Two dead whales and a mass fish kill on Kaua'i, Ni'ihau – Is the Navy to blame?

From the Hawaii Independent: http://www.thehawaiiindependent.com/hawaii/kauai-hawaii-regions/2009/03/09/fish-fears-on-kaua%E2%80%98i-ni%E2%80%98ihau-%E2%80%93-is-the-navy-to-blame/

Fish fears on Kaua‘i, Ni‘ihau – Is the Navy to blame?

Posted March 9th, 2009 in Kauai, Niihau

by Joan Conrow

It’s been weeks since a massive fish kill was discovered on Niihau, but those living on the privately-owned island remain afraid to eat the reef fish that are a dietary staple.

“For the Niihauans, fishing isn’t a hobby, it’s how they put food on their table,” said Don Heacock, the state aquatic biologist on Kauai. “It’s one of the few places in Hawaii nei where people are still practicing traditional subsistence fishing. And now they’re afraid to eat the fish because they don’t know what happened to them.”

Bruce Robinson, whose family owns the island that lies off Kauai’s western shore, first spotted fish washing ashore on Jan. 17, but did not contact state officials until Feb. 2, when he brought Heacock a sample of about 100 dead fish.

“But very few were fresh and most were seven or more days old,” said Heacock, who selected the freshest fish he could find from the sample and gave it to Thierry M. Work, a federal wildlife disease specialist, for a necropsy.

Work found that the fish had suffered severe trauma to the gills. “The most significant finding was the acute inflammation and swelling of the gills that was suggestive of an acute insult,” according to the necropsy report. “One possibility is some sort of chemical irritant, however, the identity of such a cause cannot be determined based on available information.”

Heacock said he observed hundreds of dead fish on Niihau and many had distended swim bladders, a phenomenon more typically associated with deepwater fish that are brought up to the surface. Fish use their swim bladders to “sense, hear and feel sounds and vibrations underwater,” he said.

“If there was a very large underwater explosion, for example, fish would feel that, and if it was loud enough, it could kill them,” Heacock said. “It could destroy organs and tissue.”

In response to concerns that the fish might have died during an illegal fishing operation using bleach, Work researched the scientific literature and found that “exposure to chlorine causes a distinct lesion, which I did not observe in this particular fish. If I was going with the literature, I would not suspect chlorine,” Work reported.

Heacock said that Robinson also reported a baby humpback had washed ashore on Niihau on Jan. 21. Based on photographs, Heacock said the whale was “very fresh. I could see no noticeable external signs of trauma, but it was laying on one side and I don’t know what was under that.”
A large swell apparently washed the calf away before Heacock and others were able to get to Niihau on Feb. 4, where they collected dead fish and monk seal scat and observed several seals, which appeared healthy.

On Feb. 9, another humpback calf washed ashore on a section of beach between Kekaha and Kauai’s Pacific Missile Range Facility. The whale had several broken ribs, but it’s unknown whether that injury occurred before or after the whale died, Heacock said. Necropsy results are still pending.

“We don’t know if the fish kills and the two baby whales washing ashore are related, but they might be,” Heacock said. “We do not know if there was some kind of sonic experiment or sonar testing going on. We do know there were military activities going on during that period. Several commercial fishermen said they’d seen some large Navy ships, Marine Corps helicopters and even Australian ships around Niihau in that time period.”

Paul Achitoff, an attorney with Earthjustice, said that the Navy’s counsel confirmed that the January 2009 undersea warfare training exercise (USWEX) began at 4 p.m. Jan. 15 and ended at noon Jan. 18.

The Navy did use mid-frequency active sonar during antisubmarine training exercises last year. However, PMRF spokesman Tom Clements refused to confirm whether the Navy had used sonar during this year’s USWEX, or even that military activities had been conducted at all.

“If an anomaly occurred at that time that people are trying to connect to our activities, we’re saying they were no different than the activities that have been done on the range over the past 40 years,” Clement said.

Marine mammal strandings have occurred in Hawaii following sonar exercises, including two pygmy sperm whales that washed up on Maui and Lanai after the April 2007 USWEX and a beaked whale that came ashore on Molokai during one of the exercises last year. In July 2004, a pod of melon-head whales came into Hanalei Bay shortly after the Navy used sonar. The Navy contends there is no connection between such strandings and sonar use, but has never released any necropsy reports on the dead animals.

In a response to an email posing additional questions, Clements wrote: “As far as ‘loud noises underwater,’ as you know, there are many anthropomorphic sources of sound in the water, including recreational and commercial boat traffic that crosses our range. Our activities that can cause sound in the water are managed and quantified, as expressed in the Hawaii Range Complex EIS completed in 2008.

“And regarding the introduction of toxic or noxious chemicals, if your question refers to operations specifically designed to test or train with or against chemical agents, than the answer is ‘no.’ The PMRF range did not have any spills or accidents resulting in unintended releases. Most human activities on and in the water can potentially introduce chemicals into the ocean, from sunscreen to diesel fuel emissions.”

When asked whether any intended chemical spills or releases occurred, and why the Navy declined to comment on the date or nature of its activities, Clements replied in a second email: “I believe I did respond within the context of the question by distinguishing between intended (operations specifically designed) and unintended (spills or accidents). Not commenting specifically on all-inclusive military operations within a given parameter of dates is not unusual.”

Heacock said he recommended that state officials ask the Navy for more information about the activities it was conducting when the fish and whales died. He also suggested testing samples collected from the fish kill for contaminants under the National Water-Quality Assessment program (NAWQA), but state and federal officials balked at the $15,000 price tag.

“I only recommended that because we’re dealing with human health and safety issues,” Heacock said.

“The [state] Department of Health issued warnings not to eat fish if it smelled or tasted strange, but there are many toxins with no odor and no taste. The Niihauans have a right to know what happened to their fish.”

Both Heacock and Work said fish kills and marine mammal strandings should be reported immediately so necropsies can be conducted before the animals begin to decompose.

Navy training expansion in Puget Sound meets resistance

2/4/2009

Navy training expansion draws criticism

By Justin Burnett
Examiner Staff Writer

Photo: Howard Garrett
Ruffles, the oldest known male orca in the world, swims past Fort Casey Lighthouse in October 2008. The U.S. Navy recently released its plans to increase operations in its Northwest Training Range Complex and the news has many people wondering what the impact will be to marine wildlife and the environment.

Justin Burnett / The Whidbey Examiner
Clinton resident John Hurd speaks at a public hearing in Oak Harbor concerning the U.S. Navys plans to expand activities at the Northwest Training Range Complex.

Public comment
Mail comments about the plan by Feb. 11 to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest, Attn: Kimberly Kler, 1101 Tautog Circle, Silverdale WA 98315-1101, or submit comments online at www.nwtrangecomplexeis.com.

As many as 150 orcas are known to inhabit the waters of Puget Sound and the coast of Washington at various times of the year.

Among them is Ruffles. He belongs to a small family group called J-pod. At 57, he is the oldest known male orca in the world, according to Howard Garrett, president of Orca Network, a Whidbey Island based nonprofit group dedicated to raising awareness about whales in the Northwest.

Ruffles’s exact age has been confirmed through photographic evidence. The characteristic ruffled back edge of his dorsal fin not only makes him easy to identify but also earned him his name.

He is usually spotted traveling on the outskirts of the pod. It may be that he is a loner or it may be that his position serves some special function within the group. It’s one of the many mysteries about orcas that scientists have yet to discover, Garrett said.

The U.S. Navy recently released its plan to expand its training operations in Puget Sound and off the coasts of Washington and Oregon. With everything from missile and sonar testing to dumping depleted uranium included in the proposal, some environmentalists are concerned that Ruffles and J-pod may have given up the last of their secrets.

Strategic defense

The Navy’s plan is to expand operations in its Northwest Training Range Complex, an area encompassing about 122,400 nautical miles of air, surface and subsurface space, which has been in operation since World War II.

The main purpose is to prepare for the wars of tomorrow, said Cmdr. Matt Miller, the executive officer at the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, at a public hearing on the plan last week in Oak Harbor.

“Realistic training insures U.S. Navy personnel maintain the highest level of readiness in capability and is the single greatest asset the military has in preparing and protecting American service men and women to defend the nation,” he said.

The Navy has spent the past year preparing an environmental impact statement, or EIS, which is a requirement of the National Environment Policy Act. According to the document, which contains more than 1,000 pages, current training exercises in the complex include everything from anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine warfare to explosive ordnance disposal.

Besides a no-action option, the EIS outlines two main alternatives. The first calls for an increase in current training activities as well as testing new equipment such as new aircraft, guided missile submarines and unmanned aerial systems.

Alternative 2, the Navy’s preferred option, includes all the changes outlined in alternative one but proposes increasing current training levels even more and enhancing the range by using new air and sea surface targets, and developing an underwater training minefield.

According to the EIS, Alternative 2 would allow the Navy to increase the number of missiles it fires by 470 percent, from 10 per year to 57 per year. The number of bombs dropped per year would increase 33 percent, from 108 to 144, and the number of shells fired would increase 106 percent, from 25,856 to 53,343.

That includes 20 mm cannon shells made from depleted uranium. Alternative 2 also would roughly double the number of sorties flown per year, from 2,499 to 4,998.

While most of these exercises would take place in coastal waters, some explosives testing is currently allowed within Puget Sound. Under Alternative 2, such activities would continue to be allowed.

Impact debated

Despite the Navy’s proposals, the EIS concludes there will be no significant effect on marine life from any of the offered alternatives.

The claim has drawn significant skepticism from a number of local residents. Of the 30 people who attended the public hearing in Oak Harbor, not a single person voiced support for the Navy’s plans. Instead, one attendee after another said the study’s conclusions are hard to swallow – literally.

“How much depleted uranium do you want to eat in your fish?” asked Zimmer Morris, a South Whidbey teacher.

While the study acknowledges that some species listed under the Endangered Species Act – certain salmonid species, leatherback turtles, migratory mammals and birds – could be affected, it would not be enough to have lasting effects.

The EIS is also proposing mitigation measures to help reduce potential impacts. With marine mammals, such as whales, the plan is to use passive sonar and keep at least three “well-trained” lookouts on duty 24 hours a day. When the animals are present, and they come within 200 yards, certain training exercises would be halted until the animals move out of the area.

But several people at the hearing expressed their doubt about the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. The Orca Network’s Garrett, for example, said he has been involved in observing and researching whales since 1981 and is aware of the difficulties of listening for “faint acoustic signals” that would indicate the presence of orcas.

“Recognition is highly problematic – even for experienced personnel,” Garrett said.

Another common concern among speakers was a feeling of being blindsided by the Navy’s plans. Although the EIS has been in the works for more than a year, Clinton resident Jerry Hurd said he didn’t learn about the proposal until January, shortly after the public comment period started Dec. 29. The comment period closes Feb. 11.

He also complained that he found it difficult to submit comments on the plan. The document was available at the Oak Harbor library, but not at any of the other Island libraries. And he said the Navy’s Web site, where the plan could be viewed online, wasn’t working for several days during the comment period.

“I think it would be appropriate there be an extension” of the public comment period, he said.

People from environmental organizations such as Whidbey Environmental Action Network, Whidbey Audubon Society and People for Puget Sound reported they also hadn’t learned about the plan until January.

“We just found out about this,” said Mike Sato, spokesman for People for Puget Sound.

Garrett said he also is hoping for an extension to the public comment period. Washington residents need more time to comment on the proposal, and a delay could improve the chance that the Navy’s plan will be noticed by Obama administration officials in Washington D.C., he said.

“The more time we can buy, the better,” he said.

Source: http://www.whidbeyexaminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=2186&TM=66263.9

Proposed Navy range in Florida threatens whales

Source: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-whales2208dec22,0,6938912.story

Published on Monday, December 22, 2008

Would Hunt for Subs Kill Whales?
by Ludmilla Lelis
Orlando Sentinel
The U.S. Navy wants to teach sailors how to hunt submarines off the coast of Jacksonville, but it’s trying to prove its proposed undersea-warfare-training range won’t hurt the world’s most endangered whale.

Concern about harm to the North Atlantic right whale from military sonar, vessels and torpedoes might pose a stumbling block to the proposed $100 million training range, which could be built near the whale’s protected calving area.

The U.S. Navy announced earlier this year that it wants to build the undersea-warfare-training range in a 662-square-mile zone nearly 58 miles off Jacksonville. The proximity to Mayport Naval Station, water depths and the climate make it an ideal location over three alternate sites, according to a draft Navy environmental report.

The military complex would feature a network of 300 sonar sensors buried in the ocean floor that would monitor the fighting scenarios among submarines, ships and helicopters. Nonexplosive torpedoes and sonar would be used during 470 military exercises each year.

Navy officials say the range will be key to preparing its sailors for deployment in shallower waters, such as the Arabian or South China seas, against elusive, extremely quiet diesel submarines. But environmentalists fear whales could die from being run over by ships or becoming disoriented from the sonar.

“Trying to find a submarine is very difficult. The type of training this range will provide is critical,” said retired Navy Cmdr. Jene Nissen, project manager for the range proposal. “This training will enhance their readiness and ensure they will be the most prepared when they are deployed overseas in harm’s way.”

Federal reviews of the project are under way. The Navy analyzed how the range could affect endangered marine wildlife and concluded it wouldn’t be significantly harmed.

“Under federal law, environmental issues have to be placed on par with other national interests, including economic concerns and military training,” said Michelle B. Nowlin, supervising attorney for the Environmental Law and Policy Clinic at the Duke University School of Law. “The courts have been very clear there must be a balance of those interests.”

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to lift some restrictions on anti-submarine training off the California coast, allowing the exercises to continue while their environmental effects are reviewed.

Seen off Volusia, Brevard

Off the East Coast, the right whales’ pregnant females migrate south to southern Georgia and northern Florida to birth and nurse calves. The pairs sometimes can be seen from Volusia and Brevard beaches.

Federal officials have protected the right whale by prohibiting vessels from approaching the whales too closely. Several teams of whale watchers fly over the ocean, and a network of beachfront volunteers survey from land to spot whales and warn boaters.

This year, the National Marine Fisheries Service instituted a 10-knot speed limit for vessels in the habitat zone. Ship strikes kill at least one or two right whales a year. Scientists say the species can’t sustain that kind of death toll. Federal reports say the death of even one pregnant female could risk the species’ survival.

That’s why more than a dozen conservation groups have opposed a permanent range for the sonar-based warfare training near the calving grounds. Military sonar, broadcasting an active midfrequency signal at 235 decibels, has a lethal history, with a dozen cases worldwide of mass whale and dolphin strandings and evidence of damage to their hearing after underwater exercises.

But there’s little research on how these large whales might be disturbed by the sound, whether it causes them to avoid feeding areas or disrupts other normal behavior, said Brandon Southall, who runs the ocean-acoustics program for the National Marine Fisheries Services. Southall said the actual effects depend on many factors, including the distance between the sonar source and the animal, water conditions, multiple sources of sound, the duration of the sonar and whether animals are in an area where they can’t easily move away.

“The potential for direct injury in terms of damaging hearing happens when the whales are really close to the source, and the one advantage of right whales is that they’re fairly easy to see,” Southall said.

And there isn’t enough information on how often the whales at the calving grounds might frequent the proposed range. Aerial surveys don’t cover the training area. Nissen said the Navy hopes to fill that gap with consultant studies on how whales, and other endangered animals, use the range.

Navy vows protections

The Navy plans to set up lookouts and monitor the whales. Officials also promise to lower or shut down active sonar as whales get close.

According to the Navy’s environmental analysis, the whales won’t suffer hearing damage. But the study estimated there might be as many as 48 times a year when migrating right whales will be near military exercises and could hear enough sonar to affect their behavior.

What worries conservation groups is how military sonar could disrupt the mothers and newborns.

“These relationships are so delicate that it wouldn’t take much for a mother and calf to be separated,” said Zak Smith, attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “A temporary hearing loss or any kind of disruption could potentially lead to the calf’s death.”

Conservation groups have asked for changes, but Nissen said limitations could hamper deployments.

The National Marine Fisheries Service will analyze the species risk during the next few months. The public will have a chance to comment.

Nissen said final environmental reports and other federal reviews could be done by May. The range could be in operation as early as 2013.

Tell it to the Whales

The Los Angeles Times printed this thoughtful and informative editorial that criticized the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down restrictions imposed by a Federal judge on the Navy’s use of sonar in training exercises in California waters.

Tell it to the whales

The Supreme Court was wrong to eliminate some of the Navy’s precautions that help protect marine life.

November 15, 2008

National security is the most crucial responsibility of the federal government, taking precedence over most of its other functions — including the protection of wildlife and the environment. So when a narrow majority of the Supreme Court ruled this week that military readiness is more important than the safety of whales and other marine life, many people, especially on the right, cheered.

But the case of Winter vs. the Natural Resources Defense Council isn’t quite that simple.

At issue were 14 training exercises off the Southern California coast being conducted by the Navy, which was sued after it refused to prepare an environmental impact study. The reason isn’t hard to guess: Evidence is accumulating that the high-powered sonar used in these exercises causes hearing loss, panic and death among whales and other marine mammals, and the Navy didn’t want to have to take steps to minimize the damage. After a few legal twists, a U.S. district judge issued an injunction ordering the Navy to take six precautions anyway.

Even though the Navy has already performed 13 of the 14 exercises using the precautions, with no apparent effect on sailors’ readiness and few disruptions, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court bought the Navy’s argument that the restrictions pose a threat to national security. So the two strongest precautions — ordering the Navy to turn off the sonar when a marine mammal is spotted within 1.25 miles of a ship, and during certain atmospheric conditions that allow the sound to carry farther — were eliminated. The Navy still has to abide by the other four when it conducts its final exercise in December.

Aside from the faulty logic of the majority, which blithely ignored the Navy’s record of successfully conducting exercises in Hawaii and off the Atlantic coast using precautions very similar to those ordered in California, it’s questionable whether the ruling will have much effect because it was narrowly tailored to this particular case. It doesn’t get the Navy off the hook for performing environmental studies preceding future exercises — although, if the Navy or other branches of the military decide to ignore such regulations again, it might make it harder for judges to issue injunctions to restrict their activities. Courts traditionally give broad deference to the military when it claims that national security is at stake, and the Supreme Court seems to have made that deference a little broader.

Still, the zeal with which the military wields such powers depends on who’s sitting in the commander-in-chief’s chair. We trust President-elect Barack Obama to take a wiser course when balancing biological diversity against a few inconveniences for the Navy.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-sonar15-2008nov15,0,7572460.story

 OpenCUNY » login | join | terms | activity 

 Supported by the CUNY Doctoral Students Council.  

OpenCUNY.ORGLike @OpenCUNYLike OpenCUNY

false