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 Island to sounds produced by seismic activities in that region. In 1997, the gray whales responded to seismic activities by changing their swimming speed and orientation, respiration rates, and distribution in waters around the seismic surveys. In 2001, seismic activities were conducted in a known feeding area of these whales and the whales left the feeding area and moved to areas farther south in the Sea of Okhotsk. They only returned to the feeding are several days after the seismic activities stopped. The potential fitness consequences of displacing these whales, especially mother-calf pairs and “skinny whales,” outside of their the normal feeding area is not known; however, because gray whales, like other large whales, must gain enough energy during the summer foraging season to last them the entire year. Sounds or other stimuli that cause them to abandon a foraging area for several days seems almost certain to disrupt their energetics and force them to make trade-offs like delaying their migration south, delaying reproduction, reducing growth, or migrating with reduced energy reserves. Captive bottlenose dolphins and a white whale exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to 1 second pulsed sounds at frequencies similar to those emitted by the multi-beam sonar that is used by geophysical surveys (Ridgway et al. 1997, Schlundt et al. 2000), and to shorter broadband pulsed signals (Finneran et al. 2000, 2002). Behavioral changes typically involved what appeared to be deliberate attempts to avoid a sound exposure or to avoid the location of the exposure site during subsequent tests (Schlundt et al. 2000, Finneran et al. 2002). Dolphins exposed to 1-sec intense tones exhibited short-term changes in behavior above received sound levels of 178 to 193 dB re 1 μPa rms and belugas did so at received levels of 180 to 196 dB and above. Received levels necessary to elicit such responses to shorter pulses were higher (Finneran et al. 2000, 2002). Test animals sometimes vocalized after exposure to pulsed, mid-frequency sound from a watergun (Finneran et al. 2002). In some instances, animals exhibited aggressive behavior toward the test apparatus (Ridgway et al. 1997, Schlundt et al. 2000). It is not clear whether or to what degree the responses of captive animals might be representative of the responses of marine animals in the wild. For example, wild cetaceans sometimes avoid sound sources well before they are exposed to received levels such as those used in these experiments. Further, the responses of marine animals in the wild may be more subtle than those described by Ridgway et al. (1997) and Schlundt et al. (2000). Richardson et al. (1995a) and Richardson (1997, 1998) used controlled playback experiments to study the response of bowhead whales in Arctic Alaska. In their studies, bowhead whales tended to avoid drill ship noise at estimated received levels of 110 to 115 dB and seismic sources at estimated received levels of 110 to 132 dB. Richardson et al. (1995) concluded that some marine mammals would tolerate continuous sound at received levels above 120 dB re 1 μPa for a few hours. These authors concluded that most marine mammals would avoid exposures to received levels of continuous underwater noise greater than 140 dB when source frequencies were in the animal’s most sensitive hearing range. Several authors noted that migrating whales are likely to avoid stationary sound sources by deflecting their course slightly as they approached a source (LGL and Greenridge 1987 in Richardson et al. 1995). Malme et al. (1983, 1984) studied the behavioral responses of gray whales (Eschrictius robustus) that were migrating along the California coast to various sound sources located in their migration corridor. The whales they studied showed statistically significant responses to four different underwater playbacks of continuous sound at received levels of approximately 120 dB. The sources of the playbacks were typical of a drillship, semisubmersible, drilling platform, and production platform. 210
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION ON U.S. NAVY ACTIVITIES IN THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX 2008-2013 Morton et al. (2004) exposed killer whales (Orcinus orca) to sounds produced by acoustic harassment devices (devices that were designed to harass harbor seals, source levels were 194 dB at 10 kHz re 1μPa at 1 meter). They concluded that observations of killer whales declined dramatically in the experimental area (Broughton Archipelago) during the time interval the harassment devices had been used (but not before or after the use). Other investigators concluded that gray whales and humpback whales abandoned some of their coastal habitat in California and Hawai’i, respectively, because of underwater noise associated with extensive vessel traffic (Gard 1974, Reeves 1977, Salden 1988). Nowacek et al. (2004) conducted controlled exposure experiments on North Atlantic right whales using ship noise, social sounds of con-specifics, and an alerting stimulus (frequency modulated tonal signals between 500 Hz and 4.5 kHz). Animals were tagged with acoustic sensors (D-tags) that simultaneously measured movement in three dimensions. Whales reacted strongly to alert signals at received levels of 133-148 dB SPL, mildly to conspecific signals, and not at all to ship sounds or actual vessels. The alert stimulus caused whales to immediately cease foraging behavior and swim rapidly to the surface. Several studies have demonstrated that cetaceans will avoid human activities such as vessel traffic, introduced sounds in the marine environment, or both. Lusseau (2003) reported that bottlenose dolphins in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand, avoided approaching tour boats by increasing their mean diving interval. Male dolphins began to avoid tour boats before the boats were in visible range, while female dolphins only began to avoid the boats when the boats became intrusive (he attributed the differential responses to differences in energetics: the larger body size of male dolphins would allow them to compensate for the energy costs of the avoidance behavior more than female dolphins). Bejder et al. (2006) studied the effects of vessel traffic on bottlenose dolphins in Shark Bay, Australia, over three consecutive 4.5-year periods. They reported that the dolphins avoided the bay when two tour operators began to operate in the bay. Marine mammals may avoid or abandon an area temporarily during periods of high traffic or noise, returning when the source of the disturbance declines below some threshold (Lusseau 2004, Allen and Read 2000). Alternatively, they might abandon an area for as long as the disturbance persists. For example, Bryant et al. (1984 in Polefka 2004) reported that gray whales abandoned a calving lagoon in Baja California, Mexico following the initiation of dredging and increase in small vessel traffic. After the noise-producing activities stopped, the cow-calf pairs returned to the lagoon; the investigators did not report the consequences of that avoidance on the gray whales. Gard (1974) and Reeves (1977) reported that underwater noise associated with vessel traffic had caused gray whales to abandon some of their habitat in California for several years. Salden (1988) suggested that humpback whales avoid some nearshore waters in Hawai’i for the same reason. As Bejder et al. (2006) argued, animals that are faced with human disturbance must evaluate the costs and benefits of relocating to alternative locations; those decisions would be influenced by the availability of alternative locations, the distance to the alternative locations, the quality of the resources at the alternative locations, the conditions of the animals faced with the decision, and their ability to cope with or “escape” the disturbance (citing Beale and Monaghan 2004a, 2004b; Gill et al. 2001, Frid and Dill 2002, Lima and Dill 1990). When animals shift from one site to an alternative site, we should assume that the costs of tolerating a disturbance have exceeded any benefits of remaining in the location they are leaving. 211
- 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
- Page 200 and 201: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 202 and 203: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 204 and 205: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 206 and 207: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 208 and 209: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 210 and 211: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 214 and 215: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 216 and 217: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 218 and 219: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 220 and 221: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 222 and 223: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 224 and 225: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 226 and 227: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 228 and 229: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 230 and 231: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 232 and 233: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 234 and 235: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 236 and 237: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 238 and 239: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 240 and 241: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 242 and 243: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 244 and 245: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 246 and 247: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 248 and 249: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 250 and 251: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 252 and 253: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 254 and 255: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 256 and 257: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 258 and 259: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 260 and 261: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION ON U.S. NAVY ACTIVITIES IN THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX 2008-2013<br />
Mort<strong>on</strong> et al. (2004) exposed killer whales (Orcin<strong>us</strong> orca) to sounds produced by aco<strong>us</strong>tic harassment devices<br />
(devices that were designed to harass harbor seals, source levels were 194 dB at 10 kHz re 1μPa at 1 meter). They<br />
c<strong>on</strong>cluded that observati<strong>on</strong>s of killer whales declined dramatically in the experimental area (Brought<strong>on</strong> Archipelago)<br />
during the time interval the harassment devices had been <strong>us</strong>ed (but not before or after the <strong>us</strong>e). Other investigators<br />
c<strong>on</strong>cluded that gray whales and humpback whales aband<strong>on</strong>ed some of their coastal habitat in California and Hawai’i,<br />
respectively, beca<strong>us</strong>e of underwater noise associated with extensive vessel traffic (Gard 1974, Reeves 1977, Salden<br />
1988).<br />
Nowacek et al. (2004) c<strong>on</strong>ducted c<strong>on</strong>trolled exposure experiments <strong>on</strong> North Atlantic right whales <strong>us</strong>ing ship noise,<br />
social sounds of c<strong>on</strong>-specifics, and an alerting stimul<strong>us</strong> (frequency modulated t<strong>on</strong>al signals between 500 Hz and 4.5<br />
kHz). Animals were tagged with aco<strong>us</strong>tic sensors (D-tags) that simultaneo<strong>us</strong>ly measured movement in three<br />
dimensi<strong>on</strong>s. Whales reacted str<strong>on</strong>gly to alert signals at received levels of 133-148 dB SPL, mildly to c<strong>on</strong>specific<br />
signals, and not at all to ship sounds or actual vessels. The alert stimul<strong>us</strong> ca<strong>us</strong>ed whales to immediately cease<br />
foraging behavior and swim rapidly to the surface.<br />
Several studies have dem<strong>on</strong>strated that cetaceans will avoid human activities such as vessel traffic, introduced<br />
sounds in the marine envir<strong>on</strong>ment, or both. L<strong>us</strong>seau (2003) reported that bottlenose dolphins in Doubtful Sound,<br />
New Zealand, avoided approaching tour boats by increasing their mean diving interval. Male dolphins began to<br />
avoid tour boats before the boats were in visible range, while female dolphins <strong>on</strong>ly began to avoid the boats when<br />
the boats became intr<strong>us</strong>ive (he attributed the differential resp<strong>on</strong>ses to differences in energetics: the larger body size<br />
of male dolphins would allow them to compensate for the energy costs of the avoidance behavior more than female<br />
dolphins). Bejder et al. (2006) studied the effects of vessel traffic <strong>on</strong> bottlenose dolphins in Shark Bay, A<strong>us</strong>tralia,<br />
over three c<strong>on</strong>secutive 4.5-year periods. They reported that the dolphins avoided the bay when two tour operators<br />
began to operate in the bay.<br />
Marine mammals may avoid or aband<strong>on</strong> an area temporarily during periods of high traffic or noise, returning when<br />
the source of the disturbance declines below some threshold (L<strong>us</strong>seau 2004, Allen and Read 2000). Alternatively,<br />
they might aband<strong>on</strong> an area for as l<strong>on</strong>g as the disturbance persists. For example, Bryant et al. (1984 in Polefka 2004)<br />
reported that gray whales aband<strong>on</strong>ed a calving lago<strong>on</strong> in Baja California, Mexico following the initiati<strong>on</strong> of dredging<br />
and increase in small vessel traffic. After the noise-producing activities stopped, the cow-calf pairs returned to the<br />
lago<strong>on</strong>; the investigators did not report the c<strong>on</strong>sequences of that avoidance <strong>on</strong> the gray whales. Gard (1974) and<br />
Reeves (1977) reported that underwater noise associated with vessel traffic had ca<strong>us</strong>ed gray whales to aband<strong>on</strong> some<br />
of their habitat in California for several years. Salden (1988) suggested that humpback whales avoid some nearshore<br />
waters in Hawai’i for the same reas<strong>on</strong>.<br />
As Bejder et al. (2006) argued, animals that are faced with human disturbance m<strong>us</strong>t evaluate the costs and benefits<br />
of relocating to alternative locati<strong>on</strong>s; those decisi<strong>on</strong>s would be influenced by the availability of alternative locati<strong>on</strong>s,<br />
the distance to the alternative locati<strong>on</strong>s, the quality of the resources at the alternative locati<strong>on</strong>s, the c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s of the<br />
animals faced with the decisi<strong>on</strong>, and their ability to cope with or “escape” the disturbance (citing Beale and<br />
M<strong>on</strong>aghan 2004a, 2004b; Gill et al. 2001, Frid and Dill 2002, Lima and Dill 1990). When animals shift from <strong>on</strong>e<br />
site to an alternative site, we should assume that the costs of tolerating a disturbance have exceeded any benefits of<br />
remaining in the locati<strong>on</strong> they are leaving.<br />
211