Update on the Navy Sonar In The San Juan Islands

UPDATE TO MY LAST POST

Throughout the night of April 7th, anyone listening to the hydrophones at Lime Kiln State Park heard 8 uninterrupted hours of underwater voices followed by echoing pings of military sonar every ten minutes.  You can listen to a clip of the recorded exercises by clicking this link, but be sure to TURN DOWN YOUR VOLUME.

According to Dr. Val Veirs, president of The Whale Museum board and professor emeritus of physics at Colorado College, decibel levels of sonar pings recorded off the west side of San Juan Island April 7-8 may have been the same level as sonar pings implicated in the deaths of several beaked whales in the Bahamas in October 2003. “The received levels of the signals at Lime Kiln Lighthouse were about the most intense sounds that the hydrophones there have recorded in the past several years of continuous operation,” he said. "The highest received levels came from sonar pings and were approximately 140 dB re 1 microPascal." This is approximately the same as the most intense sonar signals recorded in May 2003 when the (USS) Shoup transited the waters of Haro Strait. Biologists on the water at the time reported that killer whales seemed to be fleeing from the sound. Since then, Navy ships are required to receive permission from fleet commanders before operating sonar in Puget Sound. That was in 2003.

"The garbled voices we heard today were communications between the submarine and a surface tender," Veirs said. "We estimate that the distance between our hydrophone at Lime Kiln Lighthouse and the submarine was in the neighborhood of 10 nautical miles and for our hydrophones to pick up the strong signals that they did, the submarine was emitting sound with source level in the range 175 dB to 225 dB re 1 microPasca1.”

Veirs said the sounds were heard for many miles in a variety of underwater locations — from the east at Whidbey Island to the north of San Juan Island and out toward the ocean in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. And of significant concern was the fact the sonar was taking place where there were reports of Transients, a minke, & 2 gray whales only hours before the episode began.

By 8:00pm on the 8th, Navy spokeswoman Sheila Murray confirmed that the fast-attack submarine USS San Francisco, accompanied by a surface ship, was operating its sonar last night as it passed through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The sub was conducting “required training dives” and did not enter Haro Strait, she said. The Navy undertakes precautions to protect marine mammals, she noted.  The full story has been covered locally and throughout the Pacific Northwest- you can click HERE for more details.

This past December, The Navy and several plaintiffs, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Cetacean Society International, the League for Coastal Protection, the Ocean Futures Society, and Jean-Michel Cousteau, entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a worldwide challenge to the Navy's testing and training with mid-frequency active sonar. The settlement essentially adopts the long range program for environmental analysis and research , forcing the Navy to continue to implement a variety of protective measures in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That agreement does not require any additional mitigation measures. General Counsel for the Navy, Frank Jiminez commented after the settlement, "The Navy welcomes an approach that relies more upon scientific research than litigation."

Just this week, researchers issued a study indicating sonar causes temporary hearing loss in dolphins. Findings show that when the dolphins were exposed to progressively louder pings of mid-frequency sonar up to 203 dBs, neurological data showed the mammal had become deaf, for its brain no longer responded to sound.

While concerns are heightened right now, it is important to stress that the Navy has been proposing a substantial increase in these types of exercises throughout the Pacific Northwest. Plans to expand operations such as adding dummy minefields, scheduling hundreds more training flights and warfare simulations over land and sea, and increasing the use of sonar are scheduled, adding potential threats to endangered and threatened whales and other marine mammals throughout the region.

The Navy says that the pending increases in warfare activities are necessary and their draft environmental impact statement, released Dec. 29, concludes (with no surprise) that expanded training won't harm marine life or the public. But environmental groups, fishermen and some politicians are wary, stating that the military sprang the 1,000-page environmental review of its increased training plan with little notice and has provided only minimal assessment periods or input from residents.

At risk are the southern resident orcas and nine marine mammal species listed as threatened or endangered, including seven whales. And thanks to George Bush and more recently, The Supreme Court, it certainly appears as though the Navy's plans may go completely unchallenged despite the incongruity of the situation at hand. There is hope, however. The comment period, once limited to a couple of weeks between January 27 and mid-February, has now been extended to April 13, 2009, to allow for additional public input. Should you be so inclined, please take a look at the Draft Impact Statement (as ugly as it is) and send your comments to the Government. You can also send an email or fill out a comment form online. 

Subscribe in a reader

Sonar Heard For Six Hours in The Salish Seas

Following a magnificent day in the Pacific Northwest- temps in the 70's and hours spent watching a shiny ball of heat in the sky which we rarely see but is apparently known to others as "the sun," (smiles) I snapped this photo just as the sun fell fell behind the profile of Vancouver Island at 7:02pm. All was right with the world- spring temperatures had welcomed back a myriad of frogs and it was to their chorus I that I fell asleep.

This morning, however, I was forced to see the other side of what had been my reality only hours beforehand; underwater, the night had not been so peaceful. Logging on to Facebook (feel free to add me as a friend if you'd like!) I was astounded by what I was seeing and hearing. As you already know, if you have read this blog before, we have been actively advocating public response to proposed increases in military training exercises planned in and around the area as well as trying to focus efforts on public awareness- explaining impacts on this tenuous marine environment called the Salish Sea.

Last night proved the efforts must continue. Listeners tuning in to the Lime Kiln Hydrophones  anytime after 6:55 pm were afforded the chance to acoustically engage in active military training for six +hours. While listening, one could have enjoyed listening to repeated sonar pings and underwater voices emanating from Navy vessels training exercises in the area, exercises which later confirmed by the military as having taken place in these waters. Jeanne Hyde provided an overview of the events as they occurred on her blog, staying up through the morning hours to follow it. Scott Viers, lead instructor and acoustics expert at Beam Reach, a Marine Science and Sustainability School, also tracked this event and provides a significant story HERE. So, if you're curious about what it sounds like, LISTEN HERE but beware, there are loud pings of sonar on the soundclip- TURN DOWN YOUR VOLUME.

Which brings up back to the ocean inhabitants that are being further stressed in their already deteriorating environment. Just yesterday, transient killer whales were seen throughout the afternoon right in the same area where the exercises were being conducted- within hours of one another.  

Some excellent further reading on the issue if you are still on the fence about sending your thoughts to the Navy:

NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL PUBLIC STATEMENT

GREAT ARTICLE INTERVIEW OF NAVY

ACOUSTIC ECOLOGY OCEAN NOISE OVERVIEW : SCIENCE, POLICY LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS

AEI FACTCHECK

Bottom line: Navy: Clinging to exceedingly hard line as it embraces stewardship

The Navy seems truly mystified at the uproar being made over sonar training, given the very few incidents over the past decades of mid-frequency active sonar deployment. Many seem to feel that judges who imposed additional safety measures did not really understand the modeling of impacts and scientific minutia used by the Navy and NMFS in designing current safetey measures. There really is a sense within the Navy that this is not a huge problem, thought it clearly deserves attention, and that their famous "29 Measures" are sufficient to minimize future risk. Whether the adoption of these formal standards emerged from within after the Bahamas and later incidents, or was triggered by the outside scrutiny spurred by NRDC and others, there appears to be an authentic desire to do what needs to be done to protect whales. We can assume additional mitigation measures suggested by others, and even those adopted by allies, are truly considered to be excessive and of little practical value in protecting whales from harm.

Even if all this is true, there remain a few areas in which the Navy's approach to the issue leaves much to be desired.

First is the focus on being satisfied with avoiding physical injury, which leads inevitably to discounting behavioral disruption as a cause for concern.

Second is the seeming deaf ear the Navy turns to any suggestion that it put some areas off-limits to sonar training. Look again at the map near the beginning of this report; can it really be true that every square mile of all those ranges off the US east coast contains crucially unique training opportunities, and that putting biologically rich or seasonally important areas off-limits would cripple our training abilities? This attitude cannot help but undermine the public's faith in the Navy to make balanced, prudent decisions on its own.

Third is the vagueness contained in the 29 Protective Measures concerning changes in procedure when the Bahamas-like "contributing factors" are encountered. As noted above, the language here does not inspire confidence that the Navy is taking the threat of injury seriously even in the one very specific set of circumstances that it is convinced is the only situation in which sonar can kill whales. The lack of extended aerial surveys prior to powering up sonar is especially troubling, since beaked whales are so difficult to spot at the surface. Most likely, the Navy simply feels that the likelihood that whales will be present is so low that it does not justify exerting the effort to look for them, or it trusts that in nearly all cases, the whales will hear and avoid the sonar without injury. Even if they are correct in these assumptions, this is a key place where going the extra mile would indicate a level of good faith that is sorely needed to build confidence in their commitment to safe practices.

Related to this is the small size of the US Navy's safety zones, compared to those used by other Navies. As noted above, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in deferring to the lower court's increase of the shut-down zone from 500 yards to 2000 meters, noted that "NATO imposes a 2,000 meter shutdown zone when a marine mammal is detected–the same zone that the district court’s preliminary injunction requires. The Australian Navy goes farther, mandating a shutdown of activities if a marine mammal is detected within 4,000 yards of a sonar-emitting vessel," and further calculated that the 2000 meter zone would only lead to one or two shut-downs per week of training, hardly crippling training preparedness.

Finally, the Navy's reluctance to encourage more investigation—or even acknowledge enduring ambiguity—of stranding events that do not fit the current clear-cut model of sonar-induced stranding is short-sighted, also undermining pubic confidence in its commitment to do its best. While it is difficult to ever really know what caused many—perhaps most—strandings, the Navy seems too eager to brush aside questions about events that don't fit its simple, specific picture. Acknowledging our uncertainty about the ways that animals may react to sonar, and so treating some of the ambiguous events as possibly sonar-induced, would certainly complicate things for the Navy, but it would not tie them to making operational changes based on these uncertain events. It would, however, show that the Navy is authentically considering the full spectrum of possible impacts that its activities may be having, and would allow the Navy to engage more honestly with scientists and environmental advocates as we slowly unravel some of the mysteries and uncertainties that currently limit our understanding.

This last point was starkly highlighted during a June 2008 press event in which the Navy took reporters and several scientists on a sonar training exercise off Virginia. In its briefings, the Navy repeated its well-known mantra: Only five stranding events have been "linked scientifically" with sonar since its inception in 1939....No strandings have been "linked scientifically" to the U.S. Navy since 2000....And, finally, "No scientific evidence exists proving mid-frequency active sonar has ever killed any marine mammals as a direct and sole cause of death." (i.e., they are injured by the changes in their dive patterns, and/or by being tossed about on the beach after stranding, rather than by direct acoustic impact/trauma). Even the scientists that were hand-picked by the Navy to participate in this PR exercise could not abide the stridency of the Navy's message: Nina Young, of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership (a multi-agency coordinating group) said the Navy uses uncertain cause of death rulings to downplay possible links between sonar and mammals. "It's unfortunate that the threshold for the Navy seems so absolute, and the burden of proof so high, that it undermines efforts to engage in a productive discussion," she said, while Andrew Wright, a marine mammal scientist who has worked for the Marine Mammal Commission and NOAA, said definitive proof of sonar's effect on whales didn't exist until recently. "We've only really known about the problem since 2000, 2002. We don't have long-term information, even on humans. There's so much uncertainty around this, and it all depends on where you place the burden of proof."

Remembering the crucial point that routine use of active sonar far exceeds the use of sonar in training situations, the Navy could dramatically advance its own cause by being less adament in all these ways as it conducts its training missions. Of course, that would require a long-term institutional commitment to minimize potential harm; and indeed, there are many within the military with authentic desires to work constructively with scientists, regulators, and other civilians, as well as in balance with Congressional and judicial oversight. So far, however, the decision-making apparatus, appears to remain in the hands of those more commited to maintaining the Pentagon's autonomy in the face of public or judicial opinion.

For more information, see AEI Special Report: Active Sonars - Includes continually updated news items, tracking of range-specific EIS releases, technology descriptions, current deployment, and links to military, agency, and NGO websites. [GO THERE]

You can read the Proposed EIS Plan or go directly to the comment page here.

Northwest Navy Training Range Comment Period Extended to APRIL 13

The Northwest Navy Training Range Comment Period HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY EXTENDED TO APRIL 13TH DUE TO PUBLIC INTEREST!!!

For information on the project, and ways to provide public comment, visit http://www.NWTRangeComplexEIS.com/. 

Want more information about the draft and the proposed impact in the Pacific Northwest and the Puget Sound? CLICK HERE.

We're having an impact, folks!!!! Please take some time to send your thoughts to the military by clicking THIS LINK.

Deadline for Comment Period on Increased Naval Presence in the San Juan Islands Coming up Shortly- MARCH 11

Postcards From Friday Harbor: Postcards From Friday Harbor: NAVY Plans to Increase Training Exercises over the San Juan Islands

NAVY Plans to Increase Training Exercises over the San Juan Islands

Imagine a beautiful summer day in the San Juan Islands....calm waters, the echoing blow of killer whales, tiny fins of cavorting porpoises bouncing along the water. Rejuvenating and peaceful, you sit at Lime Kiln State Park embracing the concurrent peace with joy...that is, until the shoreline begins to tremble with the vibrations of afterburners of an E-18 Growler, on a practice mission to simulate jamming enemy radar. Below the flat waters that bring you comfort, missiles fly and sonar resounds, deafening the wildlife that affords you such serenity on shore. Think of the region as a 21rst century combat computer game, only using real planes, ships, munitions and ordinance.

It is no surprise that the Navy has been conducting warfare training exercises in our region for decades, including firing missiles and machine guns, dropping bombs and practicing sonar detection of submarines. But if the Navy has their way in the next month, their training playground and exercises in the Pacific Northwest will be increased with vigor. Plans to expand these operations and others such as adding dummy minefields, scheduling hundreds more training flights and warfare simulations over land and sea, and increasing the use of sonar will add potential threats to endangered and threatened whales and other marine mammals throughout the region. Specifically at risk are the southern resident community of orca whales, whose number have continued to drop to alarming levels. Factoring in to this the Navy's plan to dump depleted uranium in the region, you begin to get the bigger picture.

The Navy says that the pending increases in warfare activities are necessary and their draft environmental impact statement, released Dec. 29, concludes (with no surprise) that expanded training won't harm marine life or the public. But environmental groups, fishermen and some politicians are wary, stating that the military sprang the 1,000-page environmental review of its increased training plan with little notice and has provided only minimal assessment periods or input from residents.

The biggest environmental concern is the Navy's use of midfrequency active sonar, which would significantly increase under the plan. Environmental groups have been engaged in litigation over the sonar use, arguing that it damages whales and other marine mammals that use sound to communicate and navigate. The Navy's plans for increased training would boost potentially harmful mammal sonar exposures from about 110,000 a year to nearly 130,000. But they are quick to predict little damage since they promise to limit sonar use when mammals are spotted near ships and submarines. How do they know when whales are in the area during training exercises? That's right..."trained" spotters on the decks. 

At risk are the southern resident orcas and nine marine mammal species listed as threatened or endangered, including seven whales.  And thanks to George Bush and more recently, The Supreme Court, it certainly appears as though the Navy's plans may go completely unchallenged despite the incongruity of the situation at hand. There is hope, however. The comment period, once limited to a couple of weeks between January 27 and mid-February, has now been extended to March 11, 2009, to allow for additional public input. Should you be so inclined, please take a look at the Draft Impact Statement (as ugly as it is) and send your comments to the Government. You can also send an email or fill out a comment form online. And in the meantime, enjoy your shellfish and salmon while you still have the chance.