The EIS predicted that 200 deaths and 1,600 instances of hearing loss would be suffered by marine mammals in the Navy’s testing and training ranges in Hawaii and California, reported AP writer Audrey McAvoy.

The old Navy analysis, she said, listed injuries or deaths to about 100 marine mammals.

So what caused these increased estimates of injury and death, and what are the implications for the Northwest Training and Testing Range Complex in Washington state?

It turns out that the causes are multiple and the implications many, as I reported in a story in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun.

In both California-Hawaii and the Northwest, the greatest effects come from the use of sonar and explosives, which the Navy considers essential to proper training and testing. By far, the greatest number of injuries and deaths are to dolphins. But the higher numbers do not mean that the Navy will be changing its operations to a great degree. If one doesn’t read this carefully, the higher numbers are easy to get confused.

To better understand the increased numbers, I asked for help from Sheila Murray, public information officer for Navy Region Northwest. She arranged a conference call with Navy officials Alex Stone, project manager; John Van Name, senior environmental planner; and Roy Sokolowski, an acoustic modeling expert.

“I would like to point out,” Alex told me at the outset, “that there is quite a bit of difference between this study and the previous studies.”

We had a good discussion, but here’s the bottom line: Without running more computer simulations, it is hard to identify the precise source of the increased injuries predicted in the new EIS for California-Hawaii. They can, however, be divided into three categories:

1. New activities that the Navy wishes to conduct or an increased tempo of existing activities,
2. Ongoing activities not included in previous analyses, or
3. New studies that adjust the model, such as greater effects on marine mammals than understood before (threshold changes) or a greater number of marine mammals in areas where activities are taking place (density changes).

I’m told that the greatest increase in numbers comes from additional studies and more accurate modeling. The Navy has spent millions of dollars studying the effects of its operations on the environment, with particular emphasis on marine mammals.

Navy officials emphasize that they are striving to protect the environment. They say that can be accomplished while adequately training and testing Navy personnel to protect the United States from enemy threats. But it’s a balancing act.

I’m hoping that the Navy can produce a fact sheet clarifying the numbers for readers of the California-Hawaii EIS, even if it takes more analysis. It could be a chart showing the number of “takes” for each species under the old and new analysis, with a breakdown describing how much of the increase fits into each of the above categories.

I’m told that similar increases are likely to be seen when the Navy unveils its EIS for the Northwest Training and Testing Range Complex, scheduled for release toward the end of next year. To avoid confusion, it would help if a fact sheet explaining the numbers would be released at the same time.

In my story on Sunday, I talked a little about what environmental groups may do with the new analysis being used in California and Hawaii. Some organizations last year filed a lawsuit over testing and training in the Northwest. More will be coming out in the future.

As for other parts of the country, Navy training and testing continue to make the news. A report last week by David Fleshler of the Sun Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., revealed:

“The South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, located off Port Everglades, will see an increase in ship traffic, mine countermeasure training and the testing of unmanned underwater vehicles, according to the environmental review (released by the Navy).

“The facility encompasses a network of undersea cables and detection devices used to determine the acoustical and electromagnetic characteristics of different ships.

“Under the new testing plan, ‘you will definitely be seeing new classes of ships,’ said Roxie Merritt, spokeswoman for Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, which includes South Florida.”

While the story did not include estimates of harm to marine mammals, it did include a quote from Michael Jasny of the Natural Resources Defense Council:

“When the Navy intrudes such intense disruption into the environment, it tears at the very fabric of their surroundings. Sonar can have a range of effects causing animals to break off foraging, abandon habitat or die on the beach.”

Share on Facebook

L-112 in happier times. The 3-year-old orca died in February, and her death is the subject of an intense investigation.
Photo by Jeanne Hyde, Whale of a Porpoise
(Click on image to see Jeanne's tribute page)

For the first time, all the key members on a committee studying the death of L-112 got together last week. Their latest conclusions were updated in a report released yesterday.

More tests on tissues taken from the injury site are planned, even as the investigation continues into what human activities may have been occurring in or near the Columbia River at the time of L-112’s death.

The female orca was found dead at Long Beach on Feb. 11. For information, check out my previous reports in Water Ways:

Feb. 18: So far, sonar has not been linked to orca death

March 15: Balcomb wants to know if young orca was bombed

March 22: Mystery of orca’s death only deepens with new info

April 4: Orca’s death enters the realm of law enforcement

Veterinarian Joe Gaydos of the SeaDoc Society told me yesterday that the investigators have been unable to pinpoint what caused the extensive bruising and swelling on both sides of the head, especially on the right side.

The trauma was spread out fairly evenly across the head, consistent with force from an explosion or other high-pressure impact, Joe said, but a similar injury could result from a glancing blow from a boat or even a strong impact with the tail of another whale. It was not a straight-on blow, however.

“The bones in the area where the hemorrhage occurred are not tough bones,” Joe said. “It would not be hard to break that bone.”

Yet the bones in that part of the head were not broken, which shows that the “pressure was diffusely spread out,” he explained.

I haven’t had a chance to talk with Steve Raverty, a pathologist at the Animal Health Center in British Columbia, who is studying the tissue damage. But Joe tells me that some additional tests are planned to see whether signs of blast trauma can be distinguished from impact trauma.

One question is whether the injury burst blood vessels and caused blood to leak into the surrounding muscle and other tissue. That could help tip the weight of evidence. The problem is that tissue breakdown had taken place to the extent that discrete blood cells were no longer visible. With special staining techniques, it may be possible to determine whether blood had escaped into the surrounding tissue.

Another test will look for fat in the blood vessels and organs, Joe said. Some previous studies suggest that explosions can dislodge blubber, leaving fat deposits that can be found later.

One of the ongoing difficulties for the investigators is that the tissues were not fresh enough for them to make the finer judgments needed to rule out one source of trauma over another, although it seems apparent now that the animal did not die of disease.

Aside from L-112 herself, NOAA Fisheries is trying to identify human activities, such as blasting or bombing, that may have caused the fatal injury. U.S. and Canadian navies say they were not operating in the area at the time, although the Canadians set off two underwater charges in the Salish Sea far to the north on Feb. 6. Ocean currents would not have carried a dead whale from there to Long Beach, however.

Investigators are still waiting to hear whether the U.S. Coast Guard or Army Corps or Engineers were conducting any operations in the area at the time.

Fishing vessels were not likely to be off Long Beach or the Columbia River in February, according to reports.

There is some hope that acoustic-recording buoys in the area may have picked up the sound of an explosion or the sound of killer whales moving through the area to pinpoint the time of death.

Brad Hanson of the NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center tells me that NOAA operates four buoys in the general area of consideration. The buoys stay in place and sample sounds in the water for 30 seconds out of every 10 minutes. That’s one-twentieth of the time, an interval chosen to conserve hard-drive space while capturing enough information to determine if killer whales are passing by and to identify the pods if other noises do not interfere.

For most of the buoys, the data won’t be available until the end of summer, when the buoys are pulled from the water and the data processed. Another coastal buoy broke loose from Cape Flattery at the northwest corner of the state during the winter and was later recovered. Brad said that data is being processed now. While it isn’t certain yet whether the buoy was still in place in February, there’s a good chance it was, since it was recovered in April.

Brad said he will look specifically for sounds recorded before Feb. 11 to see if he can help solve the mystery of L-112’s death. Other recorders closer to the Columbia River may be more revealing when their data are processed later.

The full report of the investigation team can be downloaded: Southern Resident Killer Whale L112 Stranding Progress Report, May 15, 2012 (PDF 72 kb).

Share on Facebook

1. Puget Sound chinook salmon are listed as a “threatened” species.
2. Southern Resident killer whales, which frequent Puget Sound, are listed as “endangered.”
3. Southern Resident killer whales eat primarily chinook salmon.

Therefore … isn’t it obvious that the shortage of Puget Sound chinook has had a major impact on the whales?

Once you begin to challenge the assumptions — as a seven-member scientific panel has done — a more complex picture emerges. It is not easy to sort out predator-prey interactions, especially considering that the prey may include hundreds of individual salmon stocks, some of which are doing quite well.

The independent panel (PDF 144 kb), made up of U.S. and Canadian scientists, tackled the question of whether cutbacks or elimination of salmon fishing could help rebuild the killer whale population at a faster rate. The panel’s preliminary conclusion is that reducing fisheries could have a slight benefit, but only if certain assumptions hold true.

I tried to cover all the bases in a story published in yesterday’s Kitsap Sun. But if you are really interested in this complex subject, you need to read the preliminary findings (PDF 1.5 mb) for yourself, keeping in mind that the report is likely to be revised one more time before it is completed.

As for the “obvious” relationship between Puget Sound chinook and our local killer whales, here’s what Pat Pattillo of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife told me:

“A lot of people originally concluded that orcas are in bad shape because Puget Sound chinook are in bad shape. We have discovered that maybe the orcas are not doing so badly (with an annual growth rate of 1 percent) and that they are not even eating Puget Sound chinook.”

In the summer, the whales eat primarily chinook headed back to the Fraser River in Canada, and most Fraser River stocks are doing fairly well, Pat explained.

In the fall, starting about September, the killer whales come south into Central Puget Sound, where they dine on relatively healthy stocks of fall chum salmon.

In winter, the whales generally head out to the Pacific Ocean, where it isn’t so clear what they’re eating. It’s an expensive research project to collect fecal samples from whales in the open ocean, but that’s one way to learn if the whales have a preference for a particular stock of salmon or if they’re eating other kinds of fish.

If experienced scientists have trouble sorting out the assumptions, what does that mean for the rest of us? I think it suggests that we should keep an open mind, review the findings and be prepared to change our thinking if new evidence becomes available.

I’m reminded of an email last year from a Bremerton resident who responded to reports of killer whales swimming through our local waters. Unlike most people, this man seemed dismayed that orcas were around.

“The evidence is staring you in the face why the salmon population is in peril,” he said, blaming marine mammals for the decline of salmon. “The hype and harassment by government continues to blame everybody but the natural appetites of salmon predators.”

It was odd to hear his rant, especially since these particular orcas had been identified as transient killer whales, which eat marine mammals. When I suggested that they were probably eating seals and sea lions and thus saving some salmon from being eaten, it meant nothing to him.

“Give me a break!” he wrote back. “Orcas save salmon? That’s like saying nets across the streams are good for salmon runs, because they catch the dumb salmon and the smart ones get by… Believe what you want, but reality is reality.”

What could I say to that? I guess people who are unable to change their minds simply invent their own reality.

To review the information collected by the independent panel, go to the web page: Effects of Salmon Fisheries on Southern Resident Killer Whales.

Share on Facebook

Orca Network is reporting that researchers at the Center for Whale Research have determined that L-112s family is alive and well. The identification used photos taken by Greg Schorr and Erin Falcone of Cascadia Research when the two spotted members of K and L pods off Westport on April 29.

Because of the trauma sustained by L-112, there had been speculation that other members of her family may have been killed or injured.
—–

Federal law-enforcement officers have launched an investigation into the death of the orca L-112, with an emphasis on looking for those who may have been involved in her fatal injuries.

“We received a complaint that the death was not due to natural causes, so we are looking into that to see if we can make a determination,” said Vicki Nomura, special agent in charge at NOAA’s Northwest Office of Law Enforcement.

The decision follows a suggestion by Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Research. Ken believes that law enforcement officers will be more successful in getting information from the U.S. and Canadian navies, who, he says, may know more than they’re letting on.

I posted the above earlier today as a comment on a previous Water Ways entry called “Mystery of orca’s death only deepens with new info.”

Since then, I have received a brief progress report on the overall investigation from the Northwest Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Dyanna Lambourn of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife told me that the document was prepared jointly by the necropsy team to clear up some misunderstandings that people had.

Most of the information has been available for awhile, but I found a couple paragraphs worth noting:

Environmental Conditions
“Based on the approximate date of death, NOAA Fisheries and the NOAA Hazardous Materials Response Division reviewed environmental data from early February and found that prevailing wind and currents, between February 1 and February 11 were predominantly from the south. In addition, local current conditions are largely influenced by eddies flowing northward from the mouth of the Columbia River. This indicates that the animal likely died near the Columbia River or to the south and could have drifted a substantial distance before being cast ashore on Long Beach. Other environmental factors that are being researched include; earthquakes and if they could cause trauma or disorientation and sea surface temperature. Diet studies are underway to further investigate winter feeding habits.”

Human Activities
“We are seeking information from a variety of sources in an attempt to identify whether human activities may have contributed to the injuries we observed. Communication with the United States Navy, Canadian Navy, United States Coast Guard, United States Air Force, and fisheries managers is on-going or being initiated. NOAA Fisheries has reviewed reports received by the Marine Mammal Authorization Program from commercial fishing vessels between January and February 2012 and found that no incidental mortality or injuries involving killer whale(s) was reported anywhere on the west coast during this timeframe.”

Read the full update: “Southern Resident Killer Whale L112 Stranding Progress Report”

Share on Facebook

Kenneth Hess, a Navy public affairs officer, posted a comment today on the recent blog entry “Balcomb wants to know if young orca was bombed.” In his comment, Hess repeats that the Navy did not conduct any training with sonar, bombs or explosives in the days preceding L-112’s death. He called it “irresponsible and inaccurate” to blame the Navy for “blowing up” the whale.

Another new development today is an e-mail I received from Lt. Diane Larose of the Canadian Navy, responding to my inquiry about any explosive devices used in the days before L-112 was found dead on Feb. 11. Read the e-mail (PDF 16 kb) I received:

“On February 6, 2012 HMCS Ottawa was operating in the Straits of Juan de Fuca, specifically in Constance Bank, conducting Work Ups Training including a period of sonar use and two small under water charges as part of an anti-submarine warfare exercise. These small charges were used to get the ships’ company to react to a potential threat or damage to meet the necessary training requirement.”

In talking to experts involved in the investigation, it seems unlikely that L-112 could have been injured or killed in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and then wash up dead on Long Beach five days later. So the mystery continues.

In tomorrow’s Kitsap Sun, I’m reporting that environmental groups on both sides of the Canadian border are calling on their respective navies to disclose all the specific activities during the 10 days leading up to the discovery of L-112’s carcass at Long Beach on Feb. 11. The groups also are calling for a complete cessation of sonar use for training and testing in the Salish Sea.

Check out three letters submitted to the navies involved, including one from U.S. and Canadian scientists:

Letter from 18 U.S. conservation groups (PDF 52 kb)
Letter from six Canadian conservation groups (PDF 212 kb)
Letter from 20 U.S. and Canadian scientists (PDF 156 kb)

Meanwhile, I’ve heard from a few people who may call on the National Marine Fisheries Service to declare an “Unusual Mortality Event” related to the death of L-112 and possibly the deaths of other killer whales.

Unusual Mortality Events are normally associated with the mass stranding of whales or dolphins. UMEs are not normally declared in relation to the death one animal, no matter how unusual. Still, some of the seven criteria for declaring a UME include sudden or unexpected declines in populations, especially endangered ones. See NOAA’s Office of Protected Resources page for the list of criteria.

A UME is declared after consultation with a specially appointed working group that includes scientists, agency officials and members of conservation groups. Members are selected for their expertise in biology, toxicology, pathology, ecology and epidemiology.

I’m not sure what more could be gained by declaring a UME for Southern Resident killer whales, but Michael Jasny of the Natural Resources Defense Council told me that it could intensify the investigation into the death of L-112. It is a way to bring widespread attention to the issue, he said.

Ken Balcomb, director of the Center for Whale Research, said such a declaration could help increase access to historical records. He is interested in possible correlations between specific Navy activities — currently classified — and the deaths of marine mammals. Ken mentioned the deaths of L-60 and L-90, as well as L-112.

“It is baffling to demographers why this (Southern Resident) population is doing so poorly compared to the northern population,” Ken told me. “Something weird is going on, and that’s a consensus.

“In the early days, Mike Bigg (a Canadian orca researcher) and I were amazed that females seemed to be immortal. We just didn’t have many female deaths, and it was clearly related to their long life spans.”

The story has changed over the past 35 years, Ken said, and the number of recent deaths of females is driving the species closer to extinction.

Ken is clearly worried. Years ago, he would not have been so outspoken. I recall when Ken was a typically reserved, cautious scientist. But actions taken to shift environmental factors in favor of the orcas have been slow or nonexistent. Meanwhile, the future of these killer whales — a genetically distinct population — still hangs in the balance.

Share on Facebook

L-112 in happier times. The 3-year-old orca died in February, and her death is the subject of an intense investigation.
Photo by Jeanne Hyde, Whale of a Porpoise
(Click on image to see Jeanne's tribute page)

“Clearly the animal was blown up,” he told Scott Rasmussen, a reporter for the Journal of the San Juan Islands.

When I asked Ken to explain, he provided a lot more detail and informed me that he was calling for a law-enforcement investigation into the whale’s death by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Why he is seeking more than a biological analysis of the death will become clear in a moment.

What Ken is suggesting is that L-112 was killed by a bomb, possibly dropped from an aircraft during a training event in the Navy’s Northwest Training Range off the West Coast. His evidence is circumstantial, but he wants some answers.

What we know for sure is that this young female orca washed up dead at Long Beach on Feb. 11 in relatively fresh condition, allowing a complete necropsy, including CT scans of the head and dissections of the internal organs and head.

Joe Gaydos, a veterinarian with The SeaDoc Society who participated in the necropsy, said the whale showed signs of “blunt force trauma” with injury to the right and left sides of the head and right side of the body. Blunt force trauma might be what a human would experience if dropped from a helicopter onto soft ground, he explained.

Blast trauma can be similar, depending on how the shock waves reach the animal. Acoustic trauma, such as sonar, is not well defined in the world of pathology, he said, but it is different from blunt force and blast trauma.

Joe and most of the other scientists involved with the study of L-112 are withholding judgment until all the information is in.

“What we need to do now,” he told me, “is put all the pieces of the mosaic together. What is the highest probability of what caused those particular injuries?”

Whatever the cause, he said, the young orca did not swim very far before she died.

Ken Balcomb, director of the Center for Whale Research, has a long history with unusual deaths of marine mammals going back to 2002, when the Navy apparently killed 16 whales during an exercise involving sonar in the Bahamas. The Navy acknowledged its responsibility two years later. See the Kitsap Sun report of Jan. 1, 2002. In that incident, Ken was instrumental in saving the heads of some animals for forensic examination, without which the mystery may have gone unsolved.

When I talked to Ken yesterday, he said the injuries sustained by L-112 were similar to what he has seen before. He mentioned a Cuvier’s beaked whale found near Seaside, Ore., in 2002; a killer whale, L-60, found about a month later at Long Beach; and a Berardius (Baird’s beaked whale) at Lapush in 2003.

“Now we have L-112,” he said. “It was massively bloody in the ears and at the base of the ears.”

L-112, laid out and prepared for necropsy.
Photo by Cascadia Research

Balcomb has zeroed in on live aerial bombing practices conducted off the West Coast. According to a permit issued under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (PDF 690 kb), the Navy is allowed to conduct an average of 30 bombing exercises each year. That includes the use of 500-pound Mark-82 aerial bombs — although the Navy says the actual number of exercises does not come near that number.

“What we may have experienced over these years is an unusual mortality related to these bombing events,” Ken said.

Last night, I contacted the Navy’s John Mosher, Northwest program manager for the U.S. Pacific Fleet. There were no bombing exercises in the Long Beach vicinity for at least 30 days before L-112 was found, he said.

I addressed the possibility of a sonar injury in Water Ways on Feb. 18.

Ken, a former Navy technician, is suspicious of Navy statements because of his experience in the Bahamas, where the Navy eventually admitted to using sonar in a planned exercise.

“They lied to us for a month about the existence of that exercise,” Ken said. “We had to show them pictures of the Navy ships with their hull numbers.”

As he tells it, his requests for information kept being directed to other Navy exercises. It took a month before he could get confirmation of the exercise in question, he said, and that’s when the Navy decided it was time to quit denying the indisputable evidence.

To examine past bombing practices, Ken and I both called up the first “Annual Range Complex Exercise Report” (PDF 121 kb) covering the period from Nov. 12, 2010, to May 1, 2011.

We found that all the details about exercises along the West Coast — including the number of bombing events — was marked “classified.”

Lynne Barre, a marine mammal specialist with the National Marine Fisheries Service, said her agency has staff experts in Washington, D.C., who are qualified to review classified documents. They looked at the numbers and concluded that the training exercises during that period met the requirements of the permit, and they issued a new one.

If we are to discount connections between Navy bombing and the death of L-112, it would be reassuring to know exactly when such activities took place, Balcomb says. But not even Lynne Barre, a leading marine biologist with the federal government, is trusted with that information.

Lynne told me she may need to seek help from her headquarters office to work on possible correlations between Navy activities and the mortality of marine mammals on the West Coast, including L-112 and possibly other dead whales going back for years.

By the way, we know that the Canadian Navy was conducting an exercise with sonar in the Strait of Juan de Fuca about the time L-112 died. While that activity was not likely the cause of L-112’s death, acoustic expert Scott Veirs has identified an explosion on a hydrophone in the ocean before that exercise began. (See Water Ways, Feb. 18.)

My inquiry a month ago about any exercises involving explosions during the time in question remains unanswered by the Canadian Navy.

Balcomb is asking the law-enforcement arm of the National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct an investigation into the deaths of the whales and to involve the Department of Justice, if necessary.

“That way, nobody can withhold or filter the information without being liable for prosecution,” he said, “and the Navy would not be able to claim the whole thing is classified.”

L pod, the largest of the three Salish Sea orca pods, has been the one with the greatest number of individuals who have mysteriously disappeared. In 2008, during the annual return of the killer whales to the San Juan Islands, a shocking seven orcas came up missing — including five from L pod. See Kitsap Sun, Oct. 23, 2008.

Did something kill them all at once? We may never know. But I can’t avoid an uneasy feeling about L-112, who would normally be traveling with her closest relatives, including her mother, brother and aunt.

Let’s hope that whatever killed L-112 left her relatives alone, and we’ll see them swimming into Puget Sound with the rest of L pod in May or June.

Share on Facebook

The Japanese whaling fleet killed 266 Antarctic minke whales this year, compared to a government quota of 850, plus one fin whale, compared to a quota of 50, according to Michihiko Kano, Japan’s minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

The Mainichi Daily News, based in Japan, reports that the low numbers were attributed to bad weather but noted that Sea Shepherd obstructed the whaling operations 11 times during the season.
—–

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has completed another year of battling Japanese whaling ships in the Antarctic, and again this year a camera crew was on board its ships to film a new season of “Whale Wars.” The new season of the TV show will begin in June.

The Japanese whaling vessel Yushin Maru 2 shoots its water cannons at a Sea Shepherd inflatable, which had approached it.
Photo by Billy Danger, Sea Shepherd

The Japanese government reportedly provided $30 million from its tsunami and earthquake relief fund to continue the whaling, which the government allows as “scientific research.” The ban on whaling includes an exemption for research, but the International Whaling Commission has failed to preclude the commercial sale of meat from “research” animals. The result has been an ongoing dispute about whether commercial whaling should be considered research.

Needless to say, Sea Shepherd does not consider it research. For the past eight years, the whale-advocacy group has followed the whaling fleet and disrupted the hunt whenever possible.

For much of the recent whaling season, which began in December, Sea Shepherd was able to divert the attention of two harpoon ships and a security vessel. Sea Shepherd’s leader, Paul Watson, said the whalers ignored their own protocols this year by going to the same area as last year:

“This illustrates that they really have no scientific agenda at all since their so-called survey requires them to ‘sample’ whales from the two different areas alternatively each year. This is not about science and it never has been. It’s not even about profit anymore because we have negated their profits. It’s simply about pride. Whaling in the Southern Ocean has become a heavily subsidized welfare project for an archaic industry that has no place in the twenty-first century.”

The following chronology was compiled from reports issued by Sea Shepherd and by the Japanese Institute for Cetacean Research:

Dec. 7: The Japanese whaling fleet, consisting of three ships, sail from the port of Shimonoseki toward the Southern Ocean.

Dec. 24: The Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin locates the Japanese factory ship Nisshin Maru using a drone — a small unmanned airplane added this year to the Sea Shepherd fleet. The remotely operated drone carries cameras and detection equipment. Named the Nicole Montecalvo, the drone was donated by Bayshore Recycling of New Jersey.

Dec. 28: The Sea Shepherd’s Scout Ship Brigiitte Bardot is struck by a rogue wave, which cracked the hull and damaged one of the pontoons. The ship with its crew of 10 was following the Nisshin Maru in six-meter swells when the incident occurred. The Sea Shepherd ship Bob Barker continues to follow the Nisshin Maru, while the Steve Irwin heads to assist the Brigitte Bardot, about 20 hours away.

Jan. 4: The Bob Barker encounters the Yushin Maru 3 about 190 miles north of the French Antarctic base of Dumont D’Urville. The Japanese Institute for Cetacean Research reported that two inflatable boats cross the bow of the Japanese ship about 30 times in attempts to foul its propeller with ropes. Meanwhile, Steve Irwin and Brigitte Bardot are heading toward Fremantle, Australia, for repairs and refueling. They are tailed by the Shonan Maru #2.

Jan. 7: Three Australian members of the group Forest Rescue come by boat from shore and approach the Shonan Maru 2, which is tailing the Steve Irwin and Brigitte Bardot off the West Coast of Australia. Under the cover of darkness, the three men work their way past razor wire, cross over the rails and board the Japanese vessel. A statement by Forest Rescue says the action is a protest against the Australian government, which failed to carry through on an election promise to stop the whaling in the Southern Ocean. The men were taken into custody aboard the Japanese boat. About a week later, they were transferred to the Australian Customs Vessel Ocean Protector, which returned them to Albany, Western Australia.

Jan. 11: The Japanese Institute for Cetacean Research reports that two inflatable boats from Sea Shepherd approach the Yushin Maru 2 and the crews release prop-fouling ropes while tossing at least 20 bottles containing either butyric acid or paint. Seven bottles hit the ship.

Jan. 18: The Japanese Institute for Cetacean Research reports that two pontoon boats from the Steve Irwin attack the Yushin Maru 2, deploying six prop-fouling ropes and tossing at least 30 bottles of paint. The Japanese group also reports that Sea Shepherd crew members use a knife to cut intruder-prevention float fenders. Yushin Maru crew members use bamboo poles to push the boats back. Sea Shepherd reports that one of its crew members is cut when struck in the face with a bamboo pole. Two cameramen for Animal Planet get hit in the shoulders by grappling hooks thrown from the Yushin.

Jan. 21: The ICR reports that the Yushin Maru 2 is attacked by two Sea Shepherd inflatables. Sea Shepherd crew members use a launcher to shoot at least 20 bottles filled with butyric acid or paint. Some strike the Yushin.

Feb. 7: In an effort to slow down the Yushin Maru 2 and allow the Steve Irwin to gain some distance, Sea Shepherd deploys three inflatable boats and a jet ski. The crew member on the jet ski is knocked into the water with a water cannon fried from the Japanese ship. Nearly frozen, the man swims back to his jet ski and returns to the Steve Irwin.

Feb. 11: The ICR reports that two inflatables from Sea Shepherd triy to deploy a prop-fouling rope on the Yushin Maru 2. Crew members of the Yushin Maru 2 tow their own rope with warning buoys, saying the goal is to keep the Sea Shepherd boats back. Sea Shepherd crews cut the ropes.

Feb. 12: The ICR reports another similar attack involving Yushin Maru 2 and inflatables using prop-foulers, smoke bombs and bottles of butyric acid.

Feb. 13: The ICR reports another similar incident, this time involving the Yushin Maru 3 and three inflatables.

Feb. 13-16: Sea Shepherd reports that it has plowed through pack ice to lose the Yushin Maru 3 and try to catch up to the factory ship Nisshin Maru.

Feb. 23: The Sea Shepherd vessel Bob Barker returns to sea from Wellington, New Zealand, where it has gone for refueling. Sea Shepherd announces that the Bob Barker would return with enough fuel to allow the Steve Irwin to complete the campaign over the next two months.

Feb. 28: Sea Shepherd reports that their ruse over the past 10 days has worked against the Japanese whalers. The two Japanese vessels, a harpoon ship, Yushin Maru 3, and security ship, Shonan Maru 2, have been following the Steve Irwin all the way to Aukland Island, New Zealand, where the refueling was scheduled. But the Bob Barker never intended to make the rendezvous; it headed straight back to the Southern Ocean.

“The Japanese ships fell for the bait, following hard on our heels first to Macquarie Island and then onto Auckland Island,” said Watson. “They have wasted tons of fuel and weeks of time to accomplish nothing more than to escort the Steve Irwin back north. Now they have no one to follow anymore, and the Bob Barker is free to continue the chase.”

March 5: The Bob Barker catches up to the factory ship Nisshin Maru and its three harpoon ships, including the Yushin Maru 3, which has just arrived after leaving the Steve Irwin. Sea Shepherd reports that whaling activities cease when the Nisshin Maru starts running away near Commonwealth Bay, 60 miles off the Antarctic Coast.

Paul Watson issues this quote:

“This has been a long and tough campaign, with the worst weather and ice conditions that we have experienced in the entire eight seasons we have ventured into the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. But despite the temporary loss of our scout ship, the Brigitte Bardot, and our constant dogged pursuit of the Nisshin Maru, we have kept them on the run, taken two of their three harpoon vessels off the hunt for two months, severely crippled their killing capabilities and now once again we have shut them down 100 percent. Operation Divine Wind has been enormously successful.”

Night of March 5: Sea Shepherd reports that, as darkness falls, the two harpoon vessels Yushin Maru 2 and Yushin Maru 3 head straight for the Bob Barker, under command of Swedish captain Peter Hammarstedt. The report says:

“Darkness was rapidly closing in and snow was beginning to fall, when, in a desperate move to throw the Bob Barker off the back of the Nisshin Maru, the two harpoon vessels began passing dangerously across the bow of the Bob Barker dragging 300-meter-long, thick cables to foul the prop of the Bob Barker.

“The harpoon ships trained their spotlights on the bridge of the Bob Barker, in an effort to blind the crew but backed off when the Bob Barker crew retaliated with lasers. Flares were fired and angry radio messages exchanged in Japanese and English.”

“The Yushins, much faster and more maneuverable than the Bob Barker, harried the Sea Shepherd crew at close quarters for hours in their effort to prevent the Bob Barker from pursuing the Nisshin Maru.

“Captain Peter Hammarstedt, 27, a veteran of numerous Sea Shepherd campaigns, deftly avoided the fouling lines as he kept the pressure on the Nisshin Maru.

“There were no injuries on any of the ships involved, and the Bob Barker continues to pursue the Nisshin Maru, having totally disrupted their illegal whaling activities.”

A report of the incident by the Institute of Cetacean Research says the Japanese vessels “encountered a Sea Shepherd ship the Bob Barker when they were moving after having ended another day of research activities.” The report characterized it as an attack from the Bob Barker. The stern rope — with its “keep-your-distance” warning buoy — was designed to keep the Bob Barker from approaching the Nisshan Maru, the report says.

March 8: Sea Shepherd reports that whaling season is over:

“Since March 1st, the Bob Barker has followed the Nisshin Maru as they headed steadily northwestward. The Japanese harpoon vessels have stopped tailing the Bob Barker. The fleet has left the waters of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, according to Captain Peter Hammarstedt. The Japanese government security vessel, Shonan Maru #2, has been spotted by fishing vessels at thirty degrees South, which is due east of Brisbane, Australia, indicating that the vessel is well on its way back to Japan.”

Watson predicts that when the number of dead whales are totalled, it will show that the fleet fell short of even half its goal, possibly only 30 percent of the government quota.

The Bob Barker will return to Hobart, Tasmania; the Brigitte Bardot is completing repairs in Fremantle; and the Steve Irwin is now berthed in Williamstown.

Share on Facebook

In a letter dated March 13 (PDF 16 kb), the groups said the format of the meetings is not designed to encourage public discussion or even allow public comment. In addition, the Navy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have ignored ongoing calls for the Navy to better protect marine wildlife and the environment along the Washington Coast and other biologically important areas, they say.

Navy's Northwest testing and training ranges. Click to enlarge.
Map by U.S. Navy

The Navy will seek a new permit from NOAA for the incidental harassment of marine mammals during testing and training activities. Most of the activities are identical to what is taking place now, but some new activities are added — including the testing of sonar from ships docked at piers.

Between now and 2015, Navy officials will describe and study the effects of various activities on marine life and update existing mitigation with new research findings. See my initial story in the Kitsap Sun, Feb. 27, and a related post in Water Ways, March 6. Also, you may review the official notice in the Federal Register.

Back to the letter, which states in part:

“As you know, the scoping process is the best time to identify issues and provide recommendations to agencies on what should be analyzed in the EIS. However, a process developed for activities with controversial impacts, like those at issue here, that does not provide opportunity for the public to testify or speak to a broader audience, or to hear answers to questions raised by others, and that fails to engage major population centers is not designed to help citizens and organizations effectively participate in agencies’ environmental reviews.”

The letter (PDF 16 kb) was sent to Jane Lubchenko, administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and Kimberly Kler, project manager for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest.

It was signed by Zak Smith, staff attorney for Natural Resources Defense Council; Peter Galvin, conservation director for Center for Biological Diversity; Marcie Keever, Oceans & Vessels Project director for Friends of the Earth; Kyle Loring, staff attorney, for Friends of the San Juans; Priscilla Hunter, chairwoman of InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, a consortium of 10 Northern California Indian tribes; Darlene Schanfald, executive director of Olympic Environmental Council; Howard Garrett, executive director of Orca Network; Heather Trim, policy director for People For Puget Sound; Chris Wilke, executive director of Puget Soundkeeper Alliance; Jerry Joyce, advisor on marine issues at Seattle Audubon; Tristin Brown, conservation chair for the Washington State Chapter of the Sierra Club; and Kurt Beardslee, executive director of Wild Fish Conservancy.

For those who wish to attend one of the Navy’s scoping meetings to see what this is all about, check out the schedule on “Northwest Testing and Training EIS/OEIS.” The Navy has prepared a brochure (PDF 2 mb) about the process and related issues.

Share on Facebook

It’s a simple game, but it determines who gets to eat and who must keep looking for food. The otter begins by catching a flounder so big he must drag it up onto a float to eat it. An eagle watches from within the branches of a nearby tree, then swoops down on the otter. If the otter is quick, he can hold onto his fish while diving into the water. If he loses the fish, the eagle may grab it.

Kim tells me that the otters don’t show up much in winter, but over the past few weeks she has seen one or more nearly every day on the float that she put out for wildlife. They generally return twice each day about the same time, first in the morning then in the afternoon.

From her e-mail: “The eagles are clearly aware of this potential food source and stake out the area accordingly. They are also in the midst of nest building … so are a little more distracted during the day right now. Once that’s done, and they’re incubating an egg or eggs, they’ll be on the hunt for nearby food. I suspect I’ll see the eagle/otter exchange many more times. And, I can’t wait.”

In the photos on this page, the eagle did not get the fish. The otter held onto it, but apparently lost it while diving into the water to get away. Kim said she saw the otter frantically swimming away.

One of Kim’s best photo series was taken last spring, when the eagle won the match, and I featured it in Water Ways April 5, 2011.

But the story surrounding the photos on this page is not over, because Kim watched as the eagle flew south toward another float, about 300 feet away.

“As I watched the eagle, I noticed on that float also, there was a different otter with another fish!  The eagle swooped down to try and catch that one, too. I could not tell if it was successful or not.

“What I do know is a few minutes later I could hear the ‘chirping’ of the otters.  It’s a vocalization they use to keep tabs on each other.  It’s very lovely if you’ve never heard it. I could hear a chirp from the south, and the answer from the north.

“Within a minute, I could see the second little otter swimming frantically from the other float toward mine. I watched as it approached, hopped up on it, ran all the way across and into the water on the other side. When it hit the water again, it started its chirping all over.  As I watched, the two met up and then swam together out of sight.

“I love all the sightings and am excited by each and every one of them! We have a ‘phone tree’ of sorts with a few neighbors we sometimes use to alert others to the special creatures that grace our waters and the sky above. I never tire of seeing the eagles, the otters, their exchanges, or any other wildlife for that matter. But the otter/eagle dance is a fun and funny exchange.  Sometimes the eagle is successful.  Sometimes not.”

By the way, besides being a good photographer, Kim Merriman is a talented artist, working in a unique medium of glass infused with metal. Check out Kim Merriman Art. Among her numerous projects, she is currently working on three sculptures that will go to the Northwest Kidney Center in Seattle.

Share on Facebook

Two days later, workers and passengers on the Clinton-Mukilteo ferry heard sonar pings apparently vibrating through the hull loud enough to be heard above the water. Scott Veirs was the first to report this issue in his blog Orcasphere that same day.

Jason Wood, a bioacoustician and research associate at The Whale Museum in Friday Harbor, made some phone calls and issued this report:

“The crew in the engine room, the captain, and passengers could hear the sonar, at times so loudly that the ferry agent on land could hear the sonar coming up through the ferry while it was at the dock…. The operations center called the Everett Naval base, but got no answers. They also called the Coast Guard. No (Navy) or Coast Guard vessels were reported seen during the sonar incident, other than a naval vessel at the dock in the Everett Navy yard.”

I phoned Sheila Murray, spokeswoman for Navy Region Northwest, who confirmed that the sonar was coming from the USS Shoup, docked at Naval Station Everett. She issued this statement:

“In response to your query, the Navy was conducting pierside testing of mid-frequency active sonar at Naval Station Everett yesterday. This is routine testing that is a longstanding and ongoing requirement, and is an essential process in preparing a Navy ship to get underway.

“Pierside testing is not continuous, but consists of very brief transmissions of acoustic energy interspersed with longer silent periods.”

The Shoup gained a notorious reputation among some killer whale researchers in 2003, when the intense sound of sonar pings was reported to have caused J pod to flee in a confused pattern. See Water Ways, Feb. 11, for links to videos of that incident.

Sheila also confirmed that this is the kind of “pierside testing” contemplated for the new permit being sought from the National Marine Fisheries Service, a permit that will allow incidental harassment of marine mammals under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Such activities will be analyzed in an upcoming environmental impact statement, as I described last week.

Reporter Gary Chittim of KING-5 television reported concerns from whale-watching skippers and from John Calambokidis of Cascadia Research, who said one or more gray whales may have been in the vicinity when the sonar was deployed in Everett last week. Among the concerns of whale-watching operators is that the sonar could drive away the whales and affect their business.

I asked Sheila what kind of mitigation measures are used to protect marine mammals when sonar is deployed at pierside, such as in Everett, and she provided me with a fact sheet on the Protective Measures Assessment Protocol, or PMAP (PDF 136 kb).

The fact sheet states that PMAP is an interactive software tool developed in 2004 “to help Navy units conduct safe, effective training at sea.”

“Protective measures contained in PMAP include many actions that are already common practice, such as posting trained lookouts and avoiding certain critical areas as well as other event-specific actions…

Examples of PMAP mitigation/protective measures:

• Employment of qualified watchstanders and lookouts
• Navy personnel received NMFS approved training to aid in spotting marine mammals
• Survey the area prior to conducting the event
• Establish safety or exclusion zones where the event will NOT occur if a marine mammal is sighted
• Avoidance of features that may attract protected species, such as algal mats, Sargassum rafts and/or coral reefs
• Use of passive listening devices
• Sonar power down or shut down zones
• Special instructions for designated critical habitats and/or sanctuaries as required…

The software is capable of being run directly from a website and incorporates “all mitigation measures from completed environmental analyses in the U.S. Navy’s major training areas along the East Coast, Gulf of Mexico, Southern California, Hawaiian Islands, Pacific Northwest and Marianas Islands.”

What is not described in the fact sheet is whether the Navy uses anything but “qualified watchstanders” to determine the location of marine mammals, including our endangered Southern Resident killer whales. It has been an ongoing question whether the Navy checks out visual sightings reported to Orca Network or listens to the Salish Sea Hydrophone Network. The ”use of passive listening devices,” mentioned in the list, has never been fully explained.

A factsheet from the National Marine Fisheries Service says the agency has approached the Navy to see if killer whales could be tracked by hydrophones. This is how NMFS described it in a question-and-answer format:

“The Navy’s response is that there is ‘no Navy environmental hydrophone network along the US West Coast.’ The Navy also noted that ‘Any other “Navy” system would be more operational and classified, in addition to not being used for environmental analysis.’”

Fred Felleman, Northwest consultant for Friends of the Earth, has been pressing the Navy to cooperate in tracking marine mammals without compromising its military operations.

As for the Navy’s next permit under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, work is starting now to have the permit completed by 2015, when the current one expires.

Kimberly Kler, environmental planner for the Navy, told me that the permit is primarily a consolidation of permits for the existing testing and training activities at existing ranges in the Northwest.

Pierside testing and maintenance of sonar systems is not covered by the existing permit but will be added in the future after consideration of the environmental consequences. The Navy has acknowledged that some of its sonar activities are not covered by existing permits. See my report of the fast-attack submarine USS San Francisco, Kitsap Sun, April 10, 2009.

Removed from the list of allowed activities in the new permit will be training that sinks vessels off the Washington Coast.

On the other hand, harbor-security training in inland waters might be increased, but it would involve smaller ships without sonar, Kler said. Also, testing for up to 14 days could resume in Carr Inlet in South Puget Sound, but the exact type of testing is yet to be described.

Mitigation measures will be discussed and possibly changed under the new permit, Kimberly Kler acknowledged. “Validated science will be incorporated into the analysis.”

Additional details should be available by the time eight open houses are held on the new permit, beginning Tuesday in Oak Harbor. Go to “Open House Information Sessions” for the schedule and “Northwest Training and Testing EIS/OEIS” for overall information as it becomes available.

Share on Facebook