the limited overlap between West Indian manatee critical 

habitat and all other inland waters in the Study Area. Moreover, impacts from electromagnetic fields to 

manatees have not been documented in the available literature. The current critical habitat designation 

for the West Indian manatee does not identify specific physical and biological features essential for 

species conservation; however, essential habitat features have been reported to include warm water 

refuges, various food sources (seagrasses and freshwater vegetation), travel corridors, and shelter for 

calving (75 Federal Register 1574–1581, January 12, 2010). These habitat features would not be 

impacted by in-water electromagnetic devices. 

The use of electromagnetic devices during training activities as described under Alternative 1 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the 

MMPA. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-654

3.7 Marine Mammals

The use of electromagnetic devices during training activities as described under Alternative 1 will have 

no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESAlisted and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with 

NMFS and the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices), under Alternative 1, offshore 

testing activities that use in-water electromagnetic devices would occur within the Virginia Capes, Navy 

Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, as well as the Naval Undersea Warfare 

Center, Newport Testing Range, the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, and the Naval Surface 

Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range. In addition, testing activities that use in-water 

electromagnetic devices would occur within inland waters surrounding Little Creek, Virginia. 

Marine mammal species that do not occur in areas where Navy testing activities that use 

electromagnetic devices would be conducted include the bowhead whale, narwhal, beluga whale, 

white-beaked dolphin, common dolphin, ringed seal, bearded seal, walrus, and polar bear. These species 

are not further analyzed in this section because they would not be exposed to this energy stressor.

Although it is not fully understood, based on the available evidence described above, it is probable that 

marine mammals use the earth’s magnetic field for orientation or migration (Walker et al., 1992). If a 

marine mammal was in proximity of an electromagnetic field source associated with Navy testing, 

emitting a field strong enough to be detected, and that animal is sensitive to the exposure, it is 

conceivable that this electromagnetic field could have an effect on a marine mammal, primarily 

impacting that animal’s navigation. Available literature on marine mammals involve investigating their 

ability to sense an electromagnetic field due to the potential it then may have on navigation and 

migration behaviors. Direct impacts on feeding or reproductive behaviors have not been documented 

and impacts on marine mammals feeding and engaging in reproductive behaviors are not anticipated. If 

marine mammals are in fact sensitive to small variations in electromagnetic fields, any impacts from 

Navy testing would be temporary and minor, and natural behavioral patterns would not be significantly 

altered or abandoned based on the Navy’s electromagnetic device having: (1) generated a relatively 

low-intensity magnetic field (essentially mimicking the magnetic field of a steel vessel); (2) a very 

localized magnetic field proximate to the moving electromagnetic device; (3) been maneuvered by the 

Navy to maintain a specified distance away from marine mammals, as stated with regard to vessels and 

towed in-water devices in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), which consequently would provide some avoidance of 

electromagnetic devices that are towed from manned platforms; and (4) a short duration (hours) of use 

for testing. 

In-water electromagnetic device use associated with Navy testing would not occur within North Atlantic 

right whale northeast critical habitat area but would occur within the southeast critical habitat area. 

Since North Atlantic right whales primary occur within the southeast critical habitat in the winter, any 

potential overlap of occurrence with Navy testing activities in these areas would be seasonal. Physical 

and biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale conservation and considered in the 

critical habitat designation include water temperatures, depths, and sea surface conditions that are 

suitable for the southern calving habitats (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). These habitat 

features would not be impacted by in-water electromagnetic devices.

Testing activities that use in-water electromagnetic devices would not be conducted within West Indian 

manatee critical habitat. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-655

3.7 Marine Mammals

The use of electromagnetic devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the 

MMPA. 

The use of electromagnetic devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESA-listed

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

the USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.7.3.3.1.2 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training 

Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices), the locations and numbers of 

offshore training activities that use in-water electromagnetic devices would be identical under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. Similarly, the locations of inland water training activities that use in-water 

electromagnetic devices are identical between Alternatives 1 and 2. The numbers of annual training 

activities that use in-water electromagnetic devices under Alternatives 1 and 2 are the same. However, 

over 5 years there is a 2 percent increase in the number of offshore training activities and a 67 percent 

increase for training activities in inland waters. The increase in events does not measurably increase the 

probability for marine mammals to be exposed to electromagnetic energy; nor does it increase the 

potential for impacts on marine mammals to occur. As discussed for training activities that use 

electromagnetic devices under Alternative 1 (Section 3.7.3.3.1.1, Impacts from In-Water 

Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 1), marine mammal species with the potential to co-occur 

with these training events remain the same, potential impacts would be temporary and minor, and 

natural behavioral patterns would not be significantly altered or abandoned. 

The use of electromagnetic devices during training activities as described under Alternative 2 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the 

MMPA. 

The use of electromagnetic devices during training activities as described under Alternative 2 will have 

no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESAlisted and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with 

NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.1 (In-Water Electromagnetic Devices) the locations, numbers of testing 

activities, and potential effects associated with in-water electromagnetic device use would be the same 

under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 3.7.3.3.1.1 (Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices 

Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on marine mammals.

The use of electromagnetic devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 will not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the 

MMPA. 

The use of electromagnetic devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 will have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESA-listed

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-656

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.3.1.3 Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under the No Action 

Alternative 

Impacts from In-Water Electromagnetic Devices Under the No Action Alternative for 

Training and Testing Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the 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.

3.7.3.3.2 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers), high-energy laser weapons activities involve evaluating the 

effectiveness of an approximately 30 kilowatt high-energy laser deployed from a surface ship or a 

helicopter to create small but critical failures in potential targets from short ranges. 

The primary concern is the potential for a marine mammal to be exposed to the laser beam at or near 

the water’s surface, which could result in injury or death. However, marine mammals could only be 

exposed if the laser beam missed the target. The potential for marine mammals to be directly hit by a 

high-energy laser beam was evaluated using statistical probability modeling (Appendix F, Military 

Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) to estimate the potential direct strike exposures 

to a marine mammal for a worst-case scenario. Model input values include high-energy laser use data 

(e.g., number of high-energy laser exercises and laser beam footprint), size of the training or testing 

area, marine mammal density data, and animal footprint. To estimate the probability of hitting a marine 

mammal in a worst-case scenario (based on assumptions listed below), the impact area for all laser 

training and testing events was summed over 1 year in the training or testing area for each alternative. 

Finally, the marine mammal species with the highest average seasonal density within the training or 

testing area was used in the analysis. This approach ensures that all other species with a lower density 

would have a lower probability of being struck by the laser. 

Within the statistical probability model, the estimated potential for a marine mammal strike is 

influenced by the following assumptions:

• The model is two-dimensional and assumes that all animals would be at or near the surface 

100 percent of the time, when in fact, marine mammals spend up to 90 percent of their time 

under the water (Costa, 1993). 

• The model assumes the animal is stationary and does not account for any movement of the 

marine mammal or any potential avoidance of the training or testing activity.

3.7.3.3.2.1 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers), high-energy laser use associated with training activities

would occur within the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Navy training activities have 

the potential to expose marine mammals that occur within these areas to this energy stressor. Marine 

mammal species that do not occur in areas where Navy training activities that use high-energy lasers 

would be conducted include the bowhead whale, narwhal, beluga whale, ringed seal, bearded seal, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-657

3.7 Marine Mammals

walrus, and polar bear. These species are not further analyzed in this section because they would not be 

exposed to this energy stressor.

The marine mammal species with the highest average seasonal density (short beaked common dolphin) 

in the location with the greatest number of training activities involving high-energy lasers under 

Alternative 1 (Virginia Capes Range Complex) was used in the probability analysis presented in 

Appendix F. 

Based on the statistical probability analysis described in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and 

Direct Strike Impact Analyses) results indicate that no short beaked common dolphins would be struck 

by a high-energy laser annually. Considering the assumptions outlined above, there is a high level of 

certainty in the conclusion that no marine mammals that occur in the Study Area would be struck by a 

high-energy laser.

Navy training activities that use high-energy lasers would not occur within the northeast portion of 

North Atlantic right whale designated critical habitat but would occur in the southeast critical habitat 

area. Since North Atlantic right whales occur within the southeast critical habitat area primarily in winter 

months, any potential overlap with Navy training activities in these areas would be seasonal. Given the 

high level of certainty that no marine mammals would be struck by a high-energy laser, the Navy does 

not anticipate it would strike a North Atlantic right whale with a high-energy laser during training 

activities. Physical and biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale conservation and 

considered in the critical habitat designation include water temperatures, depths, and sea surface 

conditions that are suitable for the southern calving habitats (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). 

These habitat features would not be impacted by high-energy lasers.

Training activities that use high-energy lasers would not occur within West Indian manatee critical 

habitat.

The use of high-energy lasers during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would not result 

in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

The use of high-energy lasers during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult NMFS and USFWS as required by section 

7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers), under Alternative 1, high-energy laser tests would occur 

within the Virginia Capes Range Complex, but would also occur in the Northeast, Navy Cherry Point, 

Jacksonville, Gulf of Mexico, and Key West Range Complexes. High-energy laser testing activities would 

also be conducted within the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Testing Range, South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range. Navy 

testing activities have the potential to expose marine mammals that occur within these locations to this 

energy stressor. Marine mammal species that do not occur in areas where Navy testing activities that 

use high-energy laser would be conducted include the bowhead whale, narwhal, beluga whale, ringed 

seal, bearded seal, walrus, and polar bear. These species are not further analyzed in this section because 

they would not be exposed to this energy stressor.

The marine mammal species with the highest average seasonal density (short beaked common dolphin) 

in the location with the greatest number of testing activities involving high-energy lasers under 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-658

3.7 Marine Mammals

Alternative 1 (Virginia Capes Range Complex) were used in the probability analysis presented in 

Appendix F. 

Based on the statistical probability analysis described in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and 

Direct Strike Impact Analyses), results indicate that no short beaked common dolphins would be struck 

by a high-energy laser annually. Considering the assumptions in the analysis outlined above, there is a 

high level of certainty in the conclusion that no marine mammals that occur in the Study Area would be 

struck by a high-energy laser.

Navy testing activities that use high-energy lasers would occur within the North Atlantic right whale’s 

designated critical habitat year-round. Since North Atlantic right whales occur within the southeast 

critical habitat area primarily in winter months and occur within the northeast critical habitat area 

during summer months, any potential overlap with Navy testing activities in these areas would be 

seasonal. Given the high level of certainty that no marine mammals would be struck by a high-energy 

laser, the Navy does not anticipate it would strike a North Atlantic right whale with a high-energy laser 

during testing activities. Physical and biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale 

conservation and considered in the critical habitat designation include oceanic conditions that distribute 

and aggregate dense concentrations of copepods within the northern foraging habitats and water 

temperatures, depths, and sea surface conditions that are suitable for the southern calving habitats 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). These habitat features would not be impacted by highenergy lasers.

Testing activities that use high-energy lasers would not be conducted within West Indian manatee 

critical habitat. 

The use of high-energy lasers during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would not result 

in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

The use of high-energy lasers during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESA-listed

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.7.3.3.2.2 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers) the locations, numbers of activities, and potential effects 

associated with high-energy lasers use would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 

3.7.3.3.2.1 (Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on marine 

mammals. 

The use of high-energy lasers during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would not result 

in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

The use of high-energy lasers during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESA-listed 

marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS as required by 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-659

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.3.3 (Lasers) the locations, numbers of activities, and potential effects 

associated with high-energy lasers use would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Refer to Section 

3.7.3.3.2.1 (Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of impacts on marine 

mammals. 

The use of high-energy lasers during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would not result 

in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

The use of high-energy lasers during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESA-listed

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.7.3.3.2.3 Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from High-Energy Lasers Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the AFTT Study Area. Various energy stressors (e.g., high-energy lasers) would not be introduced into 

the marine environment. Therefore baseline conditions of the existing environment would either remain 

unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing training and testing activities.

3.7.3.3.3 Impacts from In-Air Electromagnetic Devices

The use of in-air electromagnetic devices associated with Navy training and testing activities is not 

applicable to cetaceans and sirenians because in-air electromagnetic energy does not penetrate the 

ocean. For pinnipeds and polar bears that occur on land, in-air electromagnetic sources used during 

training or testing will never be in close enough proximity to those land based haul-outs or areas where 

polar bears occur to have an effect on those animals. As a result, in-air electromagnetic devices will not 

be analyzed further in this section. 

3.7.3.4 Physical Disturbance and Strike Stressors

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of physical disturbance, including the 

potential for strike during training and testing activities within the Study Area from: (1) Navy vessels;

(2) in-water devices; (3) military expended materials, including non-explosive practice munitions and 

fragments from high-explosive munitions; and (4) seafloor devices. General discussion of impacts can 

also be found in Section 3.0.3.6.3 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Physical 

Disturbance or Strike).

The way a physical disturbance may affect a marine mammal would depend in part on the relative size 

of the object, the speed of the object, the location of the mammal in the water column, and reactions of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic activity, which may include avoidance or attraction. It is not known 

at what point or through what combination of stimuli (visual, acoustic, or through detection in pressure 

changes) an animal becomes aware of a vessel or other potential physical disturbances before reacting

or being struck. Refer to Sections 3.7.3.1.1.3 (Physiological Stress) and 3.7.3.1.1.5 (Behavioral Reactions) 

for the discussion of the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli. Given that the presentation of a 

physical disturbance should be very rare and brief, the cost from the response is likely to be within the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-660

3.7 Marine Mammals

normal variation experienced by an animal in its daily routine unless the animal is struck. If a strike does 

occur, the cost to the individual could range from slight injury to death. 

3.7.3.4.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices

Vessels

Surface vessels can be a source of acute and chronic disturbance for cetaceans (Au & Green, 2000; 

Bejder et al., 2006a; Hewitt, 1985; Lusseau et al., 2009; Magalhães et al., 2002; Nowacek et al., 2007; 

Nowacek et al., 2004b; Richter et al., 2003; Richter et al., 2006; Watkins, 1986; Würsig & Richardson, 

2008). Studies have established that cetaceans engage in avoidance behavior when surface vessels 

move toward them. Various research findings report that mysticetes have variable responses to vessels 

dependent on the context (Nowacek et al., 2004a; Richardson et al., 1995b; Watkins, 1986). Mysticetes 

are not the only cetaceans that have demonstrated responses to vessels. One study showed that harbor 

porpoises in a net-pen displayed behavioral responses (increasing swim speed or repeated alternating 

surfacing and diving behaviors [i.e., porpoising]) to the high-frequency components of vessel noise at 

long ranges (more than 1,000 m) in shallow waters (Dyndo et al., 2015). These distances correspond to 

where radiated noise would be more likely to elicit the response, rather than physical presence of the 

vessel (Dyndo et al., 2015; Palka & Hammond, 2001). Conversely, another study demonstrated that boat 

physical presence, and not just noise, was associated with a short-term reduction in foraging activity in 

bottlenose dolphins (Pirotta et al., 2015b). It is noteworthy that the dolphins associated with this report 

were exposed primarily to commercial and leisure boat traffic, not related to military vessel activities. 

Even repeated exposures from increasing vessel traffic in the same area resulting in increased responses 

to the disturbance may not be biologically significant. Mathematic modeling has predicted that 

bottlenose dolphin population dynamics would remain unchanged from a sixfold increase in vessel 

traffic (70 to 470 vessels per year) as dolphins are able to compensate for increased disturbance levels 

with little to no impacts on health and vital rates (New et al., 2013a). Aside from the potential for an 

increased risk of collision addressed below, physical disturbance from vessel use is not expected to 

result in more than a short-term behavioral response. 

Hauled-out pinnipeds are also disturbed when approached at close distance, although the research 

indicates this is somewhat context-dependent (Andersen et al., 2012; Curtin et al., 2009; Hoover-Miller 

et al., 2013; Jansen et al., 2010; Johnson & Acevedo-Gutiérrez, 2007; Suryan & Harvey, 1998; Weiss & 

Morrill, 2014; Young et al., 2014). For example, one study showed that harbor seals were disturbed by 

tourism-related vessels, small boats, and kayaks that stopped or lingered by haulout sites, but that the 

seals “do not pay attention to” passing vessels at closer distances (Johnson & Acevedo-Gutiérrez, 2007). 

Pinnipeds in the water generally appear less responsive (Richardson et al., 1995b) than those at haulout 

sites. Walrus and polar bears have also appeared to be attracted to vessels at times (Harwood et al., 

2005) and manatees have displayed vulnerabilities to vessel impacts (e.g., (Nowacek et al., 2004b)). 

In some circumstances, marine mammals respond to vessels with the same behavioral repertoire and 

tactics they employ when they encounter predators. It is not clear what environmental cue or cues 

marine animals might respond to; they may include the sounds of water being displaced by the ships, 

the sounds of the ships’ engines, or a combination of environmental cues surface vessels produce while 

they transit. For example, in one study, North Atlantic right whales showed little overall reaction to the 

playback of sounds of approaching vessels, but they did respond to a novel sound by swimming strongly 

to the surface, which may increase their risk of collision (Nowacek et al., 2004a). While the analysis of 

potential impacts from the physical presence of the vessel is presented here, the analysis of potential 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-661

3.7 Marine Mammals

impacts in response to sounds produced by vessel movement or transit is addressed in Section 3.7.3.1.5

(Impacts from Vessel Noise).

Vessel speed, size, and mass are all important factors in determining potential impacts of a vessel strike 

to marine mammals (Conn & Silber, 2013; Gende et al., 2011; Silber et al., 2010; Vanderlaan & Taggart, 

2007; Wiley et al., 2016). For large vessels, speed and angle of approach can influence the severity of a 

strike. Based on modeling conducted by Silber et al. (2010), researchers found that whales at the surface 

experienced impacts that increased in magnitude with the ship’s increasing speed. 

Vessel strikes from commercial, recreational, and Navy vessels are known to have resulted in serious 

injury and occasional fatalities to cetaceans (Abramson et al., 2011; Berman-Kowalewski et al., 2010; 

Calambokidis, 2012; Douglas et al., 2008; Laggner, 2009; Lammers et al., 2003; Van der Hoop et al., 

2012; Van der Hoop et al., 2013). Reviews of the literature on ship strikes mainly involve collisions 

between commercial vessels and whales (Jensen & Silber, 2003; Laist et al., 2001). 

In the AFTT Study Area, commercial traffic is heaviest in the nearshore waters, near major ports and in 

the shipping lanes along the entire U.S. East Coast and along the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico 

while Navy vessel traffic is primarily concentrated between the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia 

and Jacksonville, Florida (Mintz, 2012). An examination of vessel traffic within the AFTT Study Area 

determined that Navy vessel occurrence is two orders of magnitude lower than that of commercial 

traffic. The study also revealed that while commercial traffic is relatively steady throughout the year, 

Navy vessel usage within the range complexes is episodic, based on specific exercises being conducted 

at different times of the year (Mintz, 2012); however, Navy vessel use within inland waters occurs 

regularly and routinely consists of high speed small craft movements. 

Large Navy vessels (greater than 18 m in length) within the offshore areas of the AFTT Study Area 

operate differently from commercial vessels in ways important to the prevention of whale collisions. For 

example, the average speed of large Navy ships ranges between 10 and 15 knots, and submarines 

generally operate at speeds in the range of 8 and 13 knots, while a few specialized vessels can travel at 

faster speeds. By comparison, this is slower than most commercial vessels where full speed for a 

container ship is typically 24 knots (Bonney & Leach, 2010). Even given the advent of “slow steaming” by 

commercial vessels in recent years due to fuel prices (Barnard, 2016; Maloni et al., 2013), this is 

generally a reduction of only a few knots, given that 21 knots would be considered slow, 18 knots is 

considered “extra slow,” and 15 knots is considered “super slow” (Bonney & Leach, 2010). Small Navy

craft (less than 50 ft. in length), have much more variable speeds (0 to 50 knots or more, depending on 

the mission). While these speeds are considered averages and representative of most events, some 

vessels need to operate outside of these parameters during certain situations.

The ability to detect a marine mammal and avoid a collision depends on a variety of factors, including 

environmental conditions, ship design, size, speed, and manning, as well as the behavior of the animal. 

Differences between most large Navy ships and commercial ships also include the following:

• The Navy has several standard operating procedures for vessel safety that could result in a 

secondary benefit to marine mammals through a reduction in the potential for vessel strike, as 

discussed in Section 2.3.3.2 (Vessel Safety). For example, ships operated by or for the Navy have 

personnel assigned to stand watch at all times, day and night, when moving through the water 

(i.e., when the vessel is underway). Watch personnel undertake extensive training in accordance 

with the U.S. Navy Lookout Training Handbook or civilian equivalent. A primary duty of watch 

personnel is to ensure safety of the ship, and this includes the requirement to detect and report 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-662

3.7 Marine Mammals

all objects and disturbances sighted in the water that may be indicative of a threat to the ship 

and its crew, such as debris, a periscope, surfaced submarine, or surface disturbance. Per safety 

requirements, watch personnel also report any marine mammals sighted that have the potential 

to be in the direct path of the ship, as a standard collision avoidance procedure. Navy vessels 

operate in accordance with the navigation rules established by the U.S. Coast Guard. All vessels 

operating on the water are required to follow the International Navigation Rules (Commander 

Instruction M16672.2D). These rules require that vessels at all times proceed at a safe speed so 

that proper and effective action can be taken to avoid collision and so they can be stopped 

within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

• Many Navy ships have their bridges positioned closer to the bow, offering good visibility ahead 

of the ship.

• There are often aircraft associated with the Navy’s training or testing activity, which can detect 

marine mammals in the vicinity or ahead of a vessel’s present course.

• Navy ships are generally much more maneuverable than commercial merchant vessels if marine 

mammals are spotted and the need to change direction is necessary. 

• Navy ships operate at the slowest speed possible consistent with either transit needs or training 

or testing needs. While minimum speed is intended as a fuel conservation measure particular to 

a certain ship class, secondary benefits include a better ability to detect and avoid objects in the 

water, including marine mammals. 

• In many cases, Navy ships will likely move randomly or with a specific pattern within a sub-area 

of the Study Area for a period of time from 1 day to 2 weeks as compared to straight line pointto-point commercial shipping.

• Navy overall crew size, including bridge crew, is much larger than merchant ships allowing for 

more potential watch personnel on the bridge. 

• When submerged, submarines are generally slow moving (to avoid detection) and therefore 

marine mammals at depth with a submarine are likely able to avoid collision with the 

submarine. When a submarine is transiting on the surface, there are Lookouts serving the same 

function as they do on surface ships.

• The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from vessel strikes on marine 

mammals (see Chapter 5, Mitigation). Mitigation includes training Lookouts and watch 

personnel with the Marine Species Awareness Training (which provides information on sighting 

cues, visual observation tools and techniques, and sighting notification procedures), requiring 

vessels to maneuver to maintain a specified distance from marine mammals during vessel 

movements, and implementing additional mitigation for manatees at Naval Station Mayport and 

Kings Bay, Georgia, and related to vessel movements within the Northeast North Atlantic Right 

Whale Mitigation Area and Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area.

It is Navy policy to report all marine mammal strikes by Navy vessel. The information is collected by 

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Readiness and provided to NMFS on an annual 

basis. Only the Navy and U.S. Coast Guard report in this manner. Therefore, it should be noted that Navy 

vessel strikes reported in the scientific literature and NMFS databases are the result of the Navy’s 

commitment to reporting all vessel strikes to NMFS (even if it cannot be confirmed to be a marine 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-663

3.7 Marine Mammals

mammal) rather than a greater frequency of collisions relative to other ship types. Most vessel strikes of 

marine mammals reported involve commercial vessels and occur over or near the continental shelf 

(Laist et al., 2001). Reporting of whale strikes by commercial vessels is not required and reporting rates 

are therefore unknown but likely to be much lower than actual occurrences. The history of Navy vessel 

strikes reported in the AFTT Study Area from 2009 to 2017 are provided in Figure 3.7-262. 

Figure 3.7-262: Navy Vessel Strikes Reported by Year (2009–2017)

To determine the potential for Navy vessel strikes, the Navy assessed the probability of large Navy 

vessels hitting individuals of different species of whales that occur in the AFTT Study Area incidental to 

training and testing activities. No strikes have been reported for small craft, so small craft usage was not 

included in the strike probability analysis. For large Navy vessels, a strike probability analysis was 

completed that considered actual data on vessel usage in the Study Area and past ship strike records. 

These data account for real world variables and any model would be expected to be less accurate than 

the use of actual data. The Navy determined that data beginning in 2009 would be the most 

representative for predicting the potential for future vessel strikes, because 2009 was when the Navy’s 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements became standardized across the Fleets with the 

issuance of MMPA permits for sonar and explosive usage in at-sea Navy ranges. From 2009 through 

present, a total of three reported whale strikes have occurred from Navy activities involving large 

vessels in the AFTT Study Area. The probability of a Navy vessel striking a whale during proposed 

activities in the Study Area are based on strike data and vessel steaming days from 2009–2016 because 

information on steaming days in 2017 has not been collected. A detailed analysis of the strike 

probability analysis is presented in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact 

Analyses). 

0

1

2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Strikes

Year

Strikes by Navy Vessels during Training and Testing Activities 

in the AFTT Study Area: 2009-2017

Virginia Capes Range

Complex

Lower Chesapeake Bay
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-664

3.7 Marine Mammals

Mysticetes

Vessel strikes have been documented for almost all of the mysticete species (Van der Hoop et al., 2012). 

This includes blue whales (Berman-Kowalewski et al., 2010; Calambokidis, 2012; Van Waerebeek et al., 

2007), fin whales (Douglas et al., 2008; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), North Atlantic right whales 

(Firestone, 2009; Fonnesbeck et al., 2008; Vanderlaan et al., 2009; Wiley et al., 2016) sei whales (Felix & 

Van Waerebeek, 2005; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), Bryde’s whales (Felix & Van Waerebeek, 2005; Van 

Waerebeek et al., 2007), minke whales (Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), and humpback whales (Douglas et 

al., 2008; Lammers et al., 2003; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007). 

Research suggests that the increasing noise in the ocean has made it difficult for whales to detect 

approaching vessels, which has indirectly raised the risk of vessel strike (Elvin & Taggart, 2008). For 

example, North Atlantic right whales are documented to show little overall reaction to the playback of 

sounds of approaching vessels, suggesting that some whales perform only a last-second flight response 

(Nowacek et al., 2004a). Some individuals may become habituated to low-frequency sounds from 

shipping and fail to respond to an approaching vessel (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2008a). 

Because surface activity includes feeding, breeding, and resting, whales may be engaged in this activity 

and not notice an approaching vessel. On the other hand, the lack of an acoustic cue of vessel presence 

can be detrimental as well. One study documented multiple cases where humpback whales struck 

anchored or drifting vessels; in one case a humpback whale punched a 1.5 m hole through the hull of an 

anchored 22 m wooden sailboat, and another instance a humpback whale rammed a powered down 

10 m fiberglass sailboat (Neilson et al., 2012). These results suggest that either the whales did not detect 

the vessel, or they intentionally struck it. In this study, vessel strikes to multiple cetacean species were 

included in the investigation; however, humpback whales were the only species that displayed this type 

of interaction with an unpowered vessel. Another study found that 79 percent of reported collisions 

between sailing vessels and cetaceans occurred when the vessels were under sail, suggesting it may be 

difficult for whales to detect the faint sound of sailing vessels (Ritter, 2012). 

Vessel strikes are considered a primary threat to North Atlantic right whale survival (Firestone, 2009; 

Fonnesbeck et al., 2008; Knowlton & Brown, 2007; Nowacek et al., 2004a; Vanderlaan et al., 2009). 

Studies of North Atlantic right whales tagged in April 2009 on the Stellwagen Bank feeding grounds 

found that right whales spent most of their time at a depth of 6.5 ft., which makes them less visible at 

the water’s surface (Bocconcelli, 2009; Parks & Wiley, 2009). 

Generally, mysticetes are larger than odontocetes and are not able maneuver as well as odontocetes to 

avoid vessels. In addition, mysticetes do not typically aggregate in large groups and are therefore 

difficult to visually detect from the water surface. Mysticetes that occur within the AFTT Study Area have 

varying patterns of occurrence and distribution, which overlap with areas where vessel use associated 

with Navy training and testing activities would occur.

Odontocetes

In general, odontocetes move quickly and seem to be less vulnerable to vessel strikes than other 

cetaceans; however, most small whale and dolphin species have at least occasionally suffered from 

vessel strikes, including killer whale (Van Waerebeek et al., 2007; Visser & Fertl, 2000), short-finned and 

long-finned pilot whales (Aguilar et al., 2000; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), bottlenose dolphin (Bloom & 

Jager, 1994; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007; Wells & Scott, 1997), white-beaked dolphin (Van Waerebeek 

et al., 2007), short-beaked common dolphin (Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), spinner dolphin (Camargo & 

Bellini, 2007; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), striped dolphin (Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), Atlantic 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-665

3.7 Marine Mammals

spotted dolphin (Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), and pygmy sperm whales (Kogia breviceps) (Van 

Waerebeek et al., 2007). Beaked whales documented in vessel strikes include Arnoux’s beaked whale 

(Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), Cuvier’s beaked whale (Aguilar et al., 2000; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007), 

and several species of Mesoplodon (Van Waerebeek et al., 2007). However, evidence suggests that 

beaked whales may be able to hear the low-frequency sounds of large vessels and thus avoid collision 

(Ketten, 1998). Sperm whales may be exceptionally vulnerable to vessel strikes as they spend extended 

periods of time “rafting” at the surface to restore oxygen levels within their tissues after deep dives 

(Jaquet & Whitehead, 1996; Watkins et al., 1999). Overall, collision avoidance success is dependent on a 

marine mammal’s ability to identify and locate the vessel from its radiated sound and the animal’s 

ability to maneuver away from the vessel in time. Based on hearing capabilities and dive behavior, 

sperm whales may not be capable of successfully completing an escape maneuver, such as a dive, in the 

time available after perceiving a fast-moving vessel. This supports the suggestion that vessel speed is a 

critical parameter for sperm whale collision risks (Gannier & Marty, 2015). 

Odontocetes that occur within the AFTT Study Area have varying patterns of occurrence and 

distribution, which overlap with areas where vessel use associated with Navy training and testing 

activities would occur. Available literature suggests based on their smaller body size, maneuverability, 

larger group sizes, and hearing capabilities, odontocetes are not as likely to be struck by a Navy vessel as 

mysticetes. When generally compared to mysticetes, odontocetes are more capable of physically 

avoiding a vessel strike, and, since some species occur in large groups, they are more easily seen when 

they are closer to the water surface. 

Pinnipeds

Ship strikes were not reported as a global threat to pinniped populations by Kovacs et al. (2012). 

Pinnipeds in general appear to suffer fewer impacts from vessel strikes than do cetaceans or sirenians. 

This may be due, at least in part, to the large amount of time they spend on land (especially when 

resting and breeding) and their high maneuverability in the water. A review of seal stranding data from 

Cape Cod, Massachusetts, found that from 1999 to 2004, 622 pinniped strandings were recorded by the 

Cape Cod Stranding Network. Of these 622 strandings, 11 (approximately 2 percent) were found to be 

caused by boat collisions. Mortalities of pinnipeds (specifically harbor seals and gray seals) have initially 

been attributed to injuries sustained from ducted propellers on vessels such as workboats, tugs, and 

other support vessels (Bexton et al., 2012). However, further investigations have lead researchers to 

conclude that injuries that appeared to be the result of propellers were actually due to gray seal 

predation, cannibalism, and infanticide (Brownlow et al., 2016). 

Polar Bears

Richardson et al. (1995b) reported that polar bears generally show little reaction to shipping traffic, and 

reactions tend to be short-term and localized. Polar bears spend a large amount of their time on sea ice 

or on land areas without ice access during the summer (Monnett & Gleason, 2006), where they would 

not be vulnerable to vessel strikes. 

West Indian Manatees

West Indian manatees respond to vessel movement via acoustic and possibly visual cues by moving 

away from the approaching vessel, increasing their swimming speed, and moving toward deeper water 

(Miksis-Olds et al., 2007; Nowacek et al., 2004b). The degree of the response varies with the individual 

manatee and may be more pronounced in deeper water where they are more easily able to locate the 

direction of the approaching vessel (Nowacek et al., 2004b). This disturbance is a temporary response to 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-666

3.7 Marine Mammals

the approaching vessel. West Indian manatees have also been shown to seek out areas with a lower 

density of vessels (Buckingham et al., 1999). West Indian manatees exhibit a clear behavioral response 

to vessels within distances of 25 to 50 m, but it is unclear at what distance the manatees first detect the 

presence of vessels (Nowacek et al., 2004b). Vessel traffic and recreation activities that disturb West 

Indian manatees may cause them to leave preferred habitats and may alter biologically important 

behaviors such as feeding, suckling, or resting (Haubold et al., 2006). 

In addition to disturbance, West Indian manatees are particularly susceptible to vessel collisions (both 

collisions with the hull and propeller strikes) because they hover near the surface of the water, move 

very slowly, and spend most of their time in inland waters where vessel traffic tends to be more 

concentrated (Calleson & Frohlich, 2007; Gerstein, 2002; Haubold et al., 2006; Runge et al., 2007). 

Vessel strikes are the direct agent of most human-caused deaths to adult West Indian manatees 

(Rommel et al., 2007), accounting for approximately 18 percent of all manatee deaths and 15 percent of 

all manatee injuries recorded in Florida between 2008 and 2012 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014b). 

In calendar year 2015, 21 percent of all manatee deaths were the result from interactions with 

watercraft (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2015). An analysis of a 5-year subset 

(2000 to 2004) of historical mortality data suggests that a disproportionate number of propeller-caused 

watercraft-related mortalities could be attributed to propeller diameters greater than or equal to 17 in., 

suggesting that these were caused by watercraft greater than 40 ft. (Rommel et al., 2007). USFWS 

indicates that manatees are probably struck by smaller watercraft more often, but the likelihood of 

mortality is dependent on the force of collision, which is a factor of the speed and size of the vessel. 

Not all collisions are fatal, as evidenced by the fact that most West Indian manatees in Florida bear scars 

from previous boat strikes (Rommel et al., 2007). In fact, the Manatee Individual Photo-identification 

System identifies more than 3,000 Florida manatees by scar patterns mostly caused by boats, and most 

catalogued manatees have more than one scar pattern, indicative of multiple boat strikes (81 Federal 

Register 1000–1026, January 8, 2016). Nonlethal injuries may reduce the breeding success of females 

(Haubold et al., 2006) and may lower a manatee’s immune response (Halvorsen & Keith, 2008). 

In-Water Devices 

In-water devices are generally smaller (several inches to 111 ft.) than most Navy vessels. For a discussion 

on the types of activities that use in-water devices see Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices), and for 

where they are used and how many activities would occur under each alternative, see 

Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices). Devices that could pose a collision risk to marine 

mammals are those operated at high speeds and are unmanned. The Navy reviewed torpedo design 

features and a large number of previous anti-submarine warfare torpedo exercises to assess the 

potential of torpedo strikes on marine mammals. The tactical software that guides U.S. Navy torpedoes 

is sophisticated and should not identify a marine mammal as a target. All training and testing torpedoes 

are recovered after being fired at targets and are reconfigured for re-use. Review of the exercise 

torpedo records indicates there has never been an impact on a marine mammal or other marine 

organism. In thousands of exercises in which torpedoes were fired or in-water devices used, there have 

been no recorded or reported instances of a marine species strike. 

Since some in-water devices are identical to support craft, marine mammals could respond to the 

physical presence of the device similar to how they respond to the physical presence of a vessel. 

In-water devices, such as unmanned underwater vehicles, and in-water devices towed from unmanned 

platforms, that move slowly through the water are highly unlikely to strike marine mammals because 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-667

3.7 Marine Mammals

the mammal could easily avoid the object. In-water devices towed by manned platforms are unlikely to 

strike a marine mammal because of the observers on the towing platform and other standard safety 

measures employed when towing in-water devices. It is possible that marine mammal species that occur 

in areas that overlap with in-water device use associated with the Proposed Action may experience 

some level of physical disturbance, but it is not expected to result in more than a momentary behavioral 

response.

3.7.3.4.1.1 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1

Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices) provides estimates of relative vessel and in-water 

device use and locations throughout the Study Area. Under Alternative 1 the concentration of vessel use 

and the manner in which the Navy trains and tests would remain consistent with the levels and types of 

activity undertaken in the AFTT Study Area over the last decade. Consequently, the Navy does not 

foresee any appreciable changes in the levels, frequency, or locations where vessels have been used 

over the last decade, and, therefore, the level at which physical disturbance and strikes are expected to 

occur is likely to remain consistent with the previous decade. 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), most training activities involve vessel 

movement. Vessel strikes to marine mammals are not associated with any specific training activity but 

rather a limited, sporadic, and accidental result of Navy ship movement within the Study Area. Vessel 

movement can be widely dispersed throughout the AFTT Study Area, occurring in both offshore and 

inland water areas. Training activities that include vessel movements in the offshore waters of the Study 

Area would primarily be conducted within the Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range 

Complexes, but would also be conducted within the Northeast, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range

Complexes, as well as other offshore AFTT areas. Offshore vessel movements would be widely dispersed 

throughout the Study Area, but are more concentrated near ports, naval installations, range complexes 

and testing ranges. Large vessel movement primarily occurs within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, 

with the majority of the traffic flowing between Naval Stations Norfolk and Mayport. 

Vessel movements associated with training activities within inland waters would occur within or near 

Boston, Massachusetts; Groton, Connecticut; Newport, Rhode Island; Earle, New Jersey; Wilmington, 

Delaware; Delaware Bay, Delaware; James River and tributaries; York River; the Lower Chesapeake Bay; 

Hampton Roads, Virginia; Norfolk, Virginia; Morehead City, North Carolina; Cooper River, South 

Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; Kings Bay, Georgia; Mayport, Florida; St. Johns River, Florida; Port 

Canaveral, Florida; Tampa, Florida; St. Andrew Bay, Florida; Beaumont, Texas, and Corpus Christi, Texas. 

In addition, high-speed small craft movements would be conducted within inland waters including and 

surrounding Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island; James River and tributaries, Virginia; York River, Virginia; 

the Lower Chesapeake Bay; Coopers River, South Carolina; Mayport, Florida; St. Johns River, Florida; 

Port Canaveral, Florida; and St. Andrew Bay, Florida. Refer to Table 3.0-17 (Annual Number and Location 

of Activities Including Vessels) for the numbers of activities that use vessels in different locations within 

the AFTT Study Area. 

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), in-water devices include unmanned 

surface vehicles, unmanned underwater vehicles, and towed devices. Under Alternative 1, offshore 

training activities involving the use of in-water devices would be conducted within the Northeast, 

Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, the 

Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range, and other offshore AFTT areas. Training 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-668

3.7 Marine Mammals

activities that use in-water devices would also occur within inland waters including and surrounding 

Boston, Massachusetts; Earle, New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware; Wilmington, Delaware; Hampton 

Roads, Virginia, the Lower Chesapeake Bay; James River and tributaries; York River; Morehead City, 

North Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; Kings Bay, Georgia; Mayport, Florida; Port Canaveral, Florida; 

Tampa, Florida; St. Andrew Bay, Florida; Beaumont, Texas; and Corpus Christi, Texas.

Physical disturbance from large vessel and in-water devices would be more likely in the continental shelf 

portions than in the open ocean portions of the AFTT Study Area because of the concentration of large 

vessel movements and in-water device activities in those areas. Marine mammal species that occur over 

the continental shelf would therefore have a greater potential for impacts, and include mysticete, 

odontocete, and pinniped species described in Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water 

Devices).

Large vessels may occasionally be required to operate at speeds that are higher than average operating 

speeds when participating in certain training activities. Large vessels operating at higher speeds may 

pose a greater strike risk to marine mammals because there would be less time for the vessel crew to 

detect a marine mammal and maneuver to avoid a strike, and there would be less time over a given 

distance for the animal to react and avoid the vessel. However, the potential for greater risk may be 

offset by marine mammal avoidance behavior occurring at a greater distance due to the higher noise 

levels that are typically generated by any vessel transiting at high speed. Historically, the few vessel 

strikes on whales that have occurred in the AFTT Study Area (see Appendix F, Military Expended 

Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) have not been associated with vessels operating at higher 

speeds. As noted above, vessels do not travel at higher than average speeds unless required by specific

operational circumstances; therefore, any increase in the risk of a strike would be minimal compared to 

the risk of strike from all vessel use proposed under Alternative 1.

Physical disturbance from small crafts would be more likely in the inland water locations listed in Table 

3.0-18 (Number and Location of Activities in Inland Waters Including Vessels), especially in areas where 

high-speed training activities occur. Marine mammal species with the greatest potential for impact are 

those that occur in the inland waters (e.g., bottlenose dolphins, harbor porpoise, manatees, and 

pinniped species). Navy training activities involving vessels and in-water devices may occur year-round; 

therefore, impacts from physical disturbance would depend on each species’ seasonal patterns of 

occurrence or degree of residency in the continental shelf portions of the AFTT Study Area. As previously 

indicated, any physical disturbance from vessel movements and use of in-water devices is not expected 

to result in more than a momentary behavioral response. 

Historical vessel use (steaming days) and ship strike data were used to calculate the probability of a 

direct strike during proposed training activities in the offshore portion of the AFTT Study Area by a large 

Navy vessel. Between 2009 and 2016, there were a total of 39,040 steaming days where Navy ships 

were at-sea in the AFTT Study Area, resulting in three reported whale strikes in that same time period. 

This corresponds to an average of 0.00008 strikes per day. Based on the annual average from 2009 to 

2016, the Navy estimates that 34,160 steaming days will occur between 2017 and 2023, extending 

through the end of the anticipated MMPA authorization. These values were used to determine the rate 

parameters to calculate a series of Poisson probabilities. A Poisson distribution is often used to describe 

random occurrences when the probability of an occurrence is small (e.g., count data such as cetacean 

sighting data, or, in this case, strike data, are often described as a Poisson or over-dispersed Poisson 

distribution). In modeling strikes as a Poisson process, it is assumed that the strike rate (0.00008 strikes 

per day) applies to the future and the Poisson distribution is used to estimate the number of strikes over 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-669

3.7 Marine Mammals

some future time period. The Poisson probabilities are calculated in Appendix F (Military Expended 

Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses). Results of the strike probability analysis based on a Poisson 

distribution indicate that there is a:

• 7 percent probability of striking zero whales over 7 years 

• 19 percent probability of striking one whale over 7 years

• 25 percent probability of striking two whales over 7 years

• 22 percent probability of striking three whales over 7 years

• 14 percent probability of striking four whales over 7 years

• 8 percent probability of striking five whales over 7 years

Most Navy-reported whale strikes are not identified to the species level however, the Navy predicts that 

large whales have the potential to be struck by a large vessel as a result of training activities in the 

offshore portion of the Study Area.

The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from vessel and towed in-water device 

strikes on marine mammals throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.3.4, Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors). Mitigation includes training Lookouts and watch personnel with the Marine Species 

Awareness Training (which provides information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and 

techniques, and sighting notification procedures), and requiring underway vessels and in-water devices 

that are towed from manned surface platforms to maneuver to maintain a specified distance from 

marine mammals. The Navy will implement mitigation that is specific to manatees at Naval Station 

Mayport and Kings Bay, Georgia. For example, while underway in the turning basins, channels, and 

waterways adjacent to Naval Station Mayport, the Navy will ensure that small boats operating out of 

Naval Station Mayport will be fitted with manatee propeller guards, and vessels will comply with all 

federal, state, and local Manatee Protection Zones and reduce speed in accordance with established 

operational safety and security procedures. When mooring pierside at Kings Bay, Georgia, the Navy will 

ensure proper fendering techniques (e.g., the use of buoys that keep submarines 20 ft. off the quay 

wall) to prevent submarines from injuring a manatee. 

The Navy will implement additional mitigation within specified mitigation areas to avoid potential 

interactions between vessels and North Atlantic right whales. For example, year-round in the Northeast 

North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area, the Navy will conduct a web query or e-mail inquiry to the 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s North 

Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System to obtain the latest North Atlantic right whale sighting 

information. Vessels will implement speed reductions after they observe a North Atlantic right whale, if 

they are within 5 NM of a sighting reported to the Right Whale Sighting Advisory System within the past 

week and when operating at night or during periods of poor visibility. Seasonally within the Southeast 

North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area, before transiting or conducting military readiness activities, 

the Navy will initiate prior communication with the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, 

Jacksonville to obtain Early Warning System North Atlantic right whale sightings data. The Fleet Area 

Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville, will advise vessels of all reported whale sightings in the 

vicinity. Vessels will implement speed reductions after they observe a North Atlantic right whale, if they 

are within 5 NM of a sighting reported within the past 12 hours, or when operating at night or during 

periods of poor visibility. To the maximum extent practicable, vessels will minimize north-south transits
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-670

3.7 Marine Mammals

within the Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area. The Navy’s mitigation measures are 

detailed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) and are expected to reduce the risk of a strike to the point that a 

North Atlantic right whale vessel strike is not likely to occur and vessel strikes of all other mysticetes are 

not anticipated.

Feeding areas for fin whales, humpback whales, minke whales, and sei whales as well as a small and 

resident area for harbor porpoises have been identified (LaBrecque et al., 2015b) that seasonally overlap 

with portions of the Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Navy training activities that 

involve vessel movements and the use of in-water devices within the Northeast Range Complexes could 

occur year-round, however, any potential overlap with feeding activities in these biologically important 

areas would be seasonal. Harbor porpoises resident to the northern Gulf of Maine and southern Bay of 

Fundy within the Northeast Range Complexes may be impacted year-round. Physical disturbance from 

vessels and in-water device use may result in a momentary behavioral response but would not result in 

abandonment of feeding behaviors in these areas or cause resident marine mammals to avoid these 

areas.

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) also identified a migratory corridor, two reproductive areas, and three feeding 

areas for North Atlantic right whales that seasonally overlap with portions of the AFTT Study Area, 

including the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Any 

potential overlap of Navy activities that involve vessel movement and the use of in-water devices with 

seasonal presence of North Atlantic right whales while engaged in migrating, reproductive, and feeding 

activities in these biologically important areas would be limited to those times of year. Vessel movement 

and in-water device use may occur within the North Atlantic right whale’s designated critical habitat 

year-round. Physical and biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale conservation and 

considered in the critical habitat designation include oceanic conditions that distribute and aggregate 

dense concentrations of copepods within the northern foraging habitats and water temperatures, 

depths, and sea surface conditions that are suitable for the southern calving habitats (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2015a). These habitat features would not be impacted by vessels and in-water devices. 

It is possible that North Atlantic right whales encountered could be disturbed by the physical presence 

of large vessels and in-water devices. Disturbance within the southeast critical habitat is mostly likely to 

occur in winter months and during summer months within the northeast critical habitat; however, the 

direct route that the Navy predominantly uses for large vessels between Norfolk and Jacksonville avoids 

a good portion of the coastal North Atlantic right whale migratory corridor and reproductive areas as 

well as critical habitat, especially off the coasts of South Carolina and Georgia. Disturbance due to the 

physical presence of vessels and in-water devices is not expected to result in more than a momentary 

behavioral response and would not result in a permanent abandonment or alteration of migrating, 

reproductive, and feeding behaviors in these areas. Refer to Section 3.7.3.1.5 (Impacts from Vessel 

Noise) for a discussion on disturbance and impacts caused by vessel noise. The Navy does not anticipate 

that it will strike a North Atlantic right whale because of the extensive mitigation in place to reduce the 

risk of a strike to that species. 

LaBrecque et al. (2015a) also identified one year-round small and resident area for Bryde’s whales and 

three small and resident areas for bottlenose dolphins that overlap with the Gulf of Mexico Range

Complex. Five additional small and resident areas for bottlenose dolphins were identified along the U.S. 

East Coast (LaBrecque et al., 2015b); three of which overlap with the Jacksonville Range Complex, 

including Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay and Naval Station Mayport and two of which overlap with the 

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex. Training activities that involve large vessels and in-water device use 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-671

3.7 Marine Mammals

within the Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes could occur year-round. 

Physical disturbance from the presence of large vessels and in-water devices may result in a momentary 

behavioral response and but would not cause resident marine mammals to avoid these areas. 

The use of small crafts associated with Navy training activities within inland waters would occur on a 

more regular basis than offshore vessel use and typically involve high speed (greater than 10 knots) 

vessel movements. The inland waters are generally more confined waterways where mysticetes and 

offshore odontocete species do not typically occur. As stated in Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels 

and In-Water Devices), odontocetes known to occur within inshore waters, such as bottlenose dolphins

and harbor porpoises, are not as susceptible to vessel strikes as compared to mysticetes. In addition, no 

vessel strikes of marine mammals have been reported due to Navy inshore training activities. Therefore, 

the Navy does not anticipate that it will strike odontocetes as a result training activities in inland waters. 

Pinniped occurrence within the northeast and mid-Atlantic portions of the AFTT Study Area is seasonal,

typically outside established range complexes where the majority of Navy large vessel movements are 

conducted. Pinnipeds also seasonally occur within inland waters and near the mouth of the Chesapeake 

Bay where high speed small craft movements associated with inshore training would be conducted yearround. While it is possible that during Navy training activities, large vessels could transit outside the 

range complex areas, large vessel movements are expected to be very infrequent and would have 

limited overlap with pinniped occurrence over continental shelf waters. High speed small craft 

movements within the lower Chesapeake Bay would occur frequently; however, pinnipeds spend large 

amounts of time on the land and display high maneuverability in the water, suggesting they could avoid 

interactions with small crafts. Compared to cetaceans and sirenians, pinnipeds are not as susceptible to 

vessel strikes; therefore, the Navy does not anticipate that it will disturb or strike pinnipeds.

While it is possible that during training activities, vessels could transit outside of the established range 

complexes in locations where bowhead whales occur, these transits are expected to be very infrequent, 

reducing the likelihood of bowhead whale strikes from Navy vessels. In-water devices are not 

anticipated to be used where bowhead whales, ringed seals, or polar bears occur. Therefore, these 

species are not expected to be affected by the Navy’s in-water device use associated with training 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. 

Polar bear occurrence within the AFTT Study Area generally does not overlap with areas of high levels of 

Navy vessel traffic. It is possible that vessel movements associated with Navy training and testing 

activities could occur outside established range complexes, however these movements are expected to 

be very infrequent. The Navy does not anticipate that it will disturb or strike polar bears.

The Navy does not anticipate encountering a manatee during the use of in-water devices from training 

activities. Manatees occur in a very limited portion of the AFTT Study Area, primarily close to shore in 

the inland and coastal waters of the mid-Atlantic states and the Gulf coast of Florida, and there are few 

training activities that may involve the use of in-water devices there. Potential impacts on manatees 

would only result from Navy training activities that include small craft use in the inland waters of the 

mid-Atlantic states and the Gulf coast of Florida. High-speed small craft movements would primarily 

occur within inland waters associated with Narragansett, Rhode Island; James River and tributaries; York 

River; the Lower Chesapeake Bay; and Cooper River, South Carolina. Training activities that occur in this 

northern portion of the AFTT Study Area would not have an impact on manatees since they typically do 

not occur there. Training activities that use small crafts within inland waters of Mayport, Florida; St. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-672

3.7 Marine Mammals

Johns River; Port Canaveral, Florida; and St. Andrew Bay are limited, yet have the potential to impact 

manatees in these areas. 

In the St. Johns River, areas of known manatee occurrence have been designated by the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission as Manatee Protection Zones. These areas are marked with signs and 

enforce vessel speed restrictions to protect manatees from boat strikes. Navy training units follow all 

manatee protection rules and are briefed on requirements before each exercise. Similar precautions 

would be followed for high speed small craft movements in Port Canaveral and St. Andrew Bay. 

Vessel movements within inland waters of Savannah, Georgia; Kings Bay, Georgia; Mayport, Florida; St. 

Johns River; Port Canaveral, Florida; Tampa, Florida; and St. Andrew Bay would co-occur with manatees. 

However, there have been no manatee boat strikes as a result of Navy training in inland waters of the 

AFTT Study Area. Implementation of mitigation measures in these areas would further reduce the 

likelihood of a strike. Disturbance due to the physical presence of vessels and in-water devices is not 

expected to result in more than a momentary behavioral response. Manatees also occur in the coastal 

waters of Puerto Rico, which is within the AFTT Study Area, but no training is anticipated in these areas. 

Based on these factors and the implementation of mitigation, the Navy does not anticipate that it will 

disturb or strike West Indian manatees.

Vessel movements and in-water device use would occur within West Indian manatee designated critical 

habitat, specifically within inland waters associated with Mayport and Port Canaveral, Florida, and the

St. Johns River, year-round. Disturbance within manatee habitat is most likely to occur during spring, 

summer, or fall, because manatees generally move farther inland during winter. The current critical 

habitat designation for the West Indian manatee does not identify specific physical and biological 

features essential for species conservation, but essential habitat features have been reported to include 

warm water refuges, various food sources (seagrasses and freshwater vegetation), travel corridors, and 

shelter for calving (75 Federal Register 1574–1581, January 12, 2010). These habitat features would not 

be impacted by vessel and in-water device use during training activities within the designated critical 

habitat.

Vessel movement and in-water device use related to training activities occur near marine mammals only 

on an incidental basis. Navy mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) will help the Navy 

avoid interactions with marine mammals, which would further reduce any potential physical disturbance 

and direct strike impacts from vessels. Long-term consequences to populations of marine mammals are 

not expected to result from vessel movement and in-water device use associated with the proposed 

training exercises. 

The use of vessels during training activities as described under Alternative 1 could result in the 

unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. In addition, the use of in-water devices during training activities as described under Alternative 1 

would not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined 

by the MMPA. 

The use of vessel and in-water devices during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would

have no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect 

ESA-listed and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with 

NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-673

3.7 Marine Mammals

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

As indicated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), testing activities primarily involve 

large vessel movement. However, the number of activities that include large vessel movement and use

for testing is comparatively lower than the number of training activities. In addition, testing often occurs

jointly with a training event, so it is likely that the testing activity would be conducted from a training 

vessel. Vessel movement and use in conjunction with testing activities could be widely dispersed 

throughout the Study Area, but would be concentrated near naval ports, piers, range complexes, testing 

ranges, and especially off the northeast U.S. coast, off south Florida, and in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Specifically, offshore 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 Center, Newport Testing Range; South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility 

Testing Range; and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Range. In addition, 

vessel movements associated with testing activities would occur within inland waters surrounding Bath, 

Massachusetts; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; Newport, Rhode Island; Groton, Connecticut; Little Creek, 

Virginia; Norfolk, Virginia; Kings Bay, Georgia; Mayport, Florida; Port Canaveral, Florida; and Pascagoula, 

Mississippi. 

Propulsion testing, which sometimes includes ships operating at speeds in excess of 30 knots, and use of 

large high-speed unmanned surface vessels occurs infrequently but may pose a higher strike risk 

because of the high speeds at which some vessels need to transit to complete the testing activity. These 

activities would occur in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range

Complexes. However, there are just a few of these events proposed per year, so the increased risk is 

nominal compared to all vessel use proposed for testing activities under Alternative 1. 

Also, as discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.4.1 (Vessels and In-Water Devices), testing activities involving the 

use of in-water devices would occur in the 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 Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of 

Mexico Range Complexes, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Testing Range, South Florida 

Ocean Measurement Facility, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range.

The Navy will implement mitigation to avoid potential impacts from vessel and in-water device strikes 

on marine mammals throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.3.4, Physical Disturbance and Strike 

Stressors). Mitigation includes training Lookouts and watch personnel with the Marine Species 

Awareness Training (which provides information on sighting cues, visual observation tools and 

techniques, and sighting notification procedures) and requiring underway vessels and in-water devices 

that are towed from manned surface platforms to maneuver to maintain a specified distance from 

marine mammals. The Navy will implement mitigation specific to manatees at Naval Station Mayport 

and Kings Bay, Georgia. For example, while underway in the turning basins, channels, and waterways 

adjacent to Naval Station Mayport, the Navy will ensure that small boats operating out of Naval Station 

Mayport will be fitted with manatee propeller guards, and vessels will comply with all federal, state, and 

local Manatee Protection Zones and reduce speed in accordance with established operational safety and 

security procedures. When mooring pierside at Kings Bay, Georgia, the Navy will ensure proper 

fendering techniques (e.g., the use of buoys that keep submarines 20 ft. off the quay wall) to prevent 

submarines from injuring a manatee. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-674

3.7 Marine Mammals

The Navy will implement additional mitigation within specified mitigation areas to avoid potential 

interactions between vessels and North Atlantic right whales. For example, year-round in the Northeast 

North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area, the Navy will conduct a web query or e-mail inquiry to the 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s North 

Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System to obtain the latest North Atlantic right whale sighting 

information. Vessels will implement speed reductions after they observe a North Atlantic right whale, if 

they are within 5 NM of a sighting reported to the Right Whale Sighting Advisory System within the past 

week, and when operating at night or during periods of poor visibility. Within the mitigation area, the 

Navy will conduct all torpedo (non-explosive) testing during daylight hours in Beaufort sea states 3 or 

less. During transits and normal firing, ships will maintain a speed of no more than 10 knots. During 

submarine target firing, ships will maintain speeds of no more than 18 knots. During vessel target firing, 

ship speeds may exceed 18 knots for brief periods of time (e.g., 10 to 15 minutes). Seasonally within the 

Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area, before transiting or conducting military readiness 

activities, the Navy will initiate prior communication with the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance 

Facility, Jacksonville, to obtain Early Warning System North Atlantic right whale sightings data. The Fleet 

Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville, will advise vessels of all reported whale sightings in 

the vicinity. Vessels will implement speed reductions after they observe a North Atlantic right whale, if 

they are within 5 NM of a sighting reported within the past 12 hours or when operating at night or 

during periods of poor visibility. To the maximum extent practicable, vessels will minimize north-south 

transits within the Southeast North Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area. The Navy’s mitigation 

measures are detailed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) and are expected to reduce the risk of a strike to the 

point that a North Atlantic right whale vessel strike is not likely to occur and vessel strikes of all other 

mysticetes are not anticipated.

Feeding areas for fin whales, humpback whales, minke whales, and sei whales as well as a small and 

resident area for harbor porpoises have been identified (LaBrecque et al., 2015b) that seasonally overlap 

with portions of the Northeast Range Complexes within the Study Area. Navy testing activities that 

involve vessel transit and the use of in-water devices within the Northeast Range Complexes could occur 

year-round, however, any potential overlap with feeding activities in these biologically important areas 

would be seasonal. Harbor porpoises resident to the northern Gulf of Maine and southern Bay of Fundy 

within the Northeast Range Complexes may be impacted year-round. Physical disturbance from the 

presence of vessels and in-water devices may result in a momentary behavioral response and but would 

not result in abandonment of feeding behaviors in these areas or cause resident marine mammals to 

avoid these areas.

LaBrecque et al. (2015b) also identified a migratory corridor, two reproductive areas, and three feeding 

areas for North Atlantic right whales that seasonally overlap with portions of the AFTT Study Area, 

including the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes. Any 

potential overlap of Navy activities that use vessels and in-water devices with seasonal presence of 

North Atlantic right whales while engaged in migrating, reproductive, and feeding activities in these 

biologically important areas would be limited to those times of year. Vessel transit and in-water device 

use may occur within the North Atlantic right whale’s designated critical habitat year-round. It is 

possible that North Atlantic right whales encountered could be disturbed by the physical presence of 

vessels and in-water devices. Physical and biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale 

conservation and considered in the critical habitat designation include oceanic conditions that distribute 

and aggregate dense concentrations of copepods within the northern foraging habitats and water 

temperatures, depths, and sea surface conditions that are suitable for the southern calving habitats 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-675

3.7 Marine Mammals

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). These habitat features would not be impacted by vessel 

movements and in-water device use. 

Physical disturbance within the southeast critical habitat is mostly likely to occur in winter months and 

during summer months within the northeast critical habitat; however, the direct route that the Navy 

predominantly uses for large vessels between Norfolk and Jacksonville avoids a good portion of the 

coastal North Atlantic right whale migratory corridor and reproductive areas as well as critical habitat, 

especially off the coasts of South Carolina and Georgia. Disturbance due to the physical presence of 

vessels and in-water devices is not expected to result in more than a momentary behavioral response 

and would not result in a permanent abandonment or alteration of migrating, reproductive, and feeding 

behaviors in these areas. Refer to Section 3.7.3.1.5 (Impacts from Vessel Noise) for a discussion on 

disturbance and impacts caused by vessel noise. The Navy does not anticipate that it will strike a North 

Atlantic right whale because of the extensive mitigation in place to reduce the risk of a strike to that 

species. 

One year-round small and resident area for Bryde’s whales and three small and resident areas for

bottlenose dolphins have been identified (LaBrecque et al., 2015a) that overlap with the Gulf of Mexico

Range Complex. Five additional small and resident areas for bottlenose dolphins were identified within 

some estuaries and nearshore waters along the U.S. East Coast (LaBrecque et al., 2015b); two of which 

overlap with the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex and three overlap with the Jacksonville Range 

Complex, including Charleston OPAREA, Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, and Naval Station Mayport. 

Navy testing activities that involve vessel transit and the use of in-water devices within the Navy Cherry 

Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes could occur year-round. Physical disturbance 

from the presence of vessels and in-water devices may result in a momentary behavioral response and 

but would not cause resident marine mammals to avoid these areas. 

Marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, reproductive, and feeding behaviors within the 

range complexes of the AFTT Study Area, but outside the biologically important areas discussed above, 

may be impacted by vessels and in-water devices from Navy testing activities. Impacts, including 

physical disturbance and strike, would be similar as what was previously discussed for odontocetes and 

mysticetes in the Section 3.7.3.4.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices). Based on Navy vessel 

strike data (2009–2016) presented in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact 

Analyses) and a consideration of the mitigation discussed in Chapter 5 (Mitigation), the Navy does not 

anticipate that any cetacean would be struck by a vessel as a result of testing activities in the Study Area. 

Manatees primarily occur in the inland waters of mid-Atlantic states and the Gulf coast of Florida. Since 

manatees generally occur in a very limited portion of the AFTT Study Area, the Navy does not anticipate 

that vessel movement will injure any manatees and encounters with in-water devices are not likely. 

There are just a few testing activities that occur close to shore where manatees may be encountered, 

but testing activities conducted in the northern portion of the AFTT Study Area would not have an 

impact on manatees since they typically do no occur there. Physical disturbance of manatees is most 

likely to occur during spring, summer, or fall, because manatees generally move farther inland during 

winter. Based on these factors and the implementation of mitigation, the Navy does not anticipate that 

it will strike a manatee. 

Vessel movement and in-water device use during testing activities would occur in very small portions of 

the West Indian manatee designated critical habitat, specifically near Mayport and Port Canaveral, 

Florida, year-round. The current critical habitat designation for the West Indian manatee does not 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-676

3.7 Marine Mammals

identify specific physical and biological features essential for species conservation, but essential habitat 

features have been reported to include warm water refuges, various food sources (seagrasses and 

freshwater vegetation), travel corridors, and shelter for calving (75 Federal Register 1574–1581, January 

12, 2010). These habitat features would not be impacted by vessel movement and in-water device use 

during testing activities. 

Vessel movement and in-water device use related to testing activities occur near marine mammals only 

on an incidental basis. Navy mitigation measures described in Chapter 5 (Mitigation) will help the Navy 

avoid interactions with marine mammals, which would further reduce any potential physical disturbance 

and direct strike impacts on marine mammals from vessels. Long-term consequences to populations of 

marine mammals are not expected to result from vessel movement and in-water device use associated 

with the proposed testing activities. 

The use of vessels during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 could result in the 

unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. In addition, the use of in-water devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 

will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by 

the MMPA. 

The use of vessel and in-water devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 will have 

no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESAlisted and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with 

NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.7.3.4.1.2 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As shown in Table 3.0-17 (Number and Location of Activities Including Vessels), the locations of offshore 

training activities that use vessels are similar between Alternatives 1 and 2. However, the number of 

offshore training activities that use vessels would increase by approximately 1 percent annually and 

2 percent over 5 years under Alternative 2. As shown in Table 3.0-18 (Number and Location of Activities 

in Inland Waters Including Vessels), the locations and annual numbers of training activities that include 

vessel movement within inland waters of the AFTT Study Area would be the same under Alternatives 1 

and 2. However, the number of training activities involving vessel movements proposed over 5 years 

within inland waters of the AFTT Study Area would slightly increase by 0.2 percent. In addition, the 

locations, annual, and 5-year numbers of testing activities involving high-speed small craft movements 

within inland waters of the AFTT Study Area are the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Even with the 

nominal increase in training activity levels described above, Navy training activities would remain 

consistent with the levels of activity and types of activities undertaken in the AFTT Study Area over the 

last decade. Consequently, the level for which physical disturbance and strikes are expected to occur is 

likely to remain consistent with the previous decade. 

Similarly, Table 3.0-21 (Annual Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices) shows that

the locations of training events within both offshore and inland waters of the Study Area that use inwater devices would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. In addition, the annual number of training 

activities occurring within inland waters of the AFTT Study Area are identical between Alternatives 1 

and 2. However, the number of offshore training activities that use in-water devices would increase by 

approximately 8 percent annually and 9 percent over 5 years. In addition, the number of training events 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-677

3.7 Marine Mammals

that use in-water devices within inland waters of the Study Area would increase by approximately 

7 percent over 5 years. This level of increased in-water device use would not appreciably change the 

potential for physical disturbance or strike of a marine mammal. Therefore, impacts from training 

activities involving vessels and in-water devices under Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1 

and the analyses presented in Section 3.7.3.4.1.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under 

Alternative 1) for training activities are applicable to training activities under Alternative 2. 

The use of vessels during training activities as described under Alternative 2 could result in the 

unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. In addition, the use of in-water devices as described under Alternative 2 would not result in the 

unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

The use of vessel and in-water devices during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would

have no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect 

ESA-listed and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with 

NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As shown in Table 3.0-17 (Annual Number and Location of Activities Including Vessels), the locations of 

testing activities within offshore and inland waters that involve vessel movement would be the same 

under Alternatives 1 and 2. In addition, the annual and 5-year numbers of testing activities that involve 

vessel movements within inland waters of the AFTT Study Area are identical under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

However, the number of offshore testing activities would increase by 0.2 percent annually and by 

approximately 4 percent over 5 years. As previously indicated, the number of testing activities that 

involve vessels are much lower than the number of training activities. Furthermore, testing activities 

may be conducted simultaneously with a training event, using a training vessel. The proposed increase 

in offshore vessel use from testing activities under Alternative 2 would still be consistent with the levels 

of activity and types of activities undertaken in the AFTT Study Area over the last decade. Therefore, the 

level for which physical disturbance and strikes are expected to occur would remain consistent with the 

previous decade. 

In addition, Table 3.0-21 (Annual Number and Location of Activities Including In-Water Devices) shows 

that the locations and annual numbers of testing activities that use in-water devices are the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. The number of testing activities that use in-water devices would only increase by 

1 percent over 5 years. This slight level of increased use of in-water devices does not substantially 

change the potential for physical disturbance or strike of a marine mammals. Therefore, impacts from 

testing activities involving vessels and in-water devices under Alternative 2 would be similar to 

Alternative 1, and the analyses presented in Section 3.7.3.4.1.1 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water 

Devices Under Alternative 1) for testing activities are applicable to testing activities under Alternative 2.

The use of vessels during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 could result in the 

unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. The 

Navy has requested authorization from NMFS as required by section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in that 

regard. In addition, the use of in-water devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 

will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by 

the MMPA. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-678

3.7 Marine Mammals

The use of vessel and in-water devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would

have no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect 

ESA-listed and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with 

NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.7.3.4.1.3 Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training 

and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training 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. 

3.7.3.4.2 Impacts from Aircraft and Aerial Targets

Impacts from aircraft and aerial targets are not applicable to marine mammals because they do not 

occur in airborne environments and will not be analyzed further in this section. Refer to the Impacts 

from Military Expended Materials section (Section 3.7.3.4.3) for impacts from target fragments and the 

Acoustic Stressors section (Section 3.7.3.1) for potential disturbance from aircraft.

3.7.3.4.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials 

This section analyzes the strike potential to marine mammals from the following categories of military 

expended materials: (1) all sizes of non-explosive practice munitions, (2) fragments from high-explosive 

munitions, and (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) and for a discussion on where they are used and how items would be used or expended under

each alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended Materials). As described in Appendix F 

(Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses), for physical disturbance and strike 

stressors as it relates to marine mammals, impacts from fragments from high-explosive munitions are 

included in the analysis presented in Section 3.7.3.2 (Explosive Stressors), and are not considered 

further in this section. Potential impacts from military expended materials as ingestion stressors to 

marine mammals are discussed in Section 3.7.3.6.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials - 

Munitions) and Section 3.7.3.6.2 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions).

The primary concern is the potential for a marine mammal to be hit with a military expended material at 

or near the water’s surface, which could result in injury or death. While disturbance or strike from an 

item falling through the water column is possible, it is not very likely because the objects generally sink 

slowly through the water based on the weights of expended materials and can be avoided by most 

marine mammals. Therefore, the discussion of military expended materials strikes focuses on the 

potential of a strike at the surface of the water. 

While no strike from military expended materials has ever been reported or recorded, the possibility of 

a strike still exists. Therefore, the potential for marine mammals to be struck by military expended 

materials was evaluated using statistical probability modeling to estimate potential direct strike 

exposures to a marine mammal under a worst-case scenario. Specific details of the modeling approach, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-679

3.7 Marine Mammals

including model selection and calculation methods, are presented in Appendix F (Military Expended 

Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses). 

To estimate potential direct strike exposures, a scenario was calculated using the marine mammal 

species with the highest average monthly density in areas with the highest amounts of military 

expended material expenditures, specifically Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes. This is 

considered a worst-case scenario because, as described below, exposure calculations of a single military 

item hitting an animal assumes all activities would be conducted during the season associated with the 

marine mammal species with the highest average seasonal density and that all marine mammals have 

equal densities. These highest estimates would provide reasonable comparisons for all other areas and 

species. For estimates of expended materials in all areas, see Section 3.0.3.3.4.2 (Military Expended 

Materials). 

For all the remaining marine mammal species with lesser densities, this highest likelihood approach 

would overestimate the likelihood of a strike. Direct strike exposures of marine mammal species 

protected under the ESA are estimated separately from non-ESA species. Because the ESA has specific 

standards for understanding the likelihood of impacts on each endangered species, estimates were 

made for all endangered marine mammal species found in the areas where the highest levels of military 

expended materials would be expended. In this way, the appropriate ESA conclusions could be based on 

the highest estimated probabilities of a strike for those species.

Input values include materials data (frequency, footprint, and type), size of the training or testing area, 

marine mammal density data, and size of the animal. To estimate the potential of military expended 

materials to strike a marine mammal, the impact area of each category of military expended materials 

analyzed for marine mammals was totaled over 1 year in the area with highest combined amounts of 

military expended materials for each of the alternatives. 

The analysis of the potential for a marine mammal strike is influenced by the following assumptions:

• The model is two-dimensional and assumes that all marine mammals would be at or near the 

surface 100 percent of the time, when in fact, marine mammals spend up to 90 percent of their 

time under the water (Costa & Block, 2009). 

• The model also does not take into account the fact that most of the projectiles fired during 

training and testing activities are fired at targets, and most projectiles hit those targets, so only a 

very small portion of those would hit the water with their maximum velocity and force.

• The model assumes the animal is stationary and does not account for any movement of the 

marine mammal or any potential avoidance of the training or testing activity.

The potential of fragments from high-explosive munitions or expended material other than munitions to 

strike a marine mammal would be much lower than for the worst-case scenario calculated above 

because those exercises happen with much lower frequency. Fragments may include metallic fragments 

from the exploded target, as well as from the exploded munitions. 

The model output (Appendix F, Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) provides 

a reasonably high level of certainty that marine mammals would not be struck by military expended 

materials. These results are summarized in the following sections discussing impacts under each 

alternative. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-680

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.4.3.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Training activities in offshore waters that involve military expended materials under Alternative 1 would 

occur in the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West and Gulf of Mexico

Range Complexes. In addition training activities that involve military expended materials would be 

conducted within inland waters within and around Boston, Massachusetts; Earle, New Jersey; Delaware 

Bay, Delaware; Narragansett, Rhode Island; Hampton Roads, Virginia; James River and tributaries; the 

Lower Chesapeake Bay; Morehead City, North Carolina; Wilmington, North Carolina; Cooper River, 

South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; Kings Bay, Georgia; Mayport, Florida; Port Canaveral, Florida; 

Tampa, Florida; Beaumont, Texas; and Corpus Christi, Texas. Proposed training activities that use 

military expended materials do not overlap with areas where bowhead whales, narwhal, beluga whale, 

ringed seals, or polar bears occur, and, therefore, these species are not likely to be exposed to this 

stressor.

The model results presented in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact 

Analyses) estimate representative marine mammal exposures from direct strike during training activities 

in the Virginia Capes and Jacksonville Range Complexes. These range complexes were chosen because 

they constitute the areas with the highest estimated numbers and concentrations of military expended 

materials analyzed for marine mammals and would provide a reasonable comparison for all other areas 

with fewer expended materials. Based on a worst-case scenario, the results indicate with a reasonable 

level of certainty that no marine mammals would be struck by military expended materials. Direct strike 

exposure estimates range from 0.0 blue whales to 0.1 short-beaked common dolphins in the Virginia 

Capes Range Complex over the course of a year. In addition, direct strike exposure estimates are 

essentially zero (maximum exposure estimate of 0.01 for Atlantic spotted dolphin) for all marine 

mammal species in the Jacksonville Range Complex. As discussed above, this does not take into account 

the assumptions that likely overestimate potential impacts and the behavior of marine mammals (e.g., 

short-beaked common dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins travel in groups and are relatively easy to 

spot), which would reduce the risk of a strike. 

Navy training activities that involve military expended materials would occur within the North Atlantic 

right whale’s designated critical habitat year-round. Since North Atlantic right whales occur within the 

southeast critical habitat area primarily in winter months and occur within the northeast critical habitat 

area during summer months, any potential overlap with Navy training in these areas would be seasonal. 

Given that no marine mammals would be struck by military expended materials as analyzed in Appendix 

F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses), the Navy does not anticipate that 

military expended materials associated with training activities would strike a North Atlantic right whale. 

Physical and biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale conservation and considered in 

the critical habitat designation include oceanic conditions that distribute and aggregate dense 

concentrations of copepods within the northern foraging habitats and water temperatures, depths, and 

sea surface conditions that are suitable for the southern calving habitats (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2015a). These habitat features would not be impacted by military expended materials.

The risk of the West Indian manatee to be exposed to military expended materials during training 

activities is highly unlikely because its primarily inland/coastal distribution does not overlap the offshore 

areas where the Navy conducts training activities that expend these materials. Manatees may be 

exposed to military expended materials in the inland waters of mid-Atlantic states and the Gulf coast of 

Florida. Since manatees generally occur in a very limited portion of the AFTT Study Area, the Navy does 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-681

3.7 Marine Mammals

not anticipate that military expended materials associated with training activities would strike a 

manatee. 

Training activities that involve military expended materials would occur within West Indian manatee 

critical habitat, specifically in inland waters near Port Canaveral, Florida, and to a limited extent, 

Mayport, Florida. The current critical habitat designation for the West Indian manatee does not identify 

specific physical and biological features essential for species conservation, but essential habitat features 

have been reported to include warm water refuges, various food sources (seagrasses and freshwater 

vegetation), travel corridors, and shelter for calving (75 Federal Register 1574–1581, January 12, 2010). 

These habitat features would not be impacted by military expended materials. 

The Navy will implement mitigation (e.g., not conducting gunnery activities against a surface target 

within a specified distance from marine mammals) to avoid potential impacts from military expended 

materials on marine mammals throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.3.4, Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors). The Navy will implement additional seasonal mitigation within the Southeast North 

Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area to further avoid potential interactions with military expended 

materials. For example, the Navy will not conduct gunnery activities in the mitigation area during North 

Atlantic right whale calving season. While designed specifically for enhanced protection of North 

Atlantic right whales, the mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts of military expended 

materials on all marine mammal species that are present in the mitigation area during the applicable 

season. 

Training activities involving military expended materials as described under Alternative 1 would not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the 

MMPA. 

Training activities involving military expended materials as described under Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESA-listed

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities that involve military expended materials under Alternative 1 would primarily occur in 

the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range 

Complexes within the Study Area. Other areas include the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport 

Testing Range; the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range; and the Naval Surface 

Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range. Proposed testing activities that use military expended 

materials do not overlap with areas where bowhead whales, narwhal, beluga whale, ringed seals, or 

polar bears occur, and, therefore, these species are not likely to be exposed to this stressor.

The results presented in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) 

indicate a reasonable level of certainty that no marine mammals would be struck by military expended 

materials. Direct strike exposures are essentially zero (maximum exposure estimate of 0.04 for shortbeaked common dolphin) for all marine mammal species in the Virginia Capes Range Complex over the 

course of a year. Similarly, direct strike exposures are essentially zero (maximum exposure estimate of 

0.02 for Atlantic spotted dolphin) for all marine mammal species in the Jacksonville Range Complex. As 

previously discussed, this does not take into account the assumptions that likely overestimate potential 

impacts and the behavior of marine mammals (e.g., spotted dolphins travel in groups and are relatively 

easy to spot), which would make the risk even lower. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-682

3.7 Marine Mammals

Navy testing activities that involve military expended materials would occur within the North Atlantic 

right whale’s designated critical habitat year-round. Since North Atlantic right whales occur within the 

southeast critical habitat area primarily in winter months and occur within the northeast critical habitat 

area during summer months, any potential overlap with Navy training in these areas would be seasonal. 

Given that no marine mammals would be struck by military expended materials analyzed in Appendix F 

(Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses), the Navy does not anticipate that 

military expended materials associated with testing activities would strike a North Atlantic right whale. 

Physical and biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale conservation and considered in 

the critical habitat designation include oceanic conditions that distribute and aggregate dense 

concentrations of copepods within the northern foraging habitats and water temperatures, depths, and 

sea surface conditions that are suitable for the southern calving habitats (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2015a). These habitat features would not be impacted by military expended materials.

Manatees primarily occur in the inland waters of mid-Atlantic states and the Gulf coast of Florida. Based 

on the limited overlap between manatees occurrence in the Study Area and the results from the 

statistical probability model presented in Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike 

Impact Analyses), the Navy does not anticipate that military expended materials associated with training 

activities would strike a manatee. In addition, testing activities that involve military expended materials 

would not be conducted within West Indian manatee critical habitat. 

The Navy will implement mitigation (e.g., not conducting gunnery activities against a surface target 

within a specified distance from marine mammals) to avoid potential impacts from military expended 

materials on marine mammals throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.3.4, Physical Disturbance and 

Strike Stressors). The Navy will implement additional seasonal mitigation within the Southeast North 

Atlantic Right Whale Mitigation Area to further avoid potential interactions with military expended 

materials. For example, the Navy will not conduct gunnery activities in the mitigation area during North 

Atlantic right whale calving season. While designed specifically for enhanced protection of North 

Atlantic right whales, the mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts of military expended 

materials on all marine mammal species that are present in the mitigation area during the applicable 

season. 

Testing activities involving military expended materials as described under Alternative 1 would not result 

in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

Testing activities involving military expended materials as described under Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESA-listed

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.7.3.4.3.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The locations of all training activities that involve military expended materials are the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. In addition, the amounts of non-explosive practice munitions expended annually 

and over 5 years would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. While the number of targets expended 

annually within inland waters would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2, the 5-year total would 

increase by 60 percent; however, this category only accounts for less than 0.001 percent of all military 

expended materials. The number of expendable targets within offshore portions of the AFTT Study Area 

would increase by 7 percent both annually and over 5 years. Expended materials other than munitions 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-683

3.7 Marine Mammals

would increase under Alternative 2 by 0.3 percent annually and 0.4 percent over 5 years within the 

offshore portions of the AFTT Study Area. 

Probability analyses conducted for training activities under Alternative 2 yielded nearly identical 

exposures compared to Alternative 1; short-beaked common dolphin exposures in the Virginia Capes

Range Complex only increased by 0.00002. Similarly, Atlantic spotted dolphin exposures in the 

Jacksonville Range Complex only increased by 0.00001. These results provide a high level of certainty 

that no marine mammals would be struck by military expended materials under Alternative 2. In 

addition, the results indicate that fractional increases in expendable targets and expended materials 

other than munitions proposed under Alternative 2 do not substantially increase the potential for direct 

strike to marine mammals. Therefore, the associated impacts on marine mammals are expected to be 

identical to Alternative 1 as presented in Section 3.7.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials 

Under Alternative 1) for training activities. 

Training activities involving military expended materials as described under Alternative 2 would not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the 

MMPA. 

Training activities involving military expended materials as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESA-listed 

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS 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 all testing activities that involve military expended materials are the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. The annual numbers of expendable targets would also be the same under 

Alternatives 1 and 2; however, the 5-year total would increase by 0.1 percent under Alternative 2. In 

addition, the amounts of non-explosive practice munitions would only increase by approximately 

0.003 percent annually and by 1 percent over 5 years. Similarly, expended materials other than 

munitions would only increase under Alternative 2 by 0.4 percent annually and by 1 percent over 

5 years. 

Probability analyses conducted for testing activities under Alternative 2 yielded nearly identical 

exposures compared to Alternative 1; short-beaked common dolphin exposures in the Virginia Capes

Range Complex only increased by 0.00001. Similarly, Atlantic spotted dolphin exposures in the 

Jacksonville Range Complex also only increased by 0.00001. These results provide a high level of 

certainty that no marine mammals would be struck by military expended materials under Alternative 2. 

Fractional increases in the amounts of non-explosive practice munitions, expended targets, and 

expended materials other than munitions do not appreciably increase marine mammal direct strike 

exposure estimates. Therefore, the associated impacts on marine mammals are expected to be identical 

to Alternative 1 as presented in Section 3.7.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under 

Alternative 1) for testing activities. 

Testing activities involving military expended materials as described under Alternative 2 would not result 

in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

Testing activities involving military expended materials as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESA-listed
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-684

3.7 Marine Mammals

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.7.3.4.3.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under the No Action Alternative for Training 

and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the 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.

3.7.3.4.4 Impacts from Seafloor Devices 

For a discussion of the types of activities that use seafloor devices see Appendix B (Activity Stressor 

Matrices), and for a discussion on where they are used and how many activities would occur under each 

alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices). These include items placed on, dropped on, or 

moved along the seafloor such as mine shapes, anchor blocks, anchors, bottom-placed devices, and 

bottom-crawling unmanned underwater vehicles. The likelihood of any marine mammal species 

encountering seafloor devices is considered low because these items are either stationary or move very 

slowly along the bottom. In the unlikely event that a marine mammal is in the vicinity of a seafloor 

device, the stationary or very slowly moving devices would not be expected to physically disturb or alter 

natural behaviors of marine mammals. The only seafloor device used during training and testing 

activities that has the potential to strike a marine mammal at or near the surface is an aircraft-deployed 

mine shape, which is used during aerial mine laying activities. These devices are identical to nonexplosive practice bombs, and, therefore, the analysis of the potential impacts from those devices are 

covered in Section 3.7.3.4.3 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials) and are not further analyzed in 

this section.

3.7.3.4.4.1 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Offshore training activities that use seafloor devices under Alternative 1 would primarily occur in the 

Virginia Capes Range Complex. Other locations include Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and 

Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes; and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range. In 

addition, training activities that use seafloor devices would be conducted within inland waters including 

and surrounding Boston, Massachusetts; Narragansett, Rhode Island; Earle, New Jersey; Delaware Bay, 

Delaware; Wilmington, Delaware; Hampton Roads, Virginia; the Lower Chesapeake Bay; James River and 

tributaries; York River; Morehead City, North Carolina; Cooper River, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; 

Kings Bay, Georgia; Mayport, Florida; Port Canaveral, Florida; Tampa Florida; Beaumont, Texas; and 

Corpus Christi, Texas. Species such as the bowhead whale, narwhal, beluga whale, and polar bear, 

whose ranges are outside of the areas where these materials would be normally be expended, are not 

likely to be exposed to this stressor. Therefore these species are not further analyzed under this section.

Based on the analysis in Section 3.7.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under 

Alternative 1) for training activities, there is a reasonable level of certainty that no marine mammals 

would be struck by seafloor devices. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-685

3.7 Marine Mammals

Navy training activities that involve seafloor devices would occur within the North Atlantic right whale 

southeast critical habitat area year-round. Since North Atlantic right whales occur within the southeast 

critical habitat area primarily in winter months, any potential overlap with Navy training in these areas 

would be seasonal. The Navy does not anticipate that the use of seafloor devices would result in 

physical disturbance or direct strike of North Atlantic right whales. Physical and biological features 

identified for North Atlantic right whale conservation and considered in the critical habitat designation 

include oceanic conditions that distribute and aggregate dense concentrations of copepods within the 

northern foraging habitats and water temperatures, depths, and sea surface conditions that are suitable 

for the southern calving habitats (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). These habitat features 

would not be impacted by seafloor devices.

The risk of the West Indian manatee to be exposed to seafloor devices during Navy training activities is 

highly unlikely because its primarily inland/coastal distribution does not overlap the offshore areas 

where the Navy generally conducts the types of activities that use these devices. Training activities that 

use seafloor devices would occur within West Indian manatee critical habitat, specifically in inland 

waters near Port Canaveral, Florida, and to a limited extent, Mayport, Florida. The Navy does not

anticipate that the use of seafloor devices would result in physical disturbance or direct strike of 

manatees. The current critical habitat designation for the West Indian manatee does not identify specific 

physical and biological features essential for species conservation, but essential habitat features have 

been reported to include warm water refuges, various food sources (seagrasses and freshwater 

vegetation), travel corridors, and shelter for calving (75 Federal Register 1574–1581, January 12, 2010). 

These habitat features would not be impacted by seafloor devices.

The use of seafloor devices during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

The use of seafloor devices during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESA-listed 

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities that involve the use of seafloor devices under Alternative 1 would occur in the 

Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range

Complexes; Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Testing Range; South Florida Ocean Measurement 

Facility Testing Range; Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range; and other AFTT areas. 

In addition, testing activities that use seafloor devices would be conducted within the inland waters 

surrounding Little Creek and Norfolk, Virginia. Species such as the bowhead whale, narwhal, beluga 

whale, and polar bear, whose ranges are outside of the areas where these materials would be normally 

be expended, are not likely to be exposed to this stressor. Therefore, these species are not further 

analyzed under this section.

Based on the analysis in Section 3.7.3.4.3.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under 

Alternative 1) for testing activities, there is a reasonable level of certainty that no marine mammals 

would be struck by seafloor devices. 

Navy testing activities that involve seafloor devices would occur within the North Atlantic right whale’s 

designated critical habitat year-round. Since North Atlantic right whales occur within the southeast 

critical habitat area primarily in winter months and occur within the northeast critical habitat area 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-686

3.7 Marine Mammals

during summer months, any potential overlap with Navy training in these areas would be seasonal. The 

Navy does not anticipate that the use of seafloor devices would result in physical disturbance or direct

strike of North Atlantic right whales. Physical and biological features identified for North Atlantic right 

whale conservation and considered in the critical habitat designation include oceanic conditions that 

distribute and aggregate dense concentrations of copepods within the northern foraging habitats and 

water temperatures, depths, and sea surface conditions that are suitable for the southern calving 

habitats (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). These habitat features would not be impacted by 

seafloor devices.

The risk of the West Indian manatee to be exposed to seafloor devices during Navy testing activities is 

highly unlikely because its primarily inland/coastal distribution does not overlap the offshore areas 

where the Navy generally conducts the types of activities that use these devices. Manatees may be 

exposed to this stressor in the Gulf of Mexico during testing activities conducted in the nearshore 

environment, though they are very rarely encountered in those areas. The Navy does not anticipate that 

the use of seafloor devices would result in physical disturbance or direct strike of manatees. Testing 

activities that involve seafloor devices would not be conducted within West Indian manatee critical 

habitat. 

The use of seafloor devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

The use of seafloor devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESA-listed

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.7.3.4.4.2 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

As stated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices) the locations and annual number of training activities 

that involve seafloor devices are the same under Alternatives 1 and 2; however, the number of offshore 

training activities over 5 years would increase by 0.04 percent and the number of training activities 

within inland waters of the Study Area would increase by 1 percent over 5 years. Based on the analysis 

in Section 3.7.3.4.3.2 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under Alternative 2) for training 

activities, there is a reasonable level of certainty that no marine mammals would be struck by seafloor 

devices. 

The use of seafloor devices during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

The use of seafloor devices during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESA-listed

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As stated in Section 3.0.3.3.4.3 (Seafloor Devices) the location of testing activities that use seafloor 

devices are the same under Alternatives 1 and 2; however the number of testing activities proposed 

under Alternative 2 would increase by 0.5 percent annually and by approximately 4 percent over 

5 years. Based on the analysis in Section 3.7.3.4.3.2 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Under 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-687

3.7 Marine Mammals

Alternative 2) for testing activities, there is a reasonable level of certainty that no marine mammals 

would be struck by seafloor devices. 

The use of seafloor devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

The use of seafloor devices during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitats and may affect ESA-listed 

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

3.7.3.4.4.3 Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Seafloor Devices Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the 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. 

3.7.3.5 Entanglement Stressors

This section analyzes the potential for entanglement of marine mammals as the result of proposed 

training and testing activities within the Study Area. This analysis includes the potential impacts from 

three types of military expended materials: (1) wires and cables, (2) decelerators/parachutes, and 

(3) biodegradable polymers. The number and location of training and testing exercises that involve the 

use of items that may pose an entanglement risk are provided in Section 3.0.3.3.5 (Entanglement 

Stressors). General discussion of impacts can also be found in Section 3.0.3.6.4 (Conceptual Framework 

for Assessing Effects from Entanglement).

These materials could be encountered by marine mammals, and, if encountered, may have the potential 

to entangle marine mammals in the AFTT Study Area at the surface, in the water column, or along the 

seafloor. Since potential impacts depend on how a marine mammal encounters and reacts to items that 

pose an entanglement risk, the following subsections discuss research relevant to specific groups or 

species. Risk factors such as animal size, sensory capabilities, and foraging methods are also considered 

in the potential risk for entanglement. Most entanglements discussed are attributable to marine 

mammal encounters with fishing gear or other non-military materials that float or are suspended at the 

surface. Entanglement events are difficult to detect from land or from a boat as they may occur at 

considerable distances from shore and typically take place underwater. Smaller entangled animals are 

inherently less likely to be detected than larger ones, but larger animals may subsequently swim off 

while still entangled, towing lines or fishing gear behind them. The likelihood of witnessing an 

entanglement event is therefore typically low (Benjamins et al., 2014). However, the properties and size 

of these military expended materials, as described in Section 3.0.3.3.5 (Entanglement Stressors) and 

Section 3.0.3.6.4 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Entanglement), makes 

entanglement unlikely. 

Since, there has never been a reported or recorded instance of a marine mammal entangled in military 

expended materials (Henry et al., 2016; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine 

Debris Program, 2014a), the Navy considered the available literature and reports on entanglement. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-688

3.7 Marine Mammals

These reports indicate that active and derelict fishing gear is the predominant cause of entanglement.

The reason for this, and the ways that fishing gear may be different from military expended materials 

are as follows: (1) fishing gear is most often used in areas of high productivity where whales may 

congregate and feed; whereas military expended materials are generally used in broad, diverse, open 

ocean areas and expenditures are not concentrated; (2) fishing gear is designed to trap/entangle marine 

life and are made with a high breaking strength to withstand prolonged use in the ocean environment; 

military expended materials are not designed to persist in the ocean environment for long periods of 

time and are not designed to entangle or capture marine life; and (3) fishing gear and ropes are 

designed to float or be suspended in the water column for long periods of time, whereas most military 

expended materials sink immediately and rapidly. 

Mysticetes

Mysticete species with documented entanglement reports include humpback whales, North Atlantic 

right whales, Bryde’s whales, minke whales, gray whales, and bowhead whales (Cassoff et al., 2011; 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014a). Aside from Bryde’s 

whales, all of those species have records directly linking entanglement to marine debris as opposed to 

active fishing gear (Baulch & Perry, 2014; Laist, 1997). It has been estimated that a minimum of 

52 percent and a maximum of 78 percent of whales have been non-lethally entangled in their lifetime 

(Neilson et al., 2009). Between 2010 and 2014, there were 209 confirmed reports of baleen whale 

entanglement along the Atlantic Canadian Provinces, U.S. Atlantic Coast, and the Gulf of Mexico; 36 of 

these resulted in mortality (Henry et al., 2016). Impacted species included North Atlantic right whales, 

humpback whales, fin whales, and minke whales. Cassoff et al. (2011) report that in the western North 

Atlantic, mortality due to entanglement has slowed the recovery of some populations of mysticetes. 

Included in their analysis of 21 entanglement-related mortalities were minke, Bryde’s, North Atlantic 

right whale, and humpback whales. 

Entanglement of many large whales most often begins with rope being caught in its baleen plates. Based 

on feeding adaptations for mysticetes, oral entanglement may pose one of the greatest threats to 

survival, due to impaired foraging and possibly loss of function of the hydrostatic seal (formed when 

upper and lower lips come together and keep the mouth closed), requiring the whale to expend energy 

to actively keep the mouth closed during swimming (Cassoff et al., 2011). Impaired foraging could lead 

to deterioration of health, making the animal more susceptible to disease or eventual starvation over a 

long period of time. Compounding the issue, trailing lengths of rope or line may become wrapped 

around the animal’s appendages as it struggles to free itself (Kozuck, 2003), limiting the animal’s 

mobility. This reduced mobility can also reduce foraging success or even limit the animal’s ability to 

surface. Notably, the single acute cause of entanglement mortalities has been associated with drowning 

from multiple body parts being entangled (Cassoff et al., 2011). 

Common sources of entanglements for mysticetes include line and net fragments attached through the 

mouth or around the tail and flippers (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris 

Program, 2014a). Rope diameter and breaking strengths may also determine an animal’s ability to break 

free from entanglement. Increased rope strength has been found to be positively correlated with injury 

severity in right whales, but not for humpback whales (Knowlton et al., 2015). Minke whales were also 

found entangled in lower breaking strength ropes (10.47 kilonewtons [2,617 lb.-force]) than both 

humpback and right whales (17.13 and 19.30 kilonewtons [3,851 and 4,339 lb.-force], respectively) 

(Knowlton et al., 2015). These are significantly greater than the breaking strength of torpedo guidance 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-689

3.7 Marine Mammals

wires (maximum 42 lb.-force) as described in Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables). Entanglement 

would be more likely for materials with similar physical properties as those described above. 

In the western North Atlantic, between 41 and 50 percent of all documented humpback entanglements

were due to fishery gear (Nielsen, 2009). Available data indicate that males typically have more 

entanglement scars than females and may become entangled more frequently. Juvenile whales were 

found to have a higher rate of entanglement and be more at risk of serious injury and mortality when 

entangled than mature animals of the same species (Robbins, 2009, 2010). 

Military expended material is expected to sink to the ocean floor. It is possible that marine mammals 

could encounter these items within the water column as they sink to the bottom. Less buoyant items 

that sink faster are not as likely to become entangled with a marine mammal compared to more 

buoyant materials that would sink slower to the floor. Mysticetes that occupy the water column or skim 

feed along the water surface would have to encounter a military expended material at the same time 

and location it is either expended or as it sinks. Mysticete species that feed near or at the bottom in the 

areas where activities make use of military expended materials could encounter items that have already 

sunk and, therefore, do not have to be present at the precise time when items are expended. Seasonally 

present when feeding throughout the Northeast Range Complexes within the AFTT Study Area, 

humpback whales are the only mysticete occurring in the Study Area that regularly feeds near the 

seafloor and would have the additional risk of being exposed to entangling military expended materials 

that have already sunk. 

Odontocetes

Odontocete species with documented records of marine debris entanglement, excluding fishing gear, 

are the sperm whale, bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, and Dall’s porpoise (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program, 2014a). Bottlenose dolphins are the most 

commonly entangled odontocete, with most entanglements involving monofilament line, net fragments, 

and rope attached to appendages (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris 

Program, 2014a). Heezen (1957) reported two confirmed instances of sperm whales entangled in the 

slack lengths of telegraph cable near cable repair sites along the seafloor. These whales likely became 

entangled while feeding along the bottom, as the cables were most often found wrapped around the 

jaw. Other sperm whale entanglements in gill nets have been reported in areas outside the AFTT Study 

Area, resulting in various behavioral responses, injuries and in some cases, mortalities to individuals

(Haase & Felix, 1994; Jacobsen et al., 2010; Pace et al., 2008). Juvenile harbor porpoises exposed to 0.5-

in. diameter white nylon ropes in both vertical and horizontal planes treated the ropes as barriers, more 

frequently swimming under than over them. However, porpoises feeding on fish in the area crossed the 

ropes more frequently and became less cautious, suggesting that rope poses a greater risk in a feeding 

area than in a transit area. For harbor porpoises feeding on the bottom, rope suspended near the 

seafloor is more likely to entangle than rope higher in the water column because the animals’ natural 

tendency is to swim beneath barriers (Kastelein et al., 2005a). 

Pinnipeds

Entanglement is considered a serious threat to several populations of pinnipeds (Kovacs et al., 2012); 

67 percent of pinniped species have been recorded as entangled (Kuhn et al., 2015). Younger pinnipeds 

appear to be more prone to entanglement than adults (Hofmeyr et al., 2006; Page et al., 2004). A young 

pup may become so entangled that its body becomes constricted by the material as it grows. Death may 

occur by strangulation or severing of the arteries (Derraik, 2002). Other species of seals, such as harbor 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-690

3.7 Marine Mammals

seals, gray seals, and harp seals can also get entangled in nets and fishing line when young and then 

grow with the lines wrapped around their necks or appendages, causing deep wounds and eventually 

death. Between 2004 and 2008, the annual mean entanglement rate for gray seals at a haul-out site in 

Cornwall (in the United Kingdom), ranged from 3.6 to 5 percent; mortality rates were likely higher for 

entangled animals (Allen et al., 2012). Gray and harbor seals also become entangled and drown in the 

U.S. Northeast Sink Gillnet Fishery (Johnston et al., 2015). 

Polar Bear

In a review conducted by Kuhn et al. (2015) on the interaction between marine debris and wildlife, only 

one occurrence of entanglement in polar bears was documented, but no further details regarding the 

material was provided. 

West Indian Manatees

Entanglements have been documented for manatees (Beck & Barros, 1991; Forrester et al., 1975; 

O'Shea et al., 1985). Manatee foraging behaviors may predispose them to entanglement with fishery 

gear because they are extremely tactile, meaning they need to be in close proximity or physically 

touching an object in order to gain extensive information about it (Adimey et al., 2014). In addition, 

manatees have limited abilities to detect finer objects, such as monofilament, until it is already wrapped 

around them (Adimey et al., 2014), leading to an increased risk of entanglement (Bauer et al., 2012). 

Fishery gear interactions with Florida manatees were analyzed from stranding records collected 

between 1997 and 2009 in Florida and results found that approximately 8 percent of the manatee cases 

were identified as fishery gear interactions (Adimey et al., 2014). Of the 380 reported cases, 76 percent 

consisted of hook and line interactions and 22 percent were from trap pot gear (Adimey et al., 2014). 

3.7.3.5.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables

For a discussion of the types of activities that use wires and cables see Appendix B (Activity Stressor 

Matrices) and for a discussion on where they are used and how many wires and cables would be 

expended under each alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables). The likelihood of a marine 

mammal encountering and becoming entangled in a fiber optic cable depends on several factors. The 

amount of time that the cable is in the same vicinity as a marine mammal can increase the likelihood of 

it posing an entanglement risk. The length of the cable varies (up to about 3,000 m), and greater lengths 

may increase the likelihood that a marine mammal could become entangled. The behavior and feeding 

strategy of a species can determine whether they may encounter items on the seafloor, where cables 

will be available for longer periods of time. There is potential for those species that feed on the seafloor 

to encounter cables and potentially become entangled; however, the relatively few cables being 

expended within the AFTT Study Area limits the potential for encounters. The physical characteristics of 

the fiber optic material render the cable brittle and easily broken when kinked, twisted, or bent sharply 

(i.e., to a radius greater than 360 degrees). Thus, the physical properties of the fiber optic cable would 

not allow the cable to loop, greatly reducing or eliminating any potential issues of entanglement with 

regard to marine life. Furthermore, since the cable will only be within the water column during the 

activity, the likelihood of a marine mammal encountering and becoming entangled while a cable sinks 

within the water column is extremely low.

Similar to fiber optic cables discussed above, guidance wires may pose an entanglement threat to 

marine mammals either in the water column or after the wire has settled to the seafloor. The likelihood 

of a marine mammal encountering and becoming entangled in a guidance wire depends on several 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-691

3.7 Marine Mammals

factors. With the exception of a chance encounter with the guidance wire while it is sinking to the 

seafloor (at an estimated rate of 0.7 ft. per second), it is most likely that a marine mammal would only 

encounter a guidance wire once it had settled on the seafloor. Since the guidance wire will only be 

within the water column during the activity, the likelihood of a marine mammal encountering and 

becoming entangled while the wire sinks within the water column is extremely low. Guidance wires have 

a relatively low tensile breaking strength (between 10 and 42 lb.) and can be broken by hand. In 

addition, based on degradation times, the guidance wires would break down within 1 to 2 years and no 

longer pose an entanglement risk. The length of the guidance wires varies, as described in Section 

3.0.3.3.5.1 (Wires and Cables), but greater lengths increase the likelihood that a marine mammal could 

become entangled. The behavior and feeding strategy of a species can determine whether it may 

encounter items on the seafloor, where guidance wires will most likely be available. There is potential 

for those species that feed on the seafloor to encounter guidance wires and potentially become 

entangled; however, the relatively few guidance wires being expended within the AFTT Study Area limits 

the potential for encounters.

Sonobuoy wires are used to attach the surface antenna and float unit with the subsurface hydrophone 

assembly unit of a sonobuoy. They are slightly longer than fiber optic cables (up to 1,500 ft.) and have a 

tensile breaking strength of 40 lb. Operationally, sonobuoys remain suspended in the water column for 

up to 30 hours, which would increase the likelihood that a marine mammal could encounter a sonobuoy 

wire either while it is suspended or as it sinks. Marine mammals could encounter the sonobuoy wires 

while in operation in the water column, and species that feed on the bottom could encounter the wires 

after they have sunk to the seafloor. 

Marine mammal species that occur within the AFTT Study Area were evaluated based on the likelihood 

of encountering these items. Mysticete, odontocete, pinniped, and sirenian species that occur where 

these training and testing activities take place and forage on the bottom could encounter these items 

once they settle to the seafloor. 

An evaluation of potential environmental impacts related to guidance wire left at sea where torpedo 

tests are conducted by the Navy suggests there is an extremely low entanglement potential for marine 

animals found within these range areas (Swope & McDonald, 2013). The chance that an individual 

animal would encounter expended cables or wires is most likely low based on (1) the sparse distribution 

of both the cables and wires expended throughout the Study Area, (2) the fact that the wires and cables 

will sink upon release, and (3) the relatively few marine mammals that are likely to feed on the bottom 

in the deeper waters where these would be expended. It is probably very unlikely that an animal would 

get entangled even if it encountered a cable or wire while it was sinking or upon settling to the seafloor. 

A marine mammal would have to swim through loops, become twisted within the cable or wire, or in 

the case of mysticetes, get the cable or wire stuck in their baleen to become entangled, and given the 

properties of the expended wires (low breaking strength, sinking rates, and reluctance to coiling or 

looping) this seems unlikely. As indicated in the report by Neilson et al. (2009), a large percentage of 

whales have been non-lethally entangled in their lifetime, suggesting some degree of ability to become 

disentangled. So while an animal may initially become entangled in a cable or wire while either 

swimming in the water column or feeding on the bottom, they may become free in situations where the 

item breaks or if it is only loosely attached and the animal is able to maneuver to free itself from 

permanent entanglement. As a result, no long-term impacts would occur. Based on the estimated 

concentration of expended cables and wires, impacts from cables or wires are extremely unlikely to 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-692

3.7 Marine Mammals

occur. In fact, current data suggests that torpedo guidance wires do not present a physical hazard in the 

marine environment (Swope & McDonald, 2013). 

3.7.3.5.1.1 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities 

Training activities under Alternative 1 would expend wires and cables within the Northeast, Virginia 

Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes as well as other AFTT areas. 

Wires would be expended in greatest concentration within the Jacksonville Range Complex, which is 

approximately 50,090 square nautical miles (NM2

) resulting in one wire per 2 NM2 throughout the entire 

Jacksonville Range Complex. Cables would be expended in the greatest concentration within the Virginia 

Capes Range Complex, which is approximately 27,672 NM2

. As a result, there would one cable per 36 

NM2 throughout the entire Virginia Capes Range Complex per year if they were expended evenly 

throughout the area. Refer to Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact 

Analyses) for more detailed information on the area impacted by various military expended materials. 

The bowhead whale, narwhal, beluga whale, ringed seal, bearded seal, walrus, and polar bear do not 

occur in these areas and are not discussed further in this section.

Marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, reproductive, and feeding behaviors within the 

range complexes of the AFTT Study Area may encounter wires and cables expended during Navy training 

activities. Potential entanglement impacts on blue whales are expected to be similar to the other 

mysticete species discussed above. Potential impacts on odontocete and pinniped species that occur in 

the areas listed above would be similar to what was described in Section 3.7.3.5.1 (Impacts from Wires 

and Cables). Based on the low concentration of expended wires and cables combined with their physical 

characteristics, the Navy anticipates that no marine mammals would become entangled.

Navy training activities that expend wires and cables would occur within the North Atlantic right whale’s 

designated critical habitat year-round. Since North Atlantic right whales occur within the southeast 

critical habitat area primarily in winter months and occur within the northeast critical habitat area 

during summer months, any potential overlap with Navy training activities in these areas would be 

seasonal. The Navy does not anticipate that the expended wires and cables would entangle a North 

Atlantic right whale. Physical and biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale 

conservation and considered in the critical habitat designation include oceanic conditions that distribute 

and aggregate dense concentrations of copepods within the northern foraging habitats and water 

temperatures, depths, and sea surface conditions that are suitable for the southern calving habitats 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). These habitat features would not be impacted by wires and 

cables.

Although manatees may occur in coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico, training activities that use fiber 

optic cables, guidance wires, and sonobuoy cables would not take place in shallow waters where 

manatees would be feeding and potentially encounter these items on the seafloor. Training activities 

that expend wires and cables will not occur within West Indian manatee critical habitat.

The use of wires and cables during training activities as described under Alternative 1 will not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

The use of wires and cables during training activities as described under Alternative 1 will have no effect 

on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitat and may affect ESA-listed and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-693

3.7 Marine Mammals

proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities 

Testing activities proposed under Alternative 1 would expend wires and cables within the Northeast, 

Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes. Other 

locations include the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport Testing Range; South Florida Ocean 

Measurement Facility Testing Range; and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Testing Range 

in the AFTT Study Area. The bowhead whale, narwhal, beluga whale, ringed seal, bearded seal, walrus, 

and polar bear do not occur in these areas and are not discussed further in this section.

Wires would be expended with the greatest concentration in the Virginia Capes Range Complex, which is 

27,672 NM2 in size. If expended evenly throughout the area, there would be one wire per approximately 

3 NM2

. Cables would be expended with greatest concentration in the Naval Surface Warfare Center, 

Panama City Testing Range, which is 7,966 NM2 in size, resulting in approximately one cable per 19 NM2

if expended evenly throughout the area. Refer to Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct 

Strike Impact Analyses) for more detailed information on the area impacted by various military 

expended materials.

Marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, reproductive, and feeding behaviors within the 

range complexes of the AFTT Study Area may encounter wires and cables expended during Navy testing 

activities. Potential entanglement impacts on blue whales are expected to be similar to the other 

mysticete species discussed above. Potential impacts on odontocete and pinniped species that occur in

the areas listed above would be similar to what was described in Section 3.7.3.5.1 (Impacts from Wires 

and Cables). Based on the low concentration of expended wires and cables combined with their physical 

characteristics, the Navy anticipates that no marine mammals would become entangled.

Navy testing activities would expend wires and cables within the North Atlantic right whale’s designated 

critical habitat year-round. Since North Atlantic right whales occur within the southeast critical habitat 

area primarily in winter months and occur within the northeast critical habitat area during summer 

months, any potential overlap with Navy testing activities in these areas would be seasonal. The Navy 

does not anticipate that wires and cables would entangle a North Atlantic right whale. Physical and 

biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale conservation and considered in the critical 

habitat designation include oceanic conditions that distribute and aggregate dense concentrations of 

copepods within the northern foraging habitats and water temperatures, depths, and sea surface 

conditions that are suitable for the southern calving habitats (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). 

These habitat features would not be impacted by cables and wires expended during testing activities.

Although manatees may occur in coastal, estuarine, and riverine areas along the southeast and Gulf of 

Mexico coasts of the United States, testing activities that use fiber optic cables, guidance wires, and 

sonobuoy cables would not take place in shallow waters where manatees would be feeding and 

therefore potentially encounter these items on the seafloor. Testing activities that expend wires and 

cables would be conducted within a small portion of West Indian manatee critical habitat that occurs 

within the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility. The potential for wires and cables to be expended 

in this area would be very low based on the limited overlap between West Indian manatee critical 

habitat and the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility area. The Navy does not anticipate that a 

West Indian manatee would become entangled in expended wires and cables. The current critical 

habitat designation for the West Indian manatee does not identify specific physical and biological 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-694

3.7 Marine Mammals

features essential for species conservation, but essential habitat features have been reported to include 

warm water refuges, various food sources (seagrasses and freshwater vegetation), travel corridors, and 

shelter for calving (75 Federal Register 1574–1581, January 12, 2010). These habitat features would not 

be impacted by cables and wires expended during testing activities.

The use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

The use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitat and may affect ESA-listed

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.7.3.5.1.2 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities 

The locations of training activities that expend wires and cables are the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

The number of wires expended during training activities would increase under Alternative 2 by 3 percent 

annually and by 4 percent over 5 years. While the annual number of cables expended during training 

activities is the same under Alternatives 1 and 2, there would be an approximate 0.2 percent increase in 

the number of cables over 5 years under Alternative 2. While there would be a small increase in the 

total number of wires and cables expended throughout the AFTT Study Area under Alternative 2, it is 

not expected to substantially increase the risk of entanglement to marine mammals over what was 

analyzed under Alternative 1. The analyses presented in Section 3.7.3.5.1.1 (Impacts from Wires and 

Cables Under Alternative 1) for training activities would therefore apply to training activities under 

Alternative 2. 

The use of wires and cables during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

The use of wires and cables during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitat and may affect ESA-listed 

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities 

The locations of testing activities that expend wires and cables would be identical under Alternatives 1 

and 2. However, the number of wires expended during testing activities would increase under 

Alternative 2 by 2 percent annually and by 7 percent over 5 years. In addition, there would be a 

4 percent increase in the number of cables expended annually and a 12 percent increase over 5 years. 

This level of increase proposed under Alternative 2 does not appreciably increase the risk of 

entanglement to marine mammals above what was analyzed for Alternative 1. Therefore, the analyses 

presented in Section 3.7.3.5.1.1 (Impacts from Wires and Cables Under Alternative 1) for testing 

activities would also apply to Alternative 2 testing activities. 

The use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would not result in 

the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

The use of wires and cables during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitat and may affect ESA-listed 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-695

3.7 Marine Mammals

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.7.3.5.1.3 Impacts from Wires and Cables Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Wires and Cables Under the No Action Alternative for Training and Testing 

Activities 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the 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.

3.7.3.5.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes 

For a discussion of the types of activities that use decelerators/parachutes, see Appendix B (Activity 

Stressor Matrices), and for a discussion on where they are used and how many decelerators/parachutes 

would be used or expended under each alternative. See Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes). 

Training and testing activities that introduce decelerators/parachutes into the water column can occur 

anywhere in the AFTT Study Area and may pose an entanglement risk to marine mammals. Potential 

impacts from decelerators/parachutes as ingestion stressors to marine mammals are discussed in 

Section 3.7.3.6.2.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions). 

As described in Section 3.0.3.3.5.2 (Decelerators/Parachutes), decelerators/parachutes used during the 

proposed activities range in size from 18 in. up to 19 ft. in diameter. The vast majority of expended 

decelerators/parachutes are small (18 in.), cruciform shaped, and are used with sonobuoys. Illumination 

flares and targets use large parachutes, up to 19 ft. in diameter. Decelerators/parachutes have short 

attachment cords and upon water impact may remain at the surface for 5 to 15 seconds before it sinks 

to the seafloor, where it becomes flattened. Entanglement of a marine mammal in a 

decelerator/parachute assembly at the surface or within the water column would be unlikely, since the 

decelerator/parachute would have to land directly on an animal or an animal would have to swim into it 

and become entangled within the cords or fabric panel before it sinks or while it is sinking through the 

water column. Once on the seafloor, if bottom currents are present, the cruciform fabric panels may 

temporarily billow and pose an entanglement threat to marine animals with bottom-feeding habits; 

however, the probability of a marine mammal encountering a decelerator/parachute assembly on the 

seafloor and accidental entanglement in the fabric panel or short suspension cords is unlikely. 

The chance that an individual animal would encounter expended decelerators/parachutes is low based 

on the sparse distribution of the decelerators/parachutes expended throughout the Study Area, the fact 

that assemblies are designed to sink upon release, and the relatively few marine mammals that feed on 

the bottom. Based on the information summarized above within the introduction to Section 3.7.3.5

(Entanglement Stressors), mysticetes found within the AFTT Study Area are not expected to encounter 

decelerators/parachutes on the seafloor because, with the exception of humpback whales, they do not 

feed there. The majority of decelerators/parachutes expended will occur in deep ocean areas, which are 

not the shallow water locations where humpback whales feed on the bottom. The majority of 

decelerators/parachutes used are relatively small (approximately 18 in. in diameter) and are not likely to

be an entanglement hazard to marine mammals. Furthermore, there has never been any recorded or 

reported instance of a marine mammal becoming entangled in a parachute. 

The possibility of odontocetes, pinnipeds, and manatees becoming entangled exists for species that feed 

on the bottom in areas where decelerators/parachutes have been expended. This is unlikely because 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-696

3.7 Marine Mammals

decelerators/parachutes are primarily used in exercises that occur in waters far out to sea. Species that 

are known to feed on the bottom in deep water as well as the mid-water column include beaked whales, 

sperm whales, and dwarf/pygmy sperm whales. Even for these species, because the majority of 

decelerators/parachutes used are relatively small and there has never been any recorded or reported 

instance of a marine mammal becoming entangled in a decelerator/parachute, decelerators/parachutes 

are not likely to be an entanglement hazard.

3.7.3.5.2.1 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Training activities under Alternative 1 would expend decelerators/parachutes within the Northeast, 

Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Key West Range Complexes, along with other AFTT 

areas. Species occurring outside of these range complexes, including the bowhead whale, narwhal, 

beluga whale, ringed seal, bearded seal, walrus, and polar bear would not be expected to encounter 

decelerators/parachutes, eliminating the possibility of entanglement. The area with the greatest 

concentration of expended decelerators/parachutes would be within the Jacksonville Range Complex, 

where one small parachute would be expended per 2 NM2

, if evenly distributed throughout the area. 

Refer to Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) for more detailed 

information on the area impacted by various military expended materials.

Marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, reproductive, and feeding behaviors within the 

range complexes of the AFTT Study Area may encounter decelerators/parachutes expended during Navy 

training activities. Potential entanglement impacts on blue whales are expected to be similar to those 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.5.2 (Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes). Similarly, potential impacts on 

odontocete and pinniped species that occur in the areas listed above would be the same as what was 

described in Section 3.7.3.5.2 (Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes). Based on the low concentration 

of expended decelerator/parachutes, the Navy anticipates that no marine mammals would become 

entangled in decelerators/parachutes.

Navy training activities would expend decelerators/parachutes within the North Atlantic right whale’s 

designated critical habitat year-round. Since North Atlantic right whales occur within the southeast 

critical habitat area primarily in winter months and occur within the northeast critical habitat area 

during summer months, any potential overlap with Navy training activities in these areas would be 

seasonal. Based on the low concentration of decelerators/parachutes that would be expended within 

the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, and Jacksonville Range Complexes, combined with the 

general discussion presented in Section 3.7.3.5 (Entanglement Stressors) and Section 3.7.3.5.2 (Impacts 

from Decelerators/Parachutes), the Navy does not anticipate that training activities involving 

decelerators/parachutes would entangle a North Atlantic right whale. Physical and biological features 

identified for North Atlantic right whale conservation and considered in the critical habitat designation 

include oceanic conditions that distribute and aggregate dense concentrations of copepods within the 

northern foraging habitats and water temperatures, depths, and sea surface conditions that are suitable 

for the southern calving habitats (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). These habitat features 

would not be impacted by decelerators/parachutes.

Training activities that expend decelerators/parachutes will not occur within West Indian manatee 

critical habitat.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-697

3.7 Marine Mammals

The use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the 

MMPA. 

The use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities as described under Alternative 1 would

have no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitat and may affect 

ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS as 

required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1 for Testing Activities

Testing activities proposed under Alternative 1 would expend decelerators/parachutes primarily within 

the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range 

Complexes. Other locations include the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing Range; South 

Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range; and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City 

Testing Range. Species occurring outside of these areas, including the bowhead whale, narwhal, beluga 

whale, ringed seal, bearded seal, walrus, and polar bear would not be expected to encounter 

decelerators/parachutes, eliminating the possibility of entanglement. Decelerators/parachutes would be 

expended with greatest concentration in the Virginia Capes Range Complex; approximately one 

decelerator/parachute would be expended per 3 NM2

, if evenly distributed throughout the area. Refer 

to Appendix F (Military Expended Materials and Direct Strike Impact Analyses) for more detailed 

information on the area impacted by various military expended materials.

Marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, reproductive, and feeding behaviors within the 

range complexes of the AFTT Study Area may encounter decelerators/parachutes expended during Navy 

testing activities. Potential entanglement impacts on blue whales are expected to be similar to those 

discussed in Section 3.7.3.5.2 (Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes). Similarly, potential impacts on 

odontocete and pinniped species would be the same as what was described in Section 3.7.3.5.2 (Impacts 

from Decelerators/Parachutes). Based on the low concentration of expended decelerators/parachutes, 

the Navy does not anticipate that the decelerators/parachutes would entangle any marine mammals in 

the AFTT Study Area.

Navy testing activities would expend decelerators/parachutes within the North Atlantic right whale’s 

designated critical habitat year-round. Since North Atlantic right whales occur within the southeast 

critical habitat area primarily in winter months and occur within the northeast critical habitat area 

during summer months, any potential overlap with Navy testing activities in these areas would be 

seasonal. Based on the low concentration of decelerators/parachutes that would be expended with the 

Northeast and Virginia Capes Range Complexes, combined with the general discussion presented in 

Section 3.7.3.5 (Entanglement Stressors) and Section 3.7.3.5.2 (Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes), 

the Navy does not anticipate that the decelerators/parachutes would entangle a North Atlantic right 

whale. Physical and biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale conservation and 

considered in the critical habitat designation include oceanic conditions that distribute and aggregate 

dense concentrations of copepods within the northern foraging habitats and water temperatures, 

depths, and sea surface conditions that are suitable for the southern calving habitats (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2015a). These habitat features would not be impacted by decelerators/parachutes 

expended during testing activities. 

Testing activities that expend decelerators/parachutes would not be conducted within West Indian 

manatee critical habitat. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-698

3.7 Marine Mammals

The use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the 

MMPA. 

The use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have 

no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitat and may affect ESAlisted and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with 

NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.7.3.5.2.2 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

The annual numbers of decelerators/parachutes expended during training activities within the 

Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Key West Range Complexes and other 

AFTT areas are identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. However, training activities that expend 

decelerators/parachutes are proposed to occur within the Gulf of Mexico Range Complex under 

Alternative 2. The concentration of decelerators/parachutes released in the Gulf of Mexico Range

Complex would be low; approximately one decelerator/parachute per 31 NM2 if expended evenly 

throughout the area. In addition under Alternative 2, there would be a 3 percent increase in the total 

number of expended decelerators/parachutes over 5 years across all range complexes mentioned 

above. This level of increase is not expected to substantially increase the risk of entanglement to marine 

mammals. Potential impacts from training activities that expend decelerators/parachutes under 

Alternative 2 would be the same as what was presented in Section 3.7.3.5.2.1 (Impacts from 

Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1) for training activities. Therefore, the Navy anticipates that 

no marine mammals would become entangled in decelerators/parachutes from training activities under 

Alternative 2.

The use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the 

MMPA. 

The use of decelerators/parachutes during training activities as described under Alternative 2 would

have no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitat and may affect 

ESA-listed and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with 

NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

The locations of testing activities that expend decelerators/parachutes are the same under Alternatives 

1 and 2. However the total number of decelerators/parachutes expended during testing activities would 

increase by approximately 2 percent annually and by 6 percent over 5 years under Alternative 2. This 

level of increase is not expected to appreciably increase the risk of entanglement to marine mammals 

that occur in these areas. Potential impacts from testing activities that expend decelerators/parachutes 

presented in Section 3.7.3.5.2.1 (Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under Alternative 1) for testing 

activities would be applicable to testing activities under Alternative 2. Therefore, the Navy anticipates 

that no marine mammals would become entangled in decelerators/parachutes. 

The use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the 

MMPA. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-699

3.7 Marine Mammals

The use of decelerators/parachutes during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have 

no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitat and may affect ESAlisted and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with 

NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.7.3.5.2.3 Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under the No Action Alternative

Impacts from Decelerators/Parachutes Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the 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. 

3.7.3.5.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer

For a discussion of the types of activities that use biodegradable polymers see Appendix B (Activity 

Stressor Matrices) and for a discussion on where they are used and how many activities would occur 

under each alternative, see Section 3.0.3.3.5.3 (Biodegradable Polymer). Navy activities that involve 

vessel entanglement systems include the development of the biodegradable polymer and would be 

associated with testing activities in the 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 marine mammal would be limited. Furthermore the longer the 

biodegradable polymer remains in the water, the weaker it becomes making it more brittle and likely to 

break. A marine mammal would have to encounter the biodegradable polymer immediately after it was 

expended for it to be a potential entanglement risk. If an animal were to encounter the polymer a few 

hours after it was expended, it is very likely that it would break easily and would no longer be an 

entanglement stressor. 

3.7.3.5.3.1 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1 for Training Activities

Biodegradable polymer 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 biodegradable polymers would be conducted within the 

Virginia Capes, Jacksonville, Gulf of Mexico, and Key West Range Complexes, as well as the Naval 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-700

3.7 Marine Mammals

Undersea Warfare Division, Newport Testing Range. The number of testing activities involving 

biodegradable polymers conducted in these areas is relatively low, as shown in Table 3.0-40 (Activities 

Including Biodegradable Polymers during Testing Activities). Based on the small levels of activity, the 

concentration of these items being expended throughout these areas is likewise considered low and the 

Navy does not anticipate that any marine mammals would become entangled with biodegradable 

polymers.

Navy testing activities that expend biodegradable polymers would not be conducted in the northeast 

critical habitat area, but would be conducted in the southeast critical habitat area within the Jacksonville

Range Complex. Since North Atlantic right whales occur within the southeast critical habitat area 

primarily in winter months, any potential overlap with Navy testing activities in this area would be 

seasonal. The Navy does not anticipate that the expended biodegradable polymer would entangle a 

North Atlantic right whale. Physical and biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale 

conservation and considered in the critical habitat designation include water temperatures, depths, and 

sea surface conditions that are suitable for the southern calving habitats (National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 2015a). These habitat features would not be impacted by biodegradable polymers. 

Testing activities that expend biodegradable polymers would not occur within West Indian manatee 

critical habitat. 

The use of biodegradable polymers during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the 

MMPA. 

The use of biodegradable polymers during testing activities as described under Alternative 1 would have 

no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitat and may affect ESAlisted and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with 

NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.7.3.5.3.2 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2 for Training Activities

Biodegradable polymers would not be used during Navy training activities associated with the Proposed 

Action.

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 2 for Testing Activities

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.5.3 (Biodegradable Polymer) the locations and numbers of activities that 

include biodegradable polymers would be the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore potential 

effects associated with biodegradable polymers would also be same. Refer to Section 3.7.3.5.3.1

(Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under Alternative 1) for a discussion of potential impacts on 

marine mammals. 

The use of biodegradable polymers during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the 

MMPA. 

The use of biodegradable polymers during testing activities as described under Alternative 2 would have 

no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitat and may affect ESAlisted and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with 

NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-701

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.5.3.3 Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under the No Action Alternative 

Impacts from Biodegradable Polymer Under the No Action Alternative for Training and 

Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the AFTT Study Area. Biodegradable polymer use is not a part of ongoing Navy activities in the Study 

Area and this entanglement stressor would not be introduced into the marine environment under the 

No Action Alternative. Therefore no change in baseline conditions of the existing environment would 

occur.

3.7.3.6 Ingestion Stressors

This section analyzes the potential impacts of the various types of ingestion stressors used during 

training and testing activities within the Study Area. This analysis includes the potential impacts from the 

following types of military expended materials: non-explosive practice munitions (small- and mediumcaliber), fragments from high-explosives, fragments from targets, chaff, flare casings (including plastic 

end caps and pistons), decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable polymers. For a discussion on the 

types of activities that use these materials refer to Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices) and for a 

discussion on where they are used and how many items would be expended under each alternative, see 

Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors). General discussion of impacts can also be found in Section 

3.0.3.6.5 (Conceptual Framework for Assessing Effects from Ingestion). 

The distribution and density of expended items plays a central role in the likelihood of impact on marine 

mammals. The Navy conducts training and testing activities throughout the Study Area and those that 

result in expended materials that could be ingested are widely distributed and low in density. The 

majority of material expended during Navy training and testing activities would likely penetrate into the 

seafloor and not be accessible to most marine mammals. Since potential impacts depend on where 

these items are expended and how a marine mammal feeds, the following subsections discuss 

important information for specific groups or species.

Mysticetes 

Since baleen whales feed by filtering large amounts of water, they like encounter and consume plastic 

debris at higher rates than other marine animals (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Marine Debris Program, 2014b). Species that feed at the surface or in the water column include blue, 

fin, Bryde’s, minke, and sei whales. While humpback whales may feed by lunging through the water 

after krill and fish, there are data confirming that humpback whales display bottom-feeding behaviors in 

areas of high concentrations of preferred prey, the northern sand lance (Ammodytes dubius) (Hain et al., 

1995; Ware et al., 2013). 

Baleen whales are believed to routinely encounter microplastics within the marine environment based 

on concentrations of these items and baleen whale feeding behaviors (Andrady, 2011). Observations of 

bowhead whale mouths have provided insights into potential threats to bowhead and right whales from 

oral entanglement of marine debris, including a greater probability of lethal consequences due to 

interference of the hydrostatic oral seal (Lambertsen et al., 2005). In a comprehensive review of 

documented ingestion of debris by marine mammals by Laist (1997), there are two species of mysticetes 

(bowhead and minke whale) with records of having ingested debris items that included plastic sheeting 

and a polythene bag. This effort was followed up by a comparative summary of the earlier review with 

additional information and the number of mysticete species with documented records of ingestion 

increased to seven species, including right whales, pygmy right whales, gray whales, and four rorqual 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-702

3.7 Marine Mammals

species (Bergmann et al., 2015). Information compiled by (Williams et al., 2011) listed humpback whale, 

fin whale, minke whale as three species of mysticetes known to have ingested debris including items the 

authors characterized as fishing gear, polyethylene bag, plastic sheeting, plastic bags, rope, and general 

debris. Besseling et al. (2015) documented the first occurrence of microplastics in the intestines of a 

humpback whale. 

Feeding behaviors of mysticete species suggest that potential encounters with ingestion stressors would 

only occur when the items are on the water surface at the same time and locations where animals are 

skim feeding or while engulfing prey in the water column as items sink to the bottom. Bottom-feeding 

humpback whales may also encounter ingestion stressors that have already sunk. 

Odontocetes 

Beaked whales use suction feeding to ingest benthic prey and may incidentally ingest other items 

(MacLeod et al., 2003). Both sperm whales and beaked whales are known to incidentally ingest foreign 

objects while foraging; however, this does not always result in negative consequences to health or 

vitality (Laist, 1997; Walker & Coe, 1990). While this incidental ingestion has led to sperm whale 

mortality in some cases, (Whitehead, 2003) suggested the scale to which this affects sperm whale 

populations was not substantial. Sperm whales are recorded as having ingested fishing net scraps, rope, 

wood, and plastic debris such as plastic bags and items from the seafloor (Jacobsen et al., 2010; Walker 

& Coe, 1990; Whitehead, 2003). 

Weaned juveniles who are investigating multiple types of prey items, may be particularly vulnerable to 

ingesting non-food items, as found in a study of juvenile harbor porpoises (Baird & Hooker, 2000). A 

male pygmy sperm whale reportedly died from blockage of two stomach compartments by hard plastic, 

and a Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) washed ashore in Brazil with a ball of plastic 

thread in its stomach (Derraik, 2002). In a comprehensive review of documented ingestion of debris by 

marine mammals, odontocetes had the most ingestion records, with 21 species represented (Laist,

1997). A follow-up to this review revealed an increase in odontocete ingestion of marine debris. 

Bergmann et al. (2015) reported 40 odontocete species have documented records of ingestion. 

Pinnipeds 

Pinnipeds are opportunistic foragers, primarily feeding within the water column, but may also forage on 

the seafloor. Most of the seal species within the AFTT Study Area feed both within the water column 

and on the seafloor, and walruses feed primarily on benthic invertebrates (Bluhm & Grandinger, 2008). 

In a review of documented ingestion of debris by marine animals, 36 percent of seal species were found 

to have ingested plastics (Kuhn et al., 2015). Laist (1997) reported ingestion of Styrofoam cups by 

northern elephant seals and Steller sea lions, and Bravo Rebolledo et al. (2013) reported plastics in the 

diet of harbor seals. There is a possibility of prey species transferring ingested debris to predators that 

consume then, as demonstrated by Eriksson and Burton (2003) for fur seals. This suggests that the risk 

of marine mammals ingesting debris may also depend on the likelihood that prey items would ingest 

debris. Even though some pinniped species feed on the bottom, such as harbor seals, it is unlikely that 

pinnipeds would encounter and incidentally or mistakenly consume military expended items associated 

with proposed Navy training and testing activities. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-703

3.7 Marine Mammals

Polar Bears 

Polar bears feed primarily on other marine mammals (especially ringed seals, bearded seals, and harp 

seals) while on land and ice or out at sea (Bluhm & Grandinger, 2008). Plastics have also been found 

when assessing food items identified in scat samples (Iversen et al., 2013). 

West Indian Manatees 

Manatees feed on seagrass beds in relatively shallow coastal or estuarine waters. In a comprehensive 

review of documented ingestion of debris by marine mammals, the West Indian manatee had ingestion 

records that included monofilament line, plastic bags, string, twine, rope, fish hooks, wire, paper, 

cellophane, and rubber bands (Laist, 1997). Some researchers suggest that manatees incidentally ingest 

fishing gear and plastic while foraging on plants in shallow habitats where debris can accumulate and 

become entwined in the food resources (Adimey et al., 2014; Beck & Barros, 1991). Ingestion of fishing 

gear can cause impaction, abdominal infections, inversions of the intestine (Beck & Barros, 1991) and 

other indirect effects. 

3.7.3.6.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials-Munitions 

Different types of explosive and non-explosive practice munitions are expended offshore and within 

inland waters during training and testing activities. This section analyzes the potential for marine 

mammals to ingest non-explosive practice munitions (to include munitions casings) and fragments from 

high-explosive munitions. 

Types of non-explosive practice munitions generally include projectiles, missiles, and bombs. Of these, 

only small- or medium-caliber projectiles would be small enough for a marine mammal to ingest. Smalland medium-caliber projectiles include all sizes up to and including 2.25 in. in diameter. These solid 

metal materials would quickly move through the water column and settle to the seafloor. Ingestion of 

non-explosive practice munitions is not expected to occur in the water column because the munitions 

sink quickly. Instead, they are most likely to be encountered by species that forage on the bottom. 

Types of high-explosive munitions that can result in fragments include demolition charges, projectiles, 

missiles, and bombs. Fragments would result from fractures in the munitions casing and would vary in 

size depending on the size of the net explosive weight and munitions type; however, typical sizes of 

fragments are unknown. These solid metal materials would quickly move through the water column and 

settle to the seafloor; therefore, ingestion is not expected by most species. Fragments are primarily

encountered by species that forage on the bottom. Other military expended materials such as targets, 

large-caliber projectiles, intact training and testing bombs, guidance wires, 55-gallon drums, sonobuoy 

tubes, and marine markers are too large for marine mammals to consume. 

Based on the information summarized above in Section 3.7.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), mysticetes found 

within the Study Area, with the exception of bottom-feeding humpback whales, are not expected to 

encounter non-explosive practice munitions on the seafloor. Ingestion of non-explosive practice 

munitions by odontocetes is likely to be incidental, with items being potentially consumed along with 

bottom-dwelling prey. Although incidental ingestion of non-explosive practice munitions by pinnipeds is 

not supported by autopsy evidence from stranded animals, it is possible because they feed on the 

seafloor. Polar bears feed primarily on other marine mammals and are not likely to encounter nonexplosive practice munitions on the seafloor. Although manatees feed on the bottom, they only occur in 

limited areas where training activities would expend these items. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-704

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.6.1.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials - Munitions Under Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials – Munitions Under Alternative 1 for Training 

Activities

Non-Explosive Practice Munitions and Fragments from High-Explosive Munitions

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), offshore training activities that expend nonexplosive practice munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments would occur within the Northeast, 

Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, as well 

as other AFTT areas outside of the range complexes. In addition, training activities that expend nonexplosive practice munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments would occur within inland waters 

including and surrounding Narragansett, Rhode Island; James River and tributaries; the Lower 

Chesapeake Bay; Cooper River, South Carolina; and Port Canaveral, Florida. Species occurring outside of 

these areas, including the bowhead whale, narwhal, beluga whale, ringed seal, bearded seal, walrus, and 

polar bear would not be exposed to potential ingestion stressors associated with Navy training activities.

The amount of non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments that an 

individual animal would encounter is generally low based on the patchy distribution of both the 

projectiles and an animal’s feeding habits. An animal would not necessarily ingest every projectile it 

encountered and if an animal attempts to ingest a projectile, it may reject it when it realizes it is not a 

food item. Nonetheless, research suggests that ingestion of certain non-food items would not result in 

injury or mortality to an individual, if the items do not become embedded in tissue (Wells et al., 2008a). 

Therefore, potential ingestion impacts from non-explosive practice munitions and fragments from high 

explosives would only occur in the unlikely event in which a marine mammal encounters an item, ingests 

it, and that item subsequently becomes embedded in tissue or is too large to pass through the digestive 

system. The Navy considers the likelihood of this occurring to be very low.

Marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, reproductive, and feeding behaviors within the 

range complexes listed above need to be evaluated based on their feeding habits and potential to 

encounter non-explosive practice munitions and fragments from high-explosive munitions. Aside from 

humpback whales, most mysticete species that occur where these training activities take place are not 

expected to encounter military expended materials because they feed near the surface or within the 

water column. Odontocetes, pinnipeds, and manatees that occur in these areas and forage on the 

bottom may encounter military expended materials, but as previously stated, the possibility is 

considered low. Therefore, the Navy does not anticipate that any marine mammals would experience 

adverse ingestion impacts from non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munition 

fragments associated with training activities under Alternative 1.

Navy training activities that expend non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munitions 

fragments would occur within the North Atlantic right whale’s designated critical habitat year-round. 

Since North Atlantic right whales occur within the southeast critical habitat area primarily in winter 

months and occur within the northeast critical habitat area during summer months, any potential 

overlap with Navy training activities in these areas would be seasonal. Similar to other mysticete 

species, feeding behaviors of North Atlantic right whales would only contribute to the risk of ingestion 

when they encounter items on the surface during skim feeding or in the water column while engulfing 

prey, which is not considered likely. Physical and biological features identified for North Atlantic right 

whale conservation and considered in the critical habitat designation include oceanic conditions that 

distribute and aggregate dense concentrations of copepods within the northern foraging habitats and 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-705

3.7 Marine Mammals

water temperatures, depths, and sea surface conditions that are suitable for the southern calving 

habitats (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). These habitat features would not be impacted by 

expended non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments. 

Training activities that expended non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munitions would 

occur within West Indian manatee designated critical habitat, specifically within inland waters near Port

Canaveral, Florida. Generally, manatees occur in limited areas where training activities would expend 

these items and the number of items expended within inland waters where manatees feed is low 

compared to the total number of items expended throughout the AFTT Study Area. Therefore, the Navy 

does not anticipate that manatees would ingest non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive 

munition fragments. The current critical habitat designation for the West Indian manatee does not 

identify specific physical and biological features essential for species conservation, but essential habitat 

features have been reported to include warm water refuges, various food sources (seagrasses and 

freshwater vegetation), travel corridors, and shelter for calving (75 Federal Register 1574–1581, January 

12, 2010). These habitat features would not be impacted by military expended materials other than 

munitions. 

Training activities involving military expended materials as described under Alternative 1 would not 

result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined by the 

MMPA. 

Training activities involving military expended materials as described under Alternative 1 would have no 

effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitat and may affect ESA-listed 

and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and 

USFWS 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

Non-explosive Practice Munitions and Fragments from High-Explosive Munitions

As discussed in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), testing activities involving non-explosive practice 

munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments would be expended within the Northeast, Virginia 

Capes, Navy Cherry Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes, as well as the 

Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Testing Range, the South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, 

and the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Testing Range. Species occurring outside of these 

areas, including the bowhead whale, narwhal, beluga whale, ringed seal, bearded seal, walrus, and polar 

bear would not be exposed to potential ingestion stressors associated with Navy testing activities.

The amount of non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments that an 

individual animal would encounter is generally low based on the patchy distribution of both the 

projectiles and an animal’s feeding habitat. An animal would not necessarily ingest every projectile it 

encountered. Furthermore, if an animal attempts to ingest a projectile it may reject it when it realizes it 

is not a food item. Nonetheless, research suggests that ingestion of certain non-food items would not 

result in injury or mortality to the individual, if the items do not become embedded in tissue (Wells et 

al., 2008a). Therefore, potential ingestion impacts from non-explosive practice munitions and fragments 

from high-explosive munitions would only occur in the unlikely event in which a marine mammal 

encounters an item, ingests it, and that item subsequently becomes embedded in tissue or is too large 

to be passed through the digestive system. The Navy considers the likelihood of this occurring to be very 

low. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-706

3.7 Marine Mammals

Marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, reproductive, and feeding behaviors within the 

range complexes listed above need to be evaluated based on their feeding habits and potential to 

encounter non-explosive practice munitions and fragments from high-explosive munitions. Aside from 

humpback whales, most mysticete species that occur where these training activities take place are not 

expected to encounter military expended materials–munitions because they feed near the surface or 

within the water column. Odontocete and pinniped species that occur in these areas and forage on the 

bottom may encounter military expended materials–munitions, but as previously stated, the possibility 

is considered low. Therefore, the Navy does not anticipate that any marine mammals would experience 

adverse ingestion impacts from non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munition 

fragments associated with testing activities under Alternative 1.

Navy testing activities that expend non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munition 

fragments would occur within the North Atlantic right whale’s designated critical habitat year-round. 

Since North Atlantic right whales occur within the southeast critical habitat area primarily in winter 

months and occur within the northeast critical habitat area during summer months, any potential 

overlap with Navy testing activities in these areas would be seasonal. Similar to other mysticete species, 

feeding behaviors of North Atlantic right whales would only contribute to the risk of ingestion when 

they encounter items on the surface during skim feeding or in the water column while engulfing prey, 

which is not considered likely. Physical and biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale 

conservation and considered in the critical habitat designation include oceanic conditions that distribute 

and aggregate dense concentrations of copepods within the northern foraging habitats and water 

temperatures, depths, and sea surface conditions that are suitable for the southern calving habitats 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). These habitat features would not be impacted by expended 

non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munitions fragments. 

The potential for manatees to ingest non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munition 

fragments would be very low based on the limited overlap between West Indian manatee occurrence 

and the Study Area. The Navy does not anticipate that a West Indian manatee would ingest nonexplosive practice munitions and high-explosive munition fragments. In addition, testing activities that 

expended non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive munition fragments would not be 

conducted within West Indian manatee critical habitat. 

Testing activities involving military expended materials–munitions as described under Alternative 1 

would not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined 

by the MMPA. 

Testing activities involving military expended materials–munitions as described under Alternative 1 

would have no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitat and may 

affect ESA-listed and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult 

with NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.7.3.6.1.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials-Munitions Under Alternative 2 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials-Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Training 

Activities

Non-explosive Practice Munitions and Fragments from High-explosive Munitions

The locations of training activities that expend non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive 

munition fragments are the same under Alternatives 1 and 2. In addition, the number of non-explosive 

practice munitions expended annually and over 5 years would be identical under Alternatives 1 and 2. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-707

3.7 Marine Mammals

While the annual number of explosives that may result in fragments would not change under Alternative 

2, there would be a very slight increase (approximately 0.001 percent) over 5 years. This fractional 

increase does not substantially increase the risk of ingestion impacts on marine mammals. Therefore, 

the analysis presented in Section 3.7.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials-Munitions 

Under Alternative 1) for training activities would also apply to training activities proposed for Alternative 

2. 

Training activities involving military expended materials–munitions as described under Alternative 2 

would not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined 

by the MMPA. 

Training activities involving military expended materials–munitions as described under Alternative 2 

would have no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitat and may 

affect ESA-listed and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult 

with NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials-Munitions Under Alternative 2 for Testing 

Activities

Non-explosive Practice Munitions and Fragments from High-explosive Munitions

The locations of testing activities that expend non-explosive practice munitions and high-explosive 

munition fragments would be identical under Alternatives 1 and 2. However, the numbers of nonexplosive practice munitions during testing activities would increase by 0.003 percent annually and 

1 percent over 5 years. In addition, the numbers of high-explosives resulting in fragments expended 

during testing activities would increase under Alternative 2 by 0.1 percent annually and by 7 percent 

over 5 years. This increased use of munition-related military expended materials would be fractional and 

would not appreciably increase the potential for adverse ingestion impacts on marine mammals. 

Therefore, the analysis presented in Section 3.7.3.6.1.1 (Impacts from Military Expended MaterialsMunitions Under Alternative 1) for testing activities would also apply to testing activities proposed for 

Alternative 2.

Testing activities involving military expended materials–munitions as described under Alternative 2 

would not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, as defined 

by the MMPA. 

Testing activities involving military expended materials–munitions as described under Alternative 2 

would have no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical habitat and may 

affect ESA-listed and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult 

with NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.7.3.6.1.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials-Munitions Under the No Action 

Alternative 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials-Munitions Under the No Action Alternative for 

Training and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or 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. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-708

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.6.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions 

Several different types of materials other than munitions are expended during training and testing 

activities in the AFTT Study Area. The following military expended materials other than munitions have 

the potential to be ingested by marine mammals:

• target-related materials

• chaff (including fibers, end caps, pistons, and cartridges)

• flares (including end caps, pistons, and O-rings)

• decelerators/parachutes (cloth, nylon, and metal weights)

• biodegradable polymer

Target-Related Materials 

At-sea targets are usually remotely operated airborne, surface, or subsurface traveling units, most of 

which are designed to be recovered for reuse. If they are severely damaged or displaced, targets may 

sink before they can be retrieved. Expendable targets include air-launched decoys, marine markers 

(smoke floats), cardboard boxes, and 10-ft. diameter red balloons tethered by a sea anchor. Most target 

fragments would sink quickly in the sea. Floating material, such as Styrofoam, may be lost from target 

boats and remain at the surface for some time, however during target recovery, personnel would collect 

as much floating debris and Styrofoam as possible. 

Chaff 

Chaff is an electronic countermeasure designed to reflect radar waves and obscure aircraft, vessels, and 

other equipment from radar tracking sources. Chaff is composed of an aluminum-coated glass fibers of 

silicon dioxide (U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997). It is released or dispensed in cartridges or 

projectiles that contain millions of chaff fibers. When deployed, a diffuse cloud of fibers undetectable to 

the human eye is formed. Chaff is a very light material that can remain suspended in air anywhere from 

10 minutes to 10 hours and can travel considerable distances from its release point, depending on 

prevailing atmospheric conditions (Arfsten et al., 2002; U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997). Doppler 

radar has tracked chaff plumes containing approximately 900 grams (g) of chaff drifting 200 mi. from the 

point of release, with the plume covering greater than 400 cubic miles (1,667 cubic kilometers [km3

]) 

(Arfsten et al., 2002). 

The chaff concentrations that marine mammals could be exposed to following release of multiple 

cartridges (e.g., following a single day of training) are difficult to accurately estimate because it depends 

on several unknown factors. First, specific release points are not recorded and tend to be random, and 

chaff dispersion in air depends on prevailing atmospheric conditions. After falling from the air, chaff 

fibers would be expected to float on the sea surface for some period, depending on wave and wind 

action. The fibers would be dispersed further by sea currents as they float and slowly sink toward the 

bottom. Chaff concentrations in benthic habitats following release of a single cartridge would be lower 

than the values noted in this section, based on dispersion by currents and the enormous dilution 

capacity of the receiving waters.

Several literature reviews and controlled experiments have indicated that chaff poses little risk, except 

at concentrations substantially higher than those that could reasonably occur from military training 

(Arfsten et al., 2002; Hullar et al., 1999; U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997). Nonetheless, some 

marine mammal species within the Study Area could be exposed to chaff through direct body contact 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-709

3.7 Marine Mammals

and ingestion. Chemical alteration of water and sediment from decomposing chaff fibers is not expected 

to result in exposure. Based on the dispersion characteristics of chaff, it is likely that marine mammals 

would occasionally come in direct contact with chaff fibers while at the water’s surface and while 

submerged, but such contact would be inconsequential. Chaff is similar to fine human hair (U.S. 

Department of the Air Force, 1997). Because of the flexibility and softness of chaff, external contact 

would not be expected to impact most wildlife (U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997) and the fibers 

would quickly wash off shortly after contact. Given the properties of chaff, skin irritation is not expected 

to be a problem (U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1997). Arfsten et al. (2002), Hullar et al. (1999), and 

U.S. Air Force (1997) reviewed the potential effects of chaff inhalation on humans, livestock, and other 

animals and concluded that the fibers are too large to be inhaled into the lungs. The fibers are predicted 

to be deposited in the nose, mouth, or trachea and are either swallowed or expelled; however, these 

reviews did not specifically consider marine mammals. 

Based on the small size of chaff fibers, it appears unlikely that marine mammals would confuse the 

fibers with prey or feed on chaff fibers. However, marine mammals could occasionally ingest low 

concentrations of chaff incidentally from the surface, water column, or seafloor. While no studies were 

conducted to evaluate the effects of chaff ingestion on marine mammals, the effects are expected to be 

negligible, based on the low concentrations that could reasonably be ingested, the small size of chaff 

fibers, and available data on the toxicity of chaff and aluminum. In laboratory studies conducted by the 

University of Delaware (Hullar et al., 1999), blue crabs and killifish were fed a food-chaff mixture daily 

for several weeks, and no significant mortality was observed at the highest exposure treatment. Similar 

results were found when chaff was added directly to exposure chambers containing filter-feeding 

menhaden. Histological examination indicated no damage from chaff exposures. A study on cow calves 

that were fed chaff found no evidence of digestive disturbance or other clinical symptoms (U.S. 

Department of the Air Force, 1997). Based on the dispersion characteristics of chaff, it is possible that 

marine mammals would occasionally come in direct contact with chaff fibers while either at the water’s 

surface or while submerged, but such contact would be inconsequential. 

Chaff cartridges, chaff canisters, and chaff components, including end caps and pistons, would also be 

released into the marine environment, where they would persist for long periods and could be ingested 

by marine mammals while initially floating on the surface and sinking through the water column. Chaff 

end caps and pistons would eventually sink in saltwater to the seafloor (Spargo, 2007), which reduces 

the likelihood of ingestion by marine mammals at the surface or in the water column. 

Flares 

Flares are designed to burn completely. The only material that would enter the water would be a small, 

round, plastic compression pad or piston (0.45 to 4.1 g depending on flare type). The flare pads and 

pistons float in sea water.

An extensive literature review and controlled experiments conducted by the U.S. Air Force 

demonstrated that self-protection flare use poses little risk to the environment or animals (U.S. 

Department of the Air Force, 1997). Nonetheless, marine mammals within the vicinity of flares could be 

exposed to light generated by the flares. Pistons and end caps from flares would have the same impact 

on marine mammals as discussed under chaff cartridges. It is unlikely that marine mammals would be 

exposed to any chemicals that produce either flames or smoke since these components are consumed in 

their entirety during the burning process. Animals are unlikely to approach or get close enough to the 

flame to be exposed to any chemical components. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-710

3.7 Marine Mammals

Decelerators/Parachutes 

Aircraft-launched sonobuoys, lightweight torpedoes (such as the MK 46 and MK 54), and illumination 

flares use nylon decelerators/parachutes ranging in size from 18 to 48 in. in diameter. The majority of 

expended decelerators/parachutes are cruciform parachutes associated with sonobuoys, which are 

relatively small, and have short attachment lines. Parachutes are made up of cloth and nylon, with 

weights attached to the lines for rapid sinking upon impact with the water. At water impact, the 

decelerators/parachute assembly is expended, and it sinks away from the unit. The 

decelerator/parachute assembly may remain at the surface for a short time before it and its housing 

sink to the seafloor, where it becomes flattened (Environmental Sciences Group, 2005). The majority of 

decelerators/parachutes expended during deployment of a sonobuoy, are weighted and by design that 

decelerator/parachute must sink below the surface within 5 minutes of contact with the water. 

Ingestion of a decelerator/parachute by a marine mammal at the surface or within the water column 

would be unlikely, since the decelerator/parachute would not be available for very long before it sinks. 

Once on the seafloor, if bottom currents are present, the canopy may temporarily billow and be 

available for potential ingestion by marine animals with bottom-feeding habits. 

Based on the information summarized above within the introduction to Section 3.7.3.6 (Ingestion 

Stressors), mysticetes found within the AFTT Study Area, with the exception of bottom-feeding 

humpback whales, are not expected to encounter decelerators/parachutes on the seafloor because they 

do not feed there. In general, the majority of the decelerators/parachutes (from sonobuoys) would be 

expended in deep ocean areas where humpback whales do not feed on the bottom. Ingestion of 

decelerators/parachutes by odontocetes and pinnipeds is unlikely but is possible if individuals are 

feeding on the bottom. 

Biodegradable Polymer

As stated in Section 3.0.3.3.5.3 (Biodegradable Polymer) based on the constituents of the biodegradable 

polymer, it is anticipated that the material will break down into small pieces within a few days to weeks. 

The small pieces will breakdown further and dissolve into the water column within weeks to a few 

months and could potentially be incidentally ingested by marine mammals. Because the final products 

of the breakdown are all environmentally benign, the Navy does not expect the use biodegradable 

polymer to have any negative impacts for marine mammals.

3.7.3.6.2.1 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under 

Alternative 1

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1 for 

Training Activities

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), military expended materials other than munitions 

would be expended during offshore training activities within the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry 

Point, Jacksonville, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes as well as other areas outside the 

range complexes. In addition, training activities that expend target related materials would occur within 

inland waters including and surrounding Boston, Massachusetts; Earle, New Jersey; Delaware Bay, 

Delaware; Hampton Roads, Virginia; Morehead City, North Carolina; Wilmington, North Carolina; 

Savannah, Georgia; Kings Bay, Georgia; Mayport, Florida; Port Canaveral, Florida; Tampa, Florida; 

Beaumont, Texas; and Corpus Christi, Texas. Species that do not occur in these areas, including the 

bowhead whale, narwhal, beluga whale, ringed seal, bearded seal, harp seal, walrus, and polar bear, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-711

3.7 Marine Mammals

would not encounter military expended materials other than munitions and are not further analyzed in 

this section. 

Target-related material, chaff, flares, decelerators/parachutes, and their subcomponents have the 

potential to be ingested by a marine mammal, although that is considered unlikely since most of these 

materials would quickly drop through the water column and settle on the seafloor. Some Styrofoam, 

plastic endcaps, chaff, and other small items may float for some time before sinking. 

While the smaller items discussed here may pose a hazard to marine mammals, as discussed for nonexplosive practice munitions ingestion, the impacts of ingesting these forms of expended materials on 

marine mammals would be minor because of the following factors:

• the limited geographic area where materials other than munitions are expended during a given 

event 

• the limited period of time these military expended materials would remain in the water column 

• the unlikely chance that a marine mammal might encounter and swallow these items on the 

seafloor, particularly given that many of these items would be expended over deep, offshore 

waters

The impacts of ingesting military expended materials other than munitions would be limited to cases 

where an individual marine mammal might eat an indigestible item too large to be passed through the 

gut. The marine mammals would not be preferentially attracted to these military expended materials, 

with the possible exception of decelerators/parachutes that may appear similar to the prey of some 

species such as sperm whales and beaked whales. For the most part, these military expended materials 

would most likely only be incidentally ingested by individuals feeding on the bottom in the precise 

location where these items were deposited. Non-munition military expended materials that would 

remain floating on the surface are too small to pose a risk of intestinal blockage to any marine mammal 

that happened to encounter it. 

Marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, reproductive, and feeding behaviors within the 

range complexes listed above need to be evaluated based on their feeding habits and potential to 

encounter projectiles. Aside from humpback whales, most mysticete species that occur where these 

training activities are conducted are not expected to encounter non-munition military items because 

they feed near the surface or within the water column. Odontocete and pinniped species that occur in 

these areas and forage on the bottom may encounter non-munition military expended materials, but as 

previously stated, the possibility is considered low. Therefore, the Navy does not anticipate that any 

marine mammals would experience adverse ingestion impacts from target-related material, chaff, flares, 

and decelerators/parachutes associated with training activities under Alternative 1.

Navy training activities that expend non-munition military expended materials would occur within the 

North Atlantic right whale’s designated critical habitat year-round. Since North Atlantic right whales 

occur within the southeast critical habitat area primarily in winter months and occur within the 

northeast critical habitat area during summer months, any potential overlap with Navy training activities 

in these areas would also be seasonal. The Navy does not anticipate that North Atlantic right whales 

would ingest non-munition military expended materials. Physical and biological features identified for 

North Atlantic right whale conservation and considered in the critical habitat designation include 

oceanic conditions that distribute and aggregate dense concentrations of copepods within the northern 

foraging habitats and water temperatures, depths, and sea surface conditions that are suitable for the 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-712

3.7 Marine Mammals

southern calving habitats (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). These habitat features would not 

be impacted by military expended materials other than munitions.

Manatees occur in limited areas where training activities would expend non-munition military items and 

the number of items expended within inland waters where manatees feed is low compared to the total 

number of items expended throughout the AFTT Study Area. Therefore, the Navy does not anticipate 

that manatees would ingest non-munition military expended materials. Training activities that expend 

non-munition military expended materials would occur within West Indian manatee designated critical 

habitat, specifically within inland waters near Port Canaveral, Florida and to a limited extent, Mayport, 

Florida. The current critical habitat designation for the West Indian manatee does not identify specific 

physical and biological features essential for species conservation, but essential habitat features have 

been reported to include warm water refuges, various food sources (seagrasses and freshwater 

vegetation), travel corridors, and shelter for calving (75 Federal Register 1574–1581, January 12, 2010). 

These habitat features would not be impacted by military expended materials other than munitions. 

Training activities involving military expended materials other than munitions as described under 

Alternative 1 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, 

as defined by the MMPA. 

Training activities involving military expended materials other than munitions as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical 

habitats and may affect ESA-listed and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The 

Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS 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 presented in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors) military expended materials other than munitions 

would be expended during testing activities within the Northeast, Virginia Capes, Navy Cherry Point, 

Jacksonville, Gulf of Mexico, and Key West Range Complexes, as well as the Naval Undersea Warfare 

Center, Division Newport Testing Rage; South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility Testing Range; and 

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City Division Testing Ranges. Species that do not occur in these 

areas, including the bowhead whale, narwhal, beluga whale, ringed seal, bearded seal, harp seal, walrus, 

and polar bear, would not encounter military expended materials other than munitions and are not 

further analyzed in this section.

Target-related material, chaff, flares, decelerators/parachutes, biodegradable polymers, and their 

subcomponents have the potential to be ingested by a marine mammal, although most of these 

materials would quickly drop through the water column and settle on the seafloor. Some Styrofoam, 

plastic endcaps, and other small items may float for some time before sinking. In addition, 

biodegradable polymer fragments would only be temporarily available within the water column as they 

tend to disintegrate fairly quickly. 

While the smaller items discussed here may pose a hazard to marine mammals, as discussed for nonexplosive practice munitions ingestion, the impacts of ingesting these forms of expended materials on 

marine mammals would be minor because of the following factors:

• the limited geographic area where materials other than munitions are expended during a given 

event 

• the limited period of time these military expended materials would remain in the water column 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-713

3.7 Marine Mammals

• the unlikely chance that a marine mammal might encounter and swallow these items on the 

seafloor, particularly given that many of these items would be expended over deep, offshore 

waters

The impacts of ingesting military expended materials other than munitions would be limited to cases 

where an individual marine mammal might eat an indigestible item too large to be passed through the 

gut. The marine mammals would not be preferentially attracted to these military expended materials, 

with the possible exception of decelerators/parachutes that may appear similar to the prey of some 

species such as sperm whales and beaked whales. For the most part, these military expended materials 

would most likely only be incidentally ingested by individuals feeding on the bottom in the precise 

location where these items were deposited. Military expended materials other than munitions that 

would remain floating on the surface are too small to pose a risk of intestinal blockage to any marine 

mammal that happened to encounter it. 

Marine mammals resident to, or engaging in migratory, reproductive, and feeding behaviors within the 

range complexes and testing ranges listed above need to be evaluated based on their feeding habits and 

potential to encounter military expended materials other than munitions. Aside from humpback whales, 

most mysticete species that occur where testing activities take place are not expected to encounter 

non-munition military items because they feed near the surface or within the water column. 

Odontocete and pinniped species that occur in these areas and forage on the bottom may encounter 

non-munition military expended materials, but as previously stated, the possibility is considered low. 

Therefore, the Navy does not anticipate that any marine mammals would experience adverse ingestion 

impacts from target-related material, chaff, flares, decelerators/parachutes, and biodegradable 

polymers associated with testing activities under Alternative 1.

Navy testing activities that expend non-munition military expended materials would occur within the 

North Atlantic right whale’s designated critical habitat year-round. Since North Atlantic right whales 

occur within the southeast critical habitat area primarily in winter months and occur within the 

northeast critical habitat area during summer months, any potential overlap with Navy testing activities 

in these areas would also be seasonal. As previously described, the Navy does not anticipate that North 

Atlantic right whales would ingest non-munition military expended materials. Physical and biological 

features identified for North Atlantic right whale conservation and considered in the critical habitat 

designation include oceanic conditions that distribute and aggregate dense concentrations of copepods 

within the northern foraging habitats and water temperatures, depths, and sea surface conditions that 

are suitable for the southern calving habitats (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). These habitat 

features would not be impacted by military expended materials other than munitions.

Manatees occur in limited portions of the Study Area, generally outside areas where testing activities 

would expend non-munition military items, therefore, the Navy does not anticipate that a West Indian 

manatee would ingest non-munition military expended materials associated with testing activities under 

Alternative 1. In addition, testing activities that expend non-munition military expended materials would 

not be conducted within West Indian manatee critical habitat.

Testing activities involving military expended materials other than munitions as described under 

Alternative 1 would not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those 

activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

Testing activities involving military expended materials other than munitions as described under 

Alternative 1 would have no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-714

3.7 Marine Mammals

habitats and may affect ESA-listed and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals and, as defined by the ESA. 

The Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

3.7.3.6.2.2 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under 

Alternative 2 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2 for 

Training Activities

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors), the locations where military expended materials 

other than munitions would be used and expended during training activities are identical under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. However, the total number of military expended materials other than munitions 

released throughout these locations would increase by 0.2 percent annually and by 0.2 percent over 

5 years. The fractional increase in amount of military expended materials other than munitions would 

not substantially increase the potential for marine mammals to ingest these items. Therefore, the 

analysis presented in Section 3.7.3.6.2.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than 

Munitions Under Alternative 1) for training activities would also apply to training activities proposed 

under Alternative 2. 

Training activities involving military expended materials other than munitions as described under 

Alternative 2 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those activities, 

as defined by the MMPA. 

Training activities involving military expended materials other than munitions as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical 

habitats and may affect ESA-listed and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The 

Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard.

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 2 for 

Testing Activities

As presented in Section 3.0.3.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors) the locations where military expended materials 

other than munitions would be used and expended during testing activities are identical under 

Alternatives 1 and 2. However the number of military expended materials other than munitions 

throughout these locations would increase by approximately 0.4 percent annually and by 1 percent over 

5 years. The fractional increase in the amount of military expended materials other than munitions used 

or released would not appreciably increase the potential for marine mammals to ingest these items. 

Therefore, the analysis presented in Section 3.7.3.6.2.1 (Impacts from Military Expended Materials 

Other Than Munitions Under Alternative 1) for testing activities would also apply to testing activities 

proposed under Alternative 2. 

Testing activities involving military expended materials other than munitions as described under 

Alternative 2 would not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those 

activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

Testing activities involving military expended materials other than munitions as described under 

Alternative 2 would have no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical 

habitats and may affect ESA-listed and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The 

Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-715

3.7 Marine Mammals

3.7.3.6.2.3 Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under the No 

Action Alternative 

Impacts from Military Expended Materials Other Than Munitions Under the No Action 

Alternative for Training and Testing Activities

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training or testing activities 

in the 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. 

3.7.3.7 Secondary Stressors

This section analyzes potential impacts on marine mammals exposed to stressors indirectly through 

impacts on their habitat (sediment or water quality) or prey. For the purposes of this analysis, indirect 

impacts on marine mammals via sediment or water quality that do not require trophic transfer (e.g., 

bioaccumulation) in order to be observed are considered here. Bioaccumulation considered previously 

in this document in the analysis of fish (Section 3.6), invertebrates (Section 3.4), and marine habitats 

(Section 3.5) indicated minimal to no impacts on potential prey species of marine mammals. It is 

important to note that the terms “indirect” and “secondary” do not imply reduced severity of 

environmental consequences but instead describe how the impact may occur in an organism. 

Bioaccumulation is considered in the Ecosystem Technical Report for the Atlantic Fleet Training and 

Testing (AFTT) Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2012). Additionally, 

the transportation of marine mammals (the Navy’s marine mammal system) in association with force 

protection and mine warfare exercises is presented to detail the lack of potential for the introduction of 

disease or parasites from those marine mammals to the Study Area. The potential for impacts from all of 

these secondary stressors are discussed below.

Stressors from Navy training and testing activities that could pose indirect impacts on marine mammals 

via habitat or prey include: (1) explosives, (2) explosive byproducts and unexploded munitions, 

(3) metals, (4) chemicals, and (5) transmission of disease and parasites. Analyses of the potential 

impacts on sediment and water quality are discussed in Section 3.2 (Sediments and Water Quality). 

Explosives 

As it pertains to marine mammals, underwater explosions could impact other species in the food web, 

including prey species that marine mammals feed upon. The impacts of explosions would differ 

depending on the type of prey species in the area of the blast. As described in Chapter 2 (Description of 

Proposed Action and Alternatives), Table 2.6-2 through Table 2.6-5, training and testing activities 

resulting in underwater explosions will occur in the Study Area. 

In addition to physical effects of an underwater blast, prey might have behavioral reactions to 

underwater sound. For instance, prey species might exhibit a strong startle reaction to explosions that 

might include swimming to the surface or scattering away from the source. This startle and flight 

response is the most common secondary defense among animals (Hanlon & Messenger, 1996; Mather, 

2004). The abundances of prey species near the detonation point could be diminished for a short period 

of time before being repopulated by animals from adjacent waters. Alternatively, any prey species that 

would be directly injured or killed by the blast could draw in scavengers from the surrounding waters 

that would feed on those organisms, and in turn could be susceptible to becoming directly injured or 

killed by subsequent explosions. Any of these scenarios would be temporary, only occurring during 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-716

3.7 Marine Mammals

activities involving explosives, and no lasting effect on prey availability or the pelagic food web would be 

expected.

The Navy will implement mitigation (e.g., not conducting gunnery activities within a specified distance of 

shallow-water coral reefs) to avoid potential impacts from explosives and physical disturbance and strike 

stressors on seafloor resources in mitigation areas throughout the Study Area (see Section 5.4.1, 

Mitigation Areas for Seafloor Resources). This mitigation will consequently help avoid potential impacts 

from explosives on marine mammal prey species that inhabit shallow-water coral reefs, live hard 

bottom, artificial reefs, and shipwrecks.

Explosion Byproducts and Unexploded Munitions 

High-order explosions consume most of the explosive material, creating typical combustion byproducts. 

In the case of Royal Demolition Explosive, also known as cyclonite and hexogen, 98 percent of the 

products are common seawater constituents, and the remainder is rapidly diluted below threshold 

effect level (see Section 3.2, Sediments and Water Quality, Table 3.2-6) Explosion byproducts associated 

with high order detonations present no indirect stressors to marine mammals through sediment or 

water. However, low order detonations and unexploded munitions present elevated likelihood of 

impacts on marine mammals. Furthermore, most explosions occur in depths exceeding that which 

normally support seagrass beds, an area that is commonly occupied by manatees. However, low-order 

detonations and unexploded munitions present elevated likelihood of secondary impacts on marine 

mammals. 

Deposition of undetonated explosive materials into the marine environment can be reasonably well 

estimated by the known failure and low-order detonation rates of high-explosives (Section 3.2, 

Sediments and Water Quality, Table 3.2-10). While it is remotely possible for marine mammals to come 

into contact with the an undetonated explosive, to have contact with unexploded materials in the 

sediment or water, and or to ingest unexploded materials in sediments, it is very unlikely.

Indirect impacts of explosives and unexploded munitions to marine mammals via sediment 

contamination is possible only if a marine mammal ingested the sediment. Degradation of explosives 

proceeds through several pathways, as discussed in Section 3.2.3.1 (Explosives and Explosion 

Byproducts). Degradation products of Royal Demolition Explosive are not toxic to marine organisms at 

realistic exposure levels (Rosen & Lotufo, 2010). Relatively low solubility of most explosives and their 

degradation products means that concentrations of these contaminants in the marine environment are 

relatively low and readily diluted. Furthermore, while explosives and their degradation products were 

detectable in marine sediment approximately 6 to 12 in. away from degrading munitions, the 

concentrations of these compounds were not statistically distinguishable from background beyond 3 to 

6 ft. from the degrading munitions (Section 3.2.3.1, Explosives and Explosion Byproducts). Taken 

together, it is possible that marine mammals could be exposed to degrading explosives, but it would be 

within a very small radius of the explosive (1 to 6 ft.). Humpback whales, odontocetes, pinnipeds, and 

manatees are the only species in the AFTT Study Area that might routinely ingest sediments while 

feeding in shallow water, however this feeding does not occur in the deep water areas where 

unexploded materials are more likely to occur. 

A series of research efforts focused on World War II underwater munitions disposal sites in Hawaii 

(Briggs et al., 2016; Edwards et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 2016; Koide et al., 2016; University of Hawaii, 

2010) and an intensively used live fire range in the Mariana Islands (Smith & Marx, 2016) provide 

information in regard to the impacts of undetonated materials and unexploded munitions on marine 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-717

3.7 Marine Mammals

life. Section 3.2.3.1 (Explosives and Explosion Byproducts) and Section 3.2.3.2 (Metals) contains a 

summary of this literature which investigated water and sediment quality impacts, on a localized scale, 

from munitions ocean disposal sites and ocean disposed dredge spoils sites. Findings from these studies 

indicate that there were no adverse impacts on the local ecology from the presence of degrading 

munitions and there was no bioaccumulation of munitions-related chemicals in local marine species. 

The island of Farallon De Medinilla (in the Mariana Islands) has been used as a target area since 1971. 

Between 1997 and 2012, there were 14 underwater scientific survey investigations around the island 

providing a long term look at potential impacts on the marine life from training and testing involving the 

use of munitions (Smith and Marx, 2016). Munitions use has included high-explosive rounds from 

gunfire, high-explosives bombs by Navy aircraft and U.S. Air Force B-52s, in addition to the expenditure 

of inert rounds and non-explosive practice bombs. Marine life assessed during these surveys included 

algae, corals, benthic invertebrates, sharks, rays, and bony fishes, and sea turtles. The investigators 

found no evidence over the 16-year period, that the condition of the biological resources had been 

adversely impacted to a significant degree by the training activities (Smith and Marx, 2016). 

Furthermore, they found that the health, abundance, and biomass of fishes, corals and other marine 

resources were comparable to or superior to those in similar habitats at other locations within the 

Mariana Archipelago. 

These findings are consistent with other assessments such as that done for the Potomac River Test 

Range at Dahlgren, Virginia which was established in 1918 and is the nation’s largest fully instrumented, 

over-the-water gun-firing range. Munitions tested at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren have 

included rounds from small-caliber guns up to the Navy’s largest (16-in. guns), bombs, rockets, mortars, 

grenades, mines, depth charges, and torpedoes (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013b). Results from the 

assessment indicate that munitions expended at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren have not 

contributed to significant concentrations of metals to the Potomac River water and sediments given 

those contributions are orders of magnitude less than concentrations already present in the Potomac 

River from natural and manmade sources (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013b). 

The concentration of munitions/explosions, expended material, or devices in any one location in the 

AFTT Study Area would be a small fraction of that from a World War II dump site, or a target island used 

for 45 years, or a water range in a river used for almost 100 years. Based on findings from much more 

intensively used locations, the water quality effects from the use of munitions, expended material, or 

devices resulting from any of the proposed actions would be negligible by comparison. As a result, 

explosion by-products and unexploded munitions would have no meaningful effect on water quality and 

would therefore not constitute a secondary indirect stressor for marine mammals.

Metals 

Metals are introduced into seawater and sediments as a result of training and testing activities involving 

ship hulks, targets, munitions, and other military expended materials (Section 3.2.3.2, Metals) 

(Environmental Sciences Group, 2005). Some metals bioaccumulate and physiological impacts begin to 

occur only after several trophic transfers concentrate the toxic metals (Section 3.5, Habitats, and 

Chapter 4.0, Cumulative Impacts). Evidence from a number of studies (Briggs et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 

2016; Koide et al., 2016; U.S. Department of the Navy, 2013b; University of Hawaii, 2010) indicate metal 

contamination is very localized and that bioaccumulation resulting from munitions cannot be 

demonstrated. Specifically in sampled marine life living on or around munitions on the seafloor, metal 

concentrations could not be definitively linked to the munitions since comparison of metals in sediment 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-718

3.7 Marine Mammals

next to munitions show relatively little difference in comparison to other “clean” marine sediments used 

as a control/reference (Koide et al., 2016). Research has demonstrated that some smaller marine 

organisms are attracted to metal munitions as a hard substrate for colonization or as shelter (Kelley et 

al., 2016; Smith & Marx, 2016) but this is unlikely to substantively impact marine mammal prey 

availability. 

Chemicals 

Several Navy training and testing activities introduce chemicals into the marine environment that are 

potentially harmful in higher concentrations, however rapid dilution would occur and toxic 

concentrations are unlikely to be encountered. Chemicals introduced are principally from flares and 

propellants for missiles and torpedoes. Properly functioning flares, missiles, and torpedoes combust 

most of their propellants, leaving benign or readily diluted soluble combustion byproducts (e.g., 

hydrogen cyanide). Operational failures may allow propellants and their degradation products to be 

released into the marine environment. Flares and missiles that operationally fail may release 

perchlorate, which is highly soluble in water, persistent, and impacts metabolic processes in many plants 

and animals if in sufficient concentration. Such concentrations are not likely to persist in the ocean. 

Research has demonstrated that perchlorate did not bioconcentrate or bioaccumulate, which was 

consistent with the expectations for a water soluble compound (Furin et al., 2013). Perchlorate from 

failed expendable items is therefore unlikely to compromise water quality to that point that it would act 

as a secondary stressor to marine mammals. It should also be noted that chemicals in the marine 

environment as a result of Navy training and testing activities would not occur in isolation and are 

typically associated with military expended materials that release the chemicals while in operation. 

Because marine mammal avoidance of an expended flare, missile, or torpedo in the water is almost 

certain, it would further reduce the potential for introduced chemicals to act as a secondary stressor.

Transmission of Marine Mammal Diseases and Parasites 

The U.S. Navy deploys trained common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and California sea lions 

(Zalophus californianus) for integrated training involving two primary mission areas: to find objects such 

as inert mine shapes, and to detect swimmers or other intruders around Navy facilities such as piers. 

When deployed, the animals are part of what the Navy refers to as Marine Mammal Systems. These 

Marine Mammal Systems include one or more motorized small boats, several crew members, and a 

trained marine mammal. Based on the standard procedures with which these systems are deployed, it is 

not reasonably foreseeable that use of these marine mammals systems would result in the transmission 

of disease or parasites to cetaceans or pinnipeds in the Study Area based on the following. 

Each trained animal is deployed under behavioral control to find the intruding swimmer or submerged

object. Upon finding the target of the search, the animal returns to the boat and alerts the animal 

handlers that an object or swimmer has been detected. In the case of a detected object, the human 

handlers give the animal a marker that the animal can bite onto and carry down to place near the 

detected object. In the case of a detected swimmer, animals are given a localization marker or leg cuff 

that they are trained to deploy via a pressure trigger. After deploying the localization marker or leg cuff, 

the animal swims free of the area to return to the animal support boat. For detected objects, human 

divers or remote vehicles are deployed to recover the item. Swimmers that have been marked with a leg 

cuff are reeled in by security support boat personnel via a line attached to the cuff. 

Marine Mammal Systems deploy approximately 1 to 2 weeks before the beginning of a training exercise 

to allow the animals to acclimate to the local environment. Four to 12 marine mammals are involved per 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-719

3.7 Marine Mammals

exercise. Marine Mammal Systems typically participate in object detection and recovery, both 

participating in mine warfare exercises and assisting with the recovery of non-explosive mine shapes at 

the conclusion of an exercise. Marine Mammal Systems may also participate in port security and antiterrorism/force protection exercises. 

During the past 40 years, the Navy Marine Mammal Program has deployed globally. To date, there have 

been no known instances of deployment-associated disease transfer to or from Navy marine mammals. 

Navy animals are maintained under the control of animal handlers and are prevented from having 

sustained contact with indigenous animals. 

When not engaged in the training event, Navy marine mammals are either housed in temporary 

enclosures or aboard ships involved in training exercises. All marine mammal waste is disposed of in a 

manner approved for the specific holding facilities. When working, sea lions are transported in boats, 

and dolphins are transferred in boats or by swimming alongside the boat under the handler’s control. 

Their open-ocean time is under stimulus control and is monitored by their trainers. 

Navy marine mammals receive excellent veterinarian care (per Secretary of the Navy Instruction 

3900.41E). Appendix A, Section 8, of the Swimmer Interdiction Security System Final EIS (U.S. 

Department of the Navy, 2009) presents an overview of the veterinary care provided for the Navy’s 

marine mammals. Appendix B (Activity Stressor Matrices), Section 2, of the Swimmer Interdiction 

Security System Final EIS presents detailed information on the health screening process for 

communicable diseases. The following is a brief summary of the care received by all of the Navy’s 

marine mammals: 

• Qualified veterinarians conduct routine and predeployment health examinations on the Navy’s 

marine mammals; only animals determined as healthy are allowed to deploy.

• Restaurant-quality frozen fish are fed to prevent diseases that can be caused by ingesting fresh 

fish (e.g., parasitic diseases).

• Navy animals are routinely dewormed to prevent parasitic and protozoal diseases.

• If a valid and reliable screening test is available for a regionally relevant pathogen (e.g., 

polymerase chain reaction assays for morbillivirus), such tests are run on appropriate animal

samples to ensure that animals are not shedding these pathogens.

The Navy Marine Mammal Program routinely does the following to further mitigate the low risk of 

disease transmission from captive to wild marine mammals during training exercises:

• Marine mammal waste is disposed of in an approved system dependent upon the animal’s 

specific housing enclosure and location.

• Onsite personnel are made aware of the potential for disease transfer, and report any sightings 

of wild marine mammals so that all personnel are alert to the presence of the animal.

• Marine mammal handlers visually scan for indigenous marine animals for at least 5 minutes 

before animals are deployed and maintain a vigilant watch while the animal is working in the 

water. If a wild marine mammal is seen approaching or within 100 m, the animal handler will 

hold the marine mammal in the boat or recall the animal immediately if the animal has already 

been sent on the mission.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-720

3.7 Marine Mammals

• The Navy obtains appropriate state agriculture and other necessary permits and strictly adheres 

to the conditions of the permit.

Due to the limited amount of time that the Navy marine mammals spend in the open ocean, the control 

that the trainers have over the animals, the collection and proper disposal of marine mammal waste, 

the exceptional screening and veterinarian care given to the Navy’s animals, the visual monitoring for 

indigenous marine mammals, and more than 40 years with zero known incidents, there is no scientific 

basis to conclude that the use of Navy marine mammals during training activities will have an impact on 

wild marine mammals.

3.7.3.7.1 Impacts on Habitat

As presented above in Section 3.7.3.7 (Secondary Stressors), Navy activities that introduce explosive 

byproducts and unexploded munitions, metals, and chemicals into the marine environment have not 

demonstrated long-term impacts on sediment and water quality. Explosive byproducts and unexploded 

munitions from ongoing Navy activities have not resulted in water quality impacts, and the likelihood of 

marine mammals being in contact with sediments contaminated from degrading explosives is low, given 

the small radius of impact around the location of the explosive. Furthermore, there is no evidence of 

bioconcentration or bioaccumulation of chemicals introduced by Navy activities that would alter water 

quality to an extent that would result in overall habitat degradation for marine mammals.

North Atlantic right whales and West Indian manatees are the only species with critical habitat located 

in the Study Area. Physical and biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale conservation

and considered in the critical habitat designation include oceanic conditions that distribute and 

aggregate dense concentrations of copepods within the northern foraging habitats and water 

temperatures, depths, and sea surface conditions that are suitable for the southern calving habitats 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, 2015a). The current critical habitat designation for the West Indian 

manatee does not identify specific physical and biological features essential for species conservation, 

but essential habitat features have been reported to include warm water refuges, various food sources 

(seagrasses and freshwater vegetation), travel corridors, and shelter for calving (75 Federal Register

1574–1581, January 12, 2010). These habitat features are not expected to be impacted by secondary 

stressors associated with the proposed Navy activities. 

Impacts on habitat from secondary stressors associated with training and testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to those 

activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

Impacts on habitat from secondary stressors associated with training and testing activities as described 

under Alternative 1 will have no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee critical 

habitat and may affect ESA-listed and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the ESA. The 

Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that regard. 

3.7.3.7.2 Impacts on Prey Availability

As presented above in Section 3.7.3.7 (Secondary Stressors), Navy activities that introduce explosives, 

metals, and chemicals into the marine environment have not demonstrated long-term impacts on prey 

availability for marine mammals. The Navy’s use of explosives have not demonstrated any lasting effects 

on prey availability for cetaceans. Activities that involve the use of explosives typically occur at depths 

that exceed areas that support seagrass beds for foraging manatees. Bioaccumulation of metals from 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-721

3.7 Marine Mammals

munitions in prey species has not been demonstrated and no effects to prey availability from metals and 

chemicals are known to occur. 

North Atlantic right whales and West Indian manatees are the only species with critical habitat within 

the Study Area. Physical and biological features identified for North Atlantic right whale conservation 

and considered in the critical habitat designation include oceanic conditions that distribute and 

aggregate dense concentrations of copepods within the northern foraging habitats (National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 2015a). The current critical habitat designation for the West Indian manatee does not 

identify specific physical and biological features essential for species conservation, but essential habitat 

features have been reported to include various food sources (seagrasses and freshwater vegetation) in 

proximity to warm water refugia (75 Federal Register 1574–1581, January 12, 2010). These habitat 

features for feeding requirements are not expected to be impacted by secondary stressors associated 

with the proposed Navy activities. 

Impacts on prey availability from secondary stressors associated with training and testing activities as 

described under Alternative 1 will not result in the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental 

to those activities, as defined by the MMPA. 

Impacts on prey availability from secondary stressors associated with training and testing activities as 

described under Alternative 1 will have no effect on North Atlantic right whale and West Indian manatee 

critical habitat and may affect ESA-listed and proposed ESA-listed marine mammals, as defined by the 

ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS as required by section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in that 

regard. 

3.7.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON MARINE MAMMALS

3.7.4.1 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1

As described in Section 3.0.3.5 (Resource-Specific Impacts Analysis for Multiple Stressors), this section 

evaluates the potential for combined impacts of all the stressors from the proposed action. The analysis 

and conclusions for the potential impacts from each of the individual stressors are discussed in Sections 

3.7.3.1 (Acoustic Stressors) through 3.7.3.6 (Ingestion Stressors) and, for ESA listed species, summarized 

in Section 3.7.5 (Endangered Species Act Determinations). Stressors associated with Navy training and 

testing activities do not typically occur in isolation but rather occur in some combination. For example, 

mine neutralization activities include elements of acoustic, physical disturbance and strike, 

entanglement, ingestion, and secondary stressors that are all coincident in space and time. An analysis 

of the combined impacts of all stressors considers the potential consequences of additive stressors and 

synergistic stressors, as described below. This analysis makes the reasonable assumption that the 

majority of exposures to stressors are non-lethal, and instead focuses on consequences potentially 

impacting marine mammal fitness (e.g., physiology, behavior, reproductive potential).

There are generally two ways that a marine mammal could be exposed to multiple additive stressors. 

The first would be if a marine mammal were exposed to multiple sources of stress from a single event or 

activity within a single testing or training event (e.g., a mine warfare event may include the use of a 

sound source and a vessel). The potential for a combination of these impacts from a single activity 

would depend on the range to effects of each of the stressors and the response or lack of response to 

that stressor. Most of the activities proposed under Alternative 1 generally involve the use of moving 

platforms (e.g., ships, torpedoes, aircraft) that may produce one or more stressors; therefore, it is likely 

that if a marine mammal were within the potential impact range of those activities, it may be impacted 

by multiple stressors simultaneously. Individual stressors that would otherwise have minimal to no 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-722

3.7 Marine Mammals

impact, may combine to have a measurable response. However, due to the wide dispersion of stressors, 

speed of the platforms, general dynamic movement of many training and testing activities, and 

behavioral avoidance exhibited by many marine mammal species, it is very unlikely that a marine 

mammal would remain in the potential impact range of multiple sources or sequential exercises. 

Exposure to multiple stressors is more likely to occur at an instrumented range where training and 

testing using multiple platforms may be concentrated during a particular event. In such cases involving a 

relatively small area on an instrumented range, a behavioral reaction resulting in avoidance of the 

immediate vicinity of the activity would reduce the likelihood of exposure to additional stressors. 

Nevertheless, the majority of the proposed activities are unit-level training and small testing activities 

which are conducted in the open ocean. Unit level exercises occur over a small spatial scale (one to a 

few square miles) and with few participants (usually one or two) or short duration (the order of a few 

hours or less).

Secondly, a marine mammal could be exposed to multiple training and testing activities over the course 

of its life, however, training and testing activities are generally separated in space and time in such a 

way that it would be unlikely that any individual marine mammal would be exposed to stressors from 

multiple activities within a short timeframe. However, animals with a home range intersecting an area of 

concentrated Navy activity have elevated exposure risks relative to animals that simply transit the area 

through a migratory corridor. 

Multiple stressors may also have synergistic effects. For example, marine mammals that experience 

temporary hearing loss or injury from acoustic stressors could be more susceptible to physical strike and 

disturbance stressors via a decreased ability to detect and avoid threats. Marine mammals that 

experience behavioral and physiological consequences of ingestion stressors could be more susceptible 

to entanglement and physical strike stressors via malnourishment and disorientation. These interactions 

are speculative, and without data on the combination of multiple Navy stressors, the synergistic impacts 

from the combination of Navy stressors are difficult to predict in any meaningful way. Research and 

monitoring efforts have included before, during, and after-event observations and surveys, data 

collection through conducting long-term studies in areas of Navy activity, occurrence surveys over large 

geographic areas, biopsy of animals occurring in areas of Navy activity, and tagging studies where 

animals are exposed to Navy stressors. These efforts are intended to contribute to the overall 

understanding of what impacts may be occurring overall to animals in these areas. To date, the findings 

from the research and monitoring and the regulatory conclusions from previous analyses by NMFS 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013, 2015) are that majority of impacts from Navy 

training and testing activities are not expected to have deleterious impacts on the fitness of any 

individuals or long-term consequences to populations of marine mammals.

Although potential impacts on certain marine mammal species from training and testing activities under 

Alternative 1 may include injury to individuals, those injuries are not expected to lead to long-term 

consequences for populations. The potential impacts anticipated from Alternative 1 are summarized in 

Sections 3.7.5 (Endangered Species Act Determinations) and Section 3.7.6 (Marine Mammal Protection 

Act Determinations) for each regulation applicable to marine mammals. For a discussion of cumulative 

impacts, see Chapter 4 (Cumulative Impacts). For a discussion of mitigation, see Chapter 5 (Mitigation).

3.7.4.2 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 2

Training and testing activities proposed under Alternative 2 would be an increase over what is proposed 

for Alternative 1. However, this increase is not expected to substantially increase the potential for 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-723

3.7 Marine Mammals

impacts over what is analyzed for Alternative 1. The analysis presented in Section 3.7.4.1 (Combined 

Impacts of All Stressors Under Alternative 1) would similarly apply to Alternative 2. The combined 

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 mammals.

3.7.4.3 Combined Impacts of All Stressors Under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would not conduct the proposed training and testing 

activities in the 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 would either remain unchanged or would improve slightly after cessation of ongoing 

training and testing activities.

3.7.5 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT DETERMINATIONS 

Navy training and testing activities will have no effect on designated critical habitat, as defined by the 

ESA, because the proposed action does not have any elements with the potential to impact such habitat. 

In addition, Navy training and testing activities may affect ESA-listed and proposed ESA-listed marine 

mammals, as defined by the ESA. The Navy will consult with NMFS and USFWS 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. 

3.7.6 MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT DETERMINATIONS 

The Navy is seeking a 5-year Letter of Authorization in accordance with the MMPA from NMFS for 

certain training and testing activities (the use of sonar and other transducers, air guns, pile driving, 

vessels, and explosives), as described under the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1). The use of sonar 

and other transducers may result in Level A and Level B harassment of certain marine mammals. The use 

of air funs and pile driving may result in Level B harassment of certain marine mammal species. The use 

of explosives may result in Level A harassment, Level B harassment, and mortality of certain marine 

mammals. The use of vessels may result in Level A harassment due to potential physical strike. Refer to 

Section 3.7.3.1.2 (Impacts from Sonar and Other Transducers) for details on the estimated impacts from 

sonar and other transducers, Section 3.7.3.1.3 (Impacts from Air Guns) for details on the estimated 

impacts from air guns, Section 3.7.3.1.4 (Impacts from Pile Driving) for details on the estimated impacts 

from pile driving, Section 3.7.3.4 (Impacts from Vessels and In-Water Devices) for details on the 

estimated impacts from vessels, and Section 3.7.3.2 (Impacts from Explosives) for impacts from 

explosives. 

Weapons noise, vessel noise, aircraft noise, the use of in-water electromagnetic devices, high-energy 

lasers, in-water devices, seafloor devices, wires and cables, decelerators/parachutes, biodegradable 

polymers, and military expended materials is not expected to result in Level A or Level B harassment of 

any marine mammals. The outcome of consultations pursuant to the MMPA will be described in the 

Final AFTT EIS/OEIS.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-724

3.7 Marine Mammals

This page intentionally left blank.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-725

3.7 References

REFERENCES

Abend, A. G., & T. D. Smith. (1999). Review of Distribution of the Long-finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala 

melas) in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-117). 

Woods Hole, MA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center.

Abramson, L., S. Polefka, S. Hastings, & K. Bor. (2011). Reducing the Threat of Ship Strikes on Large 

Cetaceans in the Santa Barbara Channel Region and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary: 

Recommendations and Case Studies (Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series). Silver Spring, MD: 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries.

Acevedo-Gutiérrez, A., D. A. Croll, & B. R. Tershy. (2002). High feeding costs limit dive time in the largest 

whales. Journal of Experimental Biology, 205, 1747–1753. 

Acevedo-Whitehouse, K., A. Rocha-Gosselin, & D. Gendron. (2010). A novel non-invasive tool for disease 

surveillance of freeranging whales and its relevance to conservation programs. Animal 

Conservation, 13, 217–225. 

Acevedo, A. (1991). Interactions between boats and bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in the 

entrance to Ensenada De La Paz, Mexico. Aquatic Mammals, 17(3), 120–124. 

Adimey, N. M., C. A. Hudak, A. R. Powell, K. Bassos-Hull, A. Foley, N. A. Farmer, L. White, & K. Munch. 

(2014). Fishery gear interactions from stranded bottlenose dolphins, Florida manatees and sea 

turtles in Florida, U.S.A. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 81, 103–115. 

Aguilar, A. (2009). Fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 433–437). Amsterdam, Netherlands: 

Academic Press.

Aguilar de Soto, N., M. Johnson, P. T. Madsen, P. L. Tyack, A. Bocconcelli, & J. F. Borsani. (2006). Does 

intense ship noise disrupt foraging in deep-diving Cuvier's beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris)? 

Marine Mammal Science, 22(3), 690–789. 

Aguilar, N., M. Carrillo, I. Delgado, F. Diaz, & A. Brito. (2000). Fast ferries impact on cetacean in Canary 

Islands: Collisions and displacement. Paper presented at the European Research on Cetaceans - 

14, Cork, Ireland.

Aissi, M., A. Celona, G. Comparetto, R. Mangano, M. Wurtz, & A. Moulins. (2008). Large-scale seasonal 

distribution of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in the central Mediterranean Sea. Journal of 

the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 88, 1253–1261. 

Akamatsu, T., K. Nakamura, H. Nitto, & M. Watabe. (1996). Effects of underwater sounds on escape 

behavior of Steller sea lions. Fisheries Science, 62(4), 503–510. 

Allen, A. N., J. J. Schanze, A. R. Solow, & P. L. Tyack. (2014). Analysis of a Blainville's beaked whale's 

movement response to playback of killer whale vocalizations. Marine Mammal Science, 30(1), 

154–168. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-726

3.7 References

Allen, B. M., & R. P. Angliss. (2010). Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments 2009. Seattle, WA: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center.

Allen, R., D. Jarvis, S. Sayer, & C. Mills. (2012). Entanglement of grey seals Halichoerus grypus at a haul 

out site in Cornwall, UK. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64, 2815–2819. 

Alter, E. S., M. P. Simmonds, & J. R. Brandon. (2010). Forecasting the consequences of climate-driven 

shifts in human behavior on cetaceans. Marine Policy, 34(5), 943–954. 

Alves, A., R. Antunes, A. Bird, P. L. Tyack, P. J. O. Miller, F. P. A. Lam, & P. H. Kvadsheim. (2014). Vocal 

matching of naval sonar signals by long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas). Marine 

Mammal Science, 30(3), 1248–1257. 

Alves, F., A. Dinis, I. Cascao, & L. Freitas. (2010). Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera brydei) stable associations 

and dive profiles: New insights from foraging behavior. Marine Mammal Science, 26(1), 202–

212. 

Amstrup, S. C., & D. P. DeMaster. (1988). Polar bear, Ursus maritimus. In J. W. Lentfer (Ed.), Selected 

Marine Mammals of Alaska: Species Accounts with Research and Management Recommedations

(pp. 39–56). Washington, DC: Marine Mammal Commission.

Amstrup, S. C. (2003). Polar bear, Ursus maritimus. In G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson & J. A. Chapman 

(Eds.), Wild Mammals of North America (2nd ed., pp. 587–610). Baltimore, MD: The Johns 

Hopkins University Press.

Andersen, J. M., Y. F. Wiersma, G. B. Stenson, M. O. Hammil, A. Rosing-Asvid, & M. Skern-Maurizen. 

(2013). Habitat selection by hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. 

Journal of Marine Science, 70(1), 173–185. 

Andersen, L. W., E. W. Born, D. W. Doidge, I. Gjertz, O. Wiig, & R. S. Waples. (2009). Genetic signals of 

historic and recent migration between sub-populations of Atlantic walrus Odobenus rosmarus 

rosmarus west and east of Greenland. Endangered Species Research, 9(3), 197–211. 

Andersen, S. M., J. Teilmann, R. Dietz, N. M. Schmidt, & L. A. Miller. (2012). Behavioural responses of 

harbor seals to human-induced disturbances. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater 

Ecosystems, 22, 113–121. 

Anderwald, P., A. Brandecker, M. Coleman, C. Collins, H. Denniston, M. D. Haberlin, M. O’Donovan, R. 

Pinfield, F. Visser, & L. Walshe. (2013). Displacement responses of a mysticete, an adontocete, 

and a phocid seal to construction-related vessel traffic. Endangered Species Research, 21(3), 

231–240. 

Ando-Mizobata, N., K. Ichikawa, N. Arai, & H. Kato. (2014). Does boat noise affect dugong (Dugong 

dugon) vocalization? Mammal Study, 39(2), 121–127. 

Andrady, A. L. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62, 1595–

1605. 

Andrews, J. C., & P. R. Mott. (1967). Gray seals at Nantucket, Massachusetts. Journal of Mammalogy, 

48(4), 657–658. 

Antunes, R., P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, P. L. Tyack, L. Thomas, P. J. Wensveen, & P. J. O. Miller. 

(2014). High thresholds for avoidance of sonar by free-ranging long-finned pilot whales 

(Globicephala melas). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 16 pages. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-727

3.7 References

Arcangeli, A., & R. Crosti. (2009). The short-term impact of dolphin-watching on the behaviour of 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in western Australia. Journal of Marine Animals and 

Their Ecology, 2(1), 3–9. 

Archer, F. I., S. L. Mesnick, & A. C. Allen. (2010). Variation and predictors of vessel-response behavior in a 

tropical dolphin community. 

Archer, F. I., II, & W. F. Perrin. (1999). Stenella coeruleoalba. Mammalian Species, 603, 1–9. 

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. 

Aschettino, J., D. Engelhaupt, A. Engelhaupt, J. Bell, & J. B. Thornton. (2015). Humpback Whale Presence 

and Habitat-Use in High-Traffic Areas off Virginia. Paper presented at the 21st Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, San Francisco, CA. 

Atkinson, S., D. Crocker, D. Houser, & K. Mashburn. (2015). Stress physiology in marine mammals: how 

well do they fit the terrestrial model? Journal of Comparative Physiology B, 185, 463–486. 

Au, W. W. L., R. W. Floyd, R. H. Penner, & A. E. Murchison. (1974). Measurement of echolocation signals 

of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus Montagu, in open waters. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 56(4), 1280–1290. 

Au, W. W. L., & P. W. B. Moore. (1990). Critical ratio and critical bandwidth for the Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphin. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(3), 1635–1638. 

Au, W. W. L. (1993). The Sonar of Dolphins (pp. 277). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Au, W. W. L., & M. Green. (2000). Acoustic interaction of humpback whales and whale-watching boats. 

Marine Environmental Research, 49(5), 469–481. 

Auger-Methe, M., M. A. Lewis, & A. E. Derocher. (2016). Home ranges in moving habitats: polar bears 

and sea ice. Ecography, 39, 26–35. 

Avens, L., & K. J. Lohmann. (2003). Use of multiple orientation cues by juvenile loggerhead sea turtles, 

Caretta caretta. Journal of Experiential Biology, 206(23), 4317–4325. 

Ayres, K. L., R. K. Booth, J. A. Hempelmann, K. L. Koski, C. K. Emmons, R. W. Baird, K. Balcomb-Bartok, M. 

B. Hanson, M. J. Ford, & S. K. Wasser. (2012). Distinguishing the impacts of inadequate prey and 

vessel traffic on an endangered killer whale (Orcinus orca) population. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e36842. 

Azzara, A. J., W. M. von Zharen, & J. J. Newcomb. (2013). Mixed-methods analytic approach for 

determining potential impacts of vessel noise on sperm whale click behavior. The Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 134(6), 4566–4574. 

Azzellino, A., S. Gaspari, S. Airoldi, & B. Nani. (2008). Habitat use and preferences of cetaceans along the 

continental slope and the adjacent pelagic waters in the western Ligurian Sea. Deep Sea 

Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 55(3), 296–323. 

Bain, D. E. (2002). A Model Linking Energetic Effects of Whale Watching to Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) 

Population Dynamics. Friday Harbor, WA: Friday Harbor Laboratories University of Washington.

Baird, R. W., & P. J. Stacey. (1991). Status of Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus, in Canada. Canadian FieldNaturalist, 105(233–242). 

Baird, R. W., & S. K. Hooker. (2000). Ingestion of plastic and unusal prey by a juvenile harbour porpoise. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(8), 719–720. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-728

3.7 References

Baird, R. W. (2001). Status of harbour seals, Phoca vitulina, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 115(4), 

663–675. 

Baird, R. W., A. D. Ligon, S. K. Hooker, & A. M. Gorgone. (2001). Subsurface and nighttime behaviour of 

pantropical spotted dolphins in Hawai'i. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 79(6), 988–996. 

Baird, R. W. (2005). Sightings of dwarf (Kogia sima) and pygmy (K. breviceps) sperm whales from the 

main Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science, 59, 461–466. 

Baird, R. W., & A. M. Gorgone. (2005). False Killer Whale Dorsal Fin Disfigurements as a Possible 

Indicator of Long-Line Fishery Interactions in Hawaiian Waters. Pacific Science, 59(4), 593–601. 

Baird, R. W., D. McSweeney, C. Bane, J. Barlow, D. Salden, L. Antoine, R. LeDuc, & D. Webster. (2006). 

Killer Whales in Hawaiian Waters: Information on Population Identity and Feeding Habits. Pacific 

Science, 60(4), 523–530. 

Baird, R. W., A. M. Gorgone, D. J. McSweeney, D. B. Webster, D. R. Salden, M. H. Deakos, A. D. Ligon, G. 

Schorr, J. Barlow, & S. D. Mahaffy. (2008). False killer whales (Psuedorca crassidens) around the 

main Hawaiian Islands: Long-term site fidelity, inter-island movements, and association 

patterns. Marine Mammal Science, 24(3), 591–612. 

Baird, R. W. (2009a). Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 975–976). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Baird, R. W. (2009b). A review of false killer whales in Hawaiian waters: Biology, status, and risk factors. 

Baird, R. W., G. S. Schorr, D. L. Webster, D. J. McSweeney, M. B. Hanson, & R. D. Andrews. (2010). 

Movements and habitat use of satellite-tagged false killer whales around the main Hawaiian 

Islands. Endangered Species Research, 10, 107–121. 

Baird, R. W., J. A. Shaffer, D. L. Webster, S. D. Fisher, J. M. Aschettino, A. M. Gorgone, B. K. Rone, S. D. 

Mahaffy, & D. J. Moretti. (2013a). Odontocete Studies Off the Pacific Missile Range Facility in 

February 2013: Satellite-Tagging, Photo Identification, and Passive Acoustic Monitoring for 

Species Verification. U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

Baird, R. W., D. L. Webster, J. M. Aschettino, G. S. Schorr, & D. J. McSweeney. (2013b). Odontocete 

Cetaceans Around the Main Hawaiian Islands: Habitat Use and Relative Abundance from SmallBoat Sighting Surveys. Aquatic Mammals, 39(3), 253–269. 

Baird, R. W., S. M. Jarvis, D. L. Webster, B. K. Rone, J. A. Shaffer, S. D. Mahaffy, A. M. Gorgone, & D. J. 

Moretti. (2014). Odontocete Studies on the Pacific Missile Range Facility in July/August 2013: 

Satellite-Tagging, Photo Identification, and Passive Acoustic Monitoring U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

Baird, R. W., D. L. Webster, Z. Swaim, H. J. Foley, D. B. Anderson, & A. J. Read. (2015). Spatial Use by 

Cuvier’s Beaked Whales, Short-finned Pilot Whales, Common Bottlenose Dolphins, and Shortbeaked Common Dolphins Satellite Tagged off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, in 2014. Draft 

Report. (Contract No. N62470-10-3011, Task Orders 14 and 21). Norfolk, Virginia.

Baird, R. W., D. L. Webster, Z. Swaim, H. J. Foley, D. B. Anderson, & A. J. Read. (2016a). Spatial use by 

odontocetes satellite tagged off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina in 2015. Final report. Virginia 

Beach, VA.

Baird, R. W., D. L. Webster, S. Watwood, R. Morrissey, B. K. Rone, S. D. Mahaffy, A. M. Gorgone, D. B. 

Anderson, & D. J. Moretti. (2016b). Odontocete Studies on the Pacific Missile Range Facility in 

February 2015: Satellite-Tagging, Photo-Identification, and Passive Acoustic Monitoring. Final 

Report (Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific under HDR Environmentl, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-729

3.7 References

Operations and Construction, Inc. Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, CTO KB28). Honolulu, HI: 

HDR Inc.

Baird, R. W., S. W. Martin, R. Manzano-Roth, D. L. Webster, & B. L. Southall. (2017). Assessing Exposure 

and Response of Three Species of Odontocetes to Mid-frequency Active Sonar during Submarine 

Commanders Courses at the Pacific Missile Range Facility: August 2013 through February 2015. 

Draft Report. Honolulu, HI: Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, 

Hawaii under Contract N62470-10-D-3011 Task Order KB28 issued to HDR, Inc.

Bajzak, C. E., M. O. Hammill, G. B. Stenson, & S. Prinsenberg. (2011). Drifting away: implications of 

changes in ice condition for a pack-ice-breeding phocid, the harp seal (Pagophilus 

groenlandicus). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 89, 1050–1062. 

Baker, A. N., & B. Madon. (2007). Bryde's whales (Balaenoptera cf. brydei Olsen 1913) in the Hauraki 

Gulf and northeastern New Zealand waters. Science for Conservation, 272, 4–14. 

Baker, C. S., L. M. Herman, B. G. Bays, & G. B. Bauer. (1983). The Impact of Vessel Traffic on the Behavior 

of Humpback Whales in Southeast Alaska: 1982 Season. Honolulu, HI: Kewalo Basin Marine 

Mammal Laboratory, University of Hawaii.

Baker, J., M. Baumgartner, E. A. Becker, P. Boveng, D. Dick, J. Fiechter, J. Forcada, K. A. Forney, R. Griffis, 

J. Hare, A. Hobday, D. Howell, K. Laidre, N. Mantua, L. Quakenbush, J. Santora, P. Spencer, C. 

Stock, K. Stafford, W. Sydeman, K. Van Houtan, & R. Waples. (2016). Report of a Workshop on 

Best Approaches and Needs for Projecting Marine Mammal Distributions in a Changing Climate. 

Santa Cruz, CA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Baldwin, R., M. Gallagher, & K. Van Waerebeek. (1999). A review of cetaceans from waters off the 

Arabian Peninsula. In M. Fisher, S. A. Ghazanfur & J. A. Soalton (Eds.), The Natural History of 

Oman: A Festschrift for Michael Gallagher (pp. 161–189). Backhuys Publishers.

Barco, S., W. McLellan, J. Allen, R. Asmutis, R. Mallon-Day, E. Meagher, D. A. Pabst, J. Robbins, R. Seton, 

W. M. Swingle, M. Weinrich, & P. Clapham. (2002). Population identity of humpback whales 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) in the waters of the U.S. mid-Atlantic states. Journal of Cetacean 

Research and Management, 4(2), 135–141. 

Barlas, M. E. (1999). The distribution and abundance of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina concolor) and gray 

seals (Halichoerus grypus) in southern New England, Winter 1998—Summer 1999. (Master's 

thesis). Boston University. 

Barlow, J., & B. L. Taylor. (2001). Estimates of Large Whale Abundance off California, Oregon, 

Washington, and Baja California based on 1993 and 1996 Ship Surveys. La Jolla, CA: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Barlow, J. (2016). Cetacean Abundance in the California Current Estimated from Ship-based Line-transect 

Surveys in 1991–2014. (NOAA Administrative Report NMFS-SWFSC-LJ-1601). La Jolla, CA: 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Barnard, B. (2016). Carriers stick with slow-steaming despite fuel-price plunge, The Journal of 

Commerce. 

Barros, N. B., & A. A. Myrberg, Jr. (1987). Prey detection by means of passive listening in bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 82, S65. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-730

3.7 References

Barros, N. B., & R. S. Wells. (1998). Prey and feeding patterns of resident bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Journal of Mammalogy, 79(3), 1045–1059. 

Bassett, C., J. Thomson, & B. Polagye. (2010). Characteristics of Underwater Ambient Noise at a Proposed 

Tidal Energy Site in Puget Sound. Seattle, WA: Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy 

Center.

Bauer, G. B., M. Fuller, A. Perry, J. R. Dunn, & J. Zoeger. (1985). Magnetoreception and Biomineralization 

of Magnetite in Cetaceans Magnetite Biomineralization and Magnetoreception in Organisms: A 

New Biomagnetism (pp. 487–507).

Bauer, G. B., J. C. Gaspard, III, D. E. Colbert, J. B. Leach, A. Stamper, & R. Reep. (2012). Tactile 

discrimination of textures by Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Marine Mammal 

Science, 28(4), 456–471. 

Baulch, S., & C. Perry. (2014). Evaluating the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin, 80(1–2), 210–221. 

Baumgartner, M. (2009). Right Whale Diving and Foraging Behavior in the Southwestern Gulf of Maine

(Marine Mammals & Biological Oceanography Annual Reports: FY09). Office of Naval Research.

Baumgartner, M., R. Ji, & C. Chen. (2009). Physical and Biological Controls of Copepod Aggregation and 

Baleen Whale Distribution. Office of Naval Research.

Baumgartner, M. F. (1997). The distribution of Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) with respect to the 

physiography of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science, 13(4), 614–638. 

Baumgartner, M. F., K. D. Mullin, L. N. May, & T. D. Leming. (2001). Cetacean habitats in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin, 99, 219–239. 

Baumgartner, M. F., & B. R. Mate. (2003). Summertime foraging ecology of North Atlantic right whales. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 264, 123–135. 

Baumgartner, M. F., & B. R. Mate. (2005). Summer and fall habitat of North Atlantic right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis) inferred from satellite telemetry. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, 62, 527–543. 

Beatson, E. (2007). The diet of pygmy sperm whales, Kogia breviceps, stranded in New Zealand: 

Implications for conservation. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 17(2–3), 295–303. 

Beck, C. A., & N. B. Barros. (1991). The impact of debris on the Florida manatee. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin, 22(10), 508–510. 

Bejder, L., A. Samuels, H. Whitehead, & N. Gales. (2006a). Interpreting short-term behavioural responses 

to disturbance within a longitudinal perspective. Animal Behaviour, 72, 1149–1158. 

Bejder, L., A. Samuels, H. Whitehead, N. Gales, J. Mann, R. Connor, M. Heithaus, J. Waston-Capps, C. 

Flaherty, & M. Krützen. (2006b). Decline in relative abundance of bottlenose dolphins exposed 

to long-term disturbance. Conservation Biology, 20(6), 1791–1798. 

Bellido, J. J., J. J. Castillo, M. A. Farfan, J. L. Mons, & R. Real. (2007). First records of hooded seals 

(Cystophora cristata) in the Mediterranean Sea. JMBA2 - Biodiversity Records, 1–2. 

Benjamins, S., V. Harnois, H. C. M. Smith, L. Johanning, L. Greenhill, C. Carter, & B. Wilson. (2014). 

Understanding the Potential for Marine Megafauna Entanglement Risk from Marine Renewable 

Energy Developments. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-731

3.7 References

Benoit-Bird, K. J., W. W. L. Au, R. E. Brainard, & M. O. Lammers. (2001). Diel horizontal migration of the 

Hawaiian mesopelagic boundary community observed acoustically. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 217, 1–14. 

Benoit-Bird, K. J., & W. W. L. Au. (2003). Prey dynamics affect foraging by a pelagic predator (Stenella 

longirostris) over a range of spatial and temporal scales. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 

53, 364–373. 

Benoit-Bird, K. J. (2004). Prey caloric value and predator energy needs: foraging predictions for wild 

spinner dolphins. Marine Biology, 145(3). 

Benoit-Bird, K. J., & W. W. L. Au. (2004). Diel migration dynamics of an island-associated soundscattering layer. Deep-Sea Research I, 51, 707–719. 

Bergmann, M., L. Gutow, & M. Klages. (2015). Marine Anthropogenic Litter 

Bergström, L., L. Kautsky, T. Malm, R. Rosenberg, M. Wahlberg, N. Åstrand Capetillo, & D. Wilhelmsson. 

(2014). Effects of offshore wind farms on marine wildlife—a generalized impact assessment. 

Environmental Research Letters, 9(3), 034012. 

Berini, C. R., L. M. Kracker, & W. E. McFee. (2015). Modeling Pygmy Sperm Whale (Kogia breviceps) 

Strandings Along the Southeast Coast of the United States from 1992 to 2006 in Relation to 

Environmental Factors (NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 203). Charleston, SC: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Berman-Kowalewski, M., F. M. D. Gulland, S. Wilkin, J. Calambokidis, B. Mate, J. Cordaro, D. Rotstein, J. 

St. Leger, P. Collins, K. Fahy, & S. Dover. (2010). Association between blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus) mortality and ship strikes along the California Coast. Aquatic Mammals, 36(1), 59–66. 

Bernaldo de Quiros, Y., O. Gonzalez-Diaz, M. Arbelo, E. Sierra, S. Sacchini, & A. Fernandex. (2012). 

Decompression vs. decomposition: distribution, amount, and gas composition of bubbles in 

stranded marine mammals. frontiers in Physiology, 3 Article 177, 19. 

Bernaldo de Quiros, Y., O. Gonzalez-Diaz, A. Mollerlokken, A. O. Brubakk, A. Hjelde, P. Saavedra, & A. 

Fernandez. (2013a). Differentiation at autopsy between in vivo gas embolism and putrefaction 

using gas composition analysis. Int J Legal Med, 127(2), 437–445. 

Bernaldo de Quiros, Y., J. S. Seewald, S. P. Sylva, B. Greer, M. Niemeyer, A. L. Bogomolni, & M. J. Moore. 

(2013b). Compositional discrimination of decompression and decomposition gas bubbles in 

bycaught seals and dolphins. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e83994. 

Bernard, H. J., & S. B. Reilly. (1999). Pilot whales, Globicephala Lesson, 1828. In S. H. Ridgway & R. 

Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 6, pp. 245–280). San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press. 

Bernasconi, M., R. Patel, & L. Nøttestad. (2012). Behavioral observations of baleen whales in proximity 

of a modern fishing vessel. In A. N. Popper & A. Hawkins (Eds.), The Effects of Noise on Aquatic 

Life. Springer New York.

Berrow, S. D., & E. Rogan. (1996). Stomach contents of harbor porpoises and dolphins in Irish waters.

Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference of the European Cetacean 

Society, Lugano, Switzerland.

Berrow, S. D., & B. Holmes. (1999). Tour boats and dolphins: A note on quantifying the activities of 

whalewatching boats in the Shannon Estuary, Ireland. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management, 1(2), 199–204. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-732

3.7 References

Berta, A., J. L. Sumich, & K. M. Kovacs. (2006). Marine Mammals: Evolutionary Biology (2nd ed.). 

Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Besseling, E., E. M. Foekema, J. A. Van Franeker, M. F. Leopold, S. Kuhn, E. L. B. Rebolledo, E. Hebe, L. 

Mielke, J. Ijzer, P. Kamminga, & A. A. Koelmans. (2015). Microplastic in a macro filter feeder: 

humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 95(1), 48–52. 

Best, B. D., P. N. Halpin, A. J. Read, E. Fujioka, C. P. Good, E. A. LaBrecque, R. S. Schick, J. J. Roberts, L. J. 

Hazen, S. S. Qian, D. L. Palka, L. P. Garrison, & W. A. McLellan. (2012). Online cetacean haitat 

modeling system for the U.S. east coast and Gulf of Mexico. Endangered Species Research, 18, 

1–15. 

Best, P. B. (1996). Evidence of migration by Bryde's whales from the offshore population in the 

southeast Atlantic. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 46, 315–322. 

Best, P. B., J. L. Bannister, R. L. Brownell, & G. P. Donovan. (2001). Right whales: Worldwide status. 

Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 2(309). 

Best, P. B., R. A. Rademeyer, C. Burton, D. Ljungblad, K. Sekiguchi, H. Shimada, D. Thiele, D. Reeb, & D. S. 

Butterworth. (2003). The abundance of blue whales on the Madagascar Plateau, December 

1996. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 5(3), 253–260. 

Bester, M. N., J. W. H. Ferguson, & F. C. Jonker. (2002). Population densities of pack ice seals in the 

Lazarev Sea, Antarctica. Antarctic Science, 14(2), 123–127. 

Bettridge, S., C. S. Baker, J. Barlow, P. J. Clapham, M. Ford, D. Gouveia, D. K. Mattila, R. M. Pace, P. E. 

Rosel, G. K. Silber, & P. R. Wade. (2015). Status Review of the Humpback Whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) under the Endangered Species Act (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC540). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Bexton, S., D. Thompson, A. Brownlow, J. Barley, R. Milne, & C. Bidwell. (2012). Unusual mortality of 

pinnipeds in the United Kingdom associated with helical (corkscrew) injuries of anthropogenic 

origin. Aquatic Mammals, 38(3), 229–240. 

Biggs, D. C., A. E. Jochens, M. K. Howard, S. F. DiMarco, K. D. Mullin, R. R. Leben, F. E. Muller-Karger, & C. 

Hu. (2005). Eddy forced variations in on- and off-margin summertime circulation along the 1000-

m isobath of the northern Gulf of Mexico, 2000–2003, and links with sperm whale distributions 

along the middle slope. 161, 71–85. 

Bjorge, A., & K. A. Tolley. (2009). Harbor Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. 

M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd edition ed., pp. 530–532). 

Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Academic Press.

Blackwell, S. B., J. W. Lawson, & M. T. Williams. (2004). Tolerance by ringed seals (Phoca hispida) to 

impact pipe-driving and construction sounds at an oil production island. The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 115(5 (Pt. 1)), 2346–2357. 

Blackwell, S. B., C. S. Nations, T. L. McDonald, C. R. Greene, A. M. Thode, M. Guerra, & A. M. Macrander. 

(2013). Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. 

Marine Mammal Science. 

Blackwell, S. B., C. S. Nations, T. L. McDonald, A. M. Thode, D. Mathias, K. H. Kim, C. R. Greene, Jr., & A. 

M. Macrander. (2015). Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates: evidence for 

two behavioral thresholds. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0125720. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-733

3.7 References

Bloch, D., & L. Lastein. (1993). Morphometric segregation of long-finned pilot whales in eastern and 

western North Atlantic. Ophelia, 38, 55–68. 

Bloodworth, B. E., & D. K. Odell. (2008). Kogia breviceps. Mammalian Species, 819, 1–12. 

Bloom, P., & M. Jager. (1994). The injury and subsequent healing of a serious propeller strike to a wild 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) resident in cold waters off the Northumberland coast of 

England. Aquatic Mammals, 20.2, 59–64. 

Bluhm, B. A., & R. Grandinger. (2008). Regional variability in food availability for arctic marine mammals. 

Ecological Applications, 18(2), S77–S96. 

Blundell, G. M., & G. W. Pendleton. (2015). Factors affecting haul-out behavior of harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina) in tidewater glacier inlets in Alaska: can tourism vessels and seals coexist? PLoS ONE, 

10(5), e0125486. 

Bocconcelli, A. (2009). Fine-Scale Focal Dtag Behavioral Study in the Gulf of Maine (Marine Mammals & 

Biological Oceanography Annual Reports: FY09). Office of Naval Research.

Bogomolni, A. L., K. R. Pugliares, S. M. Sharp, K. Patchett, C. T. Harry, J. M. LaRocque, K. M. Touhey, & M. 

Moore. (2010). Mortality trends of stranded marine mammals on Cape Cod and southeastern 

Massachusetts, USA, 2000 to 2006. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 88, 143–155. 

Bonde, R. K., & T. J. O'Shea. (1989). Sowerby's beaked whale (Mesoplodon bidens) in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Journal of Mammalogy, 70, 447–449. 

Bonito, L. T., A. Hamdoun, & S. A. Sandin. (2016). Evaluation of the global impacts of mitigation on 

persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic pollutants in marine fish. PeerJ, 4, e1573. 

Bonney, J., & P. T. Leach. (2010). Slow Boat From China, Maritime News. Retrieved from 

http://www.joc.com/maritimenews/slowboatchina_20100201.html

Born, E. W., J. Teilmann, & F. Riget. (2002). Haul-out activity of ringed seals (Phoca hispida) determined 

from satellite telemetry. Marine Mammal Science, 18(1), 167–181. 

Bowen, W. D., & D. B. Siniff. (1999). Distribution, population biology, and feeding ecology of marine 

mammals. In J. E. Reynolds, III & S. A. Rommel (Eds.), Biology of Marine Mammals (pp. 423–

484). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Bowen, W. D., J. I. McMillan, & W. Blanchard. (2007). Reduced population growth of gray seals at Sable 

Island: Evidence from pup production and age of primiparity. Marine Mammal Science, 23(1), 

48–64. 

Bowles, A. E., M. Smultea, B. Würsig, D. P. DeMaster, & D. Palka. (1994). Relative abundance and 

behavior of marine mammals exposed to transmissions from the Heard Island Feasibility Test. 

The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 96, 2469–2484. 

Bowles, A. E., C. Alves, & R. A. Anderson. (2001). Interactions of Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus 

latirostris) with simulated fishing gear and a pinger: implications for preventing entanglements. 

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110(5), 2665. 

Boyd, I., D. Claridge, C. Clark, & B. Southall. (2008). BRS 2008 Preliminary Report. U.S. Navy NAVSEA PEO 

IWS 5, ONR, U.S. Navy Environmental Readiness Division, NOAA, SERDP.

Bradford, A. L., & K. A. Forney. (2014). Injury Determinations for Cetaceans Observed Interacting with 

Hawaii and American Samoa Longline Fisheries During 2008-2012. National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum, .
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-734

3.7 References

Bradford, A. L., & E. Lyman. (2015). Injury Determinations for Humpback Whales and Other Cetaceans 

Reported to NOAA Response Networks in the Hawaiian Islands During 2007 – 2012. National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum.

Bradshaw, C. J. A., K. Evans, & M. A. Hindell. (2006). Mass cetacean strandings—a plea for empiricism. 

Conservation Biology, 20(2), 584–586. 

Branch, T. A. (2007). Abundance of Antarctic blue whales south of 60°S from three complete circumpolar 

sets of surveys. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 9(3), 253–262. 

Brandt, M. J., A. Diederichs, K. Betke, & G. Nehls. (2011). Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving 

at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

421, 205–216. 

Branstetter, B. K., & J. J. Finneran. (2008). Comodulation masking release in bottlenose dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1, 625–633. 

Branstetter, B. K., J. S. Trickey, K. Bakhtiari, A. Black, H. Aihara, & J. J. Finneran. (2013). Auditory masking 

patterns in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) with natural, anthropogenic, and 

synthesized noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(3), 1811–1818. 

Branstetter, B. K., J. Leger, St., D. Acton, J. Stewart, D. Houser, J. J. Finneran, & K. Jenkins. (2017). Killer 

Whale (Orcinus orca) behavioral audiograms. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 

141(4), 2387–2398. 

Bravo Rebolledo, E. L., J. A. Van Franeker, O. E. Jansen, & S. M. Brasseur. (2013). Plastic ingestion by 

harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in The Netherlands. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 67(1–2), 200–202. 

Briggs, C., S. M. Shjegstad, J. A. K. Silva, & M. H. Edwards. (2016). Distribution of chemical warfare agent, 

energetics, and metals in sediments at a deep-water discarded military munitions site. Deep Sea 

Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 63–69. 

Brown, M. W., & M. K. Marx. (2000). Surveillance, Monitoring and Management of North Atlantic Right 

Whales, Eubalaena glacialis, in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts: January to mid-May, 2000. 

Division of Marine Fisheries, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Brown, M. W., D. Fenton, K. Smedbol, C. Merriman, K. Robichaud-Leblanc, & J. D. Conway. (2009). 

Recovery Strategy for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Atlantic Canadian 

Waters (Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series). Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Browne, M. A., P. Crump, S. J. Niven, E. Teuten, A. Tonkin, T. Galloway, & R. Thompson. (2011). 

Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines woldwide: sources and sinks. Environmental Science 

& Technology, 45(21), 9175–9179. 

Brownlow, A., J. Onoufriou, A. Bishop, N. Davison, & D. Thompson. (2016). Corkscrew Seals: Grey Seal 

(Halichoerus grypus) Infanticide and Cannibalism May Indicate the Cause to Spiral Lacerations in 

Seals. PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0156464. 

Brumm, H., & H. Slabbekoorn. (2005). Acoustic Communication in Noise. Advances in the Study of 

Behavior, 35. 

Bryant, P. J., C. M. Lafferty, & S. K. Lafferty. (1984). Reoccupation of Laguna Guerrero Negro, Baja 

California, Mexico, by Gray Whales. In M. L. Jones, S. L. Swartz & S. Leatherwood (Eds.), The Gray 

Whale: Eschrichtius robustus (pp. 375–387). Academic Press.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-735

3.7 References

Buckingham, C. A., L. W. Lefebvre, J. M. Schaefer, & H. I. Kochman. (1999). Manatee response to boating 

activity in a thermal refuge. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27(2), 514–522. 

Buckland, S. T., D. Bloch, K. L. Cattanach, T. Gunnlaugsson, K. Hoydal, S. Lens, & J. Sigurjonsson. (1993).

Distribution and abundance of long-finned pilot whales in the North Atlantic, estimated from 

NASS-87 and NASS-89 data. Reports of the International Whaling Commission(Special Issue 14), 

33–49. 

Budge, S. M., A. M. Springer, S. J. Iverson, G. Sheffield, & C. Rosa. (2008). Blubber fatty acid composition 

of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus: Implications for diet assessment and ecosystem 

monitoring. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 359, 40–46. 

Bull, J. C., P. D. Jepson, R. K. Ssuna, R. Deaville, C. R. Allchin, R. J. Law, & A. Fenton. (2006). The 

relationship between polychlorinated biphenyls in blubber and levels of nematode infestations 

in harbour porpoises, Phocoena phocoena. Parasitology, 132(Pt 4), 565–573. 

Burkholder, J., D. Eggleston, H. Glasgow, C. Brownie, R. Reed, G. Janowitz, M. Posey, G. Mella, C. Kinder, 

R. Corbett, D. Toms, T. Alphin, N. Deamer, & J. Springer. (2004). Comparative impacts of two 

major hurricane seasons on the Neuse River and western Pamlico Sound ecosystems. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(25), 9291–9296. 

Burns, J. J. (2008). Harbor seal and spotted seal Phoca vitulina and P. largha. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & 

J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (Second Edition) (pp. 533–542). 

Academic Press.

Calambokidis, J., G. H. Steiger, J. M. Straley, L. M. Herman, S. Cerchio, D. R. Salden, J. Urban R., J. K. 

Jacobsen, O. von Ziegesar, K. C. Balcomb, C. M. Gabriele, M. E. Dahlheim, S. Uchida, G. Ellis, Y. 

Miyamura, P. Ladron De Guevara, M. Yamaguchi, F. Sato, S. A. Mizroch, L. Schlender, K. 

Rasmussen, J. Barlow, & T. J. Quinn, II. (2001). Movements and population structure of 

humpback whales in the North Pacific. Marine Mammal Science, 17(4), 769–794. 

Calambokidis, J., E. M. Oleson, M. F. McKenna, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2009, 7—10 December 2009). Blue 

whale behavior in shipping lanes and response to ships. Paper presented at the 2009 ONR 

Marine Mammal Program Review, Alexandria, VA.

Calambokidis, J. (2012). Summary of Ship-Strike Related Research on Blue Whales in 2011. 

Caldwell, D. K., & M. C. Caldwell. (1989). Pygmy sperm whale, Kogia breviceps (de Blainville, 1838): 

Dwarf sperm whale Kogia simus Owen, 1866. In S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of 

Marine Mammals (Vol. 4, pp. 234–260). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Caldwell, M. (2001). Social and genetic structure of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in 

Jacksonville, Florida. (Ph.D). University of Miami. 

Calleson, C. S., & R. K. Frohlich. (2007). Slower boat speeds reduce risks to manatees. Endangered 

Species Research, 3, 295–304. 

Camargo, F. S., & C. Bellini. (2007). Report on the collision between a spinner dolphin and a boat in the 

Fernando de Noronha Archipelago, Western Equatorial Atlantic, Brazil. Biota Neotropica, 7(1), 

209–211. 

Campbell, C. (2016). Port of Baltimore's first container ship through expanded Panama Canal carries 

hope for future. The Baltimore Sun. http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-panamacanal-expansion-20160715-story.html 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-736

3.7 References

Campbell, G. S., D. W. Weller, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2010). SIO small boat based marine mammal surveys 

in Southern California: Report of Results for August 2009–July 2010: Annual Range Complex 

Monitoring Report for Hawaii and Southern California. Draft submission to NMFS 15 September 

2010. U.S. Department of the Navy.

Canadas, A., R. Sagarminaga, & S. Garcia-Tiscar. (2002). Cetacean distribution related with depth and 

slope in the Mediterranean waters off southern Spain. Deep Sea Research I, 49, 2053–2073. 

Cardona-Maldonado, M. A., & A. A. Mignucci-Giannoni. (1999). Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales in 

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, with a review of Kogia in the Caribbean. Caribbean Journal of 

Science, 35(1–2), 29–37. 

Carrera, M. L., E. G. P. Favaro, & A. Souto. (2008). The response of marine tucuxis (Sotalia fluviatilis) 

towards tourist boats involves avoidance behaviour and a reduction in foraging. Animal Welfare, 

17, 117–123. 

Carretta, J. V., J. Barlow, & L. Enriquez. (2008). Acousitc pingers eliminate beaked whale bycatch in a gill 

net fishery. Marine Mammal Science, 24(4), 2053–2073. 

Carretta, J. V., & J. Barlow. (2011). Long-term effectiveness, failure rates, and "dinner bell" properties of 

acoustic pingers in a gillnet fishery. Marine Technology Society Journal, 45(5), 7–19. 

Carretta, J. V., S. M. Wilkin, M. M. Muto, & K. Wilkinson. (2013). Sources of Human-Related Injury and 

Mortality for U.S. Pacific West Coast Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2007–2011 (NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS). Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Carretta, J. V., S. M. Wilkin, M. M. Muto, K. Wilkinson, & J. Rustin. (2014). Sources of human-related 

injury and mortality for U.S. Pacific west coast marine mammal stock assessments, 2008–2012. 

(NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-533). Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Carretta, J. V., K. Danil, S. J. Chivers, D. W. Weller, D. S. Janiger, M. Berman-Kowalewski, K. M. 

Hernandez, J. T. Harvey, R. C. Dunkin, D. R. Casper, S. Stoudt, M. Flannery, K. Wilkinson, J. 

Huggins, & D. M. Lambourn. (2016a). Recovery rates of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) 

carcasses estimated from stranding and survival rate data. Marine Mammal Science, 32(1), 349–

362. 

Carretta, J. V., M. M. Muto, S. Wilkin, J. Greenman, K. Wilkinson, M. DeAngelis, J. Viezbicke, D. Lawson, 

& J. Jannot. (2016b). Sources of Human-Related Injury and Mortality for U.S. Pacific West Coast 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2010–2014 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC554). La Jolla, CA: Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

Cassoff, R. M., K. M. Moore, W. A. McLellan, S. G. Barco, D. S. Rotstein, & M. J. Moore. (2011). Lethal 

entanglement in baleen whales. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 96, 175–185. 

Castelblanco-Martinez, D. N., C. Nourisson, E. Quintana-Rizzo, J. Padilla-Saldivar, & J. J. Schmitter-Soto. 

(2012). Potential effects of human pressure and habitat fragmentation on population viability of 

the Antillean manatee Trichechus manatus manatus: a predictive model. Endangered Species 

Research, 18, 129–287. 

Castellote, M., C. W. Clark, & M. O. Lammers. (2012). Acoustic and behavioral changes by fin whales 

(Balaenoptera physalus) in responses to shipping and airgun noise. Biological Conservation, 147, 

115–122. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-737

3.7 References

Castellote, M., T. A. Mooney, L. Quakenbush, R. Hobbs, C. Goertz, & E. Gaglione. (2014). Baseline 

hearing abilities and variability in wild beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). The Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 217(Pt 10), 1682–1691. 

Caswell, H., S. Brault, & M. Fujiwara. (1999). Declining survival probability threatens the North Atlantic 

right whale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96, 3308–3313. 

Cerchio, S., S. Strindberg, T. Collins, C. Bennett, & H. Rosenbaum. (2014). Seismic surveys negatively 

affect humpback whale singing activity off northern Angola. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e86464. 

Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program. (1982). A Characterization of Marine Mammals and Turtles in

the Mid and North Atlantic Areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. (Contract Number AA551-

CT8-48). Kingston, RI: University of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography.

Chambellant, M., I. Stirling, & S. H. Ferguson. (2013). Temporal variation in western Hudson Bay ringed 

seal Phoca hispida diet in relation to environment. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 481, 269–

287. 

Charif, R. A., C. S. Oedekoven, A. Rahaman, B. J. Estabrook, L. Thomas, & A. N. Rice. (2015). Development 

of Statistical Methods for Assessing Changes in Whale Vocal Behavior in Response to MidFrequency Active Sonar. Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Fleet Forces Command. Submitted to 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, under Contract No. N62470-10-

3011, Task Order 39, issued to HDR Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia. 20 March 2015.

Christian, E. A., & J. B. Gaspin. (1974). Swimmer Safe Standards from Underwater Explosions. Navy 

Science Assistance Program Project No. PHP-11-73. White Oak, MD: Naval Ordnance Laboratory.

Christiansen, F., D. Lusseau, E. Stensland, & P. Berggren. (2010). Effects of tourist boats on the behaviour 

of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins off the south coast of Zanzibar. Endangered Species 

Research, 11, 91–99. 

Christiansen, F., M. Rasmussen, & D. Lusseau. (2013). Whale watching disrupts feeding activities of 

minke whales on a feeding ground. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 478, 239–251. 

Christiansen, F., M. Rasmussen, & D. Lusseau. (2014). Inferring energy expenditure from respiration 

rates in minke whales to measure the effects of whale watching boat interactions. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 459, 96–104. 

Christiansen, F., & D. Lusseau. (2015). Linking Behavior to Vital Rates to Measure the Effects of NonLethal Disturbance on Wildlife. Conservation Letters, 8(6), 424–431. 

Christiansen, F., A. M. Dujon, K. R. Sprogis, J. P. Y. Arnould, & L. Bejder. (2016a). Noninvasive unmanned 

aerial vehicle provides estimates of the energetic cost of reproduction in humpback whales. 

Ecosphere, 7(10), e01468. 

Christiansen, F., L. Rojano-Doñate, P. T. Madsen, & L. Bejder. (2016b). Noise Levels of Multi-Rotor 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles with Implications for Potential Underwater Impacts on Marine 

Mammals. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3. 

Cipriano, F. (2008). Atlantic white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus acutus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. 

G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 56–58). Academic Press.

Citta, J. J., L. T. Quakenbush, S. R. Okkonen, M. L. Druckenmiller, W. Maslowski, J. Clement-Kinney, J. C. 

George, H. Brower, R. J. Small, C. J. Ashjian, L. A. Harwood, & M. P. Heide-Jorgensen. (2015). 

Ecological characteristics of core-use areas used by Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort (BCB) bowhead 

whales, 2006–2012. Progress in Oceanography, 136, 201–222. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-738

3.7 References

Clapham, P. J., & D. K. Mattila. (1990). Humpback whale songs as indicators of migration routes. Marine 

Mammal Science, 6(2), 155–160. 

Clapham, P. J., & J. G. Mead. (1999). Megaptera novaeangliae. Mammalian Species, 604, 1–9. 

Clapham, P. J., S. B. Young, & R. L. Brownell, Jr. (1999). Baleen whales: Conservation issues and the 

status of the most endangered populations. Mammal Review, 29, 35–60. 

Clapham, P. J. (2000). The humpback whale: seasonal feeding and breeding in a baleen whale. In J. 

Mann, R. C. Connor, P. L. Tyack & H. Whitehead (Eds.), Cetacean Societies: field studies of 

dolphins and whales (pp. 173–196). University of Chicago Press.

Claridge, D., D. Charlotte, & J. Durban. (2009, 7-10 December 2009). Abundance and movement patterns 

of Blainville’s beaked whales at the Atlantic undersea test and evaluation center (AUTEC). Paper 

presented at the 2009 ONR Marine Mammal Program Review, Alexandria, VA.

Clark, C. (2015). Potential Acoustic Impacts of Vessel Traffic from the Trans Mountain Expansion Project 

on Southern Resident Killer Whales. Prepared for: Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

Clark, C. W. (1995). Navy underwater hydrophone arrays for scientific research on whales. Report of the 

International Whaling Commission, 45, 210–212. 

Clark, C. W., & K. M. Fristrup. (2001). Baleen whale responses to low-frequency human-made 

underwater sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110(5), 2751. 

Clark, C. W., W. T. Ellison, B. L. Southall, L. Hatch, S. M. Van Parijs, A. Frankel, & D. Ponirakis. (2009). 

Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 395, 201–222. 

Clark, C. W., M. W. Brown, & P. Corkeron. (2010). Visual and acoustic surveys for North Atlantic right 

whales, Eubalaena glacialis, in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts, 2001–2005: management 

implications. Marine Mammal Science, 26(4), 837–843. 

Clark, S. L., & J. W. Ward. (1943). The effects of rapid compression waves on animals submerged in 

water. Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics, 77, 403–412. 

Clarke, M. R., & T. K. Kristensen. (1980). Cephalopod beaks from the stomachs of two northern 

bottlenosed whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of 

the United Kingdom, 60, 151–156. 

Clarke, M. R. (1986). Cephalopods in the diet of odonotocetes. In M. M. Bryden & R. J. Harrison (Eds.), 

Research on Dolphins (pp. 281–321). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Clarke, M. R. (1996). Cephalopods as prey. III. Cetaceans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 

of London, 351, 1053–1065. 

Cleator, H. J. (1996). The status of the bearded seal, Erignathus barbatus, in Canada. Canadian FieldNaturalist, 110(3), 501–510. 

Coakes, A., S. Gowans, P. Simard, J. Giard, C. Vashro, & R. Sears. (2005). Photographic identification of 

fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) off the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia, Canada. Marine 

Mammal Science, 21(2), 323–327. 

Coles, P. J. (2001). Identifying beaked whales at sea in North Atlantic waters (A report on the whales, 

dolphins and seabirds of the Bay of Biscay and English Channel). Organization Cetacea (ORCA).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-739

3.7 References

Committee on Taxonomy. (2016). List of Marine Mammal Species & Subspecies - Society for Marine 

Mammalogy. Retrieved from https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/listof-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. (2002). COSEWIC Assessment and Update 

Status Report on the Polar Bear, Ursus maritimus in Canada. Ottawa, Canada: Committee on the 

Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. (2003). COSEWIC Assessment and Status 

Report on the Short-tailed Albatross Phoebastrie albatrus in Canada. Ottawa, Canada: 

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. (2009). COSEWIC Assessment and Update 

Status Report on the Bowhead Whale Balaena mysticetus Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort population 

East Canada-West Greenland population in Canada. Ottawa, Canada.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. (2011). Assessment and Status Report on 

the Northern Bottlenose Whale Hyperoodon ampullatus in Canada – 2011. Species at Risk Public 

Registry. Retrieved from http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=EN&n=3BF95D10-1

Conn, P. B., & G. K. Silber. (2013). Vessel speed restrictions reduce risk of collision-related mortality for 

North Atlantic right whales. Ecosphere, 4(4). 

Costa, D. P. (1993). The relationship between reproductive and foraging energetics and the evolution of 

the Pinnipedia. Symposiums of the Zoological Society of London, 66, 293–314. 

Costa, D. P., D. E. Crocker, J. Gedamke, P. M. Webb, D. S. Houser, S. B. Blackwell, D. Waples, S. A. Hayes, 

& B. J. Le Boeuf. (2003). The effect of a low-frequency sound source (acoustic thermometry of 

the ocean climate) on the diving behavior of juvenile northern elephant seals, Mirounga 

angustirostris. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 113(2), 1155–1165. 

Costa, D. P., & B. A. Block. (2009). Use of electronic tag data and associated analytical tools to identify 

and predict habitat utilization of marine predators (Marine Mammals & Biological Oceanography 

Annual Reports: FY09). Office of Naval Research.

Costa, D. P., L. A. Hückstädt, L. K. Schwarz, A. S. Friedlaender, B. R. Mate, A. N. Zerbini, A. Kennedy, & N. 

J. Gales. (2016a, 10-16 July 2016). Assessing the exposure of animals to acoustic disturbance: 

towards an understanding of the population consequences of disturbance. In Proceedings of 

Meetings on Acoustics. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on the Effects of 

Noise on Aquatic Life, Dublin, Ireland.

Costa, D. P., L. Schwartz, P. Robinson, R. S. Schick, P. A. Morris, R. Condit, D. E. Crocker, & A. M. 

Kilpatrick. (2016b). A bioenergetics approach to understanding the population consequences of 

disturbance: elephant seals as a model system The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II (pp. 116–

169). New York: Springer.

Costidis, A. M., & S. A. Rommel. (2016). The extracranial venous system in the heads of beaked whales, 

with implications on diving physiology and pathogenesis. Journal of morphology, 277(1), 34–64. 

Cox, T. M., T. J. Ragen, A. J. Read, E. Vox, R. W. Baird, K. Balcomb, J. Barlow, J. Caldwell, T. Cranford, L. 

Crum, A. D'Amico, G. D'Spain, A. Fernandez, J. Finneran, R. Gentry, W. Gerth, F. Gulland, J. 

Hildebrand, D. Houser, T. Hullar, P. D. Jepson, D. Ketten, C. D. MacLeod, P. Miller, S. Moore, D. C. 

Mountain, D. Palka, P. Ponganis, S. Rommel, T. Rowles, B. Taylor, P. Tyack, D. Wartzok, R. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-740

3.7 References

Gisiner, J. Mead, & L. Benner. (2006). Understanding the impacts of anthropogenic sound on 

beaked whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 7(3), 177–187. 

Cozar, A., F. Echevarria, J. I. Gonzalez-Gordillo, X. Irigoien, B. Ubeda, S. Hernandez-Leon, A. T. Palma, S. 

Navarro, J. Garcia-de-Lomas, A. Ruiz, M. L. Fernandez-de-Puelles, & C. M. Duarte. (2014). Plastic 

debris in the open ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 111(28), 10239–10244. 

Craddock, J. E., P. T. Polloni, B. Hayward, & F. Wenzel. (2009). Food habits of Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) off the coast of New England. Fishery Bulletin, 107(3), 384–

394. 

Craig, A. S., & L. M. Herman. (2000). Habitat preferences of female humpback whales, Megaptera 

novaeangliae, in the Hawaiian Islands are associated with reproductive status. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 193, 209–216. 

Croll, D. A., C. W. Clark, J. Calambokidis, W. T. Ellison, & B. R. Tershy. (2001). Effect of anthropogenic 

low-frequency noise on the foraging ecology of Balaenoptera whales. Animal Conservation, 4, 

13–27. 

Crum, L. A., & Y. Mao. (1996). Acoustically enhanced bubble growth at low frequencies and its 

implications for human diver and marine mammal safety. Acoustical Society of America, 99(5), 

2898–2907. 

Crum, L. A., M. R. Bailey, J. Guan, P. R. Hilmo, S. G. Kargl, & T. J. Matula. (2005). Monitoring bubble 

growth in supersaturated blood and tissue ex vivo and the relevance to marine mammal 

bioeffects. Acoustics Research Letters Online, 6(3), 214–220. 

Culik, B. M., S. Koschinski, N. Tregenza, & G. M. Ellis. (2001). Reactions of harbor porpoises Phocoena 

phocoena and herring Clupea harengus to acoustic alarms. Marine Ecological Progress Series, 

211, 255–260. 

Culik, B. M. (2004). Review of Small Cetaceans Distribution, Behaviour, Migration and Threats. United 

National Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Secretariate of the Convention on the 

Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals.

Cummings, E., R. McAlarney, W. McLellan, & D. A. Pabst. (2016). Aerial Surveys for Protected Species in 

the Jacksonville OPAREA. Virginia Beach, VA: U.S. Fleet Forces Command.

Cummings, E. W., D. A. Pabst, J. E. Blum, S. G. Barco, S. J. Davis, V. G. Thayer, N. Adimey, & W. A. 

McLellan. (2014). Spatial and temporal patterns of habitat use and mortality of the Florida 

manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) in the mid-Atlantic states of North Carolina and 

Virginia from 1991 to 2012. Aquatic Mammals, 40(2), 126–138. 

Cummings, W. C., & P. O. Thompson. (1971). Gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, avoid the underwater 

sounds of killer whales, Orcinus orca. Fishery Bulletin, 69(3), 525–530. 

Cummings, W. C. (1985). Bryde's whale, Balaenoptera edeni Anderson, 1878. In S. H. Ridgway & R. 

Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 3, pp. 137–154). San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press. 

Cunningham, K. A., B. L. Southall, & C. Reichmuth. (2014). Auditory sensitivity of seals and sea lions in 

complex listening scenarios. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 136(6), 3410–3421. 

Cunningham, K. A., & C. Reichmuth. (2015). High-frequency hearing in seals and sea lions. Hearing 

Research, 331, 83–91. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-741

3.7 References

Cure, C., R. Antunes, F. Samarra, A. C. Alves, F. Visser, P. H. Kvadsheim, & P. J. Miller. (2012). Pilot whales 

attracted to killer whale sounds: acoustically-mediated interspecific interactions in cetaceans. 

PLoS ONE, 7(12), e52201. 

Curé, C., L. D. Sivle, F. Visser, P. J. Wensveen, S. Isojunno, C. M. Harris, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, & P. 

J. O. Miller. (2015). Predator sound playbacks reveal strong avoidance responses in a fight 

strategist baleen whale. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 526, 267–282. 

Curé, C., S. Isojunno, F. Visser, P. J. Wensveen, L. D. Sivle, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, & P. J. O. Miller. 

(2016). Biological significance of sperm whale responses to sonar: comparison with antipredator responses. Endangered Species Research, 31, 89–102. 

Curry, B. E., & J. Smith. (1997). Phylogeographic structure of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): 

Stock identification and implications for management. In A. E. Dizon, S. J. Chivers & W. F. Perrin 

(Eds.), Molecular Genetics of Marine Mammals (pp. 227–247). Lawrence, KS: Society for Marine 

Mammalogy.

Curtin, S., S. Richards, & S. Westcott. (2009). Tourism and grey seals in South Devon: management 

strategies, voluntary controls and tourists' perceptions of disturbance. Current Issues in Tourism, 

12(1), 59–81. 

Czech-Damal, N. U., A. Liebschner, L. Miersch, G. Klauer, F. D. Hanke, C. Marshall, G. Dehnhardt, & W.

Hanke. (2011). Electroreception in the Guiana dolphin (Sotalia guianensis). Proceedings of the 

Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 

D'Vincent, C. G., R. M. Nilson, & R. E. Hanna. (1985). Vocalization and coordinated feeding behavior of 

the humpback whale in southeastern Alaska. Scientific Reports of the the Whales Research 

Institute, 36, 41–47. 

Dahlheim, M. E., & J. E. Heyning. (1999). Killer whale, Orcinus orca (Linnaeus, 1758). In S. H. Ridgway & 

R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 6, pp. 281–322). San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press.

Dähne, M., V. Peschko, A. Gilles, K. Lucke, S. Adler, K. Ronnenberg, & U. Siebert. (2014). Marine 

mammals and windfarms: effects of alpha ventus on harbour porpoises Ecological Research at 

the Offshore Windfarm alpha ventus (pp. 133–149). Springer.

Dalebout, M. L., D. E. Ruzzante, H. Whitehead, & N. I. Oien. (2006). Nuclear and mitochondrial markers 

reveal distinctiveness of a small population of bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus) in the 

western North Atlantic. Mol Ecol, 15, 3115–3129. 

Danil, K., & J. A. St. Ledger. (2011). Seabird and dolphin mortality associated with underwater 

detonation exercises. Marine Technology Society Journal, 45(6), 63–87. 

Davies, J. L. (1957). The geography of the gray seal. Journal of Mammalogy, 38(3), 297–310. 

Davis, R. W., & G. S. Fargion. (1996). Distribution and Abundance of Marine Mammals in the Northcentral and Western Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service.

Davis, R. W., G. S. Fargion, N. May, T. D. Leming, M. Baumgartner, W. E. Evans, L. J. Hansen, & K. Mullin. 

(1998). Physical habitat of cetaceans along the continental slope in the north-central and 

western Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science, 14(3), 490–507. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-742

3.7 References

Davis, R. W., W. E. Evans, & B. Würsig, (Eds.). (2000). Cetaceans, sea turtles and seabirds in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and habitat associations. New Orleans, LA: Minerals 

Management Service.

Davis, R. W., J. G. Ortega-Ortiz, C. A. Ribic, W. E. Evans, D. C. Biggs, P. H. Ressler, R. B. Cady, R. R. Leben, 

K. D. Mullin, & B. Würsig. (2002). Cetacean habitat in the northern oceanic Gulf of Mexico. DeepSea Research I, 49, 121–142. 

Davis, R. W., N. Jaquet, D. Gendron, U. Markaida, G. Bazzino, & W. Gilly. (2007). Diving behavior of 

sperm whales in relation to behavior of a major prey species, the jumbo squid, in the Gulf of 

California, Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 333, 291–302. 

De Pierrepont, J. F., B. Dubois, S. Desormonts, M. B. Santos, & J. P. Robin. (2005). Stomach contents of 

English Channel cetaceans stranded on the coast of Normandy. Journal of the Marine Biological 

Association of the United Kingdom, 85, 1539–1546. 

De Silva, R., K. Grellier, G. Lye, N. McLean, & P. Thompson. (2014, 28 April - 02 May, 2014). Use of 

population viability analysis (PVA) to assess the potential for long term impacts from piling noise 

on marine mammal populations - a case study from the Scottish east coast. Paper presented at 

the Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Environmental Interactions of Marine 

Renewable Energy Technologies (EIMR2014), Stornoway, Isle of Lewis, Outer Hebrides, Scotland.

Deakos, M. H., & M. F. Richlen. (2015). Vessel-Based Marine Mammal Survey on the Navy Range off 

Kauai in Support of Passive Acoustic Monitoring and Satellite-Tagging Efforts: 1–9 February 2014

(Prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet 

under Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, CTO KB22). Honolulu, HI: HDR Inc.

Debich, A. J., S. Baumann-Pickering, A. Sirovic, J. A. Hildebrand, A. M. Brewer, K. E. Frasier, R. T. Gresalfi, 

S. T. Herbert, S. C. Johnson, A. C. Rice, L. M. Varga, S. M. Wiggins, L. E. W. Hodge, J. E.

Stanistreet, & A. J. Read. (2016). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine Mammals in the 

Virginia Capes Range Complex October 2012–April 2015. (Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, Task 

Order Number 051). Norfolk, VA.

Deecke, V. B., P. J. B. Slater, & J. K. B. Ford. (2002). Selective habituation shapes acoustic predator 

recognition in harbour seals. Nature, 420(14 November), 171–173. 

Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. (2007). Observations of marine mammal behaviour in 

response of active sonar. United Kingdom: Ministry of Defence.

DeHart, P. A. P. (2002). The distribution and abundance of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina concolor) in the 

Woods Hole region. (Master of Arts). Boston University, Boston, MA. 

Demarchi, M. W., M. Holst, D. Robichaud, M. Waters, & A. O. MacGillivray. (2012). Responses of Steller 

sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) to in-air blast noise from military explosions. Aquatic Mammals, 

38(3), 279. 

DeMaster, D. P., & I. Stirling. (1981). Ursus maritimus. Mammalian Species, 145, 1–7. 

Deng, Z. D., B. L. Southall, T. J. Carlson, J. Xu, J. J. Martinez, M. A. Weiland, & J. M. Ingraham. (2014). 200 

kHz commercial sonar systems generate lower frequency side lobes audible to some marine 

mammals. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e95315. 

Dennison, S., M. J. Moore, A. Fahlman, K. Moore, S. Sharp, C. T. Harry, J. Hoppe, M. Niemeyer, B. Lentell, 

& R. S. Wells. (2011). Bubbles in live-stranded dolphins. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 

Biological Sciences, 10. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-743

3.7 References

Derraik, J. G. B. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 44, 842–852. 

DeRuiter, S. L., I. L. Boyd, D. E. Claridge, C. W. Clark, C. Gagon, B. L. Southall, & P. L. Tyack. (2013a). 

Delphinid whistle production and call matching during playback of simulated military sonar. 

Marine Mammal Science, 29(2), E46–59. 

DeRuiter, S. L., S. B. L., J. Calambokidis, W. M. X. Zimmer, D. Sadykova, E. A. Falcone, A. S. Friedlaender, J. 

E. Joseph, D. Moretti, G. S. Schorr, L. Thomas, & P. L. Tyack. (2013b). First direct measurements 

of behavioural responses by Cuvier’s beaked whales to mid-frequency active sonar. Biology 

Letters, 9, 201–223. 

DeRuiter, S. L., R. Langrock, T. Skirbutas, J. A. Goldbogen, J. Calambokidis, A. S. Friedlaender, & B. L. 

Southall. (2017). A multivariate mixed hidden Markov model for blue whale behaviour and 

responses to sound exposure. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 11(1), 362–392. 

Desforges, J. P., C. Sonne, M. Levin, U. Siebert, S. De Guise, & R. Dietz. (2016). Immunotoxic effects of 

environmental pollutants in marine mammals. Environment international, 86, 126–139. 

Deutsch, C. J., J. P. Reid, R. K. Bonde, D. E. Easton, H. I. Kochman, & T. J. O'Shea. (2003). Seasonal 

movements, migratory behavior, and site fidelity of West Indian manatees along the Atlantic 

coast of the United States. Wildlife Monographs, 151, 1–77. 

Di Lorio, L., & C. W. Clark. (2010). Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication. 

Biology Letters, 6, 51–54. 

Dias, L. A., J. Litz, L. Garrison, A. Martinez, K. Barry, & T. Speakman. (2017). Exposure of cetaceans to 

petroleum products following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Endangered 

Species Research, 33, 119–125. 

Dierauf, L. A., & F. M. D. Gulland. (2001). Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events. In L. A. Dierauf & F. 

M. D. Gulland (Eds.), Marine Mammal Medicine (second ed., pp. 69–81). Boca Raton, FL: CRC 

Press. 

Dietz, R., M. P. Heide-Jorgensen, P. Richard, J. Orr, K. Laidre, & H. C. Schmidt. (2008). Movements of 

narwhals (Monodon monoceros) from Admiralty Inlet monitored by satellite telemetry. Polar 

Biology, 31, 1295–1306. 

Doksaeter, L., E. Olsen, L. Nottestad, & A. Ferno. (2008). Distribution and feeding ecology of dolphins 

along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge between Iceland and the Azores. Deep Sea Research II, 55, 243–

253. 

Dolar, M. L. L. (2008). Fraser's dolphin, Lagenodelphis hosei. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (pp. 485–487). San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press. 

Donahue, M. A., & W. L. Perryman. (2008). Pygmy killer whale, Feresa attenuata. In W. F. Perrin, B. 

Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 938–939). 

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Doney, S. C., M. Ruckelshaus, D. J. Emmett, J. P. Barry, F. Chan, C. A. English, H. M. Galindo, J. M. 

Grebmeier, A. B. Hollowed, N. Knowlton, J. Polovina, N. N. Rabalais, W. J. Sydeman, & L. D. 

Talley. (2012). Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science, 

4(1), 11–37. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-744

3.7 References

Donovan, G. P. (1991). A review of IWC stock boundaries. Reports of the International Whaling 

Commission, Special Issue 13, 39–68. 

dos Santos, R. A., & M. Haimovici. (2001). Cephalopods in the diet of marine mammals stranded or 

incidentally caught along southeastern and southern Brazil (21–34oS). Fisheries Research, 52, 

99–112. 

Doucette, G. J., A. D. Cembella, J. L. Martin, J. Michaud, T. V. N. Cole, & R. M. Rolland. (2006). Paralytic 

shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins in North Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, and their 

zooplankton prey in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 306, 303–313. 

Douglas, A. B., J. Calambokidis, S. Raverty, S. J. Jeffries, D. M. Lambourn, & S. A. Norman. (2008). 

Incidence of ship strikes of large whales in Washington State. Journal of the Marine Biological 

Association of the United Kingdom, 88(6), 1121–1132. 

Doyle, L. R., B. McCowan, S. F. Hanser, C. Chyba, T. Bucci, & E. J. Blue. (2008). Applicability of information 

theory to the quantification of responses to anthropogenic noise by southeast Alaskan 

humpback whales. Entropy, 10, 33–46. 

Duffield, D. (1987). Investigation of Genetic Variability in Stocks of the Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus) and the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta). Portland, Oregon.

Duffield, D. A., S. H. Ridgway , & L. H. Cornell. (1983). Hematology distinguishes coastal and offshore 

forms of dolphins (Tursiops). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 61, 930–933. 

Dunlop, R. A., D. H. Cato, & M. J. Noad. (2010). Your attention please: increasing ambient noise levels 

elictis a change in communication behaviour in humpback whales (Megoptera novaeangliae). 

Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277, 2521–2529. 

Dunlop, R. A., M. J. Noad, D. H. Cato, E. Kniest, P. J. Miller, J. N. Smith, & M. D. Stokes. (2013). 

Multivariate analysis of behavioural response experiments in humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae). Journal of Experimental Biology, 216(5), 759–770. 

Dunlop, R. A., D. H. Cato, & M. J. Noad. (2014). Evidence of a Lombard response in migrating humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 136(1), 430–

437. 

Dunlop, R. A., M. J. Noad, R. D. McCauley, E. Kniest, D. Paton, & D. H. Cato. (2015). The behavioural 

response of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to a 20 cubic inch air gun. Aquatic 

Mammals, 41(4), 412. 

Dunlop, R. A. (2016). The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, 

communication behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 111, 13–21. 

Dunlop, R. A., M. J. Noad, R. D. McCauley, E. Kniest, R. Slade, D. Paton, & D. H. Cato. (2016). Response of 

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to ramp-up of a small experimental air gun array. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin, 103(1–2), 72–83. 

Durban, J. W., H. Fearnbach, L. G. Barrett–Lennard, W. L. Perryman, & D. J. Leroi. (2015). 

Photogrammetry of killer whales using a small hexacopter launched at sea. Journal of 

Unmanned Vehicle Systems, 3(3), 131–135. 

Durner, G. M., D. C. Douglas, R. M. Nielson, S. C. Amstrup, M. T. L., I. Stirling, M. Mauritzen, E. W. Born, 

O. Wiig, E. DeWeaver, M. C. Serreze, S. E. Belikov, M. M. Holland, J. Maslanik, J. Aars, D. A. 

Bailey, & A. E. Derocher. (2009). Predicting 21st-Century polar bear habitat distribution from 

global climate models. Ecological Monographs, 79(1), 25–58. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-745

3.7 References

Durner, G. M., J. P. Whiteman, H. J. Harlow, S. C. Amstrup, E. V. Regehr, & M. Ben-David. (2011). 

Consequences of long-distance swimming and travel over deep-water pack ice for a female 

polar bear during a year of extreme sea ice retreat. Polar Biology, 34, 975–984. 

Dyndo, M., D. M. Wisniewska, L. Rojano-Donate, & P. T. Madsen. (2015). Harbour porpoises react to low 

levels of high frequency vessel noise. Sci Rep, 5, 11083. 

Edds-Walton, P. L. (1997). Acoustic communication signals of mysticete whales. Bioacoustics: The 

International Journal of Animal Sound and its Recording, 8, 47–60. 

Edwards, E. F., C. Hall, T. J. Moore, C. Sheredy, & J. V. Redfern. (2015). Global distribution of fin whales 

(Balaenoptera physalus) in the post-whaling era (1980–2012). Mammal Review, 45, 197–214. 

Edwards, H. H. (2013). Potential impacts of climate change on warmwater megafauna: the Florida 

manatee example (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Climatic Change, 121(4), 727–738. 

Edwards, M. H., S. M. Shjegstad, R. Wilkens, J. C. King, G. Carton, D. Bala, B. Bingham, M. C. Bissonnette, 

C. Briggs, N. S. Bruso, R. Camilli, M. Cremer, R. B. Davis, E. H. DeCarlo, C. DuVal, D. J. Fornari, I. 

Kaneakua-Pia, C. D. Kelley, S. Koide, C. L. Mahk, T. Kerby, G. J. Kurras, M. R. Rognstad, L. Sheild, J. 

Silva, B. Wellington, & M. Van Woerkom. (2016). The Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions 

Assessment. Deep-Sea Research II, 128, 4–13. 

Efroymson, R. A., W. H. Rose, & G. W. Suter, II. (2001). Ecological Risk Assessment Framework for Lowaltitude Overflights by Fixed-Wing and Rotary-Wing Military Aircraft. Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, ORNL/TM-2000/289; ES-5048.

Eisenhardt, E. (2014). Recent trends of vessel activities in proximity to cetaceans in the central Salish Sea. 

Ellison, W. T., B. L. Southall, C. W. Clark, & A. S. Frankel. (2011). A new context-based approach to assess 

marine mammal behavioral responses to anthropogenic sounds. Conservation Biology, 26(1), 

21–28. 

Elvin, S. S., & C. T. Taggart. (2008). Right whales and vessels in Canadian waters. Marine Policy, 32, 379–

386. 

Engelhardt, R. (1983). Petroleum effects on marine mammals. Aquatic Toxicology, 4, 199–217. 

Engelhaupt, A., J. Aschettino, T. A. Jefferson, M. Richlen, & D. Engelhaupt. (2015). Occurrence, 

Distribution, and Density of Marine Mammals near Naval Station Norfolk & Virginia Beach, VA: 

Annual Progress Report. Final Report. (Contract No. N62470-10-3011, Task Orders 031 and 043). 

Norfolk, Virginia: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic.

Engelhaupt, A., J. Aschettino, T. A. Jefferson, D. Engelhaupt, & M. Richlen. (2016). Occurrence, 

Distribution, and Density of Marine Mammals Near Naval Station Norfolk and Virginia Beach, 

Virginia. Virginia Beach, VA: U.S. Fleet Forces Command.

Environmental Sciences Group. (2005). Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges 

(CFMETR) Environmental Assessment Update 2005. Kingston, Ontario: Environmental Sciences 

Group, Royal Military College.

Erbe, C. (2002). Underwater noise of whale-watching boats and potential effects on killer whales 

(Orcinus Orca), based on an acoustic impact model. Marine Mammal Science, 18(2), 394–418. 

Erbe, C., A. MacGillivray, & R. Williams. (2012). Mapping cumulative noise from shipping to inform 

marine spatial planning. Acoustical Society of America, 132(5). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-746

3.7 References

Erbe, C., R. Williams, D. Sandilands, & E. Ashe. (2014). Identifying modeled ship noise hotspots for 

marine mammals of Canada's Pacific region. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e89820. 

Erbe, C., C. Reichmuth, K. Cunningham, K. Lucke, & R. Dooling. (2015). Communication masking in 

marine mammals: a review and research strategy. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1–24. 

Erdman, D. S. (1970). Marine mammals from Puerto Rico to Antigua. Journal of Mammalogy, 51, 636–

639. 

Erdman, D. S., J. Harms, & M. Marcial-Flores. (1973). Cetacean records from the northeastern Caribbean 

region. Cetology, 17, 1–14. 

Eriksson, C., & H. Burton. (2003). Origins and biological accumulation of small plastic particles in fur seals 

from Macquarie Island. Ambio, 32(6), 380–384. 

Ersts, P. J., & H. C. Rosenbaum. (2003). Habitat preference reflects social organization of humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) on a wintering ground. Journal of Zoology, 260(4), 337–345. 

Evans, P. G. H., & L. A. Miller. (2003). Proceedings of the workshop on active sonar and cetaceans

(European cetacean society newsletter, No. 42—Special Issue). Las Palmas, Gran Canaria.

Evans, W. E. (1994). Common dolphin, white-bellied porpoise—Delphinus delphis Linnaeus, 1758. In S. H. 

Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals. Volume 5: The First Book of 

Dolphins (pp. 191–224). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Fahlman, A., A. Olszowka, B. Bostrom, & D. R. Jones. (2006). Deep diving mammals: Dive behavior and 

circulatory adjustments contribute to bends avoidance. Respiratory Physiology and 

Neurobiology, 153, 66–77. 

Fahlman, A., S. K. Hooker, A. Olszowka, B. L. Bostrom, & D. R. Jones. (2009). Estimating the effect of lung 

collapse and pulmonary shunt on gas exchange during breath-hold diving: the Scholander and 

Kooyman legacy. Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, 165(1), 28–39. 

Fahlman, A., S. H. Loring, S. P. Johnson, M. Haulena, A. W. Trites, V. A. Fravel, & W. G. Van Bonn. 

(2014a). Inflation and deflation pressure-volume loops in anesthetized pinnipeds confirms 

compliant chest and lungs. frontiers in Physiology, 5(433). 

Fahlman, A., P. L. Tyack, P. J. O. Miller, & P. H. Kvadsheim. (2014b). How man-made interference might 

cause gas bubble emboli in deep diving whales. frontiers in Physiology, 5(13), 1–6. 

Fair, P. A., J. Adams, G. Mitchum, T. C. Hulsey, J. S. Reif, M. Houde, D. Muir, E. Wirth, D. Wetzel, E. 

Zolman, W. McFee, & G. D. Bossart. (2010). Contaminant blubber burdens in Atlantic bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from two southeastern U.S. estuarine areas: concentrations and 

patterns of PCBs, pesticides, PBDEs, PFCs, and PAHs. The Science of the total environment, 

408(7), 1577–1597. 

Fair, P. A., A. M. Schaefer, T. A. Romano, G. D. Bossart, S. V. Lamb, & J. S. Reif. (2014). Stress response of 

wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) during capture–release health assessment studies. 

General and Comparative Endocrinology, 206, 203–212. 

Fais, A., N. Aguilar Soto, M. Johnson, C. Perez-Gonzales, P. J. O. Miller, & P. T. Madsen. (2015). Sperm 

whale echolocation behavior reveals a directed, prior-based search strategy informed by prey 

distribution. Behaviour Ecology and Sociobiology, 69(4), 663–674. 

Falcone, E. A., G. S. Schorr, A. B. Douglas, J. Calambokidis, E. Henderson, M. F. McKenna, J. Hildebrand, & 

D. Moretti. (2009). Sighting characteristics and photo-identification of Cuvier's beaked whales 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-747

3.7 References

(Ziphius cavirostris) near San Clemente Island, California: A key area for beaked whales and the 

military? Marine Biology, 156, 2631–2640. 

Falcone, E. A., & G. S. Schorr. (2012). Distribution and demographics of marine mammals in SOCAL 

through photo-indentification, genetics, and satellite telemetry: a summary of surveys conducted 

1 July 2011 - 15 June 2012. Monterey, CA: U.S. Navy Postgraduate School.

Falcone, E. A., & G. S. Schorr. (2014). Distribution and Demographics of Marine Mammals in SOCAL 

through Photo-Identification, Genetics, and Satellite Telemetry (Prepared for Chief of Naval 

Operations Energy and Environmental Readiness Division: NPS-OC-14-005CR). Monterey, CA: 

U.S. Navy Post Graduate School.

Falke, K. J., R. D. Hill, J. Qvist, R. C. Schneider, M. Guppy, G. C. Liggins, P. W. Hochachka, R. E. Elliott, & W. 

M. Zapol. (1985). Seal lungs collapse during free diving: evidence from arterial nitrogen tensions. 

Science, 229, 556–558. 

Farak, A. M., M. W. Richie, J. A. Rivers, & R. K. Uyeyama. (2011). Cruise Report, Marine Species 

Monitoring and Lookout Effectiveness Study Koa Kai, November 2010, Hawaii Range Complex. 

Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Fauquier, D. A., M. J. Kinsel, M. D. Dailey, G. E. Sutton, M. K. Stolen, R. S. Wells, & F. M. D. Gulland. 

(2009). Prevalence and pathology of lungworm infection in bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops 

truncatus, from southwest Florida. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 88, 85–90. 

Fay, R. R. (1988). Hearing in Vertebrates: A Psychophysics Databook. Winnetka, IL: Hill-Fay Associates.

Fay, R. R., & A. N. Popper. (1994). Comparative Hearing: Mammals. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Felix, F., & K. Van Waerebeek. (2005). Whale mortality from ship strikes in Ecuador and West Africa. 

Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals, 4(1), 55–60. 

Ferguson, M. C., J. Barlow, P. Feidler, S. B. Reilly, & T. Gerrodette. (2006). Spatial models of delphinid 

(family Delphinidae) encouter rate and group size in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Ecological 

Modelling, 193, 645–662. 

Ferguson, M. C., C. Curtice, J. Harrison, & S. M. Van Parijs. (2015). 1. Biologically important areas for 

cetaceans within U.S. waters – Overview and Rationale. In S. M. Van Parijs, C. Curtice, & M. C. 

Ferguson (Eds.), Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S. waters, Aquatic 

Mammals (Special Issue) 41(1), 2–16. 

Fernandez, A. (2006). Beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) mass stranding on Almeria's coasts in southern 

Spain (Report of the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Canary Islands).

Fernández, A., J. F. Edwards, F. Rodríguez, A. Espinosa de los Monteros, P. Herráez, P. Castro, J. R. Jaber, 

V. Martín, & M. Arbelo. (2005). "Gas and fat embolic syndrome" involving a mass stranding of 

beaked whales (family Ziphiidae) exposed to anthropogenic sonar signals. Journal of Veterinary 

Pathology, 42, 446–457. 

Fertl, D., & B. Würsig. (1995). Coordinated feeding by Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Aquatic Mammals, 21, 3–5. 

Fertl, D., A. Acevedo-Gutiérrez, & F. L. Darby. (1996). A report of killer whales (Orcinus orca) feeding on a 

carcharhinid shark in Costa Rica. Marine Mammal Science, 12(4), 606–611. 

Fertl, D., & S. Leatherwood. (1997). Cetacean interactions with trawls: A preliminary review. Journal of 

Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science, 22, 219–248. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-748

3.7 References

Fertl, D., A. J. Schiro, & D. Peake. (1997). Coordinated feeding by Clymene dolphins (Stenella clymene) in 

the Gulf of Mexico. Aquatic Mammals, 23(2), 111–112. 

Fertl, D., T. A. Jefferson, I. B. Moreno, A. N. Zerbini, & K. D. Mullin. (2003). Distribution of the Clymene 

dolphin, Stenella clymene. Mammal Review, 33, 253–271. 

Fertl, D., A. J. Schiro, G. T. Regan, C. A. Beck, N. M. Adimey, L. Price-May, A. Amos, G. A. J. Worthy, & R. 

Crossland. (2005). Manatee occurrence in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, west of Florida. Gulf and 

Caribbean Research, 17, 69–74. 

Filadelfo, R., J. Mintz, E. Michlovich, A. D’Amico, & D. R. Ketten. (2009a). Correlating military sonar use 

with beaked whale mass strandings: What do the historical data show? . Aquatic Mammals, 

35(4), 435–444. 

Filadelfo, R., Y. K. Pinelis, S. Davis, R. Chase, J. Mintz, J. Wolfanger, P. L. Tyack, D. R. Ketten, & A. D'Amico. 

(2009b). Correlating Whale Strandings with Navy Exercises off Southern California. Aquatic 

Mammals, 35(4), 445–451. 

Finley, K. J., & C. R. Evans. (1983). Summer diet of the bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) in the 

Canadian high arctic. Arctic, 36(1), 82–89. 

Finneran, J. J., C. E. Schlundt, D. A. Carder, J. A. Clark, J. A. Young, J. B. Gaspin, & S. H. Ridgway. (2000). 

Auditory and behavioral responses of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and a beluga 

whale (Delphinapterus leucas) to impulsive sounds resembling distant signatures of underwater 

explosions. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 108(1), 417–431. 

Finneran, J. J., D. A. Carder, & S. H. Ridgway. (2001). Temporary threshold shift (TTS) in bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to tonal signals. The Journal of Acoustical Society of 

America, 110(5), 2749(A). 

Finneran, J. J., C. E. Schlundt, R. Dear, D. A. Carder, & S. H. Ridgway. (2002). Temporary shift in masked 

hearing thresholds in odontocetes after exposure to single underwater impulses from a seismic 

watergun. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 111(6), 2929–2940. 

Finneran, J. J., D. A. Carder, R. Dear, T. Belting, & S. H. Ridgway. (2003a). Pure-tone audiograms and 

hearing loss in the white whale (Delphinapterus leucas). The Journal of Acoustical Society of 

America, 114, 2434(A). 

Finneran, J. J., R. Dear, D. A. Carder, & S. H. Ridgway. (2003b). Auditory and behavioral responses of 

California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) to single underwater impulses from an arc-gap 

transducer. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 114(3), 1667–1677. 

Finneran, J. J., & C. E. Schlundt. (2004). Effects of intense pure tones on the behavior of trained 

odontocetes. San Diego, CA: SSC San Diego.

Finneran, J. J., D. A. Carder, R. Dear, T. Belting, J. McBain, L. Dalton, & S. H. Ridgway. (2005a). Pure tone 

audiograms and possible aminoglycoside-induced hearing loss in belugas (Delphinapterus 

leucas). Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 117, 3936–3943. 

Finneran, J. J., D. A. Carder, C. E. Schlundt, & S. H. Ridgway. (2005b). Temporary threshold shift (TTS) in 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 118(4), 2696–2705. 

Finneran, J. J., & D. S. Houser. (2006). Comparison of in-air evoked potential and underwater behavioral 

hearing thresholds in four bottlenose dolphins (Turiops truncatus). Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America, 119(5), 3181–3192. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-749

3.7 References

Finneran, J. J., C. E. Schlundt, B. Branstetter, & R. L. Dear. (2007). Assessing temporary threshold shift in 

a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) using multiple simultaneous auditory evoked 

potentials. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 122(2), 1249–1264. 

Finneran, J. J., D. S. Houser, B. Mase-Guthrie, R. Y. Ewing, & R. G. Lingenfelser. (2009). Auditory evoked 

potentials in a stranded Gervais’ beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus). Journal of Acoustical 

Society of America, 126(1), 484–490. 

Finneran, J. J., D. A. Carder, C. E. Schlundt, & R. L. Dear. (2010a). Temporary threshold shift in a 

bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to intermittent tones. The Journal of Acoustical 

Society of America, 127(5), 3267–3272. 

Finneran, J. J., D. A. Carder, C. E. Schlundt, & R. L. Dear. (2010b). Growth and recovery of temporary 

threshold shift at 3 kHz in bottlenose dolphins: Experimental data and mathematical models. 

The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 127(5), 3256–3266. 

Finneran, J. J., & B. K. Branstetter. (2013). Effects of Noise on Sound Perception in Marine Mammals 

Animal Communication and Noise (Vol. 2, pp. 273–308). Springer Berlin Heidelb.

Finneran, J. J., & C. E. Schlundt. (2013). Effects of fatiguing tone frequency on temporary threshold shift 

in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 133(3), 

1819–1826. 

Finneran, J. J. (2015). Noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals: a review of temporary threshold 

shift studies from 1996 to 2015. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 138(3), 1702–

1726. 

Finneran, J. J., C. E. Schlundt, B. K. Branstetter, J. S. Trickey, V. Bowman, & K. Jenkins. (2015). Effects of 

multiple impulses from a seismic air gun on bottlenose dolphin hearing and behavior. The 

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 137(4), 1634–1646. 

Finneran, J. J., J. Mulsow, D. S. Houser, & R. F. Burkard. (2016). Place specificity of the click-evoked 

auditory brainstem response in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 140(4), 2593–2602. 

Fire, S. E., L. J. Flewelling, Z. Wang, J. Naar, M. S. Henry, R. H. Pierce, & R. S. Wells. (2008). Florida red 

tide and brevetoxins: Association and exposure in live resident bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A. Marine Mammal Science, 24(4), 831–844. 

Fire, S. E., L. J. Flewelling, M. Stolen, W. N. Durden, M. de Wit, A. C. Spellman, & Z. Wang. (2015). 

Brevetoxin-associated mass mortality event of bottlenose dolphins and manatees along the east 

coast of Florida, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 526, 241–251. 

Firestone, J. (2009). Policy considerations and measures to reduce the likelihood of vessel collisions with 

great whales. Environmental Affairs, 36, 389–400. 

Fish, J. F., & J. S. Vania. (1971). Killer whale, Orcinus orca, sounds repel white whales, Delphinapterus 

leucas. Fishery Bulletin, 69(3), 531–535. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2011). 2011-2015 Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for Atlantic 

Seals: Harp (Pagophilus groenlandicus), Hooded (Cystophora cristata), Grey (Halichoerus 

grypus), Ringed (Phoca hispida), Bearded (Erignathus barbatus), Harbour (Phoca vitulina). 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2016a, 7 April 2016). Harp Seal and Hooded Seal Competitive Fleet in 

Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Gulf and Maritime Regions. Retrieved from 

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/decisions/fm-2016-gp/atl-03-eng.htm
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-750

3.7 References

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2016b, 7 April 2016). Grey Seal Competitive Fleet in Atlantic Canada. 

Retrieved from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/decisions/fm-2016-gp/atl-02-eng.htm

Fitch, R., J. Harrison, & J. Lewandowski. (2011). Marine Mammal and Sound Workshop July 13 and 14, 

2010: Report to the National Ocean Council Ocean Science and Technology Interagency Policy 

Committee. Washington, DC: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Department of the 

Navy (DON), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Fleming, A. H., C. T. Clark, J. Calambokidis, & J. Barlow. (2015). Humpback whale diets respond to 

variance in ocean climate and ecosystem conditions in the California Current. Global Change 

Biology. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. (2015). 2015 Final Manatee Mortality Table by 

County: From 01/01/2015 to 12/31/2015. Retrieved from 

http://myfwc.com/media/4054449/2015.pdf

Foley, H., Z. Swaim, D. Waples, & A. Read. (2015a). Deep Divers and Satellite Tagging Projects in the 

Virginia Capes OPAREA - Cape Hatteras, NC: January 2014–December 2014. Virginia Beach, VA: 

U.S. Fleet Forces Command.

Foley, H., Z. Swaim, D. Waples, & A. J. Read. (2015b). Deep divers and satellite tagging projects in the 

Virginia Capes OPAREA – Cape Hatteras, NC: January 2014–December 2014. Draft report Virginia 

Beach, VA.

Foley, H. J., R. C. Holt, R. E. Hardee, P. B. Nilsson, K. A. Jackson, A. J. Read, D. A. Pabst, & W. A. McLellan. 

(2011). Observations of a western North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) birth offshore 

of the protected southeast U.S. critical habitat. Marine Mammal Science, 27(3), E234–E240. 

Folkow, L. P., E. S. Nordoy, & A. S. Blix. (2004). Distribution and diving behaviour of harp seals 

(Pagophilus groenlandicus) from the Greenland sea stock. Polar Biology, 27, 281–298. 

Fonnesbeck, C. J., L. P. Garrison, L. I. Ward-Geiger, & R. D. Baumstark. (2008). Bayesian hierarchichal 

model for evaluating the risk of vessel strikes on North Atlantic right whales in the SE United 

States. Endangered Species Research, 6, 87–94. 

Foote, A. D., R. W. Osborne, & A. R. Hoelzel. (2004). Whale-call response to masking boat noise. Nature, 

428, 910.

Ford, J. K. B., G. M. Ellis, D. R. Matkin, K. C. Balcomb, D. Briggs, & A. B. Morton. (2005). Killer whale 

attacks on minke whales: Prey capture and antipredator tactics. Marine Mammal Science, 21(4), 

603–618. 

Forney, K. A., B. L. Southall, E. Slooten, S. Dawson, A. J. Read, R. W. Baird, & R. L. Brownell, Jr. (2017). 

Nowhere to go: noise impact assessments for marine mammal populations with high site 

fidelity. Endangered Species Research, 32, 391–413. 

Forrester, D. J., F. H. White, J. C. Woordard, & N. P. Thompson. (1975). Intussusception in a Florida 

manatee. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 11, 566–568. 

Frankel, A. S., & C. W. Clark. (2000). Behavioral responses of humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) to full-scale ATOC signals. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 108(4), 

1930–1937. 

Frasier, T. R., S. D. Petersen, L. Postma, L. Johnson, M. P. Heide-Jorgensen, & S. H. Ferguson. (2015). 

Abundance estimates of the Eastern Canada-West Greenland bowhead whale (Balaena 

mysticetus) population based on genetic capture-mark-recapture analyses. Ottawa, Canada.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-751

3.7 References

Friedlaender, A. S., E. L. Hazen, D. P. Nowacek, P. N. Halpin, C. Ware, M. T. Weinrich, T. Hurst, & D. 

Wiley. (2009). Diel changes in humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae feeding behavior in 

response to sand lance Ammodytes spp. behavior and distribution. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 395, 91–100. 

Friedlaender, A. S., E. L. Hazen, J. A. Goldbogen, A. K. Stimpert, J. Calambokidis, & B. L. Southall. (2016). 

Prey–mediated behavioral responses of feeding blue whales in controlled sound exposure 

experiments. Ecological Applications, 26(4), 1075–1085. 

Frisk, G. V. (2012). Noiseonomics: The relationship between ambient noise levels in the sea and global 

economic trends. Scientific Reports, 2(437). 

Fristrup, K. M., L. T. Hatch, & C. W. Clark. (2003). Variation in humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) song length in relation to low-frequency sound broadcasts. The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 113(6), 3411–3424. 

Fromm, D. M. (2009). Reconstruction of Acoustic Exposure on Orcas in Haro Strait (Acoustics).

Fujiwara, M., & H. Caswell. (2001). Demography of the endangered North Atlantic right whale. Nature, 

414, 537–541. 

Fullard, K. J., G. Early, M. P. Heide-Jorgensen, D. Bloch, A. Rosing-Asvid, & W. Amos. (2000). Population 

structure of long-finned pilot whales in the North Atlantic: A correlation with sea surface 

temperature? Mol Ecol, 9, 949–958. 

Fulling, G. L., & D. Fertl. (2003). Kogia distribution in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Abstracts, Workshop 

on the Biology of Kogia Held on 13 December 2003, Greensboro, North Carolina, U.S.A.).

Fulling, G. L., K. D. Mullin, & C. W. Hubard. (2003). Abundance and distribution of cetaceans in outer 

continental shelf waters of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin, 101, 923–932. 

Furin, C. G., F. A. von Hippel, B. Hagedorn, & T. M. O'Hara. (2013). Perchlorate trophic transfer increases 

tissue concentrations above ambient water exposure alone in a predatory fish. Journal of 

Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part A, 76(18), 1072–1084. 

Gailey, G., B. Würsig, & T. L. McDonald. (2007). Abundance, behavior, and movement patterns of 

western gray whales in relation to a 3-D seismic survey, Northeast Sakhalin Island, Russia. 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 134, 75–91. 

Gailey, G., O. Sychenko, T. McDonald, R. Racca, A. Rutenko, & K. Bröker. (2016). Behavioural responses 

of western gray whales to a 4-D seismic survey off northeastern Sakhalin Island, Russia. 

Endangered Species Research, 30, 53–71. 

Gannier, A., & K. L. West. (2005). Distribution of the rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) around 

the Windward Islands, (French Polynesia). Pacific Science, 59, 17–24. 

Gannier, A., & E. Praca. (2007). SST fronts and the summer sperm whale distribution in the north-west 

Mediterranean Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK, 87(01), 187. 

Gannier, A., & G. Marty. (2015). Sperm whales ability to avoid approaching vessels is affected by sound 

reception in stratified waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 95(1), 283–288. 

Gannon, D. P., A. J. Read, J. E. Craddock, K. M. Fristrup, & J. R. Nicolas. (1997). Feeding ecology of longfinned pilot whales Globicephala melas in the western North Atlantic. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 148, 1–10. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-752

3.7 References

Gannon, J. G., K. M. Scolardi, J. E. Reynolds, III, J. K. Koelsch, & T. J. Kessenich. (2007). Habitat selection 

by manatees in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science, 23(1), 133–143. 

Gaskin, D. E. (1977). Harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena (L.), in the western approaches to the Bay of 

Fundy 1969–75 (Report of the International Whaling Commission).

Gaskin, D. E. (1992). Status of the harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in Canada. Canadian FieldNaturalist, 106(1), 36–54. 

Gaspard, J. C., G. B. Bauer, R. L. Reep, K. Dziuk, A. Cardwell, L. Read, & D. A. Mann. (2012). Audiogram 

and auditory critical ratios of two Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 215(Pt 9), 1442–1447. 

Gedamke, J., M. Ferguson, J. Harrison, L. Hatch, L. Henderson, M. B. Porter, B. L. Southall, & S. Van Parijs. 

(2016). Predicting Anthropogenic Noise Contributions to U.S. Waters. Adv Exp Med Biol, 875, 

341–347. 

Geijer, C. K. A., & A. J. Read. (2013). Mitigation of marine mammal bycatch in U.S. fisheries since 1994. 

Biological Conservation, 159, 54–60. 

Gende, S. M., A. N. Hendrix, K. R. Harris, B. Eichenlaub, J. Nielsen, & S. Pyare. (2011). A Bayesian 

approach for understanding the role of ship speed in whale-ship encounters. Ecological 

Applications, 21(6), 2232–2240. 

George, J. C., L. M. Philo, K. Hazard, D. Withrow, G. M. Carroll, & R. Suydam. (1994). Frequency of killer 

whale (Orcinus orca) attacks and ship collisions based on scarring on bowhead whales (Balaena 

mysticetus) of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort seas stock. Arctic, 47(3), 247–255. 

Geraci, J. R., J. Harwood, & V. J. Lounsbury. (1999). Marine Mammal Die-Offs Causes, Investigations, and 

Issues. In J. Twiss & R. Reeves (Eds.), Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals (pp. 

367–395). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Geraci, J. R., & V. J. Lounsbury. (2005). Marine Mammals Ashore: A Field Guide for Strandings (Second 

Edition). Baltimore, MD: National Aquarium in Baltimore.

Gerstein, E. (2002). Manatees, bioacoustics and boats: hearing tests, environmental measurements and 

acoustic phenomena may together explain why boats and animals collide. American Scientist, 

90(2), 154–163. 

Gervaise, C., Y. Simard, N. Roy, B. Kinda, & N. Menard. (2012). Shipping noise in whale habitat: 

characteristics, sources, budget, and impact on belugas in Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park 

hub. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 132(1), 76–89. 

Ghoul, A., & C. Reichmuth. (2014). Hearing in the sea otter (Enhydra lutris): auditory profiles for an 

amphibious marine carnivore. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol, 200(11), 

967–981. 

Gilbert, J. R., & N. Guldager. (1998). Status of Harbor and Gray Seal Populations in Northern New 

England. Woods Hole, MA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

Gill, A. B., I. Gloyne-Philips, J. Kimber, & P. Sigray. (2014). Marine Renewable Energy, Electromagnetic 

(EM) Fields and EM-Sensitive Animals. 61–79. 

Gjertz, I., & A. Børset. (1992). Pupping in the most northerly harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). Marine 

Mammal Science, 8(2), 103–109. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-753

3.7 References

Glass, A. H., & C. R. Taylor. (2006). Monitoring North Atlantic Right Whales off the Coasts of South 

Carolina and Georgia 2005–2006. St. Petersburg, FL: Wildlife Trust Aquatic Conservation 

Program.

Godard-Codding, C. A. J., R. Clark, M. C. Fossi, L. Marsili, S. Maltese, A. G. West, L. Valenzuela, V. 

Rowntree, I. Polyak, J. C. Cannon, K. Pinkerton, N. Rubio-Cisneros, S. L. Mesnick, S. B. Cox, I. Kerr, 

R. Payne, & J. J. Stegeman. (2011). Pacific Ocean–Wide Profile of CYP1A1 Expression, Stable 

Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Ratios, and Organic Contaminant Burden in Sperm Whale Skin 

Biopsies. Environmental Health Perspectives, 119(3), 337–343. 

Goertner, J. F. (1982). Prediction of Underwater Explosion Safe Ranges for Sea Mammals. Dahlgren, VA: 

Naval Surface Weapons Center.

Goldbogen, J. A., J. Calambokidis, R. E. Shadwick, E. M. Oleson, M. A. McDonald, & J. A. Hildebrand. 

(2006). Kinematics of foraging dives and lunge-feeding in fin whales. The Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 209(Pt 7), 1231–1244. 

Goldbogen, J. A., B. L. Southall, S. L. DeRuiter, J. Calambokidis, A. S. Friedlaender, E. L. Hazen, E. A. 

Falcone, G. S. Schorr, A. Douglas, D. J. Moretti, C. Kyburg, M. F. McKenna, & P. L. Tyack. (2013). 

Blue whales respond to simulated mid-frequency military sonar. Proc Biol Sci, 280(1765), 

20130657. 

Goldbogen, J. A., E. L. Hazen, A. S. Friedlaender, J. Calambokidis, S. L. DeRuiter, A. K. Stimpert, B. L. 

Southall, & D. Costa. (2015). Prey density and distribution drive the three-dimensional foraging 

strategies of the largest filter feeder. Functional Ecology, 29(7), 951–961. 

Gomez, C., J. W. Lawson, A. J. Wright, A. Buren, D. Tollit, & V. Lesage. (2016). A systematic review on the 

behavioural responses of wild marine mammals to noise: the disparity between science and 

policy. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 94(12), 801–819. 

Gong, Z., A. D. Jain, D. Tran, D. H. Yi, F. Wu, A. Zorn, P. Ratilal, & N. C. Makris. (2014). Ecosystem scale 

acoustic sensing reveals humpback whale behavior synchronous with herring spawning 

processes and re-evaluation finds no effect of sonar on humpback song occurrence in the Gulf of 

Maine in fall 2006. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e104733. 

Gonzalez-Socoloske, D., L. D. Olivera-Gomez, & R. E. Ford. (2009). Detection of free-ranging West Indian 

manatees Trichechus manatus using side-scan sonar. Endangered Species Research, 8. 

Gonzalez-Socoloske, D., & L. D. Olivera-Gomez. (2012). Gentle giants in dark waters: using side-scan 

sonar for manatee research. The Open Remote Sensing Journal, 5(1), 1–14. 

Goold, J. C. (2000). A diel pattern in vocal activity of short-beaked common dolphins, Delphinus delphis. 

Marine Mammal Science, 16(1), 240–244. 

Gordon, J., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M. P. Simmonds, R. Swift, & D. Thompson. (2003). A review 

of the effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. Marine Technology Society Journal, 37(4), 

16–34. 

Gormezano, L. J., & R. F. Rockwell. (2013). What to eat now? Shifts in polar bear diet during the ice-free 

season in western Hudson Bay. Ecology and Evolution, 3(10), 3509–3523. 

Götz, T., & V. M. Janik. (2010). Aversiveness of sounds in phocid seals: Psycho-physiological factors, 

learning processes and motivation. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 213, 1536–1548. 

Götz, T., & V. M. Janik. (2011). Repeated elicitation of the acoustic startle reflex leads to sensation in 

subsequent avoidance behaviour and induces fear conditioning. BMC Neuroscience, 12(30), 13. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-754

3.7 References

Gowans, S., & H. Whitehead. (1995). Distribution and habitat partitioning by small odontocetes in the 

Gully, a submarine canyon on the Scotian Shelf. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 73, 1599–1608. 

Gowans, S. (2009). Bottlenose whales Hyperoodon ampullatus and H. planifrons. In W. F. Perrin, B. 

Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd edition ed., pp. 129–

131). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Academic Press.

Greaves, F. C., R. H. Draeger, O. A. Brines, J. S. Shaver, & E. L. Corey. (1943). An experimental study of 

concussion. United States Naval Medical Bulletin, 41(1), 339–352. 

Green, D. M. (1994). Sound's effects on marine mammals need investigation. EOS, 75(27), 305–306. 

Green, D. M., H. A. DeFerrari, D. McFadden, J. S. Pearse, A. N. Popper, W. J. Richardson, S. H. Ridgway, & 

P. L. Tyack. (1994). Low-Frequency Sound and Marine Mammals: Current Knowledge and 

Research Needs. Washington, DC: Ocean Studies Board, Commission on Geosciences, 

Environment, and Resources, National Research Council.

Green, G. A., J. J. Brueggeman, R. A. Grotefendt, C. E. Bowlby, M. L. Bonnell, & K. C. Balcomb, III. (1992). 

Cetacean distribution and abundance off Oregon and Washington, 1989–1990. Los Angeles, CA: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service.

Gregory, P. R., & A. A. Rowden. (2001). Behaviour patterns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) 

relative to tidal state, time-of-day, and boat traffic in Cardigan Bay, West Wales. Aquatic 

Mammals, 27.2, 105–114. 

Griffin, R. B., & N. J. Griffin. (2003). Distribution, habitat partioning, and abundance of Atlantic spotted 

dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, and loggerhead sea turtles on the eastern Gulf of Mexico 

continential shelf. Gulf of Mexico Science, 1, 23–34. 

Guan, S., B. L. Southall, J. F. Vignola, J. A. Judge, & D. Turo. (2017). Sonar Inter-Ping Noise Field 

Characterization During Cetacean Behavioral Response Studies off Southern California. 

Acoustical Physics, 63(2), 204–215. 

Gubbins, C. (2002). Association patterns of resident bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in a South 

Carolina estuary. Aquatic Mammals, 28(24–31). 

Gubbins, C., M. Caldwell, S. G. Barco, K. Rittmaster, N. Bowles, & V. Thayer. (2003). Abundance and 

sighting patterns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) at four northwest Atlantic coastal 

sites. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 5(2), 141–147. 

Guerra, M., S. M. Dawson, T. E. Brough, & W. J. Rayment. (2014). Effects of boats on the surface and 

acoustic behaviour of an endangered population of bottlenose dolphins. Endangered Species 

Research, 24(3), 221–236. 

Haase, B., & F. Felix. (1994). A note on the incidental mortality of sperm whales (Physeter 

macrocephalus) in Ecuador. Report of the International Whaling Commission(Special issue 15), 

481–483. 

Haelters, J., F. Kerckhof, T. Jauniaux, & S. Degraer. (2012). The grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) as a 

predator of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)? Aquatic Mammals, 38(4), 343–353. 

Haelters, J., V. Dulière, L. Vigin, & S. Degraer. (2014). Towards a numerical model to simulate the 

observed displacement of harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena due to pile driving in Belgian 

waters. Hydrobiologia, 756(1), 105–116. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-755

3.7 References

Hain, J. H. W., R. K. Edel, H. E. Hays, S. K. Katona, & J. D. Roanowics. (1981). General distribution of 

cetaceans in the continental shelf waters of the northeastern United States (A characterization of 

marine mammals and turtles in the mid—and north Atlantic areas of the US outer continental 

shelf). Bureau of Land Management.

Hain, J. H. W., M. J. Ratnaswamy, R. D. Kenney, & H. E. Winn. (1992). The fin whale, Balaenoptera 

physalus, in waters of the northeastern United States continental shelf. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission, 42, 653–670. 

Hain, J. H. W., S. L. Ellis, R. D. Kenney, P. J. Clapham, B. K. Gray, M. T. Weinrich, & I. G. Babb. (1995). 

Apparent bottom feeding by humpback whales on Stellwagen Bank. Marine Mammal Science, 

11(4), 464–479. 

Hall, A., & D. Thompson. (2008). Gray seal, Halichoerus grypus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 500–503). Academic Press.

Hall, A. J., K. Hugunin, R. Deaville, R. J. Law, C. R. Allchin, & P. D. Jepson. (2006). The risk of infection 

from polychlorinated biphenyl exposure in the harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena): A casecontrol approach. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(5), 704–711. 

Halvorsen, K. M., & E. O. Keith. (2008). Immunosuppression cascade in the Florida Manatee (Trichechus 

manatus latirostris). Aquatic Mammals, 34(4), 412–419. 

Hamazaki, T. (2002). Spatiotemporal prediction models of cetacean habitats in the mid-western North 

Atlantic Ocean (from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, U.S.A. to Nova Scotia, Canada). Marine 

Mammal Science, 18(4), 920–939. 

Hamer, D. J., S. J. Childerhouse, & N. J. Gales. (2010). Mitigating operational interactions between 

odontocetes and the longline fishing industry: A preliminary global review of the problem and of 

potential solutions. Tasmania, Australia: International Whaling Commission.

Hammill, M. O., & J. F. Gosselin. (1995). Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) from the Northwest Atlantic: 

Female reproductive rates, age at first birth, and age of maturity in males. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 52, 2757–2761. 

Hammill, M. O., K. M. Lydersen, K. M. Kovacs, & B. Sjare. (1997). Estimated fish consumption by hooded 

seals (Cystophora cristata) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery 

Science, 22, 249–258. 

Hammill, M. O., G. B. Stenson, R. A. Myers, & W. T. Stobo. (1998). Pup production and population trends 

of the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences, 55, 423–430. 

Hammill, M. O. (2009). Ringed seal, Pusa hispida. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), 

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 972–974). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Academic 

Press. 

Hammill, M. O., W. D. Bowen, & B. Sjare. (2010). Status of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in Atlantic 

Canada. NAMMCO Scientific Publications, 8, 175–190. 

Hammill, M. O., C. E. den Heyer, & W. D. Bowen. (2014a). Grey Seal Population Trends in Canadian 

Waters, 1960-2014. (Research Document 2014/037. iv + 44 p.).

Hammill, M. O., G. B. Stenson, D. P. Swain, & H. P. Benoit. (2014b). Feeding by grey seals on endangered 

stocks of Atlantic cod and white hake. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71(6), 1332–1341. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-756

3.7 References

Hance, A. J., E. D. Robin, J. B. Halter, N. Lewiston, D. A. Robin, L. Cornell, M. Caligiuri, & J. Theodore. 

(1982). Hormonal changes and enforced diving in the harbor seal Phoca vitulina. II. Plasma 

catecholamines. American Journal of Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative 

Physiology, 242(5), R528–R532. 

Handley, C. O., Jr. (1966). A synopsis of the genus Kogia (pygmy sperm whales). In K. S. Norris (Ed.), 

Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises (pp. 62–69). University of California Press.

Hanlon, R. T., & J. B. Messenger. (1996). Cephalopod Behaviour. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Hansen, L. J., K. D. Mullin, & C. L. Roden. (1995). Estimates of cetacean abundance in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico from vessel surveys. Miami, FL: Southeast Fisheries Science Center.

Hansen, L. J., K. D. Mullin, T. A. Jefferson, & G. P. Scott. (1996). Visual surveys aboard ships and aircraft

(Distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the northcentral and western Gulf of 

Mexico). New Orleans, LA: Mineral Management Service.

Harcourt, R., V. Pirotta, G. Heller, V. Peddemors, & D. Slip. (2014). A whale alarm fails to deter migrating 

humpback whales: an empirical test. Endangered Species Research, 25(1), 35–42. 

Hardesty, B. D., & C. Wilcox. (2017). A risk framework for tackling marine debris. Royal Society of 

Chemistry, Analytical Methods(Paper), 8. 

Harris, C., & L. Thomas. (2015). Status and future of research on the behavioral responses of marine 

mammals to U.S. Navy sonar (CREEM Technical Report 2015-3). University of St Andrews.

Harris, C. M., D. Sadykova, S. L. DeRuiter, P. L. Tyack, P. J. O. Miller, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, & L. 

Thomas. (2015). Dose response severity functions for acoustic disturbance in cetaceans using 

recurrent event survival analysis. Ecosphere, 6(11), art236. 

Harris, D. E., B. Lelli, G. Jakush, & G. Early. (2001). Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) records from the 

southern Gulf of Maine. Northeastern Naturalist, 8, 427–434. 

Harris, D. E., B. Lelli, & G. Jakush. (2002). Harp seal records from the southern Gulf of Maine: 1997–2001. 

Northeastern Naturalist, 9(3), 331–340. 

Hartman, D. S. (1979). Ecology and behavior of the manatee (Trichechus manatus) in Florida (Special 

Publication). American Society of Mammalogists.

Harwood, J., & S. L. King. (2014). The Sensitivity of UK Marine Mammal Populations to Marine 

Renewables Developments. . Submitted to the Natural Environment Research Council 

(NERC)(unpublished).

Harwood, L. A., F. McLaughlin, R. M. Allen, J. J. Illasiak, & A. Alikamik. (2005). First-ever marine mammal 

and bird observations in the deep Canada Basin and Beaufort/Chukchi Seas: expeditions during 

2002. Polar Biology, 28, 250–253. 

Hastie, G. D., C. Donovan, T. Gotz, & V. M. Janik. (2014). Behavioral responses by grey seals (Halichoerus 

grypus) to high frequency sonar. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 79(1-2), 205–210. 

Hatch, L. T., & A. J. Wright. (2007). A brief review of anthropogenic sound in the oceans. International 

Journal of Comparative Psychology, 20, 121–133. 

Hatch, L. T., C. W. Clark, S. M. Van Parijs, A. S. Frankel, & D. W. Ponirakis. (2012). Quantifying loss of 

acoustic communication space for right whales in and around a U.S. National Marine Sanctuary. 

Conservation Biology, 26(6), 983–994. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-757

3.7 References

Haubold, E. M., C. Deutsch, & C. Fonnesbeck. (2006). Final Biological Status Review of the Florida 

Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). St. Petersburg, FL: Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.

Hauksson, E., & V. Bogason. (1997). Comparative feeding of grey (Halichoerus grypus) and common seals 

(Phoca vitulina) in coastal waters of Iceland, with a note on the diet of hooded (Cystophora 

cristata) and harp seals (Phoca groenlandica). Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science, 22, 

125–135. 

Haviland-Howell, G., A. S. Frankel, C. M. Powell, A. Bocconcelli, R. L. Herman, & L. S. Sayigh. (2007). 

Recreational boating traffic: A chronic source of anthropogenic noise in the Wilmington, North 

Carolina Intracoastal Waterway. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 122(1), 151–160. 

Hazen, E. L., A. S. Friedlaender, M. A. Thompson, C. R. Ware, M. T. Weinrich, P. N. Halpin, & D. N. Wiley. 

(2009). Fine-scale prey aggregations and foraging ecology of humpback whales, Megaptera 

novaeangliae. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 395, 75–89. 

HDR. (2011). Jacksonville (JAX) Southeast Anti-Submarine Warfare Integration Training Initiative 

(SEASWITI) Marine Species Monitoring Aerial Monitoring Surveys Trip Report, 3-5 December 

2010. Prepared by HDR Environmental Operations & Construction, Inc. (HDR EOC) under 

Contract # N62470-10-D-3011.

HDR. (2012). Summary Report: Compilation of Visual Survey Effort and Sightings for Marine Species 

Monitoring in the Hawaii Range Complex, 2005–2012 (Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific

Fleet, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific 

(NAVFAC), EV2 Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, 96860-3134, under contract 

#N62470-10-D-3011, issued to HDR, Inc.). San Diego, CA: HDR Inc.

Heckler, V. T., B. M. Allen, & L. A. Jemison. (2015). Human-Caused Injury and Mortality of NMFSManaged Alaska Marine Mammal Stocks, 2009–2013. Alaska Fisheries Science Center.

Heezen, B. C. (1957). Whales entangled in deep sea cables. Deep Sea Research, 4(2), 105–115. 

Heffner, R. S., & H. E. Heffner. (1982). Hearing in the elephant (Elephas maximus): absolute sensitivity, 

frequency discrimination, and sound localization. Journal of Comparative and Physiological 

Psychology, 96(6), 926–944. 

Heide-Jorgensen, M. P., D. Bloch, E. Stefansson, B. Mikkelsen, L. H. Ofstad, & R. Dietz. (2002). Diving 

behavior of long-finned pilot whales Globicephala melas around the Faroe Islands. Wildlife 

Biology, 8(4), 307–313. 

Heide-Jorgensen, M. P., K. L. Laidre, O. Wiig, M. V. Jensen, L. P. Dueck, L. D. Maiers, H. C. Schmidt, & R. C. 

Hobbs. (2003). From Greenland to Canada in ten days: tracks of bowhead whales, Balaena 

mysticetus, across Baffin Bay. Arctic, 56(1), 21–31. 

Heide-Jorgensen, M. P., K. L. Laidre, M. V. Jensen, L. Dueck, & L. D. Postma. (2006). Dissolving stock 

discreteness with satellite tracking: Bowhead whales in Baffin Bay. Marine Mammal Science, 

22(1), 34–45. 

Heide-Jorgensen, M. P. (2009). Narwhal, Monodon monoceros. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 754–758). Amsterdam, 

Netherlands: Academic Press.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-758

3.7 References

Heide-Jorgensen, M. P., K. L. Laidre, S. Fossette, M. Rasmussen, N. H. Nielsen, & R. G. Hansen. (2014). 

Abundance of walruses in eastern Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. NAMMCO Scientific Publications, 

9, 159–172. 

Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., K. L. Laidre, D. Borchers, T. A. Marques, H. Stern, & M. Simon. (2009). The effect 

of sea-ice loss on beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in West Greenland. Polar Research, 29, 

198-208. 

Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., K. L. Laidre, M. Simon, M. L. Burt, D. L. Borchers, & M. Rasmussen. (2010a). 

Abundance of fin whales in West Greenland in 2007. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management, 11(2), 83-33. 

Heide-Jørgensen, M. P., L. Witting, K. L. Laidre, R. G. Hansen, & M. Rasmussen. (2010b). Fully corrected 

estimates of common minke whale abundance in West Greenland in 2007. Journal of Cetacean 

Research and Management, 11(2), 75-82. 

Heithaus, M. R., & L. M. Dill. (2008). Feeding strategies and tactics. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 1100–1103). Academic Press.

Henderson, E. E., M. H. Smith, M. Gassmann, S. M. Wiggins, A. B. Douglas, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2014). 

Delphinid behavioral responses to incidental mid-frequency active sonar. The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 136(4), 2003–2014. 

Henderson, E. E., R. A. Manzano-Roth, S. W. Martin, & B. Matsuyama. (2015). Impacts of U.S. Navy 

training events on beaked whale foraging dives in Hawaiian waters: Update. San Diego, CA: 

SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific.

Henderson, E. E., S. W. Martin, R. Manzano-Roth, & B. M. Matsuyama. (2016). Occurrence and habitat 

use of foraging Blainville's beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) on a U.S. Navy range in 

Hawai'i. Aquatic Mammals, 42(4). 

Henry, A. G., T. V. N. Cole, L. Hall, W. Ledwell, D. Morin, & A. Reid. (2016). Serious Injury and Mortality 

Determinaions for Baleen Whale Stocks along the Gulf of Mexico, United States East Coast and 

Atlantic Canadian Provinces, 2010-2014. Woods Hole, MA: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Hermannsen, L., K. Beedholm, J. Tougaard, & P. T. Madsen. (2014). High frequency components of ship 

noise in shallow water with a discussion of implications for harbor porpoises (Phocoena 

phocoena). The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 136(4), 1640–1653. 

Hersh, S. L., & D. K. Odell. (1986). Mass stranding of Fraser's dolphin, Lagenodelphis hosei, in the 

western North Atlantic. Marine Mammal Science, 2(1), 73–76. 

Hersh, S. L., & D. A. Duffield. (1990). Distinction between northwest Atlantic offshore and coastal 

bottlenose dolphins based on hemoglobin profile and morphometry. In S. Leatherwood & R. R. 

Reeves (Eds.), The Bottlenose Dolphin (pp. 129–139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hewitt, R. P. (1985). Reaction of dolphins to a survey vessel: Effects on census data. Fishery Bulletin, 

83(2), 187–193. 

Heyning, J. E. (1989). Cuvier's beaked whale, Ziphius cavirostris G. Cuvier, 1823. In S. H. Ridgway & R. 

Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 4, pp. 289–308). San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press. 

Hickmott, L. S. (2005). Diving behaviour and foraging behaviour and foraging ecology of Blainville's and 

Cuvier's beaked whales in the Northern Bahamas. (Master of Research in Environmental Biology 

Master's thesis). University of St. Andrews, Scotland, UK. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-759

3.7 References

Hidalgo-Ruz, V., L. Gutow, R. C. Thompson, & M. Thiel. (2012). Microplastics in the marine environment: 

a review of methods used for identification and quantification. Environmental Science and 

Technology, 46, 3060–3075. 

Hildebrand, J. (2005). Impacts of anthropogenic sound. In J. E. Reynolds, III, W. F. Perrin, R. R. Reeves, T. 

J. Ragen & S. Montgomery (Eds.), Marine Mammal Research: Conservation beyond Crisis (pp. 

101–123). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.

Hildebrand, J. A. (2009). Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 395, 5–20. 

Hindell, M. A., C. L. Lydersen, H. Hop, & K. M. Kovacs. (2012). Pre-partum diet of adult female bearded 

seals in years of contrasting ice conditions. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e38307. 

Hochachka, P. W., G. C. Liggins, G. P. Guyton, R. C. Schneider, K. S. Stanek, W. E. Hurford, R. K. Creasy, D. 

G. Zapol, & W. M. Zapol. (1995). Hormonal regulatory adjustments during voluntary diving in 

Weddell seals. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology B, 112, 361–375. 

Hodge, L., & A. Read. (2013). Passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals at site A in Jacksonville, 

FL, August 2010 – January 2011. Norfolk, VA: Marine Physical Laboratory Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography and Duke University Marine Laboratory.

Hodge, L., J. Stanistreet, & A. Read. (2014). Passive acoustic monitoring for cetaceans in Navy OPAREAS 

off the U.S. Atlantic Coast, January 2013 – December 2013. Norfolk, VA: Duke University Marine 

Laboratory.

Hodge, L., & A. Read. (2015). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine Mammals at Site E in Onslow Bay, 

October 2012 – June 2013. Norfolk, Virginia: Prepared by Duke University Marine Laboratory, 

Beaufort, North Carolina.

Hodge, L., J. Stanistreet, & A. Read. (2015). Annual Report 2014: Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine 

Mammals off Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida using high-frequency acoustic recording 

packages (Contract No. N62470-10-3011, Task Orders 14 and 38). HDR, Inc.

Hodge, L., J. Stanistreet, & A. Read. (2016). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine Mammals at Site A in 

Norfolk Canyon, June 2014–April 2015 (Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia under Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, Task Order CTO 0051, issued 

to HDR, Inc.). Norfolk, VA.

Hodge, L. E. W. (2011). Monitoring Marine Mammals in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, Using Passive 

Acoustics. (Doctor of Philosophy Disseration). Duke University. 

Hodge, L. E. W., J. T. Bell, & A. Kumar. (2013). The influence of habitat and time of day on the occurrence 

of odontocete vocalizations in Onslow Bay, North Carolina. Marine Mammal Science, 29(4), 

E411–E427. 

Hodgson, A., N. Kelly, & D. Peel. (2013). Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for surveying marine fauna: a 

dugong case study. PLoS ONE, 8(11), e79556. 

Hodgson, A. J., & H. Marsh. (2007). Response of dugongs to boat traffic: the risk of disturbance and 

displacement. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 340(1), 50–61. 

Hoelzel, A. R., E. M. Dorsey, & J. Stern. (1989). The foraging specializations of individual minke whales. 

Animal Behaviour, 38, 786–794. 

Hoelzel, A. R. E. (2002). Marine Mammal Biology: An Evolutionary Approach: Blackwell Publishing.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-760

3.7 References

Hofmeyr, G. J. G., M. N. Bester, S. P. Kirkman, C. Lydersen, & K. M. Kovacs. (2006). Entanglement of 

Antarctic fur seals at Bouvetoya, Southern Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52, 1077–1080. 

Holst, M., I. Stirling, & K. A. Hobson. (2001). Diet of ringed seals (Phoca hispida) on the east and west 

sides of the North Water Polynya, northern Baffin Bay. Marine Mammal Science, 17(4), 888–

908. 

Holst, M., C. R. Greene, Jr. , W. J. Richardson, T. L. McDonald, K. Bay, S. J. Schwartz, & G. Smith. (2011). 

Responses of Pinnipeds to Navy Missile Launches at San Nicolas Island, California. Aquatic 

Animals, 37(2), 139–150. 

Holt, M. M., D. P. Noren, V. Veirs, C. K. Emmons, & S. Veirs. (2008). Speaking up: Killer whales (Orcinus 

orca) increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise. The Journal of Acoustical Society 

of America, 125(1), EL27–EL32. 

Holt, M. M., D. P. Noren, & C. K. Emmons. (2011). Effects of noise levels and call types on the source 

levels of killer whale calls. J Acoust Soc Am, 130(5), 3100–3106. 

Holt, M. M., D. P. Noren, R. C. Dunkin, & T. M. Williams. (2015). Vocal performance affects metabolic 

rate in dolphins: implications for animals communicating in noisy environments. The Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 218(Pt 11), 1647–1654. 

Hooker, S. K., & H. Whitehead. (2002). Click characteristics of northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon 

ampullatus). Marine Mammal Science, 18(1), 69–80. 

Hooker, S. K., R. W. Baird, & A. Fahlman. (2009). Could beaked whales get the bends? Effect of diving 

behaviour and physiology on modelled gas exchange for three species: Ziphius cavirostris, 

Mesoplodon densirostris and Hyperoodon ampullatus. Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology. 

Hooker, S. K., A. Fahlman, M. J. Moore, N. Aguilar de Soto, Y. Bernaldo de Quiros, A. O. Brubakk, D. P. 

Costa, A. M. Costidis, S. Dennison, K. J. Falke, A. Fernandez, M. Ferrigno, J. R. Fitz-Clarke, M. M. 

Garner, D. S. Houser, P. D. Jepson, D. R. Ketten, P. H. Kvadsheim, P. T. Madsen, N. W. Pollock, D. 

S. Rotstein, T. K. Rowles, S. E. Simmons, W. Van Bonn, P. K. Weathersby, M. J. Weise, T. M. 

William, & P. L. Tyack. (2012). Deadly diving? Physiological and behavioural management of 

decompression stress in diving mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society Bulletin, 279, 1041–

1050. 

Hoover-Miller, A., A. Bishop, J. Pewitt, S. Conlon, & C. Jezierski. (2013). Efficacy of Coluntary Mitigation 

in Reducing Harbor Seal Disturbance. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 77(4), 689–700. 

Hoover, A. A. (1988). Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina). In J. W. Lentfer (Ed.), Selected Marine Mammals of 

Alaska: Species Accounts with Research and Management Recommendations (pp. 125–157). 

Washington, DC: Marine Mammal Commission.

Horwood, J. (2009). Sei whale, Balaenoptera borealis. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 1001–1003). San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press. 

Horwood, J. W. (1987). The Sei Whale: Population Biology, Ecology, and Management. New York, NY: 

Croom Helm.

Hotchkin, C., & S. Parks. (2013). The Lombard effect and other noise-induced vocal modifications: insight 

from mammalian communication systems. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc, 88(4), 809–824. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-761

3.7 References

Houser, D. S., R. Howard, & S. Ridgway. (2001). Can diving-induced tissue nitrogen supersaturation 

increase the chance of acoustically driven bubble growth in marine mammals? Journal of 

Theoretical Biology, 213, 183–195. 

Houser, D. S., L. A. Dankiewicz-Talmadge, T. K. Stockard, & P. J. Ponganis. (2009). Investigation of the 

potential for vascular bubble formation in a repetitively diving dolphin. The Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 213, 52–62. 

Houser, D. S., L. C. Yeates, & D. E. Crocker. (2011). Cold stress induces an adrenocortical response in 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 42(4), 565–571. 

Houser, D. S., S. W. Martin, & J. J. Finneran. (2013a). Behavioral responses of California sea lions to midfrequency (3250-3450 Hz) sonar signals. Marine Environmental Researcgh, 92, 268–278. 

Houser, D. S., S. W. Martin, & J. J. Finneran. (2013b). Exposure amplitude and repetition affect 

bottlenose dolphin behavioral responses to simulated mid-frequency sonar signals. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 443, 123–133. 

Houston, J. (1990). Status of Hubb's beaked whale, Mesoplodon carlhubbsi, in Canada. Canadian FieldNaturalist, 104, 121–124. 

Huggins, J. L., S. A. Raverty, S. A. Norman, J. Calambokidis, J. K. Gaydos, D. A. Duffield, D. M. Lambourn, J. 

M. Rice, B. Hanson, K. Wilkinson, S. J. Jeffries, B. Norberg, & L. Barre. (2015). Increased harbor 

porpoise mortality in the Pacific Northwest, USA: understanding when higher levels may be 

normal. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 115(2), 93–102. 

Hullar, T. L., S. L. Fales, H. F. Hemond, P. Koutrakis, W. H. Schlesinger, R. R. Sobonya, J. M. Teal, & J. G. 

Watson. (1999). Environmental Effects of RF Chaff A Select Panel Report to the Undersecretary of 

Defense for Environmental Security. U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Research Laboratory.

Huntington, H. P. (2009). A preliminary assessment of threats to arctic mammals and their conservation 

in the coming decades. Marine Policy, 33(1), 77–82. 

Hurford, W. E., P. W. Hochachka, R. C. Schneider, G. P. Guyton, K. S. Stanek, D. G. Zapol, G. C. Liggins, & 

W. M. Zapol. (1996). Splenic contraction, catecholamine release, and blood volume 

redistribution during diving in the Weddell seal. Journal of Applied Physiology, 80(1), 298–306. 

Hutchings, J. A., & M. Festa-Bianchet. (2009). Scientific advice on species at risk: A comparative analysis 

of status assessments of polar bear, Ursus maritimus. Environmental Reviews, 17, 45–51. 

Ichikawa, K., T. Akamatsu, T. Shinke, K. Sasamori, Y. Miyauchi, Y. Abe, K. Adulyanukosol, & N. Arai. 

(2009). Detection probability of vocalizing dugongs during playback of conspecific calls. Journal 

of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(4), 1954–1959. 

Iles, D. T., S. L. Peterson, L. J. Gormezano, D. Koons, N., & R. F. Rockwell. (2013). Terrestrial predation by 

polar bears: not just a wild goose chase. Polar Biology, 36, 1373–1379. 

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. 

Ingram, S. N., L. Walshe, D. Johnston, & E. Rogan. (2007). Habitat partitioning and the influence of 

benthic topography and oceanography on the distribution of fin and minke whales in the Bay of 

Fundy, Canada. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 87, 149–

156. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-762

3.7 References

Innes, S., M. P. Heide-Jørgensen, J. L. Laake, K. L. Laidre, H. J. Cleator, P. Richard, & R. E. A. Stewart. 

(2002). Surveys of belugas and narwhals in the Canadian High Arctic in 1996. North Atlantic 

Marine Mammal Commission.

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. (2014). Report of the ICES/NAFO Working Group on 

Harp and Hooded Seals (WGHARP). Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.

International Council of the Exploration of the Sea. (1993). Report of the study group on long-finned pilot 

whales. Copenhagen, Denmark: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2017). Summary of polar bear population status per 

2017. Retrieved from http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html

Isojunno, S., & P. J. O. Miller. (2015). Sperm whale response to tag boat presence: biologically informed 

hidden state models quantify lost feeding opportunities. Ecosphere, 6(1), 1–6. 

Isojunno, S., C. Curé, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. A. Lam, P. L. Tyack, P. Jacobus, P. J. Wensveen, & P. J. O. Miller. 

(2016). Sperm whales reduce foraging effort during exposure to 1–2 kHz sonar and killer whale 

sounds. Ecological Applications, 26(1), 77–93. 

Iversen, M., J. Aars, T. Haug, I. G. Alsos, C. Lydersen, L. Bachman, & K. M. Kovacs. (2013). The diet of 

polar bears (Usus maritimus) from Svalbard, Norway, inferred from scat analysis. Polar Biology, 

36, 561–571. 

Iverson, S. A., H. G. Gilchrist, P. A. Smith, A. J. Gaston, & M. R. Forbes. (2014). Longer ice-free seasons 

increase the risk of nest depredation by polar bears for colonial breeding birds in the Canadian 

Arctic. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 281(20133128). 

Jacobs, S. R., & J. M. Terhune. (2000). Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) numbers along the New Brunswick 

coast of the Bay of Fundy in autumn in relation to aquaculture. Northeastern Naturalist, 7(3), 

289–296. 

Jacobsen, J. K., L. Massey, & F. Gulland. (2010). Fatal ingestion of floating net debris by two sperm 

whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(5), 765–767. 

Jahoda, M., C. L. Lafortuna, N. Biassoni, C. Almirante, A. Azzellino, S. Panigada, M. Zanardelli, & G. N. Di 

Sciara. (2003). Mediterranean fin whale's (Balaenoptera physalus) response to small vessels and 

biopsy sampling assessed through passive tracking and timing of respiration. Marine Mammal 

Science, 19(1), 96–110. 

Janik, V. M., & P. M. Thompson. (1996). Changes in surfacing patterns of bottlenose dolphins in response 

to boat traffic. Marine Mammal Science, 12(4), 597–602. 

Jansen, J. K., P. L. Boveng, S. P. Dahle, & J. L. Bengtson. (2010). Reaction of harbor seals to cruise ships. 

Journal of Wildlife Management, 74(6), 1186–1194. 

Jaquet, N., & H. Whitehead. (1996). Scale-dependent correlation of sperm whale distribution with 

environmental features and productiviity in the South Pacific. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

135, 1–9. 

Jaquet, N., & D. Gendron. (2009). The social organization of sperm whales in the Gulf of California and 

comparisons with other populations. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United 

Kingdom, 89(5), 975–983. 

Jaramillo-Legorreta, A. M., L. Rojas-Bracho, & T. Gerrodette. (1999). A new abundance estimate for 

vaquitas: First step for recovery. Marine Mammal Science, 15(4), 957–973. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-763

3.7 References

Jay, C. V., A. S. Fischbach, & A. A. Kochnev. (2012). Walrus areas of use in the Chukchi Sea during sparse 

sea ice cover. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 468, 1–13. 

Jefferson, T. A., & S. Leatherwood. (1994). Lagenodelphis hosei. Mammalian Species, 470, 1–5. 

Jefferson, T. A., & B. E. Curry. (1996). Acoustic methods of reducing or eliminating marine mammalfishery interactions: do they work? Ocean & Coastal Management, 31(1), 41–70. 

Jefferson, T. A., & N. B. Barros. (1997). Peponocephala electra. Mammalian Species, 553, 1–6. 

Jefferson, T. A., & A. J. Schiro. (1997). Distribution of cetaceans in the offshore Gulf of Mexico. Mammal 

Review, 27, 27–50. 

Jefferson, T. A. (2008). Clymene dolphin, Stenella clymene. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 241–243). San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press.

Jefferson, T. A., L. Karczmarski, K. Laidre, G. O’Corry-Crowe, R. R. Reeves, L. Rojas-Bracho, E. R. Secchi, E. 

Slooten, B. D. Smith, J. Y. Wang, & K. Zhou. (2008a). Delphinapterus leucas. International Union 

for Conservation of Nature 2010. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of 

Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. Retrieved from 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/6335/0

Jefferson, T. A., M. A. Webber, & R. L. Pitman. (2008b). Marine Mammals of the World: A Comprehensive 

Guide to their Identification. London, UK: Elsevier. 

Jefferson, T. A. (2009). Rough-toothed dolphin, Steno bredanensis. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 990–992). Academic Press.

Jefferson, T. A., D. Fertl, J. Bolanos Jiminez, & A. N. Zerbini. (2009). Distribution of common dolphins 

(Delphinus spp.) in the western Atlantic Ocean: A critical re-examination. Marine Biology, 156, 

1109–1124. 

Jefferson, T. A., L. Karkzmarski, K. Laidre, G. O’Corry-Crowe, R. Reeves, L. Rojas-Bracho, E. Secchi, E. 

Sloothen, B. D. Smith, J. Y. Wang, & K. Zhou. (2012). Delinapterus leucas. The IUCN Red List of 

Threatened Species, 2012, e.T6335A17690692. 

Jefferson, T. A., M. A. Webber, & R. L. Pitman. (2015). Marine Mammals of the World: A Comprehensive 

Guide to Their Identification (2nd ed.): Academic Press.

Jensen, A. S., & G. K. Silber. (2003). Large Whale Ship Strike Database. Retrieved from: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/overview/publicat.html

Jepson, P. D., M. Arbelo, R. Deaville, I. A. R. Patterson, P. Castro, J. R. Baker, E. Degollada, H. M. Ross, P. 

Herráez, A. M. Pocknell, F. Rodriguez, F. E. Howie, A. Espinosa, R. J. Reid, J. R. Jaber, V. Martin, A. 

A. Cunningham, & A. Fernandez. (2003). Gas-bubble lesions in stranded cetaceans: Was sonar 

responsible for a spate of whale deaths after an Atlantic military exercise? Nature, 425, 575–

576. 

Jepson, P. D., P. M. Bennett, R. Deaville, C. R. Allchin, J. R. Baker, & R. J. Law. (2005). Relationships

between polychlorinated biphenyls and health status in harbor porpoises (Phocoena Phocoena) 

stranded in the United Kingdom. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24(1), 238–248. 

Jepson, P. D., & R. J. Law. (2016, 17 June 2016). Persistent pollutants, persistent threats; Polychlorinated 

biphenyls remain a major threat to marine apex predators such as orcas. Science, 352, 1388–

1389.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-764

3.7 References

Jett, J. S., & B. Thapa. (2010). Manatee zone compliance among boaters in Florida. Coastal Management, 

38(2), 165–185. 

Jochens, A., D. Biggs, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, 

J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, & B. Wursig. (2008). Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of 

Mexico: Synthesis report. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.

Johnson, A., & A. Acevedo-Gutiérrez. (2007). Regulation compliance by vessels and disturbance of 

harbour seals (Phoca vitulina). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 85, 290–294. 

Johnson, C. S., M. W. McManus, & D. Skaar. (1989). Masked tonal hearing thresholds in the beluga 

whale. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85(6), 2651–2654. 

Johnston, D. W. (2002). The effect of acoustic harassment devices on harbour porpoises (Phocoena 

phocoena) in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Biological Conservation, 108, 113–118. 

Johnston, D. W., L. H. Thorne, & A. J. Read. (2005). Fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, and minke 

whales, Balaenoptera acutorostrata, exploit a tidally driven island wake ecosystem in the Bay of 

Fundy. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 305, 287–295. 

Johnston, D. W., J. Frungillo, A. Smith, K. Moore, B. Sharp, J. Schuh, & A. J. Read. (2015). Trends in 

stranding and by-catch rates of gray and harbor seals along the northeastern coast of the United 

States: evidence of divergence in the abundance of two sympatric phocid species? PLoS ONE, 

10(7), e0131660. 

Jones IV, G. P., L. G. Pearlstine, & H. F. Percival. (2006). An assessment of small unmanned aerial vehicles 

for wildlife research. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(3), 750–758. 

Kanda, N., M. Goto, H. Kato, M. V. McPhee, & L. A. Pastene. (2007). Population genetic structure of 

Bryde's whales (Balaenoptera brydei) at the inter-oceanic and trans-equatorial levels. 

Conservative Genetics, 8(4), 853–864. 

Karlsson, S., & A. C. Albertsson. (1998). Biodegradable Polymers and Environmental Interaction. Polymer 

Engineering and Science, 38(8), 1251–1253. 

Karpovich, S. A., J. P. Skinner, J. E. Mondragon, & G. M. Blundell. (2015). Combined physiological and 

behavioral observations to assess the influence of vessel encounters on harbor seals in glacial 

fjords of southeast Alaska. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 473, 110–120. 

Kastak, D., B. L. Southall, R. J. Schusterman, & C. R. Kastak. (2005). Underwater temporary threshold 

shift in pinnipeds: Effects of noise level and duration. The Journal of Acoustical Society of 

America, 118(5), 3154–3163. 

Kastak, D., C. Reichmuth, M. M. Holt, J. Mulsow, B. L. Southall, & R. J. Schusterman. (2007). Onset, 

growth, and recovery of in-air temporary threshold shift in a California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus). The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 122(5), 2916–2924. 

Kastelein, R., N. Jennings, W. Verboom, D. de Haan, & N. M. Schooneman. (2006). Differences in the 

response of a striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) and a harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena) to an acoustic alarm. Marine Environmental Research, 61, 363–378. 

Kastelein, R. (2009). Walrus Odobenus rosmarus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), 

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 1212–1217). London, England: Academic Press.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-765

3.7 References

Kastelein, R. A., & P. R. Wiepkema. (1989). A digging trough as occupational therapy for Pacific walrusses 

(Odobenus rosmarus divergens) in human care. Aquatic Mammals, 15(1), 9–17. 

Kastelein, R. A., H. T. Rippe, N. Vaughan, N. M. Schooneman, W. C. Verboom, & D. de Haan. (2000). The 

effects of acoustic alarms on the behavior of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in a floating 

pen. Marine Mammal Science, 16(1), 46–64. 

Kastelein, R. A., D. de Haan, N. Vaughan, C. Staal, & N. M. Schooneman. (2001). The influence of three 

acoustic alarms on the behaviour of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in a floating pen. 

Marine Environmental Research, 52, 351–371. 

Kastelein, R. A., M. Janssen, W. C. Verboom, & D. de Haan. (2005a). Receiving beam patterns in the 

horizontal plane of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). The Journal of Acoustical Society of 

America, 118(2), 1172–1179. 

Kastelein, R. A., W. C. Verboom, M. Muijsers, N. V. Jennings, & S. van der Heul. (2005b). Influence of 

acoustic emissions for underwater data transmission on the behaviour of harbour porpoises 

(Phocoena phocoena) in a floating pen. Marine Environmental Research, 59, 287–307. 

Kastelein, R. A., & P. J. Wensveen. (2008). Effect of two levels of masking noise on the hearing threshold 

of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) for a 4.0 kHz signal. Aquatic Mammals, 34(4), 420–

425. 

Kastelein, R. A., R. Gransier, L. Hoek, A. Macleod, & J. M. Terhune. (2012a). Hearing threshold shifts and 

recovery in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) after octave-band noise exposure at 4 kHz. The Journal 

of Acoustical Society of America, 132(4), 2745–2761. 

Kastelein, R. A., R. Gransier, L. Hoek, & J. Olthuis. (2012b). Temporary threshold shifts and recovery in a 

harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after octave-band noise at 4 kHz. The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 132(5), 3525–3537. 

Kastelein, R. A., R. Gransier, L. Hoek, & M. Rambags. (2013a). Hearing frequency thresholds of a harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) temporarily affected by a continuous 1.5 kHz tone. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 134(3), 2286–2292. 

Kastelein, R. A., D. van Heerden, R. Gransier, & L. Hoek. (2013b). Behavioral responses of a harbor 

porpoise (Phoceoena phocoena) to playbakcs of broadband pile driving sounds. Marine 

Environmental Research, 92, 206–214. 

Kastelein, R. A., L. Hoek, R. Gransier, C. A. F. de Jong, J. M. Terhune, & N. Jennings. (2014a). Hearing 

thresholds of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) for playbacks of seal scarer signals, and 

effects of the signals on behavior. Hydrobiologia, 756(1), 89–103. 

Kastelein, R. A., L. Hoek, R. Gransier, M. Rambags, & N. Claeys. (2014b). Effect of level, duration, and 

inter-pulse interval of 1–2 kHz sonar signal exposures on harbor porpoise hearing. Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 136(1), 412–422. 

Kastelein, R. A., J. Schop, R. Gransier, & L. Hoek. (2014c). Frequency of greatest temporary hearing 

threshold shift in harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) depends on the noise level. The 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136(3), 1410–1418. 

Kastelein, R. A., J. Schop, R. Gransier, N. Steen, & N. Jennings. (2014d). Effect of series of 1 to 2 kHz and 6 

to 7 kHz up-sweeps and down-sweeps on the behavior of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena). Aquatic Mammals, 40(3), 232–242. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-766

3.7 References

Kastelein, R. A., R. Gransier, M. A. T. Marijt, & L. Hoek. (2015a). Hearing frequency thresholds of harbor 

porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) temporarily affected by played back offshore pile driving 

sounds. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 137(2), 556–564. 

Kastelein, R. A., R. Gransier, J. Schop, & L. Hoek. (2015b). Effects of exposure to intermittent and 

continuous 6–7 kHz sonar sweeps on harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) hearing. The Journal 

of Acoustical Society of America, 137(4), 1623–1633. 

Kastelein, R. A., L. Helder-Hoek, R. Gransier, J. M. Terhune, N. Jennings, & C. A. F. de Jong. (2015c). 

Hearing thresholds of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) for playbacks of seal scarer signals, and 

effects of the signals on behavior. Hydrobiologia, 756(1), 75–88. 

Kastelein, R. A., L. Helder-Hoek, G. Janssens, R. Gransier, & T. Johansson. (2015d). Behavioral responses 

of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) to sonar signals in the 25-kHz range. Aquatic Mammals, 41(4), 

388–399. 

Kastelein, R. A., I. van den Belt, R. Gransier, & T. Johansson. (2015e). Behavioral responses of a harbor 

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) to 25.5- to 24.5-kHz sonar down-sweeps with and without side 

bands. Aquatic Mammals, 41(4), 400–411. 

Kastelein, R. A., I. van den Belt, L. Helder-Hoek, R. Gransier, & T. Johansson. (2015f). Behavioral 

responses of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) to 25-kHz FM sonar signals. Aquatic 

Mammals, 41(3), 311–326. 

Kastelein, R. A., J. Huybrechts, J. Covi, & L. Helder-Hoek. (2017). Behavioral Responses of a Harbor 

Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) to Sounds from an Acoustic Porpoise Deterrent. Aquatic 

Mammals, 43(3), 233–244. 

Kato, H., & W. F. Perrin. (2009). Bryde's whales, Balaenoptera edeni/brydei. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & 

J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 158–163). San Diego, 

CA: Academic Press.

Katona, S. K., J. A. Beard, P. E. Girton, & F. Wenzel. (1988). Killer whales (Orcinus orca) from the Bay of 

Fundy to the Equator, including the Gulf of Mexico. Rit Fiskideildar (Journal of the Marine 

Research Institute Reykjavik), 11, 205–224. 

Katona, S. K., V. Rough, & D. T. Richardson. (1993). A Field Guide to Whales, Porpoises, and Seals from 

Cape Cod to Newfoundland. (1-56098-333-7). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Keck, N., O. Kwiatek, F. Dhermain, F. Dupraz, H. Boulet, C. Danes, C. Laprie, A. Perrin, J. Godenir, L. 

Micout, & G. Libeau. (2010). Resurgence of Morbillivirus infection in Mediterranean dolphins off 

the French coast. The Veterinary record, 166(21), 654–655. 

Kelley, C., G. Carton, M. Tomlinson, & A. Gleason. (2016). Analysis of towed camera images to determine 

the effects of disposed mustard-filled bombs on the deep water benthic community off south 

Oahu. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 

Kemp, N. J. (1996). Habitat loss and degradation. In M. P. Simmonds & J. D. Hutchinson (Eds.), The 

Conservation of Whales and Dolphins (pp. 476). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Kenney, M. K. (1994). Harbor seal population trends and habitat use in Maine. (M.S.). University of 

Maine, Orono, ME. 

Kenney, R. D., M. A. M. Hyman, R. E. Owen, G. P. Scott, & H. E. Winn. (1986). Estimation of prey densities 

required by western North Atlantic right whales. Marine Mammal Science, 2(1), 1–13. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-767

3.7 References

Kenney, R. D., & H. E. Winn. (1986). Cetacean high-use habitats of the northeast United States 

continental shelf. Fishery Bulletin, 84(2), 345–357. 

Kenney, R. D. (1990). Bottlenose Dolphins off the Northeastern United States. In S. Leatherwood & R. R. 

Reeves (Eds.), The Bottlenose Dolphin (pp. 369–386). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kenney, R. D., H. E. Winn, & M. C. Macaulay. (1995). Cetacean in the Great South Channel, 1979-1989: 

right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Continental Shelf Research, 15, 385–414. 

Kenney, R. D., C. A. Mayo, & H. E. Winn. (2001). Migration and foraging strategies at varying spatial 

scales in western north Atlantic right whales: A review of hypotheses. Journal of Cetacean 

Research and Management, Special Issue 2, 237–250. 

Kenney, R. D. (2008). North Atlantic, north Pacific, and southern right whales (Eubalaena glacialis, E. 

japonica, and E. australis). In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of 

Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 962–972). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kenney, R. D. (2014, April 17, 2014). Marine Mammals of Rhode Island, Part 5, Harbor Seal. Retrieved 

from http://rinhs.org/uncategorized/marine-mammals-of-rhode-island-part-5-harbor-seal/

Ketten, D. R., J. Lien, & S. Todd. (1993). Blast injury in humpback whale ears: Evidence and implications 

The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 94(3), 1849–1850. 

Ketten, D. R. (1998). Marine Mammal Auditory Systems: A Summary of Audiometric and Anatomical 

Data and its Implications for Underwater Acoustic Impacts. (NOAA Technical memorandum 

NMFS-SWFSC-256). La Jolla, CA: Dolphin-Safe Research Program, Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center Retrieved from http://swfsc.nmfs.noaa.gov/prd/dsweb/PDFs/TM256.PDF. 

Ketten, D. R. (2000). Cetacean Ears. In W. Au, A. N. Popper & R. R. Fay (Eds.), Hearing by Whales and 

Dolphins (1st ed., pp. 43–108). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Khan, C. B., & C. R. Taylor. (2007). Documenting Spatial and Temporal Distribution of North Atlantic Right 

Whales off South Carolina and Northern Georgia 2006—2007. St. Petersburg, FL: Wildlife Trust 

Aquatic Conservation Program.

King, L. (2011, March 28, 2011). Sei whale found stranded in Virginia Beach, The Virginian-Pilot. 

Retrieved from http://pilotonline.com/news/sei-whale-found-stranded-in-virginiabeach/article_2a66b71b-ff9c-506d-a621-9291983a3c7c.html

King, S. L., R. S. Schick, C. Donovan, C. G. Booth, M. Burgman, L. Thomas, & J. Harwood. (2015). An 

interim framework for assessing the population consequences of disturbance. Methods in 

Ecology and Evolution, 6(10), 1150–1158. 

Kinze, C. C. (2008). White-beaked dolphin, Lagenorhynchus albirostris. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. 

M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 1255–1258). Academic 

Press. 

Kirschvink, J. L., A. E. Dizon, & J. A. Westphal. (1986). Evidence from strandings for geomagnetic 

sensitivity in cetaceans. Journal of Experimental Biology, 120, 1–24. 

Kirschvink, J. L. (1990). Geomagnetic sensitivity in cetaceans: an update with live stranding records in the 

Unites States. In J. A. Thomas & R. A. Kastelein (Eds.), Sensory abilities of cetaceans: laboratory 

and field evidence (pp. 639–649).

Klinowska, M. (1985). Cetacean live stranding sites relative to geomagnetic topography. Aquatic 

Mammals, 1985(1), 27–32. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-768

3.7 References

Knowlton, A. R., S. D. Kraus, & R. D. Kenney. (1994). Reproduction in North Atlantic right whales 

(Eubalaena glacialis). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 72, 1297–1305. 

Knowlton, A. R., & S. D. Kraus. (2001). Mortality and serious injury of northern right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Cetacean Resource Management, 

Special Issue 2, 193–208. 

Knowlton, A. R., & M. W. Brown. (2007). Running the gauntlet: Right whales and vessel strikes. In S. D. 

Kraus & R. M. Rolland (Eds.), The Urban Whale: North Atlantic Right Whales at the Crossroads

(pp. 409–435). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Knowlton, A. R., P. K. Hamilton, M. K. Marx, H. M. Pettis, & S. D. Kraus. (2012). Monitoring North Atlantic 

right whale Eubalaena glacialis entanglement rates: a 30 yr retrospective. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 466, 293–302. 

Knowlton, A. R., J. Robbins, S. Landry, H. A. McKenna, S. D. Kraus, & B. T. Werner. (2015). Effects of 

fishing rope strength on the severity of large whale entanglements. Conservation biology : the 

journal of the Society for Conservation Biology. 

Koen-Alonso, M., S. N. Pedraza, A. C. M. Schiavini, R. N. P. Goodall, & E. A. Crespo. (1999). Stomach 

contents of false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) stranded on the coasts of the Strait of 

Magellan, Tierra Del Fuego. Marine Mammal Science, 15(3), 712–724. 

Koide, S., J. A. K. Silva, V. Dupra, & M. Edwards. (2016). Bioaccumulation of chemical warfare agents, 

energetic materials, and metals in deep-sea shrimp from discarded military munitions sites off 

Pearl Harbor. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 128, 53–62. 

Kooyman, G. L., J. P. Schroeder, D. M. Denison, D. D. Hammond, J. J. Wright, & W. P. Bergman. (1972). 

Blood nitrogen tensions of seals during simulated deep dives. American Journal of Physiology, 

223(5), 1016–1020. 

Kooyman, G. L., D. H. Kerem, W. B. Campbell, & J. J. Wright. (1973). Pulmonary gas exchange in freely 

diving weddell seals, Leptonychotes weddelli. Respiration Physiology, 17, 283–290. 

Kooyman, G. L., & E. E. Sinnett. (1982). Pulmonary shunts in harbor seals and sea lions during simulated 

dives to depth. Physiological Zoology, 55(1), 105–111. 

Koski, W. R., J. W. Lawson, D. H. Thomson, & W. J. Richardson. (1998). Point Mugu Sea Range Marine 

Mammal Technical Report. San Diego, CA: Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division and 

Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

Koski, W. R., G. Gamage, A. R. Davis, T. Mathews, B. LeBlanc, & S. H. Ferguson. (2015). Evaluation of UAS 

for photographic re–identification of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus. Journal of 

Unmanned Vehicle Systems, 3(1), 22–29. 

Kovacs, K. M. (2008). Hooded seal, Cystophora cristata. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 569–573). Academic Press.

Kovacs, K. M. (2009). Bearded seal, Erignathus barbatus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 97–101). Amsterdam, Netherlands: 

Academic Press.

Kovacs, K. M., C. Lydersen, J. E. Overland, & S. E. Moore. (2011). Impacts of changing sea-ice conditions 

on Arctic marine mammals. Marine Biodiversity, 41, 181–194. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-769

3.7 References

Kovacs, K. M., A. Aguilar, D. Aurioles, V. Burkanov, C. Campagna, N. Gales, T. Gelatt, S. D. Goldsworthy, S. 

J. Goodman, G. J. G. Hofmeyr, T. Harkonen, L. Lowry, C. Lydersen, J. Schipper, T. Sipila, C. 

Southwell, S. Stuart, D. Thompson, & F. Trillmich. (2012). Global threats to pinnipeds. Marine 

Mammal Science, 28(2), 414–436. 

Kozuck, A. (2003). Implications of historical changes in fixed fishing gear for large whale entanglements 

in the northwest Atlantic. (Master's thesis). Duke University, Chapel Hill, NC. 

Krahn, M. M., M. J. Ford, W. F. Perrin, P. R. Wade, R. P. Angliss, M. B. Hanson, B. L. Taylor, G. M. Ylitalo, 

M. E. Dahlheim, J. E. Stein, & R. S. Waples. (2004). 2004 Status Review of Southern Resident Killer 

Whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act. Seattle, WA: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

Krahn, M. M., M. B. Hanson, R. W. Baird, R. H. Boyer, D. G. Burrows, C. K. Emmons, J. K. Ford, L. L. Jones, 

D. P. Noren, P. S. Ross, G. S. Schorr, & T. K. Collier. (2007). Persistent organic pollutants and 

stable isotopes in biopsy samples (2004/2006) from Southern Resident killer whales. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 54(12), 1903–1911. 

Krahn, M. M., M. B. Hanson, G. S. Schorr, C. K. Emmons, D. G. Burrows, J. L. Bolton, R. W. Baird, & G. M. 

Ylitalo. (2009). Effects of age, sex and reproductive status on persistent organic pollutant 

concentrations in "Southern Resident" killer whales. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58(10), 1522–

1529. 

Kraus, S. D., J. H. Prescott, & G. S. Stone. (1983). Harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in the U.S. 

coastal waters off the Gulf of Maine: A survey to determine seasonal distribution and 

abundance. National Marine Fisheries Service.

Kraus, S. D., M. W. Brown, H. Caswell, C. W. Clark, M. Fujiwara, P. K. Hamilton, R. D. Kenney, A. R. 

Knowlton, S. Landry, C. A. Mayo, W. C. McLellan, M. J. Moore, D. P. Nowacek, D. A. Pabst, A. J. 

Read, & R. M. Rolland. (2005). North Atlantic right whales in crisis. Science, 309(5734), 561–562. 

Kremers, D., J. Lopez Marulanda, M. Hausberger, & A. Lemasson. (2014). Behavioural evidence of 

magnetoreception in dolphins: detection of experimental magnetic fields. Die 

Naturwissenschaften, 101(11), 907–911. 

Kruse, J. (2016). Update: Panama Canal. 

Kruse, S. (1991). The interactions between killer whales and boats in Johnstone Strait, B.C. . In K. Pryor & 

K. S. Norris (Eds.), Dolphin Societies: Discoveries and Puzzles (pp. 149–159). Berkeley and Los 

Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Kruse, S., D. K. Caldwell, & M. C. Caldwell. (1999). Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus (G. Cuvier, 1812). In 

S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 6, pp. 183–212). San 

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kryter, K. D., W. D. Ward, J. D. Miller, & D. H. Eldredge. (1965). Hazardous exposure to intermittent and 

steady-state noise. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 39(3), 451–464. 

Kuhn, S., E. L. B. Robolledo, & J. A. Van Franeker. (2015). Deleterious Effects of Litter on Marine Life. In 

M. Bergmann, L. Gutow & M. Klages (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic Litter (pp. 75–116). Den Burg, 

Texel, The Netherlands: IMARES Wageningen UR.

Kujawa, S. G., & M. C. Liberman. (2009). Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after 

"temporary" noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci, 29(45), 14077–14085. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-770

3.7 References

Kuker, K. J., J. A. Thomson, & U. Tscherter. (2005). Novel surface feeding tactics of minke whales, 

Balaenoptera acutorostrata, in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence National Marine Park. Canadian 

Field-Naturalist, 119(2), 214–218. 

Kumar, A., J. Nissen, T. Norris, J. Oswald, T. Yack, & E. Ferguson. (2013). Using Passive Acoustics to 

Monitor the Presence of Marine Mammals during Naval Exercises Paper presented at the 6th 

International Workshop on Detection, Classification, Localization and Density Estimation of 

Marine Mammals using Passive Acoustics, University of St. Andrews, Scotland. Poster retrieved 

from 

Kuningas, S., P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, & P. J. O. Miller. (2013). Killer whale presence in relation to 

naval sonar activity and prey abundance in northern Norway. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 

70(7), 1287–1293. 

Kuzhetsov, V. B. (1999). Vegetative responses of dolphin to changes in permanent magnetic field. 

Biofizika, 44(3), 496–502. 

Kvadsheim, P. H., E. M. Sevaldsen, D. Scheie, L. P. Folkow, & A. S. Blix. (2010). Effects of naval sonar on 

seals. Norwegian Defense Research Establishment (FFI).

Kvadsheim, P. H., P. J. O. Miller, P. L. Tyack, L. D. Sivle, F. P. A. Lam, & A. Fahlman. (2012). Estimated 

tissue and blood N2 levels and risk of decompression sickness in deep-, intermediate-, and 

shallow-diving toothed whales during exposure to naval sonar. frontiers in Physiology, 3(Article 

125). 

Kvadsheim, P. H., S. DeRuiter, L. D. Sivle, J. Goldbogen, R. Roland-Hansen, P. J. O. Miller, F. A. Lam, J. 

Calambokidis, A. Friedlaender, F. Visser, P. L. Tyack, L. Kleivane, & B. Southall. (2017). Avoidance 

responses of minke whales to 1-4kHz naval sonar. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 

Kyhn, L. A., P. B. Jørgensen, J. Carstensen, N. I. Bech, J. Tougaard, T. Dabelsteen, & J. Teilmann. (2015). 

Pingers cause temporary habitat displacement in the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 526, 253–265. 

LaBrecque, E., C. Curtice, J. Harrison, S. M. Van Parijs, & P. N. Halpin. (2015a). Biologically Important 

Areas for Cetaceans Within U.S. Waters—Gulf of Mexico Region. Aquatic Mammals, 41(1), 30–

38. 

LaBrecque, E., C. Curtice, J. Harrison, S. M. Van Parijs, & P. N. Halpin. (2015b). Biologically Important 

Areas for Cetaceans Within U.S. Waters—East Coast Region. Aquatic Mammals, 41(1), 17–29. 

Laggner, D. (2009). Blue whale (Baleanoptera musculus) ship strike threat assessment in the Santa 

Barbara Channel, California. (Master's Thesis). Evergreen State College. 

Laidre, K., I. Stirling, L. F. Lowry, O. Wiig, M. P. Heide-Jorgensen, & S. H. Ferguson. (2008). Quantifying 

the sensitivity of arctic marine mammals to climate-induced habitat change. Ecological 

Applications, 18(2), S97–S125. 

Laidre, K. L., M. P. Heide-Jorgensen, R. Dietz, R. C. Hobbs, & O. A. Jorgensen. (2003). Deep diving by 

narwhals Monodon monoceros: Differences in foraging behavior between wintering areas? 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 261, 269–281. 

Laidre, K. L., & M. P. Heide-Jorgensen. (2005). Winter feeding intensity of narwhals (Monodon 

monoceros). Marine Mammal Science, 21(1), 45–57. 

Laidre, K. L., M. P. Heide-Jorgensen, & T. G. Nielsen. (2007). Role of the bowhead whale as a predator in 

West Greenland. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 346, 285–297. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-771

3.7 References

Laist, D. W. (1997). Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a 

comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In J. M. Coe & D. B. 

Rogers (Eds.), Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts, and Solutions (pp. 99–140). New York, NY: 

Springer-Verlag.

Laist, D. W., A. R. Knowlton, J. G. Mead, A. S. Collet, & M. Podesta. (2001). Collisions between ships and 

whales. Marine Mammal Science, 17(1), 35–75. 

Laist, D. W., C. Taylor, & J. E. Reynolds, III. (2013). Winter habitat preferences for Florida manatees and 

vulnerability to cold. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e58979. 

Lalas, C., & H. McConnell. (2016). Effects of seismic surveys on New Zealand fur seals during daylight 

hours: Do fur seals respond to obstacles rather than airgun noise? Marine Mammal Science, 

32(2), 643–663. 

Lambertsen, R. H., K. J. Rasmussen, W. C. Lancaster, & R. J. Hintz. (2005). Functional morphology of the 

mouth of the bowhead whale and its implications for conservation. Journal of Mammalogy, 

86(2), 342–352. 

Lammers, M. O., A. A. Pack, & L. Davis. (2003). Historical evidence of whale/vessel collisions in Hawaiian 

waters (1975—Present). 

Lammers, M. O., M. Howe, L. M. Munger, & E. Nosal. (2015). Acoustic Monitoring of Dolphin Occurrence 

and Activity in the Virginia Capes MINEX W-50 Range 2012–2014: Preliminary Results. Final 

Report. Prepared for U.S. Fleet Forces Command. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, under Contract No. N62470-10-3011, Task Orders 03 and 

43, issued to HDR Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia. 23 March 2015.

Lavigne, D. M. (2008). Harp seal, Pagophilus groenlandicus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 560–562). San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press.

Laviguer, L., & M. O. Hammill. (1993). Distribution and seasonal movements of grey seals, Halichoerus 

grypus, born in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and eastern Nova Scotia shore. The Canadian FieldNaturalist, 107, 329–340. 

Law, K. L., S. Moret-Ferguson, N. A. Maximenko, G. Proskurowski, E. E. Peacock, J. Hafner, & C. M. 

Reddy. (2010). Plastic accumulation in the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre (Sciencexpress).

Law, R. J. (2014). An overview of time trends in organic contaminant concentrations in marine 

mammals: going up or down? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 82(1–2), 7–10. 

Leatherwood, J. S., W. F. Perrin, R. L. Garvie, & J. C. La Grange. (1973). Observations of Sharks Attacking 

Porpoises (Stenella spp. and Delphinus cf. D. delphis). 

Leatherwood, S., D. K. Caldwell, & H. E. Winn. (1976). Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises of the Western 

North Atlantic: A Guide to their Identification. 

Leatherwood, S., F. T. Awbrey, & J. A. Thomas. (1982). Minke whale response to a transiting survey 

vessel. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 32, 795–802. 

Leatherwood, S., & R. R. Reeves. (1983). The Sierra Club Handbook of Whales and Dolphins. San 

Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-772

3.7 References

Leatherwood, S., T. A. Jefferson, J. C. Norris, W. E. Stevens, L. J. Hansen, & K. D. Mullin. (1993). 

Occurrence and sounds of Fraser's dolphins (Lagenodelphis hosei) in the Gulf of Mexico. Texas 

Journal of Science, 45(4), 349–354. 

Ledwell, W., S. Benjamins, J. Lawson, & J. Huntington. (2007). The most southerly record of a stranded 

bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus, from the western North Atlantic Ocean. Arctic, 60(1), 17–

22. 

Lefebrve, K. A., A. Robertson, E. R. Frame, K. M. Colegrove, S. Nance, K. A. Baugh, H. Wiedenhoft, & F. M. 

D. Gulland. (2010). Clinical signs and histopathology associated with domoic acid poisoning in 

northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) and comparison of toxin detection methods. Harmful 

Algae, 9, 374–383. 

Lefebvre, K. A., L. Quakenbush, E. Frame, K. B. Huntington, G. Sheffield, R. Stimmelmayr, A. Bryan, P. 

Kendrick, H. Ziel, T. Goldstein, J. A. Snyder, T. Gelatt, F. Gulland, b. Dickerson, & V. Gill. (2016). 

Prevalence of algal toxins in Alaskan marine mammals foraging in a changing arctic and subarctic 

environment. Harmful Algae, 55(2016), 13–24. 

Lefebvre, L. W., T. J. O'Shea, G. B. Rathbun, & R. C. Best. (1989). Distribution, status, and biogeography 

of the West Indian manatee. Biogeography of the West Indies, 1989, 567–610. 

Lefebvre, L. W., J. P. Reid, W. J. Kenworthy, & J. A. Powell. (2000). Characterizing manatee habitat use 

and seagrass grazing in Florida and Puerto Rico: Implications for conservation and management. 

Pacific Conservation Biology, 5, 289–298. 

Lefebvre, L. W., M. Marmontel, J. P. Reid, G. B. Rathbun, & D. P. Domning. (2001). Status and 

biogeography of the West Indian manatee. In C. A. Woods & F. E. Sergile (Eds.), Biogeography of 

the West Indies: Patterns and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 425–474). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Lemonds, D. W., L. N. Kloepper, P. E. Nachtigall, W. W. Au, S. A. Vlachos, & B. K. Branstetter. (2011). A 

re-evaluation of auditory filter shape in delphinid odontocetes: evidence of constant-bandwidth 

filters. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(5), 3107–3114. 

Leopold, M. F., L. Begeman, J. D. L. van Bleijswijk, L. L. IJsseldijk, H. J. Witte, & A. Grone. (2015). Exposing 

the grey seal as a major predator of harbor porpoises. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 

282(20142429). 

Lesage, V., C. Barrette, M. C. S. Kingsley, & B. Sjare. (1999). The effect of vessel noise on the vocal 

behavior of belugas in the St. Lawrence River estuary, Canada. Marine Mammal Science, 15(1), 

65–84. 

Lesage, V., & M. O. Hammill. (2001). The status of the grey seal, Halichoerus grypus, in the Northwest 

Atlantic. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 115(4), 653–662. 

Lesage, V., K. Gavrilchuk, R. D. Andrews, & R. Sears. (2016). Wintering areas, fall movements and 

foraging sites of blue whales satellite-tracked in the western North Atlantic. Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans.

Li, S., T. Akamatsu, D. Wang, K. Wang, S. Dong, X. Zhao, Z. Wei, X. Zhang, B. Taylor, L. A. Barrett, S. T. 

Turvey, R. R. Reeves, B. S. Stewart, M. Richlen, & J. R. Brandon. (2008). Indirect evidence of boat 

avoidance behavior of Yangtze finless porpoises. Bioacoustics, 17, 174–176. 

Li, S., H. Wu, Y. Xu, C. Peng, L. Fang, M. Lin, L. Xing, & P. Zhang. (2015). Mid- to high-frequency noise 

from high-speed boats and its potential impacts on humpback dolphins. The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 138(2), 942–952. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-773

3.7 References

Lien, J., D. Nelson, & D. J. Hai. (2001). Status of the white-beaked dolphin, Lagenorhynchus albirostris, in 

Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 115(1), 118–126. 

Lin, H. W., A. C. Furman, S. G. Kujawa, & M. C. Liberman. (2011). Primary neural degeneration in the 

guinea pig cochlea after reversible noise-induced threshold shift. Journal of the Association for 

Research in Otolaryngology. 

Lindstrom, U., A. Harbitz, T. Haug, & K. T. Nilssen. (1998). Do harp seals, Phoca groenlandica, exhibit 

particular prey preferences? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55, 941–953. 

Lindstrom, U., & T. Haug. (2001). Feeding strategy and prey selectivity in common minke whales 

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) foraging in the southern Barents Sea during early summer. Journal 

of Cetacean Research and Management, 3(3), 239–250. 

Litz, J. A. (2007). Social structure, genetic structure, and persistent organohalogen pollutants in 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Biscayne Bay, Florida. (Doctoral Dissertation). 

University of Miami. 

Lloyd, J. (2015, February 19, 2015). Seals’ Appearance is a Puzzle. Retrieved from 

http://www.coastalreview.org/2015/02/seals-appearance-in-nc-a-puzzle/

Lucke, K., U. Siebert, P. A. Lepper, & M. A. Blanchet. (2009). Temporary shift in masked hearing 

thresholds in a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli. 

Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 125(6), 4060–4070. 

Luís, A. R., M. N. Couchinho, & M. E. dos Santos. (2014). Changes in the acoustic behavior of resident 

bottlenose dolphins near operating vessels. Marine Mammal Science, 30(4), 1417–1426. 

Luksenburg, J. A., & E. C. M. Parsons. (2009). The effects of aircraft on cetaceans: implications for aerial 

whalewatching. Paper presented at the 61st Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, 

Madeira, Portugal. 

Lusher, A. L., A. Burke, I. O'Connor, & R. Officer. (2014). Microplastic pollution in the Northeast Atlantic 

Ocean: validated and opportunistic sampling. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2014. 

Lusseau, D. (2004). The hidden cost of tourism: Detecting long-term effects of tourism using behavioral 

information. Ecology and Society, 9(1), 2. 

Lusseau, D. (2006). The short-term behavioral reactions of bottlenose dolphins to interactions with 

boats in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science, 22(4), 802–818. 

Lusseau, D., & L. Bejder. (2007). The Long-term Consequences of Short-term Responses to Disturbance

Experiences from Whalewatching Impact Assessment. International Journal of Comparative 

Psychology, 20, 228–236. 

Lusseau, D., D. E. Bain, R. Williams, & J. C. Smith. (2009). Vessel traffic disrupts the foraging behavior of 

southern resident killer whales, Orcinus orca. Endangered Species Research, 6, 211–221. 

Lyamin, O. I., S. M. Korneva, V. V. Rozhnov, & L. M. Mukhametov. (2011). Cardiorespiratory changes in 

beluga in response to acoustic noise. Doklady Biological Sciences, 440(5), 704–707. 

Lydersen, C., & K. M. Kovacs. (1993). Diving behaviour of lactating harp seal, Phoca groenlandica, 

females from the Gulf of St Lawrence, Canada. Animal Behaviour, 46, 1213–1221. 

MacLeod, C. D. (2000). Review of the distribution of Mesoplodon species (order Cetacea, family 

Ziphiidae) in the North Atlantic. Mammal Review, 30(1), 1–8. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-774

3.7 References

MacLeod, C. D., M. B. Santos, & G. J. Pierce. (2003). Review of data on diets of beaked whales: evidence 

of niche separation and geographic segregation. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of 

the United Kingdom, 83, 651–665. 

MacLeod, C. D., N. Hauser, & H. Peckham. (2004). Diversity, relative density and structure of the 

cetacean community in summer months east of Great Abaco, Bahamas. Journal of the Marine 

Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 84, 469–474. 

MacLeod, C. D. (2006). How big is a beaked whale? A review of body length and sexual size dimporphism 

in the family Ziphiidae. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 7(3), 301–308. 

MacLeod, C. D., & G. Mitchell. (2006). Key areas for beaked whales worldwide. Journal of Cetacean 

Research and Management, 7(3), 309–322. 

MacLeod, C. D., W. F. Perrin, R. Pitman, J. Barlow, L. Ballance, A. D'Amico, T. Gerrodette, G. Joyce, K. D. 

Mullin, D. L. Palka, & G. T. Waring. (2006). Known and inferred distributions of beaked whale 

species (Ziphiidae: Cetacea). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 7(3), 271–286. 

Madsen, P. T., D. A. Carder, K. Bedholm, & S. H. Ridgway. (2005). Porpoise clicks from a sperm whale 

nose—convergent evolution of 130 kHz pulses in toothed whale sonars? Bioacoustics, 15, 195–

206. 

Madsen, P. T., M. Johnson, P. J. O. Miller, N. A. Soto, J. Lynch, & P. Tyack. (2006). Quantitative measures 

of air-gun pulses recorded on sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) using acoustic tags during 

controlled exposure experiments. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 120(4), 2366–

2379. 

Magalhães, S., R. Prieto, M. A. Silva, J. Gonçalves, M. Afonso-Dias, & R. S. Santos. (2002). Short-term 

reactions of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) to whale-watching vessels in the Azores. 

Aquatic Mammals, 28(3), 267–274. 

Magor, D. M. (1979). Survey of the Caribbean manatee (Trichechus manatus, L.) on Vieques Island, 

Puerto Rico. 

Maldini, D., L. Mazzuca, & S. Atkinson. (2005). Odontocete stranding patterns in the main Hawaiian 

islands (1937–2002): How do they compare with live animal surveys? Pacific Science, 59(1), 55–

67. 

Malme, C. I., B. Würsig, J. E. Bird, & P. Tyack. (1986). Behavioral responses of gray whales to industrial 

noise: Feeding observations and predictive modelling (Outer Continental Shelf Environmental 

Assessment Program, Final Report of Principal Investigators MMS 88-0048). Anchorage, AK: Bolt 

Beranek, & Newman, Inc.

Malme, C. I., B. Würsig, J. E. Bird, & P. Tyack. (1988). Observations of feeding gray whale responses to 

controlled industrial noise exposure. In W. M. Sackinger, M. O. Jeffries, J. L. Imm & S. D. Tracey 

(Eds.), Port and Ocean Engineering Under Artic Conditions (Vol. 2, pp. 55–73). Fairbanks, AK: 

Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska.

Maloni, M., J. A. Paul, & D. M. Gligor. (2013). Slow steaming impacts on ocean carriers and shippers. 

Maritime Economics & Logistics, 15(2), 151–171. 

Manci, K. M., D. N. Gladwin, R. Villella, & M. G. Cavendish. (1988). Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic 

Booms on Domestic Animals and Wildlife: A Literature Synthesis. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-775

3.7 References

Manzano-Roth, R., E. E. Henderson, S. W. Martin, C. Martin, & B. M. Matsuyama. (2016). Impacts of U.S. 

Navy Training Events on Blainville's Beaked Whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) Foraging Dives in 

Hawaiian Waters. Aquatic Mammals, 42(4), 507–518. 

Marcoux, M., H. Whitehead, & L. Rendell. (2007). Sperm whale feeding variations by location, year, 

social group and clan: Evidence from stable isotopes. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 333, 309–

314. 

Marine Mammal Commission. (2010a). The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Marine Mammals. Retrieved 

from http://www.mmc.gov/oil_spill/welcome.html

Marine Mammal Commission. (2010b). The Marine Mammal Commission Annual Report to Congress 

2009. Bethesda, MD.

Marsh, H. E. (1989). Mass stranding of dugongs by a tropical cyclone in Northern Australia. Marine 

Mammal Science, 5(1), 78–84. 

Martin, C. R., S. W. Martin, E. E. Henderson, T. A. Helble, R. A. Manzano-Roth, B. M. Matsuyama, & G. C. 

Alongi. (2017). SSC Pacific FY16 annual report on PMRF Marine Mammal Monitoring. Final 

Report. San Diego, CA: National Marine Mammal Foundation and Space and Naval Warfare 

Systems Center Pacific.

Martin, J., H. H. Edwards, C. J. Fonnesbeck, S. M. Koslovsky, C. W. Harmak, & T. M. Dane. (2015a). 

Combining information for monitoring at large spatial scales: first statewide abundance estimate 

of the Florida manatee. Biological Conservation, 186(2015), 44–51. 

Martin, S. W., C. R. Martin, B. M. Matsuyama, & E. E. Henderson. (2015b). Minke whales (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata) respond to navy training. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(5), 

2533–2541. 

Masaki, Y. (1976). Biological studies on the North Pacific sei whale. Bulletin of the Far Seas Fisheries 

Research Laboratory, 14, 1–104 

Masaki, Y. (1977). The separation of the stock units of sei whales in the North Pacific. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 1, 71–79. 

Mate, B. R., K. M. Stafford, R. Nawojchik, & J. L. Dunn. (1994). Movements and dive behavior of a 

satellite-monitored Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) in the Gulf of Maine. 

Marine Mammal Science, 10, 116–121. 

Mate, B. R., S. L. Nieukirk, & S. D. Kraus. (1997). Satellite-monitored movements of the northern right 

whale. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 61(4), 1393–1405. 

Mather, J. (2004). Cephalopod Skin Displays: From Concealment to Communication. In D. Kimbrough 

Oller and Ulrike Griebel (Ed.), The Evolution of Communication Systems: A Comparative 

Approach. Cambridge, MA: The Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology and the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology.

Matkin, C. O., E. L. Saulitis, G. M. Ellis, P. Olesiuk, & S. D. Rice. (2008). Ongoing population-level impacts 

on killer whales, Orcinus orca, following the 'Exxon Valdez' oil spill in Prince William Sound, 

Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 356, 269–281. 

Matley, J. K., A. T. Fisk, & T. A. Dick. (2015). Foraging ecology of ringed seals (Pusa hispida), beluga 

whales (Delphinapterus leucas) and narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in the Canadian High Arctic 

determined by stomach content and stape isotope analysis. Polar Research, 34, 24295. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-776

3.7 References

Mattson, M. C., J. A. Thomas, & D. St. Aubin. (2005). Effects of boat activity on the behavior of 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in waters surrounding Hilton Head Island, South 

Carolina. Aquatic Mammals, 31(1), 133–140. 

May-Collado, L. J., & D. Wartzok. (2008). A comparison of bottlenose dolphin whistles in the Atlantic 

Ocean: Factors promoting whistle variation. Journal of Mammalogy, 89(5), 1229–1240. 

Mayo, C. A., & M. K. Marx. (1990). Surface foraging behaviour of the North Atlantic right whale, 

Eubalaena glacialis, and associated zooplankton characteristics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences, 68, 2214–2220. 

Maze-Foley, K., & K. D. Mullin. (2006). Cetaceans of the oceanic northern Gulf of Mexico: Distributions, 

group sizes and interspecific associations. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 8(2), 

203–213. 

Mazzoil, M., D. R. McCulloch, & R. H. Defran. (2005). Observations on the site fidelity of bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. Florida Scientist, 68(4), 217–

226. 

McAlarney, R., E. Cummings, B. McLellan, & A. Pabst. (2014). Protected Species Monitoring in the 

Virginia Capes OPAREA, Cape Hatteras, North Carolina: January 2013 – December 2013. 

Wilmington, NC: University of North Carolina Wilmington.

McAlarney, R., E. Cummings, W. McLellan, & D. A. Pabst. (2016). Aerial Surveys for Protected Species in 

the Cape Hatteras and Norfolk Canyon Regions. Virginia Beach, VA: U.S. Fleet Forces Command.

McAlpine, D. F., P. T. Stevick, L. D. Murison, & S. D. Turnbull. (1999). Extralimital records of hooded seals 

(Cystophora Cristata) from the Bay of Fundy and northern Gulf of Maine. Northeastern 

Naturalist, 6, 225–230. 

McAlpine, D. F., & R. J. Walker. (1999). Additional extralimital records of the harp seal, Phoca 

groenlandica, from the Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 113, 290–292. 

McAlpine, D. F. (2002). Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm whales. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (pp. 1007–1009). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

McAlpine, D. F. (2009). Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales, Kogia breviceps and K. sima. In W. F. Perrin, B. 

Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 936–938). 

Academic Press.

McCarthy, E., D. Moretti, L. Thomas, N. DiMarzio, R. Morrissey, S. Jarvis, J. Ward, A. Izzi, & A. Dilley. 

(2011). Changes in spatial and temporal distribution and vocal behavior of Blainville's beaked 

whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) during multiship exercises with mid-frequency sonar. Marine 

Mammal Science, 27(3), E206–E226. 

McCauley, R. D., M. N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K. A. McCabe, & J. Murdoch. (1998). The response of humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: Preliminary results of 

observations about a working seismic vessel and experimental exposures. APPEA Journal, 692–

706. 

McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, A. J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M. N. Jenner, J. D. Penrose, R. I. T. Prince, A. Adhitya, 

J. Murdoch, & K. McCabe. (2000). Marine seismic surveys—A study of environmental 

implications. Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Association Journal, 692–708. 

McDonald, B. I., & P. J. Ponganis. (2012). Lung collapse in the diving sea lion: hold the nitrogen and save 

the oxygen. Biology Letters, 8, 1047–1049. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-777

3.7 References

McDonald, M. A., J. A. Hildebrand, & S. C. Webb. (1995). Blue and fin whales observed on a seafloor 

array in the Northeast Pacific. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 98(2), 712–721. 

McDonald, M. A., J. A. Hildebrand, S. M. Wiggins, & D. Ross. (2008). A 50 Year comparison of ambient 

ocean noise near San Clemente Island: A bathymetrically complex coastal region off Southern 

California. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 1985–1992. 

McDonald, M. A., J. A. Hildebrand, S. M. Wiggins, D. W. Johnston, & J. J. Polovina. (2009). An acoustic 

survey of beaked whales at Cross Seamount near Hawaii. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of 

America, 125(2), 624–627. 

McKenna, M. F., D. Ross, S. M. Wiggins, & J. A. Hildebrand. (2012). Underwater radiated noise from 

modern commercial ships. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 131(1), 92–103. 

McKinney, M. A., E. Peacock, & R. J. Letcher. (2009). Sea ice-associated diet change increases the levels 

of chlorinated and brominated contaminants in polar bears. Environmental Science and 

Technology, 43(12), 4334–4339. 

McLellan, W., H. Foley, R. McAlarney, E. Cummings, Z. Swaim, L. Hodge, J. Stanistreet, K. Urian, D. 

Waples, C. Paxton, D. Pabst, J. Bell, & A. Read. (2014). Patterns of cetacean species occurrence, 

distribution and density at three sites along the continental shelf break of the U.S. Atlantic coast. 

Paper presented at the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic Marine Mammal Symposium, University of 

North Carolina Wilmington. 

McLellan, W., R. McAlarney, E. Cummings, J. Bell, A. Read, & D. A. Pabst. (2015, 13-18 December 2015). 

Year-round Presence of Beaked Whales off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Paper presented at 

the 21st Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, San Francisco, CA.

McVey, J. P., & T. Wibbles. (1984). The Growth and Movements of Cap-Tive-Reared Kemp’s Ridley Sea 

Turtles, Lepidochelys kempi, Following their Release in the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA Technical 

Memorandum).

Mead, J. G. (1989a). Beaked whales of the genus Mesoplodon. In S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), 

Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 4, pp. 349–430). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Mead, J. G. (1989b). Bottlenose whales: Hyperoodon ampullatus (Forster, 1770) and Hyperoodon 

planifrons Flower, 1882. In S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals

(Vol. 4: River dolphins and the larger toothed whales, pp. 321–348). San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press. 

Mead, J. G., & C. W. Potter. (1995). Recognizing two populations of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus) off the Atlantic Coast of North America: Morphologic and ecologic considerations. IBI 

Reports, 5, 31–44. 

Measures, L., B. Roberge, & R. Sears. (2004). Stranding of a Pygmy Sperm Whale, Kogia breviceps, in the 

Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 118(4), 495–498. 

Meissner, A. M., F. Christiansen, E. Martinez, M. D. Pawley, M. B. Orams, & K. A. Stockin. (2015). 

Behavioural effects of tourism on oceanic common dolphins, Delphinus sp., in New Zealand: the 

effects of Markov analysis variations and current tour operator compliance with regulations. 

PLoS ONE, 10(1), e0116962. 

Melcón, M. L., A. J. Cummins, S. M. Kerosky, L. K. Roche, S. M. Wiggins, & H. J. A. (2012). Blue whales 

respond to anthropogenic noise. PLoS ONE, 7(2). 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-778

3.7 References

Meynier, L., C. Pusineri, J. Spitz, M. B. Santos, G. J. Pierce, & V. Ridoux. (2008). Intraspecific dietary 

variation in the short-beaked common dolphin Delphinus delphis in the Bay of Biscay: 

importance of fat fish. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 354, 277–287. 

Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A. (1988). A stranded sperm whale, Physeter catodon, at Cayo Santiago, Puerto 

Rico. Caribbean Journal of Science, 24(3–4), 173–190. 

Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A. (1998). Zoogeography of cetaceans off Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

Caribbean Journal of Science, 34(3–4), 173–190. 

Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A., & C. A. Beck. (1998). The diet of the manatee (Trichechus manatus) in Puerto 

Rico. Marine Mammal Science, 14(2), 394–397. 

Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A., B. Pinto-Rodríguez, M. Velasco-Escudero, R. A. Montoya-Ospina, N. M. 

Jiménez-Marrero, M. A. Rodríguez-López, E. H. Williams, Jr., & D. K. Odell. (1999). Cetacean 

strandings in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 

1(2), 191–198. 

Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A., & D. K. Odell. (2001). Tropical and subtropical records of hooded seals 

(Cystophora cristata) dispel the myth of extant Caribbean monk seals (Monachus tropicalis). 

Bulletin of Marine Science, 68(1), 47–58. 

Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A., S. L. Swartz, A. Martinez, C. M. Burks, & W. A. Watkins. (2003). First records of 

the pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) for the Puerto Rican Bank, with a review of 

the species for the Caribbean. Caribbean Journal of Science, 39(3), 381–392. 

Miksis-Olds, J. L., P. L. Donaghay, J. H. Miller, P. L. Tyack, & J. E. Reynolds, III. (2007). Simulated vessel 

approaches elicit differential responses from manatees. Marine Mammal Science, 23(3), 629–

649. 

Miksis-Olds, J. L., & P. L. Tyack. (2009). Manatee (Trichechus manatus) vocalization usage in relation to 

environmental noise levels. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 125(3), 1806–1815. 

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. 

Miksis, J. L., R. C. Connor, M. D. Grund, D. P. Nowacek, A. R. Solow, & P. L. Tyack. (2001). Cardiac 

responses to acoustic playback experiments in the captive bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115(3), 227–232. 

Miller, J. D., C. S. Watson, & W. P. Covell. (1963). Deafening effects of noise on the cat. Acta OtoLaryngologica, Supplement 176, 1–88. 

Miller, K. (2016). Another right whale is found dead off Maine coast. Portland Press Herald. 

http://www.pressherald.com/2016/09/27/another-endangered-right-whale-found-dead-offmaine-coast/ 

Miller, L. J., A. D. Mackey, T. Hoffland, & S. A. Kuczaj, II. (2010). Potential effects of a major hurricane on 

Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops trncatus) reproduction in the Mississippi Sound. Marine 

Mammal Science, 26(3), 707–715. 

Miller, P., R. Antunes, A. C. Alves, P. Wensveen, P. Kvadsheim, L. Kleivane, N. Nordlund, F.-P. Lam, S. van 

IJsselmuide, F. Visser, & P. Tyack. (2011). The 3S experiments: studying the behavioural effects of 

naval sonar on killer whales (Orcinus orca), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and longfinned pilot whales (Globicephala melas) in Norwegian waters (Scottish Oceans Inst. Tech. Rept., 

SOI-2011-001).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-779

3.7 References

Miller, P. J., R. N. Antunes, P. J. Wensveen, F. I. Samarra, A. C. Alves, P. L. Tyack, P. H. Kvadsheim, L. 

Kleivane, F. P. Lam, M. A. Ainslie, & L. Thomas. (2014). Dose-response relationships for the onset 

of avoidance of sonar by free-ranging killer whales. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 

135(2), 975–993. 

Miller, P. J., P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. Lam, P. L. Tyack, C. Cure, S. L. DeRuiter, L. Kleivane, L. D. Sivle, I. S. P. 

van, F. Visser, P. J. Wensveen, A. M. von Benda-Beckmann, L. M. Martin Lopez, T. Narazaki, & S. 

K. Hooker. (2015). First indications that northern bottlenose whales are sensitive to behavioural 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise. Royal Society Open Science, 2(6), 140484. 

Miller, P. J. O., N. Biassoni, A. Samuels, & P. L. Tyack. (2000). Whale songs lengthen in response to sonar. 

Nature, 405(6789), 903. 

Miller, P. J. O., M. P. Johnson, P. T. Madsen, N. Biassoni, M. Quero, & P. L. Tyack. (2009). Using at-sea 

experiments to study the effects of airguns on the foraging behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Deep Sea Research I, 56(7), 1168–1181. 

Miller, P. J. O., P. H. Kvadsheim, F.-P. A. Lam, P. J. Wensveen, R. Antunes, A. C. Alves, F. Visser, L. 

Kleivane, P. L. Tyack, & L. D. Sivle. (2012). The severity of behavioral changes observed during 

experimental exposures of killer (Orcinus orca), long-finned pilot (Globicephala melas), and 

sperm (Physeter macrocephalus) whales to naval sonar. Aquatic Mammals, 38(4), 362–401. 

Mintz, J. D., & R. J. Filadelfo. (2011). Exposure of Marine Mammals to Broadband Radiated Noise

(Specific Authority N0001-4-05-D-0500).

Mintz, J. D. (2012). Vessel Traffic in the Hawaii-Southern California and Atlantic Fleet Testing and 

Training Study Areas. (CRM D0026186.A2/Final). Center for Naval Analysis.

Mitchell, E. D., Jr. (1991). Winter records of the minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata Lacepede 

1804) in the southern North Atlantic. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 41, 455–

457. 

Miyazaki, N., & W. F. Perrin. (1994). Rough-toothed dolphin, Steno bredanensis (Lesson, 1828). In S. H. 

Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 5, pp. 1–21). San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press.

Moberg, G. P., & J. A. Mench. (2000). The Biology of Animal Stress; Basic Principles and Implications for 

Animal Welfare. London, UK: CAB International.

Mobley, J. R., & A. Milette. (2010). Aerial Survey Monitoring for Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in the 

Hawaiian Range Complex in Conjunction with a Navy Training Event, SCC February 16–21, 2010, 

Final Field Report. Prepared for Commander, Pacific Fleet Environmental. Submitted to Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (NAVFAC), EV2 Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI, 

96860-3134, under Contract No. N62742-10-P-1803. Submitted by Marine Mammal Research 

Consultants (MMRC), Honolulu, HI, Sept. 8, 2010.

Mobley, J. R. (2011). Aerial Survey Monitoring for Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in the Hawaii Range

Complex in Conjunction with Two Navy Training Events. SCC and USWEX February 16–March 5, 

2011. Final Field Report. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (NAVFAC), 

EV2 Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI, 96860-3134, under Contract # N6247010D3011, 

CTO KB07. Submitted by HDR Inc., San Diego.

Mobley, J. R., & A. F. Pacini. (2012). Aerial Survey Monitoring for Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in the 

Hawaii Range Complex in Conjunction with a Navy Training Event, SCC February 15–25, 2010, 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-780

3.7 References

Final Field Report. Prepared for Commander, Pacific Fleet Environmental. Submitted to Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (NAVFAC), EV2 Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI, 

96860-3134, under Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011. Submitted by HDR Inc, Honolulu, HI, July 

25, 2012.

Mobley, J. R., M. A. Smultea, C. E. Bacon, & A. S. Frankel. (2012). Preliminary Report: Aerial Survey 

Monitoring for Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in the Hawaii Range Complex--Summary of 

Focal Follow Analysis for 2008–2012 SCC Events: Preliminary Report. Prepared for Commander, 

U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

Pacific (NAVFAC), EV2 Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860-3134, under 

Contract # N62470-10-D-3011, 11 June 2013, issued to HDR Inc., San Diego, California 92123. 11 

June 2013.

Mobley, J. R., & M. H. Deakos. (2015). Aerial Shoreline Surveys for Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles in 

the Hawaii Range Complex, Conducted after Navy Training Events. Koa Kai Surveys: 31 January 

and 5 February 2014. RIMPAC Surveys: 1 and 4–6 July 2014 (Prepared for Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command Pacific for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet under Contract No. N62470-10-

D-3011, CTO KB26, issued to HDR, Inc.). Pearl Harbor, HI: HDR Inc.

Møller, A. R. (2013). Hearing: Anatomy, Physiology, and Disorders of the Auditory System. San Diego, CA: 

Plural Publishing.

Monnett, C., & J. G. Gleason. (2006). Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water 

swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology, 29, 681–687. 

Montie, E. W., C. A. Manire, & D. A. Mann. (2011). Live CT imaging of sound reception anatomy and 

hearing measurements in the pygmy killer whale, Feresa attenuata. Journal of Experimental 

Biology, 214, 945–955. 

Moon, H. B., K. Kannan, M. Choi, J. Yu, H. G. Choi, Y. R. An, S. G. Choi, J. Y. Park, & Z. G. Kim. (2010). 

Chlorinated and brominated contaminants including PCBs and PBDEs in minke whales and 

common dolphins from Korean coastal waters. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 179(1–3), 735–

741. 

Mooney, T. A., P. E. Nachtigall, M. Breese, S. Vlachos, & W. W. L. Au. (2009a). Predicting temporary 

threshold shifts in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): The effects of noise level and 

duration. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 125(3), 1816–1826. 

Mooney, T. A., P. E. Nachtigall, & S. Vlachos. (2009b). Sonar-induced temporary hearing loss in dolphins. 

Biology Letters, 5(4), 565–567. 

Mooney, T. A., M. Yamato, & B. K. Branstetter. (2012). Hearing in Cetaceans: From Natural History to 

Experimental Biology. Advances in Marine Biology, 63, 197–246. 

Moore, J. C., & E. Clark. (1963). Discovery of right whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Science, 141(3577), 269. 

Moore, J. C. (2008). Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: A rapidly increasing, long-term 

threat. Environmental Research, 108(2), 131–139. 

Moore, J. E., & J. P. Barlow. (2013). Declining abundance of beaked whales (Family Ziphiidae) in the 

California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e52770. 

Moore, M. J., & G. A. Early. (2004). Cumulative sperm whale bone damage and the bends. Science, 306, 

2215. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-781

3.7 References

Moore, M. J., A. L. Bogomolni, S. E. Dennison, G. Early, M. M. Garner, B. A. Hayward, B. J. Lentell, & D. S. 

Rotstein. (2009). Gas bubbles in seals, dolphins, and porpoises entangled and drowned at depth 

in gillnets. Veterinary Pathology, 46, 536–547. 

Moore, M. J., J. van der Hoop, S. G. Barco, A. M. Costidis, F. M. Gulland, P. D. Jepson, K. T. Moore, S. 

Raverty, & W. A. McLellan. (2013). Criteria and case definitions for serious injury and death of 

pinnipeds and cetaceans caused by anthropogenic trauma. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 

103(3), 229–264. 

Morales-Vela, B., J. Padilla-Saldivar, & A. Mignucci-Giannoni. (2003). Status of the manatee (Trichechus 

manatus) along the northern and western coasts of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Caribbean 

Journal of Science, 39(1), 42–49. 

Morano, J. L., A. N. Rice, J. T. Tielens, B. J. Estabrook, A. Murray, B. L. Roberts, & C. W. Clark. (2012a). 

Acoustically detected year-round presence of right whales in an urbanized migration corridor. 

Conserv Biol, 26(4), 698–707. 

Morano, J. L., D. P. Salisbury, A. N. Rice, K. L. Conklin, K. L. Falk, & C. W. Clark. (2012b). Seasonal and 

geographical patterns of fin whale song in the western North Atlantic Ocean. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 

132(2), 1207–1212. 

Moreland, E. E., M. F. Cameron, R. P. Angliss, & P. L. Boveng. (2015). Evaluation of a ship–based 

unoccupied aircraft system (UAS) for surveys of spotted and ribbon seals in the Bering Sea pack 

ice. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems, 3(3), 114–122. 

Moreno, I. B., A. N. Zerbini, D. Danilewicz, M. C. de Oliveira Santos, P. C. Simoes-Lopes, J. Lailson-Brito, 

Jr., & A. F. Azevedo. (2005). Distribution and habitat characteristics of dolphins of the genus 

Stenella (Cetacea: Delphinidae) in the southwest Atlantic Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

300, 229–240. 

Moretti, D., N. DiMarzio, R. Morrissey, E. McCarthy, & S. Jarvis. (2009, 7—10 December ). An 

opportunistic study of the effect of sonar on marine mammals, marine mammal monitoring on 

navy ranges (M3R). Paper presented at the 2009 ONR Marine Mammal Program Review, 

Alexandria, VA.

Moretti, D., L. Thomas, T. Marques, J. Harwood, A. Dilley, B. Neales, J. Shaffer, E. McCarthy, L. New, S. 

Jarvis, & R. Morrissey. (2014). A risk function for behavioral disruption of Blainville's beaked 

whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) from mid-frequency active sonar. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e85064. 

Morissette, L., M. O. Hammill, & C. Savenkoff. (2006). The trophic level of marine mammals in the 

northern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Marine Mammal Science, 22(1), 74–103. 

Mullin, K. D., L. V. Higgins, T. A. Jefferson, & L. J. Hansen. (1994a). Sightings of the Clymene dolphin 

(Stenella clymene) in the Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science, 10(4), 464–470. 

Mullin, K. D., T. A. Jefferson, L. J. Hansen, & W. Hoggard. (1994b). First sightings of melon-headed whales 

(Peponocephala electra) in the Gulf of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science, 10(3), 342–348. 

Mullin, K. D., & W. Hoggard. (2000). Visual surveys of cetaceans and sea turtles from aircraft and ships

(Cetaceans, sea turtles and seabirds in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Distribution, abundance and 

habitat associations). New Orleans, LA: Minerals Management Service.

Mullin, K. D., & G. L. Fulling. (2003). Abundance of cetaceans in the southern U.S. North Atlantic Ocean 

during summer 1998. Fishery Bulletin, 101(3), 603–613. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-782

3.7 References

Mullin, K. D., & G. L. Fulling. (2004). Abundance of cetaceans in the oceanic northern Gulf of Mexico, 

1996–2001. Marine Mammal Science, 20(4), 787–807. 

Mullin, K. D., W. Hoggard, & L. J. Hansen. (2004). Abundance and seasonal occurrence of cetaceans in 

outer continental shelf and slope waters of the north-central and northwestern Gulf of Mexico. 

Gulf of Mexico Science, 22(1), 62–73. 

Mulsow, J., & C. Reichmuth. (2010). Psychophysical and electrophysiological aerial audiograms of a 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127(4), 2692–

2701. 

Mulsow, J. L., J. J. Finneran, & D. S. Houser. (2011). California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) aerial 

hearing sensitivity measured using auditory steady-state response and psychophysical methods. 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(4), 2298–2306. 

Munger, L. M., M. O. Lammers, & W. W. L. Au. (2014). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Cetaceans within 

the Marianas Islands Range Complex (MIRC). Preliminary Report. Prepared for U.S. Pacific Fleet. 

Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Pacific, Honolulu, Hawaii under 

Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, Task Orders KB14 and KB 17, issued to HDR Inc., Honolulu, 

Hawaii. Prepared by Oceanwide Science Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii and Hawaii Institute of 

Marine Biology, Kaneohe, Hawaii. 10 February 2014.

Munger, L. M., M. O. Lammers, J. N. Oswald, T. M. Yack, & W. W. L. Au. (2015). Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring of Cetaceans within the Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC) Using Ecological 

Acoustic Recorders (EARs). Final Report. Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, 

Environmental Readiness Division, Pearl Harbor, HI. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command Pacific, EV2 Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI under Contract No. N62470-10-

D-3011 Task Orders KB14 and KB22 issued to HDR Inc., Honolulu, HI. 29 September.

Mussi, B., A. Miragliuolo, T. De Pippo, M. C. Gambi, & D. Chiota. (2004). The submarine canyon of Cuma 

(southern Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy), a cetacean key area to protect. European Research on 

Cetaceans, 15, 178–179. 

Mussoline, S. E., D. Risch, L. T. Hatch, M. T. Weinrich, D. N. Wiley, M. A. Thompson, P. J. Corkeron, & S. 

M. Van Parijs. (2012). Seasonal and diel variation in North Atlantic right whale up-calls: 

implications for management and conservation in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Endangered 

Species Research, 17, 17–26. 

Muto, M. M., & R. P. Angliss. (2016). Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2015. Seattle, WA.

Muto, M. M., V. T. Helker, R. P. Angliss, B. A. Allen, P. L. Boveng, J. M. Breiwick, M. F. Cameron, P. J. 

Clapham, S. P. Dahle, M. E. Dahlheim, B. S. Fadely, M. C. Ferguson, L. W. Fritz, R. C. Hobbs, Y. V. 

Ivashchenko, A. S. Kennedy, J. M. London, S. A. Mizroch, R. R. Ream, E. L. Richmond, K. E. W. 

Shelden, R. G. Towell, P. R. Wade, J. M. Waite, & A. R. Zerbini. (2016). Alaska Marine Mammal 

Stock Assessments, 2015 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-323). Seattle, WA: 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory.

Nabe-Nielsen, J., R. M. Sibly, J. Tougaard, J. Teilmann, & S. Sveegaard. (2014). Effects of noise and bycatch on a Danish harbour porpoise population. Ecological Modelling, 272, 242–251. 

Nachtigall, P. E., D. W. Lemonds, & H. L. Roitblat. (2000). Psychoacoustic Studies of Dolphin and Whale 

Hearing Hearing by Whales and Dolphins (pp. 330–363). Springer.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-783

3.7 References

Nachtigall, P. E., J. L. Pawloski, & W. W. L. Au. (2003). Temporary threshold shifts and recovery following 

noise exposure in the Atlantic bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). The Journal of 

Acoustical Society of America, 113(6), 3425–3429. 

Nachtigall, P. E., A. Y. Supin, J. Pawloski, & W. W. L. Au. (2004). Temporary threshold shifts after noise 

exposure in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) measured using evoked auditory 

potentials. Marine Mammal Science, 20(4), 673–687. 

Nachtigall, P. E., A. Y. Supin, M. Amundin, B. Roken, T. Møller, T. A. Mooney, K. A. Taylor, & M. Yuen. 

(2007). Polar bear, Ursus maritimus, hearing measured with auditory evoked potentials. The 

Journal of Experimental Biology, 210(7), 1116–1122. 

Nachtigall, P. E., T. A. Mooney, K. A. Taylor, L. A. Miller, M. H. Rasmussen, T. Akamatsu, J. Teilmann, M. 

Linnenschmidt, & G. A. Vikingsson. (2008). Shipboard Measurements of the Hearing of the 

White-Beaked Dolphin, Lagenorhynchus albirostris. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 211, 

642–647. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (1998). Recovery Plan for the Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus). 

Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2005a). Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena 

glacialis), Revision. Silver Spring, Maryland.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2005b). Assessment of Acoustic Exposures on Marine Mammals in 

Conjunction with USS Shoup Active Sonar Transmissions in the Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca and 

Haro Strait, Washington, 5 May 2003. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected 

Resources,.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2006). Recovery Plan for The Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus). 

Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2007a). Biological Opinion on the U.S. Navy's Proposed Undersea 

Warfare Training Exercises in the Hawaii Range Complex from January 2007 Through January 

2009. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2007b). Report to Congress on the Impact of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, 

and Wilman on Commercial and Recreational Fisheries Habitat of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Texas. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2008a). Biological Opinion for the 2008 Rim-of-the-Pacific Joint 

Training Exercises. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 

Endangered Species Division.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2008b). Compliance Guide for Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule 

(50 C.F.R. 224.105). (OMB Control #0648-0580). National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/shipstrike/compliance_guide.pdf. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2009). Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus): 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service Office of 

Protected Resources.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-784

3.7 References

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010). Biological Opinion on LOA for U.S. Navy Training Activities on 

East Coast Range Complexes 2010-2011. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2011a). A Decade of Support to Save and Conserve Stranded Marine 

Mammals. Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2011b). Final Recovery Plan for the Sei Whale (Balaenoptera 

borealis). Silver Spring, MD: National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015a). North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena Glacialis) Source 

Document for the Critical Habitat Designation: A review of information pertaining to the 

definition of "critical habitat". National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2015b). Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus) 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation, June 2015. Silver Spring, MD.

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016a). Guidelines for Preparing Stock Assessment Reports Pursuant 

to Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (National Marine Fisheries Service 

Instruction 02-204-01).

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016b). FAQs: Whale, Dolphin, Seal, and Sea Lion (Marine Mammal) 

Strandings. Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/faq.htm

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2016c, October 26, 2016). Bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus). 

Retrieved from http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/seals/bearded-seal.html 

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2017, April 28, 2017). FAQs on the 2016–2017 Humpback Atlantic 

Coast UME. Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/faqs2017humpbackatlanticume.html 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2002). Report of the Workshop on Acoustic 

Resonance as a Source of Tissue Trauma in Cetaceans. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2010). National Marine Fisheries Service's Final 

Biological Opinion for the Proposed Issuance of a United States Coast Guard Permit to the St. 

George Reef Lighthouse Preservation Society to Maintain the St. George Reef Lighthouse as a 

Private Aid to Navigation and its Effect on the Federally Threatened Eastern Distinct Population 

Segment of Steller Sea Lion and Designated Critical Habitat. National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2013). Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Hawaii-Southern California 

Training and Testing Study Area; Final Rule. Federal Register.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2014). Southern Resident Killer Whales: 10 Years of 

Research & Conservation. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2015). Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Northwest Training and 

Testing Study Area; Final Rule. Federal Register.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. (2016, 29 July 2016). 2013-2015 Bottlenose 

Dolphin Unusual Mortality Event in the Mid-Atlantic. Health and Stranding. Retrieved from 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/midatlanticdolphins2013.html 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-785

3.7 References

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2014a). Report on the 

Entanglement of Marine Species in Marine Debris with an Emphasis on Species in the United 

States. Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Debris Program. (2014b). Report on the 

Occurrence of Health Effects of Anthropogenic Debris Ingested by Marine Organisms. Silver 

Spring, MD.

National Research Council. (2003). Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2005). Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise. Washington, DC: 

National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2006). Dynamic Changes in Marine Ecosystems: Fishing, Food Webs, and 

Future Options, Committee on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing: Phase II–Assessments of the Extent 

of Change and the Implications for Policy. National Research Council.

Nedwell, J. R., B. Edwards, A. W. H. Turnpenny, & J. Gordon. (2004). Fish and marine mammal 

audiograms: A summary of available information (Subacoustech Report ref: 534R0214). 

Hamphire, UK.

Neilson, J. L., J. M. Straley, C. M. Gabriele, & S. Hills. (2009). Non-lethal entanglement of humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in fishing gear in northern Southeast Alaska. Journal of 

Biogeography, 36, 452–464. 

Neilson, J. L., C. M. Gabriele, A. S. Jensen, K. Jackson, & J. M. Straley. (2012). Summary of Reported 

Whale-Vessel Collisions in Alaskan Waters. Journal of Marine Biology, 2012, 1–18. 

Nemoto, T., & A. Kawamura. (1977). Characteristics of food habits and distribution of baleen whales 

with special reference to the abundance of North Pacific sei and Bryde's whales. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 1, 80–87. 

New, L. F., J. Harwood, L. Thomas, C. Donovan, J. S. Clark, G. Hastie, P. M. Thompson, B. Cheney, L. ScottHayward, D. Lusseau, & D. Costa. (2013a). Modelling the biological significance of behavioural 

change in coastal bottlenose dolphins in response to disturbance. Functional Ecology, 27(2), 

314–322. 

New, L. F., D. J. Morretti, S. K. Hooker, D. P. Costa, & S. E. Simmons. (2013b). Using Energetic Models to 

Investigate the Survival and Reproduction of Beaked Whales (family Ziphiidae). PLosOne, 8(7), 

e68725. 

New, L. F., J. S. Clark, D. P. Costa, E. Fleishman, M. A. Hindell, T. Klanjšček, D. Lusseau, S. Kraus, C. R. 

McMahon, P. W. Robinson, R. S. Schick, L. K. Schwarz, S. E. Simmons, L. Thomas, P. Tyack, & J. 

Harwood. (2014). Using short-term measures of behaviour to estimate long-term fitness of 

southern elephant seals. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 496, 99–108. 

Ng, S. L., & S. Leung. (2003). Behavioral response of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis) to 

vessel traffic. Marine Environmental Research, 56(5), 555–567. 

Nielsen, M. R. (2009). Is climate change causing the increasing narwhal (Monodon monoceros) catches in 

Smith Sound, Greenland? Polar Research, 28(2), 238–245. 

Nieukirk, S. L., D. K. Mellinger, S. E. Moore, K. Klinck, R. P. Dziak, & J. Goslin. (2012). Sounds from airguns 

and fin whales recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean, 1999–2009. The Journal of Acoustical Society 

of America, 131(2), 1102–1112. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-786

3.7 References

Niezrecki, C. (2010). Identifying manatee location using dual-frequency sonar DIDSON. Journal of the 

Acoustical Society of America, 127(3), 1862. 

Noren, D. P., A. H. Johnson, D. Rehder, & A. Larson. (2009). Close approaches by vessels elicit surface 

active behaviors by southern resident killer whales. Endangered Species Research, 8(3), 179–

192. 

Normandeau, E., T. Tricas, & A. Gill. (2011). Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on 

Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific Outer Continental 

Shelf Region.

Norris, K. S., & J. H. Prescott. (1961). Observations on Pacific cetaceans of Californian and Mexican 

waters. University of California Publications in Zoology, 63(4), 291–402. 

Norris, T. F., J. N. Oswald, T. M. Yack, & E. L. Ferguson. (2012). An Analysis of Marine Acoustic Recording 

Unit (MARU) Data Collected off Jacksonville, Florida in Fall 2009 and Winter 2009–2010. Final 

Report. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, 

under Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011, Task Order 021, issued to HDR Inc., Norfolk, Virginia. 

Prepared by Bio-Waves Inc., Encinitas, California. 21 November 2012. Revised January 2014.

North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. (1997). Report of the Fourth Meeting of the Scientific 

Committee. NAMMCO, Annual Report 1996. 

North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. (2000). Report of the NAMMCO Scientific Committee 

Working Group on the Population Status of Narwhal and Beluga in the North Atlantic. 

North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. (2017). Atlantic Walrus. Retrieved from 

https://nammco.no/topics/atlantic-walrus/#1475843214679-e49183cc-36fc

Northridge, S. (2008). Fishing industry, effects of. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), 

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 443–447). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Nowacek, D. P., M. P. Johnson, & P. L. Tyack. (2004a). North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) 

ignore ships but respond to alerting stimuli. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 271(B), 

227–231. 

Nowacek, D. P., L. H. Thorne, D. W. Johnston, & P. L. Tyack. (2007). Responses of cetaceans to 

anthropogenic noise. Mammal Review, 37(2), 81–115. 

Nowacek, D. P., C. W. Clark, D. Mann, P. J. O. Miller, H. C. Rosenbaum, J. S. Golden, M. Jasny, J. Kraska, & 

B. L. Southall. (2015). Marine seismic surveys and ocean noise: time for coordinated and prudent 

planning. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(7), 378–386. 

Nowacek, D. P., F. Christiansen, L. Bejder, J. A. Goldbogen, & A. S. Friedlaender. (2016). Studying 

cetacean behaviour: new technological approaches and conservation applications. Animal 

Behaviour, 1–10. 

Nowacek, S. M., R. S. Wells, E. C. G. Owen, T. R. Speakman, R. O. Flamm, & D. P. Nowacek. (2004b). 

Florida manatees, Trichechus manatus latirostris, respond to approaching vessels. Biological 

Conservation, 119, 517–523. 

O'Corry-Crowe, G. M. (2008). Beluga whale, Delphinapterus leucas. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 108–112). San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-787

3.7 References

O'Hern, J. E., & D. C. Biggs. (2009). Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) habitat in the Gulf of Mexico: 

Satellite observed ocean color and altimetry applied to small-scale variability in distribution. 

Aquatic Mammals, 35(3), 358–366. 

O'Shea, T., C. A. Beck, R. K. Bonde, H. I. Kochman, & D. K. Odell. (1985). An analysis of manatee mortality 

patterns in Florida, 1976–81. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 49(1), 1–11. 

O’Sullivan, S., & K. D. Mullin. (1997). Killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine 

Mammal Science, 13(1), 141–147. 

Ocean Alliance. (2010). The Voyage of the Odyssey: Executive Summary. 

Odell, D. K., & K. M. McClune. (1999). False killer whale—Pseudorca crassidens (Owen, 1846). In S. H. 

Ridgway & S. R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals, vol. 6: The Second Book of 

Dolphins and the Porpoises (Vol. 6, pp. 213–244). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Oey, T.-Y., T. Ezer, & H.-C. Lee. (2005). Loop Current, Rings and Related Circulation in the Gulf of Mexico: 

A Review of Numerical Models and Future Challenges. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 

Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.

Office of the Surgeon General. (1991). Conventional Warfare Ballistic, Blast, and Burn Injuries. In R. 

Zajitchuk, Col. (Ed.), U.S.A. Textbook of Military Medicine. Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon 

General.

Ohizumi, H. (2002). Dietary studies of toothed whales: A review of technical issues and new topics. 

Fisheries Science, 68(Supplement 1), 264–267. 

Olsen, E., W. P. Budgell, E. Head, L. Kleivane, L. Nøttestad, P. Prieto, M. A. Silva, H. Skov, G. A. Víkingsson, 

G. Waring, & N. Øien. (2009). First satellite-tracked long-distance movement of a sei whale 

(Balaenoptera borealis) in the North Atlantic. Aquatic Mammals, 35(3), 313–318. 

Olson, J. K. (2013). The effect of human exposure on the anti–predatory response of harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina). 

Olson, P. A. (2009). Pilot whales, Globicephala melas and G. macrorhynchus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & 

J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 898–903). San Diego, 

CA: Academic Press.

Ortega-Ortiz, J. G. (2002). Multiscale analysis of cetacean distribution in the Gulf of Mexico. (Ph.D). Texas 

A&M University. 

Oswald, J. N., T. F. Norris, T. M. Yack, E. L. Ferguson, A. Kumar, J. Nissen, & J. Bell. (2016). Patterns of 

Occurrence and Marine Mammal Acoustic Behavior in Relation to Navy Sonar Activity Off 

Jacksonville, Florida. Adv Exp Med Biol, 875, 791–799. 

Overholtz, W. J., & G. T. Waring. (1991). Diet composition of pilot whales Globicephala sp. and common 

dolphins Delphinus delphis in the mid-Atlantic Bight during spring 1989. Fishery Bulletin, 89(4), 

723–728. 

Owen, M. A., & A. E. Bowles. (2011). In-air auditory psychophysics and the management of a threatened 

carnivore, the polar bear (Ursus maritimus). International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 

24, 244–254. 

Pace, D. S., A. Miragliuolo, & B. Mussi. (2008). Behaviour of a social unit of sperm whales (Physeter 

macrocephalus) entangled in a driftnet off Capo Palinuro (Souther Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy). Journal 

of Cetacean Research and Management, 10(2), 131–135. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-788

3.7 References

Pagano, A. M., G. M. Durner, S. C. Amstrup, K. S. Simac, & G. S. York. (2012). Long-distance swimming by 

polar bears (Ursus maritimus) of the souther Beaufort Sea during years of extensive open water. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology, 90, 663–676. 

Page, B., J. McKenzie, R. McIntosh, A. Baylis, A. Morrissey, N. Calvert, T. Haase, M. Berros, D. Dowie, P. 

D. Shaughnessy, & S. D. Goldsworthy. (2004). Entanglement of Australian sea lions and New 

Zealand fur seals in lost fishing gear and other marine debris before and after government and 

industry attempts to reduce the problem. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 49(1-2), 33–42. 

Palka, D. (1995a). Influences on spatial patterns of Gulf of Maine harbor porpoises. In A. S. Blix, L. Walloe 

& O. Ulltang (Eds.), Whales, Seals, Fish and Man (pp. 69–75). Elsevier Science.

Palka, D., A. Read, & C. Potter. (1997). Summary of knowledge of white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus 

acutus) from U.S. and Canadian Atlantic waters. Reports of the International Whaling 

Commission, 47, 729–734. 

Palka, D. (2000). Abundance of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy harbor porpoise based on shipboard and 

aerial surveys during 1999. Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

Palka, D., & M. Johnson. (2007). Cooperative Research to Study Dive Patterns of Sperm Whales in the 

Atlantic Ocean. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Mimerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region.

Palka, D. L. (1995b). Abundance estimate of Gulf of Maine harbor porpoise. Report of the International 

Whaling Commision, 16, 27–50. 

Palka, D. L. (1997). A review of striped dolphins (Stenella coeruleoalba) in U.S. Atlantic waters. 

International Whaling Commission.

Palka, D. L., & P. S. Hammond. (2001). Accounting for responsive movement in line transect estimates of 

abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58, 777–787. 

Palka, D. L. (2006). Summer Abundance Estimates of Cetaceans in U.S. North Atlantic Navy Operating 

Areas. (Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 06-03). Woods Hole, MA: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

Palka, D. L. (2012). Cetacean Abundance Estimates in U.S. Northwestern Atlantic Ocean Waters from 

Summer 2011 Line Transect Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center Reference Document 12–29. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 

Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/. 

Panigada, S., M. Zanardelli, M. Mackenzie, C. Donovan, F. Melin, & P. S. Hammond. (2008). Modelling 

habitat preferences for fin whales and striped dolphins in the Pelagos Sanctuary (Western 

Mediterranean Sea) with physiographic and remote sensing variables. Remote Sensing of 

Environment, 112(8), 3400–3412. 

Paniz-Mondolfi, A. E., & L. Sander-Hoffmann. (2009). Lobomycosis in inshore and estuarine dolphins. 

Emerg Infect Dis, 15(4), 672–673. 

Papale, E., M. Gamba, M. Perez-Gil, V. M. Martin, & C. Giacoma. (2015). Dolphins adjust species-specific 

frequency parameters to compensate for increasing background noise. PLoS ONE, 10(4), 

e0121711. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-789

3.7 References

Parks, S. E., C. W. Clark, & P. L. Tyack. (2007). Short- and long-term changes in right whale calling 

behavior: The potential effects of noise on acoustic communication. The Journal of Acoustical 

Society of America, 122(6), 3725–3731. 

Parks, S. E. (2009, 7—10 December ). Assessment of acoustic adaptations for noise compensation in 

marine mammals. Paper presented at the 2009 ONR Marine Mammal Program Review, 

Alexandria, VA.

Parks, S. E., & D. Wiley. (2009). Fine-scale focal Dtag behavioral study of diel trends in activity budgets 

and sound production of endangered baleen whales in the Gulf of Maine (Marine Mammals & 

Biological Oceanography Annual Reports: FY09). Office of Naval Research.

Parks, S. E., M. Johnson, D. Nowacek, & P. L. Tyack. (2011). Individual right whales call louder in 

increased environmental noise. Biology Letters, 7, 33–35. 

Patenaude, N. J., W. J. Richardson, M. A. Smultea, W. R. Koski, G. W. Miller, B. Würsig, & C. R. Greene, Jr. 

(2002). Aircraft sound and disturbance to bowhead and beluga whales during spring migration in 

the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Marine Mammal Science, 18(2), 309–335. 

Payne, P. M., L. A. Selzer, & A. R. Knowlton. (1984). Distribution and density of cetaceans, marine turtles 

and seabirds in the shelf waters of the northeast U.S., June 1980—Dec. 1983, based on shipboard 

observations. (Contract No. NA-81-FA-C-00023). Woods Hole, MA: Produced by Manomet Bird 

Observatory, Manomet, MA.

Payne, P. M., D. W. Heinemann, & L. A. Selzer. (1990). A Distributional Assessment of Cetaceans in 

Shelf/Shelf-Edge and Adjacent Slope Waters of the Northeastern United States Based on Aerial 

and Shipboard Surveys, 1978–1988. Woods Hole, MA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center.

Payne, P. M., & D. W. Heinemann. (1993). The distribution of pilot whales (Globicephala spp.) in 

shelf/shelf edge and slope waters of the northeastern United States, 1978–1988. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission, 14, 51–68. 

Peacock, E., M. K. Taylor, J. Laake, & I. Stirling. (2013). Population ecology of polar bears in Davis Strait, 

Canada and Greenland. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 77(3), 463–476. 

Pepper, C. B., M. A. Nascarella, & R. J. Kendall. (2003). A review of the effects of aircraft noise on wildlife 

and humans, current control mechanisms, and the need for further study. Environmental 

Management, 32(4), 418–432. 

Perkins, J. S., & G. W. Miller. (1983). Mass stranding of Steno bredanensis in Belize. Biotropica, 15(3), 

235–236. 

Perrin, W. F., & W. A. Walker. (1975). The rough-toothed porpoise, Steno bredanensis, in the eastern 

tropical Pacific. Journal of Mammalogy, 56, 905–907. 

Perrin, W. F., E. D. Mitchell, J. G. Mead, D. K. Caldwell, & P. J. H. van Bree. (1981). Stenella clymene, a 

rediscovered tropical dolphin of the Atlantic. Journal of Mammalogy, 62(3), 583–598. 

Perrin, W. F., E. D. Mitchell, J. G. Mead, D. K. Caldwell, M. C. Caldwell, P. J. H. van Bree, & W. H. Dawbin. 

(1987). Revision of the spotted dolphins, Stenella spp. Marine Mammal Science, 3(2), 99–170. 

Perrin, W. F., & J. W. Gilpatrick, Jr. (1994). Spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris (Gray, 1828). In S. H. 

Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals, Volume 5: The first book of 

dolphins (Vol. 5, pp. 99–128). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-790

3.7 References

Perrin, W. F., & A. A. Hohn. (1994). Pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata. In S. H. Ridgway & R. 

Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 5, pp. 71–98). San Diego, CA: Academic 

Press. 

Perrin, W. F., S. Leatherwood, & A. Collet. (1994a). Fraser's dolphin, Lagenodelphis hosei Fraser, 1956. In 

S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 5: The first book of 

dolphins, pp. 225–240). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Perrin, W. F., C. E. Wilson, & F. I. Archer, II. (1994b). Striped dolphin—Stenella coeruleoalba (Meyen, 

1833). In S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals Volume 5: The First 

Book of Dolphins (Vol. 5, pp. 129–159). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Perrin, W. F. (2001). Stenella attenuata. Mammalian Species, 683, 1–8. 

Perrin, W. F. (2002). Stenella frontalis. Mammalian Species, 702, 1–6. 

Perrin, W. F., & J. R. Geraci. (2002). Stranding. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), 

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (pp. 1192–1197). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Perrin, W. F. (2008a). Atlantic spotted dolphin, Stenella frontalis. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 54–56). Academic Press.

Perrin, W. F. (2008b). Common dolphins, Delphinus delphis and D. capensis. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & 

J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 255–259). Academic 

Press. 

Perrin, W. F. (2008c). Spinner dolphin, Stenella longirostris. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. 

Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 1100–1103). Academic Press. 

Perrin, W. F. (2008d). Pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. 

M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 819–821). Academic Press.

Perrin, W. F., & R. L. Brownell, Jr. (2008). Minke whales, Balaenoptera acutorostrata and B. bonaerensis. 

In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd 

ed., pp. 733–735). Academic Press.

Perrin, W. F., C. S. Baker, A. Berta, D. J. Boness, R. L. Brownell, Jr., M. L. Dalebout, D. P. Domning, R. M. 

Hamner, T. A. Jefferson, J. G. Mead, D. W. Rice, P. E. Rosel, J. Y. Wang, & T. Yamada. (2009a). 

Marine Mammal Species and Subspecies. Retrieved from 

http://www.marinemammalscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420

&Itemid=280

Perrin, W. F., B. Würsig, & J. G. M. E. Thewissen. (2009b). Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed.). 

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Perry, S. L., D. P. DeMaster, & G. K. Silber. (1999). The great whales: History and status of six species 

listed as Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. Marine Fisheries Review, 

61(1), 1–74. 

Perryman, W. L., & T. C. Foster. (1980). Preliminary Report on Predation by Small Whales, Mainly the 

False Killer Whale, Pseudorca crassidens, on Dolphins (Stenella spp. and Delphinus delphis) in the 

Eastern Tropical Pacific. (LJ-80-05). La Jolla, CA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-791

3.7 References

Perryman, W. L., D. W. K. Au, S. Leatherwood, & T. A. Jefferson. (1994). Melon-headed whale, 

Peponocephala electra Gray, 1846. In S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine 

Mammals (Vol. 5: The first book of dolphins, pp. 363–386). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Perryman, W. L. (2008). Melon-headed whale, Peponocephala electra. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. 

M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 719–721). Academic Press.

Peterson, S. H., J. L. Hassrick, A. Lafontaine, J. P. Thome, D. E. Crocker, C. Debier, & D. P. Costa. (2014). 

Effects of age, adipose percent, and reproduction on PCB concentrations and profiles in an 

extreme fasting North Pacific marine mammal. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e96191. 

Peterson, S. H., J. T. Ackerman, & D. P. Costa. (2015). Marine foraging ecology influences mercury 

bioaccumulation in deep-diving nothern elephant seals. Proceedings of the Royal Society 

Biological Sciences, 282(20150710), 10. 

Piantadosi, C. A., & E. D. Thalmann. (2004). Whales, sonar and decompression sickness. Nature, 1. 

Pine, M. K., A. G. Jeffs, D. Wang, & C. A. Radford. (2016). The potential for vessel noise to mask 

biologically important sounds within ecologically significant embayments. Ocean & Coastal 

Management, 127, 63–73. 

Pirotta, E., R. Milor, N. Quick, D. Moretti, N. Di Marzio, P. Tyack, I. Boyd, & G. Hastie. (2012). Vessel noise 

affects beaked whale behavior: Results of a dedicated acoustic response study. PLoS ONE, 7(8), 

e42535. 

Pirotta, E., K. L. Brookes, I. M. Graham, & P. M. Thompson. (2014). Variation in harbour porpoise activity 

in response to seismic survey noise. Biology Letters, 10(5), 20131090. 

Pirotta, E., J. Harwood, P. M. Thompson, L. New, B. Cheney, M. Arso, P. S. Hammond, C. Donovan, & D. 

Lusseau. (2015a). Predicting the effects of human developments on individual dolphins to 

understand potential long-term population consequences. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 

Biological Sciences, 282(1818), 20152109. 

Pirotta, E., N. D. Merchant, P. M. Thompson, T. R. Barton, & D. Lusseau. (2015b). Quantifying the effect 

of boat disturbance on bottlenose dolphin foraging activity. Biological Conservation, 181, 82–89. 

Piscitelli, M. A., W. A. McLellan, A. S. Rommel, J. E. Blum, S. G. Barco, & D. A. Pabst. (2010). Lung size and 

thoracic morphology in shallow and deep-diving cetaceans. Journal of morphology, 271, 654–

673. 

Pitman, R. L., & C. Stinchcomb. (2002). Rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) as predators of 

mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus). Pacific Science, 56(4), 447–450. 

Pitman, R. L., H. Fearnbach, R. LeDuc, J. W. Gilpatrick, Jr., J. K. B. Ford, & L. T. Ballance. (2007). Killer 

whales preying on a blue whale calf on the Costa Rica Dome: Genetics, morphometrics, 

vocalisations and composition of the group. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 

9(2), 151–157. 

Polacheck, T., & L. Thorpe. (1990). The swimming direction of harbor porpoise in relationship to a survey 

vessel. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 40, 463–470. 

Poloczanska, E. S., M. T. Burrows, C. J. Brown, J. G. Molinos, B. S. Halpern, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, C. V. 

Kappel, P. J. Moore, A. J. Richardson, D. S. Schoeman, & W. J. Sydeman. (2016). Responses of 

Marine Organisms to Climate Change across Oceans. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3(62), 1–21. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-792

3.7 References

Pomeroy, P., L. O'Connor, & P. Davies. (2015). Assessing use of and reaction to unmanned aerial systems 

in gray and harbor seals during breeding and molt in the UK1. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle 

Systems, 3(3), 102–113. 

Popov, V. V., A. Y. Supin, D. Wang, K. Wang, L. Dong, & S. Wang. (2011). Noise-induced temporary 

threshold shift and recovery in Yangtze finless porpoises, Neophocaena phocaenoides 

asiaeorientalis. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 130(1), 574–584. 

Popov, V. V., A. Y. Supin, V. V. Rozhnov, D. I. Nechaev, E. V. Sysuyeva, V. O. Klishin, M. G. Pletenko, & M. 

B. Tarakanov. (2013). Hearing threshold shifts and recovery after noise exposure in beluga 

whales, Delphinapterus leucas. Journal of Experimental Biology, 216(9), 1587–1596. 

Popov, V. V., A. Y. Supin, V. V. Rozhnov, D. I. Nechaev, & E. V. Sysueva. (2014). The limits of applicability 

of the sound exposure level (SEL) metric to temporal threshold shifts (TTS) in beluga whales, 

Delphinapterus leucas. Journal of Experimental Biology, 217(Pt 10), 1804–1810. 

Potter, J. R., M. Thillet, C. Douglas, M. A. Chitre, Z. Doborzynski, & P. J. Seekings. (2007). Visual and 

passive acoustic marine mammal observations and high-frequency seismic source characteristics 

recorded during a seismic survey. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 32(2), 469–483. 

Prescott, R. (1982). Harbor seals: Mysterious lords of the winter beach. Cape Cod Life, 3(4), 24–29. 

Prieto, R., M. A. Silva, G. T. Waring, & J. M. A. Goncalves. (2014). Sei whale movements and behaviour in 

the North Atlantic inferred from satellite telemetry. Endangered Species Research, 26, 103-113. 

Pusineri, C., V. Magnin, L. Meynier, J. Spitz, S. Hassani, & V. Ridoux. (2007). Food and feeding ecology of 

the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) in the oceanic Northeast Atlantic and comparison with 

its diet in neritic areas. Marine Mammal Science, 23(1), 30–47. 

Quick, N., L. Scott-Hayward, D. Sadykova, D. Nowacek, & A. Read. (2017). Effects of a scientific echo 

sounder on the behavior of short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus). Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 74(5), 716–726. 

Rafferty, A. R., E. O. Brazer, Jr., & R. D. Reina. (2012). Depredation by harbor seal and spiny dogfish in a 

Georges Bank gillnet fishery. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 19, 264–272. 

Ramp, C., J. Delarue, M. Berube, P. S. Hammond, & R. Sears. (2014). Fin whale survival and abundance in 

the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. Endangered Species Research, 23, 125-132. 

Ramp, C., J. Delarue, P. J. Palsboll, R. Sears, & P. S. Hammond. (2015). Adapting to a warmer ocean—

seasonal shift of baleen whale movements over three decades. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0121374. 

Rathbun, G. B. (1988). Fixed-wing airplane versus helicopter surveys of manatees (Trichechus manatus). 

Marine Mammal Science, 4(1), 71–75. 

Read, A. J. (1999). Harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena (Linnaeus, 1758). In S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison 

(Eds.), Handbook of marine mammals (Vol. 6: The second book of dolphins and the porpoises, 

pp. 323–355). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Read, A. J., P. Drinker, & S. Northridge. (2006). Bycatch of marine mammals in U.S. and global fisheries. 

Conservation Biology, 20(1), 163–169. 

Read, A. J. (2008). The looming crisis: Interactions between marine mammals and fisheries. Journal of 

Mammalogy, 89(3), 541–548. 

Read, A. J., S. Barco, J. Bell, D. L. Borchers, M. L. Burt, E. W. Cummings, J. Dunn, E. M. Fougeres, L. Hazen, 

L. E. W. Hodge, A.-M. Laura, R. J. McAlarney, P. Nilsson, D. A. Pabst, C. G. M. Paxton, S. Z. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-793

3.7 References

Schneider, K. W. Urian, D. M. Waples, & W. A. McLellan. (2014). Occurrence, distribution, and 

abundance of cetaceans in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, USA. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management, 14, 23–35. 

Rees, D. R., D. V. Jones, & B. A. Bartlett. (2016). Haul-Out Counts and Photo-Identification of Pinnipeds in 

Chesapeake Bay, Virginia: 2015/16 Annual Progress Report. Final Report. Norfolk, Virginia: 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic.

Reeves, R. R., & S. Tracey. (1980). Monodon monoceros. Mammalian Species, 127, 1–7. 

Reeves, R. R., B. S. Stewart, & S. Leatherwood. (1992). The Sierra Club Handbook of Seals and Sirenians. 

San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.

Reeves, R. R., E. Mitchell, & H. Whitehead. (1993). Status of the northern bottlenose whale, Hyperoodon 

ampullatus. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 107, 490–508. 

Reeves, R. R. (1998). Distribution, abundance and biology of ringed seals (Phoca hispida): An overview. 

NAMMCO Scientific Publication, 1, 9–45. 

Reeves, R. R., G. K. Silber, & P. M. Payne. (1998). Draft Recovery Plan for the Fin Whale Balaenoptera 

physalus and Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis. Silver Spring, MD.

Reeves, R. R., T. D. Smith, R. L. Webb, J. Robbins, & P. J. Clapham. (2002a). Humpback and fin whaling in 

the Gulf of Maine from 1800 to 1918. Marine Fisheries Review, 64(1), 1–12. 

Reeves, R. R., B. S. Stewart, P. J. Clapham, & J. A. Powell. (2002b). National Audubon Society Guide to 

Marine Mammals of the World. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Reeves, R. R., B. D. Smith, E. A. Crespo, & G. Notarbartolo di Sciara. (2003). Dolphins, Whales and 

Porpoises: 2002–2010 Conservation Action Plan for the World's Cetaceans. Gland, Switzerland 

and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.

Reeves, R. R., T. D. Smith, E. A. Josephson, P. J. Clapham, & G. Woolmer. (2004). Historical observations 

of humpback and blue whales in the North Atlantic Ocean: Clues to migratory routes and 

possible additional feeding grounds. Marine Mammal Science, 20(4), 774–786. 

Reichmuth, C., M. M. Holt, J. Mulsow, J. M. Sills, & B. L. Southall. (2013). Comparative assessment of 

amphibious hearing in pinnipeds. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol, 

199(6), 491–507. 

Reinert, T., A. Spellman, M. deWit, & B. Basset. (2011). Impacts of Fishing Gear and other Marine Debris 

on Florida Manatees. Paper presented at the 19th Biennial Conference for the Society of Marine 

Mammalogy, Tampa, FL. 

http://www.marinemammalscience.org/smmtampa/Reinert_Thomas_57-2.pdf

Reynolds, J. E., III, J. A. Powell, & C. R. Taylor. (2009). Manatees, Trichechus manatus, T. senegalensis, 

and T. inunguis. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine 

Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 682–691). Academic Press.

Rice, D. W. (1989). Sperm whale, Physeter macrocephalus Linnaeus, 1758. In S. H. Ridgway & R. Harrison 

(Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals, Volume 4: River dolphins and the larger toothed whales

(Vol. 4, pp. 177–234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rice, D. W. (1998). Marine mammals of the world: Systematics and distribution (Society for Marine 

Mammalogy Special Publication). Lawrence, KS: Society for Marine Mammology.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-794

3.7 References

Richard, P. R., M. P. Heide-Jorgensen, J. R. Orr, R. Dietz, & T. G. Smith. (2001). Summer and autumn 

movements and habitat use by belugas in the Canadian high arctic and adjacent areas. Arctic, 

54(3), 207–222. 

Richardson, W. J., M. A. Fraker, B. Würsig, & R. S. Wells. (1985). Behaviour of bowhead whales (Balaena 

mysticetus) summering in the Beaufort Sea: Reactions to industrial activities. Biological 

Conservation, 32, 195–230. 

Richardson, W. J., C. R. Greene, Jr., J. S. Hanna, W. R. Koski, G. W. Miller, N. J. Patenaude, & M. A. 

Smultea. (1995a). Acoustic effects of oil production activities on bowhead and white whales 

visible during spring migration near Pt. Barrow, Alaska—1991 and 1994 Phases: Sound 

propagation and whale responses to playbacks of icebreaker noise. Ontario, Canada: U.S. 

Minerals Management Service, Procurement Operations.

Richardson, W. J., C. R. Greene, Jr., C. I. Malme, & D. H. Thomson. (1995b). Marine Mammals and Noise. 

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Richardson, W. J., G. W. Miller, & C. R. Greene. (1999). Displacement of migrating bowhead whales by 

sounds from seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America, 106(4), 2281. 

Richmond, D. R., J. T. Yelverton, & E. R. Fletcher. (1973). Far-field underwater-blast injuries produced by 

small charges. Washington, DC: Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 

Defense Nuclear Agency.

Richter, C., S. M. Dawson, & E. Slooten. (2003). Sperm whale watching off Kaikoura, New Zealand: 

Effects of current activities on surfacing and vocalisation patterns. Science for Conservation, 219, 

78. 

Richter, C., S. Dawson, & E. Slooten. (2006). Impacts of commercial whale watching on male sperm 

whales at Kaikoura, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science, 22(1), 46–63. 

Ridgway, S. H. (1972). Homeostasis in the Aquatic Environment. In S. H. Ridgway (Ed.), Mammals of the 

Sea: Biology and Medicine (pp. 590–747). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Ridgway, S. H., & R. Howard. (1979). Dolphin lung collapse and intramuscular circulation during free 

diving: Evidence from nitrogen washout. Science, 206, 1182–1183. 

Ridgway, S. H., D. A. Carder, R. R. Smith, T. Kamolnick, C. E. Schlundt, & W. R. Elsberry. (1997). Behavioral 

Responses and Temporary Shift in Masked Hearing Threshold of Bottlenose Dolphins, Tursiops 

truncatus, to 1-second Tones of 141 to 201 dB re 1 μPa. (Technical Report 1751, Revision 1). San 

Diego, CA: U.S. Department of Navy, Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, 

RDT&E Division.

Risch, D., P. J. Corkeron, W. T. Ellison, & S. M. Van Parijs. (2012). Changes in humpback whale song 

occurrence in response to an acoustic source 200 km away. PLoS ONE, 7(1), e29741. 

Risch, D., M. Castellote, C. W. Clark, G. E. Davis, P. J. Dugan, L. E. W. Hodge, A. Kumar, K. Lucke, M. D. K., 

S. L. Nieukirk, C. M. Popescu, C. Ramp, A. J. Read, A. N. Rice, M. A. Silva, U. Siebert, K. M. 

Stafford, H. Verdaat, & S. M. Van Parijs. (2014a). Seasonal migrations of North Atlantic minke 

whales: novel insights from large-scale passive acoustic monitoring networks. Movement 

Ecology, 2, 1–17. 

Risch, D., P. J. Corkeron, W. T. Ellison, & S. M. Van Parijs. (2014b). Formal comment to Gong et al.: 

Ecosystem scale acoustic sensing reveals humpback whale behavior synchronous with herring 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-795

3.7 References

spawning processes and re-evaluation finds no effect of sonar on humpback song occurrence in 

the Gulf of Maine in fall 2006. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e109225. 

Ritter, F. (2002). Behavioural observations of rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) off La 

Gomera, Canary Islands (1995–2000), with special reference to their interactions with humans. 

Aquatic Mammals, 28(1), 46–59. 

Ritter, F. (2012). Collisions of sailing vessels with cetaceans worldwide: First insights into a seemingly 

growing problem (SC/61/BC 1). Berlin, Germany.

Robbins, J. (2009). Scar-Based Inference Into Gulf of Maine Humpback Whale Entanglement: 2003–2006. 

Report to the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Order 

Number EA133F04SE0998. 

Robbins, J. (2010). A review of the frequnecy and impact of entanglement on Gulf of Maine humpback 

whales. International Whaling Commission Workshop Report, IWC/A10/E3. 

Robertson, F. C. (2014). Effects of Seismic Operations on Bowhead Whale Behavior: Implications for 

Distribution and Abundance Assessments. (Doctor of Philosophy). The University of British 

Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 

Robertson, K. M., & S. J. Chivers. (1997). Prey occurrence in pantropical spotted dolphins, Stenella 

attenuata, from the eastern tropical Pacific. Fishery Bulletin, 95(2), 334–348. 

Rode, K. D., E. V. Regehr, D. C. Douglas, G. Durner, A. E. Merocher, G. W. Thiemann, & S. M. Budge. 

(2014). Variation in the respones of an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and 

reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Global Change Biology, 20, 76–88. 

Roden, C. L., & K. D. Mullin. (2000). Sightings of cetaceans in the northern Caribbean Sea and adjacent 

waters, winter 1995. Caribbean Journal of Science, 36(3–4), 280–288. 

Rolland, R. M., S. E. Parks, K. E. Hunt, M. Castellote, P. J. Corkeron, D. P. Nowacek, S. K. Wasser, & S. D. 

Kraus. (2012). Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proc Biol Sci, 279(1737), 

2363–2368. 

Roman, J., I. Altman, M. M. Dunphy-Daly, C. Campbell, M. Jasny, & A. J. Read. (2013). The Marine 

Mammal Protection Act at 40: status, recovery, and future of U.S. marine mammals. Annals of 

the New York Academy of Sciences, 1286, 29–49. 

Romano, T. A., M. J. Keogh, C. Kelly, P. Feng, L. Berk, C. E. Schlundt, D. A. Carder, & J. J. Finneran. (2004). 

Anthropogenic sound and marine mammal health: Measures of the nervous and immune 

systems before and after intense sound exposures. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, 61, 1124–1134. 

Romero, A., A. I. Agudo, S. M. Green, & G. Notarbartolo di Sciara. (2001). Cetaceans of Venezuela: Their 

Distribution and Conservation Status. (NOAA Technical Report NMFS-151). Seattle, WA: U.S. 

Department of Commerce.

Rommel, S., A. M. Costidis, T. D. Pitchford, J. D. Lightsey, R. H. Snyder, & E. M. Haubold. (2007). Forensic 

methods for characterizing watercraft from watercraft-induced wounds on the Florida manatee 

(Trichechus manatus latirostris). Marine Mammal Science, 23(1), 110–132. 

Ronald, K., & P. J. Healey. (1981). Harp seal, Phoca groenlandica Erxleben, 1777. In S. H. Ridgway & R. 

Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of marine mammals (Vol. 2: Seals, pp. 55–87). San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-796

3.7 References

Ronald, K., & J. L. Dougan. (1982). The ice lover: Biology of the harp seal (Phoca groenlandica). Science, 

215, 928–933. 

Rosel, P. E., S. C. France, J. Y. Wang, & T. D. Kocher. (1999). Genetic structure of harbor porpoise 

Phocoena phocoena populations in the northwest Atlantic based on mitochondrial and nuclear 

markers. Mol Ecol, 8, S41–S54. 

Rosel, P. E., & H. Watts. (2008). Hurricane impacts on bottlenose dolphins in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Science, 25(1), 88–94. 

Rosel, P. E., & L. A. Wilcox. (2014). Genetic evidence reveals a unique lineage of Byrde's whales in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico. Endangered Species Research, 25, 19–34. 

Rosen, G., & G. R. Lotufo. (2010). Fate and effects of composition B in multispecies marine exposures. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 9999(12), 1–8. 

Rosenfeld, M., M. George, & J. M. Terhune. (1988). Evidence of autumnal harbour seal, Phoca vitulina, 

movement from Canada to the United States. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 102(3), 527–529. 

Rosowski, J. J. (1994). Outer and Middle Ears. In R. R. Fay & A. N. Popper (Eds.), Comparative Hearing: 

Mammals (pp. 172–247). Springer-Verlag.

Ross, G. J. B., & A. J. Bass. (1971). Shark attack on an ailing dolphin, Stenella coeruleoalba (Meyen). South 

African Journal of Science, 67, 413–414. 

Ross, G. J. B., & S. Leatherwood. (1994). Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata Gray, 1874. In S. H. 

Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 5: The first book of dolphins, 

pp. 387–404). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rough, V. (1995). Gray Seals in Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts: Winter and Spring, 1994. (Contract 

Number T10155615). Washington, DC: U.S. Marine Mammal Commission.

Rozhnov, V. V., N. G. Platonov, I. N. Mordvintsev, S. V. Naidenko, E. A. Ivanov, & R. V. Ershov. (2015). 

Movements of Polar Bear Females (Ursus maritimus) during an IceFree Period in the Fall of 2011 

on Alexandra Land Island (Franz Josef Land Archipelago) Using Satellite Telemetry. Biology 

Bulletin, 42(8), 728–741. 

Rugh, D., D. DeMaster, A. Rooney, J. Breiwick, K. Shelden, & S. Moore. (2003). A review of bowhead 

whale (Balaena mysticetus) stock identity. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 5(3), 

267–280. 

Rugh, D. J., & K. E. W. Shelden. (1993). Polar bears, Ursus maritimus, feeding on beluga whales, 

Delphinapterus leucas. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 107(2), 235–237. 

Rugh, D. J., & K. E. W. Shelden. (2009). Bowhead whale, Balaena mysticetus. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & 

J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 131–133). Amsterdam, 

Netherlands: Academic Press.

Runge, M. C., C. A. Langtimm, & W. L. Kendall. (2004). A Stage-Based Model of Manatee Population 

Dynamics. Marine Mammal Science, 20(3), 361–385. 

Runge, M. C., C. A. Sanders-Reed, C. A. Langtimm, & C. J. Fonnesbeck. (2007). A Quantitative Threats 

Analysis for the Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). (Open-File Report 2007-1086). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-797

3.7 References

Runge, M. C., C. A. Langtimm, J. Martin, & C. J. Fonnesbeck. (2015). Status and Threats Analysis for the 

Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris), 2012 (2015-1083). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological 

Survey.

Ryan, C., O. Boisseau, A. Cucknell, M. Romagosa, A. Moscrop, & R. McLanaghan. (2013). Final report for 

the trans-Atlantic research passages between the UK and USA via the Azores and Iceland, 

conducted from R/V Song of the Whale 26 March to 28 September 2012. Essex, UK: Marine 

Conservation Research International.

Sadove, S. S., & S. J. Morreale. (1989). Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Encounters with Marine Debris in 

the New York Bight and the Northeast Atlantic. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 

Second International Conference on Marine Debris, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Saez, L., D. Lawson, M. DeAngelis, S. Wilkin, E. Petras, & C. Fahy. (2012). Co-occurrence of Large Whales 

and Fixed Commercial Fishing Gear: California, Oregon, and Washington (Poster). Paper 

presented at the Southern California Marine Mammal Workshop, Newport Beach, CA. 

Saez, L., D. Lawson, M. DeAngelis, E. Petras, S. Wilkin, & C. Fahy. (2013). Understanding the cooccurrence of large whales and commercial fixed gear fisheries off the west coast of the United 

States. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Regional Office, Protected Resources 

Division.

Sahanatien, V., E. Peacock, & A. E. Derocher. (2015). Population substructure and space use of Foxe 

Basin polar bears. Ecology and Evolution, 5(14), 2851–2864. 

Sairanen, E. E. (2014a). Baltic Sea underwater soundscape: Weather and ship induced sounds and the 

effect of shipping on harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoenaI) activity. (Master of Science). 

University of Helsinki. 

Sairanen, E. E. (2014b). Weather and Ship Induced Sounds and the Effect of Shipping on Harbor Porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena) Activity. (Master's Thesis in Aquatic Sciences). University of Helsinki, 

Helsinki, Finland. 

Salvadeo, C. J., D. Lluch-Belda, A. Gómez-Gallardo, J. Urbán-Ramírez, & C. D. MacLeod. (2010). Climate 

change and a poleward shift in the distribution of the Pacific white-sided dolphin in the 

northeastern Pacific. Endangered Species Research, 11, 13–19. 

Santos, M. B., & G. J. Pierce. (2003). The diet of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the northeast 

Atlantic. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review, 41, 355–390. 

Santos, M. B., V. Martin, M. Arbelo, A. Fernandez, & G. J. Pierce. (2007). Insights into the diet of beaked 

whales from the atypical mass strandings in the Canary Islands in September 2002. Journal of 

the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 87, 243–251. 

Sardi, K. A., & C. Merigo. (2006). Erignathus barbatus (Bearded Seal) Vagrant in Massachusetts. 

Northeastern Naturalist, 13(1), 39–42. 

Saunders, K. J., P. R. White, & T. G. Leighton. (2008). Models for predicting Nitrogen tensions and 

decompression sickness risk in diving beaked whales. Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics, 

30(5). 

Sayre, R., & C. R. Taylor. (2008). Documenting spatial and temporal distribution of North Atlantic right 

whales off South Carolina and Northern Georgia 2007–2008. St. Petersburg, FL: Wildlife Trust 

Aquatic Conservation Program.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-798

3.7 References

Scarpaci, C., S. W. Bigger, P. J. Corkeron, & D. Nugegoda. (2000). Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) increase whistling in the presence of 'swim-with-dolphin' tour operations. Journal of 

Cetacean Research and Management, 2(3), 183–185. 

Schakner, Z. A., & D. T. Blumstein. (2013). Behavioral biology of marine mammal deterrents: a review 

and prospectus. Biological Conservation, 167, 380–389. 

Scheifele, P. M., S. Andrew, R. A. Cooper, M. Darre, R. E. Musiek, & L. Max. (2005). Indication of a 

Lombard vocal response in the St. Lawrence River beluga. The Journal of Acoustical Society of 

America, 117(3), 1486–1492. 

Schick, R. S., P. N. Halpin, A. J. Read, C. K. Slay, S. D. Kraus, B. R. Mate, M. F. Baumgartner, J. J. Roberts, B. 

D. Best, C. P. Good, S. R. Loarie, & J. S. Clark. (2009). Striking the right balance in right whale 

conservation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 66, 1399–1403. 

Schlundt, C. E., J. J. Finneran, D. A. Carder, & S. H. Ridgway. (2000). Temporary shift in masked hearing 

thresholds of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and white whales, Delphinapterus leucas, 

after exposure to intense tones. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 107(6), 3496–

3508. 

Schlundt, C. E., R. L. Dear, L. Green, D. S. Houser, & J. J. Finneran. (2007). Simultaneously measured 

behavioral and electrophysiological hearing thresholds in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(1), 615–622. 

Schmidly, D. J. (1981). Marine Mammals of the Southeastern United States Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. 

(FWS/OBS-80/41). College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University.

Schneider, D. C., & P. M. Payne. (1983). Factors affecting haul-out of harbor seals at a site in 

southeastern Massachusetts. Journal of Mammalogy, 64(3), 518–520. 

Schorr, G. S., E. A. Falcone, D. J. Moretti, & R. D. Andrews. (2014). First long-term behavioral records 

from Cuvier's beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris) reveal record-breaking dives. PLoS ONE, 9(3), 

e92633. 

Schorr, G. S., E. A. Falcone, & B. K. Rone. (2017). Distribution and demographics of Cuvier's beaked 

whales and fin whales in the Southern California Bight (Annual report for on-water surveys 

conducted in conjunction with Marine Mammal Monitoring on Navy Ranges (M3R)). Seabeck, 

WA: Marine Ecology and Telemetry Research.

Schulte, D. W., & C. R. Taylor. (2010). Documenting spatial and temporal distribution of North Atlantic 

right whales off South Carolina and Northern Georgia 2009–2010. St. Petersburg, FL: Wildlife 

Trust Aquatic Conservation Program.

Schweitzer, S. (2014, April 22, 2014). Cape Cod sighting of rare whale raises concerns, Boston Globe. 

Scott, M. D., & S. J. Chivers. (1990). Distribution and herd structure of bottlenose dolphins in the eastern 

tropical Pacific Ocean. In S. Leatherwood & R. R. Reeves (Eds.), The Bottlenose Dolphin (pp. 387–

402). Academic Press.

Sears, R., & W. F. Perrin. (2008). Blue whale. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), 

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 120–124). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Selzer, L. A., & P. M. Payne. (1988). The distribution of white-sided (Lagenorhynchus acutus) and 

common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) vs. environmental features of the continental shelf of the 

northeastern United States. Marine Mammal Science, 4(2), 141–153. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-799

3.7 References

Sergeant, D. E. (1962). The biology of the pilot or pothead whale Globicephala melaena (Traill) in 

Newfoundland waters. Ottawa, Canada: Fisheries Research Board of Canada.

Sergeant, D. E., A. W. Mansfield, & B. Beck. (1970). Inshore Records of Cetacea for Eastern Canada. 

Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 27(11), 1903–1915. 

Shane, S. H., R. S. Wells, & B. Würsig. (1986). Ecology, behavior and social organization of the bottlenose 

dolphin: A review. Marine Mammal Science, 2(1), 34–63. 

Shirasago-Germán, B., E. L. Pérez-Lezama, E. A. Chávez, & R. García-Morales. (2015). Influence of El 

Niño-Southern Oscillation on the population structure of a sea lion breeding colony in the Gulf 

of California. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 154, 69–76. 

Sidorovskaia, N. A., A. S. Ackleh, C. O. Tiemann, B. Ma, J. W. Ioup, & G. E. Ioup. (2016). Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring of the Environmental Impact of Oil Exploration on Marine Mammals in the Gulf of 

Mexico. In A. Popper & A. Hawkins (Eds.), The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II. Advances in 

Experimental Medicine and Biology (Vol. 875, pp. 1007–1014). New York, NY: Springer.

Silber, G. K., J. Slutsky, & S. Bettridge. (2010). Hydrodynamics of a ship/whale collision. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 391, 10–19. 

Simeone, C. A., F. M. Gulland, T. Norris, & T. K. Rowles. (2015). A systematic review of changes in marine 

mammal health in north America, 1972–2012: The need for a novel integrated approach. PLoS 

ONE, 10(11), e0142105. 

Simmonds, M. P., & W. J. Eliott. (2009). Climate change and cetaceans: Concerns and recent 

developments. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 89(1), 203–

210. 

Širović, A., J. A. Hildebrand, & S. M. Wiggins. (2007). Blue and fin whale call source levels and 

propagation range in the Southern Ocean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(2), 

1208–1215. 

Sivle, L. D., P. H. Kvadsheim, A. Fahlman, F. P. Lam, P. L. Tyack, & P. J. Miller. (2012). Changes in dive 

behavior during naval sonar exposure in killer whales, long-finned pilot whales, and sperm 

whales. Frontiers in Physiolology, 3, 400. 

Sivle, L. D., P. H. Kvadsheim, C. Curé, S. Isojunno, P. J. Wensveen, F. A. Lam, F. Visser, L. Kleivane, P. L. 

Tyack, C. M. Harris, & P. J. O. Miller. (2015). Severity of expert-identified behavioural responses 

of humpback whale, minke whale, and northern bottlenose whale to naval sonar. Aquatic 

Mammals, 41(4), 469–502. 

Slone, D. H., J. P. Reid, R. K. Bonde, S. M. Butler, & B. M. Stith. (2006). Summary of the West Indian 

manatee (Trichechus manatus) tracking by USGS-FISC Sirenia Project in Puerto Rico. Retrieved 

Smith, B. D., G. Braulik, S. Strindberg, R. Mansur, M. A. A. Diyan, & B. Ahmed. (2009). Habitat selection of 

freshwater-dependent cetaceans and the potential effects of declining freshwater flows and 

sea-level rise in waterways of the Sundarbans mangrove forest, Bangladesh. Aquatic 

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 19(2), 209–225. 

Smith, C. E., B. J. Hurley, C. N. Toms, A. D. Mackey, M. Solangi, & S. A. Kuczaj Ii. (2013). Hurricane 

impacts on the foraging patterns of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in Mississippi Sound. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 487, 231–244. 

Smith, C. E., S. T. Sykora–Bodie, B. Bloodworth, S. M. Pack, T. R. Spradlin, & N. R. LeBoeuf. (2016). 

Assessment of known impacts of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) on marine mammals: data 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-800

3.7 References

gaps and recommendations for researchers in the United States. Journal of Unmanned Vehicle 

Systems, 4(1), 31–44. 

Smith, S. H., & D. E. Marx, Jr. (2016). De-facto marine protection from a Navy bombing range: Farallon 

De Medinilla, Mariana Archipelago, 1997 to 2012. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 102(1), 187–198. 

Smultea, M. A. (1994). Segregation by humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) cows with a calf in 

coastal habitat near the island of Hawaii. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 72, 805–811. 

Smultea, M. A., J. L. Hopkins, & A. M. Zoidis. (2008a). Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Monitoring Survey 

in Support of Navy Training Exercises in the Hawai’i Range Complex November 11–17, 2007. 

Oakland, CA.

Smultea, M. A., J. R. Mobley, Jr., D. Fertl, & G. L. Fulling. (2008b). Short communication an unusual 

reaction and other observations of sperm whales near fixed-wing aircraft. Gulf and Caribbean 

Research, 20, 75–80. 

Smultea, M. A., & J. R. Mobley, Jr. (2009). Aerial Survey Monitoring of Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles 

in conjunction with SCC OPS Navy Exercises off Kauai, 18–21 August 2008, Final Report, May 

2009. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (NAVFAC), EV2 Environmental 

Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI. Prepared by Marine Mammal Research Consultants, Honolulu, HI, 

and Smultea Environmental Sciences, LLC., Issaquah, WA, under Contract No. N62742-08-P1942.

Smultea, M. A., J. R. Mobley, Jr., & K. Lomac-MacNair. (2009). Aerial Survey Monitoring for Marine 

Mammals and Sea Turtles in the Hawaii Range Complex in Conjunction with a Navy Training 

Event, SSC OPS February 15–19, 2009, Final Field Report. Prepared for Commander, Pacific Fleet. 

Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (NAVFAC), EV2 Environmental 

Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI, 96860-3134, under Contract No. N62742-09-P-1956. Submitted by 

Marine Mammal Research Consultants (MMRC), Honolulu, HI, and Smultea Environmental 

Sciences, LLC. (SES), Issaquah, WA, August 2009.

Smultea, M. A., T. A. Jefferson, & A. M. Zoidis. (2010). Rare sightings of a Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera 

edeni) and Sei whales (B. borealis) (Cetacea: Balaenopteridae) northeast of Oahu, Hawaii. Pacific 

Science, 64(3), 449–457. 

Smultea, M. A., C. E. Bacon, & J. S. D. Black. (2011). Aerial Survey Marine Mammal Monitoring off 

Southern California in Conjunction with US Navy Major Training Events (MTE), July 27- August 3

and September 23–28, 2010—Final Report, June 2011. Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific 

Fleet, Pearl Harbor, HI. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (NAVFAC), 

EV2 Environmental Planning, Pearl Harbor, HI, 96860 3134, under Contract No. N00244-10-C0021 issued to University of California, San Diego, 7835 Trade St., San Diego, CA 92121. 

Submitted by Smultea Environmental Sciences (SES), Issaquah, WA, 98027, www.smultea.com, 

under Purchase Order No. 10309963.

Smultea, M. A., C. E. Bacon, T. F. Norris, & D. Steckler. (2012). Aerial Surveys Conducted in the SOCAL 

OPAREA From 1 August 2011–31 July 2012. Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pearl 

Harbor, HI. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest (NAVFAC SW), EV5 

Environmental, San Diego, 92132 under Contract No. N62470-10-D-3011 issued to HDR, Inc., San 

Diego, CA. Submitted August 2012.

Soulen, B. K., K. Cammen, T. F. Schultz, & D. W. Johnston. (2013). Factors Affecting Harp Seal (Pagophilus 

groenlandicus) Strandings in the Northwest Atlantic. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e68779. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-801

3.7 References

Sousa-Lima, R. S., & C. W. Clark. (2008). Modeling the effect of boat traffic on the fluctuation of 

humpback whale singing activity in the Abrolhos National Marine Park, Brazil. Canadian 

Acoustics, 36(1), 174–181. 

Southall, B., J. Calambokidis, P. Tyack, D. Moretti, J. Hildebrand, C. Kyburg, R. Carson, A. Friedlaender, E. 

Falcone, G. Schorr, A. Douglas, S. DeRuiter, J. Goldbogen, & J. Barlow. (2011). Biological and 

Behavioral Response Studies of Marine Mammals in Southern California, 2010 (“SOCAL-10”). 

Pearl Harbor, HI: U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

Southall, B., J. Calambokidis, P. Tyack, D. Moretti, A. Friedlaender, S. DeRuiter, J. Goldbogen, E. Falcone, 

G. Schorr, A. Douglas, A. Stimpert, J. Hildebrand, C. Kyburg, R. Carlson, T. Yack, & J. Barlow. 

(2012). Biological and Behavioral Response Studies of Marine Mammals in Southern California, 

2011 ("SOCAL-11") Final Project Report (SOCAL-11 Project Report).

Southall, B., J. Calambokidis, J. Barlow, D. Moretti, A. Friedlaender, A. Stimpert, A. Douglas, K. Southall, 

S. Arranz, S. DeRuiter, E. Hazen, J. Goldbogen, E. Falcone, & G. Schorr. (2013). Biological and 

Behavioral Response Studies of Marine Mammals in Southern California, 2012 (“SOCAL-12”). 

Southall, B., J. Calambokidis, J. Barlow, D. Moretti, A. Friedlaender, A. Stimpert, A. Douglas, K. Southall, 

P. Arranz, S. DeRuiter, J. Goldbogen, E. Falcone, & G. Schorr. (2014). Biological and Behavioral 

Response Studies of Marine Mammals in Southern California, 2013 (“SOCAL-13”). Pearl Harbor, 

HI: U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

Southall, B., J. Calambokidis, D. Moretti, A. Stimpert, A. Douglas, J. Barlow, R. W. Rankin, K. Southall, A. 

Friedlaender, E. Hazen, J. Goldbogen, E. Falcone, G. Schorr, G. Gailey, & A. Allen. (2015). 

Biological and Behavioral Response Studies of Marine Mammals in Southern California, 2014 

(“SOCAL-14”) (SOCAL-14 Project Report). Pearl Harbor, HI: U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

Southall, B. L., R. J. Schusterman, & D. Kastak. (2000). Masking in three pinnipeds: Underwater, lowfrequency critical ratios. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 108(3), 1322–1326. 

Southall, B. L., R. J. Schusterman, & D. Kastak. (2003). Auditory masking in three pinnipeds: Aerial critical 

ratios and direct critical bandwidth measurements. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 

114(3), 1660–1666. 

Southall, B. L., A. E. Bowles, W. T. Ellison, J. J. Finneran, R. L. Gentry, C. R. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak, D. R. 

Ketten, J. H. Miller, P. E. Nachtigall, W. J. Richardson, J. A. Thomas, & P. L. Tyack. (2007). Marine 

mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33(4), 

411–521. 

Southall, B. L., P. L. Tyack, D. Moretti, C. Clark, D. Claridge, & I. Boyd. (2009). Behavioral responses of 

beaked whales and other cetaceans to controlled exposures of simulated sonar and other 

sounds. Paper presented at the 18th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 

Quebec City, Canada. 

Southall, B. L., D. P. Nowacek, P. J. O. Miller, & P. L. Tyack. (2016). Experimental field studies to measure 

behavioral responses of cetaceans to sonar. Endangered Species Research, 31, 293–315. 

Spargo, B. J. (2007, June 1, 2007). [Chaff end cap and piston bouyancy].

Spiesberger, J. L., & K. M. Fristrup. (1990). Passive localization of calling animals and sensing of their 

acoustic environment using acoustic tomography. The American Naturalist, 135(1), 107–153. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-802

3.7 References

St. Aubin, D. J., & J. R. Geraci. (1989). Adaptive changes in hematologic and plasma chemical 

constituents in captive beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences, 46, 796–803. 

St. Aubin, D. J., S. H. Ridgway, R. S. Wells, & H. Rhinehart. (1996). Dolphin thyroid and adrenal hormones: 

Circulating levels in wild and semidomesticated Tursiops truncatus, and influence of sex, age, 

and season. Marine Mammal Science, 12(1), 1–13. 

St. Aubin, D. J., & L. A. Dierauf. (2001). Stress and Marine Mammals. In L. A. Dierauf & F. M. D. Gulland 

(Eds.), Marine Mammal Medicine (2nd ed., pp. 253–269). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Stamation, K. A., D. B. Croft, P. D. Shaughnessy, K. A. Waples, & S. V. Briggs. (2009). Behavioral responses 

of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to whale-watching vessels on the southeastern 

coast of Australia. Marine Mammal Science, 26(1), 98–122. 

Stamper, M. A., B. R. Whitaker, & T. D. Schofield. (2006). Case study: Morbidity in a pygmy sperm whale

Kogia breviceps due to ocean-bourne plastic. Marine Mammal Science, 22(3), 719–722. 

Stanistreet, J., L. E. Hodge, & A. Read. (2012). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine Mammals at Site A 

in the Cape Hatteras Survey Area, March – April 2012. Beaufort, North Carolina: Submitted to 

the Department of the Navy, Norfolk, Virginia.

Stanistreet, J., D. Nowacek, J. Hench, L. Hodge, S. Van Parijs, J. Bell, & A. Read. (2015, December 13 - 18, 

2015). Do foraging beaked whales and sperm whales target the Gulf Stream frontal edge off 

Cape Hatteras? Using long-term passive acoustic monitoring to explore habitat associations.

Paper presented at the 21st Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, San 

Francisco, California.

Stanistreet, J. E., L. E. W. Hodge, D. P. Nowacek, J. T. Bell, J. A. Hildebrand, S. M. Wiggins, & A. J. Read. 

(2013, December 9 - 13, 2012). Passive acoustic monitoring of beaked whales and other 

cetaceans off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Paper presented at the 20th Biennial Conference 

on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Stenson, G. B., R. A. Myers, W. G. Warren, & I.-H. Ni. (1996). Pup Production of Hooded Seals 

(Cystophora cristata) in the Northwest Atlantic. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organizaion 

Scientific Council Studies.

Stevens, P. W., D. A. Blewett, & J. P. Casey. (2006). Short-term effects of a low dissolved oxygen event on 

estuarine fish assemblages following passage of Hurricane Charley. Estuaries and Coasts, 29(6A), 

997–1003. 

Stevick, P. T., & T. W. Fernald. (1998). Increase in Extralimital Records of Harp Seals in Maine. 

Northeastern Naturalist, 5(1), 75–82. 

Stevick, P. T., J. Allen, P. J. Clapham, N. Friday, S. K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D. K. Mattila, P. J. Palsboll, 

J. Sigurjonsson, T. D. Smith, N. Oien, & P. S. Hammond. (2003). North Atlantic humpback whale 

abundance and rate of increase four decades after protection from whaling. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 258, 263–273. 

Stevick, P. T., J. Allen, P. J. Clapham, S. K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D. K. Mattila, P. J. Palsboll, R. Sears, J. 

Sigurjonsson, T. D. Smith, G. Vikingsson, N. Oien, & P. S. Hammond. (2006). Population spatial 

structuring on the feeding grounds in North Atlantic humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae). Journal of Zoology, 270, 244–255. 

Stewart, B. E., & E. A. Stewart. (1989). Delphinapterus leucas (Mammalian Species).
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-803

3.7 References

Stewart, B. S., & S. Leatherwood. (1985). Minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata Lacepede, 1804. In S. 

H. Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 3: The sirenians and baleen 

whales, pp. 91–136). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Stewart, R. E. A., P. M. Outridge, & R. A. Stern. (2003). Walrus Life-History Movements Reconstructed 

form Lead Isotopes in Annual Layers of Teeth. Marine Mammal Science, 19(4), 806–818. 

Stewart, R. E. A., E. W. Born, R. Dietz, & A. K. Ryan. (2014). Estimates of Minimum Population Size for 

Walrus near Southeast Baffin Island, Nunavut (Scientific Publcations). Norway: North Atlantic 

Marine Mammal Commission.

Stimpert, A. K., T. V. N. Cole, R. M. Pace, & P. J. Clapham. (2003, December 14 - 19, 2003). Distributions 

of Four Baleen Whale Species in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Based on Large-Scale Aerial 

Survey Data. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine 

Mammals, Greensboro, North Carolina.

Stimpert, A. K., D. N. Wiley, W. W. Au, M. P. Johnson, & R. Arsenault. (2007). 'Megapclicks': acoustic click 

trains and buzzes produced during night-time foraging of humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae). Biology Letters, 3(5), 467–470. 

Stimpert, A. K., S. L. DeRuiter, B. L. Southall, D. J. Moretti, E. A. Falcone, J. A. Goldbogen, A. Friedlaender, 

G. S. Schorr, & J. Calambokidis. (2014). Acoustic and foraging behavior of a Baird's beaked 

whale, Berardius bairdii, exposed to simulated sonar. Scientific Reports, 4, 7031. 

Stirling, I. (2009). Polar bear (Ursus maritimus). In W. F. Perrin, B. W. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), 

Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, 2nd Edition (pp. 888–890). San Diego, California: Academic 

Press. 

Stith, B. M., D. H. Slone, & J. P. Reid. (2006). Review and Synthesis of Manatee Data in Everglades 

National Park. (Fulfilling Agreement # IA F5297-04-0119 with Everglades National Park). 

Gainesville, FLorida: Florida Integrated Science Center.

Stockin, K. A., D. Lusseau, V. Binedell, N. Wiseman, & M. B. Orams. (2008). Tourism affects the 

behavioural budget of the common dolphin Delphinus sp. in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 355, 287–295. 

Stone, G. S., S. K. Katona, A. Mainwaring, J. M. Allen, & H. D. Corbett. (1992). Respiration and Surfacing 

Rates of Fin Whales (Balaenoptera physalus) Observed From A Lighthouse Tower (Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission).

Straley, J. M. (1990). Fall and winter occurrence of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in 

southeastern Alaska. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 12, 319–

323. 

Supin, A. Y., V. V. Popov, & A. M. Mass. (2001). The Sensory Physiology of Aquatic Mammals. Boston, 

MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Suryan, R. M., & J. T. Harvey. (1998). Tracking harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) to determine dive 

behavior, foraging activity, and haul-out site use. Marine Mammal Science, 14(2), 361–372. 

Swaim, Z., H. Foley, D. Waples, K. Urian, & A. Read. (2014). Protected Species Monitoring in Navy 

OPAREAS off the U.S. Atlantic Coast, January 2013 – December 2013. Department of the Navy, 

Norfolk, Virginia.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-804

3.7 References

Swaim, Z., H. Foley, & A. Read. (2015). Protected Species Monitoring in Navy OPAREAS off the U.S. 

Atlantic Coast, January 2014 – December 2014. Draft Report. (Prepared for U.S. Fell Forces 

Command). Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Swaintek, S. (2014). Whale, I’ll be! Experts Confirm Beluga Spotted in Taunton River., Taunton Daily 

Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.tauntongazette.com/article/20140625/NEWS/140627617

Swartz, S. L., & C. Burks. (2000). Windwards Humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) Survey. (NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-438). Miami, FL: Southeast Fisheries Science Center.

Swartz, S. L., A. Martinez, J. Stamates, C. Burks, & A. A. Mignucci-Giannoni. (2002). Acoustic and Visual 

Survey of Cetaceans in the Waters of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands: February – March 2001. 

Miami, FL: Southeast Fisheries Science Center.

Sweeney, K. L., V. T. Helker, W. L. Perryman, D. J. LeRoi, L. W. Fritz, T. S. Gelatt, & R. P. Angliss. (2015). 

Flying beneath the clouds at the edge of the world: using a hexacopter to supplement 

abundance surveys of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in Alaska. Journal of Unmanned 

Vehicle Systems, 4(1), 70–81. 

Swingle, W. M., M. C. Lynott, E. B. Bates, L. R. D'Eri, G. G. Lockhart, K. M. Phillips, & M. D. Thomas. 

(2014). Virginia Sea Turtle and Marine Mammal Stranding Network 2013 Grant Report (Final 

Report to the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program, NOAA CZM Grant 

#NA12NOS4190122, Task #49). Virginia Beach, VA: Virginia Aquarium Foundation Stranding 

Response Program.

Swingle, W. M., S. G. Barco, E. B. Bates, G. G. Lockhart, K. M. Phillips, K. R. Rodrique, S. A. Rose, & K. M. 

Williams. (2016). Virginia Sea Turtle and Marine Mammal Stranding Network 2015 Grant Report. 

Final Report to the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program. Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Swisdak, M. M., Jr., & P. E. Montaro. (1992). Airblast and fragmentation hazards produced by 

underwater explosions. Silver Springs, MD: Naval Surface Warfare Center.

Swope, B., & J. McDonald. (2013). Copper-Based Torpedo Guidance Wire: Applications and 

Environmental Considerations. San Diego, CA.

Sydeman, W. J., E. S. Poloczanska, T. E. Reed, & S. A. Thompson. (2015). Climate change and marine 

vertebrates. Science, 350(6262), 772–777. 

Tarpley, R. J., & S. Marwitz. (1993). Plastic debris ingestion by cetaceans along the Texas coast: two case 

reports. Aquatic Mammals, 19(2), 93–98. 

Taruski, A. G., & H. E. Winn. (1976). Winter sightings of odontocetes in the West Indies. Cetology, 22, 1–

12. 

Teilmann, J., E. W. Born, & M. Acquarone. (1999). Behaviour of ringed seals tagged with satellite 

transmitters in the North Water polynya during fast-ice formation. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 

77, 1934–1946. 

Teilmann, J., J. Tougaard, L. A. Miller, T. Kirketerp, K. Hansen, & S. Brando. (2006). Reactions of captive 

harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) to pinger-like sounds. Marine Mammal Science, 22(2), 

240–260. 

Temte, J. L., M. A. Bigg, & O. Wiig. (1991). Clines revisited: The timing of pupping in the harbour seal 

(Phoca vitulina). Journal of Zoology, London, 224, 617–632. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-805

3.7 References

Tennessen, J. B., & S. E. Parks. (2016). Acoustic propagation modeling indicates vocal compensation in 

noise improves communication range for North Atlantic right whales. Endangered Species 

Research, 30, 225–237. 

Terhune, J. M., & W. C. Verboom. (1999). Right whales and ship noises. Marine Mammal Science, 15(1), 

256–258. 

Testaverde, S. A., & J. G. Mead. (1980). Southern distribution of the Atlantic whitesided dolphin, 

Lagenorhynchus acutus, in the western north Atlantic. Fishery Bulletin, 78(1), 167–169. 

Thomas, J., P. Moore, R. Withrow, & M. Stoermer. (1990a). Underwater audiogram of a Hawaiian monk 

seal (Monachus schauinslandi). Journal of Acoustical Society of America,, 87(1), 417–420. 

Thomas, J. A., R. A. Kastelein, & F. T. Awbrey. (1990b). Behavior and blood catecholamines of captive 

belugas during playbacks of noise from an oil drilling platform. Zoo Biology, 9(5), 393–402. 

Thompson, D., M. Sjoberg, M. E. Bryant, P. Lovell, & A. Bjorge. (1998). Behavioral and physiological 

responses of harbour (Phoca vitulina) and grey (Halichoerus grypus) seals to seismic surveys

(Report to European Commission of BROMMAD Project. MAS2 C7940098.).

Thompson, P. M., D. Lusseau, T. Barton, D. Simmons, J. Rusin, & H. Bailey. (2010). Assessing the 

responses of coastal cetaceans to the construction of offshore wind turbines. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin, 60(8), 1200–1208. 

Thompson, P. M., K. L. Brookes, I. M. Graham, T. R. Barton, K. Needham, G. Bradbury, & N. D. Merchant. 

(2013). Short-term disturbance by a commercial two-dimensional seismic survey does not lead 

to long-term displacement of harbour porpoises. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 280(1771), 

20132001. 

Thompson, R. C., Y. Olsen, R. P. Mitchell, A. Davis, S. J. Rowland, A. W. G. John, D. McGonigle, & A. E. 

Russell. (2004). Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science, New Series, 304(5672), 838. 

Thorne, L. H., L. W. Hodge, & A. J. Read. (2012, 20-24 February 2012). Combining passive acoustics and 

satellite oceanography to evaluate cetacean habitat use in the South Atlantic Bight. Paper 

presented at the 2012 Ocean Sciences Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT.

Tixier, P., N. Gasco, G. Duhamel, & C. Guinet. (2014). Habituation to an acoustic harassment device

(AHD) by killer whales depredating demersal longlines. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72(5), 

1673–1681. 

Todd, S., P. Stevick, J. Lien, F. Marques, & D. Ketten. (1996). Behavioural effects of exposure to 

underwater explosions in humpback whales (Megaptera novaeanlgiae). Canadian Journal of 

Zoology, 74, 1661–1672. 

Torres de la Riva, G., C. K. Johnson, F. M. D. Gulland, G. W. Langlois, J. E. Heyning, T. K. Rowles, & J. A. K. 

Mazet. (2009). Association of an unusual marine mammal mortality event with Pseudo-nitzschia

spp. blooms along the southern California coastline. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 45(1), 109–121. 

Tougaard, J., J. Carstensen, J. Teilmann, N. I. Bech, H. Skov, & O. D. Henriksen. (2005). Effects of the 

Nysted Offshore wind farm on harbour porpoises (Annual Status Report for the T-POD 

Monitoring Program).

Tougaard, J., J. Carstensen, J. Teilmann, H. Skov, & P. Rasmussen. (2009). Pile driving zone of 

responsiveness extends beyond 20 km for harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena (L.)). Journal of 

the Acoustical Society of America, 126(1), 11. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-806

3.7 References

Trickey, J. S., B. K. Branstetter, & J. J. Finneran. (2010). Auditory masking of a 10 kHz tone with 

environmental, comodulated, and Gaussian noise in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). 

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(6), 3799–3804. 

Trickey, J. S., S. Baumann-Pickering, A. Širović, J. A. Hildebrand, A. M. Brewer, A. J. Debich, S. Herbert, A. 

C. Rice, B. Thayre, & S. M. Wiggins. (2015). Passive Acoustic Monitoring for Marine Mammals in 

the Northwest Training Range Complex July 2013–April 2014. La Jolla, CA: Marine Physical 

Laboratory Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California San Diego.

Trites, A. W., & D. E. Bain. (2000). Short- and long-term effects of whale watching on killer whales 

(Orcinus orca) in British Columbia. Adelaide, AU: International Whaling Commission,.

Tucker, S., W. Bowen, S. Iversen, W. Blanchard, & G. Stenson. (2009). Sources of variation in diets of 

harp and hooded seals estimated from quantitative fatty acid signature analysis (QFASA). 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 384, 287–302. 

Twiss, J. R., Jr., & R. R. Reeves. (1999). Conservation and managment of marine mammals. Washington, 

DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Tyack, P. L., M. Johnson, N. A. Soto, A. Sturlese, & P. T. Madsen. (2006). Extreme diving of beaked 

whales. Journal of Experimental Biology, 209(21), 4238–4253. 

Tyack, P. L. (2009). Human-generated sound and marine mammals. Physics Today, 39–44. 

Tyack, P. L., W. M. X. Zimmer, D. Moretti, B. L. Southall, D. E. Claridge, J. W. Durban, C. W. Clark, A. 

D'Amico, N. DiMarzio, S. Jarvis, E. McCarthy, R. Morrissey, J. Ward, & I. L. Boyd. (2011). Beaked 

whales respond to simulated and actual Navy sonar. PLoS ONE, 6(3), 15. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, & U.S. Department of the Navy. (2001). Joint Interim Report Bahamas 

Marine Mammal Stranding Event of 15–16 March 2000. Washington, DC: Department of 

Commerce.

U.S. Department of the Air Force. (1997). Environmental effects of self-protection chaff and flares. 

Langley Air Force Base, VA: U.S. Department of the Air Force.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2003). Report on the Results of the Inquiry into Allegations of Marine 

Mammal Impacts Surrounding the Use of Active Sonar by USS SHOUP (DDG 86) in the Haro Strait 

on or about 5 May 2003. 

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008). Final Environmental Assessment for the Homporting of Six 

Zumwalt Class Destroyers at East and West Coast Installations (including Hawaii). Norfolk, VA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2009). Swimmer Interdiction Security System (SISS) Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (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. (2011a). Marine Species Monitoring for the U.S. Navy's Hawaii Range 

Complex and the Southern California Range Complex, 2011 Annual Report. U.S. Navy Pacific 

Fleet.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011b). Marine Species Monitoring for the U.S. Navy's Virginia Capes, 

Cherry Point and Jacksonville Range Complexes; Annual Report for 2010. U.S. Department of the 

Navy, United States Fleet Forces Command.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-807

3.7 References

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2011c). 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. (2011d). Marine Species Monitoring, Information on Sightings Recorded by 

U.S. Navy MMOs on Vessels during Sonar Test Events in the Naval Surface Warfare Center 

Panama City Division (NSWC PCD). Submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

Protected Resources. Department of the Navy, United States Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, 

VA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (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. (2013a). Comprehensive Exercise and Marine Species Monitoring Report 

for the U.S. Navy's Hawaii Range Complex 2009–2012. U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013b). Water Range Sustainability Environmental Program Assessment, 

Potomac River Test Range Complex. Dahlgren, VA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2013c). Comprehensive Exercise and Marine Species Monitoring Report 

For the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST) and Virginia Capes, Cherry Point, 

Jacksonville, and Gulf of Mexico Range Complexes 2009–2012. Department of the Navy, United 

States Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, Virginia.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2014a). Marine Species Monitoring Report for the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic 

Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST) and Virginia Capes, Cherry Point, Jacksonville, and Gulf of 

Mexico Range Complexes - Annual Report 2013. Department of the Navy, United States Fleet 

Forces Command, Norfolk, VA.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2014b). Unclassified Annual Range Complex Exercise Report, 2 August 

2012 to 25 November 2013, for the U.S. Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST) Study 

Area. Prepared for and submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected 

Resources. Prepared by the U.S. Department of the Navy in accordance with the Letter of 

Authorization under the MMPA and ITS authorization under the ESA dated 1 February 2012.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2015). Unclassified 2014 Annual Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) 

Exercise and Testing Report 14 November 2013 to 13 November 2014. Prepared for and 

submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Prepared by the 

U.S. Department of the Navy in accordance with the Letter of Authorization under the MMPA 

and ITS authorization under the ESA dated 14 November 2013.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017a). Dive Distribution and Group Size Parameters for Marine Species 

Occurring in Navy Training and Testing Areas in the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans

(Technical Report prepared by Naval Undersea Warfare Center). Newport, RI: Naval Undersea 

Warfare Center Division.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017b). Quantitative Analysis for Estimating Acoustic and Explosive 

Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. Space and Naval Warfare System Command, 

Pacific and Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017c). U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Database Phase III for the 

Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area (NAVFAC Atlantic Technical Report). Norfolk, VA.
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-808

3.7 References

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017d). Quantifying Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals and Sea 

Turtles: Methods and Analytical Approach for Navy Training and Testing (Technical Report 

prepared by Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific). San Diego, CA: Naval Undersea 

Warfare Center, Division Newport.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017e). Criteria and Thresholds for U.S. Navy Acoustic and Explosive 

Impacts to Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles. Space and Naval Warfare System Command, 

Pacific.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010). Florida Manatee Recovery Facts. Retrieved from 

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Manatee/manatee-gen-facts.htm. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2014a). Stock Assessment Report West Indian Manatee (Trichechus 

manatus) Puerto Rico Stock (Antillean subspecies, Trichechus manatus manatus). Boqueron, 

Puerto Rico: Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2014b). West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) Florida Stock (Florida 

subspecies, Trichechus manatus latirostris). Jacksonville, FL.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Caribbean Field Office. (2009). Stock Assessment West Indian Manatee 

(Trichechus manatus). Boqueron, Puerto Rico: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Caribbean Field 

Office.

U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program. (2017). Marine Mammal Strandings Associated with U.S. Navy 

Sonar Activities. SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific.

University of Hawaii. (2010). Hawaii Undersea Military Munitions Assessment, Final Investigation Report 

HI-05, South of Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii. University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Urick, R. J. (1983). Principles of Underwater Sound, Principles of Underwater Sound for Engineers (3rd 

ed.). Los Altos Hills, CA: Peninsula Publishing.

Van der Hoop, J. M., A. S. M. Vanderlaan, & C. T. Taggart. (2012). Absolute probability estimates of lethal 

vessel strikes to North Atlantic right whales in Roseway Basin, Scotian Shelf. Ecological 

Applications, 22(7), 2021–2033. 

Van der Hoop, J. M., M. J. Moore, S. G. Barco, T. V. Cole, P. Y. Daoust, A. G. Henry, D. F. McAlpine, W. A. 

McLellan, T. Wimmer, & A. R. Solow. (2013). Assessment of management to mitigate 

anthropogenic effects on large whales. Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for 

Conservation Biology, 27(1), 121–133. 

Van der Hoop, J. M., A. S. M. Vanderlaan, T. V. N. Cole, A. G. Henry, L. Hall, B. Mase-Guthrie, T. Wimmer, 

& M. J. Moore. (2015). Vessel Strikes to Large Whales Before and After the 2008 Ship Strike 

Rule. Conservation Letters, 8(1), 24–32. 

van Neer, A., L. F. Jensen, & U. Siebert. (2015). Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) predation on harbour 

seals (Phoca vitulina) on the island of Helgoland, Germany. Journal of SEA Research, 97(2015), 

1–4. 

Van Parijs, S. M. (2015). Letter of Introduction to the Biologically Important Areas Issue. In S. M. Van 

Parijs, C. Curtice, & M. C. Ferguson (Eds.), Biologically Important Areas for cetaceans within U.S. 

waters, Aquatic Mammals (Special Issue) 41(1), 1. 

Van Waerebeek, K., A. N. Baker, F. Felix, J. Gedamke, M. Iñiguez, G. P. Sanino, E. Secchi, D. Sutaria, A. 

van Helden, & Y. Wang. (2007). Vessel collisions with small cetaceans worldwide and with large 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-809

3.7 References

whales in the southern hemisphere, an initial assessment. Latin American Journal of Aquatic 

Mammals, 6(1), 43–69. 

Vanderlaan, A. S. M., J. J. Corbett, S. L. Green, J. A. Callahan, C. Wang, R. D. Kenney, C. T. Taggart, & J. 

Firestone. (2009). Probability and mitigation of vessel encounters with North Atlantic right 

whales. Endangered Species Research, 6(3), 273–285. 

Vanderlaan, M. S. A., & T. C. Taggart. (2007). Vessel collisions with whales: the probability of lethal injury 

nased on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science, 23(1), 144–156. 

Veirs, S., V. Veirs, & J. D. Wood. (2015). Ship noise in an urban estuary extends to frequencies used for 

echolocation by endangered killer whales. PeerJ PrePrints, e1216. 

Venn-Watson, S., L. Garrison, J. Litz, E. Fougeres, B. Mase, G. Rappucci, E. Stratton, R. Carmichael, D. 

Odell, D. Shannon, S. Shippee, S. Smith, L. Staggs, M. Tumlin, H. Whitehead, & T. Rowles. (2015). 

Demographic clusters identified within the northern Gulf of Mexico common bottlenose 

dolphions (Trusiops truncatus) unusual mortality event: January 2010 - June 2013. PLoS ONE, 

10(2), e0117248. 

Vilela, R., U. Pena, R. Esteban, & R. Koemans. (2016). Bayesian spatial modeling of cetacean sightings 

during a seismic acquisition survey. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 109(1), 512–520. 

Villadsgaard, A., M. Wahlberg, & J. Tougaard. (2007). Echolocation signals of wild harbour porpoises, 

Phocoena phocoena. Journal of Experimental Biology, 210, 56–64. 

Visser, F., C. Cure, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. Lam, P. L. Tyack, & P. J. Miller. (2016). Disturbance-specific 

social responses in long-finned pilot whales, Globicephala melas. Scientific Reports, 6, 28641. 

Visser, I. N. (1999). A summary of interactions between orca (Orcinus orca) and other cetaceans in New 

Zealand waters. New Zealand Natural Sciences, 24, 101–112. 

Visser, I. N., & D. Fertl. (2000). Stranding, resighting, and boat strike of a killer whale (Orcinus orca) off 

New Zealand. Aquatic Mammals, 26.3, 232–240. 

Von Benda-Beckmann, A. M., P. J. Wensveen, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. Lam, P. J. Miller, P. L. Tyack, & M. A. 

Ainslie. (2014). Modeling effectiveness of gradual increases in source level to mitigate effects of 

sonar on marine mammals. Conservation Biology, 28(1), 119–128. 

von Benda-Beckmann, A. M., P. J. Wensveen, P. H. Kvadsheim, F. P. A. Lam, P. J. Miller, P. L. Tyack, & M. 

A. Ainslie. (2016). Assessing the Effectiveness of Ramp-Up During Sonar Operations Using 

Exposure Models The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II (pp. 1197–1203). New York, NY: Springer.

Wade, P. R., & R. P. Angliss. (1997). Guidelines for assessing marine mammal stocks: Report of the 

GAMMS workshop April 3–5, 1996, Seattle, Washington (NOAA Technical Memo).

Wade, P. R., J. M. Ver Hoef, & D. P. DeMaster. (2009). Mammal-eating killer whales and their prey-trend 

data for pinnipeds and sea otters in the North Pacific Ocean do not support the sequential 

megafaunal collapse hypothesis. Marine Mammal Science, 25(3), 737–747. 

Walker, M. M., J. L. Kirschvink, G. Ahmed, & A. E. Diction. (1992). Evidence that fin whales respond to 

the geomagnetic field during migration. Journal of Experimental Biology, 171, 67–78. 

Walker, R. J., E. O. Keith, A. E. Yankovsky, & D. K. Odell. (2005). Environmental correlates of cetacean 

mass stranding sites in Florida. Marine Mammal Science, 21(2), 327–335. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-810

3.7 References

Walker, W. A., & J. M. Coe. (1990). Survey of Marine Debris Ingestion by Odontocete Cetaceans. (NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154). U.S. Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Wang, Z., Y. Wu, G. Duan, H. Cao, J. Liu, K. Wang, & D. Wang. (2014). Assessing the underwater acoustics 

of the world's largest vibration hammer (OCTA-KONG) and its potential effects on the IndoPacific humpbacked dolphin (Sousa chinensis). PLoS ONE, 9(10), e110590. 

Ward-Geiger, L., A. Knowlton, A. Amos, T. Pitchford, B. Mase-Guthrie, & B. Zoodsma. (2011). Recent 

sightings of the north Atlantic right whale in the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Science, 29(1), 

74–78. 

Ward, D. W. (1960). Recovery from high values of temporary threshold shift. Journal of the Acoustical 

Society of America, 32(4), 497–500. 

Ward, W. D., A. Glorig, & D. L. Sklar. (1958). Dependence of temporary threshold shift at 4 kc on 

intensity and time. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 30(10), 944–954. 

Ward, W. D., A. Glorig, & D. L. Sklar. (1959). Relation between recovery from temporary threshold shift 

and duration of exposure. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 31(5), 600–602. 

Ware, C., D. N. Wiley, A. S. Friedlaender, M. Weinrich, E. L. Hazen, A. Bocconcelli, S. E. Parks, A. K. 

Stimpert, M. A. Thompson, & K. Abernathy. (2013). Bottom side-roll feeding by humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the southern Gulf of Marine, U.S.A. Marine Mammal 

Science. 

Waring, G. T., C. P. Fairfield, C. M. Ruhsam, & M. Sano. (1992). Cetaceans associated with Gulf Stream 

features off the northeastern United States. International Council for Exploration of the Sea.

Waring, G. T., C. P. Fairfield, C. M. Ruhsam, & M. Sano. (1993). Sperm whales associated with Gulf 

Stream features off the northeastern U.S.A. shelf. Fisheries Oceanography, 2, 101–105. 

Waring, G. T., T. Hamazaki, D. Sheehan, G. Wood, & S. Baker. (2001). Characterization of beaked whale 

(Ziphiidae) and sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) summer habitat in shelf-edge and 

deeper waters off the northeast U.S. Marine Mammal Science, 17(4), 703–717. 

Waring, G. T., R. M. Pace, J. M. Quintal, C. P. Fairfield, & K. Maze-Foley. (2004). U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments–2003. Woods Hole, MA: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration and National Marine Fisheries Service.

Waring, G. T., E. Josephson, C. P. Fairfield-Walsh, & K. Maze-Foley. (2007). U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2007 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE205).

Waring, G. T., L. Nottestad, E. Olsen, H. Skov, & G. Vikingsson. (2008). Distribution and density estimates 

of cetaceans along the mid-Atlantic Ridge during summer 2004. Journal of Cetacean Research 

and Management, 10(2), 137–146. 

Waring, G. T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, & P. E. Rosel. (2009). U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments 2009. Woods Hole, MA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Waring, G. T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, & P. E. Rosel. (2010). U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments 2010. Woods Hole, MA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-811

3.7 References

Waring, G. T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, & P. E. Rosel. (2012). U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments – 2011 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-221).

Waring, G. T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, & P. E. Rosel. (2013). U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments–2012. (NMFS NE 219). Woods Hole, MA: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Retrieved from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/region.htm. 

Waring, G. T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, & P. E. Rosel, (Eds.). (2014). U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments–2013. Woods Hole, MA: US Department of Commerce, 

National Marine Fisheries Service.

Waring, G. T., K. Maze-Foley, & P. E. Rosel, (Eds.). (2015). US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessments–2014. 

Waring, G. T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, P. E. Rosel, (Eds.), B. Byrd, T. V. N. Cole, L. Engleby, L. P. 

Garrison, J. Hatch, A. Henry, S. C. Horstman, J. Litz, M. C. Lyssikatos, K. D. Mullin, C. Orphanides, 

R. M. Pace, D. L. Palka, M. Soldevilla, & F. W. Wenzel. (2016). U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments–2015. 

Warren, J. D. (2009). Fine-scale Survey of Right and Humpback Whale Prey Abundance and Distribution 

Office of Naval Research.

Wartzok, D., & D. R. Ketten. (1999). Marine Mammal Sensory Systems. In J. E. Reynolds, III & S. A. 

Rommel (Eds.), Biology of Marine Mammals (pp. 117–175). Washington, DC: Smithsonian 

Institution Press.

Wartzok, D., A. N. Popper, J. Gordon, & J. Merrill. (2003). Factors affecting the responses of marine 

mammals to acoustic disturbance. Marine Technology Society Journal, 37(4), 6–15. 

Watkins, W. A., & W. E. Schevill. (1975). Sperm whales (Physeter catodon) react to pingers. Deep-Sea 

Research, 22, 123–129. 

Watkins, W. A. (1981). Reaction of three species of whales Balaenoptera physalus, Megaptera 

novaeangliae, and Balaenoptera edeni to implanted radio tags. Deep-Sea Research, 28A(6), 589–

599. 

Watkins, W. A., K. E. Moore, & P. Tyack. (1985). Sperm whale acoustic behavior in the southeast 

Caribbean. Cetology, 49, 1–15. 

Watkins, W. A. (1986). Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Marine Mammal 

Science, 2(4), 251–262. 

Watkins, W. A., M. A. Daher, N. A. DiMarzio, A. Samuels, D. Wartzok, K. M. Fristrup, D. P. Gannon, P. W. 

Howey, & R. R. Maiefski. (1999). Sperm whale surface activity from tracking by radio and 

satellite tags. Marine Mammal Science, 15(4), 1158–1180. 

Watts, P., & D. E. Gaskin. (1985). Habitat index analysis of the harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in 

the southern coastal Bay of Fundy, Canada. Journal of Mammalogy, 66(4), 733–744. 

Watwood, S., M. Fagan, A. D'Amico, & T. Jefferson. (2012). Cruise Report, Marine Species Monitoring 

and Lookout Effectiveness Study, Koa Kai, November 2011, Hawaii Range Complex. Prepared for 

Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Weaver, A. (2015). Sex difference in bottlenose dolphin sightings during a long-term bridge construction 

project. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 2(1), 1–13. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-812

3.7 References

Weinrich, M., M. Martin, R. Griffiths, J. Bove, & M. Schilling. (1997). A shift in distribution of humpback 

whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in response to prey in the southern Gulf of Maine. Fishery 

Bulletin, 95(4), 826–836. 

Weir, C. R. (2008). Overt responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whales 

(Physeter macrocephalus), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) to seismic 

exploration off Angola. Aquatic Mammals, 34(1), 71–83. 

Weiss, E. W., & R. P. Morrill. (2014). Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary Annual Management Report 

2013 (Special Areas Management Report). Anchorage, AK: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Weller, D. W., B. Würsig, H. Whitehead, J. C. Norris, S. K. Lynn, R. W. Davis, N. Clauss, & P. Brown. (1996). 

Observations of an interaction between sperm whales and short-finned pilot whales in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Marine Mammal Science, 12(4), 588–593. 

Weller, D. W., B. Wursig, S. K. Lynn, & A. J. Schiro. (2000). Preliminary findings on the occurrence and 

site fidelity of photo-identified sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Science, 18(1), 35–39. 

Weller, D. W. (2008). Predation on marine mammals. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 923–931). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wells, R. S., & M. D. Scott. (1997). Seasonal incidence of boat strikes on bottlenose dolphins near 

Sarasota, Florida. Marine Mammal Science, 13(3), 475–480. 

Wells, R. S., H. L. Rhinehart, P. Cunningham, J. Whaley, M. Baran, C. Koberna, & D. P. Costa. (1999). Long 

distance offshore movements of bottlenose dolphins. Marine Mammal Science, 15(4), 1098–

1114. 

Wells, R. S., & M. D. Scott. (1999). Bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821). In S. H. 

Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals, Volume 6: The Second Book of 

Dolphins and the Porpoises (pp. 137–182). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wells, R. S., J. B. Allen, S. Hofmann, K. Bassos-Hull, D. A. Fauquier, N. B. Barros, R. E. DeLynn, G. Sutton, 

V. Socha, & M. D. Scott. (2008a). Consequences of injuries on survival and reproduction of 

common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) along the west coast of Florida. Marine 

Mammal Science, 24(4), 774–794. 

Wells, R. S., G. A. Early, J. G. Gannon, R. G. Lingenfelser, & P. Sweeney. (2008b). Tagging and tracking of 

rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) from the March 2005 mass stranding in the Florida 

Keys. 

Wells, R. S., & M. D. Scott. (2008). Common bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. In W. F. Perrin, W. B. 

& J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 249–255). Academic 

Press. 

Wells, R. S., C. A. Manire, L. Byrd, D. R. Smith, J. G. Gannon, D. Fauqiuer, & K. D. Mullin. (2009). 

Movements and dive patterns of a rehabilitated Risso's dolphin, Grampus griseus, in the Gulf of 

Mexico and Atlantic ocean. Marine Mammal Science, 25(2), 420–429. 

Wensveen, P. J., A. M. von Benda-Beckmann, M. A. Ainslie, F. P. Lam, P. H. Kvadsheim, P. L. Tyack, & P. J. 

Miller. (2015). How effectively do horizontal and vertical response strategies of long-finned pilot 

whales reduce sound exposure from naval sonar? Marine Environmental Research, 106, 68–81. 

Werth, A. J. (2006). Odontocete suction feeding: Experimental analysis of water flow and head shape. 

Journal of morphology, 267(12), 1415–1428. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-813

3.7 References

West, K. L., W. A. Walker, R. W. Baird, W. White, G. Levine, E. Brown, & D. Schofield. (2009). Diet of

pygmy sperm whales (Kogia breviceps) in the Hawiian Archipelago. Marine Mammal Science, 

25(4), 931–943. 

Westgate, A. J., A. J. Read, T. M. Cox, T. D. Schofield, B. R. Whitaker, & K. E. Anderson. (1998). 

Monitoring a rehabilitated harbor porpoise using satellite telemetry. Marine Mammal Science, 

14(3), 599–604. 

Whitehead, H. (1982). Populations of humpback whales in the northwest Atlantic. Reports of the 

International Whaling Commission, 32, 345–353. 

Whitehead, H., & L. Weilgart. (1991). Patterns of visually observable behaviour and vocalizations in 

groups of female sperm whales. Behaviour, 118, 276–296. 

Whitehead, H. (2002). Estimates of the current global population size and historical trajectory for sperm 

whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 242, 295–304. 

Whitehead, H. (2003). Sperm Whales Social Evolution in the Ocean. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago 

Press. 

Whitehead, H. (2013). Trends in cetacean abundance in the Gully submarine canyon, 1988–2011, 

highlight a 21% per year increase in Sowerby’s beaked whales (Mesoplodon bidens). Canadian 

Journal of Zoology, 91, 141–148. 

Whitman, A. A., & P. M. Payne. (1990). Age of harbour seals, Phoca vitulina concolor, wintering in 

southern New England. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 104(4), 579–582. 

Wiig, O., L. Bachmann, V. M. Janik, K. M. Kovacs, & C. Lydersen. (2007). Spitsbergen bowhead whales 

revisited. Marine Mammal Science, 23(3), 688–693. 

Wiley, D. N., C. A. Mayo, E. M. Maloney, & M. J. Moore. (2016). Vessel strike mitigation lessons from 

direct observations involving two collisions between noncommercial vessels and North Atlantic 

right whales (Eubalaena glacialis). Marine Mammal Science, 32(4), 1501–1509. 

Wilkin, S. M., T. K. Rowles, E. Stratton, N. Adimey, C. L. Field, S. Wissman, G. Shigenaka, E. Fougeres, B. 

Mase, Southeast Region Stranding Network, & M. H. Ziccardi. (2017). Marine mammal response 

operations during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Endangered Species Research, 33, 107–118. 

Williams, R., D. E. Bain, J. K. B. Ford, & A. W. Trites. (2002a). Behavioural responses of male killer whales 

to a 'leapfrogging' vessel. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 4(3), 305–310. 

Williams, R., A. W. Trites, & D. E. Bain. (2002b). Behavioural responses of killer whales (Orcinus orca) to 

whale-watching boats: Opportunistic observations and experimental approaches. Journal of 

Zoology, London, 256, 255–270. 

Williams, R., D. Lusseau, & P. S. Hammond. (2006). Estimating relative energetic costs of human 

disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca). Biological Conservation, 133, 301–311. 

Williams, R., D. E. Bain, J. C. Smith, & D. Lusseau. (2009). Effects of vessels on behaviour patterns of 

individual southern resident killer whales, Orcinus orca. Endangered Species Research, 6, 199–

209. 

Williams, R., E. Ashe, & P. D. O'Hara. (2011). Marine mammals and debris in coastal waters of British 

Columbia, Canada. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62, 1303–1316. 

Williams, R., C. W. Clark, D. Ponirakis, & E. Ashe. (2014a). Acoustic quality of critical habitats for three 

threatened whale populations. Animal Conservation, 17(2), 174–185. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-814

3.7 References

Williams, R., C. Erbe, E. Ashe, A. Beerman, & J. Smith. (2014b). Severity of killer whale behavioral 

responses to ship noise: a dose-response study. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 79(1-2), 254–260. 

Williams, T. M., T. L. Kendall, B. P. Richter, C. R. Ribeiro-French, J. S. John, K. L. Odell, B. A. Losch, D. A. 

Feuerbach, & M. A. Stamper. (2017). Swimming and diving energetics in dolphins: a stroke-bystroke analysis for predicting the cost of flight responses in wild odontocetes. Journal of 

Experimental Biology, 220(6), 1135–1145. 

Williamson, M. J., A. S. Kavanagh, M. J. Noad, E. Kniest, & R. A. Dunlop. (2016). The effect of close 

approaches for tagging activities by small research vessels on the behavior of humpback whales 

(Megaptera novaeangliae). Marine Mammal Science. 

Wilson, S. C. (1978). Social Organization and Behavior of Harbor Seals, Phoca vitulina concolor, in Maine. 

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Wimmer, T., & H. Whitehead. (2004). Movements and distribution of northern bottlenose whales, 

Hyperoodon ampullatus, on the Scotian Slope and in adjacent waters. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology, 82(11), 1782–1794. 

Witting, L., & E. W. Born. (2013). Population dynamics of walrus in Greenland. NAMMCO Scientific 

Publications, 9, 191–218. 

Wood LaFond, S. A. (2009). Dynamics of Recolonization: A study of the gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) in 

the Northeast U.S. . (Doctor of Philosophy PhD Dissertation). University of Massachusetts, 

Boston, Boston, MA. 

Würsig, B., S. K. Lynn, T. A. Jefferson, & K. D. Mullin. (1998). Behaviour of cetaceans in the northern Gulf 

of Mexico relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquatic Mammals, 24(1), 41–50. 

Würsig, B., T. A. Jefferson, & D. J. Schmidly. (2000). The marine mammals of the Gulf of Mexico: Texas 

A&M University Press.

Würsig, B., & W. J. Richardson. (2008). Noise, effects of. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig & J. G. M. Thewissen 

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (2nd ed., pp. 765–773). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Yazvenko, S. B., T. L. McDonald, S. A. Blokhin, S. R. Johnson, H. R. Melton, M. W. Newcomer, R. Nielson, 

& P. W. Wainwright. (2007). Feeding of western gray whales during a seismic survey near

Sakhalin Island, Russia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 134(1–3), 93–106. 

Yelverton, J. T., D. R. Richmond, E. R. Fletcher, & R. K. Jones. (1973). Safe distances from underwater 

explosions for mammals and birds. Albuquerque, NM: Lovelace Foundation for Medical 

Education and Research.

Yochem, P., & S. Leatherwood. (1985). Blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus (Linnaeus, 1758). In S. H. 

Ridgway & R. Harrison (Eds.), Handbook of Marine Mammals (Vol. 3: The sirenians and baleen 

whales, pp. 193–240). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Yoshida, H., J. Compton, S. Punnett, T. Lovell, K. Draper, G. Franklin, N. Norris, P. Phillip, R. Wilkins, & H. 

Kato. (2010). Cetacean sightings in the eastern Caribbean and adjacent waters, spring 2004. 

Aquatic Mammals, 36(2), 154–161. 

Young, B. G., & S. H. Ferguson. (2013). Season of the ringed seal: pelagic open-water hyperphagy, 

benthic feeding over winter and spring fasting during molt. Wildlife Research, 40, 52–60. 

Young, C., S. M. Gende, & J. T. Harvey. (2014). Effects of Vessels on Harbor Seals in Glacier Bay National 

Park. Tourism in Marine Environments, 10(1), 5–20. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-815

3.7 References

Yuen, M. M. L., P. E. Nachtigall, M. Breese, & A. Y. Supin. (2005). Behavioral and auditory evoked 

potential audiograms of a false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens). The Journal of Acoustical 

Society of America, 118(4), 2688–2695. 

Zimmer, W. M. X., & P. L. Tyack. (2007). Repetitive shallow dives pose decompression risk in deep-diving 

beaked whales. Marine Mammal Science, 23(4), 888–925. 

Zoeger, J., J. R. Dunn, & M. Fuller. (1981). Magnetic material in the head of the common pacific dolphin. 

Science, 213(4510), 892–894. 

Zollett, E. A. (2009). Bycatch of protected species and other species of concern in U.S. east coast 

commercial fisheries. Endangered Species Research, 9(1), 49–59. 

Zolman, E. S. (2002). Residence patterns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Stono River 

estuary, Charleston County, South Carolina, U.S.A. Marine Mammal Science, 18, 879–892. 
Atlantic Fleet

Training and Testing Draft EIS/OEIS June 2017

3.7-816

3.7 References

This page intentionally left blank.