U.S. Navy Training and Testing ProgramFederal Consistency

California Coastal CommissionAgenda Item #CD-008-13

March 8, 2013The Bahia Resort Hotel

San Diego, CA

© Brandon Cole

Underwater detonations:- More than 1400 detonations more powerful than 7.5 lb. charge involved in Silver Strand dolphin deaths

- 250 with net explosive charge greater than 500 lbs.- 52,500 underwater detonations in total

Active sonar use: - 15,000 hours of hull-mounted, mid-frequency sonar

- More than 15,000 hours of other high-intensity mid-frequency systems

- Deployment of more than 20,000 active sonobuoys

Annual Navy activity on the Southern California Range Complex

Sources: Navy, NMFS

Silver Strand dolphin mortalities using timed delay explosive

Source: Navy

Sources: Fernandez et al. 2005; Jepson et al. 2003; V. Martin; ULPGC Dep’t Vet. Med.

“Bends”-like pathologies seen in sonar-exposed beaked whales

Subarachnoid hemorrhaging

Emboli in liver and other organ tissue

Injury to acoustic fats

Injuries occur independent of any stranding event.

Sources: Fernandez et al. 2005; Jepson et al. 2003; V. Martin; ULPGC Dep’t Vet. Med.

“Bends”-like pathologies seen in sonar-exposed beaked whales

Subarachnoid hemorrhaging

Emboli in liver and other organ tissue

Injury to acoustic fats

Injuries occur independent of any stranding event.

Navy estimate: 130 mortalities over 5 years

Source: Lucke et al. 2009

New studies show hearing loss at lower exposure levels than previously believed

Source: Lucke et al. 2009

New studies show hearing loss at lower exposure levels than previously believed

Navy estimate: 1,600 cases of permanent hearing loss

Source: Melcon et al. 2012

- Multi-year Scripps study shows that MF sonar consistently suppresses foraging calls (“D” calls)- Effects significant at very low exposure levels- Study: even a single Navy sonar vessel could impact blue whales “over a substantial portion of the Southern California Bight”

Navy sonar consistently suppresses blue whale foraging calls off Southern California

Source: Melcon et al. 2012

- Multi-year Scripps study shows that MF sonar consistently suppresses foraging calls (“D” calls)- Effects significant at very low exposure levels- Study: even a single Navy sonar vessel could impact blue whales “over a substantial portion of the Southern California Bight”

Navy sonar consistently suppresses blue whale foraging calls off Southern California

Navy estimate: 8.8 million significant disruptions of biologically essential

activity

Navy estimates of harm from SoCal training and testing

These numbers take the Navy’s proposed mitigation into account

The Navy identifies a mere 10 species as present within the coastal zone.

The Navy fails to include any of the endangered baleen whales or beaked whales in direct contradiction to widespread recognition that these species, which occur within the exercise area, also occur within 3nm of shore.

A full analysis – that includes all species in the coastal zone – is required before the Commission can determine if the Navy’s actions are consistent with the Coastal Act.

The Navy’s Federal Consistency Determination application is technically deficient in scope.

Photo Credit: NOAA

California Coastal Zone Marine Mammal Species

Coastal Marine Mammals Identified by the Navy (10)

Coastal Marine Mammals Excluded from the Navy's Analysis (24)

11. Blue Whales12. Fin Whale13. North Pacific right whale14. Humpback whale15. Sperm Whale16. Pygmy sperm whale17. Dwarf sperm whale18. Baird’s beaked whale19. Cuvier’s beaked whale20. Blainville’s beaked whale21. Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale22. Perrin’s beaked whale23. Hubbs’ beaked whale24. Pygmy beaked whale25. Killer whale26. Short-finned pilot whale27. Common Bryde’s whale28. Common minke whale29. Short beaked common dolphin30. Northern right whale dolphin31. Dall’s porpoise32. Harbor porpoise33. Steller sea lion34. Northern fur seal

1. Gray whale2. Bottlenose dolphin3. Long beaked common dolphin4. Risso’s dolphin5. Pacific white-sided dolphin6. Harbor seal7. Northern elephant seal8. California sea lion9. Guadalupe fur seal10. Southern sea otter

The Navy’s Federal Consistency Determination application applies the wrong standard.

The Navy is not maintaining, enhancing, or restoring marine species by killing 130 mammals, permanently injuring more than 1,600 mammals, and temporarily injuring millions of dolphins, seals, sea lions, otters, and whales.

A full analysis – that employs the proper standard– is required before the Commission can determine if the Navy’s actions are consistent with the Coastal Act.

The California Coastal Act mandates that marine resources “shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored.” (Coastal Act § 30230)

The Navy asserts that its proposed action is consistent with this mandate because it “has determined that there are no population-level impacts on any species” as a result of its actions.

V.

The Navy fails to analyze population level impacts.

The Navy’s impact analysis concludes summarily that enumerated impacts will not harm any species at a population level. The Navy, however, failed to analyze impacts against populations. For example, the Navy states that gray whales will be taken more than 60,000 times over five years and then concludes that there will be no individual or population long-term consequences to gray whales. The entire population of gray whales is only approximately 20,000 whales.

In the EIR prepared for PG&E’s proposed Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project, there was a quantitative analysis of population impacts based on PG&E’s modeled take. The Navy conducts no such analysis here.

A complete application – that includes a population level analysis– is required before the Commission can determine if the Navy’s actions are consistent with the Coastal Act.

Photo Credit: NOAA

The Navy’s mitigation is limited to ship-based lookouts.

The Navy fails to match its dramatic increase in harm to marine mammals with an increased effort to mitigate that harm during sonar and munitions training and testing exercises.

Instead, the Navy has proposed the same meager protective measures – visually monitoring a narrow area around its vessels – that the courts, the scientific community, and the Coastal Commission itself have repeatedly found inadequate.

One study found that using lookouts the Navy has an only 1 in 50 chance of detecting a beaked whale within one kilometer of its sonar vessel.

We agree with the Coastal Commission staff — the need for additional mitigation measures is “even more compelling” now than in the past.

Photo Credit: SURTASS LFA vessel (visual and passive acoustic monitoring) c/o Navy

NRDC & CCPN v. Staff ReportMitigation

NRDC & CCPN Proposed Mitigation

Staff Report Proposed Mitigation

Recommendation

Safety zones: Navy to cease sonar when marine mammal is detected within 2,000 yards of sonar source

Safety zones: Navy to cease sonar when marine mammal is detected within 2 km of sonar dome

Support the Staff Report

Biologically Important Habitat:1. Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary2. State Marine Reserves3. Blue Whale High Concentration Areas

(June-Nov.)4. Fin Whale High Concentration Areas

(June-Nov.)5. Beaked Whale High Concentration

Areas6. 1km from shore

Biologically Significant Areas:1. Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary2. State and Federal Marine Protected

Areas3. Blue Whale High Concentration

Areas (June-Nov.)4. Fin Whale High Concentration Areas

(June-Nov.)5. Grey Whale Migration Corridors6. 1km from shore7. Any future NMFS designated

Biologically Important Area

Support the Staff Report AND include 1. Beaked Whale High

Concentration Areas

Night and Low Visibility: Navy will avoid active sonar, underwater detonations, and gunnery exercises at night and in low visibility. In addition, all exercises involving detonations exceeding 20lbs will take place during the day.

Night and Low Visibility: Navy will avoid active sonar, underwater detonations, and gunnery exercises at night and in low visibility. In addition, all exercises involving detonations exceeding 20lbs will take place during the day.

Support the Staff Report

NRDC & CCPN v. Staff Report(Cont.)

NRDC Proposed Mitigation Staff Report Proposed Mitigation

Recommendation

Vessel Speed: From June through November, all surface vessels will maintain speed not greater than 10 knots while transiting the Santa Barbara Channel (June to Nov.) and the blue and fin whale biologically significant areas.

Vessel Speed: From June through November, all surface vessels will maintain speed not greater than 10 knots while transiting the Santa Barbara Channel (June to Nov.) and the blue and fin whale biologically significant areas.

Support the Staff Report

Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM): When engaged in passive acoustic sonar operations, shall monitor for marine mammal vocalizations and report detections. All activities in the SOAR shall monitor for marine mammals.

Include monitoring and reporting requirements when engaged in passive acoustic sonar operations and in the SOAR.

Passive Acoustic Detection of Beaked Whales: prior to active sonar operations, passive sonar will report detection of any beaked whale vocalizations and sonar will not resume until beaked whale has left area or vessel has moved more than 4,000 yrds.

Include pre-sonar exercise monitoring for beaked whales.

Monitoring effort: Navy will comply with monitoring measures set forth in NMFS final rule 2009, with respect to passive acoustic, aerial, and vessel-based monitoring.

Ensure Navy continues to comply with monitoring effort established in 2009.

Identified Biologically Important Areas including MPAs

What’s at Stake

The Commission’s Choices• Concur without Additional Conditions

- Navy’s Request

• Concur with Additional Conditions- Staff’s Recommendation

• Object- Our Recommendation

Conditional Concurrence Flawed

• The Navy has refused to implement the mitigations in two prior conditional concurrences approved by the

Commission.

• The Navy has no intention of implementing the mitigations that staff has

recommended this time.

FINAL RECOMMENDATION

• Object. The Navy’s Consistency application is technically deficient and substantively unacceptable. The application is not consistent with the Coastal Act.

• Create a record with specific mitigation.Detail the procedural deficiencies and the particular mitigation measures – including time and area closures for species – that the Commission would expect to see included in a future federal consistency application.

• Emphasize that the Commission is willing to work with the Navy to achieve the goal of maintaining, enhancing, and, where feasible, restoring California marine species.

Protect CA’s Coastal Resources