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 animals (Kajiwara et al. 2002, Kuehl and Haebler 1995, Mignucci-Giannoni et al. 2000). These suggestions are consistent with the conclusions of numerous other studies that have demonstrated that combinations of dissimilar stressors commonly combine to kill an animal or dramatically reduce its fitness, even though one exposure without the other does not produce the same result (Chroussos 2000, Creel 2005, DeVries et al. 2003, Fair and Becker 2000, Foley et al. 2001, Moberg 2000, Relyea 2005a, 2005b, Romero 2004, Sih et al. 2004). Those studies suggest that, in many animal species, disease, reproductive state, age, experience, stress loading, energy reserves, and genetics combine with other stressors like body burdens of toxic chemicals to create fitness consequences in individual animals that would not occur without these risk factors. The contribution of these potential risk factors to stranding events (or causal relationships between these risk factors and stranding events) is still unknown, but the extensive number of published reports in the literature suggests that an experiment investigation into a causal relationship is warranted. Over the past three decades, several “mass stranding” events — stranding events that involve two or more individuals of the same species (excluding a single cow-calf pair) — that have occurred over the past two decades have been associated with naval operations, seismic surveys, and other anthropogenic activities that introduce sound into the marine environment. Although only one of these events involved a species that was listed as threatened or endangered (and was unrelated to active sonar exposures), we analyzed the information available on stranding events to determine if listed cetaceans are likely to strand following an exposure to mid-frequency active sonar. To conduct these analyses, we searched for and collected any reports of mass stranding events of marine mammals and identified any causal agents that were associated with those stranding events. Global Stranding Patterns Several sources have published lists of mass stranding events of cetaceans during attempts to identify relationships between those stranding events and military sonar (Hildebrand 2004, IWC 2005, Taylor et al. 2004). For example, based on a review of stranding records between 1960 and 1995, the International Whaling Commission (2005) identified ten mass stranding events of Cuvier’s beaked whales had been reported and one mass stranding of four Baird’s beaked whale (Berardius bairdii). The IWC concluded that, out of eight stranding events reported from the mid-1980s to the summer of 2003, seven had been associated with the use of mid-frequency sonar, one of those seven had been associated with the use of low-frequency sonar, and the remaining stranding event had been associated with the use of seismic airguns. Taxonomic Patterns Most of the stranding events reviewed by the International Whaling Commission involved beaked whales. A mass stranding of Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris) in the eastern Mediterranean Sea occurred in 1996 (Franzis 1998) and mass stranding events involving Gervais’ beaked whales (Mesoplodon europaeus), de Blainville’s dense-beaked whales (M. densirostris), and Cuvier’s beaked whales occurred off the coast of the Canary Islands in the late 1980s (Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado 1991). Other stranding events of beaked whales have also occurred in the Bahamas and Canary Islands (which included Gervais’ beaked whales, Mesoplodon europaeus, de Blainville’s dense-beaked whales, M. densirostris, and Cuvier’s beaked whales; Simmonds and Lopez-Jurado 1991). The stranding events that occurred in the Canary Islands and Kyparissiakos Gulf in the late 1990s and the Bahamas 218
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION ON U.S. NAVY ACTIVITIES IN THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX 2008-2013 in 2000 have been the most intensively-studied mass stranding events and have been associated with naval maneuvers that were using sonar. These investigations did not evaluate information associated with the stranding of Cuvier’s beaked whales, Ziphius cavirostris, around Japan (IWC Scientific Committee 2005). Between 1960 and 2006, 48 (68%) involved beaked whales, 3 (4%) involved dolphins, and 14 (20%) involved whale species. Cuvier’s beaked whales were involved in the greatest number of these events (48 or 68%), followed by sperm whales (7 or 10%), and Blainville and Gervais’ beaked whales (4 each or 6%). Naval activities that might have involved active sonar are reported to have coincided with 9 (13%) or 10 (14%) of those stranding events. Between the mid-1980s and 2003 (the period reported by the International Whaling Commission), we identified reports of 44 mass cetacean stranding events of which at least 7 have been correlated with naval exercises that were using mid-frequency sonar. Stranding events involving baleen whales (blue, bowhead, Bryde’s, fin, gray, humpback, minke, right, and sei whales) and stranding events involving sperm whales have very different patterns than those of beaked whales and other smaller cetaceans. First, mass stranding events of baleen whales are very rare. Fourteen humpback whales stranded on the beaches of Cape Cod, Massachusetts between November 1987 and January 1988 (Geraci et al. 1989); however, that stranding event has been accepted as being caused by neurotoxins in the food of the whales. In 1993, three humpback whales stranded on the east coast of Sao Vincente Island in the Cape Verde Archipelago, but they were in an advanced state of decay when they stranded so their cause of death remains unknown (Reiner et al. 1996). Finally, two minke whales (Balaenoptera acutirostra) stranded during the mass stranding event in the Bahamas in 2000 (see further discussion of this stranding event below) and is noteworthy because it the only mass stranding of baleen whales that has coincided with the Navy’s use of mid-frequency active sonar and because there are so few mass stranding events involving baleen whales. Sperm whales, however, commonly strand and commonly strand in groups. Our earliest record of a mass stranding of sperm whales is for six sperm whales that stranded in Belgium in 1403 or 1404 (De Smet 1997). Since then, we have identified 85 mass stranding events involving sperm whales have been reported. Of those 85 mass stranding events, 29 represent stranding events that occurred before 1958; 25 of those 29 (about 34%) stranding events occurred before 1945 (which would pre-date the use of this mid-frequency active sonar). Ten of these stranding events involved sperm whales and long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas). These mass stranding events have been reported in Australia, Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America. Major Mass Stranding Events In 1998, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic Center Undersea Research Centre that conducted the sonar tests convened panels to review the data associated with the maneuvers in 1996 and beaked whale stranding events in the Mediterranean Sea. The report of these panels presented more detailed acoustic data than were available for beaked whales stranded in the Canary Islands (SACLANTCEN 1998). The NATO sonar transmitted two simultaneous signals lasting four seconds and repeating once every minute. The simultaneous signals were broadcast at source levels of just under 230 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. One of the signals covered a frequency range from 450-700 Hz and the other one covered 2.8-3.3 kHz. The Ziphius stranding events in the Kyparissiakos Gulf occurred during the first two sonar runs on each day of 12 and 13 May 1996. The close 219
- 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 212 and 213: 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 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
- Page 262 and 263: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 264 and 265: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 266 and 267: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
- Page 268 and 269: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION ON U.S. NAVY ACTIVITIES IN THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX 2008-2013<br />
animals (Kajiwara et al. 2002, Kuehl and Haebler 1995, Mignucci-Giann<strong>on</strong>i et al. 2000). These suggesti<strong>on</strong>s are<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sistent with the c<strong>on</strong>cl<strong>us</strong>i<strong>on</strong>s of numero<strong>us</strong> other studies that have dem<strong>on</strong>strated that combinati<strong>on</strong>s of dissimilar<br />
stressors comm<strong>on</strong>ly combine to kill an animal or dramatically reduce its fitness, even though <strong>on</strong>e exposure without<br />
the other does not produce the same result (Chro<strong>us</strong>sos 2000, Creel 2005, DeVries et al. 2003, Fair and Becker 2000,<br />
Foley et al. 2001, Moberg 2000, Relyea 2005a, 2005b, Romero 2004, Sih et al. 2004).<br />
Those studies suggest that, in many animal species, disease, reproductive state, age, experience, stress loading,<br />
energy reserves, and genetics combine with other stressors like body burdens of toxic chemicals to create fitness<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sequences in individual animals that would not occur without these risk factors. The c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> of these<br />
potential risk factors to stranding events (or ca<strong>us</strong>al relati<strong>on</strong>ships between these risk factors and stranding events) is<br />
still unknown, but the extensive number of published reports in the literature suggests that an experiment<br />
investigati<strong>on</strong> into a ca<strong>us</strong>al relati<strong>on</strong>ship is warranted.<br />
Over the past three decades, several “mass stranding” events — stranding events that involve two or more individuals<br />
of the same species (excluding a single cow-calf pair) — that have occurred over the past two decades have<br />
been associated with naval operati<strong>on</strong>s, seismic surveys, and other anthropogenic activities that introduce sound into<br />
the marine envir<strong>on</strong>ment. Although <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e of these events involved a species that was listed as threatened or<br />
endangered (and was unrelated to active s<strong>on</strong>ar exposures), we analyzed the informati<strong>on</strong> available <strong>on</strong> stranding events<br />
to determine if listed cetaceans are likely to strand following an exposure to mid-frequency active s<strong>on</strong>ar. To c<strong>on</strong>duct<br />
these analyses, we searched for and collected any reports of mass stranding events of marine mammals and identified<br />
any ca<strong>us</strong>al agents that were associated with those stranding events.<br />
Global Stranding Patterns<br />
Several sources have published lists of mass stranding events of cetaceans during attempts to identify relati<strong>on</strong>ships<br />
between those stranding events and military s<strong>on</strong>ar (Hildebrand 2004, IWC 2005, Taylor et al. 2004). For example,<br />
based <strong>on</strong> a review of stranding records between 1960 and 1995, the Internati<strong>on</strong>al Whaling Commissi<strong>on</strong> (2005)<br />
identified ten mass stranding events of Cuvier’s beaked whales had been reported and <strong>on</strong>e mass stranding of four<br />
Baird’s beaked whale (Berardi<strong>us</strong> bairdii). The IWC c<strong>on</strong>cluded that, out of eight stranding events reported from the<br />
mid-1980s to the summer of 2003, seven had been associated with the <strong>us</strong>e of mid-frequency s<strong>on</strong>ar, <strong>on</strong>e of those<br />
seven had been associated with the <strong>us</strong>e of low-frequency s<strong>on</strong>ar, and the remaining stranding event had been<br />
associated with the <strong>us</strong>e of seismic airguns.<br />
Tax<strong>on</strong>omic Patterns<br />
Most of the stranding events reviewed by the Internati<strong>on</strong>al Whaling Commissi<strong>on</strong> involved beaked whales. A mass<br />
stranding of Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphi<strong>us</strong> cavirostris) in the eastern Mediterranean Sea occurred in 1996<br />
(Franzis 1998) and mass stranding events involving Gervais’ beaked whales (Mesoplod<strong>on</strong> europae<strong>us</strong>), de<br />
Blainville’s dense-beaked whales (M. densirostris), and Cuvier’s beaked whales occurred off the coast of the Canary<br />
Islands in the late 1980s (Simm<strong>on</strong>ds and Lopez-Jurado 1991). Other stranding events of beaked whales have also<br />
occurred in the Bahamas and Canary Islands (which included Gervais’ beaked whales, Mesoplod<strong>on</strong> europae<strong>us</strong>, de<br />
Blainville’s dense-beaked whales, M. densirostris, and Cuvier’s beaked whales; Simm<strong>on</strong>ds and Lopez-Jurado 1991).<br />
The stranding events that occurred in the Canary Islands and Kyparissiakos Gulf in the late 1990s and the Bahamas<br />
218