NMFS Biological Opinion on U.S. Navy training ... - Govsupport.us

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION ON U.S. NAVY ACTIVITIES IN THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX 2008-2013 The strongest evidence that of the probable impact of the Environmental Baseline on humpback whales consists of the estimated growth rate of the humpback whale population in the North Pacific Ocean and the increased number of humpback whale that are reported to occur in the Hawai'ian Islands. In the 1980s, the size of the North Pacific humpback whale population was estimated to range from 1,407 to 2,100 (Baker 1985; Darling and Morowitz 1986; Baker and Herman 1987). By the mid-1990s, the population was estimated to consist of about 6,000 whales (standard error = 474) in the North Pacific (Calambokidis et al. 1997; Cerchio 1998; Mobley et al. 1999). The most recent estimate places the current population of humpback whales in the North Pacific Ocean consisted of about 18,300 whales, not counting calves (Calambokidis et al. 2008). Almost half of the humpback whales that were estimated to occur in wintering areas, or about 8,000 humpback whales, occupy the Hawai’ian Islands during the winter months. Despite small numbers that are entangled in fishing gear in the action area, this increase in the number of humpback whales suggests that the activities these whales are exposed to in the Hawai'ian Islands have not prevented these whales from increasing their numbers in the action area, although we do not know if more humpback whales might have used the action area in the absence of those stressors. The information that is available does not allow us to reach similar conclusions for the other endangered or threatened cetaceans in the action area. Similarly, despite continued declines in the Northwest Hawai'ian Islands, the increasing rate at which monk seals are sighted in the Main Hawai’ian Islands and the increased number of pups born in the Main Hawai'ian Islands suggests that the stress regime created by the activities discussed in this Environmental Baseline is not having a negative impact on these seals. In the case of monk seals, however, increases in their occurrence in the Main Hawai'ian Islands may represent a re-distribution from the Northwest Hawai'ian Islands, which would imply that environmental conditions may merely be worse in the Northwest Hawai'ian Islands. The stress regime created by the activities discussed in this Environmental Baseline continues to have a serious and adverse impact on leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles. For several years, <strong>NMFS</strong>’ biological opinions have established that the leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles populations in the Pacific Ocean face high probabilities of extinction as a result of both environmental and demographic stochasticity. Demographic stochasticity, or chance variation in the birth or death of an individual of the population, is facilitated by the increases in mortality rates of loggerhead populations resulting from the premature deaths of individual sea turtles associated with human activities (either removal of eggs or adult females that are killed on nesting beaches or that die as a result of being captured in fisheries) or incidental capture and mortality of individuals in various fisheries. The information available suggests that leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles have high probabilities of becoming extinct in the Pacific Ocean unless they are protected from the combined threats of entanglements in fishing gear, overharvests, and loss of their nesting habitat. The limited data available suggests that leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean exist at population sizes small enough to be classified as “small” populations (that is, populations that exhibit population dynamics that increase the extinction probabilities of the species or several of its populations) as evidenced by biases in the male to female ratios in the Pacific. The number of individuals of both species that continue to be captured and killed in fisheries in the action area contributes to the increased extinction risk of both of these species. 156
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION ON U.S. NAVY ACTIVITIES IN THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX 2008-2013 5.0 Effects of the Proposed Action In Effects of the Action sections of <strong>Opinion</strong>s, <strong>NMFS</strong> presents the results of its assessment of the probable direct and indirect effects of federal actions that the subject of a consultation as well as the direct and indirect effects of interrelated, and interdependent actions on threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat. As we described in the Approach to the Assessment section of this <strong>Opinion</strong>, we organize our effects’ analyses using a stressor identification - exposure – response – risk assessment framework; we conclude this section with an Integration and Synthesis of Effects that integrates information we presented in the Status of the Species and Environmental Base sections of this <strong>Opinion</strong> with the results of our exposure and response analyses to estimate the probable risks the proposed action poses to endangered and threatened species. Because this <strong>Opinion</strong> has previously concluded that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat that has been designated for listed species, critical habitat is not considered in the analyses that follow. Before we begin, we need to address a few definitions. The Endangered Species Act does not define “harassment” nor has <strong>NMFS</strong> defined this term, pursuant to the ESA, through regulation. However, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended, defines “harassment” as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild or has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering” [16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(A)]. For military readiness activities, this definition of “harassment” has been amended to mean “any act that disrupts or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering to a point where such behaviors are abandoned or significantly altered” (Public Law 106-136, 2004). The latter portion of these definitions (that is, “...causing disruption of behavioral patterns including... migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering”) is almost identical to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s regulatory definition of harass. 3 For this <strong>Opinion</strong>, we define “harassment” similarly: “an intentional or unintentional human act or omission that creates the probability of injury to an individual animal by disrupting one or more behavioral patterns that are essential to the animal’s life history or its contribution to the population the animal represents.” We are particularly concerned about changes in animal behavior that are likely to result in animals that fail to feed, fail to breed 3 An intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.4) 157
Page 4 and 5:
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316:
show all

NMFS Biological Opinion on U.S. Navy training ... - Govsupport.us

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?