Draft Environmental Analysis of A Marine Geophysical Survey

Draft Environmental Analysis of a
Marine Geophysical Survey

by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth
in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea,
November–December 2015
Prepared for
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

61 Route 9W, P.O. Box 1000
Palisades, NY 10964-8000
and
National Science Foundation

Division of Ocean Sciences
4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 725
Arlington, VA 22230
by
LGL Ltd., environmental research associates

22 Fisher St., POB 280
King City, Ont. L7B 1A6
Revised 24 August 2015
LGL Report FA0041-1

Draft Environmental Analysis for L-DEO Eastern Mediterranean Sea, 2015 Page ii
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................... vii
I. PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................................................................. 1
Mission of NSF................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................................................... 1
Background of NSF-funded Marine Seismic Research ...................................................................... 2
Regulatory Setting .............................................................................................................................. 2
II. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................................................... 2
Proposed Action ................................................................................................................................. 2
(1) Project Objectives and Context .......................................................................................... 2
(2) Proposed Activities............................................................................................................. 4
(3) Monitoring and Mitigation Measures ................................................................................. 6
Alternative 1: Alternative Survey Timing ....................................................................................... 14
Alternative 2: No Action Alternative .............................................................................................. 14
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ...................................................... 14
(1) Alternative E1: Alternative Location ............................................................................... 14
(2) Alternative E2: Use of Alternative Technologies............................................................. 14
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................... 16
Physical Environment and Oceanography ........................................................................................ 17
Protected Areas ................................................................................................................................. 17
Marine Mammals.............................................................................................................................. 20
(1) Mysticetes ......................................................................................................................... 23
(2) Odontocetes ...................................................................................................................... 25
Sea Turtles ........................................................................................................................................ 31
(1) Loggerhead Turtle ............................................................................................................ 31
(2) Green Turtle ..................................................................................................................... 34
(3) Leatherback Turtle ........................................................................................................... 35
Seabirds ............................................................................................................................................ 35
(1) Audouin’s Gull ................................................................................................................. 36
(2) Slender-billed Curlew....................................................................................................... 36
Fish, Essential Fish Habitat, and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern ............................................ 37
(1) Scalloped Hammerhead Shark ......................................................................................... 37
(2) Adriatic Sturgeon ............................................................................................................. 37
(3) European Sturgeon ........................................................................................................... 37
(4) Sawback Angelshark ........................................................................................................ 38
(5) Smoothback Angelshark................................................................................................... 38
(6) Angelshark........................................................................................................................ 38
Draft Environmental Analysis for L-DEO Eastern Mediterranean Sea, 2015 Page iii
Table of Contents
(7) Common Guitarfish .......................................................................................................... 38

(8) Blackchin Guitarfish......................................................................................................... 39
(9) Undulate Ray .................................................................................................................... 39
Fisheries............................................................................................................................................ 39
(1) Commercial Fisheries ....................................................................................................... 39
(2) Recreational Fisheries ...................................................................................................... 40
(3) Aquaculture ...................................................................................................................... 41
Recreational SCUBA Diving............................................................................................................ 42
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...................................................................................................... 43
Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................... 43
(1) Direct Effects on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles and Their Significance .................. 43
(2) Direct Effects on Invertebrates, Fish, Fisheries, and EFH and Their Significance .......... 60
(3) Direct Effects on Seabirds and Their Significance ........................................................... 63
(4) Indirect Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, Seabirds and Fish and Their
Significance ................................................................................................................. 63
(5) Direct Effects on Recreational SCUBA Divers and Dive Sites and Their
Significance ................................................................................................................. 63
(6) Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................... 63
(7) Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................................................ 67
(8) Coordination with Other Agencies and Processes ............................................................ 67
Alternative Action: Another Time .................................................................................................... 67
No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 67
V. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................................................... 68
VI. LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................................. 69
Draft Environmental Analysis for L-DEO Eastern Mediterranean Sea, 2015 Page iv
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Researchers from Oregon State University, with funding from the U.S. National Science
Foundation (NSF), propose to conduct a high-energy seismic survey from the Research Vessel (R/V)
Marcus G. Langseth (Langseth) in the eastern Mediterranean Sea during November–December 2015.
The NSF-owned Langseth is operated by Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
(L-DEO). The proposed seismic survey would use a towed array of 36 airguns with a total discharge
volume of ~6600 in3. The seismic survey would take place within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of
Greece, including its territorial waters, in water depths ~20–3000+ m. On behalf of L-DEO, the U.S. State
Department will seek authorization from Greece for clearance to work in its EEZ.
NSF, as the funding and action agency, has a mission to “promote the progress of science; to
advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…”. The proposed
seismic survey would collect data in support of a research proposal that has been reviewed under the NSF
merit review process and identified as an NSF program priority. It would provide data necessary to study
the crustal magma plumbing of the Santorini volcanic system in the Aegean Sea. In addition, on behalf of
scientists from Ifremer, the French Institute for Exploitation of the Sea, the researchers and Langseth
would support the collection of two-dimensional (2-D) data along the megathrust fault between Pelopon-
nesus and Crete in the Hellenic subduction zone in southwestern Greece.
This Draft Environmental Analysis (EA) addresses NSF’s requirements under Executive Order
12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions”, for the proposed NSF federal action.
As operator of the Langseth, L-DEO is requesting an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) from
the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to authorize the incidental, i.e., not intentional,
harassment of small numbers of marine mammals should this occur during the seismic survey. The issue
regarding whether the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) applies to U.S. activities occurring
within the EEZs of foreign States remains unsettled as a matter of law. Therefore, the submission of the
IHA application to NMFS does not constitute a waiver or adoption of any position regarding that issue. The
analysis in this document also supports the IHA application process and provides information on marine
species that are not addressed by the IHA application, including sea turtles, seabirds, fish, and
invertebrates that are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), including candidate species.
As analysis on endangered/threatened species was included, this document will also be used to support
ESA Section 7 consultations with NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Alternatives
addressed in this EA consist of a corresponding program at a different time with issuance of an associated
IHA and the No Action alternative, with no IHA and no seismic survey. This document tiers to the
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Marine
Seismic Research Funded by the National Science Foundation or Conducted by the U.S. Geological
Survey (June 2011) and Record of Decision (June 2012), referred to herein as PEIS.
Numerous species of marine mammals inhabit the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Several of these species
are listed as Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA): the North Atlantic right, humpback,
sei, fin, and sperm whales, and the Mediterranean monk seal. Other marine ESA-listed species that could
occur in the area are the Endangered leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles, Audouin’s gull, and slender-
billed curlew, and the Threatened green turtle. The Endangered scalloped hammerhead shark and Adriatic
and European sturgeons could also occur in or near the survey areas. ESA-listed candidate species that
could occur in the area are the sawback angelshark, smoothback angelshark, angelshark, guitarfish,
blackchin guitarfish, and undulate ray.
Draft Environmental Analysis for L-DEO Eastern Mediterranean Sea, 2015 Page v
Abstract
Potential impacts of the proposed seismic survey on the environment would be primarily a result of
the operation of the airgun array. A multibeam echosounder and sub-bottom profiler would also be
operated during the survey. Impacts would be associated with increased underwater noise, which could
result in avoidance behavior by marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, and fish, and other forms of
disturbance. An integral part of the planned survey is a monitoring and mitigation program designed to
minimize potential impacts of the proposed activity on marine animals present during the proposed
survey, and to document as much as possible the nature and extent of any effects. Injurious impacts to
marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds have not been proven to occur near airgun arrays or the other
types of sound sources to be used. However, a precautionary approach would still be taken, and the
planned monitoring and mitigation measures would reduce the possibility of any effects.
Protection measures designed to mitigate the potential environmental impacts to marine mammals
and sea turtles would include the following: ramp ups; two dedicated observers maintaining a visual
watch during all daytime airgun operations; two observers before and during ramp ups during the day; no
start ups during poor visibility or at night unless at least one airgun has been operating; passive acoustic
monitoring (PAM) via towed hydrophones during both day and night to complement visual monitoring;
and power downs (or if necessary shut downs) when marine mammals or sea turtles are detected in or
about to enter designated exclusion zones. The acoustic source would also be powered or shut down in
the event an ESA-listed seabird were observed diving or foraging within the designated exclusion zones.
Observers would also watch for any impacts the acoustic sources may have on fish. L-DEO and its
contractors are committed to applying these measures in order to minimize effects on marine mammals,
sea turtles, seabirds, and fish and other potential environmental impacts.
With the planned monitoring and mitigation measures, unavoidable impacts to each species of
marine mammal and sea turtle that could be encountered would be expected to be limited to short-term,
localized changes in behavior and distribution near the seismic vessel. At most, effects on marine
mammals could be interpreted as falling within the MMPA definition of “Level B Harassment” for those
species managed by NMFS. No long-term or significant effects would be expected on individual marine
mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, fish, the populations to which they belong, or their habitats.
Draft Environmental Analysis for L-DEO Eastern Mediterranean Sea, 2015 Page vi
List of Acronyms
LIST OF ACRONYMS
~ approximately
2-D two-dimensional
3-D three-dimensional
ACCOBAMS Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea Mediterranean Sea
and Contiguous Atlantic Area
AMVER Automated Mutual-Assistance Vessel Rescue
ASC-BW Areas of Special Concern for Beaked Whales
CSEL Cumulative Sound Exposure Level
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
dB decibel
DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid
DoN Department of the Navy
DPS Distinct Population Segment
EA Environmental Analysis
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EO Executive Order
ESA (U.S.) Endangered Species Act
ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit
EU European Union
EZ Exclusion Zone
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FM Frequency Modulated
GIS Geographic Information System
GoM Gulf of Mexico
h hour
HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
hp horsepower
HRTRP Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan
Hz Hertz
IHA Incidental Harassment Authorization (under MMPA)
in inch
IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO
IODP Integrated Ocean Drilling Program
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
IWC International Whaling Commission
kHz kilohertz
km kilometer
kt knot
L-DEO Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
LFA Low-frequency Active (sonar)
m meter
MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Draft Environmental Analysis for L-DEO Eastern Mediterranean Sea, 2015 Page vii
List of Acronyms
MBES Multibeam Echosounder

MCS Multi-Channel Seismic
MFA Mid-frequency Active (sonar)
min minute
MMPA (U.S.) Marine Mammal Protection Act
ms millisecond
n.mi. nautical mile
NEFSC Northeast Fisheries Science Center
NMFS (U.S.) National Marine Fisheries Service
NRC (U.S.) National Research Council
NSF National Science Foundation
OAWRS Ocean Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing
OBIS Ocean Biogeographic Information System
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OEIS Overseas Environmental Impact Statement
p or pk peak
PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
PI Principal Investigator
PTS Permanent Threshold Shift
PSO Protected Species Observer
rms root-mean-square
R/V research vessel
s second
SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management
SAR U.S. Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report
SBP Sub-bottom Profiler
SEFSC Southeast Fisheries Science Center
SEL Sound Exposure Level (a measure of acoustic energy)
SPL Sound Pressure Level
TTS Temporary Threshold Shift
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
U.S. United States of America
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USD U.S. Dollars
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USN U.S. Navy
μPa microPascal
vs. versus
WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre
Draft Environmental Analysis for L-DEO Eastern Mediterranean Sea, 2015 Page viii
I. Purpose and Need
I. PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of this Draft Environmental Analysis (EA) is to provide the information needed to
assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, including the use of a 36-
airgun array during the proposed seismic survey. This Draft EA was prepared under Executive Order
12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions” (EO 12114). This Draft EA tiers to the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement
(OEIS) for Marine Seismic Research funded by the National Science Foundation or Conducted by the
U.S. Geological Survey (NSF and USGS 2011) and Record of Decision (NSF 2012), referred to herein as
the PEIS. The Draft EA provides details of the proposed action at the site-specific level and addresses
potential impacts of the proposed seismic survey on marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, fish, and
invertebrates. The Draft EA will also be used in support of an application for an Incidental Harassment
Authorization (IHA) from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Section 7 consultations
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The IHA would allow the non-intentional, non-injurious “take
by harassment” of small numbers of marine mammals1 during the proposed seismic survey by Columbia
University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) in the eastern Mediterranean Sea during
November–December 2015. The issue regarding whether the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) applies to U.S. activities occurring within the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of foreign States
remains unsettled as a matter of law. Therefore, the submission of the IHA application to NMFS does not
constitute a waiver or adoption of any position regarding that issue. On behalf of L-DEO, the U.S. State
Department will seek authorization from Greece for clearance to work in its EEZ.
Mission of NSF
The National Science Foundation (NSF) was established by Congress with the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950 (Public Law 810507, as amended) and is the only federal agency dedicated to the
support of fundamental research and education in all scientific and engineering disciplines. Further
details on the mission of NSF are described in § 1.2 of the PEIS.
Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

As noted in the PEIS, § 1.3, NSF has a continuing need to fund seismic surveys that enable
scientists to collect data essential to understanding the complex Earth processes beneath the ocean floor.
The primary purpose of the proposed action is to collect three-dimensional (3-D) marine-land seismic
data on and around the island of Santorini (officially known as Thira) to study the crustal magma
plumbing of the Santorini volcanic system. The dataset would allow scientists to determine the depth,
geometry, and melt content of magma reservoirs throughout the crust and at the boundary between the
crust and mantle; whether these magma bodies are connected by dike systems or by vertical, crystal-rich
complexes; and the structure and properties of the surrounding crust. In addition, on behalf of scientists
from Ifremer, French Institute for Exploitation of the Sea, the proposed activity would collect two-
dimensional (2-D) seismic reflection data to image the megathrust fault between Peloponnesus and Crete
____________________________________
1
To be eligible for an IHA under the U.S. MMPA, the proposed “taking” (with mitigation measures in place) must
not cause serious physical injury or death of marine mammals, must have negligible impacts on the species and
stocks, must “take” no more than small numbers of those species or stocks, and must not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of the species or stocks for legitimate subsistence uses.
Draft Environmental Analysis for L-DEO Eastern Mediterranean Sea, 2015 Page 1
I. Purpose and Need
Island in the Hellenic subduction zone off southwestern Greece. The proposed activity would continue to
meet NSF’s critical need to foster a better understanding of Earth processes.
Background of NSF-funded Marine Seismic Research

The background of NSF-funded marine seismic research is described in § 1.5 of the PEIS.
Regulatory Setting
The regulatory setting of this EA is described in § 1.8 of the PEIS, including the
• Executive Order 12114;
• Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA); and
• Endangered Species Act (ESA).
II. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION

In this Draft EA, three alternatives are evaluated: (1) the proposed seismic survey and associated
issuance of an associated IHA, (2) a corresponding seismic survey at an alternative time, along with
issuance of an associated IHA, and (3) No Action alternative. Additionally, two alternatives were
considered but were eliminated from further analysis. A summary table of the proposed action,
alternatives, and alternatives eliminated from further analysis is provided at the end of this section.
Proposed Action
The project objectives and context, activities, and monitoring/mitigation measures for L-DEO’s
planned seismic survey are described in the following subsections.
(1) Project Objectives and Context

As noted previously, the main goal of the proposed research is to collect and analyze seismic
refraction data on and around the island of Santorini (Thira) to examine the crustal magma plumbing of
the Santorini volcanic system. Models of how magma evolution at arc volcanoes generates the
dominantly silicic magmas that form the continental crust, and of the dynamics that control magma
migration, storage, and eruption, require better physical constraints on the geometry, crystal content, and
the nature of interconnections of magmas at all depths throughout the crust. To address these outstanding
issues, a high-resolution 3-D seismic refraction survey would be conducted at the active and semi-
submerged Santorini Volcano (Fig. 1) that takes advantage of high-density spatial sampling of the seismic
wave field and state-of-the-art travel time and waveform inversion methods to provide new insights into
the structure of the whole crustal magmatic system and its surroundings.
The results from the proposed study would test the following three hypotheses: (1) Crystallization
of mafic melts occurs in shallow crustal magma chambers; (2) Magma evolves continuously as it resides
in and moves through multiple levels of magma reservoirs; and (3) Differentiation and/or mixing with
melts of surrounding rock occurs almost entirely in the lower crust. To test these hypotheses and achieve
the project’s goals, the Principal Investigators (PIs) Drs. E. Hooft and D. Toomey (University of Oregon)
propose to sample the seismic wave field that propagates throughout the entire crust beneath the volcano
by collecting high-density, 3-D marine and land seismic data using the R/V Marcus G. Langseth
(Langseth) airgun source. The proposed analysis would include (1) dense, 3-D isotropic and anisotropic
travel time tomography to resolve the first-order structure of the magma plumbing system and
surrounding crust, including an initial estimate of the volume and geometry of melt bodies throughout the
Draft Environmental Analysis for L-DEO Eastern Mediterranean Sea, 2015
II. Alternatives Including Proposed Action

FIGURE 1. Location of the proposed seismic survey in the eastern Mediterranean Sea during November–December 2015. A total of ~2140 km of
Page 3
transect lines would be surveyed. Also shown are marine protected areas, the 6-n.mi. zone of the Greek territorial seas, and the NAMFI (NATO
Missile Firing Installation) guided missile range.
crust and uppermost mantle as well as the thermal and compositional structure of the edifice and its
surroundings; and (2) full waveform inversion tomography and waveform modeling to refine travel time
tomography images and to obtain higher resolution and more accurate recovery of the elastic properties
throughout the crust, including an estimate of the sharpness of magma chamber boundaries, and the
spatial connections, melt content, and distribution of magma bodies. 3-D anisotropic travel time
tomography together with the novel application of full waveform inversion to this dataset would provide
unprecedented resolution, allowing scientists to determine the depth, geometry and melt content of
magma reservoirs throughout the crust and at the boundary between the crust and mantle; whether these
magma bodies are connected by dike systems or by vertical, crystal-rich complexes; and the structure and
properties of the surrounding crust.
In addition, on behalf of scientists from Ifremer, 2-D seismic reflection data would be collected
along a single transect line to image in depth the megathrust fault between Peloponnesus and Crete in the
Hellenic subduction zone off southwestern Crete. The data would be used to identify the structural
markers of the downdip and updip limits of the seismogenic zone and their along-strike variations. The
Hellenic subduction zone has the highest rate of seismic activity in Europe; several large magnitude
earthquakes have occurred off Peloponnesus in the past.
The Santorini portion of the study also involves international collaboration with scientists from
Greece. Dr. P. Nomikou (University of Athens) would be on board during the entire seismic survey, and
Prof. C. Papazachos (University of Thessaloniki) would be in charge of installation and recovery of land
seismometers on Santorini (Thira).
(2) Proposed Activities
(a) Location of the Activities

The proposed Santorini survey would encompass the area ~36.1–36.8°N, ~24.7–26.1°E in the
Aegean Sea; the transect line across the Hellenic subduction zone starts in the Aegean Sea at ~36.4°N,
23.9°E and runs to the southwest, ending at ~34.9°N, 22.6°E (Fig. 1). Water depths in the survey areas
are ~20–3000+ m. The seismic survey would be conducted within the EEZ and territorial waters of
Greece. Greece considers its territorial seas to extend out to 6 n.mi. as opposed to the typical 12-n.mi.
limit. Just over half of the line km in the Santorini survey area are located within Greek territorial seas;
most (92%) of the Hellenic subduction zone transect line is located outside of the territorial seas.
(b) Description of Activities

The procedures to be used for the marine geophysical survey would be similar to those used during
previous surveys by L-DEO and would use conventional seismic methodology. The survey would involve
one source vessel, the Research Vessel (R/V) Marcus G. Langseth (Langseth), which is owned by NSF
and operated on its behalf by L-DEO. The Langseth would deploy an array of 36 airguns as an energy
source with a total volume of ~6600 in3. The receiving system would consist of 93 ocean bottom seis-
mometers (OBSs) and 30 land seismometers for the Santorini survey in the Aegean Sea, and a single
8-km hydrophone streamer for the Hellenic subduction zone transect line that extends from the Aegean
Sea to the southwest of Crete. As the airgun array is towed along the survey lines, the seismometers
would receive the returning acoustic signals internally for later analysis, and the hydrophone streamer
would transfer the data to the on-board processing system.
A total of ~2140 km of transect lines would be surveyed in the eastern Mediterranean Sea (Fig. 1).
There could be additional seismic operations in the Santorini survey area in the Aegean Sea associated
with turns, airgun testing, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. In
our calculations [see § IV(3)], 25% has been added for those additional operations. Repeat coverage
would not be expected for the Hellenic subduction zone transect line that extends from the Aegean Sea to
the southwest of Crete, and therefore no additional coverage was added.
In addition to the operations of the airgun array, a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a sub-
bottom profiler (SBP) would also be operated from the Langseth continuously throughout the survey. All
planned geophysical data acquisition activities would be conducted by L-DEO with on-board assistance
by the scientists who have proposed the study. The vessel would be self-contained, and the crew would
live aboard the vessel.
(c) Schedule
The Langseth would depart from Piraievs, Greece, on 17 November 2015 and spend one day in
transit to the proposed survey areas. The entire program would take ~29 days, including ~16 days of
seismic surveying, 9 days of OBS deployment/retrieval, and ~2 days of streamer deployment/retrieval.
The Langseth would arrive at Iraklio, Crete, on 15 December. Some minor deviation from these dates is
possible, depending on logistics and weather. The ensuing analysis takes a seasonal approach in case of
scheduling issues.
(d) Vessel Specifications
The Langseth is described in § 2.2.2.1 of the PEIS. The vessel speed during seismic operations
would be ~4.5 kt (~8.3 km/h).
(e) Airgun Description

During the survey, the Langseth full array consisting of four strings with 36 airguns (plus 4 spares)
and a total volume of ~6600 in3, would be used. The airgun arrays are described in § 2.2.3.1 of the PEIS,
and the airgun configurations are illustrated in Figures 2-11 to 2-13 of the PEIS. The 4-string array would
be towed at a depth of 9 or 12 m; the shot intervals would range from 35 to 170 s (~80 to 390 m) for OBS
lines and ~22 s (50 m) for multi-channel seismic (MCS) lines with the streamer.
(f) OBS and Land-based Seismometers Description and Deployment

The Langseth would deploy 93 OBSs at the beginning of the study and then recover the
instruments after all of the proposed seismic profiles have been surveyed. In addition, 30 land seis-
mometers would be used for the study; 29 would be located on Santorini (Thira) and one on Anáfi.
The OBSs that would be used during the cruise include 30 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
(WHOI) and 63 Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) OBSs. The WHOI D2 OBSs have a height of
~1 m and a maximum diameter of 50 cm. The anchor is made of hot-rolled steel and weighs 23 kg. The
anchor dimensions are 2.5 × 30.5 × 38.1 cm. The SIO L-Cheapo OBSs have a height of ~0.9 m and a
maximum diameter of 97 cm. The anchors are 36-kg iron grates with dimensions 7 × 91 × 91.5 cm.
Once an OBS is ready to be retrieved, an acoustic release transponder interrogates the instrument at
a frequency of 8–11 kHz, and a response is received at a frequency of 11.5–13 kHz. The burn-wire
release assembly is then activated, and the instrument is released from the anchor to float to the surface.
On land, seismic data would be acquired from 30 seismometers. Twenty existing, permanent land
seismometers are located on Santorini, one permanent seismometer is located on Anáfi, and an additional
nine temporary seismometers would be deployed on Santorini. The nine seismometers would be
deployed typically in pre-disturbed areas. Seismometer installation usually involves using hand tools to
dig a small trench (e.g., 15 cm deep and wide and ~46 cm long). Land-based deployments would follow
Greek regulations and would be removed upon conclusion of the survey.
(g) Additional Acoustical Data Acquisition Systems

Along with the airgun operations, two additional acoustical data acquisition systems would be operated
from the Langseth during the survey: a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and sub-bottom profiler (SBP). The
ocean floor would be mapped with the Kongsberg EM 122 MBES and a Knudsen Chirp 3260 SBP. These
sources are described in § 2.2.3.1 of the PEIS.
(3) Monitoring and Mitigation Measures

Standard monitoring and mitigation measures for seismic surveys are described in § 2.4.1.1 and
2.4.2 of the PEIS and are described to occur in two phases: pre-cruise planning and operations. The
following sections describe the efforts during both stages for the proposed activity.
(a) Planning Phase

As discussed in § 2.4.1.1 of the PEIS, mitigation of potential impacts from the proposed activity
begins during the planning phase of the proposed activity. Several factors were considered during the
planning phase of the proposed activity, including
Energy Source.—Part of the considerations for the proposed marine seismic survey was to evaluate
whether the research objectives could be met with a smaller energy source than the full 36-airgun, 6600-in3
Langseth array, and it was decided that the scientific objectives for the survey could not be met using a
smaller source as they would not be sufficient to penetrate the lower crust and upper mantle to address the
magma plumbing architecture. Because the choice of tow depth for each line would not be made until the
survey, we have assumed in the impacts analysis and take estimate calculations the use of the 12-m tow
depth for all lines, as that would result in the farthest sound propagation.
Survey Timing.—The PIs worked with L-DEO and NSF to identify potential times to carry out the
survey taking into consideration key factors such as environmental conditions (i.e., the seasonal presence
of marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds), weather conditions, equipment, and optimal timing for
other proposed seismic survey using the Langseth. Most marine mammal species are expected to occur in
the area year-round, so altering the timing of the proposed project likely would result in no net benefits
for those species.
Mitigation Zones.—During the planning phase, mitigation zones for the proposed marine seismic
survey were calculated based on modeling by L-DEO for both the exclusion and the safety zones.
Received sound levels have been predicted by L-DEO’s model (Diebold et al. 2010, provided as
Appendix H in the PEIS), as a function of distance from the airguns, for the 36-airgun array at any tow
depth and for a single 1900LL 40-in3 airgun, which would be used during power downs. This modeling
approach uses ray tracing for the direct wave traveling from the array to the receiver and its associated
source ghost (reflection at the air-water interface in the vicinity of the array), in a constant-velocity half-
space (infinite homogeneous ocean layer, unbounded by a seafloor). In addition, propagation
measurements of pulses from the 36-airgun array at a tow depth of 6 m have been reported in deep water
(~1600 m), intermediate water depth on the slope (~600–1100 m), and shallow water (~50 m) in the Gulf
of Mexico (GoM) in 2007–2008 (Tolstoy et al. 2009; Diebold et al. 2010).
For deep and intermediate-water cases, the field measurements cannot be used readily to derive
mitigation radii, as at those sites the calibration hydrophone was located at a roughly constant depth of
350–500 m, which may not intersect all the sound pressure level (SPL) isopleths at their widest point
from the sea surface down to the maximum relevant water depth for marine mammals of ~2000 m.
Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix H of the PEIS show how the values along the maximum SPL line that
connects the points where the isopleths attain their maximum width (providing the maximum distance
associated with each sound level) may differ from values obtained along a constant depth line. At short
ranges, where the direct arrivals dominate and the effects of seafloor interactions are minimal, the data
recorded at the deep and slope sites are suitable for comparison with modeled levels at the depth of the
calibration hydrophone. At longer ranges, the comparison with the mitigation model—constructed from
the maximum SPL through the entire water column at varying distances from the airgun array—is the
most relevant. The results are summarized below.
In deep and intermediate water depths, comparisons at short ranges between sound levels for direct
arrivals recorded by the calibration hydrophone and model results for the same array tow depth are in good
agreement (Fig. 12 and 14 in Appendix H of the PEIS). Consequently, isopleths falling within this domain
can be predicted reliably by the L-DEO model, although they may be imperfectly sampled by measurements
recorded at a single depth. At greater distances, the calibration data show that seafloor-reflected and sub-
seafloor-refracted arrivals dominate, whereas the direct arrivals become weak and/or incoherent (Fig. 11, 12,
and 16 in Appendix H of the PEIS). Aside from local topography effects, the region around the critical
distance (~5 km in Fig. 11 and 12, and ~4 km in Fig. 16 in Appendix H of the PEIS) is where the observed
levels rise closest to the mitigation model curve. However, the observed sound levels are found to fall
almost entirely below the mitigation model curve (Fig. 11, 12, and 16 in Appendix H of the PEIS). Thus,
analysis of the GoM calibration measurements demonstrates that although simple, the L-DEO model is a
robust tool for conservatively estimating mitigation radii. In shallow water (<100 m), the depth of the
calibration hydrophone (18 m) used during the GoM calibration survey was appropriate to sample the
maximum sound level in the water column, and the field measurements reported in Table 1 of Tolstoy et al.
(2009) for the 36-airgun array at a tow depth of 6 m can be used to derive mitigation radii.
The proposed survey would acquire data with the 36-airgun array at tow depths of 9 and 12 m. For
deep water (>1000 m), we use the deep-water radii obtained from L-DEO model results down to a
maximum water depth of 2000 m (Fig. 2 and 3). The radii for intermediate water depths (100–1000 m)
are derived from the deep-water ones by applying a correction factor (multiplication) of 1.5, such that
observed levels at very near offsets fall below the corrected mitigation curve (Fig. 16 in Appendix H of
the PEIS). The shallow-water radii are obtained by scaling the empirically derived measurements from
the GoM calibration survey to account for the differences in tow depth between the calibration survey
(6 m) and the proposed survey (9 and 12 m). A simple scaling factor is calculated from the ratios of the
isopleths calculated by the deep-water L-DEO model, which are essentially a measure of the energy
radiated by the source array: the 150-decibel (dB) Sound Exposure Level (SEL)2 corresponds to deep-
water maximum radii of 9334 m and 11,250 m for 9 and 12-m tow depths, respectively (Fig. 2 and 3),
and7244 m for a 6-m tow depth (Fig. 4), yielding scaling factors of 1.29 and 1.55 to be applied to the
____________________________________
2
SEL (measured in dB re 1 μPa2 · s) is a measure of the received energy in the pulse and represents the SPL that
would be measured if the pulse energy were spread evenly across a 1-s period. Because actual seismic pulses are
less than 1 s in duration in most situations, this means that the SEL value for a given pulse is usually lower than
the SPL calculated for the actual duration of the pulse. In this EA, we assume that rms pressure levels of received
seismic pulses would be 10 dB higher than the SEL values predicted by L-DEO’s model.
FIGURE 2. Modeled deep-water received sound levels (SELs) from the 36-airgun array planned for use
during the proposed survey in the eastern Mediterranean Sea at a 9-m tow depth. Received rms levels
(SPLs) are expected to be ~10 dB higher. The plot at the top provides the radius to the 170-dB SEL
isopleth as a proxy for the 180-dB rms isopleth, and the plot at the bottom provides the radius to the
150-dB SEL isopleth as a proxy for the 160-dB rms isopleth.
FIGURE 3. Modeled deep-water received sound levels (SELs) from the 36-airgun array planned for use
during the proposed survey in the eastern Mediterranean Sea at a 12-m tow depth. Received rms levels
(SPLs) are expected to be ~10 dB higher. The plot at the top provides the radius to the 170-dB SEL
isopleth as a proxy for the 180-dB rms isopleth, and the plot at the bottom provides the radius to the
150-dB SEL isopleth as a proxy for the 160-dB rms isopleth.
FIGURE 4. Modeled deep-water received sound levels (SELs) from the 36-airgun array at a 6-m tow depth
used during the GoM calibration survey. Received rms levels (SPLs) are expected to be ~10 dB higher.
The plot at the top provides the radius to the 170 dB SEL isopleth as a proxy for the 180-dB rms isopleth,
and the plot at the bottom provides the radius to the 150-dB SEL isopleth as a proxy for the 160-dB rms
isopleth.
shallow-water 6-m tow depth results. Similarly, the 170 dB SEL corresponds to deep-water maximum
radii of 927 and 1117 m for 9 and 12-m tow depths (Fig. 2) and 719 m for 6-m tow depth (Fig. 4),
yielding the same 1.29 and 1.55 scaling factors. Measured 160-, 180-, and 190-dB re 1µParms distances in
shallow water for the 36-airgun array towed at 6 m depth were 17.5 km, 1.6 km, and 458 m, respectively,
based on a 95th percentile fit (Tolstoy et al. 2009). Multiplying by 1.29 to account for the tow depth
difference between 6 and 9 m yields distances of 22.58 km, 2.06 km, and 591 m, respectively.
Multiplying by 1.55 to account for the tow depth difference between 6 and 12 m yields distances of
27.13 km, 2.48 km, and 710 m, respectively.
Measurements have not been reported for the single 40-in3 airgun. The 40-in3 airgun fits under the
low-energy source category in the PEIS. In § 2.4.2 of the PEIS, Alternative B (the Preferred Alternative)
conservatively applies an exclusion zone (EZ) of 100 m for all low-energy acoustic sources in water
depths >100 m. This approach is adopted here for the single Bolt 1900LL 40-in3 airgun that would be
used during power downs. L-DEO model results are used to determine the 160-dBrms radius for the 40-in3
airgun at 12-m tow depth in deep water (Fig. 5). For intermediate-water depths, a correction factor of 1.5
was applied to the deep-water model results. For shallow water, a scaling of the field measurements
obtained for the 36-airgun array was used: the 150-dB SEL level corresponds to a deep-water radius of
431 m for the 40-in3 airgun at 12-m tow depth (Fig. 4) and 7244 for the 36-airgun array at 6-m tow depth
(Fig. 2), yielding a scaling factor of 0.0595. Similarly, the 170-dB SEL level corresponds to a deep-water
radius of 43 m for the 40-in3 airgun at 12-m tow depth (Fig. 4) and 719 m for the 36-gun array at 6-m tow
depth (Fig. 2), yielding a scaling factor of 0.0598. Measured 160-, 180-, and 190-dB re 1µParms distances
in shallow water for the 36-airgun array towed at 6-m depth were 17.5 km, 1.6 km, and 458 m,
respectively, based on a 95th percentile fit (Tolstoy et al. 2009). Multiplying by 0.0595 and 0.0598 to
account for the difference in array sizes and tow depths yields distances of 1041 m, 96 m, and 27 m,
respectively.
Table 1 shows the distances at which the 160-, 180-, and 190- dB re 1µParms sound levels are
expected to be received for the 36-airgun array and the single (mitigation) airgun. The 180- and 190-dB
re 1 μParms distances are the safety criteria as specified by NMFS (2000) for cetaceans and pinnipeds,
respectively. The 180-dB distance would also be used as the EZ for sea turtles, as required by NMFS in
most other recent seismic projects per the IHAs.
A recent retrospective analysis of acoustic propagation of Langseth sources in a coastal/shelf
environment from the Cascadia Margin off Washington suggests that predicted (modeled) radii (using an
approach similar to that used here) for Langseth sources were 2–3 times larger than measured in shallow
water, so in fact were very conservative (Crone et al. 2014). Similarly, preliminary analysis by Crone
(2015, pers. comm.) of data collected during a survey off New Jersey in 2014 confirmed that in situ
measurements and estimates of the 160- and 180-dB distances collected by the Langseth hydrophone
streamer were significantly smaller than the predicted operational mitigation radii.
Southall et al. (2007) made detailed recommendations for new science-based noise exposure
criteria. In December 2013, NOAA published draft guidance for assessing the effects of anthropogenic
sound on marine mammals (NOAA 2013), although at the time of preparation of this Draft EA, the date
of release of the final guidelines and how they will be implemented are unknown. As such, this Draft EA
has been prepared in accordance with the current NOAA acoustic practices, and the procedures are based
on best practices noted by Pierson et al. (1998), Weir and Dolman (2007), Nowacek et al. (2013), and
Wright (2014).
FIGURE 5. Modeled deep-water received sound levels (SELs) from a single 40-in3 airgun towed at 12 m
depth, which is planned for use as a mitigation gun during the proposed survey in the eastern
Mediterranean Sea. Received rms levels (SPLs) are expected to be ~10 dB higher. The plot at the top
provides the radius to the 170-dB SEL isopleths as a proxy for the 180-dB rms isopleth, and the plot at
the bottom provides the radius to the 150-dB SEL isopleth as a proxy for the 160-dB rms isopleth.
TABLE 1. Predicted distances to which sound levels ≥190-, 180-, and 160-dB re 1 μParms are expected to
be received during the proposed survey in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. For the single mitigation
airgun, the EZ is the conservative EZ for all low-energy acoustic sources in water depths >100 m defined
in the PEIS.
Tow Depth Water Depth Predicted rms Radii (m)

Source and Volume (m) (m) 190 dB 180 dB 160 dB
>1000 m 100 100 4311
Single Bolt airgun, 40 9 or 12
100–1000 m 100 100 6472
in3
<100 m 273 963 10413
>1000 m 2861 9271 57801
4 strings, 36 airguns, 9
100–1000 m 4292 13912 86702
6600 in3
<100 m 5913 20603 22,5803
>1000 m 3481 11161 69081
4 strings, 36 airguns, 12
100–1000 m 5222 16742 10,3622
6600 in3
<100 m 7103 24803 27,1303
1
Distance is based on L-DEO model results.
2
Distance is based on L-DEO model results with a 1.5 x correction factor between deep and intermediate water depths.
3
Distance is based on empirically derived measurements in the GoM with scaling applied to account for differences in tow depth.
Enforcement of mitigation zones via power and shut downs would be implemented in the
Operational Phase.
(b) Operational Phase

Marine mammals and sea turtles are known to occur in the proposed survey areas. However, the
number of individual animals expected to be approached closely during the proposed activity would be
relatively small in relation to regional population sizes. To minimize the likelihood that potential impacts
could occur to the species and stocks, monitoring and mitigation measures proposed during the
operational phase of the proposed activity, which are consistent with the PEIS and past IHA requirements,
include
1. monitoring by protected species observers (PSOs) for marine mammals, sea turtles, and ESA-
listed seabirds diving near the vessel, and observing for potential impacts of acoustic sources
on fish;
2. passive acoustic monitoring (PAM);
3. PSO data and documentation; and
4. mitigation during operations (speed or course alteration; power-down, shut-down, and ramp-
up procedures; and special mitigation measures for rare species, species concentrations, and
sensitive habitats).
Five independently contracted PSOs would be on board the survey vessel with rotating
shifts to allow two observers to monitor for marine species during daylight hours, and one observer to
conduct PAM during day- and night-time seismic operations. The proposed operational mitigation
measures are standard for all high energy seismic cruises, per the PEIS and are described in the IHA
application, and therefore are not discussed further here. Special mitigation measures were considered for
this cruise. It is unlikely that concentrations of large whales would be encountered, but if so, they would
be avoided.
With the proposed monitoring and mitigation provisions, potential effects on most if not all
individuals would be expected to be limited to minor behavioral disturbance. Those potential effects
would be expected to have negligible impacts both on individual marine mammals and on the associated
species and stocks. Ultimately, survey operations would be conducted in accordance with all applicable
U.S. federal regulations, including IHA requirements, as well as Greek regulations.
Alternative 1: Alternative Survey Timing

An alternative to issuing the IHA for the period requested and to conducting the project then would
be to conduct the project at an alternative time, implementing the same monitoring and mitigation
measures as under the Proposed Action, and requesting an IHA to be issued for that alternative time. The
proposed time for the cruise in November–December 2015 is the most suitable time logistically for the
Langseth and the participating scientists. An evaluation of the effects of this Alternative is given in § IV.
Alternative 2: No Action Alternative

An alternative to conducting the proposed activity is the “No Action” alternative, i.e., do not issue
an IHA and do not conduct the research operations. If the research was not conducted, the “No Action”
alternative would result in no disturbance to marine mammals attributable to the proposed activity.
Although the No-Action Alternative is not considered a reasonable alternative because it does not meet
the purpose and need for the Proposed Action, it is included and carried forward for analysis in § IV.
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis

(1) Alternative E1: Alternative Location
The goal of the proposed research is to examine and gain increased knowledge about the crustal
magma plumbing of the Santorini volcanic arc system. The survey location and design has been
specifically identified because Santorini is a semi-submerged volcano that is located on relatively thin
crust. The airgun source would ensonify the magmatic architecture of the lower crust and upper mantle
beneath the volcano with much greater density than would be possible for a subaerial volcano. The
density of ensonification is required to perform full waveform inversion analysis, which would provide
images that have an order of magnitude greater resolution than traditional first-arrival tomography. A
location other than within the Santorini volcanic arc system would not meet the research goals. The
proposed research underwent the NSF merit review process, and the science, including the site location,
was determined to be meritorious. The collection of 2-D data along the megathrust fault between
Peloponnesus and Crete in the Hellenic subduction zone in southwestern Greece is proposed by scientists
from Ifremer in support of their specific research goals.
(2) Alternative E2: Use of Alternative Technologies

As described in § 2.6 of the PEIS, alternative technologies to the use of airguns were investigated
to conduct high-energy seismic surveys. At this time, these technologies are still not feasible,
commercially viable, or appropriate to meet the Purpose and Need. Additional details about these
technologies are given in the Final USGS EA (RPS 2014). Table 2 provides a summary of the proposed
action, alternatives, and alternatives eliminated from further analysis.
TABLE 2. Summary of Proposed Action, Alternatives Considered, and Alternatives Eliminated.

Proposed Action Description
Proposed Action: Under this action, 3-D marine-land seismic refraction and 2-D seismic reflection surveys
Conduct a marine are proposed. When considering transit; equipment deployment, maintenance, and
geophysical survey and retrieval; weather; marine mammal activity; and other contingencies, the proposed activity
associated activities in would be expected to be completed in ~1 month. The affected environment, environmental
the Eastern consequences, and cumulative impacts of the proposed activity are described in § III and
Mediterranean Sea IV. The standard monitoring and mitigation measures identified in the NSF PEIS would
apply, along with any additional requirements identified by regulating agencies. All
necessary permits and authorizations, including an IHA, would be requested from
regulatory bodies.
Alternatives Description
Alternative 1: Under this Alternative, L-DEO would conduct survey operations at a different time of the
Alternative Survey year to reduce impacts on marine resources and users, and improve monitoring
Timing capabilities. Most marine mammal species are probably year-round residents in the survey
areas, so altering the timing of the proposed project likely would not result in net benefits.
Further, consideration would be needed for constraints for vessel operations and
availability of equipment (including the vessel) and personnel. Limitations on scheduling
the vessel include the additional research studies planned on the vessel for 2015 and
beyond. The standard monitoring and mitigation measures identified in the NSF PEIS
would apply, along with any additional requirements identified by regulating agencies
because of the change. All necessary permits and authorizations, including an IHA, would
be requested from regulatory bodies.
Alternative 2: No Action Under this Alternative, no proposed activities would be conducted and seismic data would not
be collected. Whereas this alternative would avoid impacts to marine resources, it would
not meet the purpose and need for the proposed action. Geological data of scientific value
and relevance increasing our understanding of the crustal magma plumbing of the
Santorini volcanic system and the megathrust fault between Peloponnesus and Crete
would not be collected. The collection of new data, interpretation of these data, and
introduction of new results into the greater scientific community and applicability of these
data to other similar settings would not be achieved. No permits and authorizations,
including an IHA, would be needed from regulatory bodies, as the proposed action would
not be conducted.
Alternatives Eliminated Description
from Further Analysis
Alternative E1: The survey location has been specifically identified because Santorini is a semi-submerged
Alternative Location volcano that is located on relatively thin crust. The airgun source would ensonify the
magmatic architecture of the lower crust and upper mantle beneath the volcano with much
greater density than would be possible for a subaerial volcano. One of the purposes of this
study is to understand the crustal magma plumbing of the Santorini volcanic system. The
proposed science underwent the NSF merit review process, and the science, including the
site location, was determined to be meritorious. In addition, the megathrust fault of the
Hellenic subduction zone is an area with high seismicity in Europe and is proposed by
scientists from Ifremer in support of their specific research goals.
Alternative E2: Use of Under this alternative, L-DEO would use alternative survey techniques, such as marine
Alternative vibroseis, that could potentially reduce impacts on the marine environment. Alternative
Technologies technologies were evaluated in the PEIS, § 2.6. At this time, however, these technologies
are still not feasible, commercially viable, or appropriate to meet the Purpose and Need.
III. Affected Environment
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

As described in the PEIS, Chapter 3, the description of the affected environment focuses only on
those resources potentially subject to impacts. Accordingly, the discussion of the affected environment
(and associated analyses) has focused mainly on those related to marine biological resources, as the
proposed short-term activity has the potential to impact marine biological resources within the Project
area. These resources are identified in § III, and the potential impacts to these resources are discussed in
§ IV. Initial review and analysis of the proposed activity determined that the following resource areas did
not require further analysis in this EA:
• Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases—Project vessel emissions would result from the proposed
activity; however, these short-term emissions would not result in any exceedance of Federal
Clean Air standards. Emissions would be expected to have a negligible impact on the air
quality within the survey areas;
• Land Use—Most proposed activities would be in the marine environment, with the exception of
the temporary installation and retrieval of land seismometers. No changes to current land uses or
activities in the Project area would result from the proposed Project;
• Safety and Hazardous Materials and Management—No hazardous materials would be
generated or used during the proposed activity. All Project-related wastes would be disposed
of in accordance with Federal and international requirements;
• Geological Resources (Topography, Geology and Soil)—The proposed Project would result in
only a minor displacement of soil and seafloor sediments. Land seismometers would be small,
approximately the size of a soda can; deployment and retrieval would involve minimal ground
disturbance and would comply with Greek regulations. Proposed marine or land-based
activities would not adversely affect geologic resources; thus, no significant impacts would be
expected;
• Water Resources—No discharges to the marine environment that would adversely affect
marine water quality are expected in the Project area. Therefore, there would be no impacts to
water resources resulting from the proposed activity;
• Terrestrial Biological Resources—Most proposed activities would occur in the marine
environment. Land seismometers would be small, approximately the size of a soda can;
deployment and retrieval would involve minimal ground disturbance and would comply with
Greek regulations. The land seismometers would not impact terrestrial biological resources;
• Visual Resources—Marine activities would not be expected to have a negative impact on any
visual resources. Land-based activities would be short-term and would not be expected to
affect the local view shed. Tourism is expected to be low during the fall, in particular on
Santorini;
• Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice—Implementation of the proposed Project would
not affect, beneficially or adversely, socioeconomic resources, environmental justice, or the
protection of children. Land-based activities would be short term. No changes in the
population or additional need for housing or schools would occur. Human activities in the
area around the survey vessel would be limited to commercial and recreational fishing
activities, other vessel traffic, and SCUBA diving. Fishing, vessel traffic, SCUBA diving, and
potential impacts are described in further detail in § III and IV. No other socioeconomic
impacts would be expected as result of the proposed activity; and
• Cultural Resources—There are a number of shipwrecks in the marine portion of the Project area
(DoN 2008); shipwrecks are discussed further in § IV. Airgun sounds would have no effects on
solid structures; no significant impacts on shipwrecks would be expected (§ IV). There are
several culturally and archaeologically important sites on the islands where land-based
instruments would be deployed, including on Santorini (e.g., Akrotiri, the Ancient town of Thira,
the Village of Oia), Therasia, and Anáfi (e.g., Kastelli, Katalymatsa archeological site). No
instruments would be deployed at these sites. In addition, there are protected areas on the
islands of Santorini, Christianna, and Anáfi (Natura 2000 2013; IUCN and UNEP-WCMC
2015). No impacts to cultural resources would be expected.
Physical Environment and Oceanography

The Mediterranean Sea covers ~2.5 million km2, and extends ~3800 km from east to west and
~900 km from north to south. It is a semi-enclosed area composed of two similar-size basins, the western
Mediterranean Sea and the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The western Mediterranean Sea has a triangular
shape and is connected to the Atlantic Ocean by the Strait of Gibraltar. The eastern Mediterranean Sea is
separated from western Mediterranean Sea by the Strait of Sicily, and has a more irregular and complex
topography composed of a succession of deep valleys, ridges, and pits. The eastern Mediterranean Sea
consists of the Ionian Basin, the Adriatic and the Aegean seas, and the Levantine Basin, which occupies
the easternmost part of the Mediterranean. The Aegean Sea has more than 2000 islands scattered
throughout the region; Santorini Island (Thira) is located in the Cyclades island group in the southern
Aegean Sea. This area, including Santorini, is home to major hydrothermal vent fields (Dando et al.
1999).
Mediterranean waters include Atlantic water in the upper layer that flows into the basin through the
Strait of Gibraltar; this inflow is offset by evaporation and outflow of Levantine Intermediate Water,
which flows westward, out into the Atlantic, after forming in the eastern basin (Bentivegna et al. 2007).
In the Mediterranean, evaporation is greater than the combined precipitation and river runoff; thus, the
water is saltier than in other seas in Europe (EEA 2002). The shelf and slope of the Mediterranean Sea
are narrow in most areas (EEA 2002).
The oceanographic dynamics of the Mediterranean Sea are diverse, as are the water circulation
patterns (IUCN 2012). The main surface currents in the Aegean Sea flow northward along the west coast
of Turkey, southward along the east coast of Greece, and westward across the Sea of Crete south of
Santorini (Thira) Island (see Casale et al. 2007). Gyres, upwellings, and fronts at different times of the
year cause variable biological productivity within the Mediterranean, resulting in the region being
recognized as biodiversity hotspot (IUCN 2012). The Mediterranean is considered a low-productivity
ecosystem (EEA 2002) with a mean primary production of 432 mgC/m2/day; the highest values occur
during February–May (SAUP 2015).
Protected Areas
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are established as a tool for the preservation of biodiversity, often
by restricting or banning certain fishing methods (Gormley et al. 2012). By protecting sensitive
environments and threatened species, MPAs also contribute to increasing the productivity of fishing
areas, regulating the uses of the sea, promoting sustainable tourism, and possibly creating new
employment-generating activities (Abdulla et al. 2008). A further step beyond the creation of MPAs is
the establishment of a network of MPAs, whereby MPAs interconnect and are interdependent, increasing
their integrity by decreasing overall vulnerability (Abdulla et al. 2008).
Countries in the Mediterranean Sea are currently struggling with establishing a coherent network of
effectively managed MPAs (Gabrié et al. 2012 in Bustamante et al. 2014), with over half of the MPAs
lacking a management plan (Bustamante et al. 2014) and the existence of data gaps regarding the effects
of human recreational activities (e.g., trampling, anchoring, diving) on Mediterranean MPAs (Milazzo et
al. 2002). To date, there are ~100 MPAs established in the Mediterranean Sea region (Pelagos Institute
2015); several of the MPAs identified by Wood (2007), Natura 2000 (2013), ACCOBAMS (2014), IUCN
and UNEP-WCMC (2015), and MAPAMED (n.d.) are near the proposed survey areas (Fig. 1).
The MPA Folégandros Anatoliki Mechri Dytiki Sikino Kai Thalassia Zoni (FAMDSKTZ) is
located ~7 km to the north of the Santorini survey area in the Aegean Sea. FAMDSKTZ protects
19 species of birds, two plant species, one snake species, and the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus
monachus), and various marine habitat types, including Posidonia beds (Neptune grass; Posidonia
oceanica), reefs, vegetated coastal cliffs with endemic sea lavenders (Limonium spp.), salt meadows,
coastal shrubs (Sarcopterium spinosum phryganas), calcareous rocky slopes, and caves (EEA 2013a).
The MPA Anáfi: Chersonisos Kalamos‒Roukounas is ~10 km southeast of the Santorini survey area near
the island of Anáfi. It protects the Mediterranean monk seal and several marine habitat types, including
Posidonia beds, vegetated coastal cliffs with endemic sea lavenders, salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi),
embryonic shifting dunes, coastal shrubs (S. s. phryganas), calcareous rocky slopes, and submerged/
partially submerged sea caves (EEA 2013b). MPAs are also located ~15–20 km to the north of the
Santorini survey area, near the islands of Káros and Iráklia, and around islands ~20–30 km away (Fig. 1).
Many of the islands in the Cyclades, including Santorini (Thira), Anáfi, and Christianna (where land
seismometers would be located) also include protected terrestrial areas; land seismometers would not be
deployed in these areas.
There are eight MPAs in the immediate vicinity of Crete, each extending from the coastline and
also inclusive of terrestrial components. In an east‒west orientation, these MPAs include
1) Voreioanatoliko Akro Kritis: Dionysades, Elasa Kai Chersonisos Sidero (akra Mavro Mouri–Vai–Akra
Plakas) Kai Thalassia Zoni; 2) Prassano Farangi–Patsos–Sfakoryako Rema–Paralia Rethymnou Kai
Ekvoli Geropotamou, Akr. Lianos Kavos–Perivolia; 3) Asfendou–Kallikratis Kai Paraktia Zoni; 4) Lefka
Ori Kai Paraktia Zoni; 5) Ormos Sougias–Vardia–Farangi Lissou Mechri Anydrous Kai Paraktia Zoni;
6) Imeri Kai Agria Gramvoussa–Tigani Kai Falasarna–Pontikonisi, Ormos Livadi–Viglia; 7) Paralia Apo
Chrysoskalitissa Mechri Akrotirio Krios; and 8) Nisos Elafonisos Kai Paraktia Thalassia Zoni. All eight
MPAs are Sites of Community Importance under the Habitats Directive (Natura 2000 2013; IUCN and
UNEP-WCMC 2015).
Several high sea MPAs have also been proposed for the eastern Mediterranean: two of these are
located in the northern Aegean Sea, and a third one was proposed for the Sea of Crete (Öztürk 2009).
There is also a proposed MPA that extends from southwestern Crete to the islands of Kythira,
Peloponnese, and Zakynthos (Hoyt 2011; ACCOBAMS 2014). In addition to the MPAs, ACCOBAMS
has proposed Areas of Special Concern for Beaked Whales (ASC-BW) in the Mediterranean to be
considered for spatial mitigation during the use of intense anthropogenic sound sources (ACCOBAMS
2013). These ASC-BWs include areas where beaked whales have stranded, high-use areas for beaked
whales, and a 50-n.mi. buffer zone around both (ACCOBAMS 2013). The entire proposed survey areas
in the southern Aegean Sea and west and southwest of Crete are located within an ASC-BW.
Greece is one of 22 contracting parties signed into the Barcelona Convention, which includes the
Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) as part of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
(UNEP MAP 2007). As part of the Barcelona Convention, Greece signed the Specially Protected Areas
Protocol in 1982, which was replaced by the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and
Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean in 1995 (Anonymous 1995, 1999; Treaties Office Database
2008). This Protocol entails several obligations, including taking necessary measures to “protect,
preserve and manage in a sustainable and environmentally sound way areas of particular natural or
cultural value, notably by the establishment of specially protected areas [SPAs]” and to “protect, preserve
and manage threatened or endangered species of flora and fauna” (Anonymous 1995, 1999). The
objectives of the establishment of SPAs are to safeguard (Anonymous 1999:L 322/4)
“ … representative types of coastal and marine ecosystems of adequate size to ensure their long-
term viability and to maintain their biological diversity;”
“ … habitats which are in danger of disappearing in their natural area of distribution in the
Mediterranean or which have a reduced natural area of distribution as a consequence of their regression or
on account of their intrinsically restricted area;”
“ … habitats critical to the survival, reproduction and recovery of endangered, threatened or
endemic species of flora or fauna;” and
“ … sites of particular importance because of their scientific, aesthetic, cultural or educational
interest.”
In light of these obligations and objectives, Natura 2000, a European-wide network of nature
protection areas, was established under the 1992 Habitats Directive by the European Council (EC 2015).
It comprises special areas of conservation (SACs) and SPAs, with the aim of ensuring the “long-term
survival of Europe’s most valuable and threatened species and habitats” (EC 2015). Several marine
habitat types are listed as requiring marine Natura 2000 sites, including (1) sandbanks that are slightly
covered by sea water all the time, (2) Posidonia beds, (3) estuaries, (4) mudflats and sandflats not covered
by seawater at low tide, (5) coastal lagoons, (6) large shallow inlets and bays, (7) reefs, (8) submarine
structures made by leaking gases, and (9) submerged or partially submerged sea caves (EC 2007).
Whereas these nine habitat types are present throughout Greece’s marine waters (MEECC 2014),
there are currently no additional Natura 2000 sites in or near the proposed survey area other than the
MPAs described above. In 2006, the European Council adopted the Mediterranean Regulation ([EC]
1967/2006), which, in addition to those protection measures listed above, prohibits fishing practices that
could damage the physical environment within Natura 2000 sites (e.g., using explosives and pneumatic
hammers), and includes restrictions on fishing gear, protection zones, and minimum sizes.
A further measure of the European Council’s dedication towards the management and conservation
of natural areas and threatened species and their habitats is the regional creation of lists of Specially
Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMI) (Anonymous 1999). These sites “are of
importance for conserving the components of biological diversity in the Mediterranean; contain
ecosystems specific to the Mediterranean area or the habitats of endangered species; [and] are of special
interest at the scientific, aesthetic, cultural or educational levels” (Anonymous 1999). At least as of 2010,
Greece had not yet put forth a SPAMI list (UNEP MAP RAC/SPA 2010); thus, it is currently unclear
whether any such sites exist in the proposed survey area.
Marine Mammals
Twenty-three species of cetaceans (6 mysticetes and 17 odontocetes) and 2 pinniped species have been
reported in the Mediterranean Sea (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006; Bellido et al. 2007; Gilmartin
and Forcada 2009; IUCN 2012). Six of the 23 species are listed under the U.S. ESA as Endangered: the
North Atlantic right, humpback, fin, sei, and sperm whales; and the Mediterranean monk seal.
General information on the taxonomy, ecology, distribution and movements, and acoustic
capabilities of marine mammals are given in § 3.6.1, § 3.7.1 and § 3.8.1 of the PEIS. The general
distributions of marine mammals in various regions of the North Atlantic Ocean are discussed in the PEIS in
§ 3.6.2 and § 3.6.3 for mysticetes, § 3.7.2 and § 3.7.3 for odontocetes, and § 3.8.2 and § 3.8.3 for pinnipeds.
The rest of this section deals with species distribution in the Mediterranean Sea. The main sources of
information used here include reports and articles prepared by scientists from a number of Mediterranean
research institutes including: Tethys Research Institute (Italy), MOm/Hellenic Society for the Study and
Protection of the Monk Seal (Greece), Pelagos Cetacean Research Institute (Greece), and the Hellenic Centre
for Μarine Research (Greece). Reports and working papers produced by the International Whaling
Commission (IWC) and scientific journal articles were also used.
Information on the occurrence near the proposed survey areas in November–December, habitat,
population size, and conservation status for each of the cetacean and pinniped species that have been
reported in the Mediterranean Sea is presented in Table 3. Twelve of these marine mammals (North
Atlantic right, gray, sei, dwarf sperm, northern bottlenose, Gervais’ beaked, Sowerby’s beaked,
Blainville’s beaked, killer, and long-finned pilot whales; Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin; and hooded
seal) either are considered vagrants in the Mediterranean Sea or have never been recorded in the eastern
Mediterranean basin. Therefore, these species are extremely unlikely to occur near the proposed survey
areas and are only briefly mentioned below. Detailed descriptions of the resident and visitor species in
the Mediterranean Sea follow Table 3.
The North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) was historically abundant in the eastern
North Atlantic where harvest activity was recorded from 1059 to 1982 (Aguilar 1986; Brown 1986). It
has been suggested that the intense harvest activity in the 1900s had a catastrophic effect on this
population; the eastern North Atlantic population likely numbers in the low tens of whales today and is
considered a “relict” population by the IWC (IWC 2001). There have been only two confirmed
occurrences of right whales in the Mediterranean Sea since the 1800s: one whale was captured off the
coast of Italy in February 1877; and two whales were sighted off Algeria in January 1888, one of which
was captured (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).
The gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) historically existed in the North Atlantic, where it is
believed to have been eradicated in the 1700s (Lindquist 2000). In May 2010, a single gray whale was
sighted and photographed off the Israeli Mediterranean shore, and then later in Spanish Mediterranean
waters; this is the first recorded occurrence of a gray whale in the North Atlantic since the 1700s, and the
first recorded occurrence in the Mediterranean Sea (Scheinin et al 2011; IUCN 2012). Scheinin et al.
(2011) thought it most likely that it was a vagrant individual from the population of gray whales found in
the eastern North Pacific.
The sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) migrates seasonally, and in the eastern North Atlantic it has
been observed to summer as far north as the sea between Greenland and Iceland; it might winter in the
Canary Islands or farther south (Prieto et al. 2012). Occurrences (strandings and sightings) of the sei
whale in the western Mediterranean Sea are considered extralimital: there were two confirmed
TABLE 3. The habitat, occurrence, regional population sizes, and conservation status of marine mammals
that could occur in or near the proposed survey areas in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
Regional IUCN
Occurrence Abundance Global3 /
Species in Oct–Nov Habitat Estimate1 ESA2 Mediterranean4 CITES5
Mysticetes
6
North Atlantic right Extremely 490 ;
whale unlikely Coastal, shelf vagrant E EN / N.A I
Extremely N.A.;
Gray whale unlikely Coastal vagrant7 NL LC / N.A. I
Coastal, banks, 11,5708;
Humpback whale Rare pelagic visitor E LC / N.A. I
9
107,205 ;
Common minke whale Rare Shelf, pelagic visitor NL LC / N.A. I
10
Extremely Pelagic, shelf 12-13,000 ;
Sei whale unlikely edges vagrant E EN / N.A. I
24,88711;
12
Fin whale Rare Pelagic, coastal ~5000 E EN / VU I
14
Odontocetes 13,190 ;
Sperm whale Uncommon Slope, pelagic 200–250s14 E VU / EN I
Extremely Shelf, slope, N.A.;
Dwarf sperm whale unlikely pelagic vagrant NL DD / N.A. II
653215;
16
Cuvier’s beaked whale Common Slope ~200? NL LC / DD II
17
Northern bottlenose Extremely Offshore, deep 40,000 ;
whale unlikely canyons vagrant NL DD / N.A. I
18
Extremely 7092 ;
Gervais’ beaked whale unlikely Offshore vagrant NL DD / N.A. II
Sowerby’s beaked Extremely Offshore, deep 709218;
whale unlikely canyons vagrant NL DD / N.A. II
Blainville’s beaked Extremely 709218;
whale unlikely Pelagic, slope vagrant NL DD / N.A. II
Rough-toothed dolphin Uncommon Pelagic, shelf N.A.; visitor19 NL LC / L.C. II
Indo-Pacific humpback Extremely N.A.;
dolphin unlikely Coastal vagrant NL NT / N.A. I
Common bottlenose Coastal,
dolphin Common offshore Low 10,000s20 NL LC / VU II
Striped dolphin Common Pelagic, slope 233,58421 NL LC / VU II
Short-beaked common
dolphin Uncommon Coastal, pelagic 19,42822 NL LC / EN II
15
Slope, offshore 18,250 ;
23
Risso’s dolphin Uncommon islands 3000 NL LC / DD II
False killer whale Rare Pelagic N.A.; visitor NL DD / N.A. II
Extremely
Killer whale unlikely Coastal, pelagic N.A.; visitor24 NL DD / N.A. II
Long-finned pilot Extremely Pelagic, shelf,
whale unlikely slope 780,00025 NL DD / DD II
Harbor porpoise Rare Coastal 1000s26 NL LC / EN27 II
Pinnipeds
Hooded seal Extremely Pack ice, N.A.;
unlikely pelagic vagrant NL VU / N.A. NL
Mediterranean monk
seal Common Coastal 250–35028 E(F) CR29 I
N.A. = Data not available or species status was not assessed.
1
Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara (2006) except as noted; vagrant species are currently found only occasionally, whereas visitor
species do not reproduce within a region but regularly occur there.
2
U.S. Endangered Species Act (NMFS 2015a): E = Endangered; T = Threatened; NL = Not Listed; F = Foreign.
3
Classification from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2014):
CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC = Least Concern; DD = Data Deficient.
4
IUCN conservation status of species resident in the Mediterranean Sea (IUCN 2012, 2014).
5
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (UNEP-WCMC 2015): Appendix I = Threaten-
ed with extinction; Appendix II = not necessarily now threatened with extinction but may become so unless trade is closely
controlled; NL = Not Listed.
6
Abundance estimate for the North Atlantic (IWC 2015).
7
IUCN (2012)
8
Estimate for the Western North Atlantic (Stevick et al. 2003).
9
Northeast Atlantic (Skaug et al. 2004).
10
North Atlantic (Cattanach et al. 1993).
11
Central and Northeast Atlantic (Víkingsson et al. 2009).
12
Estimated number of adults in the Mediterranean population (IUCN 2012).
13
For the northeast Atlantic, Faroes-Iceland, and the U.S. east coast (Whitehead 2002).
14
Estimated population size for the Hellenic Trench (Frantzis et al. 2014).
15
Western North Atlantic (Waring et al. 2014).
16
An estimated 96–100 in the Gulf of Genova (eastern Ligurian Sea) and ~102 in the northern Alboran Sea (Cañadas 2011).
17
Eastern North Atlantic (NAMMCO 1995).
18
Estimate for Mesoplodon spp. in the western North Atlantic (Waring et al. 2014).
19
A resident population in the eastern Mediterranean likely exists; population is unknown (IUCN 2012).
20
Estimate for entire Mediterranean Sea (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).
21
Forcada and Hammond (1998) for the western Mediterranean plus Gómez de Segura et al. (2006) for the central Spanish
Mediterranean.
22
Northern Alboran Sea (Cañadas 2006).
23
Estimate for the western Mediterranean (Perrin et al 1990 in Gaspari 2004; Pelagos Sanctuary 2015).
24
IUCN (2012) classified the killer whale as a vagrant in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
25
Pilot whale estimate (Globicephala spp.) for the central and eastern North Atlantic (IWC 2015); there are no records of pilot
whales in the eastern Mediterranean basin (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).
26
The Black Sea population is estimated at several thousand to the low tens of thousands (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara
2006).
27
The Black Sea harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena relicta is considered endangered by the IUCN.
28
Northeastern Mediterranean (MOm 2009).
29
The Mediterranean monk seal has a single IUCN classification.
occurrences off the coast of Spain in June 1952 and September 1973; and three confirmed occurrences off
the coast of France in June 1921, August 1987, and September 1987 (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara
2006).
The dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) is widely distributed in tropical and warm temperate shelf
and slope waters (McAlpine 2009). There are only two confirmed occurrences, both strandings, of the
dwarf sperm whale in the Mediterranean Sea: one on the western coast of Italy in May 1988 and a second
on Sicily in September 2002 (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).
The northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus) is only found in the North Atlantic.
There have been only two confirmed occurrences in the Mediterranean Sea: a mother and calf stranded
and were captured off the coast of France in 1880, and one whale was sighted off Spain in the Alboran
Sea (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).
Gervais’ beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus) occurs in tropical and warmer temperate waters of
the Atlantic Ocean from Ireland to southeast Brazil (MacLeod et al. 2006; Jefferson et al. 2008). There is
a single confirmed occurrence of Gervais’ beaked whale in the Mediterranean Sea: a female stranded in
the Ligurian Sea on the coast of Italy in August 2001 (Podestà et al 2005 in Reeves and Notarbartolo di
Sciara 2006).
Sowerby’s beaked whale (M. bidens) is the most northerly distributed of all the Atlantic species of
Mesoplodon, where it occurs offshore and is often associated with deep canyons (Wojtek et al. 2014).
There are two occurrences of Sowerby’s beaked whale in the Mediterranean Sea: one female (tentative
identification) stranded off the coast of Italy in the Tyrrhenian Sea in November 1927, and two whales
(likely identification) stranded alive and released off the coast of France in August 1996 (Reeves and
Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).
Blainville’s beaked whale (M. densirostris) is the most widely distributed Mesoplodon species
(Mead 1989), although it is generally limited to pelagic tropical and warmer temperate waters (Jefferson
et al. 2008). There is a single confirmed occurrence of Blainville’s beaked whale in the Mediterranean
Sea: a female stranded off the east coast of Spain in February 1983 (Casinos and Filella 1981 in Reeves
and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).
The killer whale (Orcinus orca) is cosmopolitan and widely distributed and has been observed in
all oceans of the world (Ford 2009). There are 26 known occurrences of killer whales in the western
Mediterranean Sea and three known occurrences in the east: one off the coast of Israel, one captured
between Sicily and Malta, and a pod sighted in the Ionian Sea in the 1970s (Reeves and Notarbartolo di
Sciara 2006).
The long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) occurs in temperate and subpolar waters and is
found in the western Mediterranean Sea (Jefferson et al. 2008). However, there are no records of the
long-finned pilot whale in the eastern Mediterranean basin (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).
The Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis) is found in coastal areas along the northern
rim of the Indian Ocean and ranges north into the Red Sea (Jefferson et al. 2008). There are four known
occurrences of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins in the Mediterranean Sea: one sighting off the coast of
Egypt, and three sightings in August 2000 off the coast of Israel (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara
2006).
The hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) occurs throughout the central and western North Atlantic
Ocean, and the limits of its distribution are correlated with the arctic pack ice. However, numerous
extralimital records, particularly of juvenile seals, exist (Kovacs and Lavigne 1986). Bellido et al. (2007)
documented eight occurrences of young hooded seals in the Alboran Sea during 1996–2006, and
suggested that this is the eastern limit to the incursion of hooded seals into the Mediterranean Sea.
(1) Mysticetes
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)

The humpback whale is cosmopolitan in distribution and is most common over the continental
shelf and in coastal areas (Jefferson et al. 2008). In the North Atlantic, humpback whales migrate
annually from high-latitude foraging areas in the summer to breeding grounds in the West Indies in winter
(Clapham et al. 1993; Stevick et al. 1998; Kennedy et al. 2014). Four feeding aggregations of North
Atlantic humpbacks have been identified: the Gulf of Maine, eastern Canada, West Greenland, and the
eastern North Atlantic (Stevick et al. 2006).
Until very recently, humpback whales were considered extremely rare in the Mediterranean; before
1989, there were only two confirmed records of occurrence (in 1885 and 1986; Aguilar 1989). However,
there have been an additional 12 confirmed records since 1990, and 8 of these have come from the eastern
Mediterranean Sea (Frantzis et al. 2004; Frantzis 2009). There are three records of humpbacks in Greek
Seas: two records from the Ionian Sea (one sighting and one whale found dead in a net), and one record of
a whale sighted in the Aegean Sea in April 2001 in the Bay of Tolo to the northwest of the Santorini area
(Frantzis et al. 2004). Frantzis et al. (2004) suggested that the recent increase in humpback whale
occurrence in the Mediterranean might be attributable to spillover from an expanding North Atlantic
population.
Common Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)

The minke whale has a cosmopolitan distribution that spans polar, temperate, and tropical regions
(Jefferson et al. 2008). Four stocks are recognized in the North Atlantic: the Canadian East Coast, West
Greenland, Central North Atlantic, and Northeast Atlantic stocks (Donovan 1991). However, genetic data
suggest that there might be as few as two stocks in the North Atlantic (Anderwald et al. 2011). Some
populations are known to migrate from high latitude summer feeding grounds to lower latitude winter
breeding areas (Jefferson et al. 2008).
The minke whale is considered a visitor in the Mediterranean Sea; North Atlantic minke whales
enter the Mediterranean via the Strait of Gibraltar (IUCN 2012). There are 30 records of minke whales in
the Mediterranean Sea; 24 are from the western basin (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006; Öztürk et
al. 2011). Two of the records from the eastern basin are from the Aegean Sea: a young minke whale was
found dead, floating near Skiathos Island, northwestern Aegean Sea, in May 2000 (Verriopoulou et al.
2001); and another stranded on the coast of Turkey in August 2005 (Öztürk et al. 2011). The four other
occurrences in the eastern basin are for the coast of Israel (3) and the Adriatic Sea (1; Reeves and
Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).
Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus)

The fin whale is widely distributed in all the world’s oceans (Gambell 1985), but is most abundant
in temperate and cold waters (Aguilar 2009). Most populations migrate seasonally between temperate
waters where mating and calving occur in winter, and polar waters where feeding occurs in the summer.
However, fin whale movements have been reported to be complex, and not all populations follow this
simple pattern (Jefferson et al. 2008). Although a separate population of fin whales thought to be resident
in the Mediterranean has been identified based on genetic data (Bérubé et al. 1998), fin whales from the
northeast North Atlantic population sometimes penetrate into the Mediterranean Sea (Castellote et al.
2010; Giménez et al. 2013). The current population in the Mediterranean is believed to be ~5000 adults
(IUCN 2012). Population structure in the Mediterranean is unknown: Mediterranean fin whales might
belong to a single panmictic population or a number of metapopulations within the Mediterranean basin
(Notarbartolo di Sciara et al. 2003).
Fin whales most commonly occur offshore, but can also be found in coastal areas (Aguilar 2009).
In the North Atlantic, they are known to use the shelf edge as a migration route between summer feeding
areas in high latitudes and southern wintering grounds (Evans 1987). Sergeant (1977) suggested that fin
whales tend to follow steep slope contours, either because they detect them readily, or because the
contours are areas of high biological productivity.
Fin whales in the Mediterranean are primarily observed in deep offshore waters, although they also
occur over the continental shelf (Notarbartolo di Sciara et al. 2003). They have been observed to
concentrate in areas of high productivity, such as the Ligurian-Corsican-Provencal Basin in the western
Mediterranean Sea, particularly in the summer, but there is also evidence of seasonal movements between
central and western portions of the basin to exploit available prey resources (Aissi et al. 2008). Although
fin whales regularly occur in the western and central Mediterranean, they are very rare in the Aegean Sea
and Levantine basins (Notarbartolo di Sciara et al. 2003). There are 36 sightings of fin whales recorded
in Greek seas, the majority (31) of which occurred in the north Ionian Sea and Saronikos Gulf in the
western Aegean Sea. Additionally, four sightings have been reported along the Hellenic Trench,
including south of Crete and the waters between Kythira and Crete; no sightings were reported for the
Cyclades or Sea of Crete (Frantzis 2009). Ten fin whale strandings were reported for Greek seas,
including Saronikos Gulf; half of all strandings occurred after 1991 (Frantzis 2009).
(2) Odontocetes
Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus)
The sperm whale is widely distributed and occurs from the edge of the polar pack ice to the
Equator in both hemispheres (Whitehead 2009). In general, it is distributed over large temperate and
tropical areas that have high secondary productivity and steep underwater topography, such as volcanic
islands (Jaquet and Whitehead 1996); its distribution and relative abundance can vary in response to prey
availability, most notably squid (Jaquet and Gendron 2002). Sperm whales in the Mediterranean
comprise a single population that is genetically different from that in the Atlantic (Drouot et al. 2004;
Engelhaupt et al. 2009) and likely is small and isolated (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006). There
is no reliable population estimate for the sperm whale population in the Mediterranean basin, but it is
thought to number in the low hundreds (IUCN 2012). Frantzis et al. (2014) reported that 181 individual
sperm whales have been photo-identified along the Hellenic Trench and suggested a local population size
of 200–250 individuals.
Sperm whales can be found throughout the Mediterranean Sea, predominantly near steep slope and
deep offshore waters (>2500 m) over the continental shelf where their primary prey, mesopelagic squid,
are most abundant (Notarbartolo di Sciara et al. 2003; Azzellino et al. 2008; Moulins et al. 2008; Boisseau
et al. 2010). There are numerous occurrences of sperm whales in the eastern Mediterranean, including
frequent sightings in Greek seas, primarily along the Hellenic Trench including the waters between
Kythira and Crete (Frantzis 2009; Frantzis et al. 2014). Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara (2006)
identified the region of the Aegean Sea and south to the Hellenic Trench as being an area of “regular”
occurrence for sperm whales. Notarbartolo di Sciara and Bearzi (2010) consider the Hellenic Trench to
be critical habitat for Mediterranean sperm whales. Frantzis et al. (2014) conducted summer surveys
between 1998 and 2009 along the Hellenic Trench and observed a pronounced peak in sperm whale
distribution along the 1000-m contour; 74% of visual encounters occurred within 3 km of the contour.
Boisseau et al. (2010) encountered 17 groups of sperm whales in the Crete Trench during May–July 2007,
with an encounter rate of 0.06 whales/100 n.mi. Sperm whale records exist throughout the Aegean Sea,
including reported sightings for the Sea of Crete, east of Íos in the Cyclades, and north of Rhodes Island
(Frantzis et al. 2003; Frantzis 2009; Dede et al. 2012). However, no sperm whales were sighted during a
survey through the southern Aegean Sea during 2000 (Gannier et al. 2002). Sperm whales have also been
detected acoustically in Rhodes Basin, south of Cyprus, western Crete, and in the Ikaria Basin, western
Turkey (Gannier et al. 2002; Ryan et al. 2014). Additionally, 43 sightings of sperm whales were reported
in Turkish waters during 1994–2012 (Öztürk et al. 2013). Twenty-six sperm whale strandings have been
recorded in Greece, including in the Cyclades (one each at the islands of Íos and Náxos) and the northern
and southwestern coasts of Crete (Frantzis et al. 2003; Frantzis 2009).
Cuvier’s Beaked Whale (Ziphius cavirostris)

Cuvier’s beaked whale is probably the most widespread and common of the beaked whales,
although it is not found in high-latitude polar waters (Heyning 1989). It is rarely observed at sea and is
known mostly from strandings; it strands more commonly than any other beaked whale (Heyning 1989).
Cuvier’s beaked whale occurs in the western and eastern basins of the Mediterranean Sea (Notarbartolo di
Sciara 2002). Dalebout et al. (2005) examined mitochondrial DNA from Cuvier’s beaked whales
worldwide and recommended that whales in the Mediterranean Sea be considered an evolutionarily
significant unit (ESU) distinct from other populations in the North Atlantic. Population size in the
Mediterranean Sea is unknown except for two small areas: there are ~96–100 whales in the Gulf of
Genova (eastern Ligurian Sea) and ~102 whales in the northern Alboran Sea (Cañadas 2011).
Cuvier’s beaked whale is found in deep water over and near the continental slope (Gannier and
Epinat 2008; Jefferson et al. 2008). Slope waters at depths between 200–2000 m appear to be preferred
habitat of Cuvier’s beaked whale in the Mediterranean Sea (DoN 2008). Deep-sea mud volcanoes in the
eastern Mediterranean Sea, including the Napoli Mud Volcano in the Olimpi Mud Diapir Field south of
Crete, are thought to show evidence of having been visited by Cuvier’s beaked whales during foraging
dives (Woodside et al. 2006).
Cañadas et al. (2012) compiled 23 sets of survey data (totaling 420,050 km of survey effort and
456 sightings over 21 years) and modeled habitat use by Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Mediterranean
Sea. Most of the waters in the proposed survey areas have been identified as being areas of medium
predicted density relative to other areas of the Mediterranean (Cañadas et al. 2012). The Hellenic Trench
is considered to be critical habitat for Cuvier’s beaked whale (Notarbartolo di Sciara and Bearzi 2010).
Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara (2006) identified the coastal waters of southern Crete as being an area
of “regular” occurrence for Cuvier’s beaked whale, where numerous sightings have been reported
(Frantzis 2009). Sightings in the Aegean Sea have been reported for the Sea of Crete south of Santorini
(1) and in the northwestern Aegean Sea (3, Frantzis 2009). Boisseau et al. (2010) encountered one group
of three beaked whales, assumed to be Cuvier’s beaked whales, in the Crete Trench during May–July
2007.
Wojtek and Norman (2013) compiled stranding records of Cuvier’s beaked whales worldwide and
found 56 stranding events totaling 88 whales in Greece during 1803–2012. In the Mediterranean,
strandings have been especially frequent along the Ligurian and Ionian coasts (Cañadas et al. 2012).
Numerous stranding records exist for the northern and southern Aegean Sea (Frantzis 2009), including
one record of a group of three whales that stranded at Melos Island in January 1999 (Podestá et al. 2006).
Several strandings have also been reported for the northern and southern coasts of Crete, and one
stranding was reported on the northern coast of Kythira (Podestá et al. 2006; Frantzis 2009). A mass
stranding of Cuvier’s beaked whales, coincident with naval exercises in the area, occurred in April 2014
in southeast Crete (Aguilar de Soto et al. 2014; Frantzis 2014).
Rough-toothed Dolphin (Steno bredanensis)

The rough-toothed dolphin is distributed worldwide in tropical, subtropical, and warm temperate
waters (Miyazaki and Perrin 1994). It is generally seen in deep, oceanic water, although it can occur in
shallow coastal waters in some locations (Jefferson et al. 2008). Previously considered an occasional
visitor to the Mediterranean Sea (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006), regular occurrences of rough-
toothed dolphins have since been documented in the eastern Mediterranean, where a resident population
is thought to exist (Frantzis 2009). Population figures for the Mediterranean Sea are unknown (IUCN
2012).
There are a number of occurrences of rough-toothed dolphins in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, but
no sightings have been reported for the Aegean Sea or the waters around Crete (Frantzis 2009). There are
two records in the Ionian Sea: a group of ~160 was sighted 170 km south of Sicily in September 1985,
and a pod of 8 was sighted 150 km west of Kefalonia Island in September 2003 (Watkins et al. 1987,
Lacey et al. 2005 in Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006). A group of nine rough-toothed dolphins
was sighted off Libya in July–September 2003 (Boisseau et al. 2010). Three groups were sighted near
Cyprus: six individuals were seen north of Cyprus in June 2007 (Boisseau et al. 2010), and three and nine
were observed south of Cyprus in August–September 2013 (Ryan et al. 2014). Seven of the 10 records of
rough-toothed dolphins in Israel are strandings (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).
Common Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

The bottlenose dolphin occurs in tropical, subtropical, and temperate waters throughout the world; more
is known about this species of dolphin than any other (Jefferson et al. 2008). However, modern field studies
on the Mediterranean population did not begin until the late 1980s; therefore, much less is known about the
bottlenose dolphins in this basin (Notarbartolo di Sciara and Bearzi 2005 in Bearzi et al. 2008). In many parts
of the world, coastal and offshore ecotypes have been distinguished based on morphological, ecological, and
physiological features (Jefferson et al. 2008). There is evidence suggestive of the existence of these ecotypes
in the Mediterranean: dolphins from coastal Spain were distinguished from dolphins from offshore islands
(i.e., Balearic Islands) based on contaminant profiles in their blubber (Borrell et al. 2007). Mediterranean
bottlenose dolphins were found to be genetically differentiated from bottlenose dolphins inhabiting the
contiguous eastern North Atlantic Ocean and the Black Sea (Natoli et al. 2005). Natoli et al. (2005) also found
that bottlenose dolphins in the eastern and western Mediterranean basins could be differentiated from one
another.
The total population size in the Mediterranean is unknown but has been estimated to be in the low
10,000s based on surveys completed in smaller areas (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006). It is thought
that bottlenose dolphin abundance is declining in the Mediterranean based on local abundance trends and
recent patterns in sightings and strandings (Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara 2006).
Bottlenose dolphins are patchily distributed in coastal waters and around offshore islands and
archipelagos throughout the Mediterranean (Bearzi et al. 2008). Frantzis (2009) reported 305 sightings and
234 strandings of bottlenose dolphins throughout Greek Seas and along Greek coasts, respectively; both
sightings and strandings were widely distributed. Sightings and strandings have been reported throughout the
Aegean Sea and along the Hellenic Trench (Frantzis 2009). Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara (2006)
identified the Cyclades as being an area of “regular” occurrence for bottlenose dolphins. Sightings have been
reported for a number of islands in the Cyclades, including the group of islands north of Íos, the coastal waters
of western, northern, and southern Crete, Kythira, and Antikythera (Frantzis 2009). Strandings have been
reported for Santorini and Íos, as well as numerous other islands in the Cyclades, and along the northern and
western coasts of Crete (Frantzis 2009). Boisseau et al. (2010) reported six and two sightings of bottlenose
dolphins during surveys of the Crete Trench during May–July 2007 and the Sea of Crete in September 2007,
respectively. Gannier (2005) also sighted bottlenose dolphins in the Sea of Crete during surveys of the
Levantine basin. During a dedicated harbor porpoise survey in the northern Aegean Sea in July 2013, the
bottlenose dolphin was the most frequently encountered species and was most commonly observed in coastal
waters; the encounter rate was 0.011 groups per 100 km (Ryan et al. 2014).
Striped Dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba)

The striped dolphin has a cosmopolitan distribution in tropical to warm temperate waters (Perrin et
al. 1994). Its primary range in the eastern Atlantic extends between ~30°S and ~50°N (Jefferson et al.
2008). Genetic studies indicate that the Mediterranean and eastern North Atlantic populations are isolated
from each other with limited gene flow across the Strait of Gibraltar (García-Martinez et al. 1999;
Valsecchi et al. 2004; Bourret et al. 2007). Population structure within the Mediterranean basin is
uncertain, but genetic variation has been found within regions and between dolphins sampled inshore vs.
offshore (Bourret et al. 2007; Gaspari et al. 2007a).
The striped dolphin is the most abundant dolphin in the Mediterranean Sea (IUCN 2012), although
its abundance appears to decrease towards the eastern basin, likely reflecting a gradient in decreasing
productivity (Notarbartolo di Sciara and Birkun 2010). There were an estimated 117,880 striped dolphins
in the western Mediterranean subpopulation in 1991 (Forcada et al. 1994), and Forcada and Hammond
(1998) provided an abundance estimate of 217,806. However, current abundance is thought to have
declined because of disease outbreak, high levels of pollutants, and bycatch in pelagic driftnets (IUCN
2012). There are no population estimates for striped dolphins in the eastern Mediterranean basin.
The striped dolphin is pelagic and seems to prefer deep water seaward of the continental shelf
(Davis et al. 1998). Reeves and Notarbartolo di Sciara (2006) classified much of the northern
Mediterranean Sea, from the Strait of Gibraltar to Turkey just east of Rhodes Island, including the Aegean
Sea and south to the Hellenic Trench, as its “regular” range. In Greece, the striped dolphin occupies
continental slope and pelagic habitats; it is also occasionally found close to the coast where the
continental slope is very steep (Frantzis 2009). Frantzis (2009) reported 523 sightings and 197 strandings
throughout Greek seas and along coastlines, respectively. Sighting and stranding records exist throughout
the Aegean Sea (Frantzis 2009). Frantzis (2009) reported numerous sightings in the Sea of Crete, south
of Santorini, as well as off the western and southern coasts of Crete, south of Kythira and in the waters
around Antikythera; strandings were reported for Santorini and other islands in the Cyclades, and for the
northern and western coasts of Crete. Boisseau et al. (2010) encountered eight groups of striped dolphins
in the Crete Trench during May–July 2007, with an encounter rate of 0.32 animals/100 n.mi. During a
survey in the Sea of Crete, Boisseau et al. (2010) sighted four groups of striped dolphins; the encounter
rate was 0.56 animals/100 n.mi. Striped dolphins were also seen in the Sea of Crete during surveys of the
Levantine Basin by Gannier (2005). Almost 50% of the sightings made by Ryan et al. (2014) during their
2013 vessel-based survey were of striped dolphins: there were 10 sightings (group sizes 2–18) made
during July–August in the northern Aegean Sea, and 6 sightings (group sizes 2–18) made during
August−September in the Levantine Sea; the encounter rate in the Aegean Sea was 0.019 groups/100 km.
The majority of sightings were made in offshore waters, but several were made in more coastal waters in
the Aegean Sea (Ryan et al. 2014). Striped dolphins have also been sighted near Cyprus and Israel
(Boisseau et al. 2010; Dede et al. 2012; Kerem et al. 2012).
Short-beaked Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis)

The short-beaked common dolphin is an oceanic species that is widely distributed in temperate to
tropical waters of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (Jefferson et al. 2008). It was widespread and abundant
throughout much of the Mediterranean Sea until the population declined relatively quickly in the late
1960s; suggested causes of the decline included incidental bycatch in fishing gear, a reduction in prey
availability, and high levels of pollutants (Bearzi et al. 2003). Today the short-beaked common dolphin is
relatively abundant in the Alboran Sea, Sicily Channel around Malta, eastern Ionian Sea, Aegean Sea, and
off western Sardinia and Israel (IUCN 2012). Cañadas and Hammond (2008) estimated an abundance of
19,428 in the Alboran Sea based on surveys from 1992 to 2004. Information on population size and
trends is lacking for other areas in the Mediterranean (IUCN 2012).
In the Atlantic Ocean, short-beaked common dolphins usually occur along the shelf break at depths
200−300 m or over prominent underwater topography such as seamounts (Evans 1994). Cañadas and
Hammond (2008) modeled habitat use in the Alboran Sea and found that groups with calves and groups
that were feeding preferred more coastal waters. In Greece, the short-beaked common dolphin is present
in the inner Ionian Sea and in the deeper waters of the eastern Gulf of Corinth; it is present and potentially
common in portions of the Aegean Sea at water depths <200 m (Frantzis 2009). Frantzis (2009) reported
a total of 140 sightings and 55 strandings in Greece, including sightings in the northern and southern
Aegean Sea; several sightings have been reported for the Cyclades, and single sightings were made off
Kythira and in the Sea of Crete, just south of Santorini (Frantzis 2009). There is a record of a single
short-beaked common dolphin stranding in Crete in September 1991 (Van Bressem et al. 1993).
Boisseau et al. (2010) encountered one group of six short-beaked common dolphins in the Crete
Trench during May–July 2007. Ryan et al. (2014) encountered 16 groups (group sizes 1–15) in the
Thracian Sea during July 2013, and two groups of two (one offshore and one in coastal waters) during
July–August 2103 in the Aegean Sea; the encounter rate in the Aegean Sea was 0.004 groups/100 km.
There were three sightings of common dolphins in the coastal waters of Turkey in the Aegean Sea in
spring 2005 (Dede and Öztürk 2007), and one sighting of two dolphins in water 2000 m deep west of
Crete in July 2008 (Dede et al. 2012).
Risso’s Dolphin (Grampus griseus)

Risso’s dolphin is distributed worldwide in temperate and tropical oceans (Baird 2009a). It has an
apparent preference for the continental shelf and slope waters (Jefferson et al. 2014), occurring in steep
sections of the shelf 400–1000 m deep (Baird 2009a); it is also known to frequent seamounts and
escarpments (Kruse et al. 1999). Risso’s dolphins in the Mediterranean are genetically distinct from those
in the eastern Atlantic (Gaspari et al. 2007b). Population abundance in the entire Mediterranean Sea is
unknown (IUCN 2012), but a population size of 3000 individuals has been proposed (Perrin et al. 1990 in
Gaspari 2004; Pelagos Sanctuary 2015) suggested a population size of 3000 individuals. Gómez de
Segura et al. (2006) provided an abundance estimate of 493 Risso’s dolphins for the central Spanish
Mediterranean, and Airoldi et al. (2005) estimated the population size in the Ligurian Sea at 267 dolphins.
Risso’s dolphin is found throughout the Mediterranean Sea, although most occurrences have been
recorded in the northwestern part of the basin (Bearzi et al. 2011; Jefferson et al. 2014). There are 38
sightings and 34 strandings in Greece; the sightings are mainly from the Aegean Sea, but the strandings
are roughly equally spread throughout the Ionian and Aegean seas and the Sea of Crete (Frantzis 2009).
Sightings have been made in the Cyclades, just south of eastern Amorgós; sightings have also been
reported for the waters off northwestern Crete near Antikythera, southwestern Crete, and a single sighting
was reported just east of Kythira (Frantzis 2009). Boisseau et al. (2010) encountered two groups of
Risso’s dolphins in the Crete Trench during May–July 2007, with an encounter rate of 0.06/100 n.mi.
There are also stranding records throughout the Cyclades, including Santorini, Melos, and Astipalea; and
along the northwest coast of Crete (Frantzis et al. 2003; Frantzis 2009). Risso’s dolphins were sighted
near the Akté Peninsula, northern Aegean Sea, in July 2013, and between Rhodes and Cyprus, and to the
southwest of Crete in August–September 2013 (Ryan et al. 2014). There was as single sighting off the
coast of Turkey in July 2008 (Dede et al. 2012), and five strandings were reported along the Turkish coast
during 1997–2011 (Öztürk et al. 2011).
False Killer Whale (Pseudorca crassidens)

The false killer whale is found worldwide in tropical and temperate waters generally between 50ºN
and 50ºS (Odell and McClune 1999). It is widely distributed, but not abundant anywhere (Carwardine
1995). False killer whales generally inhabit deep, offshore waters, but sometimes are found over the
continental shelf and occasionally move into very shallow water (Jefferson et al. 2008; Baird 2009b).
False killer whales are gregarious and form strong social bonds, as is evident from their propensity to
strand en masse (Baird 2009b).
The false killer whale is considered a visitor in the Mediterranean Sea (IUCN 2012). Frantzis
(2009) reported 33 records in the Mediterranean Sea: 16 in the western basin and 17 in the eastern basin.
The records for the eastern basin include two occurrences in Greece (a group of 7+ whales was
photographed between Chios Island and the coast of Turkey in 1992, and single individual stranded in
Argolikos Gulf, western Aegean Sea, in 1993), and a live stranding in the Turkish Aegean Sea at Izmir
Bay (Frantzis 2009). Ryan et al. (2014) sighted a group of 3–4 false killer whales southwest of Cyprus
while conducting a vessel-based survey during August–September 2013.
Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

The harbor porpoise inhabits cool temperate to subarctic waters of the Northern Hemisphere and is
most often found in shallow coastal waters (Jefferson et al. 2008). Harbor porpoises in the northern
Aegean Sea have been shown to be genetically similar to those in the Black Sea, and porpoises from both
areas are genetically distinct from those in the Atlantic Ocean (Rosel et al. 2003; Viaud-Martínez et al.
2007). The Black Sea population is estimated at several thousands to the low ten thousands; the
subpopulation resident in the northern Aegean Sea is thought to be the smallest (Reeves and Notarbartolo
di Sciara 2006).
Frantzis (2009) reported one sighting and 13 strandings of harbor porpoises along the coast of the
northern Aegean Sea. Frantzis (2009) also reported two strandings farther south in Greek waters: a
harbor porpoise stranded alive in northern Evvoia in summer 2006, and a stranding occurred in the
Saronikos Gulf in spring 2008. Ryan et al. (2014) completed the first dedicated survey for harbor
porpoises in the northern Aegean Sea in July 2013 and confirmed the presence of porpoises in both Greek
and Turkish waters of the Aegean Sea. Harbor porpoise detections were clustered in three areas: north of
Thasos, southwest of Alexandroupolis, and Saros Bay (Ryan et al. 2014). In October 2006, a stranded
porpoise was discovered on the Turkish coast of the Aegean Sea in Izmir Bay (Güçlüsoy 2008).
Mediterranean Monk Seal (Monachus monachus)

The Mediterranean monk seal is the most endangered seal species, with an estimated total
population size of 350–450 (Jefferson et al. 2008). Extirpation along most mainland coasts of the
Mediterranean has resulted in the existence of only three small, isolated populations in remote locations:
the smallest subpopulation in the archipelago of Madeira consists of 30–35 individuals (Pires et al. 2008);
a subpopulation in the area of Cabo Blanco, Western Sahara, consists of ~150 individuals (González et al.
2002); and the largest subpopulation, found mainly in caves throughout the northeastern Mediterranean in
Greece and Turkey, is estimated at ~250–350 individuals (Güçlüsoy et al. 2004; Gücü et al. 2004; MOm,
2009). The minimum population estimate for Greece is 170–220; this is considered a conservative
estimate because several important pupping areas have not been systematically monitored (MOm 2009).
More than 34 pups are likely born in Greece annually (Notarbartolo di Sciara et al. 2009). The greatest
concentrations of Mediterranean monk seals are found in Greece and are located mainly over the Aegean
and Ionian islands, and along the coastlines of the continental central and southern parts of the country
(Adamantopoulou et al. 1999). The Eastern Mediterranean and Western Saharan populations are
reproductively isolated (Schultz 2011).
The Mediterranean monk seal is non-migratory and has a very limited home range (Gücü et al.
2004; Dendrinos et al. 2007a; Adamantopoulou et al. 2011). It historically occupied open beaches, rocky
shorelines, and spacious arching caves, but now almost exclusively uses secluded coastal caves for
hauling out and breeding. Monk seals are more particular when selecting caves for breeding vs. caves for
resting (Gücü et al. 2004; Karamanlidis et al. 2004; Dendrinos et al. 2007b). In Greece, the pupping
season lasts from August to December with a peak in births during September–October (MOm 2009).
Lactation lasts an average of 119 days (Aguilar et al. 2007). Monk seals are thought to be most
vulnerable to human disturbance within the first six months after birth (Gücü et al. 2004).
Suitable shelters for resting and reproduction have been identified on the islands immediately north
of Santorini, including Folégandros, Nisída Kardiótissi, Síkinos, Náxos, Irakleia, and Amorgós (MOm
2009). According to MOm (2009), the islands in and nearest to the proposed Santorini survey area,
including Santorini, Therasia, Christianna, Anáfi, and Íos do not have suitable shelters for monk seals, nor
does Crete. Notarbartolo di Sciara et al. (2009) also did not report any breeding on the island of
Santorini; however, they considered the west coast of Santorini as an area of interest because of the
presence of monk seal habitat. For example, Giakoumi et al. (2013) reported 1–5 caves on Santorini.
According to NMFS (pers. comm.), there may be unreported breeding caves on Santorini; however, this
information is not based on published literature. Sightings of monk seals have been made throughout the
Aegean Sea, including western Santorini, Anáfi, Íos, northern and southern Crete, and near Kythira and
Antikythera (MOm 2009; Notarbartolo di Sciara et al. 2009).
Sea Turtles
The Mediterranean Sea is an important breeding area for loggerhead and green turtles (Camiñas
2004). Loggerhead nesting sites in the Mediterranean are located in 10 countries: Cyprus, Egypt, Greece,
Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Turkey, and Tunisia (Camiñas 2004). For green turtles, 99% of the
recorded nesting occurs in Cyprus and Turkey, and nesting is also known on the beaches of Lebanon,
Israel, and Egypt (Camiñas 2004). Leatherback turtles also occur throughout the Mediterranean but less
frequently, and they do not maintain any regular nesting areas in the region (Groombridge 1990; Camiñas
2004). In the Mediterranean, loggerhead and leatherback turtles are listed as Endangered under the ESA,
and the green sea turtle is listed as Threatened. On the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN
2014), the loggerhead and green turtles are listed as Endangered, and the leatherback turtle is listed as
Vulnerable.
Three other ESA-listed sea turtle species have been reported in the Mediterranean. The
Endangered hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) has been observed only rarely in the
Mediterranean and is considered extralimital (Laurent and Lescure 1991; Camiñas 2004). Another
Endangered sea turtle under the ESA, Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), is also a rare visitor to
the western Mediterranean (Groombridge 1990; Tomás and Raga 2008). There is a single record of the
Threatened olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) that stranded in Spain (Revuelta et al. 2015). On
the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2014), the Hawksbill and Kemp’s ridley turtles are
listed as Critically Endangered, and the olive ridley turtle is listed as Vulnerable. As it is unlikely that the
these three turtle species would be encountered during the proposed survey, they are not discussed
further.
General information on the taxonomy, ecology, distribution and movements, and acoustic
capabilities of sea turtles is given in § 3.4.1 of the PEIS. The general distribution of sea turtles at various
locations in the North Atlantic is discussed in § 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of the PEIS. The rest of this section
focuses on their distribution in the Mediterranean Sea, and more specifically, the Aegean Sea.
(1) Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta)

The loggerhead turtle is the most abundant species nesting in Mediterranean waters (Broderick et
al. 2002; Camiñas 2004); it occurs throughout the western and eastern basins (Camiñas 2004). The main
nesting sites are in Greece (Ionian Sea), Turkey, and Cyprus, although minor sites exist throughout the
eastern basin (Broderick et al. 2002; Camiñas 2004; IUCN 2012). In the Aegean Sea, major nesting sites
have been reported for Rethymno and the Bay of Chania, Crete (Margaritoulis et al. 2003), although the
population on Rethymno may be declining (Margaritoulis et al. 2009). Smaller nesting sites occur at Kos
and Rhodes islands in the Dodecanese archipelago, Greece, and on southeastern Peloponnesus and
Kythira, Greece (Margaritoulis et al. 2003). There is also a moderate nesting area at Bay of Messara, on
the southern coast of Crete, and additional major nesting sites occur at Kyparissia and Lakonikos bays,
southern Peloponnesus, Greece (Margaritoulis et al. 2003). Approximately 2280–2787 loggerhead turtles
nest in the Mediterranean annually (Broderick et al. 2002), with 3375–7085 nests per season
(Margaritoulis et al. 2003). Greece is the most important breeding area for loggerhead turtles in the
Mediterranean, with 1380–1686 nesting females, followed by Turkey (621–759), Cyprus (260–318),
Israel (15–18), and Tunisia (5–6) (Broderick et al. 2002). Sporadic nesting is also known to occur in
Italy, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Libya (Margaritoulis et al. 2003). Females migrate from foraging areas
to nesting beaches, typically breeding every two years during late May to mid August, laying 1.8–2.2
clutches of eggs per breeding season (Broderick et al. 2002).
At the beginning of the nesting season in the Mediterranean Sea, females select transient warm
patches of water, typically within 200 m of shore and in water <4 m deep (Schofield et al. 2007, 2009).
After the breeding season, turtles disperse and overwinter in coastal areas where water temperatures fall
below 15°C; dives during the winter were made to median depths of 4–24 m and lasted >3 h (Hochscheid
et al. 2007). Broderick et al. (2007) reported long resting dives of up to 10.2 h at overwintering sites in
the eastern Mediterranean. Even though water temperatures were low, turtles tracked with satellite relay
data loggers were not obligatory hibernators, moving and foraging throughout the winter (Hochscheid et
al. 2007).
In the Atlantic, hatchling loggerhead turtles spend ~6.5 to 11.5 y in the oceanic developmental
phase before moving to neritic (nearshore) foraging areas (Bjorndal et al. 2000). Casale and Mariani
(2014) simulated hatching dispersal from nesting sites in the Mediterranean; they found that hatchlings
from the Levantine Basin and southcentral Mediterranean generally remained in those same areas,
whereas those from the Ionian Sea dispersed throughout the Ionian and Adriatic seas and the southcentral
Mediterranean. Casale et al. (2005) suggested that the Ionian/South Adriatic Sea is an important
developmental habitat for loggerheads. Hatchlings from Turkish nesting sites showed the greatest
dispersal into the Aegean Sea, with some dispersal into the sea from nesting sites in Cyprus, Crete, and
the Ionian Sea (Casale and Mariani 2014). Clusa et al. (2014) reported that young loggerheads do not
distribute homogeneously between various foraging grounds, but that their use of specific foraging areas
could be related to the surface circulation patterns within the Mediterranean.
Casale et al. (2007) reported that some portion of juvenile loggerheads in the Mediterranean
showed area fidelity during the oceanic phase, and that all juvenile turtles showed site fidelity during the
neritic phase. Fidelity to foraging areas was also demonstrated by post-nesting females (Godley et al.
2003; Broderick et al. 2007), as was fidelity to over-wintering sites and migratory paths (Broderick et al.
2007). Both juvenile and adult foraging stages occur in neritic areas, where foraging for marine
invertebrates primarily occurs on the seafloor, although prey can also be taken throughout the water
column (Bolten 2003). Long-term (>1 y) residency in a neritic foraging habitat has been shown in
western Greece, in Amvrakikos Gulf (Rees et al. 2013). Margaritoulis and Panagopoulou (2010) also
reported that Amvrakikos Gulf, Argolikos Bay, and Saronikos Bay in the southwestern Aegean Sea are
likely foraging areas for loggerheads, as concentrations of turtles occur there; aggregations are also found
around Crete, near Kos and Rhodes islands in the southeastern Aegean Sea, and in the northern Aegean
Sea.
There is restricted gene flow among nesting populations in the Mediterranean, and animals are
somewhat genetically isolated from larger Atlantic populations (Bowen et al. 1993; Encalada et al. 1998;
Carreras et al. 2006, 2007, 2011; Monzón-Argüello et al. 2009; Chaieb et al. 2012; Saied et al. 2012).
However, some turtles are known to migrate into the western Mediterranean from the Atlantic Ocean (see
Margaritoulis et al. 2003; Camiñas 2004; Carreras et al. 2006, 2011).
Loggerhead turtles undergo seasonal migrations in the Mediterranean, some of considerable
distance (e.g., Margaritoulis et al. 2003; Bentivegna et al. 2007; Casale et al. 2012a, 2013). Adult females
tagged at Zakynthos and Kyparissia Bay, Greece, dispersed widely throughout the eastern basin post-
nesting, including to the eastern and northern Aegean Sea, as well as western Crete (Margaritoulis et al.
2003). Movement of adult females that were tagged at the largest Mediterranean rookery at Zakynthos,
Greece, showed that the Adriatic Sea and Gulf of Gabès, Tunisia, are important foraging regions for
turtles after nesting (Zbinden et al. 2008, 2011); inferences from stable isotope analysis of untracked
individuals were also used to assign turtles to those same two foraging areas (Zbinden et al. 2011).
Casale et al. (2012b) also reported that tracked juveniles used the Tunisian shelf and offshore waters as a
foraging ground for prolonged periods of time. Similarly, work by Garofalo et al. (2013) indicated that
the Tunisian shelf and offshore waters, including Lampedusa (Italy), are important foraging areas for
turtles that originate in Libya, Crete, Cyprus, and Lebanon. Juvenile and adult turtles tagged in the
northern Ionian Sea showed migration patterns to the Adriatic Sea, Gulf of Gabès, as well as the Aegean
Sea (Margaritoulis et al. 2003; Casale et al. 2007). One adult female turtle that was tagged and released
in the northern Adriatic Sea during November 2004 migrated south and around the southern coast of
Peloponnesus and into the Cyclades and the Saronic Gulf, then moved south during the spring, passing
the Santorini survey area near Santorini, to Crete and eastward around the entire coast of Crete, before
moving north again past Peloponnesus, arriving in the Adriatic Sea in August 2005 (Luschi et al. 2013).
Another adult female that was tagged in the summer of 2005 at west Peloponnesus moved south along the
coast of Peloponnesus, then northward into the Aegean Sea where it remained at Thasos Island from
August to October; the turtle then moved along the Turkish coast, remaining in the eastern Aegean Sea
until transmission was lost in December (Rees and Margaritoulis 2009).
Adult females tagged at Rethymno, Crete, were shown to use the Aegean Sea as their main
foraging area, as most tagged turtles were recovered there; other turtles were recovered from the Gulf of
Gabès, the Adriatic Sea, and Israel (Margaritoulis and Rees 2011). One tagged turtle that was tracked
starting in July 2005 from Crete moved northward to the island of Mykonos in the central Aegean Sea,
and during winter headed south and had extended rest periods at Paros and Santorini islands, before
moving north again to Mykonos Island for the summer (Margaritoulis and Rees 2011). The turtle
remained at Santorini Island from mid February to the end of March 2006 (Margaritoulis and Rees 2011).
Groombridge (1990) reported five recoveries of loggerheads in the Aegean Sea that were tagged in
Greece, including one record to the northwest of Santorini Island.
Loggerheads could also migrate from Turkish nesting sites, through the southern Aegean Sea, en
route to foraging areas in the Ionian Sea (Garofalo et al. 2013). A juvenile loggerhead that was tagged in
Amvrakikos Bay, western Greece, in May 2003, traveled to Crete, and then moved eastward to Syria,
then westward to western Turkey (Rees and Margaritoulis 2009). A second tagged turtle was released at
Cape Sounio in the western Aegean Sea in June 2004; it moved southward toward Crete, then on to Libya
(Rees and Margaritoulis 2009). Bentivegna et al. (2007) reported that satellite-tagged loggerheads
migrated from Italy to the eastern Mediterranean Sea. One individual traveled to the west coast of Crete
during fall and onwards to Libya during winter, and then to the southeastern Aegean Sea during spring
(Bentivegna et al. 2007). Another tracked individual migrated from Italy to Libya over the fall/winter,
and then traveled westward through the Sea of Crete during spring before arriving in the Ionian Sea
during summer (Bentivegna et al. 2007). Loggerhead turtles outfitted with satellite relay data loggers
were shown to overwinter in the Adriatic Sea and Gulf of Gabès, and the Ionian and Tyrrhenian seas
(Hochscheid et al. 2007). They have also been documented to overwinter in coastal areas of Greece,
Libya, Egypt, and Syria (Bentivegna et al. 2007; Broderick et al. 2007; Casale et al. 2013).
Corsini-Foka et al. (2013) reported that strandings of loggerhead turtles increased at Rhodes Island,
Greece, in the southeastern Aegean Sea during 1984–2011. A total of 102 dead and 37 live strandings
were reported, most during summer (57) with equal numbers of strandings during fall, winter, and spring
(Corsini-Foka et al. 2013). Small loggerhead turtles also frequently strand in other regions adjacent to the
Aegean Sea, including northern Crete, Saronikos Bay in the west, and along the coast in the northern
Aegean Sea; larger loggerheads are often found stranded near major nesting sites, such as northern Crete
(Koutsodendris et al. 2006). Panagopoulos et al. (2003) reported 957 loggerhead turtle strandings for
Greece during 1992–2000, with most during summer; 26 occurred in the Cyclades island group where
Santorini is located, 33 in the Dodecanese islands in the southeastern Aegean Sea, and 96 on Crete.
Koutsodendris et al. (2006) reported 1610 loggerhead turtle strandings for Greece during 1990–2005.
There are >300 records of loggerhead turtles in the OBIS database for the eastern Mediterranean,
including for the Aegean Sea and for the waters west and south of Crete. There are 26 records (six for the
month of October) for the Aegean Sea, including the Cyclades and the Sea of Crete (OBIS 2015).
Loggerhead turtles are likely to occur in and near the proposed survey areas.
(2) Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas)

A genetically distinct sub-population of the green turtle occurs in the Mediterranean Sea (Encalada
et al. 1996), and there is also genetic variation among the different nesting beaches in the Mediterranean
(Bagda et al. 2012). Green turtles are restricted to the eastern basin of the Mediterranean, where they nest
primarily in Turkey and Cyprus (Kasparek et al. 2001; Camiñas 2004). A total of ~339–360 females nest
annually on Mediterranean beaches, mostly in Turkey (Canbolat 2004) followed by Cyprus (Broderick et
al. 2002). Nesting in smaller numbers also occurs in Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, and Syria (Kasparek et al.
2001; Brodkerick et al. 2002; Camiñas 2004; Rees et al. 2008; IUCN 2012). Although green turtles do
not typically nest in Greece, a nesting female was found in Rethymno, northern Crete, in 2007
(Margaritoulis and Panagopoulou 2010), and signs of nesting were also found on Rhodes Island in 2002
(Gambi 2003 in Corsini-Foka et al. 2013). The nesting interval is 3 y, and the clutch frequency per
female is 2.9–3.1 (Broderick et al. 2002); 350–1750 clutches are laid annually (Kasparek et al. 2001).
Nesting in the Mediterranean occurs from late May to early September, with a peak between mid June
and early August (Broderick et al. 2002).
Green turtles are thought to remain in the eastern Mediterranean year-round and are generally
restricted to neritic environments of the eastern Levantine basin, including waters near Cyprus, Mersin
Bay and the Gulf of Iskenderun in Turkey, and along Egypt’s north coast (Broderick et al. 2002). Casale
and Mariani (2014) simulated hatching dispersal from nesting sites in the Mediterranean; they found that
hatchlings from nesting sites in Turkey, Syria, and Cyprus dispersed throughout the central and eastern
Mediterranean Sea, including the Aegean Sea as well as western and southern Crete.
Young green turtles start their lives as oceanic omnivores and then switch to an herbivorous diet
during the recruitment as adults into neritic habitat (Cardona et al. 2010). They forage on jellyfish and
invertebrates as hatchlings, jellyfish and tunicates as juveniles, and seagrass as adults (Camiñas 2004).
Foraging areas are found along the coast of Turkey (Broderick et al. 2007; Türkekan and Yerli 2011) and
the coastal waters of Egypt (Godley et al. 2002). Strandings on Rhode Island indicate that the waters
around the island have suitable foraging areas for juveniles (Koutsodendris et al. 2006; Corsini-Foka et al.
2013). Lakonikos Bay on Peloponnesus, southern Greece, is also thought to have suitable feeding habitat
for juveniles (Margaritoulis and Teneketzis 2003; Koutsodendris et al. 2006). Overwintering mainly
occurs in northern Africa, including coastal waters of Libya and Egypt, but has also been documented for
southern Turkey (Godley et al. 2002; Broderick et al. 2007; Türkekan and Yerli 2011). Fidelity of post-
nesting females to foraging areas, over-wintering sites, and migratory paths has been demonstrated
(Godley et al. 2002; Broderick et al. 2007).
Corsini-Foka et al. (2013) reported that strandings of green turtles increased at Rhodes Island,
Greece, in the southeastern Aegean Sea during 1984–2011, especially those of juveniles. A total of
15 dead and 27 live strandings were reported, most during winter (16), followed by summer (11), autumn
(10), and spring (5). Panagopoulos et al. (2003) reported 74 green turtle strandings for Greece during
1992–2000, mostly during summer; there were no stranding reports for the Cyclades, 8 for the
Dodecanese islands in the southeastern Aegean Sea, and 6 for Crete. Koutsodendris et al. (2006) reported
109 green turtle strandings for Greece during 1990–2005, including records for Saronikos Bay, Rhodes
Island, northern Crete, Lakonikos and Argolikos bays on Peloponnesus, and the Ionian cost. There are no
green turtle sightings for the Aegean Sea or near Crete in the OBIS database (OBIS 2015).
Green turtles are likely to occur in and near the proposed survey areas.
(3) Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)

In the Mediterranean, the leatherback turtle is considered a visitor from the Atlantic Ocean (Casale
et al. 2003; Camiñas 2004). It can be found throughout the Mediterranean Sea year-round, although most
records have been reported during summer (Casale et al. 2003). Most observations are of large juveniles
and single adults within the central and western basins (Casale et al. 2003; Camiñas 2004). Only a small
number of leatherbacks are thought to nest in the Mediterranean, occasionally in Israel and on the south
coast of Sicily (Groombridge 1990).
Casale et al. (2003) reported 411 leatherback records for the Mediterranean, including several for
the Aegean Sea and the Cyclades. Margaritoulis (1986) reported 11 leatherbacks for the Aegean Sea
during 1982–1984. Casale et al. (2003) suggested that the Aegean Sea could be an area where they
aggregate to feed. Margaritoulis and Panagopoulou (2010) reported that low numbers occur in Greece;
five were reported for all of Greece during 1992–2000 (Panagopoulos et al. 2003). There are no sightings
of leatherback turtles for the Mediterranean in the OBIS database (OBIS 2015).
Given the paucity of sightings in Greece, leatherback turtles likely would not be encountered
during the proposed survey.
Seabirds
Two ESA-listed seabird/shorebird species have ranges that overlap the survey areas: the
Endangered Audouin’s gull and slender-billed curlew. On the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
(IUCN 2014), Audouin’s gull is listed as Near Threatened, and the slender-billed curlew is listed as
Critically Endangered. General information on the taxonomy, ecology, distribution and movements, and
acoustic capabilities of seabird families are given in § 3.5.1 of the PEIS.
(1) Audouin’s Gull (Larus audouinii)

Audouin’s gull, a Mediterranean-breeding endemic, has an estimated population of ~65,000 birds
comprising ~21,000 breeding pairs (BirdLife International 2015a). In Greece, the breeding population is
estimated at 350–500 breeding pairs (2010 estimate), which is a 28% decrease from an estimated 700–900
pairs in the late 1990s (Fric et al. 2012). It breeds on coastal islets, offshore islands, and peninsulas in the
Mediterranean from Portugal and Morocco to the Aegean Sea, Turkey, and Cyprus (del Hoyo et al. 1996).
In Greece, breeding colonies tend to be small and sparsely distributed, and occur on Anáfi Island and
islets off Crete, in addition to ~70 other locations (Fric et al. 2012). These gulls typically return to
colonies from late February to mid April, with fledging peaking in early–mid July (BirdLife International
2015a). Following breeding, they disperse around the Mediterranean coast, with most young and some
adults migrating past Gibraltar to winter on the northwestern coast of Africa (del Hoyo et al. 1996).
Another wintering population occurs along the Aegean coast of Turkey (BirdLife International 2015a).
The wintering distribution of Audouin’s gulls breeding in Greece is largely unknown, but it is suspected
that they winter predominantly in northern and western Africa (Fric et al. 2012).
Audouin’s gull nesting habitat is typically on offshore islands or islets covered in large stones, the
sea holly Eryngium, grass, and low bushes, although in the Ebro delta of Spain it breeds on saltmarsh and
a sandy peninsula (BirdLife International 2015a). Feeding areas are typically coastal or pelagic, but
sometimes include rice fields, marshes, and tourist beaches. Primarily, this species forages on epipelagic
fish within ~30 km from shore, although it may range much farther on occasion (BirdLife International
2015a). During the non-breeding season, it prefers sheltered bays and beaches, especially where stream
mouths or other freshwater is present, and marinas. It typically does not range inland or far offshore.
Because of its piscivorous diet and coastal distribution, it is possible that Audouin’s Gull could be
encountered during the proposed survey; as the survey takes place outside of the breeding season, the
birds are expected to be dispersed around the Mediterranean coast.
(2) Slender-billed Curlew (Numenius tenuirostris)

The slender-billed curlew could be extinct; no current breeding, wintering, or migratory
populations are known. The last confirmed sighting was in Hungary in 2001, and if this species persists,
its numbers are extremely low (BirdLife International 2015b). Formerly it bred in Siberia, from where it
would migrate west-southwest through central and eastern Europe, including Greece. Wintering
populations were found discontinuously from north Africa, e.g., Morocco, to the Middle East, e.g., Iraq,
Iran, and Saudi Arabia (del Hoyo et al. 1996). It is thought to have had peak spring and fall migrations in
March and September, respectively (BirdLife International 2015b). On wintering and staging sites, the
slender-billed curlew used a variety of habitats including saltmarsh, grasslands, lagoons, tidal mudflats,
fishponds, and other areas near water (del Hoyo et al. 1996). Large coastal wetlands were probably the
preferred sites, with most records occurring in close proximity to the sea.
Given the current population status of the slender-billed curlew, in addition to the locations and
habitats of its formerly known wintering and migratory stop-over sites, it is extremely unlikely that any
individuals would be encountered during the proposed survey.
Fish, Essential Fish Habitat, and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern

There are three marine fish species listed under the ESA as Endangered that could occur in or near
the survey areas: the eastern Atlantic distinct population segement (DPS) of scalloped hammerhead shark,
Adriatic sturgeon, and European sturgeon. In addition, there are six marine fish species that are
candidates for ESA listing based on a petition by WildEarth Guardians (2013): the sawback angelshark,
smoothback angelshark, angelshark, guitarfish, blackchin guitarfish, and undulate ray (NMFS 2015a). On
the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2014), the aforementioned angelsharks and sturgeons
are listed as Critically Endangered, the guitarfishes and undulate ray are listed as Endangered, and the
Eastern Central Atlantic subpopulation of scalloped hammerhead shark is listed as Vulnerable. The ESA-
listed and candidate species are described below. There are no ESA-listed or candidate marine
invertebrate species that could occur in the survey areas (NMFS 2015a).
There is no Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and there are no habitats of particular concern (HAPC) in
the EEZ of Greece.
(1) Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna lewini)

The scalloped hammerhead shark inhabits warm temperate and tropical waters (Maguire et al.
2006; Miller et al. 2014; NMFS 2015b). It occurs in coastal pelagic and estuarine water, but it is also
known to inhabit open water over continental and insular shelves, as well as deeper waters, with depths
up to 1000 m (Miller et al. 2014; NMFS 2015b). Females move inshore to give birth to litters of 1‒41
pups (Miller et al. 2014). The scalloped hammerhead shark is very mobile and partly migratory (Maguire
2006), travelling <100 km to >1900 km between aggregations of food sources, but eventually returning to
its original habitat, displaying site fidelity (Miller et al. 2014). Juveniles and adults may be solitary or
travel in pairs; they also school in productive regions, such as over seamounts or near islands (Miller et al.
2014).
(2) Adriatic Sturgeon (Acipenser naccarii)

The Adriatic sturgeon is currently thought to be restricted to the Adriatic Sea (Kottelat and Freyhof
2007), but historically, it may also have occurred in the Iberian Peninsula (Meadows and Coll 2013;
NMFS 2015c). It is a benthic estuarine and anadromous species that does not enter marine water outside
of estuaries (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007). From February to March, it ascends rivers for spawning in areas
with low currents along river banks (Billard and Lecointre 2001). The young undergo a marine growth
period in estuaries with sand or mud bottoms where water depths are 10‒40 m (NMFS 2015c). Adriatic
sturgeons have drastically decreased in number over the last 50 years, and the population in the eastern
Adriatic Sea has probably been extirpated (NMFS 2015c). A stocking program reintroduced Adriatic
sturgeon to Italy, but the last natural spawning event was reported there during the 1980s (NMFS 2015c).
(3) European Sturgeon (Acipenser sturio)

The European (also known as Atlantic) sturgeon is currently thought to be restricted to a small
population that breeds in the Gironde system in southwestern France; however, the last reproduction by
wild individuals was reported there in 1994 (Meadows and Coll 2013). It is a benthic anadromous
species that inhabits water depths <200 m (Meadows and Coll 2013). It can tolerate a wide range of
salinities, spending most of its life in coastal marine water and moving into freshwater to spawn
(Meadows and Coll 2013). Spawning occurs from March to August (Billard and Lecointre 2001).
Females lay 800,000‒2,400,000 sticky eggs at depths 2‒10 m in rivers or estuaries with gravel bottoms to
which the eggs adhere (Meadows and Coll 2013). Eggs hatch after 3‒14 days; when young-of-the-year
are ~6 months, they slowly make their way down the river and spend the next year or two in the estuary
(Rosenthal et al. n.d.). During 2‒6 y of age, juveniles alternate between spending time in the estuary and
at sea; at 7‒8 y, they occur in marine waters of the continental shelf (Rosenthal et al. n.d.).
(4) Sawback Angelshark (Squatina aculeata)

The sawback angelshark inhabits coastal waters and outer continental shelves in the Mediterranean
Sea and eastern Atlantic Ocean (Compagno 1984). It is more common in the eastern Atlantic compared
with the Mediterranean; migration through the Strait of Gibraltar is unlikely (Capapé et al. 2005). It used
to occur along all coasts of the Mediterranean, but it has been disappearing from certain regions (Bradai et
al. 2012). Nonetheless, it is known to occur in the western basin (Compagno 1984), the central
Mediterranean (e.g., Capapé et al. 2005; Ragonese et al. 2013), and there are also records for the eastern
Mediterranean Sea, including the Aegean Sea (e.g., Başusta 2002; Filiz et al. 2005). The sawback
angelshark is a benthic marine species that occurs in water depths 30‒500 m (Compagno 1984). It likely
has a biannual reproductive cycle, with parturition likely occurring from May to July; litter sizes range
from 8 to 12 (Capapé et al. 2005).
(5) Smoothback Angelshark (Squatina oculata)

The smoothback angelshark, also known as monkfish, occurs in warm-temperate and tropical
regions of the eastern Atlantic, from Morocco to Angola, as well as the Mediterranean (Compagno 1984).
Recent captures have been reported for the central Mediterranean (e.g., Ragonese et al. 2013). It is a
benthic marine species, inhabiting continental shelves and slopes in water depths >20‒500 m, but usually
50‒100 m (Compagno 1984). It likely has a biannual reproductive cycle, giving birth to 5‒8 pups
between February and April (Capapé et al. 1990).
(6) Angelshark (Squatina squatina)

Historically, the distributional range of the angelshark included the northeast and eastern central
Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea, and Black Sea (OSPAR 2010). However, populations throughout its range
have been severely depleted or even extirpated, including populations in the northern Mediterranean,
West Africa, and the Black Sea (OSPAR 2010). Production in the Mediterranean and Black seas is
considered to be low, based on landings (Bradai et al. 2012). Nonetheless, recent captures have been
reported for the central Mediterranean (e.g., Ragonese et al. 2013). In its northern range, the angelshark
shows seasonal migrations, moving northward during the summer months (Compagno 1984). It is a
benthic marine species that inhabits continental shelves in temperate waters, occurring inshore to water
depths of at least 150 m (Compagno 1984); occasionally, it enters estuaries and brackish waters (OSPAR
2010). Young are born during the winter, with litter sizes ranging from 7‒18 young, depending on the
size of the female (Capapé et al. 1990).
(7) Common Guitarfish (Rhinobatos rhinobatos)

The common guitarfish, also known as violinfish, is a demersal marine species, occurring in the
eastern Atlantic, from the southern Bay of Biscay southwards to Angola, including the Mediterranean
(Froese and Pauly 2015a). In the Mediterranean Sea, it appears to be more common in the southern
regions (Bertrand et al. 2000, Baino et al. 2001 in Bradai et al. 2012). It occurs on sandy and muddy
substrates in the intertidal zone to depths of ~100 m (Froese and Pauly 2015a). The common guitarfish
reproduces annually (Bradai et al. 2012). Young are born during summer (Ismen et al. 2007), with
females producing 4‒12 pups per litter (Bradai et al. 2012).
(8) Blackchin Guitarfish (Rhinobatos cemiculus)

The blackchin guitarfish is a demersal marine species that inhabits the eastern Atlantic, from the
northern coast of Portugal down to Angola, including the Mediterranean Sea (Froese and Pauly 2015b). It
occurs over sandy or muddy substrates in water depths of 9‒100 m (Froese and Pauly 2015b). In the
Mediterranean, it is apparently more prevalent in the southern regions (Bertrand et al. 2000, Baino et al.
2001 in Bradai et al. 2012). It has an annual reproductive cycle, with parturition occurring during the
summer (Capapé and Zaouali 1994). Females likely produce one litter per year and 5‒12 pups per litter
(Capapé and Zaouali 1994).
(9) Undulate Ray (Raja undulata)

The undulate ray has a patchy distribution in the eastern Atlantic, including the western
Mediterranean Sea (Froese and Pauly 2015c). It is a benthic marine species, inhabiting sandy and muddy
substrates in shelf water with depths of 50‒200 m (Froese and Pauly 2015c). Juveniles appear to use
coastal lagoons and estuaries (Moura et al. 2007). Undulate rays have an annual reproductive cycle that
varies depending on location (Moura et al. 2007). Eggs are deposited in sandy or muddy flats
(McEachran and Dunn 1998), and litter sizes range from 4 to 12 (Bradai et al. 2012).
Fisheries
The 2002‒2006 commercial fisheries information described below is from all water depths in the
EEZ of Greece (SAUP 2011). Other sources used here are the Hellenic Communication Service (HCS
2000), the United Nations Environment Programme‒Mediterranean Action Pan‒Regional Activity Centre
for Specially Protected Areas (UNEP MAP RAC/SPA 2003), the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the UN (Cacaud 2005; FAO 2006), the Centre for Environment, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Science
(Pawson et al. 2007), the National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG 2009), the European Environment
Agency (EEA 2010), Fishing Fever Gr (2014), GRReporter (2010), the General Fisheries Commission for
the Mediterranean (GFCM 2014a,b), the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES
2014), Angloinfo (2015), and Zorbas Island (2015).
(1) Commercial Fisheries

Greece has a multi-gear and multi-species fishery that included almost 18,500 professional fishing
vessels, most (94%) <12 m long, in 2005 (FAO 2006). In 2014, 589 Greek vessels with overall lengths
>15 m were authorized to fish in the GFCM area (the Mediterranean and Black seas); vessels ≥15 m that
were not entered into the GFCM Authorized Vessel List (AVL) record were deemed unauthorized to fish
for, retain on board, transship, or land species covered by the GFCM (GFCM 2014a). Fisheries in Europe
are managed by an annual quota (total allowable catch, TAC) system; however, the majority of fish stocks
in the Aegean Sea are currently overfished (EEA 2010).
The predominant species caught in the Aegean Sea include European anchovy Engraulis
encrasicolus, sardine Sardina pilchardus, European hake Merluccius merluccius, flounder, sea bream,
wrasse, scorpion fish, common pandora Pagellus erythrinus, anglerfish, Mediterranean horse mackerel
Trachurus mediterraneus, skate, lobster, pink and brown shrimp Farfantepenaeus duorarum and either
Farfantepenaeus sp. or Crangon crangon, red mullet Mullus barbatus, common octopus Octopus vulgaris
and squid (FAO 2006; EOL 2015). During spring and early summer, coastal fisheries mainly capture
brown shrimp (FAO 2006). During winter, the coastal fleet primarily harvests cuttlefish and octopus,
purse seiners mainly harvest anchovy and sardine, and trawlers mainly harvest red mullet, hake, octopus,
prawn, shrimp, and crayfish; no information for fall was available (FAO 2006). The primary
cartilaginous fishes taken in the Mediterranean include dogfish Squalus acanthias, thresher sharks
Alopias spp., mako sharks Isurus spp., porbeagle shark Lamna nasus, and blue shark Prionace glauca
(UNEP MAP RAC/SPA 2003). Other commercially important cartilaginous fishes in the Mediterranean
include angelsharks Squatina spp., catsharks Scyliorhinus spp. and Galeus melastomus, hound sharks
Mustelus spp. and Galeorhinus galeus, requiem sharks Carcharhinus falciformis, C. limbatus, C. obs-
curus, and C. plumbeus, skates Leucoraja spp. and Raja spp., and stingrays Dasyatis spp. (UNEP MAP
RAC/SPA 2003).
The main fishing gear types in Greece include bottom trawls and purse seines for offshore
fisheries, and gillnets, trammel nets, longlines, traps/pots, and trolls (FAO 2006; SAUP 2011; GFCM
2014a). Other gear types used in the region include boat dredges, ring nets, seine nets, and hooks/gorges
(NSSG 2009; SAUP 2011; GFCM 2014a).
The total aggregated catch in the Greek EEZ (including waters outside of the Aegean Sea) was
858,040 t during 2002–2006 (the most recent data available), with catch values 134,191‒281,629 t per
year (SAUP 2011). Catches were dominated by “mixed group” (53% of total), European anchovy (14%),
European pilchard (sardine; 10%), bogue Boops boops (4%), European hake (4%), picarel Spicara smaris
(4%), common octopus (3%), Mediterranean horse mackerel and Atlantic chub mackerel Scomber colias
(2% each), swordfish (2%), and mullets (1%). The most predominant gear types in the Greek EEZ during
2002‒2006 were gillnets (21% of total), bottom trawls (19%), purse seines (16%) and mid-water trawls
(14%), with lesser components (≤6% each) of “other gears”, lampara-like nets, seine nets, hooks/gorges,
traps, shrimp trawls, beach seines, and tuna longlines (SAUP 2011). The majority of the catch was taken
by Greece (71% of total for 2002–2006), followed by Italy (16%), Egypt and Libya (4% each), Ukraine
(2%), and Spain, the Russian Federation, and France (1% each). The Greek proportion of the catch
declined from ~84% in 2002, 2003, and 2004 to ~77% in 2005 and ~47% in 2006 (SAUP 2011). The
Greek catch continued to decline from 2007 to 2011 (OECD 2013:200).
(2) Recreational Fisheries

Recreational fisheries in Greece are conducted for leisure and to supplement the diet, and include
boat-based fishing, shore-based angling, spear fishing, and shellfish collection (Moutopoulos et al. 2013).
Recreational fisheries in the Mediterranean are regulated by individual Member States, congruent with the
objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy and existing European Union (EU) legislation (Cacaud 2005).
Generally, restrictions in place for commercial fisheries also apply to recreational fisheries, with
additional restrictions such as gear types and daily limits (Cacaud 2005). In Greek waters, recreational
fishers are prohibited from fishing with light sources; fishing from a vessel in lagoons/breeding ponds;
harvesting clams, crabs, oysters or corals; selling their catch; and fishing with nets, more than one rod,
explosives, or compressed gas (Pawson et al. 2007; GRReporter 2010; Angloinfo 2015). Additional
prohibitions are in place for spearfishing, including its prohibition during the month of May, immediately
after sunset, and within 200 m of other vessels (GRReporter 2010). In Greece, it is strictly prohibited to
fish recreationally for tuna, eel, and various species of shark (ICES 2014). All recreational fishers in
Greece must register and obtain a fishing licence from local port authorities if using a boat; fishing from
shore does not require a licence, unless using a spear (HCS 2000; GRReporter 2010).
The European Commission has advocated establishing obligations for recreational fishers in the
Mediterranean to report their catch and effort information (COM 2002 in Gaudin and Young 2007);
however, these practices have not been undertaken consistently throughout the Mediterranean (Gaudin
and Young 2007), and there are no standard recreational fisheries surveys performed in Greece (ICES
2014). A 1996 census in Greece by the Ministry of Merchant Navy Marine estimated that there were
~96,000 marine recreational fishers and ~71,000 vessels that hold a fishing licence (Pawson et al. 2007).
This census further indicated that the majority of vessels used were 4‒6 m in length, and that recreational
fishers were active for 77 d/y on average, primarily in spring and summer, with activity concentrated
around the Aegean Islands. Additional surveys of shore-based recreational fisheries conducted in
2008‒2009 and 2012 indicated mean recreational fishing days per year of 180, 191 and 193 in Kavala,
Pagasitikos, and Patraikos Gulf, respectively (north of the survey area in the Aegean Sea), for a total catch
of 2553 t in 2010 (Moutopoulos et al. 2013). The total annual recreational fishery production in the
Greek region is ~19,000 t (Pawson et al. 2007).
Popular species targeted during recreational fisheries include jacks, red pandora Pagellus bellottii,
bogue, striped sea bream Lithognathus mormyrus, large-eyed dentex Dentex macrophthalmus, horse
mackerel, and Couches sea bream Pagrus pagrus (Pawson et al. 2007). European seabass Dicentrarchus
labrax, annular sea bream Diplodus annularis, white sea bream Diplodus sargus sargus, and gilthead sea
bream Sparus aurata dominate shore-based catches (Moutopoulos et al. 2013). Other important species
include rainbow wrasse Coris julis and groupers (Pawson et al. 2007; EOL 2015).
Fishing tournaments near the proposed survey areas generally occur in spring and summer
(e.g., Palazzo Greco 2012; Fishing Fever Gr 2014; Zorbas Island 2015). Information could not be located
on tournaments in the region during fall as of the writing of this report. As the majority of tourists would
have departed the area by mid fall, it seems unlikely that many, if any, fishing tournaments would occur
in the survey areas during the proposed survey.
(3) Aquaculture
Aquaculture, particularly marine aquaculture, is an important contributor to primary sector
production in Greece, employing thousands and driving the colonization of previously uninhabited islands
and rock islands normally excluded from other investments (FAO 2013; OECD 2013). In 2012, Greek
aquaculture production totaled 137,594 t and was valued at ~779 million USD, with marine aquaculture
comprising >97% of both totals (FAO 2014). Greece holds the highest rank in the EU and Mediterranean
countries in terms of commercial aquaculture finfish production, which is the primary aquaculture
production type in the country (FAO 2013). Production sites are located throughout the Greek coast, with
a total of 1054 marine and inland aquaculture farms in 2010 (OECD 2013), although farms are most
prevalent in central regions near good infrastructure and export routes (FAO 2013). Production methods
include sea cages (reaching perimeters up to 120 m; e.g., seabass and sea bream), raceways (e.g., trout),
re-circulation tank systems (e.g., eel and tilapia), and limnothalasses (brackish lagoons; e.g., grey mullet)
(FAO 2013). Approximately 80% of Greek aquaculture production is exported to EU markets, with over
half of it directed to Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Germany (OECD 2013).
In 2012, the most important species for marine aquaculture production in Greece were gilthead sea
bream Sparus aurata (54% of total mass and 60% of total value), European seabass (32% and 37%), and
Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis (13% and 1%) (FAO 2014). The following species were
also included: shi drum Umbrina cirrosa, meagre Argyrosomus regius, red porgy Pagrus pagrus,
sharpsnout sea bream Diplodus puntazzo, “other marine fishes”, Atlantic bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus,
white sea bream, flathead grey mullet Mugil cephalus, Sciaena spp., European eel Anguilla anguilla,
Venus clams Venus sp., European flat oyster Ostrea edulis, Kuruma prawn Penaeus japonicus, common
dentex Dentex dentex, and common pandora (FAO 2014).
Recreational SCUBA Diving

Before 2005, recreational diving was restricted to a relatively small part of the Greek coastline; this
restriction has since been lifted and diving is now permitted throughout the seas of Greece (SCUBA
Travel 2014). There are at least 40 notable diving sites in the Santorini region and over 70 near Crete,
including shipwrecks and natural reef, wall, and cave formations (Mediterranean Dive Club 2015;
WannaDive 2015a,b; Skaphandrus 2015; Diving 2006; Crete Diver’s Club 2014; SCUBA Travel 2014;
DiveBuddy 2015; Kalypso 2015; Scubakreta 2015). Dive sites in southern Greece for which locations are
known are shown in Figure 6. The diving season in the Santorini area typically runs from April to
October (WannaDive 2015a) and occurs year-round in the waters of Crete (Scubadiver 2015). Thus,
there could be diving activity in the proposed survey areas. However, a period for the survey was chosen
with decreased tourism on Santorini, which would reduce potential interactions with divers. Most of the
dives sites in the Santorini area are located along the western coast, but the majority of the survey effort
would not take place in nearshore areas with dive sites. Additionally, the Hellenic subduction zone
transect line is located substantially away from dive sites near Crete and Antikythera.
FIGURE 6. Known dive sites in southern Greece, including shipwrecks and natural reef, wall, and cave
formations. Source: WannaDive (2015a,b).
IV. Environmental Consequences
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Proposed Action
(1) Direct Effects on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles and Their Significance
The material in this section includes a brief summary of the expected potential effects (or lack
thereof) of airgun sounds on marine mammals and sea turtles given in the PEIS, and reference to recent
literature that has become available since the PEIS was released in 2011. A more comprehensive review
of the relevant background information, as well as information on the hearing abilities of marine
mammals and sea turtles, appears in § 3.4.4.3, § 3.6.4.3, § 3.7.4.3, § 3.8.4.3, and Appendix E of the PEIS.
This section also includes estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that could be affected by
the proposed seismic survey scheduled to occur during November–December 2015. A description of the
rationale for NSF’s estimates of the numbers of individuals exposed to received sound levels ≥160 dB re
1 µParms is also provided. Acoustic modeling for the proposed action was conducted by L-DEO,
consistent with past EAs and determined to be acceptable by NMFS for use in the calculation of estimated
takes under the MMPA (e.g., NMFS 2013a,b).
(a) Summary of Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds

As noted in the PEIS (§ 3.4.4.3, § 3.6.4.3, § 3.7.4.3, § 3.8.4.3), the effects of sounds from airguns
could include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance,
and at least in theory, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-auditory physical or
physiological effects (Richardson et al. 1995; Gordon et al. 2004; Nowacek et al. 2007; Southall et al.
2007). In some cases, a behavioral response to a sound may in turn reduce the overall exposure to that
sound (e.g., Finneran et al. 2015; Wensveen et al. 2015).
Permanent hearing impairment (PTS), in the unlikely event that it occurred, would constitute
injury, but temporary threshold shift (TTS) is not considered an injury (Southall et al. 2007; Le Prell
2012). Rather, the onset of TTS has been considered an indicator that, if the animal is exposed to higher
levels of that sound, physical damage is ultimately a possibility. Nonetheless, recent research has shown
that sound exposure can cause cochlear neural degeneration, even when threshold shifts and hair cell
damage are reversible (Liberman 2013). These findings have raised some doubts as to whether TTS
should continue to be considered a non-injurious effect (Weilgart 2014; Tougaard et al. 2015). Although
the possibility cannot be entirely excluded, it is unlikely that the proposed survey would result in any
cases of temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or any significant non-auditory physical or physio-
logical effects. If marine mammals encounter the survey while it is underway, some behavioral distur-
bance could result, but this would be localized and short-term.
Tolerance.―Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from airguns are often readily
detectable in the water at distances of many kilometers (e.g., Nieukirk et al. 2012). Several studies have
shown that marine mammals at distances more than a few kilometers from operating seismic vessels often
show no apparent response. That is often true even in cases when the pulsed sounds must be readily
audible to the animals based on measured received levels and the hearing sensitivity of that mammal
group. Although various baleen and toothed whales, and (less frequently) pinnipeds have been shown to
react behaviorally to airgun pulses under some conditions, at other times mammals of all three types have
shown no overt reactions. The relative responsiveness of baleen and toothed whales are quite variable.
Masking.―Masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of airguns) on marine mammal
calls and other natural sounds are expected to be limited, although there are few specific data on this.
Because of the intermittent nature and low duty cycle of seismic pulses, animals can emit and receive
sounds in the relatively quiet intervals between pulses. However, in exceptional situations, reverberation
occurs for much or all of the interval between pulses (e.g., Simard et al. 2005; Clark and Gagnon 2006),
which could mask calls. Situations with prolonged strong reverberation are infrequent. However, it is
common for reverberation to cause some lesser degree of elevation of the background level between
airgun pulses (e.g., Gedamke 2011; Guerra et al. 2011, 2013; Klinck et al. 2012), and this weaker
reverberation presumably reduces the detection range of calls and other natural sounds to some degree.
Guerra et al. (2013) reported that ambient noise levels between seismic pulses were elevated as a result of
reverberation at ranges of 50 km from the seismic source. Based on measurements in deep water of the
Southern Ocean, Gedamke (2011) estimated that the slight elevation of background levels during intervals
between pulses reduced blue and fin whale communication space by as much as 36–51% when a seismic
survey was operating 450–2800 km away. Based on preliminary modeling, Wittekind et al. (2013)
reported that airgun sounds could reduce the communication range of blue and fin whales 2000 km from
the seismic source. Nieukirk et al. (2012) and Blackwell et al. (2013) noted the potential for masking
effects from seismic surveys on large whales.
Some baleen and toothed whales are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic pulses, and
their calls usually can be heard between the pulses (e.g., Nieukirk et al. 2012; Broker et al. 2013). In
addition, some cetaceans are known to change their calling rates, shift their peak frequencies, or otherwise
modify their vocal behavior in response to airgun sounds (e.g., Di Iorio and Clark 2010; Castellote et al.
2012; Blackwell et al. 2013, 2015; Cerchio et al. 2014). The hearing systems of baleen whales are
undoubtedly more sensitive to low-frequency sounds than are the ears of the small odontocetes that have
been studied directly (e.g., MacGillivray et al. 2014). The sounds important to small odontocetes are
predominantly at much higher frequencies than are the dominant components of airgun sounds, thus limiting
the potential for masking. In general, masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be minor, given the
normally intermittent nature of seismic pulses. We are not aware of any information concerning masking
of hearing in sea turtles.
Disturbance Reactions.―Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle to conspicuous
changes in behavior, movement, and displacement. Based on NMFS (2001, p. 9293), NRC (2005), and
Southall et al. (2007), we believe that simple exposure to sound, or brief reactions that do not disrupt
behavioral patterns in a potentially significant manner, do not constitute harassment or “taking”. By
potentially significant, we mean, ‘in a manner that might have deleterious effects to the well-being of
individual marine mammals or their populations’.
Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, repro-
ductive state, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et al. 2004; Southall
et al. 2007; Weilgart 2007; Ellison et al. 2012). If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater
sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be
significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population (e.g., New et al. 2013). However, if a sound
source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period,
impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart
2007). Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of noise on marine
mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many marine mammals would be present within a
particular distance of industrial activities and/or exposed to a particular level of industrial sound. In most
cases, this approach likely overestimates the numbers of marine mammals that would be affected in some
biologically important manner.
The sound criteria used to estimate how many marine mammals could be disturbed to some
biologically important degree by a seismic program are based primarily on behavioral observations of a
few species. Detailed studies have been done on humpback, gray, bowhead, and sperm whales. Less
detailed data are available for some other species of baleen whales and small toothed whales, but for
many species, there are no data on responses to marine seismic surveys.
Baleen Whales
Baleen whales generally tend to avoid operating airguns, but avoidance radii are quite variable.
Whales are often reported to show no overt reactions to pulses from large arrays of airguns at distances
beyond a few kilometers, even though the airgun pulses remain well above ambient noise levels out to much
longer distances. However, baleen whales exposed to strong noise pulses from airguns often react by
deviating from their normal migration route and/or interrupting their feeding and moving away. In the cases
of migrating gray and bowhead whales, the observed changes in behavior appeared to be of little or no
biological consequence to the animals. They simply avoided the sound source by displacing their migration
route to varying degrees, but within the natural boundaries of the migration corridors (Malme et al. 1984;
Malme and Miles 1985; Richardson et al. 1995).
Responses of humpback whales to seismic surveys have been studied during migration, on summer
feeding grounds, and on Angolan winter breeding grounds; there has also been discussion of effects on
the Brazilian wintering grounds. Off Western Australia, avoidance reactions began at 5–8 km from the
array, and those reactions kept most pods ~3–4 km from the operating seismic boat; there was localized
displacement during migration of 4–5 km by traveling pods and 7–12 km by more sensitive resting pods
of cow-calf pairs (McCauley et al. 1998, 2000). However, some individual humpback whales, especially
males, approached within distances of 100–400 m. Studies examining the behavioral responses of
humpback whales to airguns are currently underway off eastern Australia (Cato et al. 2011, 2012, 2013).
In the northwest Atlantic, sighting rates were significantly greater during non-seismic periods
compared with periods when a full array was operating, and humpback whales were more likely to swim
away and less likely to swim towards a vessel during seismic vs. non-seismic periods (Moulton and Holst
2010). In contrast, sightings of humpback whales from seismic vessels off the U.K. from 1994 to 2010
indicated that detection rates were similar during seismic and non-seismic periods, although sample sizes
were small (Stone 2015). On their summer feeding grounds in southeast Alaska, there was no clear
evidence of avoidance, despite the possibility of subtle effects, at received levels up to 172 re 1 μPa on an
approximate rms basis (Malme et al. 1985). It has been suggested that South Atlantic humpback whales
wintering off Brazil may be displaced or even strand upon exposure to seismic surveys (Engel et al.
2004), but data from subsequent years indicated that there was no observable direct correlation between
strandings and seismic surveys (IWC 2007).
There are no data on reactions of right whales to seismic surveys. However, Rolland et al. (2012)
suggested that ship noise causes increased stress in right whales; they showed that baseline levels of
stress-related faecal hormone metabolites decreased in North Atlantic right whales with a 6-dB decrease
in underwater noise from vessels. Wright et al. (2011) also reported that sound could be a potential
source of stress for marine mammals.
Bowhead whales show that their responsiveness can be quite variable depending on their activity
(migrating vs. feeding). Bowhead whales migrating west across the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in autumn, in
particular, are unusually responsive, with substantial avoidance occurring out to distances of 20–30 km
from a medium-sized airgun source (Miller et al. 1999; Richardson et al. 1999). Subtle but statistically
significant changes in surfacing–respiration–dive cycles were shown by traveling and socializing
bowheads exposed to airgun sounds in the Beaufort Sea, including shorter surfacings, shorter dives, and
decreased number of blows per surfacing (Robertson et al. 2013). More recent research on bowhead
whales corroborates earlier evidence that, during the summer feeding season, bowheads are less
responsive to seismic sources (e.g., Miller et al. 2005; Robertson et al. 2013).
Bowhead whale calls detected in the presence and absence of airgun sounds have been studied
extensively in the Beaufort Sea. Bowheads continue to produce calls of the usual types when exposed to
airgun sounds on their summering grounds, although numbers of calls detected are significantly lower in
the presence than in the absence of airgun pulses (Blackwell et al. 2013, 2015). Blackwell et al. (2013)
reported that calling rates in 2007 declined significantly where received SPLs from airgun sounds were
116−129 dB re 1 µPa; at SPLs <108 dB re 1 µPa, calling rates were not affected. When data for
2007−2010 were analyzed, Blackwell et al. (2015) reported an initial increase in calling rates when airgun
pulses became detectable; however, calling rates leveled off at a received CSEL10-min (cumulative SEL
over a 10-min period) of ~94 dB re 1 µPa2 · s, decreased at CSEL10-min >127 dB re 1 µPa2 · s, and whales
were nearly silent at CSEL10-min >160 dB re 1 µPa2 · s. Thus, bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea
apparently decreased their calling rates in response to seismic operations, although movement out of the
area could also have contributed to the lower call detection rate (Blackwell et al. 2013, 2015).
A multivariate analysis of factors affecting the distribution of calling bowhead whales during their
fall migration in 2009 noted that the southern edge of the distribution of calling whales was significantly
closer to shore with increasing levels of airgun sound from a seismic survey a few hundred kilometers to
the east of the study area (i.e., behind the westward-migrating whales; McDonald et al. 2010, 2011). It
was not known whether this statistical effect represented a stronger tendency for quieting of the whales
farther offshore in deeper water upon exposure to airgun sound, or an actual inshore displacement of
whales.
Reactions of migrating and feeding (but not wintering) gray whales to seismic surveys have been
studied. Off St. Lawrence Island in the northern Bering Sea, it was estimated, based on small sample
sizes, that 50% of feeding gray whales stopped feeding at an average received pressure level of 173 dB re
1 μPa on an (approximate) rms basis, and that 10% of feeding whales interrupted feeding at received
levels of 163 dB re 1 μParms (Malme et al. 1986, 1988). Those findings were generally consistent with the
results of experiments conducted on larger numbers of gray whales that were migrating along the
California coast (Malme et al. 1984; Malme and Miles 1985) and western Pacific gray whales feeding off
Sakhalin Island, Russia (e.g., Gailey et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2007; Yazvenko et al. 2007a,b).
Various species of Balaenoptera (blue, sei, fin, and minke whales) have occasionally been seen in
areas ensonified by airgun pulses. Sightings by observers on seismic vessels using large arrays off the
U.K. from 1994 to 2010 showed that the detection rate for minke whales was significantly higher when
airguns were not operating; however, during surveys with small arrays, the detection rates for minke
whales were similar during seismic and non-seismic periods (Stone 2015). Sighting rates for fin and sei
whales were similar when large arrays of airguns were operating vs. silent (Stone 2015). All baleen
whales combined tended to exhibit localized avoidance, remaining significantly farther (on average) from
large arrays (median CPA ~1.5 km) during seismic operations compared with non-seismic periods
(median CPA ~1.0 km; Stone 2015). In addition, fin and minke whales were more often oriented away
from the vessel while a large airgun array was active compared with periods of inactivity (Stone 2015).
Singing fin whales in the Mediterranean moved away from an operating airgun array, and their song notes
had lower bandwidths during periods with vs. without airgun sounds (Castellote et al. 2012).
During seismic surveys in the northwest Atlantic, baleen whales as a group showed localized
avoidance of the operating array (Moulton and Holst 2010). Sighting rates were significantly lower
during seismic operations compared with non-seismic periods. Baleen whales were seen on average
200 m farther from the vessel during airgun activities vs. non-seismic periods, and these whales more
often swam away from the vessel when seismic operations were underway compared with periods when
no airguns were operating (Moulton and Holst 2010). Blue whales were seen significantly farther from
the vessel during single airgun operations, ramp up, and all other airgun operations compared with non-
seismic periods (Moulton and Holst 2010). Similarly, fin whales were seen at significantly farther
distances during ramp up than during periods without airgun operations; there was also a trend for fin
whales to be sighted farther from the vessel during other airgun operations, but the difference was not
significant (Moulton and Holst 2010). Minke whales were seen significantly farther from the vessel
during periods with than without seismic operations (Moulton and Holst 2010). Minke whales were also
more likely to swim away and less likely to approach during seismic operations compared to periods
when airguns were not operating (Moulton and Holst 2010).
Data on short-term reactions by cetaceans to impulsive noises are not necessarily indicative of
long-term or biologically significant effects. It is not known whether impulsive sounds affect repro-
ductive rate or distribution and habitat use in subsequent days or years. However, gray whales have
continued to migrate annually along the west coast of North America with substantial increases in the
population over recent years, despite intermittent seismic exploration (and much ship traffic) in that area
for decades. The western Pacific gray whale population did not seem affected by a seismic survey in its
feeding ground during a previous year, and bowhead whales have continued to travel to the eastern
Beaufort Sea each summer, and their numbers have increased notably, despite seismic exploration in their
summer and autumn range for many years.
Toothed Whales
Little systematic information is available about reactions of toothed whales to sound pulses.
However, there are recent systematic studies on sperm whales, and there is an increasing amount of
information about responses of various odontocetes to seismic surveys based on monitoring studies.
Seismic operators and marine mammal observers on seismic vessels regularly see dolphins and other
small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays, but in general there is a tendency for most delphinids
to show some avoidance of operating seismic vessels (e.g., Stone and Tasker 2006; Moulton and Holst
2010; Barry et al. 2012; Wole and Myade 2014; Stone 2015). In most cases, the avoidance radii for
delphinids appear to be small, on the order of 1 km or less, and some individuals show no apparent
avoidance.
Observations from seismic vessels using large arrays off the U.K. from 1994 to 2010 indicated that
detection rates were significantly higher for killer whales, white-beaked dolphins, and Atlantic white-
sided dolphins when airguns were not operating; detection rates during seismic vs. non-seismic periods
were similar during seismic surveys using small arrays (Stone 2015). Detection rates for long-finned
pilot whales, Risso’s dolphins, bottlenose dolphins, and short-beaked common dolphins were similar
during seismic (small or large array) vs. non-seismic operations. CPA distances for killer whales, white-
beaked dolphins, and Atlantic white-sided dolphins were significantly farther (>0.5 km) from large airgun
arrays during periods of airgun activity compared with periods of inactivity, with significantly more
animals traveling away from the vessel during airgun operation. Observers’ records suggested that fewer
cetaceans were feeding and fewer delphinids were interacting with the survey vessel (e.g., bow-riding)
during periods with airguns operating (Stone 2015).
During seismic surveys in the northwest Atlantic, delphinids as a group showed some localized
avoidance of the operating array (Moulton and Holst 2010). The mean initial detection distance was
significantly farther (by ~200 m) during seismic operations compared with periods when the seismic
source was not active; however, there was no significant difference between sighting rates (Moulton and
Holst 2010). The same results were evident when only long-finned pilot whales were considered.
Preliminary findings of a monitoring study of narwhals in Melville Bay, Greenland (summer and
fall 2012) showed no short-term effects of seismic survey activity on narwhal distribution, abundance,
migration timing, and feeding habits (Heide-Jørgensen et al. 2013a). In addition, there were no reported
effects on narwhal hunting. These findings do not seemingly support a suggestion by Heide-Jørgensen et
al. (2013b) that seismic surveys in Baffin Bay may have delayed the migration timing of narwhals,
thereby increasing the risk of narwhals to ice entrapment.
The beluga, however, is a species that (at least at times) shows long-distance (10s of km) avoidance
of seismic vessels (e.g., Miller et al. 2005). Captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited
changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed sounds similar in duration to those typically used in
seismic surveys, but the animals tolerated high received levels of sound before exhibiting aversive behaviors
(e.g., Finneran et al. 2000, 2002, 2005).
Most studies of sperm whales exposed to airgun sounds indicate that the sperm whale shows
considerable tolerance of airgun pulses; in most cases the whales do not show strong avoidance (e.g.,
Stone and Tasker 2006; Moulton and Holst 2010), but foraging behavior can be altered upon exposure to
airgun sound (e.g., Miller et al. 2009). Based on data collected by observers on seismic vessels off the
U.K. from 1994 to 2010, detection rates for sperm whales were similar when large arrays of airguns were
operating vs. silent; however, during surveys with small arrays, the detection rate was significantly higher
when the airguns were not in operation (Stone 2015). Preliminary data from the Gulf of Mexico show
reduced sperm whale acoustic activity during periods with airgun operations (Sidorovskaia et al. 2014).
There are almost no specific data on the behavioral reactions of beaked whales to seismic surveys.
Most beaked whales tend to avoid approaching vessels of other types (e.g., Würsig et al. 1998) and/or
change their behavior in response to sounds from vessels (e.g., Pirotta et al. 2012). Thus, it is likely that
most beaked whales would also show strong avoidance of an approaching seismic vessel. Observations
from seismic vessels off the U.K. from 1994 to 2010 indicated that detection rates of beaked whales were
significantly higher (p<0.05) when airguns were not operating vs. when a large array was in operation,
although sample sizes were small (Stone 2015). Some northern bottlenose whales remained in the general
area and continued to produce high-frequency clicks when exposed to sound pulses from distant seismic
surveys (e.g., Simard et al. 2005).
The limited available data suggest that harbor porpoises show stronger avoidance of seismic
operations than do Dall’s porpoises. Based on data collected by observers on seismic vessels off the U.K.
from 1994 to 2010, detection rates of harbor porpoises were significantly higher when airguns were silent
vs. when large or small arrays were operating; in addition, harbor porpoises were seen farther away from
the array when it was operating vs. silent and were most often seen traveling away from the airgun array
when it was in operation (Stone 2015). Thompson et al. (2013) reported decreased densities and reduced
acoustic detections of harbor porpoise in response to a seismic survey in Moray Firth, Scotland, at ranges
of 5–10 km (SPLs of 165–172 dB re 1 μPa, SELs of 145–151 dB μPa2 · s). For the same survey, Pirotta et
al. (2014) reported that the probability of recording a porpoise buzz decreased by 15% in the ensonified
area, and that the probability was positively related to the distance from the seismic ship; the decreased
buzzing occurrence may indicate reduced foraging efficiency. Nonetheless, animals returned to the area
within a few hours (Thompson et al. 2013). Kastelein et al. (2013a) reported that a harbor porpoise
showed no response to an impulse sound with an SEL below 65 dB, but a 50% brief response rate was
noted at an SEL of 92 dB and an SPL of 122 dB re 1 µPa0-peak. The apparent tendency for greater respon-
siveness in the harbor porpoise is consistent with its relative responsiveness to boat traffic and some other
acoustic sources (Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et al. 2007).
Odontocete reactions to large arrays of airguns are variable and, at least for delphinids, seem to be
confined to a smaller radius than has been observed for the more responsive of the mysticetes and some
other odontocetes. A ≥170 dB disturbance criterion (rather than ≥160 dB) is considered appropriate for
delphinids, which tend to be less responsive than the more responsive cetaceans.
Pinnipeds
Pinnipeds are not likely to show a strong avoidance reaction to an airgun array. Visual monitoring
from seismic vessels has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds and only slight (if
any) changes in behavior. However, telemetry work has suggested that avoidance and other behavioral
reactions may be stronger than evident to date from visual studies (Thompson et al. 1998). Observations
from seismic vessels operating large arrays off the U.K. from 1994 to 2010 showed that the detection rate
for grey seals was significantly higher when airguns were not operating; for surveys using small arrays,
the detection rates were similar during seismic vs. non-seismic operations (Stone 2015). No significant
differences in detection rates were apparent for harbor seals during seismic and non-seismic periods.
There were no significant differences in CPA distances of grey or harbour seals during seismic vs. non-
seismic periods.
Sea Turtles
Several recent papers discuss the morphology of the turtle ear (e.g., Christensen-Dalsgaard et al.
2012; Willis et al. 2013) and the hearing ability of sea turtles (e.g., Martin et al. 2012; Piniak et al.
2012a,b; Lavender et al. 2014). The limited available data indicate that sea turtles will hear airgun sounds
and sometimes exhibit localized avoidance (see PEIS, § 3.4.4.3).
DeRuiter and Doukara (2012) observed that immediately following an airgun pulse, small numbers
of basking loggerhead turtles (6 of 86 turtles observed) exhibited an apparent startle response (sudden
raising of the head and splashing of flippers, occasionally accompanied by blowing bubbles from the beak
and nostrils, followed by a short dive). Diving turtles (49 of 86 individuals) were observed at distances
from the center of the airgun array ranging from 50 to 839 m. The estimated sound level at the median
distance of 130 m was 191 dB re 1 μPapeak. These observations were made during ~150 h of vessel-based
monitoring from a seismic vessel operating an airgun array (13 airguns, 2440 in3) off Algeria; there was
no corresponding observation effort during periods when the airgun array was inactive (DeRuiter and
Doukara 2012).
Based on available data, it is likely that sea turtles will exhibit behavioral changes and/or avoidance
within an area of unknown size near a seismic vessel. To the extent that there are any impacts on sea
turtles, seismic operations in or near areas where turtles concentrate would likely have the greatest
impact; concentration areas are not known to occur within the proposed survey areas. There are no
specific data that demonstrate the consequences to sea turtles if seismic operations with large or small
arrays of airguns occur in important areas at biologically important times of the year.
Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects.―Temporary or permanent hearing impairment

is a possibility when marine mammals are exposed to very strong sounds. TTS has been demonstrated
and studied in certain captive odontocetes and pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds. However, there has
been no specific documentation of TTS let alone permanent hearing damage, i.e., PTS, in free-ranging
marine mammals exposed to sequences of airgun pulses during realistic field conditions.
Additional data are needed to determine the received sound levels at which small odontocetes
would start to incur TTS upon exposure to repeated, low-frequency pulses of airgun sound with variable
received levels. To determine how close an airgun array would need to approach in order to elicit TTS,
one would (as a minimum) need to allow for the sequence of distances at which airgun pulses would
occur, and for the dependence of received SEL on distance in the region of the seismic operation
(e.g., Breitzke and Bohlen 2010; Laws 2012). At the present state of knowledge, it is also necessary to
assume that the effect is directly related to total received energy (SEL); however, this assumption is likely
an over-simplification (Finneran 2012). There is recent evidence that auditory effects in a given animal
are not a simple function of received acoustic energy. Frequency, duration of the exposure, and
occurrence of gaps within the exposure can also influence the auditory effect (Finneran and Schlundt
2010, 2011, 2013; Finneran et al. 2010a,b; Popov et al. 2011, 2013a; Finneran 2012; Kastelein et al.
2012a,b; 2013b,c, 2014, 2015; Ketten 2012).
Recent data have shown that the SEL required for TTS onset to occur increases with intermittent
exposures, with some auditory recovery during silent periods between signals (Finneran et al. 2010b;
Finneran and Schlundt 2011). Studies on bottlenose dolphins by Finneran et al. (2015) indicate that the
potential for seismic surveys using airguns to cause auditory effects on dolphins could be lower than
previously thought. Based on behavioral tests, Finneran et al. (2015) reported no measurable TTS in
three bottlenose dolphins after exposure to 10 impulses from a seismic airgun with a cumulative SEL of
up to ~195 dB re 1 µPa2 · s. However, auditory evoked potential measurements were more variable; one
dolphin showed a small (9 dB) threshold shift at 8 kHz (Finneran et al. 2015).
Recent studies have also shown that the SEL necessary to elicit TTS can depend substantially on
frequency, with susceptibility to TTS increasing with increasing frequency above 3 kHz (Finneran and
Schlundt 2010, 2011; Finneran 2012). When beluga whales were exposed to fatiguing noise with sound
levels of 165 dB re 1 μPa for durations of 1–30 min at frequencies of 11.2–90 kHz, the highest TTS with
the longest recovery time was produced by the lower frequencies (11.2 and 22.5 kHz); TTS effects also
gradually increased with prolonged exposure time (Popov et al. 2013a).
Additionally, Popov et al. (2013b) reported that TTS produced by exposure to a fatiguing noise was
larger during the first session (or naïve subject state) with a beluga whale than TTS that resulted from the
same sound in subsequent sessions (experienced subject state). Similarly, several other studies have
shown that some marine mammals (e.g., bottlenose dolphins, false killer whales) can decrease their
hearing sensitivity in order to mitigate the impacts of exposure to loud sounds (e.g., Nachtigall and Supin
2013, 2014, 2015)
Previous information on TTS for odontocetes was primarily derived from studies on the bottlenose
dolphin and beluga, and that for pinnipeds has mostly been obtained from California sea lions and
elephant seals (see § 3.6.4.3, § 3.7.4.3, § 3.8.4.3 and Appendix E of the PEIS). Thus, it is inappropriate to
assume that onset of TTS occurs at similar received levels in all cetaceans or pinnipeds (cf. Southall et al.
2007). Some cetaceans or pinnipeds could incur TTS at lower sound exposures than are necessary to
elicit TTS in the beluga and bottlenose dolphin or California sea lion and elephant seal, respectively.
Several studies on TTS in porpoises (e.g., Lucke et al. 2009; Popov et al. 2011; Kastelein et al.
2012a, 2013b,c, 2014, 2015) indicate that received levels that elicit onset of TTS are lower in porpoises
than in other odontocetes. Kastelein et al. (2012a) exposed a harbor porpoise to octave band noise
centered at 4 kHz for extended periods of time. A 6-dB TTS occurred with SELs of 163 dB and 172 dB
for low-intensity sound and medium-intensity sound, respectively; high-intensity sound caused a 9-dB
TTS at a SEL of 175 dB (Kastelein et al. 2012a). Kastelein et al. (2013b) exposed a harbor porpoise to a
long, continuous 1.5-kHz tone, which induced a 14-dB TTS with a total SEL of 190 dB. Popov et al.
(2011) examined the effects of fatiguing noise on the hearing threshold of Yangtze finless porpoises when
exposed to frequencies of 32–128 kHz at 140–160 dB re 1 μPa for 1–30 min. They found that an
exposure of higher level and shorter duration produced a higher TTS than an exposure of equal SEL but
of lower level and longer duration. Popov et al. (2011) reported a TTS of 25 dB for a Yangtze finless
porpoise that was exposed to high levels of 3-min pulses of half-octave band noise centered at 45 kHz
with an SEL of 163 dB.
Initial evidence from exposures to non-pulses has also suggested that some pinnipeds (harbor seals
in particular) incur TTS at somewhat lower received levels than do most small odontocetes exposed for
similar durations (Kastak et al. 1999, 2005, 2008; Ketten et al. 2001). Kastelein et al. (2012b) exposed
two harbor seals to octave-band white noise centered at 4 kHz at three mean received SPLs of 124, 136,
and 148 dB re 1 µPa; TTS >2.5 dB was induced at an SEL of 170 dB (136 dB SPL for 60 min), and the
maximum TTS of 10 dB occurred after a 120-min exposure to 148 dB re 1 µPa or an SEL of 187 dB.
Kastelein et al. (2013c) reported that a harbor seal unintentionally exposed to the same sound source with
a mean received SPL of 163 dB re 1 µPa for 1 h induced a 44 dB TTS. For a harbor seal exposed to
octave-band white noise centered at 4 kHz for 60 min with mean SPLs of 124–148 re 1 µPa, the onset of
PTS would require a level of at least 22 dB above the TTS onset (Kastelein et al. 2013c).
Based on the best available information at the time, Southall et al. (2007) recommended a TTS
threshold for exposure to single or multiple pulses of 183 dB re 1 µPa2 · s for all cetaceans and 173 dB re
1 µPa2 · s for pinnipeds in water. For the harbor porpoise, Tougaard et al. (2015) that SELs that induce
TTS are 100–110 dB above the pure tone hearing threshold at a specific frequency; they also suggested an
exposure limit of Leq-fast (rms average over the duration of the pulse) of 45 dB above the hearing threshold
for behavioral responses (i.e., negative phonotaxis). In addition, M-weighting, as used by Southall et al.
(2007), might not be appropriate for the harbor porpoise (Wensveen et al. 2014; Tougaard et al. 2015);
thus, Wensveen et al. (2014) developed six auditory weighting functions for the harbor porpoise that
could be useful in predicting TTS onset. Gedamke et al. (2011), based on preliminary simulation
modeling that attempted to allow for various uncertainties in assumptions and variability around
population means, suggested that some baleen whales whose closest point of approach to a seismic vessel
is 1 km or more could experience TTS.
It is unlikely that a marine mammal would remain close enough to a large airgun array for sufficiently
long to incur TTS, let alone PTS. There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun sound can
cause PTS in any marine mammal, even with large arrays of airguns. However, given the possibility that
some mammals close to an airgun array might incur at least mild TTS, there has been further speculation
about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to airguns might incur PTS (e.g., Richardson
et al. 1995, p. 372ff; Gedamke et al. 2011). In terrestrial animals, exposure to sounds sufficiently strong to
elicit a large TTS induces physiological and structural changes in the inner ear, and at some high level of
sound exposure, these phenomena become non-recoverable (Le Prell 2012). At this level of sound
exposure, TTS grades into PTS. Single or occasional occurrences of mild TTS are not indicative of
permanent auditory damage, but repeated or (in some cases) single exposures to a level well above that
causing TTS onset might elicit PTS (e.g., Kastak and Reichmuth 2007; Kastak et al. 2008).
Current NMFS policy regarding exposure of marine mammals to high-level sounds is that
cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to impulsive sounds with received levels ≥180 dB and
190 dB re 1 µParms, respectively (NMFS 2000). These criteria have been used in establishing the
exclusion (=shut-down) zones planned for the proposed seismic survey. However, those criteria were
established before there was any information about minimum received levels of sounds necessary to cause
auditory impairment in marine mammals.
Recommendations for science-based noise exposure criteria for marine mammals, frequency-
weighting procedures, and related matters were published by Southall et al. (2007). Those recom-
mendations were never formally adopted by NMFS for use in regulatory processes and during mitigation
programs associated with seismic surveys, although some aspects of the recommendations have been
taken into account in certain environmental impact statements and small-take authorizations. In
December 2013, NOAA made available for public comment new draft guidance for assessing the effects
of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals (NOAA 2013), taking at least some of the Southall et al.
recommendations into account, as well as more recent literature. At the time of preparation of this Draft
EA, the date of release of the final guidelines and how they would be implemented are unknown.
Nowacek et al. (2013) concluded that current scientific data indicate that seismic airguns have a
low probability of directly harming marine life, except at close range. Several aspects of the planned
monitoring and mitigation measures for this project are designed to detect marine mammals occurring
near the airgun array, and to avoid exposing them to sound pulses that might, at least in theory, cause
hearing impairment (see § II and § IV[2], below). Also, many marine mammals and (to a limited degree)
sea turtles show some avoidance of the area where received levels of airgun sound are high enough such
that hearing impairment could potentially occur. In those cases, the avoidance responses of the animals
themselves would reduce or (most likely) avoid any possibility of hearing impairment.
Non-auditory physical effects may also occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater pulsed
sound. Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that might (in theory) occur in
mammals close to a strong sound source include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, and other types
of organ or tissue damage. It is possible that some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked whales) are especially
susceptible to injury and/or stranding when exposed to strong transient sounds.
There is no definitive evidence that any of these effects occur even for marine mammals in close
proximity to large arrays of airguns. However, Gray and Van Waerebeek (2011) have suggested a cause-
effect relationship between a seismic survey off Liberia in 2009 and the erratic movement, postural
instability, and akinesia in a pantropical spotted dolphin based on spatially and temporally close
association with the airgun array. Additionally, a few cases of strandings in the general area where a
seismic survey was ongoing have led to speculation concerning a possible link between seismic surveys
and strandings (e.g., Castellote and Llorens 2013).
Non-auditory effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short distances and to
activities that extend over a prolonged period. Marine mammals that show behavioral avoidance of seismic
vessels, including most baleen whales, some odontocetes, and some pinnipeds, are especially unlikely to incur
non-auditory physical effects. The brief duration of exposure of any given mammal and the planned
monitoring and mitigation measures would further reduce the probability of exposure of marine mammals to
sounds strong enough to induce non-auditory physical effects.
Sea Turtles
There is substantial overlap in the frequencies that sea turtles detect vs. the frequencies in airgun
pulses. We are not aware of measurements of the absolute hearing thresholds of any sea turtle to
waterborne sounds similar to airgun pulses. In the absence of relevant absolute threshold data, we cannot
estimate how far away an airgun array might be audible. Moein et al. (1994) and Lenhardt (2002)
reported TTS for loggerhead turtles exposed to many airgun pulses (see § 3.4.4 of the PEIS). This sug-
gests that sounds from an airgun array might cause temporary hearing impairment in sea turtles if they do
not avoid the (unknown) radius where TTS occurs. However, exposure duration during the proposed
survey would be much less than during the aforementioned studies. Also, recent monitoring studies show
that some sea turtles do show localized movement away from approaching airguns. At short distances
from the source, received sound level diminishes rapidly with increasing distance. In that situation, even
a small-scale avoidance response could result in a significant reduction in sound exposure.
Although it is possible that exposure to airgun sounds could cause mortality or mortal injuries in
sea turtles close to the source, this has not been demonstrated and seems highly unlikely (Popper et al.
2014), especially because sea turtles appear to be highly resistant to explosives (Ketten et al. 2005 in
Popper et al. 2014). Nonetheless, Popper et al. (2014) proposed sea turtle mortality/mortal injury criteria
of 210 dB SEL or >207 dBpeak for sounds from seismic airguns.
The PSOs stationed on the Langseth would watch for sea turtles, and airgun operations would be
shut down if a turtle enters the designated EZ.
(b) Possible Effects of Other Acoustic Sources
The Kongsberg EM 122 MBES and Knudsen Chirp 3260 SBP would be operated from the source
vessel during the proposed survey. Information about this equipment was provided in § 2.2.3.1 of the PEIS. A
review of the expected potential effects (or lack thereof) of MBESs, SBPs, and pingers on marine mammals
and sea turtles appears in § 3.4.4.3, § 3.6.4.3, § 3.7.4.3, § 3.8.4.3, and Appendix E of the PEIS.
There has been some recent attention given to the effects of MBES on marine mammals, as a result
of a report issued in September 2013 by an IWC independent scientific review panel linking the operation
of an MBES to a mass stranding of melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra; Southall et al. 2013)
off Madagascar. During May–June 2008, ~100 melon-headed whales entered and stranded in the Loza
Lagoon system in northwest Madagascar at the same time that a 12-kHz MBES survey was being
conducted ~65 km away off the coast. In conducting a retrospective review of available information on
the event, an independent scientific review panel concluded that the Kongsberg EM 120 MBES was the
most plausible behavioral trigger for the animals initially entering the lagoon system and eventually
stranding. The independent scientific review panel, however, identified that an unequivocal conclusion
on causality of the event was not possible because of the lack of information about the event and a
number of potentially contributing factors. Additionally, the independent review panel report indicated
that this incident was likely the result of a complicated confluence of environmental, social, and other
factors that have a very low probability of occurring again in the future, but recommended that the
potential be considered in environmental planning. It should be noted that this event is the first known
marine mammal mass stranding closely associated with the operation of an MBES. Leading scientific
experts knowledgeable about MBES have expressed concerns about the independent scientific review
panel analyses and findings (Bernstein 2013).
There is no available information on marine mammal behavioral response to MBES sounds
(Southall et al. 2013) or sea turtle responses to MBES systems. Much of the literature on marine mammal
response to sonars relates to the types of sonars used in naval operations, including Low-Frequency
Active (LFA) sonars (e.g., Miller et al. 2012; Sivle et al. 2012) and Mid-Frequency Active (MFA) sonars
(e.g., Tyack et al. 2011; Melcón et al. 2012; Miller et al. 2012; DeRuiter et al. 2013a,b; Goldbogen et al.
2013; Baird et al. 2014; Wensveen et al. 2015). However, the MBES sounds are quite different from
naval sonars. Ping duration of the MBES is very short relative to naval sonars. Also, at any given
location, an individual marine mammal would be in the beam of the MBES for much less time given the
generally downward orientation of the beam and its narrow fore-aft beamwidth; naval sonars often use
near-horizontally-directed sound. In addition, naval sonars have higher duty cycles. These factors would
all reduce the sound energy received from the MBES relative to that from naval sonars.
In the fall of 2006, an Ocean Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing (OAWRS) experiment was
carried out in the Gulf of Maine (Gong et al. 2014); the OAWRS emitted three frequency-modulated
(FM) pulses centered at frequencies of 415, 734, and 949 Hz (Risch et al. 2012). Risch et al. (2012)
found a reduction in humpback whale song in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary during
OAWRS activities that were carried out ~200 km away; received levels in the sanctuary were 88–110 dB
re 1 µPa. In contrast, Gong et al. (2014) reported no effect of the OAWRS signals on humpback whale
vocalizations in the Gulf of Maine. Range to the source, ambient noise, and/or behavioral state may have
differentially influenced the behavioral responses of humpbacks in the two areas (Risch et al. 2014).
Deng et al (2014) measured the spectral properties of pulses transmitted by three 200-kHz
echosounders, and found that they generated weaker sounds at frequencies below the center frequency
(90–130 kHz). These sounds are within the hearing range of some marine mammals, and the authors
suggested that they could be strong enough to elicit behavioral responses within close proximity to the
sources, although they would be well below potentially harmful levels. Hastie et al. (2014) reported
behavioral responses by grey seals to echosounders with frequencies of 200 and 375 kHz.
Despite the aforementioned information that has recently become available, this Draft EA is in
agreement with the assessment presented in § 3.4.7, 3.6.7, 3.7.7, and 3.8.7 of the PEIS that operation of
MBESs, SBPs, and pingers is not likely to impact marine mammals and is not expected to affect sea
turtles, (1) given the lower acoustic exposures relative to airguns and (2) because the intermittent and/or
narrow downward-directed nature of these sounds would result in no more than one or two brief ping
exposures of any individual marine mammal or sea turtle given the movement and speed of the vessel.
Also, for sea turtles, the associated frequency ranges are above their known hearing range.
(c) Other Possible Effects of Seismic Surveys

Other possible effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals and/or sea turtles include masking
by vessel noise, disturbance by vessel presence or noise, and injury or mortality from collisions with
vessels or entanglement in seismic gear.
Vessel noise from the Langseth could affect marine animals in the proposed survey areas. Sounds
produced by large vessels generally dominate ambient noise at frequencies from 20 to 300 Hz
(Richardson et al. 1995). Ship noise, through masking, can reduce the effective communication distance
of a marine mammal if the frequency of the sound source is close to that used by the animal, and if the
sound is present for a significant fraction of time (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Clark et al. 2009; Jensen et
al. 2009; Gervaise et al. 2012; Hatch et al. 2012; Rice et al. 2014). In addition to the frequency and
duration of the masking sound, the strength, temporal pattern, and location of the introduced sound also
play a role in the extent of the masking (Branstetter et al. 2013; Finneran and Branstetter 2013). In order
to compensate for increased ambient noise, some cetaceans are known to increase the source levels of
their calls in the presence of elevated noise levels from shipping, shift their peak frequencies, or otherwise
change their vocal behavior (e.g., Parks et al. 2011; 2012; Castellote et al. 2012; Melcón et al. 2012;
Tyack and Janik 2013; Papale et al. 2015).
Baleen whales are thought to be more sensitive to sound at these low frequencies than are toothed
whales (e.g., MacGillivray et al. 2014), possibly causing localized avoidance of the proposed survey areas
during seismic operations. Reactions of gray and humpback whales to vessels have been studied, and there
is limited information available about the reactions of right whales and rorquals (fin, blue, and minke
whales). Reactions of humpback whales to boats are variable, ranging from approach to avoidance (Payne
1978; Salden 1993). Baker et al. (1982, 1983) and Baker and Herman (1989) found humpbacks often move
away when vessels are within several kilometers. Humpbacks seem less likely to react overtly when
actively feeding than when resting or engaged in other activities (Krieger and Wing 1984, 1986).
Many odontocetes show considerable tolerance of vessel traffic, although they sometimes react at
long distances if confined by ice or shallow water, if previously harassed by vessels, or have had little or no
recent exposure to ships (Richardson et al. 1995). Dolphins of many species tolerate and sometimes
approach vessels. Some dolphin species approach moving vessels to ride the bow or stern waves (Williams
et al. 1992). There are few data on the behavioral reactions of beaked whales to vessel noise, though they
seem to avoid approaching vessels (e.g., Würsig et al. 1998) or dive for an extended period when
approached by a vessel (e.g., Kasuya 1986). Based on a single observation, Aguilar Soto et al. (2006)
suggest foraging efficiency of Cuvier’s beaked whales may be reduced by close approach of vessels.
The PEIS concluded that project vessel sounds would not be at levels expected to cause anything
more than possible localized and temporary behavioral changes in marine mammals or sea turtles, and
would not be expected to result in significant negative effects on individuals or at the population level. In
addition, in all oceans of the world, large vessel traffic is currently so prevalent that it is commonly
considered a usual source of ambient sound.
Another concern with vessel traffic is the potential for striking marine mammals or sea turtles.
Information on vessel strikes is reviewed in § 3.4.4.4, § 3.6.4.4, and § 3.8.4.4 of the PEIS. The PEIS
concluded that the risk of collision of seismic vessels or towed/deployed equipment with marine
mammals or sea turtles exists but is extremely unlikely, because of the relatively slow operating speed
(typically 7–9 km/h) of the vessel during seismic operations, and the generally straight-line movement of
the seismic vessel. There has been no history of marine mammal vessel strikes with the R/V Langseth, or
its predecessor, R/V Maurice Ewing over the last two decades.
Entanglement of sea turtles in seismic gear is also a concern. There have been reports of turtles
being trapped and killed between the gaps in tail-buoys offshore from West Africa (Weir 2007); however,
these tailbuoys are significantly different then those used on the Langseth. In April 2011, a dead olive
ridley turtle was found in a deflector foil of the seismic gear on the Langseth during equipment recovery
at the conclusion of a survey off Costa Rica, where sea turtles were numerous. Such incidents are
possible, but that was the only case of sea turtle entanglement in seismic gear for the Langseth, which has
been conducting seismic surveys since 2008, or for its predecessor, R/V Maurice Ewing, during
2003−2007. Towing the seismic equipment during the proposed survey is not expected to significantly
interfere with sea turtle movements, including migration.
(d) Mitigation Measures

Several mitigation measures are built into the proposed seismic survey as an integral part of the
planned activity. These measures include the following: ramp ups; typically two, however a minimum of
one dedicated observer maintaining a visual watch during all daytime airgun operations; two observers for
30 min before and during ramp ups; PAM during the day and night to complement visual monitoring
(unless the system and back-up systems are damaged during operations); and power downs (or if
necessary shut downs) when mammals or turtles are detected in or about to enter designated EZ. These
mitigation measures are described in § 2.4.4.1 of the PEIS and summarized earlier in this document, in
§ II(3). The fact that the 36-airgun array, because of its design, would direct the majority of the energy
downward, and less energy laterally, is also an inherent mitigation measure.
Previous and subsequent analysis of the potential impacts takes account of these planned mitigation
measures. It would not be meaningful to analyze the effects of the planned activity without mitigation, as
the mitigation (and associated monitoring) measures are a basic part of the activity, and would be
implemented under the Proposed Action or Alternative Action.
(e) Potential Numbers of Cetaceans Exposed to Received Sound Levels ≥160 dB

All expected takes would be “takes by harassment” as described in § I, involving temporary
changes in behavior. The mitigation measures to be applied would minimize the possibility of injurious
takes. (However, as noted earlier and in the PEIS, there is no specific information demonstrating that
injurious “takes” would occur even in the absence of the planned mitigation measures.) In the sections
below, we describe methods to estimate the number of potential exposures to sound levels >160 dB re
1 µParms and present estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that could be affected during the
proposed seismic survey. The estimates are based on consideration of the number of marine mammals
that could be disturbed appreciably by ~1105 km of seismic surveys outside the 6-n.mi. territorial seas of
Greece. The main sources of distributional and numerical data used in deriving the estimates are describ-
ed in the next subsection.
Basis for Estimating Exposure.—The estimates are based on a consideration of the number of
marine mammals that could be within the area around the operating airgun array where received levels of
sound >160 dB re 1 µParms are predicted to occur (see Table 1). The estimated numbers are based on the
densities (numbers per unit area) of marine mammals expected to occur in the area in the absence of a
seismic survey. To the extent that marine mammals tend to move away from seismic sources before the
sound level reaches the criterion level and tend not to approach an operating airgun array, these estimates
are likely to overestimate the numbers actually exposed to the specified level of sound. The
overestimation is expected to be particularly large when dealing with the higher sound-level criteria, e.g.,
180 dB re 1 μParms, as animals are more likely to move away before received levels reach 180 dB than
they are to move away before it reaches (for example) 160 dB re 1 μParms. Likewise, they are less likely
to approach within the ≥180- or 190-dB re 1 μParms radii than they are to approach within the considerably
larger ≥160-dB radius.
Density estimates are not available for the proposed survey areas; density estimates from the
nearest available Mediterranean regions were therefore applied to species expected to occur in the survey
areas (Table 4). Densities for fin whales, sperm whales, striped dolphins and Risso’s dolphins are based
on visual surveys (and combined acoustic surveys for sperm whales) in the Ligurian Sea during
October−March 2001–2004 (Laran et al. 2010). The densities were calculated using standard line-
transect methods (Buckland et al. 2001); densities were corrected for trackline detection probability bias
[f(0)] by the authors, but not availability [g(0)] bias. The density for short-beaked common dolphins is
based on the Laran et al. (2010) striped dolphin density adjusted for the proportional difference between
striped dolphin and common dolphin sightings from surveys of the Ionian Sea (Notarbartolo di Sciara et
al. 1993). The density for common bottlenose dolphins is based on a 2010 summer aerial survey in the
TABLE 4. Densities and estimates of the possible numbers of individuals that could be exposed to
>160 dB re 1 µParms during the proposed seismic survey in the eastern Mediterranean Sea outside the 6-
n.mi. territorial seas of Greece during November–December 2015. The proposed sound source consists
of a 36-airgun array with a total discharge volume of ~6600 in3. Species in italics are listed under the
ESA as endangered. The column of numbers in boldface shows the numbers of Level B "takes" for which
authorization is requested.
Reported Estimated
Density Density % of Requested
(#/1000 Correction (#/1000 Ensonified Calculated Regional Level B Take
Species1 km2) Factor 2 km2) Area (km2) Take3 Pop'n4 Authorization5
Mysticetes
Humpback whale 0 0 7686 0 1.0 116
Minke whale 0 0 7686 0 1.0 1072
6
Fin whale 2.0 2.0 7686 15 1.0 50
Odontocetes
6
Sperm whale 0.52 0.52 7686 4 2.0 4
7
Cuvier’s beaked whale N/A 1.56 7686 12 6.0 12
Rough-toothed dolphin 0 0 7686 0 N/A 8
Common bottlenose
dolphin 438 43 7686 331 3.3 331
Striped dolphin 3706 370 7686 2844 1.2 2844
Short-beaked common
dolphin N/A 309 7686 231 1.2 231
Risso’s dolphin 356 35 7686 269 9.0 269
False killer whale 0 0 7686 0 N/A 3
Harbor porpoise 0 0 7686 0 1.0 10
Pinnipeds
Mediterranean monk seal 0 0 7686 0 1.3 4
N/A = not available.
1
Not included are species considered to be vagrant in the Mediterranean or eastern Mediterranean (see Table 3).
2
No additional correction factors were applied to densities.
3
Calculated take is estimated density (reported density x correction factor) multiplied by the 160-dB ensonified area (including the
25% contingency for the Santorini survey area in the Aegean Sea).
4
Requested takes expressed as percentages of the populations in the Mediterranean or parts of the Mediterranean, where available
(see Table 3).
5
For species for which regional population sizes are available, requested take authorization was increased to at least 1% of
population size. For species for which no regional population sizes are available (rough-toothed dolphin and false killer whale),
requested take authorization was increased to mean group size in the Mediterranean Sea (Boisseau et al. 2010).
6
Densities based on Laran et al. (2010).
7
Density based on density for sperm whales (Laran et al. 2010) and adjusted for proportional difference in sighting rates and mean
group sizes between sperm and Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Mediterranean Sea (Boisseau et al. 2010).
8
Density based on Fortuna et al. (2011).
9
Density based Laran et al. (2010) striped dolphin winter density adjusted for the proportional difference in striped dolphin to
common dolphin sightings as indicated by surveys of the Ionian Sea (Notarbartolo di Sciara et al. 1993).
Adriatic Sea; this survey did not correct for perception or availability bias (Fortuna et al. 2011). The
density for Cuvier’s beaked whales is based on the density for sperm whales as described above and
adjusted for the proportional difference in sighting rates and mean group sizes between sperm and
Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Mediterranean Sea (Boisseau et al. 2010). Species classified as vagrants in
Table 3 and the long-finned pilot whale, for which there are no confirmed sightings in the eastern
Mediterranean, are not included in Table 4. Species that could occur in the survey areas, including those
classified as visitors, are included in Table 4, although density estimates are not available.
There is some uncertainty about the representativeness of the density data and the assumptions
used in the calculations. The available densities are more than 10 years old in some cases and are not
from the Aegean Sea, but from other regions of the Mediterranean Sea. Nonetheless, the approach used
here is based on the best available data. Densities used for the calculations were for October–March (for
most species) and July–August (for common bottlenose dolphins); densities for other seasons were not
available. Thus, the calculated exposures that are based on these densities are best estimates for the
proposed survey for any time of the year.
The estimated numbers of individuals potentially exposed are based on the 160-dB re 1 μParms
criterion for all cetaceans and pinnipeds. It is assumed that marine mammals exposed to airgun sounds
that strong could change their behavior sufficiently to be considered “taken by harassment”. Table 4
shows the density estimates calculated as described above and the estimates of the number of different
individual marine mammals that potentially could be exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μParms during the seismic
survey if no animals moved away from the survey vessel. The Requested Take Authorization given in the
far right column of Table 4 has been increased to 1% of each species’ regional population size, where
available. For species for which population sizes are not available, we have included a Requested Take
Authorization for the mean group size in the Mediterranean (Boisseau et al. 2010).
It should be noted that the following estimates of exposures assume that the proposed survey would
be completed; in fact, the ensonified area calculated using the planned number of line-kilometers for the
Santorini survey area in the Aegean Sea have been increased by 25% to accommodate turns, lines that
may need to be repeated, equipment testing, etc. As is typical during offshore seismic surveys, inclement
weather and equipment malfunctions are likely to cause delays and might limit the number of useful line-
kilometers of seismic operations that can be undertaken. Also, any marine mammal sightings within or
near the designated EZ would result in the shut down of seismic operations as a mitigation measure.
Thus, the following estimates of the numbers of marine mammals potentially exposed to 160-dB re
1 μParms sounds are precautionary and probably overestimate the actual numbers of marine mammals that
could be involved. These estimates assume that there would be no weather, equipment, or mitigation
delays, which is highly unlikely.
Consideration should be given to the hypothesis that delphinids are less responsive to airgun
sounds than are mysticetes, as referenced in both the PEIS and “Summary of Potential Airgun Effects” of
this document. The 160-dB (rms) criterion currently applied by NMFS, on which the following estimates
are based, was developed based primarily on data from gray and bowhead whales. The estimates of
“takes by harassment” of delphinids are thus considered precautionary. As noted previously, in
December 2013, NOAA made available for public comment new draft guidance for assessing the effects
of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals (NOAA 2013), although at the time of preparation of this
Draft EA, the date of release of the final guidelines and how they would be implemented are unknown.
Available data suggest that the current use of a 160-dB criterion could be improved upon, as behavioral
response might not occur for some percentage of marine mammals exposed to received levels >160 dB,
whereas other individuals or groups might respond in a manner considered as “taken” to sound levels
<160 dB (NMFS 2013c). It has become evident that the context of an exposure of a marine mammal to
sound can affect the animal’s initial response to the sound (NMFS 2013c).
Potential Number of Marine Mammals Exposed.—The number of different individuals that could
be exposed to airgun sounds with received levels ≥160 dB re 1 µParms on one or more occasions can be
estimated by considering the total marine area that would be within the 160-dB radius around the
operating seismic source on at least one occasion, along with the expected density of animals in the area.
The number of possible exposures (including repeated exposures of the same individuals) can be esti-
mated by considering the total marine area that would be within the 160-dB radius around the operating
airguns, including areas of overlap. During the proposed Santorini survey in the Aegean Sea, the area
including overlap is 6.8 times the area excluding overlap, so a marine mammal that stayed in that survey
area during the survey could be exposed up to seven times, on average. There is no overlap for the single
Hellenic subduction zone transect line. However, it is unlikely that a particular animal would stay in the
area during the entire survey. The numbers of different individuals potentially exposed to ≥160 dB re
1 µParms were calculated by multiplying the expected species density times the expected area to be
ensonified to that level during airgun operations excluding overlap. The area expected to be ensonified
was determined by entering the planned survey lines into a MapInfo GIS, using the GIS to identify the
relevant areas by “drawing” the applicable 160-dB buffer (see Table 1) around each seismic line, and then
calculating the total area within the buffers.
Applying the approach described above, ~6822 km2 (~7686 km2 including the 25% contingency for
the Santorini survey area only) would be within the 160-dB isopleth on one or more occasions outside of
Greek territorial waters during the proposed survey. Because this approach does not allow for turnover in
the mammal populations in the area during the course of the survey, the actual number of individuals
exposed could be underestimated, although the conservative (i.e., probably overestimated) line-kilometer
distances used to calculate the area could offset this. Also, the approach assumes that no cetaceans would
move away or toward the trackline in response to increasing sound levels before the levels reach 160 dB
as the Langseth approaches. Another way of interpreting the estimates is that they represent the number
of individuals that are expected (in the absence of a seismic program) to occur in the waters that would be
exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 µParms.
Based on the calculated take, the estimate of the number of individual marine mammals that could
be exposed to seismic sounds with received levels ≥160 dB re 1 µParms during the proposed survey is
3706 (Table 4). That total includes 19 cetaceans listed as Endangered under the ESA: 15 fin whales and
4 sperm whales, representing 0.3% and 2.0 % of their regional populations (see Table 3), respectively.
In addition, 12 Cuvier’s beaked whales (6.0% of the regional population) could be exposed during
the survey (Table 4). Most (99.2%) of the cetaceans potentially exposed would be delphinids; the striped,
common bottlenose, Risso’s, and short-beaked common dolphins are estimated to be the most common
(and only) delphinid species in the area, with estimates of 2844 (1.2% of the regional population), 331
(3.3%), 269 (9.0%), and 231 (1.2%) exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μParms, respectively. Percentage estimates
for most odontocetes are likely overestimates, in some cases considerable overestimates, because the
population sizes are expected to be underestimates. This is because there are no truly regional population
size estimates for the Mediterranean Sea for most of these species; estimates are only available for parts
of the Mediterranean Sea.
(f) Conclusions for Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles
The proposed seismic project would involve towing a 36-airgun array with a total discharge
volume of 6600 in3 that introduces pulsed sounds into the ocean. Routine vessel operations, other than
the proposed seismic operations, are conventionally assumed not to affect marine mammals sufficiently to
constitute “taking”.
Marine Mammals.—In § 3.6.7, § 3.7.7, and § 3.8.7, the PEIS concluded that airgun operations
with implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures could result in a small number
of Level B behavioral effects in some mysticete, odontocete, and pinniped species and that Level A
effects were highly unlikely.
In this analysis, estimates of the numbers of marine mammals that could be exposed to airgun sounds
during the proposed program have been presented, together with the requested “take authorization”. The
estimated numbers of animals potentially exposed to sound levels sufficient to cause appreciable disturbance
are low percentages of the regional population sizes (Table 4). The estimates are likely overestimates of the
actual number of animals that would be exposed to and would react to the seismic sounds. The reasons for
that conclusion are outlined above. The relatively short-term exposures are unlikely to result in any long-
term negative consequences for the individuals or their populations. Therefore, no significant impacts on
cetaceans or pinnipeds would be expected from the proposed activity.
Sea Turtles.—In § 3.4.7, the PEIS concluded that with implementation of the proposed monitoring
and mitigation measures, no significant impacts of airgun operations are likely to sea turtle populations in
any of the analysis areas, and that any effects are likely to be limited to short-term behavioral disturbance
and short-term localized avoidance of an area of unknown size near the active airguns. Three species of
sea turtle―the leatherback, loggerhead, and green―could be encountered in the proposed survey areas.
Given the proposed activity, no significant impacts on sea turtles would be expected.
(2) Direct Effects on Invertebrates, Fish, Fisheries, and EFH and Their Significance
Effects of seismic sound on marine invertebrates (crustaceans and cephalopods), marine fish, and
their fisheries are discussed in § 3.2.4 and § 3.3.4 and Appendix D of the PEIS. Relevant new studies on
the effects of sound on marine invertebrates, fish, and fisheries that have been published since the release of
the PEIS are summarized below. Although research on the effects of exposure to airgun sound on marine
invertebrates and fishes is increasing, many data gaps remain (Hawkins et al. 2014).
(a) Effects of Sound on Marine Invertebrates

Fewtrell and McCauley (2012) exposed captive squid (Sepioteuthis australis) to pulses from a
single airgun; the received sound levels ranged from 120 to 184 dB re 1 dB re 1 μPa2 · s SEL. Increases
in alarm responses were seen at SELs >147–151 dB re 1 μPa2 · s; the squid were seen to discharge ink or
change their swimming pattern or vertical position in the water column. Solé et al. (2013) exposed four
caged cephalopod species to low-frequency (50–400 Hz) sinusoidal wave sweeps (with a 1-s sweep
period for 2 h) with received levels of 157 ± 5 dB re 1 μPa, and peak levels up to 175 dB re 1 μPa.
Besides exhibiting startle responses, all four species examined received damage to the statocyst, which is
the organ responsible for equilibrium and movement. The animals showed stressed behavior, decreased
activity, and loss of muscle tone.
When New Zealand scallop (Pecten novaezelandiae) larvae were exposed to recorded seismic
pulses, significant developmental delays were reported, and 46% of the larvae exhibited body
abnormalities; it was suggested that the malformations could be attributable to cumulative exposure (de
Soto et al. 2013). Their experiment used larvae enclosed in 60-ml flasks suspended in a 2-m diameter by
1.3-m water depth tank and exposed to a playback of seismic sound at a distance of 5–10 cm. Other
studies conducted in the field have shown no effects on Dungeness crab larvae or snow crab embryos
(Pearson et al. 1994; DFOC 2004 in NSF PEIS).
Celi et al. (2013) exposed captive red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkia) to linear sweeps with
a frequency range of 0.1–25 kHz and a peak amplitude of 148 dB re 1 µParms at 12 kHz for 30 min. They
found that the noise exposure caused changes in the haemato-immunological parameters (indicating
stress) and reduced agonistic behaviors.
(b) Effects of Sound on Fish

Potential impacts of exposure to airgun sound on marine fishes have been reviewed by Popper
(2009), Popper and Hastings (2009a,b), and Fay and Popper (2012); they include pathological,
physiological, and behavioral effects. Radford et al. (2014) suggested that masking of key environmental
sounds or social signals could also be a potential negative effect from sound. Popper et al. (2014)
presented guidelines for seismic sound level thresholds related to potential effects on fish. The effect
types discussed include mortality, mortal injury, recoverable injury, temporary threshold shift, masking,
and behavioral effects. Seismic sound level thresholds were discussed in relation to fish without swim
bladders, fish with swim bladders, and fish eggs and larvae.
Bui et al. (2013) examined the behavioral responses of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) to light,
sound, and surface disturbance events. They reported that the fish showed short-term avoidance
responses to the three stimuli. Salmon that were exposed to 12 Hz sounds and/or surface disturbances
increased their swimming speeds.
Peña et al. (2013) used an omnidirectional fisheries sonar to determine the effects of a 3-D seismic
survey off Vesterålen, northern Norway, on feeding herring (Clupea harengus). They reported that
herring schools did not react to the seismic survey; no significant changes were detected in swimming
speed, swim direction, or school size when the drifting seismic vessel approached the fish from a distance
of 27 km to 2 km over a 6-h period. Peña et al. (2013) attributed the lack of response to strong motivation
for feeding, the slow approach of the seismic vessel, and an increased tolerance to airgun sounds.
Miller and Cripps (2013) used underwater visual census to examine the effect of a seismic survey
on a shallow-water coral reef fish community in Australia. The census took place at six sites on the reef
before and after the survey. When the census data collected during the seismic program were combined
with historical data, the analyses showed that the seismic survey had no significant effect on the overall
abundance or species richness of reef fish. This was in part attributed to the design of the seismic survey
(e.g., ≥400 m buffer zone around reef), which reduced the impacts of seismic sounds on the fish
communities by exposing them to relatively low SELs (<187 dB re 1 μPa2 · s). Fewtrell and McCauley
(2012) exposed pink snapper (Pagrus auratus) and trevally (Pseudocaranx dentex) to pulses from a single
airgun; the received sound levels ranged from 120 to 184 dB re 1 dB re 1 μPa2 · s SEL. Increases in
alarm responses were seen in the fish at SELs >147–151 dB re 1 μPa2 · s; the fish swam faster and formed
more cohesive groups in response to the airgun sounds.
Hastings and Miksis-Olds (2012) measured the hearing sensitivity of caged reef fish following
exposure to a seismic survey in Australia. When the auditory evoked potentials (AEP) were examined for
fish that had been in cages as close as 45 m from the pass of the seismic vessel and at water depth of 5 m,
there was no evidence of TTS in any of the fish examined, even though the cumulative SELs had reached
190 dB re 1 μPa2 · s.
Popper et al. (2013) conducted a study that examined the effects of exposure to seismic airgun
sound on caged pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) and paddlefish (Polyodon spathula); the
maximum received peak SPL in this study was 224 dB re 1 µPa. Results of the study indicated no
mortality, either during or seven days after exposure, and no statistical differences in effects on body
tissues between exposed and control fish.
Andrews et al. (2014) conducted functional genomic studies on the inner ear of Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar) that had been exposed to seismic airgun sound. The airguns had a maximum SPL of
~145 dB re 1 µPa2/Hz and the fish were exposed to 50 discharges per trial. The results provided evidence
that fish exposed to seismic sound either increased or decreased their expressions of different genes,
demonstrating that seismic sound can affect fish on a genetic level.
(c) Effects of Sound on Fisheries

Results of a study off Norway in 2009 indicated that fishes reacted to airgun sound based on
observed changes in catch rates during seismic shooting; gillnet catches increased during the seismic
shooting, likely a result of increased fish activity, whereas longline catches decreased overall (Løkkeborg
et al. 2012). Handegard et al. (2013) examined different exposure metrics to explain the disturbance of
seismic surveys on fish. They applied metrics to two experiments in Norwegian waters, during which
fish distribution and fisheries were affected by airguns. Even though the disturbance for one experiment
was greater, the other appeared to have the stronger SEL, based on a relatively complex propagation
model. Handegard et al. (2013) recommended that simple sound propagation models should be avoided
and that the use of sound energy metrics like SEL to interpret disturbance effects should be done with
caution. In this case, the simplest model (exposures per area) best explained the disturbance effect.
Hovem et al. (2012) used a model to predict the effects of airgun sounds on fish populations.
Modeled SELs were compared with empirical data and were then compared with startle response levels
for cod. This work suggested that in the future, particular acoustic-biological models could be useful in
designing and planning seismic surveys to minimize disturbance to fishing. Their preliminary analyses
indicated that seismic surveys should occur at a distance of 5–10 km from fishing areas, in order to
minimize potential effects on fishing.
(d) Conclusions for Invertebrates, Fish and Fisheries

This newly available information does not affect the outcome of the effects assessment as presented
in the PEIS. The PEIS concluded that there could be changes in behavior and other non-lethal, short-
term, temporary impacts, and injurious or mortal impacts on a small number of individuals within a few
meters of a high-energy acoustic source, but that there would be no significant impacts of NSF-funded
marine seismic research on populations. The PEIS also concluded that seismic surveys could cause
temporary, localized reduced fish catch to some species, but that effects on commercial and recreation
fisheries were not significant.
Interactions between the proposed survey and commercial and recreational fishing in the survey
areas are expected to be limited. Two possible conflicts in general are the Langseth’s streamer entangling
with fixed fishing gear and displacement of fishers from the survey areas. Fishing activities could occur
within the survey areas; however, a safe distance would need to be kept from the Langseth and the towed
seismic equipment. Conflicts would be avoided through communication with the fishing community
during the survey; the local Greek Coast Guard and the Santorini Boatmen Union would be made aware
of operations in the area.
Ninety-three OBS instruments would be deployed during the survey. All OBSs would be recovered
after the proposed survey. The OBS anchors either are 23-kg pieces of hot-rolled steel that have a footprint
of 0.3×0.4 m or 36-kg iron grates with a footprint of 0.9×0.9 m. OBS anchors would be left behind upon
equipment recovery. Although OBS placement would disrupt a very small area of seafloor habitat and
could disturb benthic invertebrates, the impacts are expected to be localized and transitory.
Given the proposed activity, no significant impacts on marine invertebrates, marine fish, and their
fisheries would be expected. In decades of seismic surveys carried out by the Langseth and its
predecessor, the R/V Ewing, PSOs and other crew members have not observed any seismic sound-related
fish or invertebrate injuries or mortality.
(3) Direct Effects on Seabirds and Their Significance

Effects of seismic sound and other aspects of seismic operations (collisions, entanglement, and
ingestion) on seabirds are discussed in § 3.5.4 of the PEIS. The PEIS concluded that there could be
transitory disturbance, but that there would be no significant impacts of NSF-funded marine seismic
research on seabirds or their populations. Given the proposed activity, no significant impacts on seabirds
would be expected. In decades of seismic surveys carried out by the Langseth and its predecessor, the
R/V Ewing, PSOs and other crew members have seen no seismic sound-related seabird injuries or
mortality. Terrestrial activities would not affect seabirds because the only activities near the coast would
involve burying passive seismometers.
(4) Indirect Effects on Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, Seabirds and Fish and Their
Significance
The proposed seismic operations would not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by
marine mammals, sea turtles, or seabirds or to the food sources they use. The main impact issue
associated with the proposed activity would be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct
effects on these species, as discussed above.
During the proposed seismic survey, only a small fraction of the available habitat would be
ensonified at any given time. Disturbance to fish species and invertebrates would be short-term, and fish
would return to their pre-disturbance behavior once the seismic activity ceased. Thus, the proposed survey
would have little impact on the abilities of marine mammals or sea turtles to feed in the area where seismic
work is planned. No significant indirect impacts on marine mammals, sea turtles, or fish would be expected.
(5) Direct Effects on Recreational SCUBA Divers and Dive Sites and Their Significance
No significant impacts on dive sites, including shipwrecks, would be expected. Airgun sounds
would have no effects on solid structures, and the Langseth would avoid deploying OBSs on any wrecks
along the survey track lines. The only potential effects could be temporary displacement of fish and
invertebrates from the structures.
Significant impacts on, or conflicts with, divers or diving activities would be avoided through
communication with the diving community before and during the survey; the local Greek Coast Guard
and the Santorini Boatmen Union would be informed of the survey. In particular, dive operators would
be made aware of operations near dive sites.
(6) Cumulative Effects
Wright and Kyhn (2014) recently proposed practical management steps to limit cumulative
impacts, including minimizing exposure by reducing exposure rates and levels. The results of the
cumulative impacts analysis in the PEIS indicated that there would not be any significant cumulative
effects to marine resources from the proposed NSF-funded marine seismic research. However, the PEIS
also stated that, “A more detailed, cruise-specific cumulative effects analysis would be conducted at the
time of the preparation of the cruise-specific EAs, allowing for the identification of other potential
activities in the area of the proposed seismic survey that may result in cumulative impacts to
environmental resources.” Here we focus on activities that could impact animals specifically in the
proposed survey areas (e.g., research activities, vessel traffic, and commercial fisheries).
(a) Past and future research activities in the area
Considerable scientific research has been conducted in the area to investigate its submarine
volcanic characteristics; methods have included multibeam bathymetric surveys, use of manned
submersibles and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), side-scan sonar imaging, and seismic surveys
(reviewed in Nomikou et al. 2013), and, more recently, LIDAR or Light Detection and Ranging
(Nomikou et al. 2014). Seismic surveys in the area have occurred in the Santorini caldera
(e.g., Sigurdsson et al. 2006) and in the Santorini-Amalfi Basin (Perissoratis and Papadopoulos 1999).
Shallow multichannel seismic work has previously been conducted in the area, in particular
involving the project collaborator Dr. Nomikou. Those studies explained recent tectonic and magmatic
processes by how they deform sediments. A local seismic tomography study involving the project
collaborator Prof. Papazachos provided some seismic crustal structural information but only to ~6 km
depth. The present study would collect data that samples the deepest parts of the magma plumbing
system and would be sufficiently dense to perform full waveform inversions that would provide structure
at 10 times the resolution of traditional tomography studies. Spanish scientist Dr. C. Ranero is planning a
multichannel seismic survey in the summer of 2015 that is expected to cover some of the same area as the
present study. This would provide information on upper crustal structure that could complement the
present study where the two programs overlap.
Other scientific seismic research activities might be conducted in this region in the future; however,
aside from those noted here, no other marine geophysical surveys are currently proposed in the region using
the Langseth in the foreseeable future. At the present time, the proponents of the survey are not aware of
other marine research activities planned to occur in the proposed survey areas during the
November−December 2015 timeframe, but research activities planned by other entities are possible.
(b) Vessel traffic
Vessel traffic in and around the proposed survey areas would primarily consist of commercial
shipping, recreational vessels, and ferries. Based on data made available through the Automated Mutual-
Assistance Vessel Rescue (AMVER) system managed by the U.S. Coast Guard, up to 14 commercial
vessels per month typically passed near the Santorini survey area during 2007–2013, although up to
49 vessels per month were also occasionally recorded before 2012. Fifteen to >50 commercial vessels per
month typically passed off western and southwestern Crete during 2007‒2013. (The only 2013 data
available are for January–June, the most recent data available as of January 2015; USCG 2013).
Live vessel traffic information is available from MarineTraffic (2015), including vessel names,
types, flags, positions, and destinations. Various types of vessels were in the general vicinity of the
Santorini survey area when MarineTraffic (2015) was accessed on 23 and 29 January 2015, including
cargo vessels/container ships (64), tankers (52), bulk/heavy load carriers (27), vehicle carriers (2), tugs
(2), offshore supply/replenishment vessels (3), passenger ships (21), pleasure craft (2), fishing vessels (2),
unidentified vessel types (2), and one each of landing craft, livestock carriers, and reefers. The landing
craft, fishing vessels, unidentified vessel types, and all but one of the passenger ships had a Greek flag;
the vehicle carriers, tugs, offshore supply/replenishment vessels, livestock carrier, and reefer had foreign
flags. The cargo/container ships, tankers, and bulk/heavy load carriers consisted of both Greek- and
foreign-flagged vessels. Similar vessel types were in the vicinity of Crete when MarineTraffic (2015)
was accessed on 10 February and 17 March 2015, including cargo/container ships (23), tankers (18), bulk
carriers (10), supply/replenishment vessels (2), passenger ships (5), and one each of tug, sailing, and law
enforcement vessels. Few of these vessels had a Greek flag, including a cargo/container ship, two
tankers, and four passenger ships.
Based on live vessel traffic information (MarineTraffic 2015), the majority of commercial vessels
travel in open waters beyond the proposed survey area near Santorini; commercial traffic is expected to be
greater off western Crete. In a given year, ferries travelling between Crete, Santorini, and other Greek
islands or mainland Greece would likely comprise the majority of vessel traffic through the proposed
survey areas, especially near Santorini, between October and December; off western Crete, there would
also be substantial vessel traffic by commercial vessels such as cargo ships and tankers. Ferries to and
from Santorini typically run until mid-afternoon on Mondays through Saturdays from November to April
(Sappho Travel 2012). Ferries to and from Crete typically operate during mornings, afternoons, and
evenings throughout the year (CreteTravel 2014). There might be chartered yachts or fishing vessels in
the survey areas between October and December; the number of chartered vessels in the Santorini area is
low during this period, with the peak season typically running from July until early to mid-September
(Willemsen 2013). There would likely be more chartered vessels off western Crete, with a peak season
between October and March (CreteTravel 2014).
There are at least 28 ports of entry in Greece, providing services such as port of entry registration,
port police, customs, fuel, water, general repairs, slipway usage, cranage, and provisions for recreational
and commercial vessels (PUPA Yachting 2000). The nearest port of entry to Santorini is ~91 km to the
north at Port Ermoupolis, on the island of Síros. There are three ports of entry in Crete: Chania, Iraclion
Marina and Ayios Nikolaos, along the northwest, north-central, and northeast coastline, respectively.
The total transit distance of ~2800 km (including transit to and from port) by L-DEO’s vessel
Langseth would be minimal relative to total transit length for vessels operating in the general region
around the proposed survey areas during November–December. Thus, the addition of L-DEO’s vessel
traffic to existing shipping and recreational traffic is expected to result in only a negligible increase in
overall ship traffic.
(c) Fisheries
The commercial and recreational fisheries in the general area of the proposed survey are described
in § III. The primary contributions of fishing to potential cumulative impacts on marine mammals and
sea turtles involve noise, potential entanglement, and removal of prey items (e.g., Reeves et al. 2003;
Gómez-Campos et al. 2011; Notarbartolo Di Sciara 2014). There might be some localized avoidance by
marine mammals of fishing vessels near the proposed seismic survey areas. In contrast, open cage
aquaculture facilities in the Mediterranean could attract some marine mammals to the area (e.g., Piroddi et
al. 2011).
In the Mediterranean Sea, numerous cetaceans (mostly delphinids) and the monk seal suffer serious
injury or mortality each year from fisheries. For example, for the species assessed by Reeves et al.
(2013), estimated average annual fishery bycatch mortality in gillnets during 1990–2010 was 1800 striped
dolphins, 35 bottlenose dolphins, 132 long-finned pilot whales, 79 Risso’s dolphins, >100 sperm whales,
<1 fin whale, and <1 minke whale.
The endangered Mediterranean monk seal population has also been adversely impacted by incidental
entanglement in fishing gear (gill and trammel nets, trawls, and longlines). Between one and nine monk
seals were reported dead annually in gillnets from 1990 to 2008 (Reeves et al. 2013). A single monk seal
died in a trammel net off Santorini Island in March 1990 (Cebrian et al. 1990). Deliberate killings of
Mediterranean monk seals are also a problem in the eastern Mediterranean (Tudela 2004), occurring in
Greece (Ronald and Healey 1974), the Turkish Mediterranean, and the Aegean Sea (Berkes 1976).
Casale (2011) reported that an estimated >132,000 turtles are caught annually as a result of fishing
practices in the Mediterranean Sea, with ~20,000 taken as bycatch in the Aegean Sea (Casale 2011).
Fishing bycatch probably results in >44,000 incidental deaths per year (Casale 2011).
There might be some localized avoidance by marine mammals of fishing vessels near the proposed
seismic survey areas. L-DEO’s operations in the proposed survey areas are limited (duration of
~1 month), and the addition of L-DEO’s operations to existing commercial and recreational fishing
operations is expected to result in only a negligible increase in overall disturbance effects on marine
mammals and sea turtles. The addition of L-DEO’s operations to existing fishing operations would result
in no increase in serious injuries or mortality in marine mammals.
(d) Military Activity
A small portion of the proposed survey is located within NATO’s Missile Firing Installation
(NAMFI) guided missile range in the eastern Mediterranean Sea (NAVFAC 2008). NAMFI is ~14,400
km2 in area and is located in the Sea of Crete. The northern boundary of the range area is located just
south of Santorini and includes Christianna Island, thus overlapping the southwest corner of the primary
survey area. The types of activities that could occur in the NAMFI range include testing long-range and
very long-range weapon systems and missiles. A mass stranding of Cuvier’s beaked whales, coincident
with naval exercises in the area, occurred in April 2014 in Crete; there have been at least another
10 strandings of beaked whales in the Mediterranean that closely coincided with naval sonar activities
(Aguilar de Soto et al. 2014). L-DEO and NSF are coordinating, and would continue to coordinate, with
the NATO to ensure there would be no conflicts.
(e) Oil and Gas Activities
The eastern Mediterranean Sea is an important petroleum processing and shipping area with several
refineries and storage facilities. The oil and gas industry in this area is characterized by production
platforms, tanker traffic, seismic surveys, and both aircraft and vessel support. Very little crude oil is
produced in Greece (some 1.6 kb/d in 2012), and the oil exclusively comes from Prinos offshore oil field
in the Kavala Gulf in the northern Aegean Sea (IEA 2014). There are 10 oil terminals in Greece, all of
which are located along the Aegean Sea; the majority are located in the Attiki area (Athens) and the
remaining terminals are in the Thessaloniki area. Most of the oil and gas activity in the proposed survey
areas would be in the form of tanker and shipping traffic.
Geophysical surveys and/or drilling could occur in western Greece at the same time as the
proposed survey; the majority of activity is likely to take place offshore West Patraikos Gulf and
Katakolon where there is hydrocarbon potential. An extensive 2-D seismic survey was conducted during
late 2012–early 2013 by Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS) in collaboration with the Greek Ministry of
Environment, Energy and Climate Change; the 2-D seismic survey included areas of the Ionian Sea, West
Peloponnese, and south of Crete with a total area coverage of 225,000 km2 (Lie et al. 2014). A 3-D
industry seismic survey might be planned for the eastern Aegean Sea, Kastelorizo, and south of Crete in
the near future; no further details about this project are known. L-DEO and NSF are coordinating, and
would continue to coordinate, with the oil and gas industry to ensure there would be no conflicts.
(7) Unavoidable Impacts

Unavoidable impacts to the species of marine mammals and turtles occurring in the proposed
survey areas would be limited to short-term, localized changes in behavior of individuals. For cetaceans,
some of the changes in behavior may be considered to fall within the MMPA definition of “Level B
Harassment” (behavioral disturbance; no serious injury or mortality). TTS, if it occurs, would be limited
to a few individuals, is a temporary phenomenon that does not involve injury, and is unlikely to have long
term consequences for the few individuals involved. No long-term or significant impacts would be
expected on any of these individual marine mammals or turtles, or on the populations to which they
belong. Effects on recruitment or survival would be expected to be (at most) negligible.
(8) Coordination with Other Agencies and Processes

This Draft EA has been prepared by LGL on behalf of L-DEO and NSF pursuant to Executive
Order 12114. Potential impacts to endangered species and critical habitat have also been assessed in the
document; therefore, it will be used to support the ESA Section 7 consultation process with NMFS and
USFWS. This document will also be used as supporting documentation for an IHA application submitted
by L-DEO to NMFS, under the U.S. MMPA, for “taking by harassment” (disturbance) of small numbers
of marine mammals, for this proposed seismic survey. L-DEO and NSF have coordinated, and will
continue to coordinate, with other applicable Federal agencies as required, and will comply with their
requirements. On behalf of L-DEO, the U.S. State Department will seek authorization from Greece for
clearance to work in its EEZ.
Alternative Action: Another Time

An alternative to issuing the IHA for the period requested, and to conducting the Project then, is to
issue the IHA for another time, and to conduct the project at that alternative time. The proposed dates for
the cruise (~29 days in November–December) are the dates when the personnel and equipment essential
to meet the overall project objectives are available.
The weather in the Mediterranean Sea was taken into consideration when planning the proposed
activity. The Mediterranean Sea can be challenging to operate in during certain times of year, precluding
the ability to safely tow seismic gear and conduct operations. Additionally, a period was chosen with
decreased tourism to minimize any space-use conflict and disturbance. Whereas conducting the survey at
an alternative time is a viable alternative, because of the weather conditions, it would not be as desirable
to conduct a seismic survey in the Mediterranean Sea during the winter months.
Marine mammals and sea turtles are expected to be found throughout the proposed survey areas
and throughout the time during which the project would occur. Most marine mammal species are
expected to occur in the area year-round, so altering the timing of the proposed project likely would result
in no net benefits for those species.
No Action Alternative
An alternative to conducting the proposed activity is the “No Action” Alternative, i.e., do not issue an
IHA and do not conduct the operations. If the research were not conducted, the “No Action” alternative
would result in no disturbance to marine mammals or sea turtles attributable to the proposed activity;
however, valuable data about the marine environment would be lost. Research that would contribute to
understanding the crustal magma plumbing of the Santorini volcanic system would be lost and greater
understanding of Earth processes would not be gained. The No Action Alternative would not meet the
purpose and need for the proposed activity.
V. List of Preparers
V. LIST OF PREPARERS
LGL Ltd., environmental research associates
Patrick Abgrall, Ph.D., King City, Ont.*

William E. Cross, M.Sc., King City, Ont.*
Meike Holst, M.Sc., Sidney, B.C.*
Sarah Penney-Belbin, M.Sc., St. John’s, NL*
Heather Smith, Ph.D., King City, Ont.*
Mark Fitzgerald, B.Sc., King City, Ont.
William R. Koski, M.Sc., King City, Ont.
W. John Richardson, Ph.D., King City, Ont.
Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory
Helene Carton, Ph.D., Palisades, NY

Anne Bécel, Ph.D., Palisades, NY
National Science Foundation
Holly E. Smith, M.A., Arlington, VA
* Principal preparers of this specific document. Others listed above contributed to a lesser extent, or
contributed substantially to previous related documents from which material has been excerpted.
VI. Literature Cited
VI. LITERATURE CITED

Abdulla, A., M. Gomei, E. Maison, and C. Piante. 2008. Status of marine protected areas in the Mediterranean Sea.
IUCN, Malaga and WWF, France. 152 p. Accessed in January 2015 at http://www.iucn.org/about/union/
secretariat/offices/iucnmed/resources/publications/?1962/1/Status-of-Marine-Protected-Areas-in-the-
Mediterranean-Sea.
ACCOBAMS (Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous
Atlantic Area). 2013. Final Report of the 5th Meeting of the Parties. 147 p. Accessed in March 2015 at
http://www.accobams.org/images/stories/MOP/MOP5/Documents/mop5%20final%20report.pdf.
ACCOBAMS. 2014. Marine Protected Areas: areas of special importance for cetaceans in the ACCOBAMS area.
Accessed in March 2015 at http://accobams.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
1094&Itemid=147.
Adamantopoulou, S., E. Androukaki, and S. Kotomatas. 1999. The distribution of the Mediterranean monk seal in
Greece based on an information network. Contr. Zoogeogr. Ecol. East. Med. Reg. 1:399-404. Accessed in
February 2015 at http://www.mom.gr/LH2Uploads/ItemsContent/507/press.pdf.
Adamantopoulou, S., E. Androukaki, P. Dendrinos, S. Kotomatas, V. Paravas, M. Psaradellis, E. Tounta, and
A.A. Karamanlidis. 2011. Movements of Mediterranean monk seals (Monachus monachus) in the eastern
Mediterranean Sea. Aquat. Mamm. 37(3):256-261.
Aguilar, A. 1986. A review of old Basque whaling and its effect on the right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) of the
North Atlantic. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. Spec. Iss. 10:191-199.
Aguilar, A. 1989. A record of two humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the western Mediterranean Sea.
Mar. Mamm. Sci. 5(3):306-309.
Aguilar, A. 2009. Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus. p. 433-437 In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen
(eds.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals, 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1316 p.
Aguilar, A., L.H. Cappozzo, M. Gazo, T. Pastor, J. Forcada, and E. Grau. 2007. Lactation and mother-pup
behaviour in the Mediterranean monk seal Monachus monachus: an unusual pattern for a phocid. J. Mar.
Biol. Assoc. U.K. 87(1):93-99.
Aguilar Soto, N., M. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, P.L. Tyack, A. Bocconcelli, and J.F. Borsani. 2006. Does intense ship
noise disrupt foraging in deep-diving Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris)? Mar. Mamm. Sci.
22(3):690-699.
Aguilar de Soto N., A. Frantzis, A. Cañadas, and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara. 2014. Actions for the conservation of
Cuvier’s beaked whale: implementation of areas of special concern for beaked whales in the Mediterranean
Sea. Working Pap. SC/65b/SM25. Int. Whal. Comm., Cambridge, U.K. 7 p.
Airoldi, S., F. Bendinoni, A. Azzellino, V. Fadda, and A. Profice. 2005. Abundance estimate of Risso’s dolphins
(Grampus griseus) in the western Ligurian Sea through photographic mark-recapture. p. 109 In: Abstracts,
19th Ann. Conf. Europ. Cetac. Soc., 2–7 Apr. 2005, La Rochelle, France.
Aissi, M., A. Celona, G. Comparetto, R. Mangano, M. Wurtz, and A. Moulins. 2008. Large-scale seasonal
distribution of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in the central Mediterranean Sea. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc.
U.K. 88(6):1253-1261.
Anderwald, P., A.K. Daníelsdóttir, T. Haug, F. Larsen, V. Lesage, R.J. Reid, G.A. Víkingsson, and A.R. Hoezel.
2011. Possible cryptic stock structure for minke whales in the North Atlantic: implications for conservation
and management. Biol. Conserv. 144(10):2479-2489.
Andrews, C.D., J.F. Payne, and M.L. Rise. 2014. Identification of a gene set to evaluate the potential effects of
loud sounds from seismic surveys on the ears of fishes: a study with Salmo salar. J. Fish Biol. 84(6):1793-
1819.
Angloinfo. 2015. Fishing in Greece. AngloINFO Limited. Accessed in February 2015 at
http://greece.angloinfo.com/lifestyle/sports-and-leisure/fishing/.
Anonymous. 1995. Protocols concerning specially protected areas and biological diversity in the Mediterranean.
20 p. Accessed in February 2015 at http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=content2&catid=
001001001.
Anonymous. 1999. Protocol concerning specially protected areas and biological diversity in the Mediterranean.
Official Journal of the European Communities. L 322/3. 41 p. Accessed in February 2015 at
http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/prepareCreateTreatiesWorkspace/treatiesGeneralData.do?step=0&redir
ect=true&treatyId=598.
Azzellino, A., S. Gaspari, S. Airoldi, and 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 Res. I
55(3):296-323.
Bagda, E., F. Bardakci, and O. Turkozan. 2012. Lower genetic structuring in mitochondrial DNA than nuclear
DNA among nesting colonies of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the Mediterranean. Biochem. Syst. Ecol.
43:192-199.
Baird, R.W. 2009a. Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus. p. 975-976 In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewis-
sen (eds.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals, 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1316 p.
Baird, R.W. 2009b. False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens. p. 405-406 In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M.
Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals, 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1316 p.
Baird, R.W., S.W. Martin, D.L. Webster, and B.L. Southall. 2014. Assessment of modeled received sound pressure
levels and movements of satellite-tagged odontocetes exposed to mid-frequency active sonar at the Pacific
Missile Range Facility: February 2011 through February 2013. Prepared for U.S. Pacific Fleet, submitted to
NAVFAC PAC by HDR Environmental, Operations and Construction, Inc. Accessed on 13 March 2015 at
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA602847.
Baker, C.S. and L.M. Herman. 1989. Behavioral responses of summering humpback whales to vessel traffic:
experimental and opportunistic observations. NPS-NR-TRS-89-01. Rep. from Kewalo Basin Mar. Mamm.
Lab., Univ. Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for U.S. Natl. Park Serv., Anchorage, AK. 50 p. NTIS PB90-198409.
Baker, C.S., L.M. Herman, B.G. Bays, and W.F. Stifel. 1982. The impact of vessel traffic on the behavior of
humpback whales in southeast Alaska. Rep. from Kewalo Basin Mar. Mamm. Lab., Honolulu, HI, for U.S.
Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Seattle, WA. 78 p.
Baker, C.S., L.M. Herman, B.G. Bays, and G.B. Bauer. 1983. The impact of vessel traffic on the behavior of
humpback whales in southeast Alaska: 1982 season. Rep. from Kewalo Basin Mar. Mamm. Lab., Honolulu,
HI, for U.S. Nat. Mar. Mamm. Lab., Seattle, WA. 30 p.
Barry, S.B., A.C. Cucknell, and N. Clark. 2012. A direct comparison of bottlenose dolphin and common dolphin
behaviour during seismic surveys when airguns are and are not being utilised. p. 273-276 In: A.N. Popper
and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York. 695 p.
Başusta, N. 2002. Occurrence of a sawback angelshark (Squatina aculeata Cuvier, 1829) off the Eastern
Mediterranean coast of Turkey. Turk J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 26(5):1177-1179.
Bearzi, G., R.R. Reeves, G. Notarbartolo di Sciara, E. Politi, A. Cañadas, A. Frantzis, and B. Mussi. 2003.
Ecology, status and conservation of short-beaked common dolphins Delphinus delphis in the Mediterranean
Sea. Mammal Rev. 33(3):224-252.
Bearzi, G., S. Agazzi, S. Bonizzoni, M. Costa, and A. Azzellino. 2008. Dolphins in a bottle: abundance, residency
patterns and conservation of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in the semi-closed eutrophic Amvrakikos
Gulf, Greece. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 18(2):130-146.
Bearzi, G., R.R. Reeves, E. Remonato, N. Pierantonio, and S. Airoldi. 2011. Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus in
the Mediterranean Sea. Mammal. Biol. 76(4):385-400.
Bellido, J.J., J.J. Castillo, M.A. Farfan, J.J. Martin, J.L. Mons, and R. Real. 2007. First records of hooded seals
(Cystophora cristata) in the Mediterranean Sea. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 87(6):1791-1792.
Bentivegna, F., F. Valentino, P. Falco, E. Zambianchi, and S. Hochscheid. 2007. The relationship between
loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) movement patterns and Mediterranean currents. Mar. Biol.
151(5):1605-1614.
Berkes, F. 1976. Monk seals on the southwest coast of Turkey. Food and Agricultural Organisation, Advisory
Committee on Marine Resources Research, Scientific Consultation on Sea Mammals, Bergen, Norway
Doc. SC/109:1-5. Accessed on 13 March 2015 at https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=j-
Je25qovO8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA237&dq=Monk+seals+on+the+southwest+coast+of+Turkey&ots=GX0AXYj
MkT&sig=cv6Arqq3GlpfBljf3cT_DoKVSn0#v=onepage&q=Monk%20seals%20on%20the%20southwest%
20coast%20of%20Turkey&f=false.
Bernstein, L. 2013. The Washington Post: Health, Science, and Environment. Panel links underwater mapping
sonar to whale stranding for first time. Published 6 October 2013. Accessed on 9 March 2015 at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/panel-links-underwater-mapping-sonar-to-whale-
stranding-for-first-time/2013/10/06/52510204-2e8e-11e3-bbed-a8a60c601153_story.html.
Bérubé, M., A. Aguilar, D. Dendanto, F. Larsen, G. Notarbartolo di Sciara, R. Sears, J. Sigurjónsson, J. Urban-R.,
and P.J. Palsbøll. 1998. Population genetic structure of North Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea, and Sea of
Cortez fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus (Linnaeus1758): analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear loci. Mol.
Ecol. 7(5):585-599.
Billard, R. and G. Lecointre. 2001. Biology and conservation of sturgeon and paddlefish. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish.
10(4):355‐392.
BirdLife International. 2015a. Species factsheet: Audouin's Gull Larus audouinii. Accessed on 2 February 2015 at
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=3217
BirdLife International. 2015b. Species factsheet: Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris. Accessed on
2 February 2015 at http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=3011
Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, and H.R. Martins. 2000. Somatic growth model of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles
Caretta caretta: duration of pelagic stage. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 202:265-272.
Blackwell, S.B., C.S. Nations, T.L. McDonald, C.R. Greene, Jr., A.M. Thode, M. Guerra, and A.M. Macrander.
2013. Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Mar. Mamm.
Sci. 29(4):E342-E365.
Blackwell, S.B., C.S. Nations, T.L. McDonald, A.M. Thode, D. Mathias, K.H. Kim, C.R. Greene, Jr., and A.M.
Macrander. 2015. Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates: evidence for two behavioral
thresholds. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0125720. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125720.
Boisseau, O., C. Lacey, T. Lewis, A. Moscrop, M. Danbolt, and R. McLanaghan. 2010. Encounter rates of
cetaceans in the Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 90(8):1589-
1599.
Bolten, A.B. 2003. Variation in sea turtle life history patterns: neritic vs. oceanic developmental stages. p. 243-257
In: P.L. Lutz, J.A. Musick, and J. Wyneken (eds.), The biology of sea turtles, Vol. II. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL. 475 p.
Borrell, A., A. Aguilar, V. Tornero, M. Sequeira, G. Fernandez, and S. Alis. 2006. Organochlorine compounds and
stable isotopes indicate bottlenose dolphin subpopulation structure around the Iberian Peninsula. Environ.
Int. 32(4):516-523.
Bourret, V.J.R., M.R.J.M. Macé, and B. Crouau-Roy. 2007. Genetic variation and population structure of western
Mediterranean and northern Atlantic Stenella coeruleoalba populations inferred from microsatellite data.
J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 87(1):265-269.
Bowen, B., J.C. Avise, J.I. Richardson, A.B Meylan, D. Margaritoulis, and S.R. Hopkins-Murphy. 1993.
Population structure of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean and
Mediterranean Sea. Conserv. Biol. 7(4):834-844.
Bradai, M.N., B. Saidi, and S. Enajjar. 2012. Elasmobranchs of the Mediterranean and Black sea: status, ecology
and biology. Bibliographic Analysis. Studies and Reviews. General Fisheries Commission for the
Mediterranean No. 91. FAO, Rome. 103 p. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3097e/i3097e.pdf.
Branstetter, B.K., J.S. Trickey, H. Aihara, J.J. Finneran, and T.R. Liberman. 2013. Time and frequency metrics
related to auditory masking of a 10 kHz tone in bottlenose dophins (Tursiops truncatus). J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 134(6):4556-4565.
Breitzke, M. and T. Bohlen. 2010. Modelling sound propagation in the Southern Ocean to estimate the acoustic
impact of seismic research surveys on marine mammals. Geophys. J. Int. 181(2):818-846.
Broderick, A.C., F. Glen, B.J. Godley, and G.C. Hays. 2002. Estimating the number of green and loggerhead
turtles nesting annually in the Mediterranean. Oryx 36(3):227-235.
Broderick, A.C., M.S. Coyne, W.J. Fuller, F. Glen, and B.J. Godley. 2007. Fidelity and overwintering of sea
turtles. Proc. R. Soc. B 274(1617):1533-1538.
Broker, K., J. Durinck, C. Vanman, and B. Martin. 2013. Monitoring of marine mammals and the sound scape
during a seismic survey in two license blocks in the Baffin Bay, West Greendland, in 2012. p. 32 In: Abstr.
20th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., 9–13 Dec. 2013, Dunedin, New Zealand. 233 p.
Brown, S.G. 1986. Twentieth-century records of right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the northeast Atlantic
Ocean. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. Spec. Iss. 10:121-127.
Buckland, S.T., D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, J.L. Laake, D.L. Borchers, and L. Thomas. 2001. Introduction to
distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.
448 p.
Bui, S., F. Oppedal, Ø.J. Korsøen, D. Sonny, and T. Dempster. 2013. Group behavioural responses of Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar L.) to light, infrasound and sound stimuli. PLoS ONE 8(5):e63696.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063696.
Bustamante, G., P. Canals, G. di Carlo, M. Gomei, M. Romani, H. Souan, and A. Vanzella-Khouri. 2014. Marine
protected areas management in the Caribbean and Mediterranean seas: making them more than paper parks.
Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24(Suppl. 2):153-165.
Cacaud, P. 2005. Fisheries laws and regulations in the Mediterranean: a comparative study. Studies and Reviews.
No. 75. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, FAO. Rome. 40 p. Accessed in February
2015 at http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/eims_search/advanced_s_result.asp?series=58&sortorder=7&form_c=
AND&lang=en.
Camiñas, J. 2004. Sea turtles of the Mediterranean Sea: population dynamics, sources of mortality and relative
importance of fishery impacts. FAO Fisheries Report No. 738(Suppl.):27-84. Accessed on 13 March 2015
at http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5750e/y5750e03.htm.
Cañadas, A. 2006. Towards conservation of dolphins in the Alborán Sea. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid, Spain. 351 p.
Cañadas, A. 2011. Updated draft assessment of the conservation status of Cuvier’s beaked whales in the
Mediterranean Sea. Working Pap. SC/63/SM8. Int. Whal. Comm., Cambridge, U.K. 10 p.
Cañadas, A. and P.S. Hammond. 2008. Abundance and habitat preferences of the short-beaked common dolphin
Delphinus delphis in the southwestern Mediterranean: implications for conservation. Endang. Species Res.
4(3):309-331.
Cañadas, A., A. B-Nagy, G. Bearzi, C. Cotte, C. Fortuna, A. Gannier, S. Laran, G. Lauriano, T. Lewis, A. Moulins,
B. Mussi, X. Pastor, E. Politi, M. Pulcini, J.A. Raga, and L. Rendell. 2012. ACCOBAMS collaborative
effort to map high-use areas by beaked whales in the Mediterranean. Rep. ACCOBAMS Sci. Comm.
ACCOBAMS-SC8/2012/Doc 10. 8th Meet. Sci. Commit., 13–15 Nov. 2012, Monaco. Accessed in February
2015 at http://accobams.org/images/stories/Important_Documents/sc8_doc10.pdf.
Canbolat, A.F. 2004. A review of sea turtle nesting activity along the Mediterranean coast of Turkey. Biol.
Conserv. 116(1):81-91.
Capapé, C. and J. Zaouali. 1994. Distribution and reproductive biology of the blackchin guitarfish, Rhinobatos
cemiculus (Pisces: Rhinobatidae), in Tunisian waters (Central Mediterranean). Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater
Res. 45(4):551-561.
Capapé, C., J.P. Quignard, and J. Mellinger. 1990. Reproduction and development of two angel sharks, Squatina
squatina and S. oculata (Pisces: Squatinidae), off Tunisian coasts: Semi-delayed vitellogenesis, lack of egg
capsules, and lecithotrophy. J. Fish Biol. 37(3):347-356.
Capapé, C., Y. Diatta, A.A. Seck, O. Guélorget, J. Ben Souissi, and J. Zaouali. 2005. Reproduction of the sawback
angelshark Squatina aculeata (Chondrichthyes: Squatinidae) off Senegal and Tunisia. Cybium 29(2):147-
157.
Cardona, L., P. Campos, Y. Levy, A. Demetropoulos, and D. Margaritoulis. 2010. Asynchrony between dietary and
nutritional shifts during the ontogeny of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the Mediterranean. J. Exp. Mar.
Biol. Ecol. 393(1-2):83-89.
Carreras, C., S. Pont, F. Maffucci, M. Pascual, A. Barceló, F. Bentivegna, L. Cardona, F. Alegre, M. SanFélix,
G. Fernández, and A. Aguilar. 2006. Genetic structuring of immature loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta
caretta) in the Mediterranean Sea reflects water circulation patterns. Mar. Biol. 149(5):1269-1279.
Carreras, C., M. Pascual, L. Cardona, A. Aguilar, D. Margaritoulis, A. Rees, O. Turkozan, Y. Levy, A. Gasith,
M. Aureggi, and M. Khalil. 2007. The genetic structure of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) in the
Mediterranean as revealed by nuclear and mitochondrial DNA and its conservation implications. Conserv.
Genet. 8(4):761-775.
Carreras, C., M. Pascual, L. Cardona, A. Marco, J.J. Bellido, J.J. Castillo, J. Tomás, J.A. Raga, M SanFélix,
G. Fernández, and A. Aguilar. 2011. Living together but remaining apart: Atlantic and Mediterranean
loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in shared feeding grounds. J. Hered. 102(6):666-677.
doi:10.1093/jhered/esr089.
Carwardine, M. 1995. Whales, dolphins and porpoises. Dorling Kindersley Publishing, Inc., New York. 256 p.
Casale, P. 2011. Sea turtle by-catch in the Mediterranean. Fish Fish. 12(3):299-316.
Casale, P. and P. Mariani. 2014. The first ‘lost year’ of Mediterranean sea turtles: dispersal patterns indicate
subregional management units for conservation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 498:263-274.
Casale, P. Nicolosi, D. Freggi, M. Turchetto, and R. Argano. 2003. Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in
Italy and in the Mediterranean Sea. Herpetol. J. 13:135-139.
Casale, P., D. Freggi, R. Basso, and R. Argano. 2005. Oceanic habitats for loggerhead turtles in the Mediterranean
Sea. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 107:10-11.
Casale, P., D. Freggi, R. Basso, C. Vallini, and R. Argano. 2007. A model of area fidelity, nomadism, and
distribution patterns of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Biol.
152(5):1039-1049.
Casale, P., M. Afrronte, D. Scaravelli, B. Lazar, C. Vallini, and P. Luschi. 2012a. Foraging grounds, movement
patterns and habitat connectivity of juvenile loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) tracked from the Adriatic
Sea. Mar. Biol. 159(7):1527-1535.
Casale, P., A.C. Broderick, D. Freggi, R. Mencacci, W.J. Fuller, B.J. Godley, and P. Luschi. 2012b. Long-term
residence of juvenile loggerhead turtles to foraging grounds: a potential conservation hotspot in the
Mediterranean. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22(2):144-154. doi:10.1002/aqc.2222.
Casale, P., D. Freggi, A. Cinà, and M. Rocco. 2013. Spatio-temporal distribution and migration of adult male
loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean Sea: further evidence of the importance of
neritic habitats off North Africa. Mar. Biol. 160(3):703-718.
Castellote, M. and C. Llorens. 2013. Review of the effects of offshore seismic surveys in cetaceans: are mass
strandings a possibility? Abstr. 3rd Int. Conf. Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life, Aug. 2013, Budapest,
Hungary.
Castellote, M. C.W. Clark, and M.O. Lammers. 2010. Population identity and migration movements of fin whales
(Balaenoptera physalus) in the Mediterranean Sea and Strait of Gibraltar. Working Pap. SC/62/SD2. Int.
Whal. Comm., Cambridge, U.K. 16 p.
Castellote, M., C.W. Clark, and M.O. Lammers. 2012. Acoustic and behavioural changes by fin whales (Balaenop-
tera physalus) in response to shipping and airgun noise. Biol. Conserv. 147(1):115-122.
Cato, D.H., M.J. Noad, R.A. Dunlop, R.D. McCauley, C.P. Salgado Kent, N.J. Gales, H. Kniest, J. Noad, and
D. Paton. 2011. Behavioral response of Australian humpback whales to seismic surveys. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 129(4):2396.
Cato, D.H., M.J. Noad, R.A. Dunlop, R.D. McCauley, N.J. Gales, C.P. Salgado Kent, H. Kniest, D. Paton,
K.C.S. Jenner, J. Noad, A.L. Maggi, I.M. Parnum, and A.J. Duncan. 2012. Project BRAHSS: Behavioural
response of Australian humpback whales to seismic surveys. Proc. Austral. Acoust. Soc., 21–23 Nov. 2012,
Fremantle, Australia. 7 p.
Cato, D.H, M.J. Noad, R.A. Dunlop, R.D. McCauley, N.J. Gales, C.P. Salgado Kent, H. Kniest, D. Paton, K.C.S.
Jenner, J. Noad, A.L. Maggi, I.M. Parnum, and A.J. Duncan. 2013. A study of the behavioural response of
whales to the noise of seismic air guns: design, methods and progress. Acoust. Austral. 41(1):88-97.
Cattanach, K.L., J. Sigurjónsson, S.T. Buckland, and T. Gunnlaugsson. 1993. Sei whale abundance in the North
Atlantic, estimated from NASS-87 and NASS-89 data. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. 43:315-321.
Cebrian, D., H. Fatsea, and C. Mytilineou. 1990. Some data on biometry and stomach content of a Mediterranean
monk seal found in Santorini Island (Greece). Rapp. Comm. Int. l’Explor. Sci. Mer Medit. 32:237.
Celi, M., F. Filiciotto, D. Parrinello, G. Buscaino, M.A. Damiano, A. Cuttitta, S. D’Angelo, S. Mazzola, and
M. Vazzana. 2013. Physiological and agonistic behavioural response of Procambarus clarkii to an acoustic
stimulus. J. Exp. Biol. 216(4):709-718.
Cerchio, S., S. Strindberg, T. Collins, C. Bennett, and H. Rosenbaum. 2014. Seismic surveys negatively affect
humpback whale singing activity off northern Angola. PLoS ONE 9(3):e86464. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0086464.
Chaieb, O., A. Elouaer, F. Maffucci, S. Karaa, M.N. Bradai, H. ElHili, F. Bentivegna, K. Said, and N. Chatti. 2012.
Population structure and dispersal patterns of loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta in Tunisian coastal
waters, central Mediterranean. Endang. Species Res. 18(1):35-45.
Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., C. Brandt, K.L. Willis, C. Bech Christensen, D. Ketten, P. Edds-Walton, R.R. Fay, P.T.
Madsen, and C.E. Carr. 2012. Specialization for underwater hearing by the tympanic middle ear of the
turtle, Trachemys scripta elegans. Proc. R. Soc. B 279(1739):2816-2824. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0290.
Clapham, P.J., L.S. Baraff, C.A. Carlson, M.A. Christian, D.K. Mattila, C.A. Mayo, M.A. Murphy, and S. Pittman.
1993. Seasonal occurrence and annual return of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the southern
Gulf of Maine. Can. J. Zool. 71(2):440-443.
Clark, C.W. and G.C. Gagnon. 2006. Considering the temporal and spatial scales of noise exposures from seismic
surveys on baleen whales. Working Pap. SC/58/E9. Int. Whal. Comm., Cambridge, U.K. 9 p.
Clark, C.W., W.T. Ellison, B.L. Southall, L. Hatch, S.M. Van Parijs, A. Frankel, and D. Ponirakis. 2009. Acoustic
masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 395:201-222.
Clusa, M., C. Carreras, M. Pascual, S.J. Gaughran, S. Piovano, C. Giacoma, G. Fernández, Y. Levy, J. Tomás,
J.A. Raga, F. Maffucci, S. Hochscheid, A. Aguilar, and L. Cardona. 2014. Fine-scale distribution of juvenile
Atlantic and Mediterranean loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Biol.
161(3):509-519.
Compagno, L.J.V. 1984. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 4: Sharks of the world. An annotated and illustrated
catalogue of shark species known to date. Part 1—Hexanchiformes to Lamniformes. FAO Fish. Synop.
125(4/1):1-249. UNDP/FAO, Rome. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/
ad122e/ad122e00.HTM.
Corsini-Foka, M., G. Kondylatos, and E. Santorinios. 2013. Increase of sea turtle stranding records in Rhodes
Island (eastern Mediterranean Sea): update of a long-term survey. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 93(7):1991-
2002.
CreteTravel. 2014. Crete. CreteTravel.com, Superb Travel. Accessed in February 2015 at
http://cretetravel.com/guide/crete/.
Crete Diver’s Club. 2014. Crete Diving Sites. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.diversclub-
crete.gr/english/sites-wreck.html.
Crone, T.J., M. Tolstoy, and H. Carton. 2014. Estimating shallow water sound power levels and mitigation radii for
the R/V Marcus G. Langseth using an 8 km long MCS streamer. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.
15(10):3793-3807. doi:10.1002/2014GC005420.
Dalebout, M.L., K.M. Robertson, A. Frantzis, D. Engelhaupt, A.A. Mignucci-Giannoni, P.J. Rosario-Delestre, and
C.S. Baker. 2005. Worldwide structure of mtDNA diversity among Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius
cavirostris): implications for threatened populations. Mol. Ecol. 14(11):3353-3371.
Dando, P.R., D. Stüben, and S.P. Varnavas. 1999. Hydrothermalism in the Mediterranean Sea. Prog. Oceanogr.
44(1-3):333-367.
Davis, R.W., G.S. Fargion, N. May, T.D. Leming, M. Baumgartner, W.E. Evans, L.J. Hansen, and K. Mullin. 1998.
Physical habitat of cetaceans along the continental slope in the north-central and western Gulf of Mexico.
Mar. Mamm. Sci. 14(3):490-507.
Dede, A. and B. Öztürk. 2007. Cetacean observations in the Marmara and Aegean Sea in spring season 2005.
Rapp. Comm. Int. Mer Médit. 38:455.
Dede, A., A. Saad, M. Fakhri, and B. Öztürk. 2012. Cetacean sightings in the eastern Mediterranean Sea during the
cruise in summer 2008. J. Black Sea/Med. Env. 18(1):49-57.
del Hoyo, J., A. Elliott, and J. Sargatal. 1996. Handbook of the birds of the world, Vol. 3: Hoatzin to Auks. Lynx
Edicions, Barcelona, Spain. 821 p.
Dendrinos, P., A.A. Karamanlidis, E. Androukaki, and B.J. McConnell. 2007a. Diving development and behavior
of a rehabilitated Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 23(2):387-397.
Dendrinos, P., A.A. Karamanlidis, S. Kotomatas, A. Legakis, E. Tounta and J. Matthiopoulos. 2007b. Pupping
habitat use in the Mediterranean monk seal: a long-term study. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 23(3):615-628.
Deng, Z.D., B.L. Southall, T.J. Carlson, J. Xu, J.J. Martinez, M.A. Weiland, and J.M. Ingraham. 2014. 200-kHz
commercial sonar systems generate lower frequency side lobes audible to some marine mammals. PLoS
ONE 9(4):e95315. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095315.
DeRuiter, S.L. and K.L. Doukara. 2012. Loggerhead turtles dive in response to airgun sound exposure. Endang.
Species Res. 16(1):55-63.
DeRuiter, S.L., I.L. Boyd, D.E. Claridge, C.W. Clark, C. Gagnon, B.L. Southall, and P.L. Tyack. 2013a. Delphinid
whistle production and call matching during playback of simulated military sonar. Mar. Mamm. Sci.
29(2):E46-E59.
DeRuiter, S.L., B.L. Southall, J. Calambokidis, W.M.X. Zimmer, D. Sadykova, E.A. Falcone, A.S. Friedlaender,
J.E. Joseph, D. Moretti, G.S. Schorr, L. Thomas, and P.L. Tyack. 2013b. First direct measurements of
behavioural responses by Cuvier’s beaked whales to mid-frequency active sonar. Biol. Lett. 9:20130223.
doi:10.1098/rsbl.2013.0223.
de Soto, N.A., N. Delorme, J. Atkins, S. Howard, J. Williams, and M. Johnson. 2013. Anthropogenic noise causes
body malformations and delays development in marine larvae. Abstr. 3rd Int. Conf. Effects of Noise on
Aquatic Life. Aug. 2013, Budapest, Hungary.
Di Iorio, L. and C.W. Clark. 2010. Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication. Biol.
Lett. 6(1):51-54.
Diebold, J.B., M. Tolstoy, L. Doermann, S.L. Nooner, S.C. Webb, and T.J. Crone. 2010. R/V Marcus G. Langseth
seismic source: modeling and calibration. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 11(12):Q12012. doi:10.1029/
2010GC003126. 20 p.
DiveBuddy. 2014. Scuba Earth. Accessed in April 2014 at http://www.divebuddy.com/scubaearth.
Diving. 2006. Diving Greece top dive sites—Crete. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.diving.eu/showpage-
greece-top_dive_sites___crete.html.
DoN (Department of the Navy). 2008. Marine resource assessment update for the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
Department of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, Norfolk, VA. Contract No. N62470-02-D-9997, CTO
0080. Prepared by GeoMarine, Inc., Hampton, VA. Accessed in February 2015 at
https://www.navfac.navy.mil/content/dam/navfac/Environmental/PDFs/MRA/Eastern_Mediterranean_MRA.
pdf.
Donovan, G.P. 1991. A review of IWC stock boundaries. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. Spec. Iss. 13:39-68.
Drouot, V., M. Bérubé, A. Gannier, J.C. Goold, R.D. Reid, and P.J. Palsbøll. 2004. A note on genetic isolation of
Mediterranean sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) suggested by mitochondrial DNA. J. Cetac. Res.
Manage. 6(1):29-32.
EC (European Commission). 2007. Guidelines for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network in the marine
environment. Application of the Habitats and Birds Directives. 112 p. Accessed in March 2015 at
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/index_en.htm.
EC (European Commission). 2015. Natura 2000 network. European Commission. Accessed in March 2015 at
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm.
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2002. The Mediterranean Sea—blue oxygen-rich, nutrient-poor waters. In:
Europe’s biodiversity—biogeographical regions and seas. EEA Rep. No. 1/2002. Accessed in March 2015
at http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/report_2002_0524_154909/regional-seas-around-europe/
MediterSea.pdf.
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2010. The European environment state and outlook 2010: marine and
coastal environment. 55 p. Accessed in February 2015 at http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/marine-and-
coastal-environment.
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2013a. Folegandros Anatoliki Mechri Dytiki Sikino Kai Thalassia Zoni.
EEA, European Union. Accessed in March 2015 at http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/sites/GR4220004.
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2013b. Anafi: Chersonisos Kalamos – Roukounas. EEA, European Union.
Accessed in March 2015 at http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/sites/GR4220002#tab-designations.
Ellison, W.T., B.L. Southall, C.W. Clark, and A.S. Frankel. 2012. A new context-based approach to assess marine
mammal behavioral responses to anthropogenic sounds. Conserv. Biol. 26(1):21-28.
Encalada, S.E., P.N. Lahanas, K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, M.M. Miyamoto and B.W. Bowen. 1996. Phylogeog-
raphy and population structure of the Atlantic and Mediterranean green turtle (Chelonia mydas): a mitochon-
drial DNA control region assessment. Mol. Ecol. 5(4):473-484.
Encalada, S.E., K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, J.C. Zurita, B. Schroeder, E. Possardt, C.J. Sears, and B.W. Bowen.
1998. Population structure of loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting colonies in the Atlantic and
Mediterranean as inferred from mitochondrial DNA control region sequences. Mar. Biol. 130(4):567-575.
Engel, M.H., M.C.C. Marcondes, C.C.A. Martins, F.O. Luna, R.P. Lima, and A. Campos. 2004. Are seismic
surveys responsible for cetacean strandings? An unusual mortality of adult humpback whales in Abrolhos
Bank, northeastern coast of Brazil. Working Pap. SC/56/E28. Int. Whal. Comm., Cambridge, U.K. 8 p.
Engelhaupt, D., R.A. Hoelzel, C. Nicholson, A. Frantzis, S. Mesnick, S. Gero, H. Whitehead, L. Rendell, P. Miller,
R. De Stefanis, A. Cañadas, S. Airoldi, and A.A. Mignucci-Giannoni. 2009. Female philopatry in coastal
basins and maledispersion across the North Atlantic in a highly mobile marine species, the sperm whale
(Physeter macrocephalus). Mol. Ecol. 18(20):4193-4205.
EOL (Encyclopedia of Life). 2015. Global access to knowledge about life on Earth. Accessed in March 2015 at
http://eol.org/.
Evans, P.G.H. 1987. The natural history of whales and dolphins. Christopher Helm, Bromley, Kent, U.K. 343 p.
Evans, W.E. 1994. Common dolphin, white-bellied porpoise Delphinus delphis Linnaeus, 1758. p. 191-224 In:
S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 5: The first book of dolphins.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 416 p.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2006. Fishery and aquaculture country profiles: the Hellenic Republic.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FID/CP/GRC. 8 p. Accessed in February 2015 at
http://www.fao.org/fishery/facp/GRC/en#CountrySector-Overview.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2013. National aquaculture sector overview: Greece. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. 8 p. Accessed in
February 2015 at http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_greece/en.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2014. Fishery and aquaculture statistics: global aquaculture production
1950-2012 (FishStatJ). In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online or CD-ROM]. Rome.
Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en.
Fay, R.R. and A.N. Popper. 2012. Fish hearing: new perspectives from two senior bioacousticians. Brain Behav.
Evol. 79(4):215-217.
Fewtrell, J.L. and R.D. McCauley. 2012. Impact of air gun noise on the behaviour of marine fish and squid. Mar.
Poll. Bull. 64(5):984-993.
Filiz, H., E. Irmark, and S. Mater. 2005. Occurrence of Squatina aculeata Cuvier, 1829 (Elasmobranchii,
Squatinidae) from the Aegean Sea, Turkey. E.U. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 22(3-4):451-452.
Finneran, J.J. 2012. Auditory effects of underwater noise in odontocetes. p. 197-202 In: A.N. Popper and
A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York, NY. 695 p.
Finneran, J.J. and B.K. Branstetter. 2013. Effects of noise on sound perception in marine mammals. p. 273-308 In: H.
Brumm (ed.) Animal communication and noise. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany. 453 p.
Finneran, J.J. and C.E. Schlundt. 2010. Frequency-dependent and longitudinal changes in noise-induced hearing
loss in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) (L). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128(2):567-570.
Finneran, J.J. and C.E. Schlundt. 2011. Noise-induced temporary threshold shift in marine mammals. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 129(4):2432. [supplemented by oral presentation at the ASA meeting, Seattle, WA, May 2011].
Finneran, J.J. and C.E. Schlundt. 2013. Effects of fatiguing tone frequency on temporary threshold shift in
bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133(3):1819-1826.
Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schlundt, D.A. Carder, J.A. Clark, J.A. Young, J.B. Gaspin, and S.H. Ridgway. 2000. Auditory
and behavioral responses of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and beluga whale (Delphinapterus
leucas) to impulsive sounds resembling distant signatures of underwater explosions. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
108(1):417-431.
Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schlundt, R. Dear, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2002. Temporary shift in masked hearing
thresholds in odontocetes after exposure to single underwater impulses from a seismic watergun. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 111(6):2929-2940.
Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt, and S.H. Ridgway. 2005. Temporary threshold shift in bottlenose
dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118(4):2696-2705.
Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt, and R.L. Dear. 2010a. Growth and recovery of temporary threshold
shift (TTS) at 3 kHz in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127(5):3256-3266.
Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt, and R.L. Dear. 2010b. Temporary threshold shift in a bottlenose
dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to intermittent tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127(5):3267-3272.
Finneran, J.J., J.S. Trickey, B.K. Branstetter, C.E. Schlundt, and K. Jenkins. 2011. Auditory effects of multiple
underwater impulses on bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130(4):2561.
Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schlundt, B.K. Branstetter, J.S. Trickey, V. Bowman, and K. Jenkins. 2015. Effects of multiple
impulses from a seismic air gun on bottlenose dolphin hearing and behavior. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
137(4):1634-1646.
Fishing Fever Gr. 2014. 1st International Surf Casting Tournament in Greece—“Respect the Sea”. Accessed in
March 2015 at http://www.fishingfevergr.com/news/a1st-international-surf-casting-tournament-in-greece-
respect-the-sea/.
Forcada, J. and P. Hammond. 1998. Geographical variation in abundance of striped and common dolphins of the
western Mediterranean. J. Sea Res. 39(3-4):313-325.
Forcada, J., A. Aguilar, P.S. Hammond, X. Pastor, and R. Aguilar. 1994. Distribution and numbers of striped
dolphins in the western Mediterranean Sea after the 1990 epizootic outbreak. Mar. Mamm. Sci.
10(2):137-150.
Ford, J.K.B. 2009. Killer whale Orcinus orca. p. 650-657 In: W.F Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.),
Encyclopedia of marine mammals, 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1316 p.
Fortuna, C.M., D. Holcer, E. Filidei Jr, G.P. Donovan, and L. Tunesi. 2011. The first cetacean aerial survey in the
Adriatic Sea: summer 2010. 7th Meeting of the ACCOBAMS Scientific committee, 16 p. Accessed on 14
March 2015 at https://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/560768.sc7_doc06.pdf.
Frantzis, A. 2009. Cetaceans in Greece: present status of knowledge. Initiative for the Conservation of Cetaceans
in Greece, Athens, Greece. 94 p. Accessed in February 2015 at http://ioniandolphinproject.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/04/Technical-Report-2009-Frantzis.pdf.
Frantzis, A., P. Alexiadou, and K.C. Gkikopoulou. 2014. Sperm whale occurrence, site fidelity and population
structure along the Hellenic Trench (Greece, Mediterranean Sea). Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.
24(Suppl. 1):83-102.
Frantzis, A., P. Alexiadou, G. Paximadis, E. Politi, A. Gannier, and M. Corsini-Foka. 2003. Current knowledge of
the cetacean fauna of the Greek Seas. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 5(3):219-232.
Frantzis, A., O. Nikolaou, J.-M. Bompar, and A. Cammedda. 2004. Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
occurrence in the Mediterranean Sea. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 6(1):25-28.
Fric, J., D. Portolou, A. Manolopoulos, and T. Kastritis. 2012. Important areas for seabirds in Greece. LIFE07
NAT/GR/000285—Helenic Ornithological Society (HOS/Birdlife Greece), Athens. Accessed on 13 March
2015 at http://www.ornithologiki.gr/page_cn.php?tID=79279.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly. 2015a. Common guitarfish, Rhinobatos rhinobatos (Linneaus, 1758). Accessed in March
2015 at http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Rhinobatos-rhinobatos.html.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly. 2015b. Blackchin guitarfish, Rhinobatos cemiculus (Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, 1817).
Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.fishbase.org/summary/2074.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly. 2015c. Undulate ray, Raja undulata (Lacapède, 1802). Accessed in March 2015 at
http://www.fishbase.org/summary/7617.
Gailey, G., B. Würsig, and 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. Environ. Monit. Assessm.
134(1-3):75-91.
Gambell, R. 1985. Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus (Linnaeus, 1758). p. 171-192 In: S.H. Ridgway and
R. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 3: The Sirenians and baleen whales. Academic
Press, London, U.K. 362 p.
Gannier, A. 2005. Summer distribution and relative abundance of delphinids in the Mediterranean Sea. Rev. Écol.
(Terre Vie) 60:223-238.
Gannier, A. and J. Epinat. 2008. Cuvier’s beaked whale distribution in the Mediterranean Sea: results from small
boat surveys 1996–2007. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 88(6):1245-1251.
Gannier, A., V. Drouot, and J.C. Goold. 2002. Distribution and relative abundance of sperm whales in the
Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 243:281-293.
García-Martinez, J., A. Moya, J.A. Raga, and A. Latorre. 1999. Genetic differentiation in the striped dolphin
Stenella coeruleoalba from European waters according to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) restriction analysis.
Mol. Ecol. 8(6):1069-1073.
Garofalo, L., A. Mastrogiacomo, P. Casale, R. Carlini, C. Eleni, D. Freggi, D. Gelli, L. Knittweis, C. Mifsud,
T. Mingozzi, N. Novarini, D. Scaravelli, G. Scillitani, M. Oliverio, and A. Novelletto. 2013. Genetic
characterization of central Mediterranean stocks of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) using
mitochondrial and nuclear markers, and conservation implications. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw.
Ecosyst. doi:10.1002/aqc.2338.
Gaspari, S. 2004. Social and population structure of striped and Risso’s dolphins in the Mediterranean Sea. Ph.D.
dissertation, Durham University. Accessed on 14 March 2015 at http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3051/1/
3051_1075.pdf?UkUDH:Cyt. 170 p.
Gaspari, S., A. Azzellino, S. Airoldi, and A.R. Hoelzel. 2007a. Social kin associations and genetic structuring of
striped dolphin populations (Stenella coeruleoalba) in the Mediterranean Sea. Mol. Ecol. 16(4):2922-2933.
Gaspari S., S. Airoldi, and A.R. Hoelzel. 2007b. Risso’s dolphins (Grampus griseus) in U.K. waters are
differentiated from a population in the Mediterranean Sea and genetically less diverse. Conserv. Genet.
8(3):727-732.
Gaudin, C. and C. de Young. 2007. Recreational fisheries in the Mediterranean countries: a review of existing legal
frameworks. Studies and Reviews: 81. Food and Agriculture Organization. 85 p. Accessed in February
2015 at http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1500e/a1500e00.HTM.
Gedamke, J. 2011. Ocean basin scale loss of whale communication space: potential impacts of a distant seismic
survey. p. 105-106 In: Abstr. 19th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., 27 Nov.–2 Dec. 2011, Tampa, FL. 344 p.
Gedamke, J., N. Gales, and S. Frydman. 2011. Assessing risk of baleen whale hearing loss from seismic surveys:
the effects of uncertainty and individual variation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129(1):496-506.
Gervaise, C., N. Roy, Y. Simard, B. Kinda, and N. Menard. 2012. Shipping noise in whale habitat: characteristics,
sources, budget, and impact on belugas in Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park hub. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
132(1):76-89.
GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean). 2014a. GFCM AVL—Authorized Vessel List
(>15m). Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.gfcmonline.org/data/avl/.
GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean). 2014b. Fisheries: small-scale fisheries. Accessed
in March 2015 at http://www.gfcmonline.org/activities/fisheries/smallscalefisheries/.
Giakoumi S., M. Sini, V. Gerovasileiou, T. Mazor, J. Beher, H.P. Possingham, A. Abdulla, M.E. Çinar, P.
Dendrinos, A.C. Gucu, A.A. Karamanlidis, P. Rodic, P. Panayotidis, E. Taskin, A. Jaklin, E. Voultsiadou, C.
Webster, A. Zenetos, and S. Katsanevakis. 2013. Ecoregion-based conservation planning in the
Mediterranean: dealing with large-Scale heterogeneity. PLoS ONE 8(10):e76449. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0076449.
Gilmartin, W.G. and J. Forcada. 2009. Monk seals Monachus monachus, M. tropicalis, and M. schauinslandi.
p. 756-759 In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals,
2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1316 p.
Giménez, J., E. Gómez-Campos, A. Borrell, L. Cardona, and A. Aguilar. 2013. Isotopic evidence of limited
exchange between Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic fin whales. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom.
27(15):1801-1806.
Godley, B.J., S. Richardson, A.C. Broderick, M.S. Coyne, F. Glen, and G.C. Hays. 2002. Long-term satellite
telemetry of the movements and habitat ultilisation by green turtles in the Mediterranean. Ecography
25(3):352-362.
Godley, B.J., A.C. Broderick, F. Glen, and G.C. Hays. 2003. Post-nesting movements and submergence patterns of
loggherhead marine turtles in the Mediterranean assessed by satellite tracking. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
287(1):119-134.
Goldbogen, J.A., B.L. Southall, S.L. DeRuiter, J. Calambokidis, A.S. Friedlaender, E.L. Hazen, E. Falcone,
G. Schorr, A. Douglas, D.J. Moretti, C. Kyburg, M.F. McKenna, and P.L. Tyack. 2013. Blue whales
respond to simulated mid-frequency military sonar. Proc. R. Soc. B. 280:20130657.
doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.0657.
Gómez-Campos, E., A. Borrell, L. Cardona, J. Forcada, and A. Aguilar. 2011. Overfishing of small pelagic fishes
increased trophic overlap between immature and mature striped dolphins in the Mediterranean Sea. PLoS
Gómez de Segura, A., E.A. Crespo, S.N. Pedraza, P.S. Hammond, and J.A. Raga. 2006. Abundance of small
cetaceans in waters of the central Spanish Mediterranean. Mar. Biol. 150(1):149-160.
Gong, Z., A.D. Jain, D. Tran, D.H. Yi, F. Wu, A. Zorn, P. Ratilal, and 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
González, L.M., M.A. Cedenilla, P.F. de Larrinoa, J.F. Layna, and F. Aparicio. 2002. Changes in the breeding
variables of the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) of Cabo Blanco Peninsula after a mass
mortality episode. Mammalia 66(2):173-182.
Gordon, J., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M.P. Simmonds, R. Swift, and D. Thompson. 2004. A review of the
effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 37(4):16-34.
Gormley, A.M., E. Slooten, S. Dawson, R.J. Barker, W. Rayment, S. du Fresne, and S. Bräger. 2012. First
evidence that marine protected areas can work for marine mammals. J. Appl. Ecol. 49(2):474-480.
Gray, H. and K. Van Waerebeek. 2011. Postural instability and akinesia in a pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella
attenuata, in proximity to operating airguns of a geophysical seismic vessel. J. Nature Conserv. 19(6):363-
367.
Groombridge, B. 1990. Marine turtles in the Mediterranean: distribution, population status, and conservation.
Report to the Council of Europe, Environmental Conservation and Management Division. Nature and
Environment No. 48. 98 p. Accessed in March 2015 at https://ia600509.us.archive.org/11/items/
marineturtlesinm90groo/marineturtlesinm90groo.pdf.
GRReporter. 2010. Angle fishing is allowed everywhere. GRReporter: News from Greece. GRReporter Ltd.
26 April 2010. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.grreporter.info/en/angle_fishing_allowed_
everywhere/2634.
Güçlüsoy, H. 2008. The first confirmed report of the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Turkish Aegean
Sea. Mar. Biodiv. Rec. 1, e94. doi:10.1017/s1755262707009529.
Güçlüsoy, H., C.O. Kirac, N.O. Veryeri and Y. Savas. 2004. Status of the Mediterranean monk seal, Monachus
monachus (Hermann, 1779) in the coastal waters of Turkey. E.U. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 21(3-4):201-210.
Gücü, A.C., G. Gücü, G., and H. Orek. 2004. Habitat use and preliminary demographic evaluation of the critically
endangered Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) in the Cilician Basin (eastern Mediterranean).
Biol. Conserv. 116(3):417-431.
Guerra, M., A.M. Thode, S.B. Blackwell, and M. Macrander. 2011. Quantifying seismic survey reverberation off
the Alaskan North Slope. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130(5):3046-3058.
Guerra, M., P.J. Dugan, D.W. Ponirakis, M. Popescu, Y. Shiu, and C.W. Clark. 2013. High-resolution analysis of
seismic airgun impulses and their reverberant field as contributors to an acoustic environment. Abstr. 3rd Int.
Conf. Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life, Aug. 2013, Budapest, Hungary.
Handegard, N.O., T.V. Tronstad, and J.M. Hovem. 2013. Evaluating the effect of seismic surveys on fish—the
efficacy of different exposure metrics to explain disturbance. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 70(8):1271-1277.
Hastie, G.D., C. Donovan, T. Götz, and V.M. Janik. 2014. Behavioral responses of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus)
to high frequency sonar. Mar. Poll. Bull. 79(1-2):205-210.
Hastings, M.C. and J. Miksis-Olds. 2012. Shipboard assessment of hearing sensitivity of tropical fishes
immediately after exposure to seismic air gun emissions at Scott Reef. p. 239-243 In: A.N. Popper and
Hatch, L.T., C.W. Clark, S.M. Van Parijs, A.S. Frankel, and D.W. Ponirakis. 2012. Quantifying loss of acoustic
communication space for right whales in and around a U.S. National Marine Sanctuary. Conserv. Biol.
26(6):983-994.
Hawkins, A.D., A.E. Pembroke and A.N. Popper. 2014. Information gaps in understanding the effects of noise on
fishes and invertebrates. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher. 25(1):39-64. doi:10.1007/s11160-014-9369-3.
HCS (Hellenic Communication Service). 2000. Hunting and fishing in Greece. Assessed in March 2015 at
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/huntingfishing.html.
Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., R.G. Hansen, S. Fossette, N.J. Nielsen, M.V. Jensen, and P. Hegelund. 2013a. Monitoring
abundance and hunting of narwhals in Melville Bay during seismic surveys. Preliminary report from the
Greenland Institute of Natural Resources. 59 p. Accessed on 13 March 2015 at
http://www.natur.gl/fileadmin/user_files/Dokumenter/PAFU/Monitoring_abundance_and_hunting_of_narwh
als_in_Melville_Bay_GINR_Preliminary_report_endelig__2_.pdf.
Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., R.G. Hansen, K. Westdal, R.R. Reeves, and A. Mosbech. 2013b. Narwhals and seismic
exploration: is seismic noise increasing the risk of ice entrapments? Biol. Conserv. 158:50-54.
Heyning, J.E. 1989. Cuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris G. Cuvier, 1823. p. 289-308 In: S.H. Ridgway and
R.J. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 4: River dolphins and the larger toothed whales.
Hochscheid, S., F. Bentivegna, M.N. Bradai, and G.C. Hays. 2007. Overwintering behaviour in sea turtles:
dormancy is optional. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 340:287-298.
Hovem, J.M., T.V. Tronstad, H.E. Karlsen, and S. Løkkeborg. 2012. Modeling propagation of seismic airgun
sounds and the effects on fish behaviour. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 37(4):576-588.
Hoyt, E. 2011. Marine protected areas for whales, dolphins and porpoises: A world handbook for cetacean habitat
conservation and planning (2nd Edition). Earthscan, London, U.K. and New York, NY. 464 p.
ICES (International Commission for the Exploration of the Sea). 2014. Report of the Working Group on Recreational
Fisheries Surveys (WGRFS), 2-6 Jun. 2014, Sukarrieta, Spain. ICES CM 2014\ACOM:37. 62 p. Accessed in
February 2015 at http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/
WGRFS/WGRFS%20Final%20Report%202014.pdf.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2014. Energy supply security 2014: emergency response of IEA countries.
IEA, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264218420-en.
Ismen, A., C. Yigin, and P. Ismen. 2007. Age, growth, reproductive biology and feed of the common guitarfish
(Rhinobatos rhinobatos Linnaeus, 1758) in İskenderun Bay, the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Fish. Res.
84(2):263-269.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2012. Marine mammals and sea turtles of the
Mediterranean and Black seas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain. 32 p. Accessed in March
2015 at https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2012-022.pdf.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2014. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2014.3. Accessed on 9 February 2015 at http://www.iucnredlist.org.
IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and United Nations Environment
Program World Conservation Monitoring Centre). 2015. The world database on protected areas (WDPA).
UNEP-WCMC. Cambridge, UK. Accessed in February 2015 at http://www.protectedplanet.net.
IWC (International Whaling Commission). 2001. Report of the workshop on the comprehensive assessment of
right whales: a worldwide comparison. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. Spec. Iss. 2:1-60.
IWC (International Whaling Commission). 2007. Report of the standing working group on environmental
concerns. Annex K to Report of the Scientific Committee. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 9(Suppl.):227-260.
IWC (International Whaling Commission). 2015. Whale population estimates. Accessed on 2 March 2015 at
https://iwc.int/estimate.
Jaquet, N. and H. Whitehead. 1996. Scale-dependent correlation of sperm whale distribution with environmental
features and productivity in the South Pacific. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 135(1-3):1-9.
Jaquet, N. and D. Gendron. 2002. Distribution and relative abundance of sperm whales in relation to key environ-
mental features, squid landings and the distribution of other cetacean species in the Gulf of California,
Mexico. Mar. Biol. 141(3):591-601.
Jefferson, T.A., M.A. Webber, and R.L. Pitman. 2008. Marine mammals of the world: a comprehensive guide to
their identification. Elsevier, London, U.K. 573 p.
Jensen, F.H., L. Bejder, M. Wahlberg, N. Aguilar Soto, M. Johnson, and P.T. Madsen. 2009. Vessel noise effects
on delphinid communication. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 395:161-175.
Jefferson, T.A., C.R. Weir, R.C. Anderson, L.T. Balance, R.D. Kenney, and J.J. Kiszka. 2014. Global distribution
of Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus: a review and critical evaluation. Mammal Rev. 44(1):56-68.
doi:10.1111/mam.12008.
Johnson, S.R., W.J. Richardson, S.B. Yazvenko, S.A. Blokhin, G. Gailey, M.R. Jenkerson, S.K. Meier,
H.R. Melton, M.W. Newcomer, A.S. Perlov, S.A. Rutenko, B. Würsig, C.R. Martin, and D.E. Egging. 2007.
A western gray whale mitigation and monitoring program for a 3-D seismic survey, Sakhalin Island, Russia.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 134(1-3):1-19.
Kalypso (Rock’s Palace). 2015. Dive Sites. Kalypso Rock’s Palace Dive Center & School. Accessed in March
2015 at http://www.kalypsodivecenter.com/dive-sites.
Karamanlidis, A.A., R. Pires, N. Carina Silva, and H. Costa Neves. 2004. The availability of resting and pupping
habitat for the critically endangered Mediterranean monk seal Monachus monachus in the archipelago of
Madeira. Oryx 38(2):180-185.
Kasparek, M., B.J. Godley, A.C. Broderick. 2001. Nesting of green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in the Mediterranean: a
review of status and conservation needs. Zool. Middle East 24(1):45-74.
Kastak, D. and C. Reichmuth. 2007. Onset, growth, and recovery of in-air temporary threshold shift in a California
sea lion (Zalophus californianus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122(5):2916-2924.
Kastak, D., R.L. Schusterman, B.L. Southall, and C.J. Reichmuth. 1999. Underwater temporary threshold shift
induced by octave-band noise in three species of pinnipeds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106(2):1142-1148.
Kastak, D., B.L. Southall, R.J. Schusterman, and C. Reichmuth Kastak. 2005. Underwater temporary threshold
shift in pinnipeds: effects of noise level and duration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118(5):3154-3163.
Kastak, D., J. Mulsow, A. Ghoul, and C. Reichmuth. 2008. Noise-induced permanent threshold shift in a harbor
seal. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123(5):2986.
Kastelein, R., R. Gransier, L. Hoek, and J. Olthuis. 2012a. Temporary threshold shifts and recovery in a harbor
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after octave-band noise at 4 kHz. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132(5):3525-3537.
Kastelein, R.A., R. Gransier, L. Hoek, A. Macleod, and J.M. Terhune. 2012b. Hearing threshold shifts and
recovery in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) after octave-band noise exposure at 4 kHz. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
132(4):2745-2761.
Kastelein, R.A., N. Steen, R. Gransier, and C.A.F. de Jong. 2013a. Brief behavioral response threshold level of a
harbor porpoise (Phocoean phocoena) to an impulsive sound. Aquat. Mamm. 39(4):315-323.
Kastelein, R.A., R. Gransier, and L. Hoek, and M. Rambags. 2013b. Hearing frequency thresholds of a harbour
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) temporarily affected by a continuous 1.5-kHz tone. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
134(3):2286-2292.
Kastelein, R., R. Gransier, and L. Hoek. 2013c. Comparative temporary threshold shifts in a harbour porpoise and
harbour seal, and severe shift in a seal (L). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134(1):13-16.
Kastelein, R.A., L. Hoek, R. Gransier, M. Rambags, and N. Clayes. 2014. Effect of level, duration, and inter-pulse
interval of 1–2 kHz sonar signal exposures on harbor porpoise hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 136:412-422.
Kasuya, T. 1986. Distribution and behavior of Baird’s beaked whales off the Pacific coast of Japan. Sci. Rep.
Whales Res. Inst. 37:61-83.
Kennedy, A.S., A.N. Zerbinid, O.V. Vasquez, N. Gandilhon, P.J. Clapham, and O. Adam. 2014. Local and
migratory movements of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) satellite-tracked in the North Atlantic
Ocean. Can. J. Zool. 92(1):8-17.
Kerem, D., N. Hadar, O. Goffman, A. Scheinin, R. Kent, O. Boisseau, and U. Schattner. 2012. Update on the
cetacean fauna of the eastern Mediterranean Levantine Basin. Open Mar. Biol. J. 6:6-27.
Ketten, D.R. 2012. Marine mammal auditory system noise impacts: evidence and incidence. p. 207-212 In:
A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York, NY. 695 p.
Ketten, D.R., J. O'Malley, P.W.B. Moore, S. Ridgway, and C. Merigo. 2001. Aging, injury, disease, and noise in
marine mammal ears. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110(5, Pt. 2):2721 (Abstract).
Klinck, H., S.L. Nieukirk, D.K. Mellinger, K. Klinck, H. Matsumoto, and R.P. Dziak. 2012. Seasonal presence of
cetaceans and ambient noise levels in polar waters of the North Atlantic. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
132(3):EL176-EL181.
Kottelat, M. and J. Freyhof. 2007. Handbook of European freshwater fishes. Publications Kottelat, Cornol,
Switzerland. 646 p.
Koutsodendris A., S. Papadopoulou, and D. Margaritoulis. 2006. Distribution of sea turtles (Caretta caretta and
Chelonia mydas) along the Greek coasts based on 15 years strandings (1990–2005). p. 48 In: Book of Abstr.
10th Int. Congr. Zoogeog. Ecol. Greece Adj. Reg. 26−30 Jun. 2006, Patra, Greece. Athens: Hellenic
Zoological Society.
Kovacs K.M. and D.M. Lavigne. 1986. Cystophora cristata. Mamm. Species 258:1-9.
Krieger, K.J. and B.L. Wing. 1984. Hydroacoustic surveys and identification of humpback whale forage in Glacier
Bay, Stephens Passage, and Frederick Sound, southeastern Alaska, summer 1983. NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS F/NWC-66. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Auke Bay, AK. 60 p. NTIS PB85-183887.
Krieger, K.J. and B.L. Wing. 1986. Hydroacoustic monitoring of prey to determine humpback whale movements.
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS F/NWC-98. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Auke Bay, AK. 63 p. NTIS PB86-
204054.
Kruse, S., D.K. Caldwell, and M.C. Caldwell. 1999. Risso's dolphin Grampus griseus (G. Cuvier, 1812).
p. 183-212 In: S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 6: The second
book of dolphins and the porpoises. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 486 p.
Laran, S., C. Joiris, A. Gannier, and R.D. Kenney. 2010. Seasonal estimates of densities and predation rates of cetaceans
in the Liguruan Sea, northwestern Mediterranean Sea: an initial examination. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 11(1):31-
40.
Laurent, L. and J. Lescure. 1991. Hawksbill turtles in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 54:12-13.
Lavender, A.L., S.M. Bartol, and I.K. Bartol. 2014. Ontogenetic investigation of underwater hearing capabilities in
loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) using a dual testing approach. J. Exp. Biol. 217(14):2580-2589.
Laws, R. 2012. Cetacean hearing-damage zones around a seismic source. p. 473-476 In: A.N. Popper and
Le Prell, C.G. 2012. Noise-induced hearing loss: from animal models to human trials. p. 191-195 In: A.N. Popper
and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York, NY. 695 p.
Lenhardt, M. 2002. Sea turtle auditory behavior. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112(5, Pt. 2):2314 (Abstract).
Liberman, C. 2013. New perspectives on noise damage. Abstr. 3rd Int. Conf. Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life,
Aug. 2013, Budapest, Hungary.
Lie, Ø., J. Fürstenau, and S. Bellas. 2014. A fresh look at the oil and gas potential of Greece. GEOExPro 10(6).
Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2014/03/a-fresh-look-at-the-oil-and-gas-
potential-of-greece.
Lindquist, O. 2000. The North Atlantic gray whale Eschrichtius robustus: an historical outline based on Icelandic,
Danish–Icelandic, English and Swedish sources dating from ca 1000 AD to 1792. Ph.D. thesis, Universities
of St Andrews and Stirling, Scotland. 53 p.
Løkkeborg, S., E. Ona, A. Vold, and A. Salthaug. 2012. Sounds from seismic air guns: gear- and species-specific
effects on catch rates and fish distribution. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 69(8):1278-1291.
Lucke, K., U. Siebert, P.A. Lepper and M.-A. Blanchet. 2009. Temporary shift in masked hearing thresholds in a
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
125(6):4060-4070.
Luschi, P., R. Mencacci, C. Vallini, A. Ligas, P. Lambardi, and S. Benvenuti. 2013. Long-term tracking of adult
loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean Sea. J. Herpetol. 47(2):227-231.
Lusseau, D. and L. Bejder. 2007. The long-term consequences of short-term responses to disturbance experience
from whalewatching impact assessment. Int. J. Comp. Psych. 20(2-3):228-236.
MacGillivray, A.O., R. Racca, and Z. Li. 2014. Marine mammal audibility of selected shallow-water survey
sources. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135(1):EL35-EL40.
MacLeod, C.D., W.F. Perrin, R. Pitman, J. Barlow, L.T. Ballance, A. D’Amico, T. Gerrodette, G. Joyce,
K.D. Mullin, D. Palka, and G.T. Waring. 2006. Known and inferred distributions of beaked whale species
(Cetacea: Ziphiidae). J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 7(3):271-286.
Maguire, J.J., M.P. Sissenwine, J. Csirke, R.J.R. Grainger, and S.M. Garcia. 2006. The state of world highly
migratory, straddling and other high seas fisheries resources and associated species. FAO Fisheries Tech.
Pap. No. 495. FAO, Rome. 84 p. Available at http:www.fao.org/newsroom/common/ecg1000302/
en/paper.pdf.
Malme, C.I. and P.R. Miles. 1985. Behavioral responses of marine mammals (gray whales) to seismic discharges.
p. 253-280 In: G.D. Greene, F.R. Engelhard, and R.J. Paterson (eds.), Proc. Workshop on Effects of Explo-
sives Use in the Marine Environment, Jan. 1985, Halifax, NS. Tech. Rep. 5. Can. Oil & Gas Lands Admin.,
Environ. Prot. Br., Ottawa, Ont. 398 p.
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations of the potential effects of
underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior/Phase II: January
1984 migration. BBN Rep. 5586. Rep. from Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge, MA, for MMS,
Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, AK. NTIS PB86-218377.
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, P. Tyack, C.W. Clark, and J.E. Bird. 1985. Investigation of the potential effects of
underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on feeding humpback whale behavior. BBN Rep. 5851.
OCS Study MMS 85-0019. Rep. from BBN Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA, for MMS, Anchorage, AK.
NTIS PB86-218385.
Malme, C.I., B. Würsig, J.E. Bird, and P. Tyack. 1986. Behavioral responses of gray whales to industrial noise:
feeding observations and predictive modeling. BBN Rep. 6265. OCS Study MMS 88-0048. Outer Contin.
Shelf Environ. Assess. Progr., Final Rep. Princ. Invest., NOAA, Anchorage, AK. 56(1988):393-600.
NTIS PB88-249008.
Malme, C.I., B. Würsig, B., J.E. Bird, and P. Tyack. 1988. Observations of feeding gray whale responses to
controlled industrial noise exposure. p. 55-73 In: W.M. Sackinger, M.O. Jeffries, J.L. Imm, and S.D. Treacy
(eds.), Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions Vol. II. Symposium on noise and marine
mammals. Univ. Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK. 111 p.
MAPAMED. n.d. Database of marine protected areas in the Mediterranean. MAPAMED Project. MedPAN,
UNEP, RAC/SPA. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.mapamed.org/.
Margaritoulis, D. 1986. Captures and strandings of the leatherback sea turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, in Greece
(1982-1984). J. Herpetol. 29(3):471-474.
Margaritoulis D. and A. Panagopoulou. 2010. Greece. p. 85-111 In: P. Casale and D. Margaritoulis (eds.), Sea
turtles in the Mediterranean: distribution, threats and conservation priorities. IUCN, Gland. Accessed on 13
March 2015 at http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/ebsaws-2014-03/other/ebsaws-2014-03-submission-rac-
spa-3-en.pdf.
Margaritoulis, D. and A.F. Rees. 2011. Loggerhead turtles nesting at Rethymno, Greece, prefer the Aegean Sea as
their main foraging area. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 131:12-14.
Margaritoulis D. and K. Teneketzis. 2003. Identification of a developmental habitat of the green turtle in
Lakonikos Bay, Greece. p. 170-175 In: D. Margaritoulis and A. Demetropoulos (eds.), Proc. 1st Medit. Conf.
Mar. Turtles. Barcelona Convention – Bern Convention – Bonn Convention (CMS). 24–28 Oct. 2001,
Rome, Italy. Nicosia, Cyprus. 270 p.
Margaritoulis, D., A. Panagopoulou, and A.F. Rees. 2009. Loggerhead nesting in Rethymno, Island of Crete,
Greece: fifteen-year nesting data (1990-2004) indicate a declining population. p. 116-119 In: A.
Demetropoulos and O. Turkozan (eds.), Proc. 2nd Medit. Conf. Mar. Turtles. Barcelona Convention—Bern
Convention—Bonn Convention (CMS). 4-7 May 2005, Kemer, Turkey. 188 p.
Margaritoulis, D., R. Argano, I. Baran, F. Bentivegna, M.N. Bradai, J.A. Camiñas, P. Casale, G. De Metrio,
A. Demetropoulos, G. Gerosa, B. Godley, J. Houghton, L. Laurent, and Y.B. Lazar. 2003. Loggerhead
turtles in the Mediterranean: present knowledge and conservation perspectives. In: A.B. Bolten and B.E.
Witherington (eds.), Ecology and conservation of loggerhead sea turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, DC.
MarineTraffic. 2015. Life Ships Map—AIS—Vessel Traffic and Positions. MarineTraffic.com. Acessed in March
2015 at http://www.marinetraffic.com.
Martin, K.J., S.C. Alessi, J.C. Gaspard, A.D. Tucker, G.B. Bauer and D.A. Mann. 2012. Underwater hearing in the
loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta): a comparison of behavorial and auditory evoked potential audiograms. J.
Exp. Biol. 215(17):3001-3009.
McAlpine, D.F. 2009. Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales Kogia breviceps and K. sima. p. 936-938 In: W.F. Perrin,
B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals, 2nd ed. Academic Press, San
Diego, CA. 1316 p.
McCauley, R.D., M.-N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K.A. McCabe, and 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 J. 38:692-707.
McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya,
J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000. Marine seismic surveys: analysis of airgun signals; and effects of air
gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Rep. from Centre for Marine Science and
Technology, Curtin Univ., Perth, Western Australia, for Australian Petrol. Produc. & Explor. Assoc.,
Sydney, NSW. 188 p.
McDonald, T.L., W.J. Richardson, K.H. Kim, and S.B. Blackwell. 2010. Distribution of calling bowhead whales
exposed to underwater sounds from Northstar and distant seismic surveys, 2009. p. 6-1 to 6-38 In:
W.J. Richardson (ed.), Monitoring of industrial sounds, seals, and bowhead whales near BP’s Northstar oil
development, Alaskan Beaufort Sea: comprehensive report for 2005–2009. LGL Rep. P1133-6. Rep. from
LGL Alaska Res. Assoc. Inc., Anchorage, AK, Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, WEST Inc.,
Cheyenne, WY, and Applied Sociocult. Res., Anchorage, AK, for BP Explor. (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, AK.
265 p.
McDonald, T.L., W.J. Richardson, K.H. Kim, S.B. Blackwell, and B. Streever. 2011. Distribution of calling
bowhead whales exposed to multiple anthropogenic sound sources and comments on analytical methods.
p. 199 In: Abstr. 19th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., 27 Nov.–2 Dec. 2011, Tampa, FL. 344 p.
McEachran, J.D. and K.A. Dunn. 1998. Phytogenetic analysis of skates, a morphologically conservative clade of
elasmobranchs (Chondrichthyes: Rajidae). Copeia 1998(2):271-290.
Mead, J.G. 1989. Beaked whales of the genus Mesoplodon. p. 349-430 In: S.H. Ridgway and R.J. Harrison (eds.),
Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 4: River dolphins and the larger toothed whales. Academic Press, San
Diego, CA. 442 p.
Meadows, D. and H. Coll. 2013. Status review report of five foreign sturgeon. Rep. to the National Marine
Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 78 p.
Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/sturgeon_5foreign.pdf.
Mediterranean Dive Club. 2015. The world of scuba diving: Mediterranean Dive Club. Accessed in March 2015 at
http://www.divingsantorini.com/.
MEECC (Ministry of Environment, Energy & Climate Change). 2014. Natural Environment. Ministry of
Environment, Energy & Climate Change, Athens. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.ypeka.gr/
Default.aspx?tabid=235&locale=en-US&language=el-GR.
Melcón, M.L., A.J. Cummins, S.M. Kerosky, L.K. Roche, S.M. Wiggins, and J.A. Hildebrand. 2012. Blue whales
response to anthropogenic noise. PLoS ONE 7(2):e32681. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032681.
Milazzo, M., R. Chemello, F. Badalamenti, R. Camarda, and S. Riggio. 2002. The impact of human recreational
activities in marine protected areas: What lessons should be learnt in the Mediterranean Sea? Mar. Ecol.
23(Suppl. 1):280-290.
Miller, G.W., R.E. Elliott, W.R. Koski, V.D. Moulton, and W.J. Richardson. 1999. Whales. p. 5-1 to 5-109 In:
W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's open-water
seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA2230-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City,
Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX, and Nat.
Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 390 p.
Miller, G.W., V.D. Moulton, R.A. Davis, M. Holst, P. Millman, A. MacGillivray, and D. Hannay. 2005.
Monitoring seismic effects on marine mammals—southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001–2002. p. 511-542 In:
S.L. Armsworthy, P.J. Cranford, and K. Lee (eds.), Offshore oil and gas environmental effects monitor-
ing/approaches and technologies. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. 631 p.
Miller, I. and E. Cripps. 2013. Three dimensional marine seismic survey has no measureable effect on species
richness or abundance of a coral reef associated fish community. Mar. Poll. Bull. 77(1-2):63-70.
Miller, M.H., J. Carlson, P. Cooper, D. Kobayashi, M. Nammack, and J. Wilson. 2014. Status review report:
Scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini). Final Rep. to the National Marine Fisheries Service.
135 p. Accessed in February 2015 at http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/
scallopedhammerheadshark2014.pdf.
Miller, P.J.O., M.P. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, N. Biassoni, M. Quero, and 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
Res. 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, and L.D. Sivle. 2012. The severity of behavioral changes observed during experimental
exposures of killer (Orcinus orca), long-finned pilot (Globicephala melas), and sperm whales (Physeter
macrocephalus) to naval sonar. Aquat. Mamm. 38(4):362-401.
Miyazaki, N. and W.F. Perrin. 1994. Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis (Lesson, 1828). p. 1-21 In:
S.H. Ridgway and R.J. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 5: The first book of dolphins.
Moein, S.E., J.A. Musick, J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, M. Lenhardt, and R. George. 1994. Evaluation of seismic
sources for repelling sea turtles from hopper dredges. Rep. from Virginia Inst. Mar. Sci., Gloucester Point,
VA, for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 33 p.
MOm. 2009. Status of the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) population in Greece. Unpublished
report by MOm/Hellenic Society for the Study and Protection of the Monk Seal. Athens, Greece. 36 p.
Accessed in February 2015 at http://thalassaproject.mom.gr/LH2Uploads/ItemsContent/46/Status-of-the-
Mediterranean-monk-seal-in-Greece.pdf.
Monzón-Argüello, C., C. Rico, C. Carreras, P. Calabuig, A. Marco, and L.F. López-Jurado. 2009. Variation in
spatial distribution of juvenile loggerhead turtles in the eastern Atlantic and western Mediterranean Sea.
J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 373(2):79-86.
Moulins, A., M. Rosso, M. Ballardini and M. Wurtz. 2008. Partitioning of the Pelagos Sanctuary (north-western
Mediterranean Sea) into hotspots and coldspots of cetacean distributions. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K.
88(6):1273-1281.
Moulton, V.D. and M. Holst. 2010. Effects of seismic survey sound on cetaceans in the Northwest Atlantic.
Environ. Stud. Res. Funds Rep. 182. St. John’s, Nfld. 28 p. Accessed in March 2015 at
http://www.esrfunds.org/pdf/182.pdf.
Moura, T., I. Figueiredo, I. Farias, B. Serra-Pereira, R. Coelho, K. Erzini, A. Neves, and L. Serrano Gordo. 2007.
The use of caudal thorns for ageing Raja undulata from the Portuguese continental shelf, with comments on
its reproductive cycle. Mar. Freshw. Res. 58(11):983-992.
Moutopoulos, D.K., G. Katselis, K. Kios, A. Tsotskou, A.C. Tsikliras, and K.I. Stergiou. 2013. Estimation and
reconstruction of shore-based recreational angling fisheries catches in the Greek Seas (1950-2010). J. Biol.
Res.-Thessaloniki 20:367-381.
Nachtigall, P.E. and A.Y. Supin. 2013. A false killer whale reduces its hearing sensitivity when a loud sound is
preceded by a warning. J. Exp. Biol. 216(16):3062-3070.
Nachtigall, P.E. and A.Y. Supin. 2014. Conditioned hearing sensitivity reduction in the bottlenose dolphin
(Tursiops truncatus). J. Exp. Biol. 217(15):2806-2813.
Nachtigall, P.E. and A.Y. Supin. 2015. Conditioned frequency-dependent hearing sensitivity reduction in the
bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). J. Exp. Biol. 218(7):999-1005.
NAMMCO (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission). 1995. Report of the joint meeting of the Scientific
Committee working groups on northern bottlenose and killer whales and management procedures. p. 90-104
In: NAMMCO Annual Report 1995: Report of the third meeting of the Scientific Committee. NAMMCO,
Tromsø, Norway. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.nammco.no/webcronize/images/Nammco/743.pdf.
Natoli A., A. Birkun, A. Aguilar, A. Lopez, and A.R. Hoelzel. 2005. Habitat structure and the dispersal of male and
female bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Proc. R. Soc. B 272(1569):1217-26.
Natura 2000. 2013. Natura 2000 data—The European network of protected sites. European Environment Agency.
Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/natura-5#tab-gis-data.
NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic). 2008. Marine resources assessment for the eastern
Mediterranean Sea. Final report January 2008. Contract Number N62470-02-D-9997. Prepared for
Department of the Navy, Commander, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. Accessed in March 2015 at
https://www.navfac.navy.mil/content/dam/navfac/Environmental/PDFs/MRA/Eastern_Mediterranean_MRA.
pdf.
New, L.F., J. Harwood, L. Thomas, C. Donovan, J.S. Clark, G. Hastie, P.M. Thompson, B. Cheney,
L. Scott-Hayward, and D. Lusseau. 2013. Modelling the biological significance of behavioural change in
coastal bottlenose dolphins in response to disturbance. Function. Ecol. 27(2):314-322.
Nieukirk, S.L., D.K. Mellinger, S.E. Moore, K. Klinck, R.P. Dziak, and J. Goslin. 2012. Sounds from airguns and
fin whales recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean, 1999–2009. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(2):1102-1112.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities:
marine seismic-reflection data collection in southern California/Notice of receipt of application. Fed. Regist.
65(60, 28 Mar.):16374-16379.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2001. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities:
oil and gas exploration drilling activities in the Beaufort Sea/Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment
authorization. Fed. Regist. 66(26, 7 Feb.):9291-9298.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013a. Takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities;
marine geophysical survey on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in the Atlantic Ocean, April 2013, through June 2013.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization. Fed. Regist. 78 (72, 15 Apr.):22239-22251.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013b. Takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities;
marine geophysical survey in the northeast Atlantic Ocean, June to July 2013. Notice; issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization. Fed. Regist. 78 (109, 6 Jun.):34069-34083.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013c. Effects of oil and gas activities in the Arctic Ocean: supplemental
draft environmental impact statement. U.S. Depart. Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources.
Accessed in June 2015 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/arctic_sdeis.pdf.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2015a. Endangered and threatened marine species under NMFS’
jurisdiction. Accessed on 9 February 2015 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2015b. Scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini). Accessed in
March 2015 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/scallopedhammerheadshark.htm.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2015c. Adriatic sturgeon (Acipenser naccarii). Accessed in March 2015
at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/adriaticsturgeon.htm.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013. Draft guidance for assessing the effects of
anthropogenic sound on marine mammals/Acoustic threshold levels for onset of permanent and temporary
threshold shifts. Draft: 23 Dec. 2013. 76 p. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
acoustics/draft_acoustic_guidance_2013.pdf.
Nomikou, P., D. Papanikolaou, M. Alexandri, D. Sakellariou, and G. Rousakis. 2013. Submarine volcanoes along
the Aegean volcanic arc. Tectonophysics 597-598:123-146.
Nomikou, P., M.M. Parks, D. Papanikolaou, D.M. Pyle, T.A. Mather, S. Carey, A.B. Watts, M. Paulatto,
M.L. Kalnins, I. Livanos, K. Bejelou, E. Simou, and I. Perros. 2014. The emergence and growth of a
submarine volcano: the Kameni islands, Santorini (Greece). Geo. Res. J. 1-2:8-18.
Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. 2002. Cetacean species occurring in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. In:
G. Notarbartolo di Sciara (ed.) Cetaceans of the Mediterranean and Black Seas: state of knowledge and
conservation strategies. Section 3. A report to the ACCOBAMS Interim Secretariat. ACCOBAMS Interim
Secretariat, Monaco. Accessed in February 2015 at http://www.oceandocs.org/bitstream/1834/840/1/
Notarbartolo2.pdf.
Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. 2014. Sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus, in the Mediterranean Sea: a summary of
status, threats, and conservation recommendations. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24(Suppl.
1):4-10.
Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. and G. Bearzi. 2010. National strategy and action plan for the conservation of cetaceans
in Greece, 2010-2015. Initiative for the Conservation of Cetaceans in Greece, Athens. 55 p.
Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. and A. Birkun, Jr. 2010. Conserving whales, dolphins and porpoises in the
Mediterranean and Black Seas: an ACCOBAMS status report. Monaco, 212 p. Accessed in March 2015 at
http://accobams.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=41&Itemid=50&limitstart=5.
Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., M.C. Venturino, M. Zanardelli, G. Bearzi, F.J. Borsani, and B. Cavalloni. 1993.
Cetaceans in the central Mediterranean Sea: distribution and sighting frequencies. Boll. Zool. 60(1):131-138.
Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., M. Zanardelli, M. Jahoda, S. Panigada, and S. Airoldi. 2003. The fin whale
Balaenoptera physalus (L. 1758) in the Mediterranean Sea. Mammal Rev. 33(2):105-150.
Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., S. Adamantopoulou, E. Androukaki, P. Dendrinos, A. Karamanlidis, V. Paravas, and S.
Kotomoatas. 2009. National strategy and action plan for the conservation of the Mediterranean monk seal in
Greece, 2009–2015. Report on evaluationg the past and structuring the future. Publication prepared as part
of the LIFE-Nature Project: MOFI: Monk seal and fisheries: mitigating the conflict in Greek Seas. Hellenic
Society for the study and protection of the Mediterranean monk seal (Mom), Athens. 70 p. Accessed in June
2015 at http://www.monachus-guardian.org/library/notarb09b.pdf.
Nowacek, D.P., L.H. Thorne, D.W. Johnston, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic
noise. Mammal Rev. 37(2):81-115.
Nowacek, D.P., K. Bröker, G. Donovan, G. Gailey, R. Racca, R.R. Reeves, A.I. Vedenev, D.W. Weller, and
B.L. Southall. 2013. Responsible practices for minimizing and monitoring environmental impacts of marine
seismic surveys with an emphasis on marine mammals. Aquat. Mamm. 39(4):356-377.
NRC (National Research Council). 2005. Marine mammal populations and ocean noise/Determining when noise
causes biologically significant effects. U.S. Nat. Res. Counc., Ocean Studies Board, Committee on
characterizing biologically significant marine mammal behavior (Wartzok, D.W., J. Altmann, W. Au,
K. Ralls, A. Starfield, and P.L. Tyack). Nat. Acad. Press, Washington, DC. 126 p.
NSF (National Science Foundation). 2012. Record of Decision for marine seismic research funded by the National
Science Foundation. June 2012. 41 p. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/
envcomp/rod-marine-seismic-research-june2012.pdf.
NSF and USGS (National Science Foundation and U.S. Geological Survey). 2011. Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Marine Seismic Research
Funded by the National Science Foundation or Conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed in
March 2015 at http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/usgs-nsf-marine-seismic-research/nsf-usgs-final-eis-
oeis-with-appendices.pdf.
NSSG (National Statistical Service of Greece). 2009. Results of the sea fishery survey by motor propelled vessels
(2007). Hellenic Republic, Ministry of Finance, General Secretariat of the National Statistical Service of
Greece. 40 p. + appendix. Accessed in February 2015 at http://dlib.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/
showdetails?p_id=13365763&p_derive=book.
OBIS (Ocean Biogeographic Information System). 2015. Global biodiversity indices from the Ocean
Biogeographic Information System. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. Accessed
in February 2015 at http://www.iobis.org.
Odell, D.K. and K.M. McClune. 1999. False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens (Owen, 1846). p. 213-243 In:
S.H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 6: The second book of dolphins
and the porpoises. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 486 p.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2013. OECD Review of Fisheries: policies
and summary statistics 2013. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/rev_fish-2013-en.
OSPAR (OSPAR Commission). 2010. Background document for angelshark Squatina squatina. Biodiversity
Series. Rep. by Marine and Coastal Nature Conservation Unit, German Federal Agency for Nature
Conservation, in collaboration with Naturebureau International, UK. 14 p. + annexes. Available at
http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/Species/P00471_angel_shark.pdf.
Öztürk, B. 2009. Marine protected areas in the high seas of the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean Seas, some
proposals. J. Black Sea/Medit. Environ. 15(1):69-82.
Öztürk, A.A., A.M. Tonay, and A. Dede. 2011. Strandings of the beaked whales, Risso’s dolphins, and a minke
whale on the Turkish coast of the eastern Mediterranean Sea. J. Black Sea/Medit. Env. 17(3):269-274.
Öztürk, A.A., A.M. Tonay, and A. Dede. 2013. Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) sightings in the Aegean
and Mediterranean part of Turkish waters. J. Black Sea/Medit. Env. 19(2):69˗177.
Palazzo Greco. 2012. Fishermen’s Fest in Agia Galini Crete. Palazzo Greco Boutique Hotel. Accessed in March
2015 at https://www.facebook.com/palazzogreco/posts/10150830676066939.
Panagopoulos, D., E. Sofouli, K. Teneketzis, and D. Margaritoulis. 2003. Stranding data as an indicator of fisheries
induced mortality of sea turtles in Greece. p. 202-206 In: D. Margaritoulis and A. Demetropoulos (eds.),
Proc. 1st Medit. Conf. Mar. Turtles. Barcelona Convention—Bern Convention—Bonn Convention (CMS).
24–28 Oct. 2001, Rome, Italy. Nicosia, Cyprus. 270 p.
Papale, E., M. Gamba, M. Perez-Gil, V.M. Martin, and C. Giacoma. 2015. Dolphins adjust species-specific
frequency parameters to compensate for increasing background noise. PLoS ONE 10(4):e0121711.
Parks, S.E. M. Johnson, D. Nowacek, and P.L. Tyack. 2011. Individual right whales call louder in increased
environmental noise. Biol. Lett. 7(1):33-35.
Parks, S.E., M.P. Johnson, D.P. Nowacek, and P.L. Tyack. 2012. Changes in vocal behaviour of North Atlantic
right whales in increased noise. p. 317-320 In: A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on
aquatic life. Springer, New York, NY. 695 p.
Pawson, M.G., D. Tingy, G. Padda, and H. Glenn. 2007. EU contract FISH/2004/01 on “sport fisheries’ (or marine
recreational fisheries) in the EU. Rep. by the Centre of Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science,
Suffolk, UK, for the European Commission Directorate-General for Fisheries. 238 p. Accessed in February
2015 at http://cefas.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/sportsfishing-c2362.pdf.
Payne, R. 1978. Behavior and vocalizations of humpback whales (Megaptera sp.). In: K.S Norris and R.R. Reeves
(eds.), Report on a workshop on problems related to humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaii.
MCC-77/03. Rep. from Sea Life Inc., Makapuu Pt., HI, for U.S. Mar. Mamm. Comm., Washington, DC.
Pelagos Institute. 2015. Marine protected areas for cetaceans. Pelagos Cetacean Research Institute. Accessed in
March 2015 at http://www.pelagosinstitute.gr/en/MPAs/index.html.
Pelagos Sanctuary. 2015. Risso’s dolphin. Accessed on 14 March 2015 at http://www.sanctuaire-
pelagos.org/en/species-of-the-sanctuary/risso-s-dolphin-eng.
Peña, H., N.O. Handegard, and E. Ona. 2013. Feeding herring schools do not react to seismic air gun surveys.
ICES J. Mar. Sci. 70(6):1174-1180. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fst079.
Perissoratis, C. and G. Papadopoulos. 1999. Sediment instability and slumping in the southern Aegean Sea and the
case history of the 1956 tsunami. Mar. Geol. 161(2-4):287-305.
Perrin, W.F., C.E. Wilson, and F.I. Archer II. 1994. Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba (Meyen, 1833).
p. 129-159 In: S. H. Ridgway and R. J. Harrison (eds.), Handbook of marine mammals, Vol. 5: The first
book of dolphins. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 416 p.
Pierson, M.O., J.P. Wagner, V. Langford, P. Birnie, and M.L. Tasker. 1998. Protection from, and mitigation of, the
potential effects of seismic exploration on marine mammals. Chapter 7 In: M.L. Tasker and C. Weir (eds.),
Proc. Seismic Mar. Mamm. Worksh., London, U.K., 23-25 June 1998.
Piniak, W.E.D., D.A. Mann, S.A. Eckert, and C.A. Harms. 2012a. Amphibious hearing in sea turtles. p. 83-88. In:
A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.). The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York. 695 p.
Piniak, W.E.D., S.A. Eckert, C.A. Harms, and E.M. Stringer. 2012b. Underwater hearing sensitivity of the
leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea): assessing the potential effect of anthropogenic noise. U.S.
Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Headquarters, Herndon, VA. OCS Study
BOEM 2012-01156. 35 p.
Pires, R., H.C. Neves, and A.A. Karamanlidis. 2008. The critically endangered Mediterranean monk seal
(Monachus monachus) in the archipelago of Madeira: priorities for conservation. Oryx 42(2):278-285.
Piroddi, C., G. Bearzi, and V. Christensen. 2011. Marine open cage aquaculture in the eastern Mediterranean Sea: a
new trophic resource for bottlenose dolphins. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 440:255-266.
Pirotta, E., R. Milor, N. Quick, D. Moretti, N. Di Marzio, P. Tyack, I. Boyd, and 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. Brookdes, I.M. Graham, and P.M. Thompson. 2014. Variation in harbour porpoise activity in
response to seismic survey noise. Biol. Lett. 10:20131090. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2013.1090.
Podestá, M., A. D’Amico, G. Pavan, A. Drouga, A. Komnenou, and N. Portunato. 2006. A review of Ziphius
cavirostris strandings in the Mediterranean Sea. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 7(3):251-261.
Popov, V.V., A.Y. Supin, D. Wang, K. Wang, L. Dong, and S. Wang. 2011. Noise-induced temporary threshold
shift and recovery in Yangtze finless porpoises Neophocaena phocaenoides asiaeorientalis. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 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, and
M.B. Tarakanov. 2013a. Hearing threshold shifts and recovery after noise exposure in beluga whales,
Delphinapterus leucas. J. Exp. Biol. 216(9):1587-1596.
Popov, V., A. Supin, D. Nechaev, and E.V. Sysueva. 2013b. Temporary threshold shifts in naïve and experienced
belugas: learning to dampen effects of fatiguing sounds? Abstr. 3rd Int. Conf. Effects of Noise on Aquatic
Life, Aug. 2013, Budapest, Hungary.
Popper, A.N. 2009. Are we drowning out fish in a sea of noise? Mar. Sci. 27:18-20.
Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009a. The effects of human-generated sound on fish. Integr. Zool. 4(1):43-52.
Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009b. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J. Fish Biol.
75(3):455-489.
Popper, A.N., T.J. Carlson, J.A. Gross, A.D. Hawkins, D.G. Zeddies, L. Powell, and J. Young. 2013. Effects of
seismic airguns on pallid sturgeon and paddlefish. Abstr. 3rd Int. Conf. Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life,
Aug. 2013, Budapest, Hungary.
Popper, A.N., A.D. Hawkins, R.R. Fay, D.A. Mann, S, Bartol, T.J. Carlson, S. Coombs, W.T. Ellison, R.L. Gentry,
M.B. Halvorsen, S. Løkkeborg, P.H. Rogers, B.L. Southall, D.G. Zeddies, and W.N. Tavolga. 2014. Sound
exposure guidelines for fishes and sea turtles: a technical report prepared by ANSI-Accredited Standards
Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI. Springer Briefs in Oceanography. ASA Press—ASA
S3/SC1.4 TR-2014. 75 p.
Prieto, R., D. Janiger, M.A. Silva, G.T. Waring, and J.M. Gonçalves. 2012. The forgotten whale: a bibliometric
analysis and literature review of the North Atlantic sei whale Balaenoptera borealis. Mammal Rev.
42(3):235-272.
PUPA Yachting. 2000. Greece. Port of Entry. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.1yachtua.com/Medit-
marinas/greece/greek_marinas_entry.htm.
Radford, A.N., E. Kerridge, and S.D. Simpson. 2014. Acoustic communication in a noisy world: can fish compete
with anthropogenic noise? Behav. Ecol. 25(5):1022-1030.
Ragonese, S., S. Vitale, M. Dimech, and S. Mazzola. 2013. Abundances of demersal sharks and chimaera from
1994-2009 scientific surveys in the central Mediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 8(9):e74865.
doi:10.1371/journalpone.0074865.
Rees, A.F. and D. Margaritoulis. 2009. International migration of non-nesting loggerhead turtles from Greece to
Turkey and Libya tracked by satellite. p. 151-154 In: A. Demetropoulos and O. Turkozan (eds.), Proc. 2nd
Medit. Conf. Mar. Turtles. Barcelona Convention—Bern Convention—Bonn Convention (CMS). 4-7 May
2005, Kemer, Turkey. 188 p.
Rees, A.F., A. Saad, and M. Jony. 2008. Discovery of a regionally important green turtle Chelonia mydas rookery
in Syria. Oryx 42(3):456-459.
Rees, A.F., D. Margaritoulis, R. Newman, T.E. Riggall, P. Tsaros, J.A. Zbinden, and B.J. Godley. 2013. Ecology
of loggerhead marine turtles Caretta caretta in a neritic foraging habitat: movements, sex ratios and growth
rates. Mar. Biol. 160(3):519-529.
Reeves, R. and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara. 2006. The status and distribution of cetaceans in the Black Sea and
Mediterranean Sea. IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation. Malaga, Spain. 137 p. Accessed in
February 2015 at http://www.cetaceanalliance.org/download/literature/Reeves_Notarbartolo_2006.pdf
Reeves, R.R., B.D. Smith, E.A. Crespo, and G. Notarbartolo di Sciara. 2003. Dolphins, whales, and porpoises:
2002–2010 Conservation Action Plan for the World’s Cetaceans. IUCN/SSC Cetacean Specialist Group,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.
Reeves, R.R., K. McClellan, and T.B Werner. 2013. Marine mammal bycatch in gillnet and other entangling net
fisheries, 1990–2011. Endang. Species Res. 20(1):71-97. doi:10.3354/esr00481.
Revuelta, O., C. Carreras, F. Domènech, P. Gozalbes, and J. Tomás. 2015. First report of an olive ridley
(Lepidochelys olivacea) inside the Mediterranean Sea. Medit. Mar. Sci. Early view.
Rice, A.N., J.T. Tielens, B.J. Estabrook, C.A. Muirhead, A. Rahaman, M. Guerra, and C.W. Clark. 2014. Variation
of ocean acoustic environments along the western North Atlantic coast: a case study in context of the right
whale migration route. Ecol. Inform. 21:89-99.
Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. Academic
Press, San Diego, CA. 576 p.
Richardson, W.J., G.W. Miller, and C.R. Greene, Jr. 1999. Displacement of migrating bowhead whales by sounds
from seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106(4, Pt. 2):2281
(Abstract).
Risch, D., P.J. Corkeron, W.T. Ellison, and S.M. Van Parijs. 2012. Changes in humpback whale song occurrence in
response to an acoustic source 200 km away. PLoS One 7:e29741. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029741.
Risch, D., P.J. Corkeron, W.T. Ellison, and S.M. Van Parijs. 2014. Formal comment to Gong et al.: Ecosystem
scale acoustic sensing reveals humpback whale behavior synchronous with herring spawning processes and
re-evaluation finds no effect of sonar on humpback song occurrence in the Gulf of Maine in fall 2006. PLoS
One 9(10):e109225. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109225.
Robertson, F.C., W.R. Koski, T.A. Thomas, W.J. Richardson, B. Würsig, and A.W. Trites. 2013. Seismic
operations have variable effects on dive-cycle behavior of bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea. Endang.
Species Res. 21(2):143-160.
Rolland, R.M., S.E. Parks, K.E. Hunt, M. Castellote, P.J. Corkeron, D.P. Nowacek, S.K. Water, and S.D. Kraus.
2012. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proc. R. Soc. B 279(1737):2363-2368.
Ronald, K. and P. Healey. 1974. Present status of the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus). College of
Biol. Sci., Univ. Guelph, Ontario, Canada, Migration Ser., 100:1-36.
Rosel, P.E., A. Frantzis, C. Lockyer, and A. Komnenou. 2003. Source of Aegean Sea harbour porpoises. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 247:257-261.
Rosenthal, H., P. Bronzi, J. Gessner, D. Moreau, and E. Rochard (eds). n.d. Action plan for the conservation and
restoration of the European sturgeon (Acipenser sturio). Convention on the Conservation of European
Wildlife and Natural Habitas (Bern Convention). Nature and environment, No. 152. Council of Europe
Publishing. 125 p. Available at http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/6_20yy_action_plan_a_sturio_eu.pdf.
RPS (RPS Evan – Hamilton Inc.). 2014. Final environmental assessment for seismic reflection scientific research
surveys during 2014 and 2015 in support of mapping the U.S. Atlantic seaboard extended continental margin
and investigating tsunami hazards. Rep. from RPS for United States Geological Survey, August 2014.
Accessed in February 2015 at http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/usgssurveyfinalea2014.pdf.
Ryan C., A.C. Cucknell, M. Romagosa, O. Boisseau, A. Moscrop, A. Frantzis, and R. McLanaghan. 2014. A visual
and acoustic survey for marine mammals in the eastern Mediterranean Sea during summer 2013. Rep. from
Marine Conservation Research International, Essex, UK. For IFAW. 55 p. Accessed in February 2015 at
https://www.bodc.ac.uk/data/information_and_inventories/cruise_inventory/report/songofthewhale2013.pdf.
Saied, A., F. Maffucci, S. Hochscheid, S. Dryag, B. Swayeb, M. Borra, A. Ouerghi, G. Procaccini, and
F. Bentivegna. 2012. Loggerhead turtles nesting in Libya: an important management unit for the
Mediterranean stock. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 450:207-218.
Salden, D.R. 1993. Effects of research boat approaches on humpback whale behavior off Maui, Hawaii,
1989−1993. p. 94 In: Abstr. 10th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Nov. 1993, Galveston, TX. 130 p.
Sappho Travel. 2012. Ferries to Greek islands & Lesvos: summer ferry schedules for the Greek islands. Sappho
Travel Skala Eressos. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.lesvos.co.uk/services/ferries.htm.
SAUP (Sea Around Us Project). 2011. EEZ waters of Greece. Sea Around Us Project – Fisheries, Ecosystems &
Biodiversity. The PEW Charitable Trusts. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.seaaroundus.org/
eez/300.aspx.
SAUP. 2015. LME: Mediterranean Sea. The PEW Charitable Trusts. Accessed on 8 March 2015 at
http://www.seaaroundus.org/lme/26.aspx.
Scheinin, A.P., D. Kerem, C.D. Macleod, M. Gazo, C.A. Chicote, and M. Castellote. 2011. Gray whale
(Eschrichtius robustus) in the Mediterranean Sea: anomalous event or early sign of climate-driven
distribution change? Mar. Biodivers. Rec. 4:e28. doi:10.1017/s1755267211000072.
Schofield, G., C.M. Bishop, G. MacLean, P. Brown, M. Baker, K.A. Katselidis, P. Dimopoulos, J.D. Pantis, and
G.C. Hays. 2007. Novel GPS tracking of sea turtles as a tool for conservation management. J. Exp. Mar.
Biol. Ecol. 347(1-2):58-68.
Schofield, G., C.M. Bishop, K.A. Katselidis, P. Dimopoulos, J.D. Pantis, and G.C. Hays. 2009. Microhabitat
selection by sea turtles in a dynamic thermal marine environment. J. Animal Ecol. 78(1):14-21.
Schultz, J.K. 2011. Population genetics of the monk seals (Genus Monachus): a review. Aquat. Mamm.
37(3):227-235.
Scubadvisor. 2015. Scuba destinations: Crete. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.scubadviser.com/Scuba-

diving-destinations/-Destinations/Europe/Greece/Crete.
Scubakreta. 2015. Diving sites. Accessed in March 2015 at http://scubakreta.gr/about-
scubakreta?id=16&tmpl=raw.
SCUBA Travel. 2014. Diving Greece. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.scubatravel.co.uk/europe/greece-
diving.html.
Sergeant, D.E. 1977. Stocks of fin whales Balaenoptera physalus L. in the North Atlantic Ocean. Rep. Int. Whal.
Comm. 27:460-473.
Sidorovskaia, N., B. Ma, A.S. Ackleh, C. Tiemann, G.E. Ioup, and J.W. Ioup. Acoustic studies of the effects of
environmental stresses on marine mammals in large ocean basin. p. 1155 In: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts,
Vol. 1
Sigurdsson, H., S. Carey, M. Alexandri, G. Vougioukalakis, and K. Croff. 2006. Marine investigations of Greece’s
Santorini Volcanic Field. EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 87(34):337-348.
Simard, Y., F. Samaran, and N. Roy. 2005. Measurement of whale and seismic sounds in the Scotian Gully and
adjacent canyons in July 2003. p. 97-115 In: K. Lee, H. Bain, and C.V. Hurley (eds.), Acoustic monitoring
and marine mammal surveys in The Gully and outer Scotian Shelf before and during active seismic surveys.
Environ. Stud. Res. Funds Rep. 151. 154 p. (Published 2007).
Sivle, L.D., P.H. Kvadsheim, A. Fahlman, F.P.A. Lam, P.L. Tyack, and P.J.O. Miller. 2012. Changes in dive
behavior during naval sonar exposure in killer whales, long-finned pilot whales, and sperm whales. Front.
Physiol. 3(400). doi:10.3389/fphys.2012.00400.
Skaphandrus. 2015. Scuba dive sites in Aegean, Greece. Accessed in March 2015 at http://skaphandrus.com/en/
scuba-dive-locations/location/Greece/Aegean.
Skaug, H.J., N. Øien, T. Schweder, and G. Bøthun. 2003. Current abundance of minke whales in the northeastern
Atlantic; variability in time and space. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61(6):870-886.
Solé, M., M. Lenoir, M. Durfort, M. López-Bejar, A. Lombarte, M. van der Schaaer, and M. André. 2013. Does
exposure to noise from human activities compromise sensory information from cephalopod statocysts?
Deep-Sea Res. II 95:160-181.
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, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Marine mammal noise
exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquat. Mamm. 33(4):411-522.
Southall, B.L., T. Rowles, F. Gulland, R.W. Baird, and P.D. Jepson. 2013. Final report of the Independent
Scientific Review Panel investigating potential contributing factors to a 2008 mass stranding of melon-
headed whales (Peponocephala electra) in Antsohihy, Madagascar. Accessed in March 2015 at
http://iwc.int/2008-mass-stranding-in-madagascar.
Stevick, P.T., N. Øien, and D.K. Mattila. 1998. Migration of a humpback whale between Norway and the West
Indies. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 14(1):162-166.
Stevick, P.T., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, N. Friday, S.K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D.K. Mattila, P.J. Palsbøll, J.
Sigurjónsson, T.D. Smith, N. Øien, and P.S. Hammond. 2003. North Atlantic humpback whale abundance
and rate of increase four decades after protection from whaling. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 258:263-273.
Stevick, P.T., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, S.K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. Lien, D.K. Mattila, P.J. Palsbøll, R. Sears,
J. Sigurjónsson, T.D. Smith, G. Vikingsson, N. Øien, and P.S. Hammond. 2006. Population spatial
structuring on the feeding grounds in North Atlantic humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). J. Zool.
270(2):244-255.
Stone, C.J. 2015. Marine mammal observations during seismic surveys from 1994–2010. JNCC Rep. No. 463a.
64 p.
Stone, C.J. and M.L. Tasker. 2006. The effects of seismic airguns on cetaceans in U.K. waters. J. Cetac. Res.
Manage. 8(3):255-263.
Thompson, D., M. Sjöberg, E.B. Bryant, P. Lovell, and A. Bjørge. 1998. Behavioural and physiological responses
of harbour (Phoca vitu\lina) and grey (Halichoerus grypus) seals to seismic surveys. p. 134 In: Abstr. 12th
Bienn. Conf. and World Mar. Mamm. Sci. Conf., 20-25 Jan., Monte Carlo, Monaco. 160 p.
Thompson, P.M., K.L. Brookes, I.M. Graham, T.R. Barton, K. Needham, G. Bradbury, and N.D. Merchant. 2013.
Short-term disturbance by a commercial two-dimensional seismic survey does not lead to long-term
displacement of harbour porpoises. Proc. R. Soc. B 280:20132001. doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2001.
Tolstoy, M., J. Diebold, L. Doermann, S. Nooner, S.C. Webb, D.R. Bohenstiehl, T.J. Crone, and R.C. Holmes.
2009. Broadband calibration of R/V Marcus G. Langseth four-string seismic sources. Geochem. Geophys.
Geosyst. 10:Q08011. doi:10.1029/2009GC002451.
Tomás, J. and J.A. Raga. 2008. Occurrence of Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) in the Mediterranean.
Mar. Biodiv. Rec. 1:e58. doi:10.1017/s1755267207006409.
Tougaard, J., A.J. Wright, and P.T. Madsen. 2015. Cetacean noise criteria revisited in light of proposed exposure
limits for harbour porpoises. Mar. Poll. Bull. 90(1-2):196-208.
Treaties Office Database. 2008. Summary of treaty: protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological
Diversity in the Mediterranean. EUROPA, European Union External Action Service. Accessed in March
2015 at at http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/prepareCreateTreatiesWorkspace/treatiesGeneralData.do?
step=0&redirect=true&treatyId=598.
Tudela S. 2004. Ecosystem effects of fishing in the Mediterranean: an analysis of the major threats of fishing gear
and practices to biodiversity and marine habitats. Studies and Reviews, No. 74. FAO: Rome, Italy.
Accessed on 13 March 2015 at http://www.fao.org/3/a-y5594e.pdf.
Türkekan, O. and S.V. Yerli. 2011. Satellite tracking of adult green sea turtles from Turkey: a long distance diary.
Mar. Turtle Newsl. 131:38-41.
Tyack, P.L. and V.M. Janik. 2013. Effects of noise on acoustic signal production in marine mammals. p. 251-271
In: H. Brumm (ed.), Animal communication and noise. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany. 453 p.
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, and I.L. Boyd. 2011. Beaked whales respond
to simulated and actual navy sonar. PLoS One 6(e17009). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017009.
UNEP MAP (United Nations Environment Programme Mediterranean Action Plan). 2007. Barcelona Convention.
UNEP MAP. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=content2&catid=
001001004.
UNEP MAP RAC/SPA (United Nations Environment Programme, Mediterranean Action Pan, Regional Activity
Centre for Specially Protected Areas). 2003. Action plan for the conservation of cartilaginous fishes
(Chondrichthyans) in the Mediterranean Sea. Ed. RAC/SPA, Tunis. 56 p. Accessed in February 2015 at
http://www.rac-spa.org/sites/default/files/action_plans/elasmo.pdf.
UNEP MAP RAC/SPA (United Nations Environment Programme, Mediterranean Action Pan, Regional Activity
Centre for Specially Protected Areas). 2010. Specially protected areas in the Mediterranean: assessment and
perspectives.. Ed. RAC/SPA, Tunis. 35 p. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.rac-spa.org/sites/
default/files/doc_cop/asp_2010_en.pdf.
UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre). 2015.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. Appendices I, II, and II.
Valid from 5 February 2015. Accessed on 9 February 2015 at http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php.
USCG (U.S. Coast Guard). 2013. AMVER density plot display. USCG, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Accessed in February 2015 at http://www.amver.com/density.asp.
Valsecchi, E., W. Amos, J.A. Raga, M. Podestà, and W. Sherwin. 2004. The effects of inbreeding on mortality
during a morbillivirus outbreak in the Mediterranean striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba). Anim.
Conserv. 7(2):139-146.
Van Bressem, M.-F., I.K.G. Visser, R.L. De Swart, C. Örvell, L. Stanzani, E. Androukaki, K. Siakavara, and
A.D.M.E. Osterhaus. 1993. Dolphin morbillivirus infection in different parts of the Mediterranean Sea.
Arch. Virol. 129(1-4):235-242.
Verriopoulou, A., E. Tounta, and P. Dendrinos. 2001. First report of a minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Lacépède, 1804) in Hellenic waters. Aquat. Mamm. 27(2):137-139.
Viaud-Martínez, K.A., M.M. Vergara, P.E. Gol’din, V. Ridoux, A.A. Öztürk, B. Öztürk, P.E. Rosel, A. Frantzis,
A. Komnenou, and A.J. Bohonak. 2007. Morphological and genetic differentiation of the Black Sea harbour
porpoise Phocoena phocoena. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 338:281-294.
Víkingsson, G.A., D.G. Pike, G. Desportes, N. Øien, Th. Gunnlaugsson, and D. Bloch. 2009. Distribution and
abundance of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in the northeast and central Atlantic as inferred from the
North Atlantic sightings surveys 1987–2001. NAMMCO Sci. Publ. 7:49-72.
WannaDive. 2015a Find the best dive sites: Santorini, Greece, Cyclades. Accessed in March 2015 at
http://www.wannadive.net/spot/Europe/Greece/Cyclades/Santorini/index.html.
WannaDive. 2015b. Find the best dive sites: Crete Island, Greece. Accessed in March 2015 at
http://www.wannadive.net/spot/Europe/Greece/Crete/.
Waring, G.T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, and P.E. Rosel (eds.). 2014. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine
mammal stock assessments—2013. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-228. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Northeast
Fish. Sci. Center, Woods Hole, MA. 464 p.
Wartzok, D., A.N. Popper, J. Gordon, and J. Merrill. 2004. Factors affecting the responses of marine mammals to
acoustic disturbance. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 37(4):6-15.
Weilgart, L.S. 2007. A brief review of known effects of noise on marine mammals. Int. J. Comp. Psychol.
20(2):159-168.
Weilgart, L.S. 2014. Are we mitigating underwater noise-producing activities adequately? A comparison of Level
A and Level B cetacean takes. Working pap. SC/65b/E07. Int. Whal. Comm., Cambridge, U.K. 17 p.
Weir, C.R. 2007. Observations of marine turtles in relation to seismic airgun sound off Angola. Mar. Turtle
Newsl. 116:17-20.
Weir, C.R. and S.J. Dolman. 2007. Comparative review of the regional marine mammal mitigation guidelines
implemented during industrial seismic surveys, and guidance towards a worldwide standard. J. Int. Wildl.
Law Policy 10(1):1-27.
Wensveen, P.J., L.A.E. Huijser, L. Hoek, and R.A. Kastelein. 2014. Equal latency contours and auditory weighting
functions for the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). J. Exp. Biol. 217(3):359-369.
Wensveen, P.J., A.M. von Benda-Beckmann, M.A. Ainslie, F.P.A. Lam, P.H. Kvadsheim, P.L. Tyack, and P.J.O.
Miller. 2015. How effectively do horizontal and vertical response strategies of long-finned pilot whales
reduce sound exposure from naval sonar? Mar. Environ. Res. 106:68-81.
Whitehead, H. 2002. Estimates of the current global population size and historical trajectory for sperm whales.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 242:295-304.
Whitehead, H. 2009. Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus. p. 1091-1097 In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and
J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals, 2nd ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
1316 p.
WildEarth Guardians. 2013. Petition to list eighty-one marine species under the Endangered Species Act. Report
submitted acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. 538 p. Accessed in February 2015 at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petitions/81_multi_species_marine_petition_2013.pdf.
Willemsen, D. 2013. When to sail Greece. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.sailingissues.com/yachting-
guide/sail-greece-season.html.
Williams, T.M, W.A. Friedl, M.L. Fong, R.M. Yamada, P. Sideivy, and J.E. Haun. 1992. Travel at low energetic
cost by swimming and wave-riding bottlenose dolphins. Nature 355(6363):821-823.
Willis, K.L., J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, D.R. Ketten, and C.E. Carr. 2013. Middle ear cavity morphology is
consistent with an aquatic origin for testudines. PLoSOne 8(1):e54086. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054086.
Wittekind, D., J. Tougaard, P. Stilz, M. Dähne, K. Lucke, C.W. Clark, S. von Benda-Beckmann, M. Ainslie, and
U. Siebert. 2013. Development of a model to assess masking potential for marine mammals by the use of
airguns in Antarctic waters. Abstr. 3rd Int. Conf. Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life, Aug. 2013, Budapest,
Hungary.
Wojtek, B. and S.A. Norman. 2013. Ziphius cavirostris strandings—a short review. Working Pap. SC/65a/SM01.
Int. Whal. Comm., Cambridge, U.K. 14 p.
Wojtek, B., P. Cermeño, and S.A. Norman. 2014. Mesoplodon bidens strandings—a short review. Working Pap.
SC/65b/SM02. Int. Whal. Comm., Cambridge, U.K. 11 p.
Wole, O.G. and E.F. Myade. 2014. Effect of seismic operations on cetaceans sightings off-shore Akwa Ibom State,
south-south, Nigeria. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 8(4):1570-1580.
Wood, L.J. 2007. MPA Global: a database of the world’s marine protected areas. Sea Around Us Project.
UNEP-WCMC and WWF. Accessed in March 2015 at http://www.mpaglobal.org.
Woodside, J.M., L. David, A. Frantzis, and S.K. Hooker. 2006. Gouge marks on deep-sea mud volcanoes in the eastern
Mediterranean: caused by Cuvier’s beaked whales? Deep-Sea Res. I 53(11):1762-1771.
Wright, A.J. 2014. Reducing impacts of human ocean noise on cetaceans: knowledge gap analysis and
recommendations. 98 p. World Wildlife Fund Global Arctic Programme, Ottawa, Ont.
Wright, A.J. and L.A. Kyhn. 2014. Practical management of cumulative anthropogenic impacts for working marine
examples. Conserv. Biol. 29(2):333-340. doi:10.1111/cobi.12425.
Wright, A.J., T. Deak, and E.C.M. Parsons. 2011. Size matters: management of stress responses and chronic stress
in beaked whales and other marine mammals may require larger exclusion zones. Mar. Poll. Bull.
63(1-4):5-9.
Würsig, B., S.K. Lynn, T.A. Jefferson, and K.D. Mullin. 1998. Behaviour of cetaceans in the northern Gulf of
Mexico relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquat. Mamm. 24(1):41-50.
Yazvenko, S.B., T.L. McDonald, S.A. Blokhin, S.R. Johnson, S.K. Meier, H.R. Melton, M.W. Newcomer,
R.M. Nielson, V.L. Vladimirov, and P.W. Wainwright. 2007a. Distribution and abundance of western gray
whales during a seismic survey near Sakhalin Island, Russia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 134(1-3):45-73.
Yazvenko, S.B., T.L. McDonald, S.A. Blokhin, S.R. Johnson, H.R. Melton, and M.W. Newcomer. 2007b. Feeding
activity of western gray whales during a seismic survey near Sakhalin Island, Russia. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 134(1-3):93-106.
Zbinden, J.A., A. Aebischer, D. Margaritoulis and R. Arlettaz. 2008. Important areas at sea for adult loggerhead
sea turtles in the Mediterranean Sea: satellite tracking corroborates findings from potentially biased sources.
Mar. Biol. 153(5):899-906.
Zbinden, J.A., S. Bearhop, P. Bradshaw, B. Gill, D. Margaritoulis, J. Newton, and B.J. Godley. 2011. Migratory
dichotomy and associated phenotypic variation in marine turtles revealed by satellite tracking and stable
isotope analysis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 421:291-302.
Zorbas Island. 2015. Zorbas Island: apartments & excursions on Crete—Active in Crete, Greece 2015. Accessed
in March 2015 at http://www.zorbas.nl/holiday_program_on_crete_greece.htm.

Draft Environmental Analysis of A Marine Geophysical Survey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft Environmental Analysis of A Marine Geophysical Survey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft Environmental Analysis of a

Marine Geophysical Survey

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

National Science Foundation

LGL Ltd., environmental research associates

Revised 24 August 2015

LGL Report FA0041-1

(7) Common Guitarfish .......................................................................................................... 38

MBES Multibeam Echosounder

I. PURPOSE AND NEED

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

Background of NSF-funded Marine Seismic Research

II. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION

(1) Project Objectives and Context

II. Alternatives Including Proposed Action

(2) Proposed Activities

(a) Location of the Activities

(b) Description of Activities

(e) Airgun Description

(f) OBS and Land-based Seismometers Description and Deployment

(g) Additional Acoustical Data Acquisition Systems

(3) Monitoring and Mitigation Measures

(a) Planning Phase

Tow Depth Water Depth Predicted rms Radii (m)

(b) Operational Phase

Alternative 1: Alternative Survey Timing

Alternative 2: No Action Alternative

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis

(2) Alternative E2: Use of Alternative Technologies

TABLE 2. Summary of Proposed Action, Alternatives Considered, and Alternatives Eliminated.

III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Physical Environment and Oceanography

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)

Common Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)

Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus)

Cuvier’s Beaked Whale (Ziphius cavirostris)

Rough-toothed Dolphin (Steno bredanensis)

Common Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

Striped Dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba)

Short-beaked Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis)

Risso’s Dolphin (Grampus griseus)

False Killer Whale (Pseudorca crassidens)

Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

Mediterranean Monk Seal (Monachus monachus)

(1) Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta)

(2) Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas)

(3) Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)

(1) Audouin’s Gull (Larus audouinii)

(2) Slender-billed Curlew (Numenius tenuirostris)

Fish, Essential Fish Habitat, and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern

(1) Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna lewini)

(2) Adriatic Sturgeon (Acipenser naccarii)

(3) European Sturgeon (Acipenser sturio)

(4) Sawback Angelshark (Squatina aculeata)

(5) Smoothback Angelshark (Squatina oculata)

(6) Angelshark (Squatina squatina)

(7) Common Guitarfish (Rhinobatos rhinobatos)

(8) Blackchin Guitarfish (Rhinobatos cemiculus)

(9) Undulate Ray (Raja undulata)

(1) Commercial Fisheries

(2) Recreational Fisheries

Recreational SCUBA Diving

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES