NMFS Biological Opinion on U.S. Navy training ... - Govsupport.us
NMFS Biological Opinion on U.S. Navy training ... - Govsupport.us NMFS Biological Opinion on U.S. Navy training ... - Govsupport.us
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION ON U.S. NAVY ACTIVITIES IN THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX 2008-2013 would be operated to ensure that the sound field at these sites would not exceed 145 dB, adding an additional level of protection for marine mammals located in dive sites. Based on the operations of the HF/M3 sonar during missions the Navy conducted between 2002 and 2006, the HF/M3 sonar appears to effectively detect marine animals within 1 to 2 kilometers of the LFA projectors. Recent testing of the HF/M3 sonar demonstrated a probability of single-ping detection above 95 percent within the LFA mitigation zone for most marine mammals (Navy 2005). For example, during seven of the nine SURTASS LFA missions the Navy conducted in 2004, there were twelve HF/M3 alerts that were identified as possible marine mammal or sea turtle detections. Between February 2005 and February 2006 LFA transmissions were delayed or suspended on 33 occasions: operations on the USNS IMPECCABLE were delayed or suspended four times because of possible marine mammal or sea turtle detections and three times due to HF/M3 failures while operations on the R/V Cory Chouest were delayed or suspended 12 times because of possible marine mammal or sea turtle detections, 13 times because the HF/M3 system failed, and once because of a visual sighting of dolphins. Thus far, the combination of geographic constraints, operating protocols, monitoring measures, and shut-down procedures appear to have prevented most threatened and endangered species of marine mammal and sea turtles from being exposed to SURTASS LFA sonar at received levels exceeding 180 dB. Further, they have prevented these species from being exposed in areas that are critical to their ecology, critical to large portions of their populations, or both. The Navy proposes to continue using these measures and they are likely to perform as well in the future as they have performed thus far. Therefore, based on the evidence available, most marine animals are likely to be exposed to received levels of LFA sonar at or below 180 dB. DURATION OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO SURTASS LFA TRANSMISSIONS. Between the third week of January 2009 and mid-August 2009, the Navy proposes to conduct 3 missions with the SURTASS LFA sonar system in the Hawai'i Range Complex, with 7 days active during each mission and 24 hours of operations per day. The duration of a typical SURTASS LFA ping would range from 6 to 100 seconds, with no more than 10 seconds at a single frequency; intervals between pings would range from 6 to 15 minutes. Pings would consist of various signal types that vary in frequency (between 100 and 500 Hz) and duration (including continuous wave and frequency-modulated signals). When the system is turned off, no additional energy would enter the ocean’s environment. The duration of an animal’s exposure to SURTASS LFA signals would depend on the animal’s proximity to the transmitter and the animal’s location in the water column. Nevertheless, because of the length of individual pings, individual animals are likely to be exposed to SURTASS LFA transmissions for periods ranging from 6 to 100 seconds. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE THE LIKELIHOOD OF EXPOSING MARINE MAMMALS TO LFA SONAR. The Navy proposes to use a monitoring program to avoid potentially exposing marine mammals to LFA transmissions at high decibel levels. As discussed in the Description of the Proposed Action, this monitoring program includes visual, passive acoustic, and active acoustic monitoring of a 180 dB mitigation zone and an additional 1 km buffer zone. The effectiveness of visual monitoring is limited to daylight hours, and its effectiveness declines during poor weather conditions. In line transect surveys, the range of effective visual sighting (the distance from the ship’s track or the effective strip width) varies with an animal’s size, group size, reliability of conspicuous behaviors (blows), 148
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION ON U.S. NAVY ACTIVITIES IN THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX 2008-2013 pattern of surfacing behavior, and positions of the observers (which includes the observer’s height above the water surface). For most large baleen whales, effective strip width can be about 3 km (1.6 nm) up through Beaufort 6 (Buckland et al. 1993). For harbor porpoises the effective strip width is about 250 m (273 yd), because they are much smaller and less demonstrative on the surface than baleen whales (Palka 1996). The percentage of animals that will pass unseen is difficult to determine, but for minke whales, Schweder et al. (1992) estimated that visual survey crews did not detect about half of the animals in a strip width. Palka (1996) and Barlow (1988) estimated that visual survey teams did not detect about 25 percent of the harbor porpoises in a strip width. The effectiveness of passive acoustic detection is considered to be higher than visual monitoring. Thomas et al. (1986) and Clark and Fristrup (1997) concluded that the effective strip width and detection rates for passive acoustic monitoring is greater than that for visual, but the percentage of animals that will be undetected by the methods is unknown. Frequency coverage for this mitigation method using the SURTASS passive array is between 0 and 500 Hz, so vocalizing animals are more likely to be detected than animals that do not vocalize. This would increase the detection rate of gray, humpback, fin, blue, and minke whales, and some of the beaked whale and dolphin species. The HF/M3 sonar is the final measure the Navy proposes to use to detect animals within 1 to 2 kilometers of the projectors. Recent testing of the HF/M3 sonar demonstrated a probability of single-ping detection above 95 percent within the LFA mitigation zone for most marine mammals (see the Navy 2001, section 2.3.2.2). If any of these monitoring methods detects animals within this zone, the projectors would be shut down until an animal moves out of the mitigation zone. Combined with the visual monitoring and passive acoustic monitoring protocols, this should minimize the risk of marine mammals being exposed to sound pressure levels in excess of 180 dB. BLUE WHALES. The U.S. Navy’s exposure models identified 23 instances in which blue whales might be exposed to SURTASS LFA transmissions at received levels ranging between 120 dB and 180 dB during SURTASS LFA missions in the Hawai'i Range Complex. FIN WHALES. The U.S. Navy’s exposure models identified 80 instances in which fin whales might be exposed to SURTASS LFA transmissions at received levels ranging between 120 dB and 180 dB during SURTASS LFA missions in the Hawai'i Range Complex. HUMPBACK WHALES. The U.S. Navy’s exposure models identified 91 instances in which humpback whales might be exposed to SURTASS LFA transmissions at received levels ranging between 120 dB and 180 dB during SURTASS LFA missions in the Hawai'i Range Complex. SPERM WHALES. The U.S. Navy’s exposure models identified 166 instances in which sperm whales might be exposed to SURTASS LFA transmissions at received levels ranging between 120 dB and 180 dB during SURTASS LFA missions in the Hawai'i Range Complex. HAWAI’IAN MONK SEALS. Although Hawai’ian monk seals generally reside in coastal waters near haulout areas, they forage in deep water and dive to at least 490 m (1,608 ft; Reeves et al. 1992), which could expose them to low frequency sounds from SURTASS LFA. The U.S. Navy’s exposure models identified 14 instances in which Hawai’ian 149
- Page 100 and 101: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 102 and 103: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 104 and 105: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 106 and 107: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 108 and 109: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 110 and 111: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 112 and 113: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 114 and 115: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 116 and 117: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 118 and 119: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 120 and 121: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 122 and 123: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 124 and 125: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 126 and 127: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 128 and 129: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 130 and 131: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 132 and 133: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 134 and 135: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 136 and 137: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 138 and 139: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 140 and 141: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 142 and 143: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 144 and 145: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 146 and 147: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 148 and 149: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 152 and 153: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 154 and 155: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 156 and 157: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 158 and 159: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 160 and 161: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 162 and 163: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 164 and 165: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 166 and 167: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 168 and 169: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 170 and 171: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 172 and 173: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 174 and 175: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 176 and 177: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 178 and 179: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 180 and 181: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 182 and 183: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 184 and 185: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 186 and 187: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 188 and 189: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 190 and 191: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 192 and 193: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 194 and 195: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 196 and 197: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 198 and 199: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION ON U.S. NAVY ACTIVITIES IN THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX 2008-2013<br />
would be operated to ensure that the sound field at these sites would not exceed 145 dB, adding an additi<strong>on</strong>al level<br />
of protecti<strong>on</strong> for marine mammals located in dive sites.<br />
Based <strong>on</strong> the operati<strong>on</strong>s of the HF/M3 s<strong>on</strong>ar during missi<strong>on</strong>s the <strong>Navy</strong> c<strong>on</strong>ducted between 2002 and 2006, the HF/M3<br />
s<strong>on</strong>ar appears to effectively detect marine animals within 1 to 2 kilometers of the LFA projectors. Recent testing of<br />
the HF/M3 s<strong>on</strong>ar dem<strong>on</strong>strated a probability of single-ping detecti<strong>on</strong> above 95 percent within the LFA mitigati<strong>on</strong> z<strong>on</strong>e<br />
for most marine mammals (<strong>Navy</strong> 2005). For example, during seven of the nine SURTASS LFA missi<strong>on</strong>s the <strong>Navy</strong><br />
c<strong>on</strong>ducted in 2004, there were twelve HF/M3 alerts that were identified as possible marine mammal or sea turtle<br />
detecti<strong>on</strong>s. Between February 2005 and February 2006 LFA transmissi<strong>on</strong>s were delayed or s<strong>us</strong>pended <strong>on</strong> 33<br />
occasi<strong>on</strong>s: operati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> the USNS IMPECCABLE were delayed or s<strong>us</strong>pended four times beca<strong>us</strong>e of possible marine<br />
mammal or sea turtle detecti<strong>on</strong>s and three times due to HF/M3 failures while operati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> the R/V Cory Chouest<br />
were delayed or s<strong>us</strong>pended 12 times beca<strong>us</strong>e of possible marine mammal or sea turtle detecti<strong>on</strong>s, 13 times beca<strong>us</strong>e<br />
the HF/M3 system failed, and <strong>on</strong>ce beca<strong>us</strong>e of a visual sighting of dolphins.<br />
Th<strong>us</strong> far, the combinati<strong>on</strong> of geographic c<strong>on</strong>straints, operating protocols, m<strong>on</strong>itoring measures, and shut-down<br />
procedures appear to have prevented most threatened and endangered species of marine mammal and sea turtles<br />
from being exposed to SURTASS LFA s<strong>on</strong>ar at received levels exceeding 180 dB. Further, they have prevented these<br />
species from being exposed in areas that are critical to their ecology, critical to large porti<strong>on</strong>s of their populati<strong>on</strong>s, or<br />
both. The <strong>Navy</strong> proposes to c<strong>on</strong>tinue <strong>us</strong>ing these measures and they are likely to perform as well in the future as they<br />
have performed th<strong>us</strong> far. Therefore, based <strong>on</strong> the evidence available, most marine animals are likely to be exposed to<br />
received levels of LFA s<strong>on</strong>ar at or below 180 dB.<br />
DURATION OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO SURTASS LFA TRANSMISSIONS. Between the third week of January 2009 and<br />
mid-Aug<strong>us</strong>t 2009, the <strong>Navy</strong> proposes to c<strong>on</strong>duct 3 missi<strong>on</strong>s with the SURTASS LFA s<strong>on</strong>ar system in the Hawai'i<br />
Range Complex, with 7 days active during each missi<strong>on</strong> and 24 hours of operati<strong>on</strong>s per day. The durati<strong>on</strong> of a<br />
typical SURTASS LFA ping would range from 6 to 100 sec<strong>on</strong>ds, with no more than 10 sec<strong>on</strong>ds at a single frequency;<br />
intervals between pings would range from 6 to 15 minutes. Pings would c<strong>on</strong>sist of vario<strong>us</strong> signal types that vary in<br />
frequency (between 100 and 500 Hz) and durati<strong>on</strong> (including c<strong>on</strong>tinuo<strong>us</strong> wave and frequency-modulated signals).<br />
When the system is turned off, no additi<strong>on</strong>al energy would enter the ocean’s envir<strong>on</strong>ment.<br />
The durati<strong>on</strong> of an animal’s exposure to SURTASS LFA signals would depend <strong>on</strong> the animal’s proximity to the<br />
transmitter and the animal’s locati<strong>on</strong> in the water column. Nevertheless, beca<strong>us</strong>e of the length of individual pings,<br />
individual animals are likely to be exposed to SURTASS LFA transmissi<strong>on</strong>s for periods ranging from 6 to 100 sec<strong>on</strong>ds.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE THE LIKELIHOOD OF EXPOSING MARINE MAMMALS TO LFA SONAR. The <strong>Navy</strong><br />
proposes to <strong>us</strong>e a m<strong>on</strong>itoring program to avoid potentially exposing marine mammals to LFA transmissi<strong>on</strong>s at high<br />
decibel levels. As disc<strong>us</strong>sed in the Descripti<strong>on</strong> of the Proposed Acti<strong>on</strong>, this m<strong>on</strong>itoring program includes visual,<br />
passive aco<strong>us</strong>tic, and active aco<strong>us</strong>tic m<strong>on</strong>itoring of a 180 dB mitigati<strong>on</strong> z<strong>on</strong>e and an additi<strong>on</strong>al 1 km buffer z<strong>on</strong>e.<br />
The effectiveness of visual m<strong>on</strong>itoring is limited to daylight hours, and its effectiveness declines during poor<br />
weather c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s. In line transect surveys, the range of effective visual sighting (the distance from the ship’s track<br />
or the effective strip width) varies with an animal’s size, group size, reliability of c<strong>on</strong>spicuo<strong>us</strong> behaviors (blows),<br />
148