Orca Network's letter to the US Navy Re: Northwest Training Range Complex Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Mrs. Kimberly Kler
NWTRC EIS/OEIS
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest
1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 203,
Silverdale, WA 98315-1101

Re: Northwest Training Range Complex Draft Environmental Impact Statement

We appreciate the opportunity to read the NWTRC Draft Environmental Impact Statement and offer comment. The activities of Orca Network lie primarily in disseminating the natural history of orcas, especially those in the Pacific NW, and by extension all marine mammals. We are also active in studies to determine critical habitat needs for the survival of marine mammals, especially endangered orcas and their primary prey, Chinook salmon runs, many of which are also endangered or threatened.

A. A further extension of the comment period, to at least mid-April, is needed on grounds that the requirement to provide adequate public notice has not been met throughout the process of this EIS, beginning in 2007. [Note: On March 10, the comment period was extended to April 13.] In Oregon, for example, (as documented here: http://planetwaves.net/pagetwo/2009/02/02/navy-plan-turnst-pacific-coast-into-firing-range/) the Navy apparently attempted to evade the purpose of the public notice requirement, which is to inform the public of potential environmental impacts and allow ample time for comment.
In addition, the website to submit comments was non-functional during more than half of the original comment period. The Navy's principal mechanism for public information and input about the EIS, their website: (www.nwtrangecomplexeis.com/EIS.aspx), was seriously compromised between the Dec. 29, 08 inception of the EIS Public Response Period and Jan. 21. Attempts to make comments via the website were not allowed due to "abort issue" (Navy's term) from Dec 29 until Jan. 20. The website was not accessible whatsoever between Jan 15 and Jan 21. This represents a breach of process established by the Navy.

We appreciate the two extensions of comment period granted to date, however given the high potential for environmental, marine mammal and human harm resulting from the expanded training, we respectfully request a further extension of at least one month.

B. Due to the decline in numerous bird, fish and marine mammal species that inhabit the proposed training range, and the lack of information available to assess the impacts of the Navy's proposed expansion on those species, especially with proposed testing of new systems and the impossibility of achieving adequate marine mammal monitoring, a "No Action Alternative" which maintains the current level of training, is the preferred option. The EIS states that:

No significant impacts are identified for any resource area in any geographic location within the NWTRC Study Area that cannot be mitigated, with the exception of exposure of marine mammals to underwater sound.

indicates the Navy is aware that even the most effective mitigation measures will probably fail to protect marine mammals.

C. Prior to supporting any expansion of training activities the Navy needs to fund independent research on the seasonal presence of marine fish, birds and mammals found within their training ranges.

D. The Navy's analysis fails to account for cumulative impacts for the years of anticipated activity. According to the Acoustic Institute (http://www.acousticecology.org/docs/AEI_OceanNoise2008.pdf): "Behavioral impacts clearly replaced strandings and deaths as the key issue for marine mammals encountering human noise. Several studies released during 2008 all suggest that whales of many species may stop or reduce their feeding when loud human sounds enter their habitat, and this particular impact is likely to become a central focus of future research and regulatory consideration." AEI further states: "All parties seem to be accepting that gross injury is rare to the point of being difficult to use as a lever to shift the balance of interests with the Navy's national security imperative, but NGOs, many field researchers, and agency staff are all looking more closely at the behavioral impacts that take place at much longer ranges (up to several or even tens of kilometers)."

E. The Navy needs to demonstrate a means to respond to environmental consequences of a maritime incident in all their operating areas including interactions between their ships and commercial vessels.

F. The EIS inadequately describes the quantities and ecological effects of discarded metals and chemicals, including depleted uranium and the potential for oil spills or ship collisions. The EIS states:

Materials expended during training include sonobuoys; parachutes and nylon cord; towed, stationary, and remote-controlled targets; inert ordnance; unexploded ordnance, and fragments from exploded ordnance, including missiles, bombs, and shells. Materials include a variety of plastics, metals, and batteries.

The reassurance that:

Most of these materials are inert and dense, and will settle to the bottom where they will eventually be covered with sediment or encrusted by physical or biological processes.

seems to gloss over cumulative effects of disposal at sea of unpredictable quantities of unknown substances into the water column and ocean floor.

G. In our judgment the mitigation measures detailed in this EIS are not sufficient to reliably identify the presence of cetaceans in most instances, in part because the marine mammals themselves often attempt to avoid detection by other marine mammals. Orca Network has been involved in observing and researching several species of cetaceans for decades, and we are well acquainted with the difficulty of recognizing brief sightings or faint acoustic signals.
Recognition of marine mammals at sea either by sight or by sound is often highly problematic even for experienced personnel in calm conditions. The mitigation measures presented in the EIS appear to be as thorough as possible and, if carried out, seem to provide the best effort to monitor for marine mammals, at no small expense and commitment of resources. In real conditions, however, marine mammals can travel in a manner intended to be undetectable. Transient orcas, for example, are adept at evading detection by their wary prey or other orcas, or humans. Other marine mammals often attempt to avoid being noticed by transient killer whales. Additionally, many species of large cetaceans are capable of remaining below the surface for more than an hour and travelling a mile or more in silence.
The Natural Resources Defense Council reports that twenty-nine species of marine mammals occur in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary alone, which is a small segment of the proposed extension, including eight threatened or endangered species of whales, otters and pinnipeds. The sanctuary provides important regular foraging habitat for humpback and killer whales, including the endangered Southern Resident orca population. Gray whales use the sanctuary during biannual migrations between calving and feeding areas, and a small, possibly distinct, group of gray whales known as "summer residents" use areas along the Oregon and Washington coasts for feeding every summer. Additional cetacean species that have been observed in the waters of the sanctuary include: minke whales, fin whales, sei whales, sperm and pygmy sperm whales, blue whales, Hubb's beaked whale, Cuvier's beaked whale, Baird's beaked whale, Stejneger's beaked whale, Risso's dolphin, false killer whale, common dolphin, northern right whale dolphin, Pacific white-sided dolphin, Dall's porpoise, and harbor porpoise. Sea otters, Steller and California sea lions, harbor seals and elephant seals use near-shore areas within the sanctuary, haul out on land at a number of locations along the coast, and use deeper waters for foraging.

H. The Navy must also consider the full effects of its sonar training. Lethal injuries in the form of abrasions to ears and lungs or trauma triggering surfacing in panic, causing lethal injuries, can occur, but sub-lethal injuries such as loss of hearing or orientation may effect behavioral changes that can also be long-term in nature and result in reduced survival. Injurious effects can harm individuals or populations, especially through repeated activity.

I. In addition to sonars, a wide variety of explosives will be detonated in course of trainings. The physical effects of explosions are inherently more difficult than sonars to predict, but may be lethal at some ranges equally difficult to predict and complicated by inclement weather, currents and thermoclines, species and behavior of animal in question, etc. The IES also states:

Aircraft with deployed sonobuoys will use only the passive capability of sonobuoys when marine mammals are detected within 200 yds (183 m) of the sonobuoy.

and

For the NWTRC there are three types of explosive sources: AN/SSQ-110 Extended Echo Ranging (EER) sonobuoys, demolition charges, and munitions (MK-48 torpedo, Maverick, Harpoon, HARM, HELLFIRE and SLAM missiles, MK-82, MK-83, MK-84, GBU-10, GBU- 12 and GBU-16 bombs, 5-inch rounds and 76 mm gunnery rounds). The EER source can be detonated at several depths within the water column. For this analysis a relatively shallow depth of 20 meters is used to optimize the likelihood of the source being positioned in a surface duct. Demolition charges are typically modeled as detonating near the bottom. For a SINKEX the demolition charge would be on the hull. The MK-48 detonates immediately below the hull of its target (nominally 50 feet). A source depth of 2 meters is used for bombs and missiles that do not strike their target. For the gunnery rounds, a source depth of 1 foot is used. The NEWs for these sources are as follows:
• EER Source—5 pounds
• Demolition charge—10 pounds in Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), 100 pounds in a sinking exercise (SINKEX)
• MK-48—851 pounds
• Maverick—78.5 pounds
• Harpoon—448 pounds
• HARM—41.6 pounds
• HELLFIRE—16.4 pounds
• SLAM—164.25 pounds
• MK-82—238 pounds
• GBU-10—945 pounds
• GBU-12—238 pounds
• GBU-16—445 pounds
• 5-inch rounds—9.54 pounds
• 76 mm rounds—1.6 pounds The exposures expected to result from these sources are computed on a per in-water explosive basis. The cumulative effect of a series of explosives can often be derived by simple addition if the detonations are spaced widely in time or space, allowing for sufficient animal movements as to ensure a different population of animals is considered for each detonation.

and

Modeling impact volumes for explosive sources span requires the same type of TL data as needed for active sonars. However, unlike active sonars, explosive ordnances and the EER source are broadband, contributing significant energy from tens of hertz to tens of kilohertz.

J. Only 200 estimated yards between the explosive and any given marine mammal seems insufficient when the propagating effects of the explosion are so difficult to measure accurately, given the unpredicatble effects of explosions and the uncertainty of presence of marine mammals at any distance from the explosion. Currently proposed monitoring is not likely to be effective even in normal sea-state conditions. These exercises would take place in the midst of multiple ships, sometimes operating unpredictably (for marine mammals) at high speeds, detonating munitions and sonobuoys and deploying high-powered and explosive sonars, often making recognition impossible. Training monitors with visual and audio examples interpreted by experienced cetacean observers would improve reliability, though even that would fail to detect marine mammals in most cases. The Navy should at minimum improve the mitigation measures to include training of monitoring personnel by experienced whale biologists to improve recognition of marine mammals by visual and acoustic monitoring.
However, even with the best monitoring by experienced people, the mitigation measures are inadequate due to the elusiveness of the animals.

K. Given that detecting marine mammals reliably enough to assure that no mortalities will take place, as claimed in the Navy's EIS, is essentially impossible, the long-term challenge is to dial down the need for these training exercises altogether, which is a problem of international relations and diplomacy. President Obama and Sec. of State Clinton can prevent this danger to marine life by fostering improved international communications and reducing hostilities.

Environmental organizations from the Pew Charitable Trust to the US Commission on Ocean Policy, mandated by Congress to recommend policy toward oceans, have strongly advocated adopting a new attitude about how we treat the oceans. Disregard of cumulative impacts of everything from spent materiel to engine waste by multiple vessels and aircraft, all simulating wartime decision-making, certainly has a destructive effect on functioning marine ecosystems. In war, military forces can claim the luxury of focusing on short-term results of their decisions, if they are to defeat the enemy. While recognizing that current international relationships are conducive to preparation for war, it is precisely the need to consider the downstream effects of our decisions, down unseen generations, that is called for if we are to hold any hope of passing a livable world to future generations. More creative solutions for the problems now at our doorstep and looming dark on the horizon must be put forth, than to simply prepare for and risk returning to wartime thinking.

Howard Garrett
Susan Berta
Orca Network