Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion Action Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Division Activity: Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation on the Pelagic Longline Fishery for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (F/SER/2014/00006[13697]) Consulting Agency: NOAA, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office (SERO), Protected Resources Division Date Issued: Digitally signed by CRABTREE.ROY. CRABTREE.ROY.E.DR.1365849 559 Approved By: E.DR.1365849559 Date: 2020.05.15 15:42:28 -04'00' Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D. Regional Administrator Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.0 Consultation History ................................................................................................................ 6 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Action Area ...................................................... 13 2.1 Description of the PLL Fishery ...................................................................................... 13 2.2 Description of the Action Area ...................................................................................... 23 3.0 Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ......................................................................... 24 3.1 Analysis of the Species and Critical Habitat Not Likely to be Adversely Affected ....... 25 3.2 Species Likely to be Adversely Affected ....................................................................... 34 4.0 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................. 100 4.1 Status of Species in the Action Area ............................................................................ 100 4.2 Factors Affecting Sperm Whales in the Action Area ................................................... 101 4.3 Factors Affecting Sea Turtles in the Action Area ........................................................ 107 4.4 Factors Affecting Giant Manta Rays within the Action Area ....................................... 122 4.5 Factors Affecting the Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of Scalloped Hammerhead Shark within the Action Area .............................................................................................. 124 4.6 Factors Affecting Oceanic Whitetip Sharks within the Action Area ........................... 126 5.0 Effects of the Proposed Action ...................................................................................... 129 5.1 Effects on Sperm Whales ............................................................................................. 131 5.2 Effects on Sea Turtles .................................................................................................. 134 5.3 Effects on Giant Manta Ray ......................................................................................... 146 5.4 Effects on Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS Scalloped Hammerhead Shark ........ 150 5.5 Effects on Oceanic Whitetip Shark .............................................................................. 155 6.0 Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................................... 159 7.0 Jeopardy Analysis ................................................................................................................. 160 7.1 Sperm Whales ................................................................................................................ 161 7.2 Sea Turtles .................................................................................................................... 163 7.3 Giant Manta Rays .......................................................................................................... 182 7.4 Scalloped Hammerhead Shark – Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS ....................... 183 7.5 Oceanic Whitetip Shark ............................................................................................... 186 8.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 188 9.0 Incidental Take Statement............................................................................................... 189 9.1 Anticipated Incidental Take ......................................................................................... 190 2 9.2 Effect of the Take ......................................................................................................... 192 9.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) ................................................................. 192 9.4 Terms and Conditions ............................................................................................. 193 10. Conservation Recommendations ......................................................................................... 197 11. Reinitiation of Consultation ................................................................................................. 200 12. Literature Cited .................................................................................................................... 200 Appendix A. Anticipated Incidental Take of ESA-Listed Species in Federal Fisheries ........ 237 Appendix B. Incidental Takes Anticipated from SARBO ......................................................... 240 3 Introduction Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), requires each federal agency to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat of such species. To fulfill this obligation, Section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to consult with the appropriate Secretary on any action they propose that “may affect” listed species or designated critical habitat. NMFS and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) share responsibilities for administering the ESA. A federal action agency requests consultation when it determines that a proposed action “may affect” listed species or designated critical habitat. Consultations on most listed marine species and their designated critical habitat are conducted between the action agency and NMFS and conclude after NMFS concurs with an action agency that its action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, or issues a Biological Opinion (“Opinion”) that identifies whether a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If jeopardy or destruction or adverse modification is found to be likely, the Opinion identifies reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) to the action as proposed, if any, that can avoid jeopardizing listed species or resulting in the destruction/adverse modification of critical habitat. The Opinion states the amount or extent of incidental take of the listed species that may occur, specifies reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) that are required to minimize the impacts of incidental take and and terms and conditions for implementing those measures, reporting and monitor, and recommends conservation measures to further conserve the species. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required when discretionary involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and: (1) the amount or extent of the incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not previously considered; or (4) if a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action. NMFS and action agencies have discretion to reinitiate formal consultation in other circumstances as appropriate. The proposed action encompasses the operation of the Pelagic Longline Fishery for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS), as managed under the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP), as amended. This document represents NMFS’ Opinion on the effects of that proposed action on threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat, in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA. NMFS has dual responsibilities as both the action agency that authorized the fisheries under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. §1801 et seq.) (MSA) and the consulting agency under the authority of the ESA. For the purposes of this consultation, the HMS Management Division is considered the action agency and the consulting agency is the Southeast Regional Office (SERO) Protected Resources Division (PRD). 4 We, SERO PRD, have prepared this opinion in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA and regulations promulgated to implement that section of the ESA. It is based on information provided in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and subsequent amendments, biological evaluations from the HMS Management Division, status reviews, recovery plans, research, population modeling efforts, and other relevant published and unpublished scientific