The Maritime Washington National Heritage Area — which now
encompasses about 3,000 miles of saltwater shoreline in Western
Washington — was created yesterday within a wide-ranging lands bill
signed into law by President Trump.
Maritime Washington National
Heritage Area encompasses most of the saltwater shoreline
throughout Western Washington.
Map: Maritime Washington NHA feasibility
study
Created to celebrate the maritime history and culture of Puget
Sound and Coastal Washington, the Maritime Washington NHA is the
first designated area of its kind in the United States to focus
entirely on maritime matters.
The designation is expected to provide funding to promote and
coordinate maritime museums, historic ships, boatbuilding, and
education, including discussions of early marine transportation and
commerce in Washington state.
“We are thrilled about this,” said Chris Moore, executive
director of the nonprofit Washington Trust for Historic
Preservation. “The stories we want to convey are important to so
many people.
Listening to the sound of whales in Puget Sound from your
computer at home is becoming easier than ever, thanks to a new
hydrophone on Whidbey Island and its connection to a more
sophisticated computer network.
Organizers anticipate that thousands of human listeners could
add a new dimension to scientific studies, raise awareness about
the noise that orcas endure and perhaps alert authorities when
sounds are loud enough to harm marine mammals in the vicinity.
The new hydrophone (underwater microphone) at Whidbey’s Bush
Point was installed last summer, but it stopped working soon after
it was announced to the world in early November, when news stories
appeared in print and on radio and television. The timing couldn’t
have been worse, said Howard Garrett of Orca Network, a partner in
the venture.
“We finally got the word out just as it crashed and just as J
pod came into Puget Sound,” Howie told me. “We got it working after
J pod had left.”
It appears that there was a problem with both the hydrophone
itself and the power supply that runs a critical computer, experts
say. I decided to wait and write about the new hydrophone when
readers could go right to the Orcasound webpage and listen to
the live sounds of underwater activity. With Whidbey’s hydrophone
back in operation, one can now listen to sounds from two hydrophone
locations using a web browser:
Orcasound Lab: This location on the west side
of San Juan Island is a major thoroughfare for the endangered
Southern Resident killer whales as they come east through the
Strait of Juan de Fuca or south from the Strait of Georgia.
Bush Point: This location on the west side of
Whidbey Island picks up the orcas as the enter or leave Puget Sound
through Admiralty Inlet, their primary route to and from Central
and South Puget Sound.
Sounds from hydrophones in several areas of Puget Sound have
been available for years, thanks to the efforts of Val Veirs and
his son Scott, affiliated with Beam Reach Marine Science, along
with a host of other volunteers and organizations who have helped
maintain the hydrophones. In the past, network users would need to
launch a media player, such as iTunes, on their computer to receive
the live audio stream. The new browser-based system requires no
additional software.
Photo courtesy of
Beamreach.org
One can also listen to a hydrophone at Lime Kiln Lighthouse, a
favorite spot of the orcas on the west side of San Juan Island. The
Lime Kiln live stream, a project of SMRU Consulting and The Whale
Museum, can be heard on
SMRU’s website. I’m hoping that Scott can add the hydrophone to
his list. Orcasound, which is managed by Scott, still has a
link to Lime Kiln that
requires iTunes or another player.
At the moment, hydrophones that had been in operation at Port
Townsend Marine Science Center, Seattle Aquarium and Neah Bay are
out of operation for various reasons, Scott said, but he is working
with folks at each location to see if the hydrophones could be
brought back online using his new browser-based software. He would
also like to expand the network with more hydrophones to pick up
whale movements.
Scott’s vision of this hydrophone network involves using the
technology to organize people to improve our understanding of orcas
and other marine mammals while building a community concerned about
the effects of underwater noise.
Scott said he has been surprised at the number of average people
who have caught on to specific calls made by the whales. By
identifying the calls, one can learn to tell the difference between
fish-eating residents and marine-mammal-eating transients. More
advanced listeners can distinguish between J, K and L pods. Check
out Orcasound’s
“Listen” page for information about sharing observations,
learning about orca calls, and listening to archived recordings of
calls.
One story I’ve never told goes back to 1997, when 19 orcas from
L pod were in Dyes Inlet. It involves a phone call I received from
my wife Sue. I was working at the Kitsap Sun office and away from
my desk when the call came in. When I checked my voicemail, I heard
what I thought was the mewing of tiny kittens. That made sense, I
thought, because we had recently adopted two one-day-old kittens
whose mother had abandoned them at birth. But the sound on my phone
was not kittens after all but killer whales. My wife was in a boat
on Dyes Inlet helping researchers who had lowered a hydrophone to
listen to the orcas. Sue was holding up her cellphone and leaving
me a voicemail from the whales.
The sound I heard on my phone was something like the following
call, although multiplied by many voices:
1. K-pod-S16-stereo
–
Scott told me that he would like to come up with names instead
of numbers for the various calls. The one above is already being
called “kitten’s mew,” although it is better known as “S16” among
the scientific community. See the website
“Listening for orcas” or the longer
“Southern Resident Call Vocabulary.”
Orca Network is well known for collecting information about
whale sightings, but now people are also reporting in when they
hear the sounds of whales. That is especially helpful when
visibility is poor. Both the sighting and sounding information can
at times be useful to researchers who follow the whales at a
distance and collect fecal samples to check out their health
conditions. Observers can send notes via Orca Network’s
Facebook page or via email.
Photo courtesy of
Beamreach.org
Howard Garrett of Orca Network mentioned that many people are
tuning in to the underwater sounds even when whales are not around.
They may listen for hours with an expectation of hearing something
interesting, but listeners also come to understand the world
occupied by the whales.
“You get to experience what the orcas’ lives are like,” Howie
told me. “It’s a noisy world for the killer whales.”
Scott agreed. “The most powerful thing that these live streams
do is inspire people to listen. What they come to understand is
what quiet is and that ships are the dominant source of noise out
there.”
Knowing where a hydrophone is located, one can go to
MarineTraffic.com and identify one or more ships that may be
making the noise. “I do want people to call out outlier noise
polluters,” Scott said.
Because federal funds for running the hydrophones has mostly
dried up, Scott launched a Kickstarter campaign to design and get
the new system up and running. It was great to learn who the
supporters are, he said, noting that he knew only about a third of
the people who are regular listeners. One woman in Romania became
an expert in listening to the whales and wrote a paper about how to
improve the hydrophone network.
“We are poised to become a much better organizer of people,”
Scott said. “One option is for notifications. We can send out
notifications using a new app that allows people to tune in when
the whales can be heard.”
Notifications are not yet an option, but I told Scott that I
would let people know when this option becomes available.
Computer programs have been developed to recognize the sounds of
orcas, record various data and send out an alert, but the human
brain has unique capabilities for understanding sound. Together,
computers and human listeners can capture more information than
either one alone. Scott said.
“I think we might have a friendly competition between humans and
machines,” he noted.
Most hydrophones are designed for listening in the human range
of hearing, but Scott would like to install more advanced devices
capable of capturing the full vocal range of an orca. Such sounds
could then be more completely analyzed. Perhaps someone will
discover the still-hidden meanings of the orca vocalizations.
After I posted this blog entry this evening, I received this
note from Ken Balcomb:
Hello all,
J35 frolicked past my window today with other J pod whales, and she
looks vigorous and healthy. The ordeal of her carrying a dead calf
for at least seventeen days and 1,000 miles is now over, thank
goodness. She probably has lost two others since her son was born
in 2010, and the loss of her most recent may have been emotionally
hard on her.
—–
It has been heart-breaking to follow the story of the
20-year-old orca mom named Tahlequah (J-35), who has been carrying
her dead newborn calf for nearly three weeks. But Tahlequah’s
travails might add new insight into the mysterious death of a
3-year-old orca, who washed up on the Long Beach Peninsula in
2012.
Ken Balcomb, the dean of killer whale research in Puget Sound,
has always maintained that the young whale, designated L-112, was
killed by a concussive blast of some sort that caused massive
trauma inside her skull. He suspects that military operations were
to blame.
A 3-year-old orca known as
L-112 shown here before her death in 2012.
Photo: Center for Whale Research
The Canadian Navy acknowledges that it was conducting exercises
near the U.S.-Canada border up to seven days before the dead whale
was found. The activities, which included the use of sonar and
detonations, started 85 miles northwest of the Strait of Juan de
Fuca and ended up inside the Strait. The detonations were said to
be too small to kill a whale except at a very close range.
When Bremerton-based aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis left
Sinclair Inlet two weeks ago, a Navy sailor captured the movement
with a series of photos turned into a video. See first video.
The Stennis, a nuclear-powered supercarrier in the Nimitz Class,
remains at sea, where the crew is undergoing training in flight
operations, damage control, firefighting, seamanship, medicine and
other crucial functions.
The carrier is part of Carrier Strike Group 3, which is
scheduled for deployment later this year. Details have not yet been
released. See Navy news
release by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Charles D.
Gaddis IV and
Kitsap Sun story by reporter Julianne Stanford.
The time-lapse video was posted on the Stennis Facebook page,
where it attracted about 120 comments from friends, relatives and
community members. The Facebook page also includes photos taken
during the training. Here are a few of the comments written to the
sailors from folks back home:
“Thanks for the time-lapse photos, and thank each and everyone
for your service.”
“My heart is soaring with pride…God speed sailors….and my
special sailor love you with all my life.”
“A lot of love for our children on this and all
deployments….”
“Fair winds to my son and all those aboard this mighty ship!
May you return safely soon. You are loved and missed!”
“Be safe and lots of love to my nephew on CVN 74!!! I have
great respect for all the men and women in our armed services past
and present.”
“Fair winds and following seas. Bless all of you on journey.
Thank you all for your service!”
The Stennis time-lapse reminded me of another stunningly
beautiful video covering 30 days on a mega-container ship. Jeff HK,
who describes himself on YouTube as “a sailor with a passion for
photo/videography and drones,” mounted a camera on the ship and
created the video from 80,000 still photos.
The ship and its crew went through all sorts of weather,
experiencing rain and sunshine, sunrises and sunsets and lots of
stars on clear nights. At other times, the clouds created a show of
their own. The route included the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Indian
Ocean, Colombo, Malacca Strait, Singapore, South China Sea and Hong
Kong.
Captions on the video help tell the story. One commenter who
enjoyed the video said when it was over he felt like he had been on
a trip.
The video, which also captured loading and off-loading
activities, has been viewed 5.6 million times since its release in
September.
Hood Canal and its surrounding watershed have been nominated as
a Sentinel Landscape, an exclusive designation that recognizes both
the natural resource values and the national defense mission of
special areas across the country.
USS Henry M. Jackson, a Trident
submarine, moves through Hood Canal in February on a return trip to
Naval Base Kitsap – Bangor.
U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Cmdr. Michael
Smith
If the designation is approved, it will bolster applications for
federal funding to protect and restore important habitats and to
maintain working forests in and around Hood Canal. Given the
uncertain budget for environmental programs under the Trump
administration, it wouldn’t hurt to have the Department of Defense
supporting the protection of Hood Canal.
The Sentinel Landscapes Partnership involves the U.S.
departments of Agriculture, Defense and Interior. The idea is to
coordinate the efforts of all three agencies in locations where
their priorities overlap, according to the
2016 Report on Sentinel Landscapes (PDF 5.6 mb).
The Navy aircraft carrier USS Enterprise was decommissioned last
week after 55 years of meritorious service under 10 U.S.
presidents. Deployments ranged from the Cuban Missile Crises in
1962 to first-strike operations after 9-11.
The “Big E” was the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft
carrier and upon commissioning became the world’s longest ship at
1,100 feet. The video shows highlights of the Enterprise and last
week’s observance.
I was not aware until last week’s ceremonies that eight ships
named Enterprise have served the United States since before the
country was founded. I’m providing a summary, below, of the
missions and adventures of all eight ships. For much of the
information, thanks goes to Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class
Eric Lockwood of the Navy’s
History and Heritage Command.
After more than a decade of losing court battles, the U.S. Navy
still refuses to fully embrace the idea that whales and other sea
creatures should be protected during Navy training exercises, says
Joel Reynolds, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense
Council.
Joel Reynolds
But the blame cannot be placed entirely on the Navy, Joel says
in a blog entry he wrote for the
Huffington Post.
“In fact, much of the blame lies with the government regulatory
agency whose mandate it is to protect our oceans,” he writes. “It
lies with the failure of the National Marine Fisheries Service to
do its job.”
Joel has been at the forefront of the legal effort to get the
Navy to change its ways — and the effort has been successful to a
large degree. At least we now have a much greater understanding
about the effects of sonar on whales and other marine animals.
Legal challenges forced the Navy to acknowledge that it didn’t
really know what damage its activities were doing to the oceans.
The result was to develop studies, which turned out to provide some
unwelcome answers.
Joel’s latest frustration comes this week in the wake of new
authorizations by NMFS to sanction Navy activities found to be
unacceptable by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Joel’s life story and that of Ken Balcomb, who I call the dean
of killer whales in Puget Sound, are described in intriguing detail
in the book “War of the Whales” by Joshua Horwitz. The book
documents their personal and legal battles to hold the Navy
accountable for its impacts on whales.
USS Shoup, a Navy destroyer
based in Everett.
U.S. Navy photo
The Navy would never have found itself on the losing side of
these sonar lawsuits if the National Marine Fisheries Service
(sometimes called NOAA Fisheries) had been doing its
congressionally mandated job of protecting marine mammals, Joel
says. For the agency, that would mean approving “take” permits only
when the Navy has done its best to reduce the risk of injury during
training exercises — which everyone agrees are important.
“Rather than exercising the oversight required by law, the
Service has chosen in effect to join the Navy’s team, acquiescing
in the omission of common-sense safeguards recommended even by its
own scientific experts,” Joel writes in his latest blog post.
After reading his post, I asked Joel by phone yesterday what it
would take to get the National Marine Fisheries Service on the
right track.
“I don’t have an easy answer for that,” Joel told me, noting
that he recently held a related discussion with Sylvia
Earle, renowned oceanographer and formerly chief scientist for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
“She is very familiar with the problems of NMFS,” Joel said.
“She said NMFS is an agency responsible for killing fish.”
That said, the agency has a lot of dedicated researchers and
experts who know what needs to be done, especially at the regional
level. But they are hamstrung by federal politics and by budget
limitations.
“The Pentagon is essentially able to dictate every part of
government,” Joel said. “The financial implications are very real,
because the military is so powerful. If NMFS gives them trouble,
they call their contacts on Capitol Hill, and pressure is brought
to bear.”
The Navy has spent decades operating at its own discretion
throughout the world’s oceans. The notion that another federal
agency or some upstart environmental groups should limit its
activities just doesn’t sit well among established Navy
officers.
The problem is so entrenched in government that any resolution
“is going to take some focused attention under the next
administration,” according to Joel.
If Hillary Clinton is elected, Joel said he might look to John
Podesta to untangle the mess. Podesta served as chief of staff
under President Bill Clinton and was instrumental in opening up
long-held but arguably unnecessary government secrets. He currently
serves as chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
“John Podesta understands these things,” Joel told me. “If we
can’t get him (to do something), we can’t get anyone. I think it
would take a reorganization. The way NMFS is set up, they are in
the business of authorizing ‘take’ instead of issuing permits based
on the protections that are needed.”
Joel wasn’t clear how a regulatory agency might be organized to
hold its own against the Navy, but the idea should be on the table,
he said. Until then, the NRDC and other environmental groups will
continue to battle in the courts, where judges are able to use some
common sense.
Meanwhile, NOAA has developed an “Ocean Noise Strategy
Roadmap,” which promises to find ways to control harmful
man-made noise. The roadmap is based, in part, on scientific
studies about the hearing capabilities of marine mammals. Review my
Water Ways post on the “draft guidance”
Water Ways, March 26, 2016.
These steps have been encouraging — at least until this week
when NMFS issued
letters of authorization for the Navy to keep operating under
its 2012 plan, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had
declared a failure to meet requirements for the “least practicable
adverse impact.” (Read
the opinion.)
The agency chose to move ahead because the court had not yet
issued its mandate — a formal direction to a lower court — by the
time the letters of authorization were issued.
“The Navy has a robust and practicable monitoring and mitigation
program that we believe is very effective in reducing the
likelihood of injury,” according to an
explanation from NMFS.
Check out Ramona Young-Grindle’s story about this latest finding
in yesterday’s
Courthouse News, which includes these further comments from
Joel:
“We are astonished to see an LOA issued in the wake of the court
of appeals’ decision that the LFA (low frequency active sonar)
permit is illegal. NMFS is entrusted under federal law to enforce
the Marine Mammal Protection Act for the benefit of marine mammals
— not for the convenience of the Navy. This capitulation to the
Navy’s request to continue ‘business as usual’ under a permit
determined by a federal court to be illegal is outrageous.”
A new controversy is beginning to rumble over the potential
injury to marine mammals from sounds transmitted in the water.
Transient killer whales //
Photo: Kitsap Sun
The National Marine Fisheries Service, also called NOAA
Fisheries, is moving closer to finalizing new “technical guidance”
for assessing temporary and permanent hearing loss in whales and
dolphins caused by human activities — including Navy sonar, seismic
explorations and underwater explosions. The guidance will be used
for approving “take” permits under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
and Endangered Species Act.
Meanwhile, in another development, Navy officials have
acknowledged that Navy personnel made a mistake by using sonar in
Puget Sound without getting approval through the chain of command.
I’ll describe the circumstances of that event in a moment.
The new guidance is focused on hearing loss rather than how the
behavior of marine mammals might change in the presence of loud
noise. Since foraging and social activity are essential among
whales and dolphins, further guidance is expected to assess how
animals may be affected in other ways by noise.
The new guidance does not include mitigation measures for
minimizing the effects of sound. In some cases, the new information
may lead to additional protections for the animals, but in other
cases protections may be reduced, according to information from
NOAA Fisheries.
Currently, regulators use a single noise threshold for cetaceans
(whales and dolphins) and a single threshold for pinnipeds (seals
and sea lions). They do not account for the different hearing
abilities within the two groups or how different types of sound may
be experienced.
The new acoustic threshold levels divide sounds into two groups:
1) impulsive sounds lasting less than a second, such as from
airguns and impact pile drivers, and 2) non-impulsive sounds, in
which the sound pressure rises and declines more gradually, such as
from sonar and vibratory pile drivers. Measures account for both
peak sound pressure and cumulative sound exposure.
Marine mammals also are divided into groups based on their
general range of hearing. There are the low-frequency cetaceans,
including the large baleen whales; the mid-frequency cetaceans,
including the dolphins; and the high-frequency cetaceans, including
the porpoises.
The pinnipeds are divided into two groups. The eared seals,
including sea lions, have a somewhat wider hearing range than true
seals, including harbor seals.
After years of covering the effects of sonar and other noise,
I’m just beginning to understand the complexity of how sound is
measured and the mathematics used to calculate levels at various
locations. At the same time, the guidelines are growing more
complex — as they should to model the real world. New thresholds
account for the duration of sound exposure as well as the
intensity, and they somewhat customize the thresholds to the
animals affected. For additional information, see NOAA’
Fisheries webpage on the guidance.
Despite incorporating new studies into the guidelines, some
acoustics experts are finding serious problems with the methods
used to arrive at the new thresholds, according to Michael Jasny of
the Natural Resources Defense Council. The NRDC, an environmental
group, has a long history of battling NOAA Fisheries and the Navy
over sound exposures for marine mammals.
“This is an extremely technical subject,” Michael said, noting
that he relies on experts who have provided comments on the
methodology. “By and large, NMFS has drunk the Navy’s Kool-Aid with
the exception of low-frequency effects, even though the Navy’s
science has been sharply criticized.”
The statistical analyses leading to the guidelines are so flawed
that they call into question how they could be used to protect
marine mammals, Michael said, pointing to a paper by
Andrew J. Wright of George Mason University.
“These are high stakes we are talking about,” Michael said. “We
are talking about damaging the hearing of endangered species that
depend on their hearing to survive.”
The effects of sound on behavior, which are not described in the
new guidelines, may be just as important, he said, since too much
noise can impede an animal’s ability to catch prey or undertake
social behavior that contribute to the perpetuation of the species.
NOAA Fisheries needs to move forward to raise the level of
protection, not just for injury related to hearing but for other
effects, he said. One can review a series of related studies on
NOAA
Fisheries’ website.
“If these guidelines are not improved, at least to address
fundamental statistical errors, then it is easy to imagine that
they might be legally challenged — and they would deserve to be,”
Michael told me.
Sonar in Puget Sound
As for the Navy’s mistake with sonar, the story goes back to
Jan. 13 of this year, when acoustics expert Scott Veirs of Beam
Reach Marine Science picked up the sound of sonar on hydrophones in
the San Juan Islands. About the same time, Ken Balcomb of the
Center for Whale Research was observing transient killer whales to
the south in Haro Strait.
At first, Scott believed the sonar may have been coming from the
Canadian Navy ship HMCS Ottawa, but Canadian officials were quick
to deny it. His suspicions shifted to the U.S. Navy. He was
disturbed by that prospect since the Navy stopped using sonar
during training exercises in Puget Sound shortly after the USS
Shoup incident in 2003. For a reminder of that incident, check my
story in the
Kitsap Sun, March 17, 2005.
USS Shoup, a Navy destroyer
based in Everett. // U.S. Navy photo
Later, the requirement for approval from the Pacific Fleet
command became an enforceable regulation when it was added to the
letter of authorization (PDF 3.4 mb) issued by NOAA Fisheries.
The letter allows the Navy a specific “take” of marine mammals
during testing and training operations.
Within days of this year’s sonar incident, Scott learned from
observers that two Navy ships had traveled through Haro Strait
about the time that sonar was heard on a nearby hydrophone. Navy
Region Northwest confirmed the presence of Navy vessels.
Later, Scott received an email from Lt. Julianne Holland, deputy
public affairs officer for the Navy’s Third Fleet. She confirmed
that a Navy ship used sonar for about 10 minutes at the time of
Scott’s recording. The ship was identified as a guided missile
destroyer — the same type as the Shoup — but its name has never
been revealed.
“The Navy vessel followed the process to check on the
requirements for this type of use in this location, but a technical
error occurred which resulted in the unit not being made aware of
the requirement to request permission,” according to Lt. Holland’s
email to Scott. “The exercise was very brief in duration, lasting
less than 10 minutes, and the Navy has taken steps to correct the
procedures to ensure this doesn’t occur again at this, or any
other, location.”
Because no marine mammals appeared to be injured, the story kind
of faded away until I recently contacted Lt. Holland to tie up some
loose ends. She ignored my questions about whether disciplinary
actions had been taken against any Navy personnel. “The Navy has
taken appropriate action to address the issue, including reissuance
of specific guidance on the use of sonar in the Pacific Northwest.”
The memo was sent to “all units in the Northwest.”
After I reopened the discussion, Scott did some acoustic
calculations based on figures and graphs he found in a Navy report
on the Shoup incident. He located published estimates of the source
levels and concluded, based on NOAA’s old thresholds, that marine
mammals within 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) would experience noise
levels likely to change their behavior (level B harassment).
Based on the data available, Scott could not conclude whether
the transient killer whales in Haro Strait were within that range,
but he said it was encouraging that Ken Balcomb did not notice any
changes in their behavior. It was also helpful that the sonar was
used for a relatively short time.
“It was a little nerve racking to hear the Navy was making
mistakes,” Scott said, “but we can give them a pat on the back for
doing the exercise during the day” when lookouts on the ship at
least have a chance to spot the animals.
UPDATE, Oct. 2, 2015
The Navy has released its
final environmental impact statement on Northwest testing and
training operations. The document does not consider an option for
avoiding “biologically significant areas” when using sonar or
explosives, as in the legal settlement for operations in California
and Hawaii. It is yet to be seen whether National Marine Fisheries
Service will add new restrictions when issuing permits for
incidental “take” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Here is
the
news release (PDF 548 kb).
—–
A legal agreement approved this week to limit the Navy’s use of
sonar and explosives in “biologically important areas” of Southern
California and Hawaii represents a “sea change” in the Navy’s
protection of marine mammals, says Michael Jasny of the Natural
Resources Defense Council.
USS Shoup, a Navy destroyer
based in Everett.
U.S. Navy photo
Encouraged by the cooperative effort to reach an out-of-court
settlement with the Navy, Michael said the deal could have
implications for future Navy activities in the Northwest and
throughout the country.
The NRDC and seven other environmental groups filed suit over
Navy plans to train with sonar and explosives in Southern
California and Hawaii with no specific geographic limitations. The
environmental groups argued that one good way to reduce injury and
death to marine mammals is to avoid areas where large numbers of
whales and dolphins congregate to feed, socialize and
reproduce.
A federal judge ruled in favor of the environmental groups,
saying “it makes no sense” for the Navy to insist that its training
exercises require the use every square mile of ocean. The ruling
drew the Navy into settlement negotiations.
“This settlement resulted from a constructive good-faith effort
on all sides,” Michael Jasny told me by phone. “That, in itself,
represents a real change in the way the Navy has interacted with
the conservation community. It took litigation to create this
window of opportunity to advance policy to be consistent with
science.”
Humpback whales, an endangered
species.
NOAA photo by Dr. Louis M. Herman
Michael said research by the Navy and other groups has shown how
marine mammals are killed and injured by Navy sonar and explosives.
As the science has evolved, so have the tools to reduce impacts —
such as maps showing where marine mammals hang out, maps that can
help the Navy reduce its harm to many species.
Michael said it has been shameful to watch the National Marine
Fisheries Service — the agency charged with protecting marine
mammals — stand by and issue permits that allow the Navy to do
whatever it wants. Now, he added, the negotiations between the Navy
and environmental groups provide a blueprint for how NMFS can
better live up to its mission of protecting marine mammals.
“Frankly, after years of fighting about these issues, we are
seeing folks on both sides very willing to find solutions,” Michael
said. “Folks on the Navy side have generally been willing to come
to the table. The Navy would not have entered into this agreement
if it believed these measures prevented it from achieving their
military readiness objective.”
For its part, the Navy tends to downplay the significance of
this week’s settlement.
“After a federal court ruled in favor of plaintiffs’ claims, the
Navy faced the real possibility that the court would stop
critically important training and testing,” said Lt. Cmdr. Matt
Knight, spokesman for the Pacific Fleet. “Instead, NMFS and the
Navy negotiated in good faith with the plaintiffs over five months
to reach this agreement.”
In a written statement, Knight said the Navy’s existing
protective measures are “significant” and the agreement increases
restrictions in select areas. Those restrictions will remain in
place until the current permit expires on Dec. 24, 2018.
“It is essential that sailors have realistic training at sea
that fully prepares them to prevail when and where necessary with
equipment that has been thoroughly tested,” Knight said in the
statement. “This settlement agreement preserves critically
important testing and training.”
In an email, I asked the Navy spokesman how the agreement might
translate into special protections in other areas, particularly the
Northwest where we know that Navy ships cross paths with many
different kinds of whales and dolphins. His answer was somewhat
vague.
“The Navy continues to work with NMFS to develop necessary and
appropriate measures to protect marine mammals,” he wrote back.
“The Navy’s current protective measures afford significant
protections to marine mammals. That said, the Navy will not
prejudge what measures will be appropriate to address future
proposed actions.”
The Navy is about to complete an environmental impact statement
that outlines the effects of its testing and training operations in
Puget Sound and along the Washington Coast. In comments on the
draft EIS and proposed permit, environmental groups again called
attention to the need to restrict operations in places where large
numbers of marine mammals can be found. For example, one letter
signed by 18 conservation groups addresses the operational details
in the Northwest Training and Testing Range:
“Despite the vast geographic extent of the Northwest Training
and Testing Study Area, the Navy and NMFS have neither proposed nor
adequately considered mitigation to reduce activities in
biologically important marine mammal habitat. Virtually all of the
mitigation that the Navy and NMFS have proposed for acoustic
impacts boils down to a small safety zone around the sonar vessel
or impulsive source, maintained primarily with visual monitoring by
onboard lookouts, with aid from non-dedicated aircraft (when in the
vicinity) and passive monitoring (through vessels’ generic sonar
systems).
“The NMFS mitigation scheme disregards the best available
science on the ineffectiveness of visual monitoring to prevent
impacts on marine mammals. Indeed, the species perhaps most
vulnerable to sonar-related injuries, beaked whales, are among the
most difficult to detect because of their small size and diving
behavior. It has been estimated that in anything stronger than a
light breeze, only one in fifty beaked whales surfacing in the
direct track line of a ship would be sighted. As the distance
approaches 1 kilometer, that number drops to zero. The agency’s
reliance on visual observation as the mainstay of its mitigation
plan is therefore profoundly insufficient and misplaced.”
Even before this week’s out-of-court settlement, environmental
groups were urging the Navy and NMFS to delay completion of the EIS
until they fairly evaluate new studies about the effects of sonar,
explosives and sound on marine mammals. Measures to protect whales
and other animals should include restrictions within biologically
important areas, they say.
This week’s out-of-court settlement included limitations on the
use of sonar and explosives in the BIAs of Southern California and
Hawaii. For details, check out the
signed order itself (PDF 1.5 mb) with associated maps,
or read the summary in news releases by
NRDC and
Earthjustice. Not all BIAs that have been identified are
getting special protection under the agreement.
Biologically important areas for whales, dolphins and porpoises
include places used for reproduction, feeding and migration, along
with limited areas occupied by small populations of residents. For
a list of identified BIAs, go to NOAA’s Cetacean
and Sound Mapping website. For additional details, see NOAA’s
news
release on the subject.
Michael Jasny said he is encouraged with the Navy’s
acknowledgement that it can adequately conduct testing and training
exercises while abiding by restrictions in specified geographic
areas. He hopes the Navy uses the same logic to protect marine
mammals on the East Coast, including Virginia where seismic
exploration increases the risk; portions of the Gulf of Mexico; the
Gulf of Alaska; the Mariana Islands; and, of course, the Pacific
Northwest.
Zak Smith, an NRDC attorney involved with Northwest sonar
issues, said the settlement in California and Hawaii should
encourage the National Marine Fisheries Service to apply the same
mitigation to testing and training to waters in Washington, Oregon,
California and Alaska.
“I would hope when they come out with a final rule that the
Fisheries Service would have engaged with the kind of management
approach that we did in the settlement,” he said. “The Fisheries
Service and the Navy should sit down and review biologically
significant areas against the Navy’s training and testing
needs.”
Clearly, if you read through the comments, environmental groups
are dismayed about the Navy’s potential harm to marine mammals and
its failure to address the problem:
“The sonar and munitions training contemplated in the Navy’s
NWTT Draft Environmental Impact Statement is extensive and details
extraordinary harm to the Pacific Northwest’s marine resources….
Even using the Navy and NMFS’s analysis, which substantially
understates the potential effects, the activities would cause
nearly 250,000 biologically significant impacts on marine mammals
along the Washington, Oregon, Northern California, and Southern
Alaska coasts each year – more than 1.2 million takes during the
5-year life of a Marine Mammal Protection Act incidental take
permit.”
I’m not sure it is necessary for me to point out that without
significant changes to the Navy’s current plans, we are likely to
see another lawsuit over routine testing and training
operations.
Researchers have listed more than 100 “biologically important
areas” for whales and dolphins living in U.S. waters, all reported
in a special issue of the journal
Aquatic Mammals (PDF 22.9 mb).
The BIAs may provide useful information, but they are not marine
protected areas, and they have no direct regulatory effect, said
Sofie Van Parijs, a researcher at NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries
Science Center and guest editor of the special report.
“They represent the best available information about the times
and areas in which species are likely to be engaged in biologically
important activities,” Van Parijs said in a news
release. “We encourage anyone planning an activity in the ocean
to look at this information and take it into consideration to
understand and reduce adverse impacts on marine species.”
Project managers can use information in the report for offshore
energy development, military testing and training, shipping,
fishing, tourism, and coastal construction. Underwater noise,
generated by most human activities in or on the water, can affect
large areas of whale territory.
Separate articles were written about seven regions of the
country, with three of them in Alaskan waters. The lead author for
the
West Coast regional report (PDF 4.5 mb) is John Calambokidis of
Cascadia Research Collective in Olympia.
The West Coast report identified 29 BIAs covering areas
important for blue whales, gray whales, humpback whales and harbor
porpoises in Washington, Oregon and California. BIAs for blue
whales and humpback whales are “based on high concentration areas
of feeding animals observed from small boat surveys, ship surveys
and opportunistic sources,” the report says.
BIAs for gray whales focus on their migratory corridor from
Mexico to Alaska, along with primary feeding areas for a small
resident population known as the Pacific Coast Feeding Group, or
PCFG. This group, believed to be genetically distinct from the
migratory whales, spend most of their time between Northern
California and Canada’s Vancouver Island.
The BIAs for gray whales in Washington are around the northwest
tip of Washington, including Neah Bay; in Saratoga Passage east of
Whidbey Island; and around Grays Harbor on the coast.
The PCFG could be a key factor in determining whether the Makah
Tribe of Neah Bay is granted a permit to hunt for gray whales in
Washington state waters and limiting potential limits on any hunts
approved. It was interesting that the BIA report came out at almost
the same time as an environmental impact statement on the Makah
whaling proposal.
The impact statement evaluates alternatives for whaling,
including a tribal proposal to hunt up to five whales a year but no
more than 24 whales in six years. Various alternatives include
plans to limit hunting seasons to reduce the risk of killing a
whale from the Pacific Coast Feeding Group and to cease hunting if
a quota of these whales is reached.
“This is the first step in a public process of considering this
request that could eventually lead to authorization for the tribe
to hunt gray whales,” said Donna Darm, NOAA’s associate deputy
regional administrator, in a
press release. “This is the public’s opportunity to look at the
alternatives we’ve developed, and let us know if we have fully and
completely analyzed the impacts.”
For details on this issue, including the EIS and instructions
for commenting on the document, check out NOAA’s website on the
Makah Whale Hunt.
Returning to the study of biologically important areas, no BIAs
were established for endangered fin whales, because of
discrepancies between sightings and expected feeding areas and
uncertainty about their population structure.
The BIA assessment did not cover minke whales, killer whales,
beaked whales and sperm whales but the authors recommend that
future work cover those animals as well as looking into special
breeding areas for all the whales.
A future BIA for killer whales could have some connection to an
ongoing analysis by NOAA, which recently announced that it needs
more information about Southern Resident killer whales before
expanding their critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act.
See
Water Ways from Feb. 24.
In the overall report, BIAs can be established if they have any
of the following characteristics:
Reproductive areas – Areas and times within
which a particular species selectively mates, gives birth or is
found with neonates or calves,
Feeding areas – Areas and times within which
aggregations of a particular species preferentially feed. These
either may be persistent in space and time or associated with
ephemeral features that are less predictable but are located within
a larger area that can be delineated,
Migratory corridors – Areas and times within
which a substantial portion of a species is known to migrate; the
corridor is spatially restricted.
Small and resident population – Areas and
times within which small and resident populations occupy a limited
geographic extent.
