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 responses (also see Southall et al. 2008 for an earlier version of this figure). This figure, and the analyses that are based on it, was derived from an extensive review of the scientific and commercial data available from published and unpublished documents (we present the specific references in our Response Analyses). The procedures we used to identify those data are presented in a subsequent sub-section of thissection; the specific studies, papers, and data that support our response analyses are presented in the Response Analyses section of this <strong>Opinion</strong>. We used empricial Bayesian analysis to estimate the probability of one or more of the proximate responses identified in Figure 2 given an exposure event from the data that were available. Bayes rule (also called Bayes’ theorem) calculates the probability of an event given prior knowledge of the event’s probability using the equation Prob(R i |D) = [Pr(D|R i ) × Pr(R i )]/Σ[Pr(D|R j ) × Pr(R j )] Where R represents the set of mutually exclusive and exhaustive physical, physiological, and behavioral responses to an exposure with probabilities, Pr(R i ), Pr(R j ) represents alternatives to that particular response, and D represents the data on responses. In this formulation, Pr(R i ) in the numerator, represents the prior probability of a response which we derived from (1) the number of reports in the literature, that is, the number of papers that reported a particular response (here we distinguished between the number of reports for all cetaceans, the number of reports for all odonotocetes, and the number of reports for all mysticetes) and (2) an uninformed prior, which assumed that all responses that had non-zero values were equally probable. To apply this procedure, we formed the set of potential responses using the “proximate responses” identified in Figure 3 (see Table 1). Then we identified the number of instances in which animals were reported to have exhibited one or more of those proximate responses based on published studies or studies available as gray literature. For example, Nowacek et al (2004) reported one instance in which North Atlantic right whales exposed to alarm stimuli did not repond to the stimulus and several instances in which right whales exhibited “disturbance” responses. We coded these two responses (no response and disturbance response) separately. To estimate the the number of animals in the exposed population that might respond with particular responses, we multiplied our exposure estimates (which provided us with the number of instances of exposure) by the posterior probabilities for these responses (which identify the probability of a particular response given an exposure). If we assumed, for the purposes of illustration, that 100 fin whales might be exposed to active sonar and further assumed that their probability of no responding, avoidance responses, and evasive response was 0.5414, 0.0650, and 0.0440, respectively, we would assume that 54 of the 100 fin whales would not respond to the exposure, 6 might respond by avoiding the sound field, and 4 might respond by evading the sound field. We use the same response variables and analytical process for underwater detonations. Our analyses of the potential responses of endangered and threatened marine animals to vessel and aircraft traffic rely on different response variables: no response, attraction, avoidance, evasion, disturbance behavior, other adverse behavioral responses, and other positive behavioral responses. Otherwise, we use the same approach to estimate the probability of particular responses to vessel and aircraft traffic. 74
FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION ON U.S. NAVY ACTIVITIES IN THE HAWAII RANGE COMPLEX 2008-2013 To estimate the number of animals that might be “taken” in the <strong>Opinion</strong>s we will conduct on any Letters of Authorization the Permit Division issues, we would classify the responses as one or more form of “take” (for example, we would distinguish between avoidance, or an animal that shifts its position before a perceived predatory stimulus has an opportunity to attack, and evasion, or an escape response to a perceived attack) and use the method we described in the preceding paragraph to estimate the amount of “take.” Table 2. Grouping of proximate responses (identified in Figure 3) into categories for response analyses Proximate Response Grouping for Response Analyses 1 No response No Response 2 Acoustic resonance Physical Trauma 3 Noise-induced hearing loss (P) Not used for formal analyses 4 Noise-induced hearing loss (T) Not used for formal analyses 5 Reduced auditory field (reduced active space) Not used for formal analyses 6 Siignal masking Not used for formal analyses 7 Increase call amplitude of vocalizations 8 Shift frequency structure of vocalizations 9 Shift call duration of vocalizations Vocal Adjustments 10 Shift call rate of vocalizations 11 Shift timing of vocalizations 12 Physiological stress Not used for formal analyses 13 Avoid sound field Avoidance Resoinse 14 Avoid received levels in sound field 15 Abandon area of exercise Evasive Response 16 Increase vigilance Not used for formal analyses 17 Exhibit "disturbance" behavior Behavioral Disturbance 18 Continue current behavior (coping) No Response 19 Unspecified behavioral responses (adverse) Unspecified behavioral responses (adverse) 20 Unspecified behavioral responses (not adverse) Unspecified behavioral responses (not adverse) 21 Behaviors that cannot be classified Not used for formal analyses 2.2.3 Risk Analyses As discussed in the Introduction to this section, the final steps of our analyses — establishing the risks those responses pose to endangered and threatened species or designated critical habitat — begin by identifying the probable risks actions pose to listed individuals that are likely to be exposed to an action’s effects. Our analyses then integrate those individuals risks to identify consequences to the populations those individuals represent. Our analyses conclude by determining the consequences of those population-level risks to the species those populations comprise. We measure risks to listed individuals using the individual’s “fitness,” which are changes in an individual’s growth, survival, annual reproductive success, or lifetime reproductive success. In particular, we examine the scientific and 75
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: FINAL PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINI
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?