Introduction

This summer, Alaskans will be given the “opportunity” to comment on the U.S. Navy’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding its plans to increase its training activities in the Gulf of Alaska.  The Navy’s proposed alternative includes increasing the number of military exercises during project “Northern Edge”, increasing munitions exercises, and introducing active mid-frequency sonar exercises within a 42,246 square nautical mile area south of Prince William Sound and just east of Kodiak Island and the Kenai Peninsula.

Scoping plan and training ranges

In 2008 the Navy held its public comment period for its scoping plan, which is its initial proposal to make changes to the Northern Edge training exercises.   The next phase will be the release of the Navy’s draft Environmental Impact statement, which will also include a public comment period.  After this comment period, the Navy will release the final draft and file for a permit to “take” (harass, kill, injure, etc.) marine mammals during its training exercises. The Navy has already finalized its environmental impact statements and received authorization in the form of a permit from the NMFS to incidentally take 2 million marine mammals per year for the next 5 years during its training exercises in Hawaii, the west coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and the entire Eastern seaboard.  On the east coast, the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Active Training Range (AFAST) overlaps or is in close proximity to all five marine sanctuaries including the Northern Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat (breeding grounds) and other areas described by the public as biologically rich and diverse.  The Hawaii Range Complex (HRC) includes all of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.  On the west coast, the training ranges include outer coastal waters (shoreline to 100m) and lower continental slope waters (500 to 2000m).  The Southern California Training Range (SOCAL) includes the southern Channel Islands, an area renowned for its rich sea life, and extends down the coast and just offshore Baja California.  The Northwest Training Range (NWTR) includes Puget Sound and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, which are both home to endangered southern resident Killer Whales and other threatened and endangered species and understudied marine mammals such as beaked whales.  These sanctuaries are also home to many commercially important species of fish such as rockfish, halibut, herring, and salmon.  The Northwest training range also includes the Ano Nuevo State Natural Reserve, home to Northern Elephant Seals, as well as the outer coastal waters of San Francisco Bay, where salmon begin their swim upriver to spawn. This is of particular interest to   California, since this state has spent billions of dollars trying to recover its salmon stocks.  

What is active sonar 

What is active sonar, and why does the Navy wish to increase its use in its training exercises?  Low frequency sonar (LF < 1 kHz) is used with Surveillance Towed-Array Sensor Systems (SURTASS) and its use is limited by a 2008 federal court order.  SURTASS consists of active source projectors (pingers) arranged vertically below the Navy vessel and capable of directing its signal 360º.  Low frequency signals can pass through hundreds of miles of ocean.  You may recall the recent altercation between the US civilian contractors aboard the Impeccable and the Chinese Navy in the South China Sea?  The Impeccable is equipped with SURTASS LFA, and has been authorized in the past to “take” marine mammals during its active sonar exercises, including critically endangered species such as Blue whales and Hawaiian Monk Seals.  Mid frequency sonar (1 kHz - 10 kHz) is hull-mounted, towed, or attached to buoys, and the Navy claims its systems have a range of 10 nautical miles.  The reason that the Navy wishes to use active sonar is that it has the capability to detect ultra-quiet, diesel/electric submarines that have the ability to patrol shallow, coastal areas.   This type of submarine is not new, but the Navy’s goal is to cover 80% of the world’s oceans with its sonar.

History of active sonar and effects in the past two decades

  Both types of sonar have the capability of damaging, distressing, or killing marine mammals, as well as fish and marine invertebrates.  Critics argue that whale strandings have been occurring increasingly since the 1960’s, but so has the military’s use of active sonar. Little was known about the use of military active sonar until recently, thanks to the recent declassification of secret NATO documents.  NATO forces have deployed its SURTASS LF in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean for several decades and its training ranges included cetacean sanctuaries.  Since the declassification, scientists finally had access to data that enabled them to make correlations between these active sonar exercises and mortality events involving deep diving beaked whales.  For example, in 1996 (the year the Navy admitted it was using mid-frequency sonar), NATO forces deployed low frequency sonar in the Gulf of Kyparissiakos, Greece, resulting in two mass stranding and mortality events involving Cuvier’s Beaked Whales.  In 2003 six beaked whales washed up on beaches in the Hebrides Islands following a Royal Navy SURTASS LF deployment.  Between 1989 and 2006, there have been a plethora of mass stranding and mortality events involving beaked whales where NATO forces were deploying sonar near the Canary Islands, the Ionian Sea, Madeira and the Gulf of Almeria in coastal Spain, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.   Besides the evidence of massive hemorrhaging and bleeding from the eyes and ears, scientists now know that some of these whales suffered from decompression sickness, or “the bends”, an ailment once thought to be exclusive to SCUBA diving humans.  The correlation between the mass strandings and deaths and active sonar exercises is so strong that the European Parliament has called for strict regulations on the use of active sonar, and the Spanish Defense Ministry has completely prohibited the use of active sonar around the Canary Islands.  Two international agreements, ACCOBAMS and ASCOBANS, have been developed to bind Baltic, Black Sea, Mediterranean, and eastern Atlantic nations into adopting conservation measures to protect cetacean species from sonar and other anthropogenic pressures.  In U.S. and neighboring waters, the following stranding and mortality events occurred immediately after Naval active sonar training exercises:

·        In 1997, the Navy tested its LFA sonar off the coast of California, resulting in the stranding of four whales. The sonar could be heard up the entire California coast.

·        Between 1996 and 1998, the U.S. Navy “tested its LFA on cetaceans” in waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands.  These tests resulted in humpback whales and other cetaceans abandoning their feeding grounds, as well as disrupting their breeding behaviors.  During the 1998 testing, a human was hospitalized after incidentally snorkeling as the LFA was deployed offshore.  In 1999, another diver was injured as a result of LFA deployment, and the Navy has corroborated injury to humans by testing on its own divers.

·        In 2000 the Navy admitted that its use of its mid frequency sonar directly resulted in the deaths and mass strandings of Cuvier’s Beaked Whales and the strandings of three other species of whales in the Bahamas.   The whales that died presented with massive hemorrhaging around the head, eyes, and ears.

·        In 2003 researchers and observers noticed unusual behaviors that they described as “panic” in a pod of Killer Whales and one minke whale while the USS Shoup was practicing its sonar capabilities in Haro Strait, Washington.  In the days that followed, eleven harbor porpoises washed up dead on nearby beaches.

·        In 2004, 200 melon headed whales stranded in a shallow area of Hanalei Bay, Hawaii, while the Navy deployed its sonar nearby.  Rescuers saved all but one whale.

·        In June, 2004, six beaked whales strand after active sonar testing during the Navy’s Northern Edge exercises in the Gulf of Alaska.  Information is limited on this event and did not come from NOAA or the Navy but from legal discovery.

·        In 2005, 34 whales from three species strand during Navy sonar exercises off Outer Banks, North Carolina.  Many of the whales showed signs of severe hemorrhaging.

·        January 2009, a Navy ship strikes and kills an endangered Fin whale in the SOCAL training range following training activities. 

Lawsuit and public process

  Thanks to a lawsuit brought about by the National Resource Defense Council, the Navy must comply with the National Environmental Protection Act and prepare an environmental impact statement for each training range and allow for a public comment period before it applies to the National Marine Fisheries Service for a permit to take marine mammals.  Until the settlement of the lawsuit, the Navy skirted the public process and received permits from NMFS without first making assessments of the damage its activities would cause.  Unfortunately, legal and scientific reviews of the current EISs for the Navy’s training ranges reveal that the Navy has created documents with biological assessments and impacts that are virtually the same for each training range.  A read of the environmental impact statements for the AFAST, SOCAL, and NWTR reveals that the Navy believes its active sonar training exercises will have “no impact” on fish, and the Navy’s EIS for the Northwest Training Range has been described by experts as “stunning” in its short dismissal of impacts on fish in the sanctuaries it overlaps.  The Navy also believes that the impacts of active sonar on marine mammals and sea turtles can be mitigated by using on-board spotters with high-powered binoculars, aircraft spotters, and sonar technicians, but it does not clarify the extent of the training that these individuals receive other than “on the job training”.  Nor does the Navy provide any details on the difficulties in spotting whales from any great distance, or for whales that spend more time diving than they do at the surface i.e. deep diving beaked whales can spend up to one hour under the surface with short and intermittent surface intervals.   The Navy’s abilities to spot these whales any further than 1 kilometer in anything stronger than a slight breeze has been described by top whale biologists as “zero”.   The Navy believes that it can use passive sonar to detect diving whales, but current research in diving behavior of beaked whales has shown that they don’t always use their echolocation as they are diving.  The Navy does address the vulnerability of large cetaceans to ship strikes, in particular the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, but the Navy does not believe that whales will be at an increased risk even though it has admitted in its own reports that whales will display “avoidance behaviors” and abruptly surface in areas where training has commenced.  

During the public comment periods for each of the training ranges the opposition to the Navy’s proposed alternatives was made overwhelmingly clear.  Citizens in the localities of the operational areas cited past stranding and mortality events, fish kills, heavy metal and chemical pollution from the munitions exercises, overall degradation of the quality of the coastal environment, ship strikes, inadequate information in the Navy’s EIS, difficulty with participating in the public comment process, difficulty accessing important information, etc.

A widely accepted belief    

  A widely accepted belief held by whale biologists is that we will never know the true death toll of active sonar on cetaceans; they consider mass cetacean strandings to be unusual events and it is very likely that more animals die at sea than come to shore.   Consider the effects of sonar on other marine life-research on the effects of air gun and seismic blasts on fish, fish larvae, and eggs, resulted in delayed development, cellular damage, rupturing of the swim bladder, and death in fish.  World wide, noticeable declines in catch rates have been documented in areas where naval activities and other anthropogenic acoustic activities have occurred.  Post mortem examinations on invertebrates such as squid revealed that exposure to high decibel, active sonar reduced the animals’ organs into indiscernible masses. 

Decibels

Low frequency active sonar has been used as high as 240 decibels, which is considered to be millions of times higher than the level that causes damage to humans and animals.  The Navy has tested its LFA sonar on divers in the 120 to 160 decibel range, which resulted in hospitalization of the subjects.  As mentioned above, the Navy has experimented with its sonar on humpback and blue whales around Hawaii  Experts say that these levels are enough to cause permanent damage and death even for short periods of exposure-during the incident in the Bahamas the Navy was using its low frequency sonar at levels up to 235 decibels. using decibels in the 120 to 150 range, which caused them to abandon the area.

Other concerns

It is not just the use of sonar that will cause acoustic insult in our oceans-the underwater munitions, detonations, and explosions that the Navy has been proposing in its environmental impact statements have been implicated in cetacean deaths as well.  For the Northern Edge training range, the Navy proposes using live-fire training exercises, including the use of torpedoes.  In a June 2008 letter to the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, the EPA voiced its concern about the Navy’s proposal to release hazardous waste during its munitions exercises, and its lack of information regarding a mitigation plan.  To understand how this translates into reality, consider this: In January 2009 residents of Whidbey Island were given less than one month to comment on the Navy’s proposal to use depleted uranium in its munitions exercises, as well as practice with active sonar in Puget Sound.  Citizens of Whidbey Island were outraged.  The Navy does not indicate how much depleted uranium it plan to deploy, but it do make reference to approximately 35 tons of DU that was deployed off the southern coast of England over a 20-year period.  Overwhelmingly, residents opposed the Navy’s plans and are hoping for a reprieve from the Obama administration.

 The Navy’s proposed mitigation for dumping heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, lithium, and mercury from their live-fire exercises, as well as nylon parachutes used to deploy sonobuoys is based on its belief that the ocean bottom is mostly oxygen deprived and that hazardous materials will be either buried or washed away by currents.  That mitigation plan considers only soft bottom areas, and does not address bottom-feeding organisms that are an important part of the food chain.   This mitigation plan does not address rocky, hard bottom, or reef communities.  It is true that trace metals occur naturally in rock and sediment, but when deposited in high concentrations, the compounds that are forms can cause deleterious effects in the food chain such as bone deformations, neurological problems, etc. that biomagnify, or are passed on. 

Plastics have become ubiquitous in the marine environment, they can remain suspended as deep as 30 feet in the water column and are found in every part of the ocean.  “Degradable” plastics don’t necessarily decompose in the ocean; research presented at the 2007 GEOHAB conference revealed deep-sea coral communities smothered by plastic grocery bags.  The Navy does not indicate how it will definitively prove that its waste will have no impact, because it explains away any need to conduct post-exercise surveys of the ocean bottom.

Incredibly, the Navy is proposing a permanent underwater training minefield for the Northwest Training Range in relatively shallow waters (400-600 feet).  In the environmental impact statement, it acknowledged that these minefields would be “incompatible” with commercial fishing interests and could create “economic hardship(s)” for the industry.  Although the Navy does not specify exactly where these training minefields will be, it indicates that it will consider using important fishing grounds.

What this could mean for the GOA and conclusion

The GOA is home to migratory humpback whales, sperm whales, beaked whales, and many other species of cetaceans, and it is reasonable to assume that if strandings have occurred in other places where the military has deployed its active sonar, then we can expect strandings along the Gulf of Alaska.  Many places in the GOA are remote so we may never realize the full impact, and researchers believe that many more whales perish at sea as a result of these events.  There have been at least two stranding and mortality events involving beaked whales in the Gulf of Alaska in the last six years, one event didn’t involve the Navy but exemplified what happens when beaked whales are exposed to loud man-made acoustics.  Two Steineger’s Beaked Whales stranded near Whittier after unauthorized underwater detonations took place in the harbor-one was a lactating female that was already dead and the other was her calf who died later despite rescue attempts.  Immediately following the unauthorized blasts, a sizeable fish kill occurred in the area.  This scenario has the potential to be played out in the Gulf of Alaska, specifically in areas that are known to be rich in sea life.  Has the Navy planned for this?  The Navy has already shown that it will omit any mitigation plan for fish or other marine vertebrates when there is little or no scientific data for that particular species.  If the Northwest Training Range’s environmental impact statement is a roadmap, we can expect that “our” document will leave much to be desired as far as impacts and mitigation efforts are concerned.

Lynn Wilbur
Turning The Tides Sitka chapter