1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

J. MARTIN WAGNER (Cal. Bar No. 190049)
SARAH H. BURT (Cal. Bar No. 250378)
Earthjustice
50 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 217-2000
Fax: (415) 217-2040
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Center for Biological Diversity, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Japan Environmental
Lawyers Federation, Save The Dugong Foundation, Anna Shimabukuro, Takuma
Higashionna, and Yoshikazu Makishi

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

_____________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,)v.
))
CHUCK HAGEL, in his official capacity as )the Secretary of Defense; and U.S. Department )of Defense,))
Defendants.
)_____________________________________CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY;
TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATIONNETWORK; JAPAN ENVIRONMENTALLAWYERS FEDERATION; SAVE THE
DUGONG FOUNDATION; ANNASHIMABUKURO1; TAKUMAHIGASHIONNA; and YOSHIKAZUMAKISHI,

Civil Action No. C-03-4350 (MHP)
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVERELIEF(National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C.
§§ 470 et seq.)

25
26
27
28

1

In previous proceedings, Ms. Shimabukuro was identified as Anna Koshiishi. Since the lastproceeding in this case, she has married and changed her family name from Koshiishi to
Shimabukuro.

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)-1-

INTRODUCTION

1

1.

2

Plaintiffs, Japanese and American environmental groups and Japanese citizens

3living near existing and proposed U.S. military bases in Okinawa, Japan, challenge the4

Department  of  Defense’s  (DoD)  activities  related  to  the  relocation  of  portions  of  the  U.S.  Marine

5

Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa, Japan, to the proposed Futenma Relocation Facility

6(FRF). The FRF is an airbase facility proposed to be built partially at Camp Schwab on Cape

7

Henoko and extending approximately 1800 meters into the adjacent waters of Henoko and Oura

8

Bays. This plan would destroy the most important remaining habitat of the Okinawa dugong, a9genetically isolated and unique population of dugong (a marine mammal) and a protected10

cultural property under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). DoD’s  involvement  in  11

the relocation project violates the NHPA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq., and the Administrative

12

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.
2.

13

Specifically, Plaintiffs renew their assertion that DoD has failed to  “take  into  14account the effect”  of  the  FRF  project  on  the  Okinawa  dugong “for  purposes  of  avoiding  or  15

mitigating any adverse effects,” as required by section 402 of the NHPA. 16 U.S.C. § 470a-2.

16Previously in this case, this Court ruled that DoD failed to comply with section 402 as it relates

17

to the Okinawa dugong and the FRF proposal, and ordered DoD to comply with that obligation.

18

Okinawa Dugong v. Gates, 543 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1112 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (hereinafter 2008

19

Order), Dkt. No. 119, at 45.2 On April 16, 2014, DoD notified this Court that it had issued “U.S.  

20

Marine Corps Recommended Findings under section  402  of  the  [NHPA]”  and  had  thereby  21“completed  the  evaluation  required  by  the  Court’s  January  28,  2008  Order.” Defendants’  Notice  22of Completing NHPA Section 402 Findings, Dkt. No. 151. Plaintiffs now challenge these23

Findings  and  DoD’s  procedure  for  generating them as inadequate to meet the requirements of

24

NHPA section 402 and this Court’s  2008  Order.

25
26
27
28

2

In 2008, the Court held this case in abeyance, Dkt. No. 119 at 45, and in 2012 ordered the fileadministratively closed and granted the parties leave to reopen proceedings by letter, without
necessity of a motion, Order Re Status, Dkt. No. 147 at 5, Feb. 2, 2012.

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)-2-

JURISDICTION

1

3.

2
3

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action arises

under the laws of the United States.
4.

4

An actual controversy exists between the parties within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.

5§ 2201(a). This Court may grant declaratory relief and additional relief, including an injunction,

6

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 5 U.S.C. §§ 705, 706.
5.

7

DoD’s  failure  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  NHPA,  16  U.S.C.  §  470a-2,

8

is arbitrary, capricious, and without observance of procedures required by law pursuant to the9

APA, and is thus subject to judicial review. 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.
VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

10

6.

11

Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Plaintiff Turtle

12

Island Restoration Network (Turtle Island) resides in this judicial district. Turtle Island is13

incorporated and has its principal place of business in Marin County. Additionally, Plaintiff

14

Center for Biological Diversity is incorporated in California and maintains an office in this15

judicial district.

16

7.

This case was assigned to the Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel, who has since

17

retired. Assignment to either the Oakland Division or the San Francisco Division of this Court is

18

proper under Civil Local Rule 3-2 (c)-(d) because Plaintiffs maintain offices in San Francisco

19

and Marin Counties.
PARTIES

20

8.

21

Plaintiff3 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (the Center) is a non-profit

22

environmental organization dedicated to protecting endangered species and wild places and23

environmental health through science, policy, education, and environmental law. The Center is24

actively involved in species and habitat protection issues throughout the United States and

25
26
27
28

3

This Court found that each of the plaintiffs listed herein has standing to challenge  DoD’s  failure  to comply with the NHPA regarding its activities related to the FRF. 2008 Order, Dkt. No. 119,at 19.

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)

-3-

1

abroad. The Center has more than 50,000 members and over 700,000 online activists. Center2

members, including some who reside in Japan, regularly visit Okinawa to view the Okinawa

3

dugong and its imperiled habitat. These members maintain a strong educational, cultural,4scientific, and recreational interest in the Okinawa dugong.

59.

Plaintiff TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION NETWORK (“Turtle  Island”)  is  a  6

non-profit corporation committed to the study, protection, enhancement, conservation, and7

preservation  of  the  world’s  marine  and  terrestrial  ecosystems  and  the  wildlife  that  inhabit  the  8oceans, including marine mammals such as the Okinawa dugong. Turtle Island has

9approximately 7,200 members throughout the world, including members in the United States and

10

Japan, research biologists, ecological and cultural tour operators, and professional photographers11and videographers, all of whom rely on healthy populations of marine mammals for personal

12

pleasure and for the conduct of their businesses, and more than 138,000 online activists and13

supporters who follow and take action on its campaigns. Turtle Island members and staff

14

regularly visit and use the marine ecosystems of the world and anticipate visiting Okinawa

15

dugong habitat in the future for observation, research, aesthetic and cultural enjoyment, and for16

other recreational, scientific, cultural and educational activities that require the continued

17

existence of the Okinawa dugong.

18

10.

Plaintiff JAPAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAWYERS FEDERATION (JELF) is the19

only non-profit, non-governmental  lawyers’  organization  in  Japan  dedicated  to  the  protection  of  20Japan’s  environment  and  Japan’s  natural  and  cultural  monuments.    JELF was founded in 1996 in

21

Tokyo and currently has its office in Nagoya, Japan. JELF comprises approximately 540

22members including 430 attorneys and academics. The members research, litigate, and lobby for23

cultural and wildlife preservation and prevention of toxic contamination throughout Japan.

24

11.

Plaintiff SAVE THE DUGONG FOUNDATION (SDF) is a non-profit

25

organization based in Okinawa, Japan, formed by Okinawa locals and their supporters in 1999.

26

Currently, SDF has about 19 members.    SDF’s  main  goal  is  to  protect the Okinawa dugong and27

its habitat. To achieve this aim, members regularly conduct joint research with scientists and28

local residents and study the Okinawa dugong and its habitat. In the course of this research, andFIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)

-4-

1

as part of their daily lives, members routinely visit Okinawa dugong habitat to study the2

Okinawa dugong. To advocate the importance of conserving dugongs, SDF has also participated3in the general meeting of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural

4

Resources (IUCN), an international environmental organization comprising members from over5

140 countries. SDF has also organized numerous symposia on dugong conservation and local

6

community empowerment.

7

12.

Plaintiff ANNA SHIMABUKURO grew up in Nago City, approximately seven8

miles from the site of the proposed FRF. She still lives in Nago City. Since 1999, Ms.

9Shimabukuro has professionally led regular eco-tours to Okinawa dugong habitat, on which she

10depends for her livelihood and for cultural, aesthetic, and recreational enjoyment. Ms.

11

Shimabukuro plans to continue visiting and earning a living in this habitat for the duration of her

12career, as many of her clients visit Okinawa seeking to experience the cultural and natural history

13of the Okinawa dugong first-hand.

14

13.

Plaintiff TAKUMA HIGASHIONNA was born, raised, and has lived most of his

15life in Sedake, Okinawa, close to the Okinawa dugong habitat off the coast of Henoko that is

16

threatened by the FRF proposal. For most of his life, he has frequented dugong habitat for17

recreation, cultural enjoyment, and seafood harvest. Since 1998, he has also guided tours,

18

including up-close snorkeling and scuba diving, in that habitat. He leads these tours

19

approximately twice a week. He thus depends on the preservation of Okinawa dugong habitat20

not only for personal cultural, aesthetic, biological, and subsistence reasons, but also for his

21

livelihood. Many of his clients visit Okinawa seeking to experience the historic and cultural

22

value of the Okinawa dugong first-hand. Mr. Higashionna has been a Nago City Assembly23

representative since 2008. Conservation of the dugong or establishment of a dugong protected

24area, and community development based upon conservation of nature were two issues upon25

which he based his election campaign.

26

14.

Plaintiff YOSHIKAZU MAKISHI has visited dugong habitat in Henoko Bay

27

since 1997 for research, cultural interest and enjoyment, and recreation. He is one of the28

founders of Plaintiff SDF. Mr. Makishi has a long-standing educational, cultural, historic,

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)

-5-

1

scientific, and recreational interest in the survival and protection of the Okinawa dugong and its

2

habitat. He observes the Okinawa dugong’s  native  habitat on a regular and continuing basis and3

intends to continue to do so in the near future.

4

15.

Each  Plaintiff’s  cultural,  scientific,  recreational,  conservation,  and  aesthetic  5interests in the Okinawa dugong and its habitat are harmed by DoD’s  failure to take into account6

the effect of its activities related to the proposed FRF on the Okinawa dugong and its habitat for

7

purposes of avoiding or mitigating any adverse effects on the Okinawa dugong, as required by

8the  NHPA.    Specifically,  DoD’s  failure  to  consult with Plaintiffs and other interested parties, to9include the public, to consider all potential adverse effects on the Okinawa dugong, and to take10

steps to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects, will result in harm to the Okinawa dugong and to

11

Plaintiffs’  interests  in  it. Therefore,  Plaintiffs’ members and staff have been, are being, and,

12

unless the relief requested is granted, will continue to be adversely affected and injured by

13

DoD’s  failure  to  comply  with  the  NHPA.

14

16.

Due  to  DoD’s  failure  to comply with the NHPA, Plaintiffs and their members and15

staff have also suffered procedural and informational harms. Plaintiffs’ members and staff rely

16

on DoD to comply with the requirements of the NHPA to protect cultural properties like the17

Okinawa dugong from  the  adverse  effects  of  DoD’s  undertakings  outside  the  United  18States. Plaintiffs’  members  and  staff  also  rely  on  DoD  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  19

NHPA to study the adverse effects of its undertakings and to engage in a consultative process

20with the public and affected parties, including Plaintiffs, as required by the statute. Plaintiffs’  21members and staff rely on these studies and consultations to facilitate their cultural preservation

22

missions and as important sources of information from which informed decisions regarding the23

management of fragile and threatened cultural properties can be made. Without the proper

24

preparation of these studies and consultations, DoD, Plaintiffs, and the public at large are denied

25

essential information regarding the management of precious cultural properties like the Okinawa

26

dugong. These informational and procedural harms can only be remedied if DoD is made to27comply with the requirements of the NHPA. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

28

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)

-6-

1

17.

Defendant DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE is responsible for: preparation,

2

approval, and delivery of the minimum operating requirements for the FRF, as set forth in, inter3

alia,  the  “United States-Japan  Roadmap  for  Realignment  Implementation” as amended; control

4of entry into U.S. military bases in Okinawa, including Camp Schwab and the adjacent U.S.-

5

controlled water area for purposes of the FRF project; and other activities related to the FRF,

6

including ensuring compliance with the requirements of the NHPA.

7
8

18.

Defendant CHUCK HAGEL is the Secretary of Defense and is sued in his official

capacity.
BACKGROUND

9
10
11

Futenma Relocation and the FRF
19.

Since 1945, the United States has maintained military bases on Okinawa. In

12November 1995, the United States and the Government of Japan formed the bilateral Special

13

Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) “to reduce the burden [of U.S. military presence] on the14people of Okinawa.” Ikeda, Kyuma, Perry, & Mondale, SACO Final Report,  U.S.  Dep’t  of  State  15

Archive (Dec. 2, 1996), http://1997-2001.state.gov/www/regions/eap/japan/rpt-

16

saco_final_961202.html. On December 2, 1996, SACO issued a Final Report recommending the17

return of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Japan after replacement facilities were18

constructed and operational. On September 29, 1997, DoD presented its “Operational  19Requirements and Concept of Operations for MCAS Futenma Relocation, Okinawa, Japan”  20(1997 OR) to the Government of Japan. The 1997 OR detailed the design specifications that,21

according to DoD, must be followed by the Government of Japan to facilitate the Futenma

22

relocation.

23

20.

On May 2, 2006, the Government of Japan and DoD issued a joint statement (the24Roadmap) announcing final agreement on the plan for the FRF, which would relocate the facility

25

on Cape Henoko, extending the runways with landfill more than a mile into the waters and26

seagrass beds of Oura and Henoko Bays. The joint statement included a map of the proposed

27

runway placement, showing that the proposed Cape Henoko runways would fill in areas of28

Henoko Bay currently rich in seagrass beds critical for dugong survival.

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)

-7-

21.

1

The Government of Japan is responsible for funding and completing the2construction of the FRF. Through the design specifications,  DoD’s  continued  insistence that a3

replacement facility conforming to the minimum requirements be completed prior to the return4of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma  to  Japanese  control,  DoD’s  negotiations  with  the5

Government of Japan, and other activities, DoD exercises direct or indirect control over the

6

location, operation, size, and environmental impact of the Cape Henoko Facility. Among others,

7

actions demonstrating DoD control include funding the relocation, approving individual

8

implementation decisions, and committing to fund on-going maintenance of the proposed FRF.
22.

9
10

for the FRF in 2009, and a final EIS in 2012.
23.

11
12

In December 2013, Okinawa governor Hirokazu Nakaima approved the offshore

landfill permit required for construction of the FRF.
24.

13
14

The Government of Japan released a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)

Construction of the FRF requires DoD work entry permits for access to Camp

Schwab and to adjacent U.S.-controlled waters.
25.

15

On July 2, 2014, Okinawan media reported that the Okinawa Defense Bureau had

16

begun demolishing buildings within the proposed FRF runway footprint at Camp Schwab, a first17

step in constructing the FRF project. See Defense Bureau Starts Removing Buildings Within

18

Camp Schwab in Henoko to Build a New Air Base, Ryukyu Shimpo (July 2, 2014),

19

http://english.ryukyushimpo.jp/2014/07/09/14546/. This development indicates that DoD has

20already issued work entry permits to Camp Schwab for construction of the FRF project.
26.

21

According to local media reports, the Okinawa Defense Bureau plans to carry out

22undersea drilling in late July 2014, and to begin reclamation of the nearshore area early in 2015.

23

See id.

24

The Okinawa Dugong and the NHPA

25

27.

The dugong, a marine mammal similar to the manatee, is a globally threatened26

marine  mammal  species  listed  as  “endangered”  under  the  U.S.  Endangered  Species  Act  (ESA),

27

16  U.S.C.  §§  1531  et  seq.,  and  as  “critically  endangered”  in  Japan  by  the  Japan  Ministry  of  the  28

Environment. Okinawa is at the northern edge of the dugong’s  range,  and  the  Okinawa  dugong

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)

-8-

1

population is isolated and genetically distinct from the rest of the species. The Okinawa dugong2

was highly endangered by the 1930s and has not substantially recovered. In 1997, the3Mammalogical Society of Japan estimated the population at fewer than 50 individuals, but the4most recent surveys by the Government of Japan could reach no better conclusion than that there

5

are at least three remaining Okinawa dugongs. Preservation of the Okinawa dugong depends

6

upon the preservation of its habitat.

7

28.

The proposed construction and operation of the FRF will harm Okinawa dugong

8

habitat and food sources, directly and adversely affecting the Okinawa dugong. Landfill from9the construction of the facility, stormwater runoff, water pollution, air pollution, noise, and light10

from the operation of the FRF may directly and adversely affect the continued survival of the

11

Okinawa dugong.

12

29.

Dugongs are significant in Okinawan culture. They are associated with traditional

13

Okinawan creation mythology, sometimes being considered the progenitor of the local people.

14

The Okinawa dugong is a protected “Natural  Monument”  under  Japan’s  “Law  for  the  Protection  15of  Cultural  Properties.”    Because  the  list  of  protected  cultural properties  under  Japan’s  Cultural  16

Properties  Law  is  the  “equivalent”  of  the  U.S.  National  Register  of  Historic  Places,

17

Memorandum & Order, Dkt. No. 39 at 12 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 470a-2), the Okinawa dugong is

18

protected under the NHPA, see id. at 17.

19

30.

The NHPA was enacted  in  1966  to  preserve  the  “historical  and  cultural  20foundations of the Nation … in  order  to  give  a  sense  of  orientation  to  the  American  People.”    21

16 U.S.C.  §  470(b)(2).    Pursuant  to  the  NHPA,  it  is  “the  policy  of  the  Federal  Government,  in  22

cooperation  with  other  nations”  to  “provide  leadership  in  the  preservation  of  the  prehistoric  and  23historic  resources  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  international  community  of  nations.”    16  U.S.C.  

24§ 470-1(2).

25

31.

As part of the NHPA Amendments of 1980, Congress enacted NHPA Section

26

402, 16 U.S.C. § 470a-2, to comply with U.S. obligations under the Convention Concerning the27

Protection  of  the  World  Cultural  and  Natural  Heritage  (“World  Heritage  Convention”)  and  to  28

mitigate the adverse effects of Federal undertakings outside of the United States.

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)

-9-

1

32.

Section 402 requires  that  “[p]rior  to  the  approval  of  any  Federal  undertaking  2outside the United States which may directly and adversely affect a property which is on … the3applicable  country’s  equivalent  of  the  National Register, the head of a Federal agency having

4

direct or indirect jurisdiction over such undertaking shall take into account the effect of the5

undertaking  on  such  property  for  purposes  of  avoiding  or  mitigating  any  adverse  effects.”    6

16 U.S.C. § 470a-2.

7

Procedural History

8

33.

On September 25, 2003, Plaintiffs filed suit challenging DoD’s involvement in9

the design, development, and  approval  of  the  FRF,  claiming  that  DoD’s  failure  to  “take  into  10account”  adverse  effects  of  the proposed FRF on the Okinawa dugong violated the NHPA,

11

16 U.S.C. § 470a-2, and APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(1), (2)(A), and (2)(D). Complaint for

12

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Dkt. No. 1.

13

34.

On May 17, 2004, DoD moved to dismiss the case, arguing that (i) Plaintiffs had

14

failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the dugong is not “property”  15within the meaning of the NHPA, in part because the Japanese Law for the Protection of Cultural

16

Properties  is  not  “equivalent”  to  the  U.S. National Register of Historic Places; and (ii) the Court

17

lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because section 402 of the NHPA did not authorize the18extraterritorial  application  of  the  statute  to  “matters  that  involve  sensitive  questions  of  foreign  19affairs  between  the  United  States  and  Japan.” Dkt. No. 17 at 2-3. On March 2, 2005, this Court

20

held that the  Japanese  Law  for  the  Protection  of  Cultural  Properties  is  “equivalent”  to  the  21

National Register, Memorandum & Order, Dkt. No. 39 at 12; the Okinawa dugong is “property”

22

under section 402 of the NHPA, which thus applies to protect the Okinawa dugong, see id. at 12-23

17; and section 402 applies extraterritorially because the NHPA expressly applies to federal

24

undertakings  that  “promise[]  to  have  direct  or  adverse  effects  on  protected  foreign  properties,”25

id. at 27, and DoD failed to show any act implicating the act of state doctrine, id. at 29.

26

35.

Following  discovery  as  to  whether  DoD’s  activities  constituted  a  “federal  27

undertaking”  under  the  NHPA,  the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On

28

January 24, 2008, this Court issued a memorandum and order granting  Plaintiffs’  summary

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)

-10-

1

judgment motion and  denying  Defendants’  motion. 2008 Order, Dkt. No. 119. The Court held

2

that because  the  FRF  “may  directly  and  adversely  affect”  the  Okinawa  dugong,  id. at 28-29,

3section  402  of  the  NHPA  requires  DoD  to  “take  into  account”  effects  of  the  proposed  FRF  on  the  4

Okinawa dugong. DoD’s failure to take into account the effects of the FRF on the Okinawa

5

dugong, constituting agency action unreasonably delayed and unlawfully withheld. Id. at 45.

6

36.

The Court held that the “take  into  account”  process under section 402 should

7“follow  the  basic  outline  of [NHPA] section 106,”  which  governs  the process for taking into

8

account the effects of agency actions on properties listed on the U.S. National Register of

9Historic Places. 2008 Order, Dkt. No. 119, at 32-33 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 470f (NHPA section

10106); 36 C.F.R. § 800 (regulations implementing section 106)). The Court explained that, “at  a  11minimum, [the section 402 ‘take into account’ process] must include”:

12
13
14
15

(1) identification of protected property, (2) generation, collection, consideration,
and weighing of information pertaining to how the undertaking will affect thehistoric property, (3) a determination as to whether there will be adverse effects orno adverse effects, and (4) if necessary, development and evaluation ofalternatives or modifications to the undertaking that could avoid or mitigate theadverse effects.

16
17

Id. at 32. The Court further held that in completing this process, a federal agency must  “engage[]18

the host nation and other relevant private organizations and individuals in a cooperative

19

partnership.”    Id. See also id. at 35 (“Congress’  intent  that  the  section  402  take  into  account20

process [include] …  consultation with interested parties and organizations …  is evident.”).

21

37.

The Court ordered DoD to comply with section 402 of the NHPA, including by

22“produc[ing],  gather[ing],  and  consider[ing]”  the  necessary  information  for  “taking  into  account  23the effects of the FRF on the Okinawa dugong and for determining whether mitigation or

24

avoidance  measures  are  necessary  and  possible,”  and  held the  case  in  abeyance  “until  defendants  25take the information into account for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating adverse effects to the26

dugong.” 2008 Order, Dkt. No. 119, at 42-45. In 2012, this Court recognized that “the  matters  27

to be considered by defendants and then by the court [were] far from finalized.”    Order Re

28

Status, Dkt. No. 147 at 2. The Court continued to hold the action in abeyance and ordered

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)

-11-

1

administrative  closure  of  the  file  until  “plans  for  Henoko  become  more  finalized  or  are  2abandoned.”    Id. at 5.

3

DoD’s  2014  “NHPA  Findings”

438.

On April 16, 2014, DoD notified the Court that it had completed the “U.S. Marine

5

Corps  Recommended  Findings”  under  the NHPA, as well as an  “Action  Memo.” See

6

Defendants’  Notice  of  Completing  NHPA  Section  402  Findings, Dkt. No. 151.

7

39.

Although DoD has not filed the Findings or supporting documentation with the8

Court, on the same day it filed the notice DoD provided Plaintiffs’  counsel the “U.S.  Marine  9Corps Recommended Findings” (hereinafter Findings) and two action memoranda from the10

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy approving the  Marine  Corps’  Recommended  Findings

11(all three of which are attached as exhibits hereto). The Findings conclude that the FRF will

12

have  “no  adverse  effect”  on  the  Okinawa  dugong.    Findings, Ex. 1, at 12. This was the first time

13

Plaintiffs learned that DoD had undertaken a  “take  into  account”  process.    DoD did not consult

14with Plaintiffs  at  any  point  in  its  “take  into  account”  process  and  has  not  disclosed  how  it  15

selected those with whom it did consult or whom it allowed to participate.

16

40.

DoD also provided  no  public  notice  that  it  intended  to  undertake  the  “take  into  17account”  process,  and  afforded  no  opportunity  for  public  comment  or  input  into  the  process.    

18

DoD also has not made the Findings public.

19

41.

DoD’s  Findings  rely  heavily  on  a  2010  study  referred  to  as  “Welch  2010,”  which  20

DoD  apparently  commissioned  from  “a  team  of  experts,  including  an  ethnographer,  an  21archaeologist,  archival  researchers,  and  a  marine  biologist.”    Findings, Ex. 1, at 4. Along with22

the  Government  of  Japan’s  EIS,  this  study  appears  to  be  the  primary  source  for  DoD’s  Findings.    

23

See id. at 22-24  (table  correlating  each  topic  in  Findings  with  sections  from  “Welch  2010”  24study).    DoD  also  relied  on  “additional  literature  and  informative  data”  beyond  its  experts’  study,  25

id. at 4-5, and  a  “bi-lateral  Expert  Study  Group,”  convened  in  2010  to  examine  environmental  26

impacts of the FRF, id. at 21. Although the Findings refer to the Welch 2010 study and the27

additional  information  as  “enclosures,”  id. at 4-5, DoD has not made the study or additional

28

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)

-12-

1

information public, and has refused to provide the documents to Plaintiffs or to disclose the2names of the experts, informants and others who contributed to them.

3

42.

DoD improperly limited its inquiry into the possible adverse effects on the4dugong to a list of effects identified by the Court before DoD had undertaken any inquiry at all.

5

In considering  whether  the  NHPA  applies  to  DoD’s  activities  with  respect  to  the  FRF,  the  Court  6made a “threshold”  determination  “that  the  undertaking  may  have  direct  and  adverse  effects  on  7the  dugong.”   2008  Order,  Dkt.  No.  119,  at  28.    The  Court  found  that  “[t]hese potential adverse

8

effects include physical destruction of the Okinawa dugong resulting from contamination of

9seagrass feeding grounds and collisions with boats and vessels, as well as long-term immune and10

reproductive damage resulting from exposure to toxins and acoustic pollution.” Id. Because the11question before the Court did not require the Court to determine the full range of potential effects

12of the FRF on the dugong, the  Court’s  list  was  not  exhaustive.    Indeed,  Section 402 requires DoD

13

to  conduct  the  “take  into  account”  process  “for  purposes  of  avoiding  or  mitigating  any adverse

14

effects,”  16  U.S.C.  §  470a-2 (emphasis added), and the process is intended to require the DoD,

15

which has the best access to the relevant information, to identify those effects.

16

43.

Despite  the  clear  mandate  to  identify  “any”  potential  adverse  effects,  DoD  only  17“gathered and assessed information on those aspects of the proposed construction and operation18of the FRF identified by the Court as having the potential to affect the Okinawa dugong.” See

19

Findings, Ex. 1, at 3-4 (emphasis added). DoD thus did not identify or consider the full range of20

possible adverse effects on the dugong caused by the FRF project, including population

21

fragmentation, the disruption of travel routes, and the loss of habitat that may be required in the

22

future to sustain a viable population, which would be larger than the present population.

23

44.

DoD  lacks  a  factual  basis  for  its  “no  adverse  effect”  conclusion.  The  agency’s  24admits that  the  available  data  “are  not  sufficient  to  establish  population  size,  status,  and  viability”  25of the Okinawa dugong. Id. at 12. DoD questions the validity of the most recent (1997)

26

population estimate, id. at 17, which estimated there to be fewer than 50 individual Okinawa

27

dugongs, id. at  7.    DoD  “finds  it  would  be  beneficial  for  [the  Government  of  Japan]  to  conduct  28new  systematic  surveys  or  modeling”  to  develop  valid  information  about  the  total  Okinawa  FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)

-13-

1

dugong population. Id. at 15. Yet “[n]otwithstanding the absence of recent total population2

data,”  DoD  finds  no  adverse  effect  based  on  the  unsupported  claim  that  “we do have current and3valid population data for Henoko and Oura bays.”    Id. at 17. Without a reasonable estimate of4

the total Okinawa dugong population, DoD cannot assess the significance of the destruction of5seagrass meadows on the Okinawa dugong, and cannot evaluate the significance for the entire

6

population of adverse effects on those dugongs that use – or might use – Henoko and Oura bays.

7

Because the current population is very small, effects on just a few dugongs in Henoko and Oura

8bays could have substantial impacts on the population as a whole.

945.

DoD’s  Findings  also  underestimate  the  value  of  the  Henoko  and  Oura  Bay  habitat  10to the Okinawa dugong. The Findings rely heavily  on  the  Japanese  government’s  DEIS  to  11conclude  that  dugongs  are  not  frequently  present  in  Henoko  and  Oura  Bays.    However,  DoD’s  12findings recognize recurring grazing in the FRF project area in recent years, and experts not

13

aware of or invited to participate in DoD’s “take  into  account”  process  believe  the  habitat  is  14

important to  the  population’s  survival. Given the Okinawa dugong’s endangered status and15“precariously  low”  population  numbers,  Findings, Ex. 1, at 7, any habitat loss could adversely

16

affect the population – and the FRF would be built on landfill partly covering the largest

17

remaining seagrass meadow anywhere in the waters around Okinawa. DoD has not assessed the18

adverse effect of the destruction of this essential  habitat  on  the  ability  of  the  “precariously  low”  19current  population  to  recover  to  levels  ensuring  the  Okinawa  dugong’s  long-term survival.

20

46.

DoD’s  Findings  also  underestimate  the  extent of habitat loss that construction and21

operation of the FRF will cause. DoD finds that the loss of habitat caused by land reclamation

22

for the  FRF  “is  not  considered  an  adverse  effect  on  the  Okinawa  dugong  as  a  natural  monument”  23because existing seagrass beds other than those the FRF construction would destroy are24“sufficient  to  maintain  the  current  population  of  Okinawa  dugong.”   Id. at 13. However,25

according to DoD, when dugongs are absent from a seagrass meadow, the quality of the meadow

26

degrades  and  becomes  “less  attractive  as  dugong  habitat.”    Id. at 8. DoD also found that,27“[w]hen  exposed  to  human  activities,  dugongs  are  known  to  seek  deeper  waters  away  from  that  28

activity. Should dugongs be present when construction activities are initiated, it is anticipated

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)

-14-

1

that they will vacate the area while construction noise  is  occurring.”    Id. at 15. DoD’s  2assessments thus indicate that construction and operation of the FRF would drive the dugong

3away from remaining seagrass beds, causing further reduction and degradation of available

4

habitat beyond the areas of habitat that the FRF project would physically destroy. DoD has not5assessed the extent of this harm to dugong habitat, or the effect of such adverse effects on the

6

Okinawa dugong.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF

7
8
9
10
11
12

47.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of all the foregoing paragraphs

and of the Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 69, as if fully set forth herein.
48.

DoD’s failure to consult Plaintiffs  as  interested  parties  in  the  “take into account”

process violates section 402 of the NHPA. 16 U.S.C. § 470a-2.
49.

DoD’s failure to provide information to the public about the proposed FRF and its

13

potential effects on the Okinawa dugong and to seek public comment and input violates the “take  14into  account” requirement of section 402 of the NHPA. 16 U.S.C. § 470a-2.

15

50.

DoD’s  failure to consult with Plaintiffs as interested parties, seek public

16

involvement, or provide information to Plaintiffs and the public in developing its Findings in

17violation of section 402 of the NHPA constitutes agency action that  is  “arbitrary, capricious, an

18abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”  and “without  observance  of  19

procedure  required  by  law” under the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (2)(D).

20

51.

DoD’s  conclusion that the construction and operation of the FRF will have no21

adverse effect on the Okinawa dugong is “arbitrary,  capricious,  an  abuse  of  discretion, or

22otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

23

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

24
25

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request that this Court issue:
1.

A judgment declaring that:

26

a. DoD’s  Findings  and  failure  to  involve Plaintiffs and the public in the “take  27

into  account”  process  violate section 402 of the NHPA, 16 U.S.C. § 470a-2;

28

and

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)-15-

b. DoD’s  Findings and failure to comply with section 402’s  requirement  to  1
2

involve  interested  parties  and  the  public  in  the  “take  into  account”  process are3

arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with procedures required by law

4

pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706;

5

2.

An order setting aside DoD’s Findings  as  “arbitrary,  capricious,  an  abuse  of  6

discretion,  or  otherwise  not  in  accordance  with  law”  and  made  “without  observance  of  procedure  7required by law”  under  the  APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (2)(D);8

3.

An order that DoD not undertake any activities in furtherance of the FRF project,9including granting permits or approvals for contractor entry to Camp Schwab and/or the

10

proposed FRF project area, and that DoD rescind any such permits or approvals already granted,

11

until it complies with section 402 of the NHPA, including by:

12a. Producing, gathering, and adequately considering the necessary information

13

for taking into account all the effects of the FRF on the Okinawa dugong and

14

for determining whether mitigation or avoidance measures are necessary and15

possible;b. Making this information and other documentation relevant to the section 402

16“take  into  account”  process  available  to  the public; and17c. Consulting with all interested parties, including Plaintiffs, and inviting public

18

participation in the section 402 process;

19
20

4.

A judgment and order for costs of suit herein, including attorneys’ fees, pursuant

21

to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the NHPA, 16 U.S.C. § 470w-4, or other22

authority; and

23
24
25
26
27
28

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)

-16-

1

5.

Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just.

2
3

DATED: July 31, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

s/ J. MARTIN WAGNER
J. Martin Wagner (Cal. Bar No. 190049)
Sarah H. Burt (Cal. Bar No. 250378)
Earthjustice
50 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 217-2000
Fax: (415) 217-2040
Counsel for Plaintiffs

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
No. C-03-4350 (MHP)-17-

EXHIBIT 1
U.S. MARINE CORPS RECOMMENDED FINDINGSAPRIL 2014

U.S. Marine Corps Recommended Findings
April 2014
On January 24, 2008, the U.S. District Court (Court) for the District of Northern California
issued an order that called for the Department of Defense to take into account the effects of theFutenma Replacement Facility (FRF) on the dugong located in the waters around Okinawa 1 asrequired under Section 402 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as
amended (16 U.S.C. § 470a-2). In the absence of any implementing regulations for the conductof an impacts analysis under Section 402, the Court found that the “basic components” of asection 402 process must include: (1) identification of the protected property, (2) generation,collection, consideration, and weighing of information pertaining to how the Undertaking willaffect the historic property, (3) a determination as to whether there will be adverse effects or noadverse effects, (4) development and evaluation of alternatives or modifications to theUndertaking that could mitigate the adverse effects, and (5) engaging with the host nation andother relevant private organizations and individuals in a cooperative partnership. Okinawa
Dugong v. Gates, 543 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1104 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
In response to the Court Order, the DOD filed a Proposed Final Remand Order with the Court
proposing its approach to complying with each of the five “basic components” in the Court
Order. DOD Proposed Order, Center for Biological Diversity v. Gates, No. 03-4350, (N.D. Cal.
December 22, 2008). The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC), as the action proponent, has conducted ananalysis of the Undertaking (FRF construction and operation) in accordance with the DOD’s
Proposed Order. This report (USMC Findings, or Findings) consolidates and summarizes
information from the USMC’s analysis, and identifies what information the USMC has
considered and accepted as the best available information as well as where gaps in knowledge
exist despite the USMC’s best efforts to gather that information. To date, the Court has notissued an order directing DOD to take any particular action, nor has the Court spelled out the
specific requirements that it believes are required to comply with Section 402 of the NHPA
beyond identifying the “basic components” listed above.
These Findings present this information in two parts: (1) an overview discussion that addresses
each of the Court’s basic components along with a description of our outreach efforts to theJapanese, and (2) a table that lists the specific elements outlined in the DOD Proposed Order that
identifies the primary information source used to address each element, and provides a briefsummary of how the USMC addressed each element.
The current situation presents unique diplomatic, legal and scientific circumstances. The USMC
considers the analytical framework and process used in this case to be unique and specificallytailored to the circumstances of this case and this Court’s ruling. It is not intended to be utilized
in other situations involving the application of NHPA section 402 overseas.

1

For the sake of efficiency, this document will refer to the dugong sighted in the waters around Okinawa as“Okinawa dugong.” Use of this term is not intended to imply that there is a distinct species or sub-species orpopulation segment known as the “Okinawa dugong.”1. Identification of the protected property
In a typical NHPA analysis, identification of historic properties would be preceded by adetermination by the federal agency that the proposed action was an Undertaking that is a type ofactivity that could affect historic properties. After making that determination, the federal agency
would then define the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Undertaking, or the geographic
area or areas within which the Undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in thecharacter or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. Defining an APE looks at
those aspects of the activity that could potentially affect a historic property if such a property
were present and does not assume an effect. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an
Undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the Undertaking.
Definition of the APE is a crucial step in the “take into account” process, because the APE
provides the boundaries within which the federal agency conducts its identification of historic
properties and assessment of effects.
In this instance, the Court has found (1) that the USMC’s interactions with the Government ofJapan (GoJ) regarding its operational requirements for the FRF met the definition of an
Undertaking subject to review under Section 402 of the NHPA; (2) that the Undertaking, as
defined by the Court, was of a type that could affect historic properties, specifically defined forthe purposes of Section 402 as properties “on the World Heritage List or on the applicablecountry's equivalent of the National Register;” and (3) that the Okinawa dugong is the historic
property of concern for the USMC’s effects assessment. The Court did not define an APE for theUndertaking.
Given the identification of the Okinawa dugong as the historic property on which the effects of
the Undertaking must be assessed, the USMC herein defines the APE for the Undertaking as thegeographic area or areas within which FRF construction or operation activities would directly or
indirectly affect the Okinawa dugong. Specifically, the USMC defines the APE for theUndertaking as follows: during construction, the APE would include the construction footprint(inclusive of work yards and sea yards) and those portions of Henoko and Oura Bays around theconstruction site subject to vessel traffic, acoustic disturbance, runoff, or turbidity associatedwith the construction effort. For operations, the APE would include those portions of Henoko
Bay subject to vessel traffic to/from the FRF, acoustic disturbance from FRF operations, anddischarge of effluent and stormwater runoff from the FRF.
1.1 Identification of the Okinawa dugong as a cultural property
In 1972, the Japanese Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
designated the Okinawa dugong a national monument, a class of protected cultural property
under Law Number 214 (Protection of Cultural Properties). Previously, the dugong wasprotected as a cultural monument (revered and sacred animal) by Ryukyu Prefecture. According
to the English translation of Law Number 214(http://www.tobunken.go.jp/~kokusen/ENGLISH/DATA/Htmlfg/japan/japan01.html, accessedon 1/29/2008), national monuments are animals (including their habitats, breeding places andsummer and winter resorts), plants (including their habitats), and geological features and2minerals (including the grounds where peculiar natural phenomena are seen) that possess a highscientific value in and for the nation of Japan.
The Court has found that the protected property under consideration in this instance is limited to
the Okinawa dugong itself and not its habitat because it is “the dugong itself, not its habitat
which is listed.” The Court decision noted that “Japanese law did not name Henoko Bay, or any
part thereof, for any form of cultural protection.” While it is recognized that the habitat that
supports the Okinawa dugong is essential to its survival, no particular sea grass beds in Japan orin the waters around Okinawa are specifically identified for protection as habitat for the species.
The Court made a factual finding as to why the Okinawa dugong is culturally important and thatfinding governs the USMC’s analysis: “The Law for the Cultural Protection of Properties lists
the Okinawa dugong for protection because the animal has special importance in native Okinawa
mythology and culture.” Accordingly, the term “Okinawa dugong,” as used in this Finding,refers to the population of dugong that inhabits the waters around Okinawa and is protected as acultural property under Japanese law.
Finally, the Court made a factual finding that the Okinawa dugong has been found in andtraverses Henoko Bay. Surveys conducted by the GoJ between January 2008 and December
2013 have observed routine use of seagrass beds off Kayo, an area north of Henoko Bay.
Dugongs have been intermittently observed in the waters of Oura Bay (9/10, 6/11, 5/12, 5/13,
and 11/13) and feeding trails have been intermittently observed in the seagrass beds within thefootprint of the FRF (6/9, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12, 3/13, 5/13, and 11/13). These observations suggestthat Okinawa dugongs intermittently traverse this section of Henoko Bay, and occasionally feedon the seagrass beds immediately adjacent to or included within the footprint of the FRF.
Therefore, the USMC has identified the protected property of the Okinawa dugong as being
found, at least intermittently, within the APE for the Undertaking.
2. Generation, collection, consideration, and weighing of information pertaining to how theUndertaking will affect the historic property
To determine what information must be collected as part of the study, the USMC examined the
Court’s findings for guidance. As noted above, the Court made a factual and legal finding thatthe undertaking “may affect” the Okinawa dugong in the following ways:
These potential adverse effects include physical destruction of the Okinawa dugong
resulting from contamination of seagrass feeding grounds and collisions with boats andvessels, as well as long-term immune and reproductive damage resulting from exposure
to toxins and acoustic pollution.
The Court required the U.S. to gather and assess information to determine if these listed factors
will actually affect the Okinawa dugong:That the actual consequences may be currently unknown is precisely the reason the
NHPA requires defendants to gather, examine and assess information. Doing so allows
the agency to determine, early in the process of an undertaking, whether potential

3

consequences may crystallize into actual effects and whether the actual effects will
exceed a de minimis threshold.
In addition, the Court found that the Undertaking “may directly and adversely affect” theOkinawa dugong. To reach this conclusion, the Court found the NHPA domestic regulations
informative as to defining an adverse effect:
The term “adverse effect” is not defined in the statute, but regulations implementing
section 106 domestic undertakings set forth a meaning of adverse effect that is instructivein this case. Under the domestic regulations, “an adverse effect is found when anundertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic
property [that make it eligible for listing on the National Register].... Adverse effects may
include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later intime, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.” 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(a)(1). An
example of an adverse effect includes “physical destruction of or damage to all or part ofthe property.” 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(a)(2)(I).
In accordance with the Court’s findings, the USMC has gathered and assessed information on
those aspects of the proposed construction and operation of the FRF identified by the Court as
having the potential to affect the Okinawa dugong, information on the Okinawa dugong
population (population size, known vulnerabilities or threats to the population, behavior patterns
within Henoko Bay, distribution of seagrass beds in the waters around Okinawa), andinformation on cultural practices related to the Okinawa dugong that occur within the APE for
the Undertaking. In addition, because assessment of effect is based on the extent to which theUndertaking would alter the characteristics of the Okinawa dugong that make it a culturalproperty, the USMC collected and analyzed additional information to identify the historic andmodern significance of the dugong in Okinawa culture, as well as the rationale for designating it
for protection as a natural monument under GoJ law. Finally, the USMC collected information
on potential measures that could be implemented to mitigate (avoid or minimize) any effects.
2.1 Sources of information
The process of analyzing the potential effects of the Undertaking on the Okinawa dugong as ahistoric property involved considering the declarations submitted by Plaintiffs and by the UnitedStates in the litigation, reviewing the information and documentation prepared by the GoJ,
generating and collecting information through a study commissioned by the USMC, andcompleting an independent evaluation of that study and its conclusions. Specifically, the USMC
contracted a team of experts, including an ethnographer, an archaeologist, archival researchers,
and a marine biologist. The team gathered information and engaged relevant and knowledgeable
persons and institutions in investigating the cultural significance of the Okinawa dugong in
Okinawa culture. The study was initiated in July 2009. A draft report was completed in March
2010. Consultation between the contracted experts and USMC staff occurred between the periodof December 2009 and April 2010, at which point the USMC accepted the study from thecontractors (Encl 1). That report contains several appendices, including an annotatedbibliography of all the literature collected by the consultants, summaries of the interviews ofJapanese cultural experts, and texts and translations of historical documents and folk songs. The

4

USMC performed an independent evaluation of the consultants’ research and found additional
literature and informative data that is summarized in Encl. 2. Finally, the GoJ has continued its
surveys for dugongs around Okinawa. Data from these surveys has been incorporated into the
USMC findings.
2.2 Information on the construction of the FRF
As identified in the GoJ Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)(Okinawa Prefecture
2009, translated into English by USMC contractors), 2 the FRF will be constructed within Camp
Schwab, a USMC base under the management of Marine Corps Forces Japan. In addition to theland area within the south portion of the Camp, reclamation of approximately 160 hectares (ha)of publicly-owned water body will be required to construct new land areas to support two Vshaped runways, air station facilities, and the aprons. Before these areas in Japan become part ofthe base, the Joint Committee would need to provide them to the U.S. under Art. II.1(a) of theJune 23, 1960 Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Japan (“SOFA”). The
two runways, each with a total length of 1,800 meters (m) (includes overrun) will be 30 m inwidth with 7.5 m-wide shoulders. The FRF will have a total area of approximately 205 ha,including both land and reclaimed land areas. Major air station facilities to be constructed
include two lines of approach lights, one extending approximately 920 m southwest of thenorthern runway and one approximately 430 m northeast of the southern runway (withapproximately 30-m intervals between lights); a fuel pier and fuel-related facility; up to 8
hangars; a 240,000 m2 apron; an air traffic control tower; communications facilities; a vehicle
repair and maintenance shop; an electronic and communications equipment repair andmaintenance shop; warehouses; aircraft washing areas; aircraft warning lights; an ammunition
loading area; an engine test cell; a firefighting training facility; four helipads; a sewage
treatment plant; and a vessel berth along the bank protection structure.
Major reclamation construction work includes bank protection, involving creation of a caisson
breakwater, a sloping breakwater and double-wall sheet-pile cofferdam; dredging andreclamation for the main body of the FRF; construction of work and temporary sea yards;
collection of earth and sand from a borrow area to provide them for reclamation; construction of
the temporary roads for the construction work; and changing the course of the Mija River. To
provide material for the reclamation effort, a 30 ha area around Henoko Dam will be mined forapproximately 2 million m3 of earth and sand. No dredging work will be conducted for a newchannel or anchorage because the current water depth is adequate for ship navigation. Major
construction work related to construction of the air station and its facilities includes paving the
air station, work for rainwater drainage, building operations, construction of approach lights andconstruction of a fuel pier.

2

The GoJ issued its final EIS in December 2012. USMC reviewed translations of summaries of changes made to
the FEIS after publication of the DEIS, including translations of the Abstract, Executive Summary, Chapter 9(Responses to comments from Okinawa Prefectural Government), and Chapter 10 (Summaries of Changes to FEIS)
to ensure USMC findings reflected the latest information. Unless otherwise noted, specific references to the EIS arefrom the DEIS. The USMC also translated portions of particular chapters of the FEIS where noted.

5Construction methods for the bank protection, work yard, sea yard, and reclamation efforts
include use of dump trucks, barges, and land-based or floating cranes to move and deposit
construction materials (sand, rubble, armor blocks, wave dissipating blocks, levee widening
materials, caissons, steel plates, etc.); use of pile-driving barges or truck-mounted hydraulichammers to drive pilings; use of concrete mixers and concrete plant ships to mix and pourconcrete into forms; use of divers to help position and install sand prevention sheets on
breakwaters; and construction of gantries and scaffolds. A range of land-based construction
equipment, floating vessels, and transport vessels of various sizes will be used.
With respect to the Undertaking, construction activities would result in excavations into the sea
floor and some seagrass beds to anchor pilings for various facilities, as well as burial of 78.1 haof seagrass beds beneath the fill lands created to support the runways. This amounts to the lossof 7.3% of the seagrass beds in the sea area in front of Henoko Bay and 37.7% of the beds on theside of Oura Bay. Construction could also lead to increased red soil runoff into Henoko andOura Bays, visual disturbance related to use of nighttime lighting, as well as acoustic disturbance
related to vessel traffic and construction noise. Further discussion of the anticipated likelihoodof these effects and whether they constitute direct adverse effects is provided below in Section 3.
2.3 Information on FRF operations
Approximately 58 aircraft would be located at the FRF. This number includes all Marine Corps
Air Station (MCAS) Futenma aircraft except the KC-130 squadron, which is being relocated to
MCAS Iwakuni on mainland Japan. The aircraft located at the FRF would include a mix of light,
medium, and heavy lift helicopters, tilt-rotor aircraft, along with operational support fixed wing
aircraft (C-12 and UC-35).
The current proposed traffic patterns for helicopter and tilt-rotor training presume takeoff andlanding to/from the sea, away from the surrounding residential areas and avoiding instrument
flights of helicopters/tilt-rotor aircraft and flights by fixed-wing support aircraft over thesurrounding residential areas as much as possible to reduce aircraft and helicopter noise. Any
adjustment to traffic patterns outside U.S. facilities and areas would be negotiated with GoJ.
Visual flight of helicopters will be conducted primarily using the main runway, with the otherrunway used exclusively for takeoffs when the wind is blowing from the northeast and forlandings when the wind is blowing from the southwest. Both cases avoid flying over thesurrounding residential areas. Based on best available data, fixed wing aircraft will follow thesame flight paths and rules.
At MCAS Futenma, based on the current tempo of operations, the average number of flights per
day is 86. Approximately 64% of these flights are by fixed-wing aircraft, while flights of aircraftthat are capable of short takeoffs and landings account for approximately 9%; remaining flights
are by rotary wing aircraft. At the FRF, it is anticipated that the mix of rotary and fixed wingflight patterns will be comparable to that at MCAS Futenma. Flights will occur during both
daytime and nighttime hours; night flights will use the approach lights described in Section 2.2.
Vessel traffic will include periodic visits by T1 tanker vessels carrying aircraft fuel to comealongside the fuel pier to load and unload fuel, as well as vessels such as a T-AVB4 that6

occasionally moor at the bank protection berth to transport personnel or helicopters when there
are helicopter or other problems. Based upon current projections, the ships would approach thearea at 7 knots and then reduce speed to 3-5 knots as they approach the pier and then be assisted
by tug boats into docking. There is no plan for regular vessel traffic as part of training or regular
operations at the FRF.
The USMC finds that activities conducted entirely on land within the FRF will have minimal
effect on the Okinawa dugong. The GoJ came to a similar conclusion in the Final EIS (GoJ 2012,
Sections 6.16.2.2 and 6.16.3.2). In addition, as will be discussed in Section 4.2, GoJ has
committed to post-construction monitoring surveys and other mitigation measures to ensure
protection of any Okinawa dugongs that visit or inhabit the waters around Kayo, Oura, andHenoko bays.
The Court has ruled that operation of the FRF involves activities that could affect individual
Okinawa dugongs traversing or feeding in the waters of Henoko Bay. Examples of activities that
could affect individual Okinawa dugong are vessel traffic that could lead to collisions withindividual dugongs; use of lighting for night operations on the runway that could lead to visual
disturbance; or aircraft and vessel operations that could introduce acoustic disturbances. Further
discussion of the anticipated likelihood of these effects, the intensity of effects, and whether they
constitute direct and adverse effects is provided below (Section 3).
2.4 Information on the Okinawa dugong
The dugong is a marine species occurring throughout the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans.
The dugong historic range has been much reduced by hunting, habitat loss/degradation, and bycatch losses. Other than in Northern Australia and the Persian Gulf/Red Sea region, dugongs aremostly found as relict populations separated by large areas of low-abundance or no presence,with no clear evidence of migration or mixing of relict populations. There is anecdotal evidence
that some dugongs travel thousands of miles while others stay within small areas. The Okinawa
dugong population is the northernmost remnant population in the world. Researchers haveconcluded that dugongs are already extinct or exist in very low numbers in the Sakishima area,
and that Okinawa (especially the middle and northern part of the east coast between Katsuren
Peninsula and Ibu Beach) is the last remaining area with dugongs in Japanese waters. The
Okinawa dugong population was estimated at fewer than 50 by the Mammalogical Society ofJapan in 1997.
The Okinawa dugong, once considered common, declined in numbers primarily in response topressures from traditional hunting. Population levels reached precariously low-levels by theearly 1900s and, due to bycatch/incidental catch rates through that century, have not substantially
recovered. There is very little regional information available on the life history of the Okinawa
dugong; however, a pair considered to be a cow and calf were observed in 2008 and 2009 by the
GoJ. These observations, despite being qualitative and limited in scope, suggest that some
reproduction is still occurring in the Okinawa dugong population.
Dugong distribution has historically coincided with the tropical seagrass ecosystem. Dugongs
significantly influence species composition of their habitat as well as the nutritional content of7their primary food source. When dugongs leave an area, the quality of seagrass meadows
subsequently degrades, such that lesser used seagrass meadows become less attractive as dugong
habitat. Dugongs are known to rotate through feeding areas. Damage to seagrass habitat fromevents such as floods or typhoons can seriously impact dugong numbers, either by forcing
movement out of the area, depressing breeding rates, or causing mass die-offs. Some researchers
estimate that as many as 25 years are required for dugong to re-establish presence in an area
following a catastrophic storm or flood.
Dugongs eat mostly seagrass, leaving long tracks or trails in the seagrass meadows. They preferseagrass that has a low fiber, high nutrient content. Usually dugongs eat the entire plant,
including the root system. They have been known to occasionally consume invertebrates(especially in high latitudes during winter) and marine algae on rocky reefs. Very little is known
about the feeding habits of the Okinawa dugong population.
Other than general movement information, very little is known about the behavior of dugongs in
Okinawa waters. Researchers have documented movement offshore in deep waters during the
day and feeding over the reef and in shallow waters at night. Some site fidelity has been
documented as evidenced by repeated sightings of three individuals off Kayo and Abu Ohru
Island (immediately north and east of Camp Schwab) between 2003 and 2009. Local, smallscale movements are probably normal for this population.
The GoJ surveyed Okinawa in 2000-2003 (Ministry of the Environment 2004; Yoshida andTrono 2004) and observed a total of 19 dugongs as well as dugong feeding trails off both the east
and west coasts. Between 129 and 139 dugong feeding trails were observed in the different years,
indicating that dugongs were still active in the area. Notably, Henoko Village was a reported“hotspot” for dugongs during this time-frame (Shirakihara et al., 2007; Yoshida and Trono 2004).
More recently, surveys conducted for the GoJ DEIS (Okinawa Defense Bureau 2009) resulted in
17 sightings of singles and one sighting of a pair between August 2008 and February 2009,
mostly off Kayo. From March 2008 to February 2009, 57 sightings of single individuals, 27
sightings of pairs, and a single observation of a trio were recorded, again, mostly off Kayo andKouri Islands. Despite these results, no systematic surveys (i.e., using methods currently
accepted by marine mammal biologists and incorporating an uncertainty factor, such as acoefficient of variation, for the point estimate) specifically designed for dugongs have been
conducted in the areas considered part of the traditional range of dugongs in Japan. However,
the available work does confirm that dugongs are still found in the waters off Okinawa.
Since June 2009, the GoJ has conducted monthly surveys of the bays. The graphics in thereports show that feeding trails have been observed every month off Kayo in the period between
June 2009 and December 2013. Feeding trails were documented in Oura Bay proper in August
2009 in the area immediately adjacent to the FRF site. 3 Feeding trails were observed directly on
the FRF site in June 2009, April 2012, May 2012, June 2012, March 2013, May 2013, andNovember 2013. An individual dugong was photographed traversing the FRF area in May 2010
(transit; no associated feeding trails). In essence, since June 2009 steady and routine Okinawa
3

The Oura Bay seagrass beds are not routinely surveyed by the Japanese team.

8

dugong activity has been documented off Kayo (north of the FRF), with sporadic dugong activity
observed directly in Henoko and Oura bays.
In general, the USMC’s analysis of available data shows that individual dugongs, worldwide, arevulnerable to human-caused threats for a variety of reasons, to include late and limited
reproduction, dependence on seagrass beds, and the coastal location of their main habitats.
Specific threats to the dugong throughout its range include: (1) hunting; (2) bycatch/incidental
catch; (3) vessel strikes; (4) acoustic disturbance resulting in injury to hearing systems,
interference with acoustic communication signals, or causing behavioral changes; (5) habitat
loss/degradation; and (6) chemical pollution.
Of these threats, the USMC found that bycatch represents the most significant threat to the
Okinawa dugong population, followed by habitat destruction from coastal development and,
finally, red soil run-off. The nature and severity of impacts related to acoustic disturbance on
Okinawa dugongs has not been well documented. Based on studies of other species of marine
mammals, such as the closely-related manatees, the USMC found that certain types and levels ofnoise, such as pile driving during construction and over flights during operation, could adversely
affect dugong if dugongs are present within the detrimental range of such noises. In order todetermine whether there is any adverse effect, the USMC recommends that GoJ expand its
monitoring program (monthly trackline surveys to include Oura Bay (especially the sea grassbeds off the northeast shore of the base and those between the base and Kayo)).
2.5 Information on the cultural significance of the Okinawa dugong
The USMC reviewed the GoJ’s official designation forms, as well as the nomination forms inorder to fully understand the rationale for designating the Okinawa dugong as a naturalmonument. These designation and nomination documents indicate that the Okinawa dugong was
designated because of its increasing rareness after World War II and its scientific value. The
designation language makes it clear that the intrinsic elements of the dugong’s cultural
significance are biological; the only reference to cultural significance is a cursory note that thedugong might be the source of mermaid myths. Informants interviewed on this topic suggested
that cultural rationale may have been left out of the nomination because the cultural value of thedugong was commonly understood or perceived by society at large. It is equally plausible that,in the absence of national laws at the time enabling the protection of endangered species, thedugong was declared a cultural resource as a substitute for other means of protecting the local
population from possible extinction. Regardless of the reasoning, the dugong’s status as a naturalmonument could be affected if the dugong itself is harmed. In the current context, the obligation
is to ensure that the Undertaking does not harm individual dugongs or prevent the survival of the
Okinawa dugong as a local population.
In an effort to determine how the Okinawa dugong has cultural as well as biological significanceto modern Okinawans, the USMC also evaluated the results of archival and ethnographic
research. Historically, the dugong was featured in myths and songs, and had a traditional role in
Okinawa culture that included use of its meat for consumption and its bones for tool-making. In
modern times (post-World War II), hunting of dugongs was outlawed and the associations havelargely faded; many of the practices - and much of the information related to the dugong’s

9cultural significance - is possessed by only very small segments of the Okinawa population
rather than society as a whole. These segments can generally be grouped as follows:

Researchers and scholars – There are segments within the Okinawa and Japanese
academic community that perceive the Okinawa dugong as having cultural significancerelated to its historical role and its inclusion in Okinawa mythology, songs, and oral
traditions.



Ritual practitioners – Priestesses, shamans, other ritual specialists, and those who
maintain past traditions in Okinawa villages and towns, possess some specialized
knowledge about the role of dugong in traditional myths, oral histories, rituals, and songs.
For some of these individuals living in coastal communities near where dugongs wereonce more common, dugongs are perceived as intermediaries between the world of
humans and the world of the supernatural. The dugong and seagrass beds are noted aspart of place names in several communities, and festivals and rituals still occur in some ofthese communities, such as Henoko Village (Welch et al. 2010: 89).



Aragusuku-jima Island community – Aragusuku-jima Island is one of the outer islands in
the Okinawa island chain. A review of historical records and oral traditions reflects that
there are specific elements of Aragusuku-jima Island culture connected to the dugong.
The people of Aragusuku have oral traditions and records documenting the pastrequirement that they hunt the dugong and furnish dugong meat in lieu of paying taxes tothe Kingdom. Oral traditions include stories about the hunt, rituals related to the hunt,and special places for conducting those rituals. Although dugong hunting is prohibited,
the rituals, traditions, and places remain a part of their culture.



Popular culture – The dugong has recently become a symbol around which some
Okinawans have rallied to protest the continued use of areas on Okinawa by the U.S.
military. Because of this political development, the level of basic knowledge about thedugong’s cultural and historical significance has increased in segments of the local
population who formerly may not have had interest in the dugong. The dugong’s use as apolitical symbol relates to public perception of the animal as an endangered species
having special ties to Okinawa.

To address the question of whether the proposed Undertaking (construction and operation of theFRF) will have an effect on the Okinawa dugong as a cultural property, it is necessary to first
identify the character-defining features of the dugong as a cultural property. Doing so requires
the identification of those aspects of the dugong that are intrinsic to its cultural significance, bothwith respect to how it is defined as a natural monument and then as to its significance to thespecific segments of Okinawa society listed above.


For the academic community, it is cultural knowledge, or data available for conducting
research on the dugong, that is significant. That knowledge is contained in archives,
archaeological deposits, and within the memories of people who practice the rituals andpass on the oral traditions.

10For the ritual practitioners, intrinsic elements appear, from the information gathered in
the study, to include the cultural and historical knowledge embodied in songs, oral
traditions, myths, and rituals. The places where dugong-related rituals are conducted andthe timing of those rituals are also elements of the significance for this group; however,the secretive nature of this group has limited the ability of the study researchers to obtain
detailed information concerning the locations, times and activities of most such rituals.
Places with names associated with the dugong, such as the Jangusanumii (dugong’s bed;
seagrass beds) could also be viewed as important features; however, information obtained
as part of the study indicated that no rituals actually occur within the various named
seagrass bed areas.

For the people of Aragusuku-jima Island, the cultural significance of the dugong is tied totheir oral traditions and written records regarding hunting dugong during the Ryuku
Kingdom Period to specific cultural practices, such as hunting practices and conduct ofdugong-related rituals; and to the shrines where the annual rituals are conducted.



For those members of modern Okinawa society who have made the dugong a politicalsymbol, the intrinsic elements of the dugong’s significance are its image and, arguably,
its continued survival as a local population. In general, symbols are more effective if they
are tied to something tangible and able to be seen periodically by the community thatuses the symbol.

As summarized below, the USMC finds that the Undertaking has little or no potential to affectthe repositories housing the cultural knowledge of the dugong, either those utilized by theacademic community or those reflected in the practices or knowledge of ritual practitioners or
the people of Aragusuku-jima Island. The USMC also finds that the Undertaking has no potential
to directly affect Aragusuku-jima Island or the various coastal communities in Okinawa and theouter islands where rituals and festivals are performed. Finally, the proposed Undertaking has
minimal potential to result in extinction or significant degradation of the species. Therefore, theUndertaking would have no potential to affect the use of the dugong as a political symbol.
3. Make a determination as to whether there will be adverse effects or no adverse effects
The USMC performed an independent analysis of adverse effects on the dugong’s status as acultural property of Japan. For the purpose of this analysis, an activity is deemed to have an
adverse effect either on the dugong as a natural monument, or on an intrinsic element of thedugong from a cultural perspective, if the activity destroys, harms, or alters either the dugong or
its intrinsic elements.
Under the NHPA, an assessment of effect can result in one of three potential determinations: (1)no historic properties affected; (2) no adverse effect on historic properties; or (3) adverse effecton historic properties. To come to the first conclusion, the USMC would need to establish that
there are no historic properties (i.e., Okinawa dugong) present in the APE. For the second, the
USMC would need to establish either that, although Okinawa dugongs may be present within theAPE, the Undertaking does not involve any activities that would have an adverse effect (e.g.,physical harm) on individual Okinawa dugong; or that the likelihood of Okinawa dugongs being

11

present in the APE during the period in which those activities that could adversely affect dugong
are occurring is extremely low. As noted above, in order for the Undertaking to have an adverse
effect on the Okinawa dugong, dugongs would have to be present in the APE and subject toactivities that could destroy, harm or alter those intrinsic characteristics that make the Okinawa
dugong a natural monument.
3.1 Effects on individual dugongs in Okinawa or the Okinawa dugong population
The USMC has reviewed all available studies regarding the distribution of the Okinawa dugong
in waters around Okinawa. Observations include at least one mother-calf pair, which indicatesthat reproduction is still occurring in the population. Estimates made over the past thirteen yearsof the Okinawa dugong population range between 3 to 50 individuals. The available data aresufficient to conclude that a remnant population of dugongs exists around Okinawa. However,the data are not sufficient to establish population size, status, and viability.
In the immediate vicinity of the FRF, seagrass beds are found to the north at Kayo and south of
the FRF, in Henoko Bay. As noted in Section 2.4, dugongs have been sighted in the vicinity of
the FRF or FRF footprint only sporadically since June 2009. During that time, steady androutine dugong activity has been documented off Kayo (north and east of the FRF), with only
sporadic dugong activity observed directly in Henoko and Oura Bays (6/09, 4/12, 5/12, 6/12,
3/13, 5/13, and 11/13).
The USMC below presents its findings in two categories: construction effects and operational
effects. The overall determination of effect for the Undertaking is “no adverse effect” on the
Okinawa dugong, because of the extremely low probability of Okinawa dugongs being in the
APE; or should dugongs in fact be present, the construction and operational activity is primarilyof the type that would not have an adverse effect. The exception to this, as discussed in Section
3.2.4, is construction noise; however, the GoJ has committed to noise minimization andmonitoring efforts that the USMC finds likely to be effective in avoiding or minimizing impacts
on dugongs if they are present during construction.
3.2 Construction effects
Section 2.2 of these Findings provided a summary of construction events and methods aspresented in the GoJ DEIS (Okinawa Defense Bureau 2009). Specific aspects of the proposedconstruction considered by the Court to be potentially harmful to the Okinawa dugong included
vessel strikes, destruction or contamination of seagrass beds by land reclamation and/or red soil
runoff, and acoustic or visual disturbance from vessel traffic or construction activities.
3.2.1

Vessel impacts

Potential adverse effects from boats and vessels collisions are highly unlikely given the observed
low presence numbers of individual dugong in Henoko and Oura bays. With regards to shipnoise having some adverse effect, further insight into this question can be gained by recent work
done in Australia with controlled exposure studies on dugong using approaching boats. Hodgson
and Marsh (2007) found that dugong interrupt feeding 0.8 - 6% of the time, concluding that these12interruption rates would not affect survivorship. The report also found that vessel presence may
affect dugong at the population level by reducing reproductive rates due to lowered nutrition 4;
however, due to the very small and infrequent presence of Okinawa dugong in the APE, there
would be no adverse effect on reproductive rates. Monitoring and mitigation measures such as
standoff and speed limits, as proposed in the GoJ DEIS (Okinawa Defense Bureau 2009) would
result in no adverse effect. Private fishing vessels could be a source of harm to the dugong in
Henoko and Oura bays, but such activity is unrelated to construction or operation of the FRF.
According to the GoJ DEIS, access to fishing around Henoko Fishing Port will be restricted
during the construction period. Accordingly, operation of boats and vessels for the purposes of
FRF construction will have no adverse effects on the Okinawa dugong.
3.2.2

Land reclamation

As shown in Table 6.15.2.3.3 of the GoJ DEIS (Okinawa Defense Bureau 2009), the total area ofseagrass beds with 5% coverage or more that would disappear due to FRF construction is 78.1 ha:
35.6 ha in the sea area in front of Henoko Bay and 42.5 ha on the side of Oura Bay. This
amounts to the loss of 7.3% of the seagrass beds in the sea area in front of Henoko Bay and 37.7%of the beds on the side of Oura Bay (13% of the 600.4 hectares in both bays combined). Basedon an independent evaluation of the data provided in the GoJ DEIS and the data collected andpresented in the USMC’s experts report (Encl 1), the USMC finds that, while the seagrass beds
in Henoko and Oura bays are a potential natural habitat and food source for the Okinawa dugong,
because these seagrass beds are not consistently or routinely used by resident dugong and there
are other seagrass beds sufficient to maintain the current population of Okinawa dugong, 5 theloss of some of the seagrass beds in Henoko and Oura bays is not considered an adverse effect on
the Okinawa dugong as a natural monument. Accordingly, loss of seagrass beds from FRF
construction will have no adverse effects on the Okinawa dugong.
3.2.3

Red soil runoff

Red soil runoff, in general, is an ongoing problem with coastal development in Okinawa and issubject to local regulation. Red soil runoff has the potential to carry toxins, such as pesticides,
into the sea, where it could bio-accumulate in seagrass beds. For wildlife in general, long term
immune and reproductive damage from exposure to toxins has been documented. The USMC
literature review indicates mixed findings regarding whether or not dugong are susceptible totoxin bio-accumulation. While the USMC’s expert study did not reveal specific contaminantloads for the Okinawan dugong, and the Marine Corps has no evidence that red soils at Camp
Schwab contain such toxins, the GoJ has plans to implement a number of measures to reducerunoff to include 6:

4

Hodgson A.J. and H. Marsh 2007. Response of dugong to boat traffic: The risk of disturbance and displacement. J.
Exp Bio and Ecol 340(1): 50-61
5
To see a map of other available seagrass habitats, see DEIS Figure 3.1.5.4.
6
GoJ DEIS (Okinawa Defense Bureau 2009), Section 6.15.1, pages 6-15-246 and 6-15-247

13

x
x

x

Installation of contamination prevention covers and frameworks. Contamination
prevention covers would be monitored throughout construction and, if damage is
detected, construction work would be suspended until the damaged covers are repaired.
In land reclamation work, outer seawalls would be built first to create closed waters
separated from the open sea, thereby creating a barrier between the fill area and waters of
the bays. In the construction areas after reclamation work has been completed, bareground would be rolled and compacted and then earth will be laid around the ground sothat muddy water from bare ground does not flow into the surrounding sea areas due torain or other weather conditions allowing storm water to soak into the reclaimed land;
the back of the seawalls will be covered with sheets of waterproof canvas to prevent earthand sand from leaching out of the fill area; and storm water from culverts and otherdrainage areas will be filtered to include installation of treatment plants.
Stone materials used for fill or breakwaters will be washed before putting them into thewater.

Despite these measures, some runoff is possible 7 that could contribute to decline in the health of
local seagrass beds. The GoJ DEIS (Okinawa Defense Bureau 2009) recognizes this potential
and the GoJ has committed to establishing a monitoring system that enables swift
implementation of environmental protection measures. The GoJ has also committed to
conducting ongoing surveys of seagrasses and, based on the results of these surveys, will takeappropriate action such as consulting with experts to identify methods for expanding the habitatof seagrasses and implementing those measures deemed to be feasible. With implementation ofthese avoidance, minimization and mitigation efforts, combined with very low and infrequent
presence of Okinawa dugong in the APE, the USMC finds there will be no adverse effects to the
Okinawa dugong.
3.2.4

Acoustic or visual disturbanceStudies of other species of marine mammals, such as the closely-related manatees, suggest thatnoise from pile-driving could adversely affect dugong if they are present within the detrimental
range of such noises for extended periods of time. The GoJ FEIS (Okinawa Defense Bureau2012) included an analysis of the noise levels and sound pressure levels likely to be produced
during different construction activities, such as pile-driving. The USMC reviewed this analysis
and concurs with GoJ’s conclusions. Specifically, in the water areas from Abu to the west of
Kayo Bay, the impact of underwater sound is not expected to cause physical damage to dugongs,
should they be present while construction noise occurs. Similarly, although sound pressurelevels during stage 1 of construction could cause impacts to dugong behavior (if dugongs arepresent during stage 1), cumulative sound exposure is not expected to significantly affect dugong
behavior in this area. In Oura Bay, underwater sound is not expected to cause physical damage todugongs (if present during construction), but could cause impacts to dugong behavior during all
three phases of construction. In all cases, dugongs would have to be present in the bay to beaffected.
7

Existing satellite photographs indicate current high sediment loads at the stream outlets from existing stormwater
infrastructure.

14

As has been noted previously, survey data collected by the GoJ since June 2009 indicates only
occasional use of Henoko and Oura bays by dugongs. When exposed to human activities,
dugongs are known to seek deeper waters away from that activity. Should dugongs be present
when construction activities are initiated, it is anticipated that they will vacate the area whileconstruction noise is occurring. GoJ has indicated that it will implement the following best
management practices to avoid or minimize impacts on dugongs, if dugongs are found to bepresent in the area during construction (Okinawa Defense Bureau 2012):
x
x

x
x

x

Use a pile driving method that generates the least amount of noise.
Measure the sound levels at the first stage of pile driving, and reduce the number ofsimultaneous pile driving locations based on the measurement results. (Forecast showedthat reduction of simultaneous pile driving locations from 5 to 2 led to a noise reductionof 5 dB.)
Monitor for changes in dugong activity ranges. If changes are observed and if it isdetermined that the change is caused by construction noise, GoJ will immediately reexamine its construction methods.
Monitor dugong locations during construction. When dugongs are observed inside theconstruction zone, construction activity will cease until the dugongs leave theconstruction zone. When dugongs are observed to be approaching the construction zone,
construction workers will be notified so that all sound-generating activity can besuspended.
Since sudden pile driving sound can impact dugong behavior, GoJ will use weak strikes
at the start of pile driving activity, and gradually increase the striking force to mitigate theimpact of underwater sound on the dugongs.

In addition to these measures, DoN recommends the use of bubble curtains to further minimize
underwater piling noise during construction.
The USMC finds that no adverse effects will occur due (1) to the limited use of Henoko andOura bays by dugongs, (2) the implementation by GoJ of noise minimization techniques during
construction, (3) the suspension by GoJ of noise-generating activities when Okinawa dugongs
are present, and (4) the tendency for Okinawa dugongs to move to deeper waters when exposed
to such noise.
Lighting for any evening work could also make the area undesirable to feeding dugongs due tovisual disturbance. Dugongs tend to enter feeding areas during the early morning hours, when
there are no human activities, including artificial light. To mitigate impacts of night lighting,
the GoJ does not intend to conduct any marine construction at night hours with the possible
exception of runway paving over a three month period (Okinawa Defense Bureau 2012). In
addition, the USMC recommends that should GoJ require evening work, they place lighting
cones to direct lighting up and away from the water so that light pollution is reduced in the watercolumn. Based on the infrequent use of the APE by the Okinawa dugong and these mitigation
measures, no adverse effect is anticipated from visual disturbance.

153.3 Operations
Section 2.3 of these Findings provided a summary of anticipated operations at the FRF. Specificaspects of the proposed operations considered by the Court to be potentially harmful to the
Okinawa dugong included vessel strikes, contamination of seagrass beds by stormwater runoff,and acoustic or lighting disturbance from vessel traffic or aircraft overflights.
3.3.1 Vessel impacts
Potential adverse effects from vessels collisions with dugong are highly unlikely for two reasons:the infrequency of individual dugong in Henoko and Oura Bays, and the minimal vessel traffic inand out of the FRF with most vessels being large, slow-moving support vessels. While increased
vessel traffic has been known to cause behavioral changes such as interruption of feeding, thesingle detailed study conducted on the impacts of boat traffic on dugongs concluded thatdugongs were more likely to interrupt feeding activity only when vessels passed within 50 m oftheir location, and any disruptions were short-term. In total, such interruptions decreased dugong
feeding time by less than six percent. Given these factors, the USMC finds there would be noadverse effect on the Okinawa dugong within the APE. Should the frequency of dugong sitings
increase, the USMC would evaluate mitigation measures such as putting dugong spotters on US
ships transiting in and out of the FRF.
3.3.2 Stormwater runoff
As noted in Section 3.2.2, increased sedimentation from stormwater runoff presents an indirect
threat to the Okinawa dugong due to potential decline of seagrass habitat. To address thisconcern, rainwater in the FRF area will be released to the sea areas south and east of the FRF
through storm sewers that avoid the seagrass areas in Henoko and Oura Bays. Once the FRF isturned over to the USMC for operation, the USMC will update its standard operating proceduresfor stormwater pollution prevention for Camp Schwab to include the FRF, which will include
ongoing management of stormwater systems to minimize unfiltered/untreated stormwater runoff.
With the use of treatment plants and best management practices there should be no operational
adverse effects from stormwater runoff on the Okinawa dugong. Examples of best management
practices include personnel training, preventive maintenance, routine inspections, monitoring,
removal of sediment from storm drain trenches, lining the bottom of slopes with silt fencing toprevent further deposition of sediment into the drainage channels, using concrete trench covers
and sandbags at the bottom of the cliff face, and installing geo-textile matting on the slopes tomitigate further erosion.
3.3.3 Acoustic or lighting disturbanceIn contrast to construction noise, which is likely to include high decibel percussive sounds(piling) below the water line, operational noise will largely consist of aircraft operations andrelatively infrequent vessel traffic. As detailed in the Adam Frankel declaration 8, a dugong
would have to be directly under the flight path of an aircraft to receive any significant sound8

Dr. Adam S. Frankel Declaration, 28 June 2007, Keahou HI.

16

exposure, and even this exposure would vary according to sea state; e.g., in flat seas, almost no
acoustic energy enters the water. Evidence of this low risk is found in the low altitude dugong
aerial surveys (in which a helicopter trails individuals for several hours at a time) the GoJ
conducts to determine the presence and frequency of dugongs in the bays. Several such surveys
were conducted in support of the GoJ DEIS (Okinawa Defense Bureau 2009) with no reported
behavioral effects. Considering the above, there are no operational adverse noise effects to
Okinawa dugong in Henoko and Oura Bays.
Lighting at night on the FRF will be limited to approach lights along the runway. This lighting is
generally low wattage and typically points upward and away from the water to facilitate viewing
by aircraft conducting night operations. The absence of any direct lighting into the bays ensuresthat FRF night operations will not have adverse effects on the Okinawa dugong.
3.4 Effects of FRF construction and operation on entire Okinawa dugong population
Plaintiffs’ declarants argue that the Undertaking will substantially contribute to the extinction of
the Okinawa dugong population. In 1997, the Mammalogical Society of Japan estimated thatfewer than 50 Okinawa dugong remained in the wild. The USMC’s contracted experts
concluded that the 1997 population estimate is not scientifically valid (i.e., it is not based on asystematic survey scheme using state-of-the-art methods and incorporating an uncertainty factor,
such as a coefficient of variation, for the point estimate); however, there is no more recent survey
data. The USMC finds it would be beneficial for GoJ to conduct new systematic surveys ormodeling using methods currently accepted by marine mammal biologists to confirm current
estimates about the overall size and status of the dugong population in Okinawa and the viabilityof a population of this size. Notwithstanding the absence of recent total population data, we dohave current and valid population data for Henoko and Oura bays. As described in this Findings
analysis, the construction and operation of the FRF will not have adverse effects on the local
Okinawa dugong population and consequently will not substantially contribute to the extinctionof the entire Okinawa dugong. See also GoJ DEIS (Okinawa Defense Bureau 2009).
3.5 Effects on the intrinsic cultural elements of the Okinawa dugong
The USMC finds that the proposed Undertaking has no potential to affect the repositories
identified in Section 2.5 housing the cultural knowledge of the dugong. The USMC also
concludes that the Undertaking has no potential to directly affect Aragusuku-jima Island or thevarious coastal communities in Okinawa and the outer islands where rituals and festivals are
performed.
The USMC recognizes that the proposed Undertaking has a potential to cause indirect effects on
the performance of dugong-related rituals in Henoko Village adjacent to the southern boundaryof Camp Schwab as a result of noise or visual intrusions during construction and operation of the
FRF. The secretive nature of the ritual practitioners has prevented the USMC from acquiring
information important to determining the affect, if any, that FRF construction and operations will
have on these rituals. Without access to the nature, location and timing of these rituals, it is
impossible to assess the potential effects the undertaking will have on the rituals. Should thisinformation become available, the USMC will make an affects determination.

17

4. Development and evaluation of alternatives or modifications to the undertaking that
could mitigate the adverse effects
Section 3 summarizes the USMC finding that construction and operation of the FRF will notadversely affect the Okinawa dugong as a historical resource. In addition to the limited nature ofconstruction and operational affects in the bay, the infrequent use by individual dugongs is aprincipal factor in concluding no adverse effect. For similar reasons, a similar finding wasreached with regards to acoustic and visual disturbance, stormwater, and intrinsic values such as
rituals, festivals, shrines, or repositories of cultural knowledge.
Section 402 requires that the agency take into account the effect of the undertaking for purposesof avoiding or mitigating any adverse effects. While the USMC does not find any adverse
effects, USMC has identified measures that could further reduce the likelihood of an adverse
effect.
4.1 Mitigation measures – construction
A number of measures to mitigate for potential construction impacts on individual dugongs
and/or the Okinawa dugong population were discussed in the GoJ DEIS (Section 6.16.2).
On April 11, 2011, as part of our engagement strategy, the DoN submitted a draft of this findings
report to GoJ in advance of their completing their EIS. The draft report suggested the following
mitigation measures to avoid possible adverse impacts to the Okinawa dugong:









Use of a bubble curtain around noisy construction activities, such as percussive piling
Restricting construction activities to daytime hours or, if that is not feasible, placing
lighting cones to direct lighting up and away from the water so that light pollution is
reduced during the night hours in the water column
Active monitoring of surrounding waters to alert construction personnel if an Okinawa
dugong enters Henoko Bay while any potentially harmful activities are taking place
Adoption of Low Impact Development (LID) bests management practices forconstruction (particularly to minimize impacts from red soil runoff)
Lookouts from vessels (including floating cranes and other floating construction
equipment) during construction
Establishment of no-wake zones for vessels during construction
Use of silt curtains during construction
Engaging in adaptive management during construction

In addition, the USMC recommended that GoJ expand its current dugong monitoring program(monthly trackline surveys) to include Oura Bay (especially the seagrass beds off the northeast
shore of the base and those between the base and Kayo)).
Finally, the USMC finds and recommended to the GoJ that adaptive management principles suchas those outlined in Adaptive Management: A Tool for Conservation Practitioners (Salafsky et
al. 2001) may assist the GoJ in ensuring no adverse impacts on the dugong. Adaptive
management is predicated on the idea that impacts and mitigation can be fluid over a large

18

project with an extended schedule. The heart of adaptive management is monitoring of
construction and mitigation. If unforeseen impacts occur, they are quickly spotted andcorrespondingly quickly addressed. Adaptive management is an iterative approach that involves
implementing an action, monitoring the results of the action, and then adapting construction
processes and mitigation to account for any new information. In the context of the Okinawa
dugong, as GoJ construction progresses and they evaluate the impact of their actions on thedugong, this finding report identifies additional mitigation measures GoJ may consider inensuring no adverse effects on the Okinawa dugong as a natural resource. The GoJ EIS alreadyincorporates some elements of adaptive management related to monitoring and post-construction
surveys of the seagrass beds.
For mitigation of impacts on the cultural aspects of the dugong, if noise complaints by local
residents reveal that construction activities are affecting the performance of dugong-related
festivals or rituals in coastal villages, such as Henoko Village, DoD recommended that
construction activities in close proximity to such established traditional activities could
potentially be managed to minimize the impacts on such festivals, such as halting construction
on the day of a festival.
The December 2012 FEIS evidenced GoJ’s sensitivity to the dugong by adding additional
analysis and new mitigation measures for dugong impacts to include:
x
x
x
x
x

Additional analysis of the impact of underwater construction noise
Addition of underwater monitoring for construction noise off Kayo and commitment toreconsider construction techniques if noise exceeds projections made in FEIS
Commitment to not conduct nighttime construction in the marine environment except
for runway paving construction during evening hours for three months
Affirmation that visual monitoring will occur during construction for dugongs, and acommitment to cease noise-generating activities if a dugong is observed in the area
Vessel speed restrictions in construction area and navigation restrictions to avoid
dugong.

4.2 Mitigation measures - operations
As explained in Section 3.3, the USMC finds that operation of FRF is not expected to result inany adverse effects on the Okinawa dugong as a natural resource. The USMC’s findings alignwith those made by the GoJ in the Final EIS (GoJ 2012; Sections 6.16.2.2 and 6.16.3.2), and the
USMC acknowledges the additional commitments made by GoJ to continue monitoring surveys
and implement mitigation measures to ensure the ongoing protection of any Okinawa dugongs
that frequent Kayo, Oura or Henoko bays. Specifically, GoJ committed to the following postconstruction mitigation measures:xx

Taking environmental preservation measures to expand seagrass bed areas (transplanting,etc.).
Conduct monitoring surveys after the facilities are complete and the airfield is inoperation to see whether the presence of the new underwater structures or aircraft noise iscausing changes to dugong activity. Necessary measures will be taken in accordance

19

xwith the survey results. GOJ will also provide instruction manuals to the US Forces toavoid directing lights toward the water as much as possible.
Take protection measures such as notifying all ships navigating within 5 km of the FRF
to place lookouts for dugongs and to navigate at slow speed to prevent collisions.

Construction activities will occur over multiple years, and the USMC feels that it is prudent torequest and review monitoring information collected by the GoJ during construction and initial
operations. Should the GoJ’s monitoring of the area during construction reveal the regularpresence of Okinawa dugongs in Henoko Bay, the USMC will consult with GoJ and adaptively
manage its operations to minimize any adverse effects on Okinawa dugongs. In general, USMC
agrees to implement the best management practices specified in the Japan Environmental
Governing Standards (JEGS) for managing endangered or threatened species as additional
protection for the Okinawa dugong. The precise nature of these BMPs will be developed as partof the base’s Integrated Natural Resources and Cultural Resources Management Plan
(INRCRMP), which is a JEGS-mandated plan describing natural and cultural resourcesmanagement strategies and projects for DoD installations in Japan.
The 2008 INRCRMP and 2014 INRCRMP (in prep) for Marine Corps Base Camp Butler (which
includes Camp Schwab) identify the Okinawa dugong as both an endangered species and anatural monument and acknowledge that Okinawa dugong have been reported in the waters ofHenoko Bay. The 2014 INRCRMP will include the results of an initial planning-level survey
and literature review completed for Camp Schwab in 2007, as well as a marine mammal survey
conducted in 2012.
Ultimately, the responsibility of conserving the Okinawa dugong population resides with GoJ.
An integrated management plan that examines each of the potential threats with objective
scientific data and deals with them accordingly is key to that effort. The USMC recommends
that GoJ develop an integrated management plan in partnership with the Japanese, U.S., andinternational scientific community.
5. Engage the host nation and other relevant private organizations and individuals in acooperative partnership
The USMC used several methods to engage the host nation and other relevant privateorganizations and individuals. The USMC’s contracted experts contacted a range of interested
Japanese and non-Japanese organizations and individuals to solicit input regarding the cultural
significance of the dugong and the potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on the dugong
as a cultural property. These contacts were made through all phases of the study: contacts weremade to identify sources of archival data, to obtain specific reports during the literature review,
and as part of the informant interviews conducted for the ethnographic study. Informants
included individuals with special expertise related to the historical and archaeologicalsignificance of the dugong, as well as specialists on dugong behavior and biology to include
many of the experts identified by Plaintiffs.
The study team compiled a list of potential informants from their publications and fromrecommendations by sources that have knowledge of the role of the dugong in Okinawa culture.

20

In addition to the study team’s collective knowledge of potential sources based on past research
efforts in Okinawa and reviewing available literature, the study team consulted with cultural andnatural resource specialists at Marine Corps Base Camp Butler on Okinawa. Some of theseexperts were also identified by Plaintiffs. In addition, interviewees themselves suggested namesof persons they thought could provide useful information. In total, 16 knowledgeable informants
were interviewed. The 16 consisted of seven archaeologists, two biologists, threearchivists/professors, and four folklorists or individuals with local traditional knowledge.
The study team also visited many organizations, including Uruma City Cultural Sea Museum,
University of the Ryukyus Museum, Higashi Village Museum, Ishigaki City Yaeyama Museum,
Nakijin Village Museum of Culture and History (although it was closed for the week), Nago
Museum, Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium, and the Okinawa Prefectural Archaeology Center. The
study team visited the Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education and those municipal Boards ofEducation nearest the proposed project and those that were located along coasts where dugongs
have been sighted: Chatan Town, Ginoza Village, Nakijin Village, and Nago City.
During the summer of 2010, the GoJ and U.S. convened a bi-lateral Expert Study Group to
examine the FRF, including the impacts of the FRF on the environment. A member of the U.S.
negotiating team presented the preliminary results of the Government's findings to that Expert
Group for their consideration.
Finally, the U.S. conveyed its draft findings and mitigation measures to the GoJ through the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (Policy) in sufficient time for the draft findings to be reviewed
by GoJ as part of its environmental impact analysis. DASN(E), the official responsible formaking the final decision on the “take into account process,” has considered the response
received from GoJ and the mitigation measures clarified or added to the GoJ’s 2012 EIS as wellas this Finding and Summary Report as part of completing the “take into account” process andapproving these written findings. In conclusion, DOD has made a good faith effort to engage thehost nation and Japanese experts into the determination process and has conducted a thoroughinvestigation and analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed construction and operation of
the FRF on the dugong, consistent with the findings in the Court’s Order.

21

SUMMARY OF USMC RECOMMENDED FINDINGS RELATIVE TO DIRECTIVES IN PROPOSEDREMAND ORDER
1. In addition to information already in the record before the court, the defendants shall collect and consider
information on dugong distribution in waters around Okinawa Island and shall assess the significance of suchinformation with respect to the dugong’s status as a cultural and historic property of Japan.
Welch 2010
GoJ EIS and Surveys
Collect & analyze dugong
Chapter 3: 13-15
DEIS 6.16.1 – 6.16.216; GoJ Monthly Dugong
distribution information
Maeda interview 147
Reportsaround Okinawa Island
Assess significance ofChapter 4: 31-32
DEIS 6.16.217 – 6.16.229; GoJ Monthly Dugong
distribution information
Reports
2. Defendants shall collect and consider information on dugong behavior, migratory movements, feeding
patterns, utilization of seagrass habitats, and availability of alternative seagrass habitats around Okinawa and thesignificance of such information with respect to the dugong’s status as a cultural and historic property of Japan.
Dugong behavior
Migratory movements

Feeding patterns
Seagrass habitat utilization
Availability of alternative
seagrass habitats
Assess significance of
behavior information
Assess significance of
migratory information
Assess significance offeeding pattern information
Assess significanceseagrass habitat utilization
Assess significancealternative seagrass habitat
availability

Chapter 3: 17-18
Report addresses animal
movements from anecological rather than amigratory perspective. See
Chapter 3: 13-14, 16, 17-18
and Sasaki interview 150152
Chapter 3: 13, 15-18
Chapter 3: 13-18
Chapter 9: 97- 98

DEIS 6.16.1 – 6.16.2; FEIS 6.16.2.2 and 6.16.3.2
GoJ Monthly Dugong Reports

DEIS 6.16.1; GoJ Monthly Dugong Reports
DEIS 6.16.1- 6.16.216; FEIS 6.16.2.2 and6.16.3.2; GoJ Monthly Dugong Reports
DEIS 3.1.5, 6.15; GoJ Monthly Dugong Reports

Chapter 9: 92
Chapter 3: 21

Chapter 3: 20
DEIS 6.16.1 – 6.16.2; FEIS 6.16.2.2 and 6.16.3.2
Chapter 9: 92
Chapter 3: 21-22
DEIS 3.1.5, 6.16.1 – 6.16.2;
Chapter 9: 92-93
FEIS 6.16.2.2 and 6.16.3.2
Chapter 9: 97-98 (statement
DEIS 3.1.5, 6.16.1 – 6.16.2;
does not precisely say where
FEIS 6.16.2.2 and 6.16.3.2
this might be, just says it
could be done elsewhere on
the Okinawa reef)
3. Defendants shall request relevant data generated by the GoJ EIS process as soon as the surveys are complete.
The GoJ provided the DEIS (Okinawa Defense Bureau 2009) to the USMC in April 2009. The USMC hired acontractor to translate relevant chapters of the DEIS into English, and the English translations were provided to thecontracted experts for review between July and October 2009. Chapters provided to the contracted experts included
the Summary, Chapter 2 (Purpose of the Project); Chapter 3 (Project Site and Conditions in the Surrounding Areas),
Chapter 4 (Comments to the Scoping Document and Views of the Project Proponent), Chapter 5 (Items Studied
Under the DEIS, and Survey, Projection, and Evaluation Methods Applied), Chapter 6 (Overview of Survey,
Projection and Evaluation Results), Chapter 7 (Environmental Conservation Measures), and Chapter 8 (References).
GoJ issued a Final EIS in December 2012 and the USMC considered English translations of the Executive
Summary, portions of Chapter 6, and Chapters 9 and 10.
In addition, a number of source materials filed with the Court (declarations from Noah, Frankel, Hines, Geitlan,

22

Yonaha, Takamichi, and Maeda; Plaintiffs exhibits #2 and #3, Defendants Exhibit #6, and the Dec 2005 Marine
Resources Assessment for Japan and Okinawa Complexes) were provided to the contracted experts.
4. Defendants shall consult with a qualified expert biologist or similar expert consultant to analyze available
information on the dugong, seagrass beds, and the information received from the GoJ’s EIA process as todugong behavior, migratory movements, and feeding patterns, insofar as those topics are relevant to the dugong’s
status as a cultural and historic property of Japan.
GoJ DEIS consultation on
Chapter 3, 9
DEIS 6.16.1; FEIS 6.16.2.2 and 6.16.3.2
behavior, migratory
movements, and feeding
patterns
5. Defendants shall consult with an expert consultant who is familiar with Okinawa culture or has the ability todevelop such familiarity expeditiously, including ability to research existing sources in Japanese to collect andanalyze information on those aspects of Okinawa culture that relate to the dugong’s status as a cultural andhistoric property of Japan.
USMC consult with expert Chapter 1: 2-3
consultant
6. Defendants shall determine what additional information, if any, may be required for an informed assessment
and analysis of potential impacts of the FRF undertaking on the dugong’s status as a cultural and historic
property of Japan.
USMC perform data gap
Chapter 9: 92-93, 95-98
analysis
7. Defendants shall perform an independent analysis of adverse effects on the dugong’s status as a cultural andhistoric property of Japan.
Analysis of adverse effects Chapter 9
8. Defendants shall analyze potential effects including physical destruction of the Okinawa dugong resulting
from possible contamination of seagrass feeding grounds, collisions with boats and vessels, and potential longterm immune and reproductive damage resulting from exposure to toxins and acoustic pollution.
Potential effects to dugong Chapter 3: 20-21
DEIS 6.16.1 - 6.16.3; 6.16.2 – 6.16.2.2; FEISfrom contamination to
6.16.2.2 and 6.16.3.2
seagrass feeding grounds
and exposure to toxins
Potential effects to dugong Chapter 3: 19- 20
DEIS 6.16.2 – 6.16.2.2; FEIS 6.16.2.2 and 6.16.3.2
from boat and vessel traffic
Potential long term
Chapter 3: 20
DEIS 6.3, 6.16.2 – 6.16.2.2; FEIS 6.16.2.2 andimmune or reproductive
Subject researched by
6.16.3.2
damage from exposure tocontractor/ Information Not
acoustic pollution
Available
9. Defendants shall analyze the design, construction materials, and construction techniques for the runway andoperation of the FRF that reasonably could be expected to adversely affect the dugong, directly or indirectly, as acultural and historic property of Japan.
Analyze direct construction Chapter 9: 92-93
DEIS 2.4.2, 6.15.2; 6.16.2
impacts to the dugong at.
FRF
10. Defendants shall undertake this analysis based on the advice and input provided by the biological andcultural resources experts with whom the defendants will consult.
Use qualified biological
Chapter 1: 2
and cultural resource
experts

23

11. Defendants shall generate and collect information regarding practical measures and techniques, as
demonstrated to be technically and economically feasible, that reasonably could mitigate adverse effects of the
FRF, if any are determined to be likely, on the dugong as a cultural and historic property of Japan.
Generate practical
Chapter 9: 94-98
DEIS 6.15.3; 6.16.3
mitigation measures
12. Defendants shall determine whether the operational requirements for the FRF would permit theincorporation of measures to mitigate all or some portion of any identified adverse effects on the dugong as acultural and historic property of Japan.
Determine if there are
Chapter 9: 94-98 (language
DEIS 6.15.3.2; 6.16.3.2
operational mitigation
on operational mitigation
measures that can bemeasures limited but
implemented at FRF
included)
13. Defendants have advised the court that, under Japan’s EIS process, the GoJ is not expected to study specificmitigation measures until after the EIS document is drafted and made available for public comment. As a result,the defendants shall independently study potentially available mitigation measures for construction andoperation.
Generate potential
Chapter 9: 94-98
mitigation measures
independently of the GoJ
EIS process
14. Defendants shall engage GoJ on potentially available mitigation measures needed for construction anddesign, as appropriate, before the GoJ makes a final decision. The Defendants shall consider mitigation
measures proposed by the GoJ to the extent the Defendants learn of them before completion of our analysis.
Engage GoJ on
Not Applicable
FEIS Chapters 6, 9 and 10
independently developed
mitigation measures before
GoJ makes a final decision.
15. Defendants shall collect comments from interested Japanese and non-Japanese organizations and individuals
with special expertise relevant to the dugong as a cultural and historic property of Japan.
Informant interview
Chapter 2: 8
methods
Informant interview
Chapters 3-8: quotes andsummaries
summaries on specific topics
Informant interview
Appendix A
transcripts
16. Defendants shall determine how and when to solicit comments from these organizations and individuals after
discussions with the DoD’s retained biological and cultural consultants.
The USMC used several methods to engage the host nation, including providing the government of Japan the March
7, 2011 draft Findings report, and other relevant private organizations and individuals to solicit input regarding thecultural significance of the dugong and the potential effects of the proposed Undertaking on the dugong as a culturalproperty. These contacts were made through all phases of the study; contacts were made to identify sources ofarchival data, to obtain specific reports during the literature review, and as part of the informant interviews
conducted for the ethnographic study. Informants included individuals with special expertise related to the historicaland archaeological significance of the dugong, as well as specialists on dugong behavior and biology.
The study team compiled a list of potential informants who seemed most likely from their publications or who wererecommended by a variety of sources to have knowledge of the role of the dugong in Okinawa culture. In total, 16
knowledgeable informants were interviewed, including seven archaeologists, two biologists, threearchivists/professors, and four folklorists or individuals with local traditional knowledge.
The study team also visited many organizations, including Uruma City Cultural Sea Museum, University of the24

Ryukyus Museum, Higashi Village Museum, Ishigaki City Yaeyama Museum, Nakijin Village Museum of Cultureand History (although it was closed for the week), Nago Museum, Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium, and the Okinawa
Prefectural Archaeology Center. The study team visited the Okinawa Prefectural Board of Education and thosemunicipal Boards of Education nearest the proposed project and those that were located along coasts where dugongs
have been sighted: Chatan Town, Ginoza Village, Nakijin Village, and Nago City.
17. Defendants shall provide the consultant with the list of experts that the plaintiffs filed with the Court on June
6, 2008.
The list of experts that Plaintiffs filed with the Court on June 6, 2008, was provided to the USMC’s contracted
experts in August 2009. Refer to the response for #16 above for methodology for selecting individuals to interview.
18. With input from the consultants, the defendants shall determine the appropriate stage(s) in the analysis tosolicit comments from individuals and organizations with expertise.
See Response #16. Comments were solicited from individuals and organizations with expertise at the following
stages of the USMC’s analysis: These contacts were made through all phases of the study; contacts were made to
identify sources of archival data, to obtain specific reports during the literature review, and as part of the informant
interviews conducted for the ethnographic study. As noted in the response to Directive #19, further engagement with
the GoJ will occur once the U.S. conveys potentially available mitigation measures from this finding to the GoJ
through Office of the Secretary of Defense (Policy).
19. Following the completion of this information-gathering and assessment process, the defendants shallcomplete the “take into account” process through a written finding approved by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Installations and Environment.
The U.S. conveyed potentially available mitigation measures from this finding to the GoJ through Office of theSecretary of Defense (Policy) in sufficient time for the mitigation recommendations to be reviewed by GoJ while itcompleted its environmental impact analysis and made final determinations on the FRF. DASN(E), the official
responsible for making the final decision on the “take into account process,” considered the response received from
GoJ and additional mitigation measures adopted by GoJ in the FEIS before he completed the “take into account”
process and approved the written findings.

25

EXHIBIT 2
ACTION MEMO, SIGNED APRIL 7, 2014

ACTION lVIEMOFOR:

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Environment)

FROM:

Major General Juan Ayala, Assistant Deputy Commandant, l&L

SUBJECT:

Okinawa Dugong: USMC Recommended Findings•

TAB A is the United States Marine Corps Recommended Findings with respect to the impacts of the
proposed Futenma Replacement Facility (FRF) on the dugong located in the waters around
Okinawa, Japan.

•

In 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order that called forthe Department of Defense (DoD) to take into account the impacts of the FRF on the dugong
pursuant to Section 402 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). While the Court neverissued a final order, DoD filed a Proposed Final Remand Order recommending a process DoD
proposed to follow to satisfy the "take into account" process. The Marine Corps used the elements of
DoD's proposed Order to conduct its analysis.

•

The Marine Corps Findings consolidates and summarizes information from its analysis andidentifies what information was considered and accepted as the best available information as well as
where gaps in knowledge exist despite best efforts to gather that information.

•

The overall Marine Corps determination of effect for the Undertaking is that the project construction
and operation will have "no adverse effect" on the dugong because of the extremely low probabilityof dugongs being in the Area of Potential Effect, and the construction and operational activity is
primarily of the type that would not have an adverse effect on the dugong. The single exception tothis is construction noise; however, the Government of Japan (GoJ) has committed to noise
minimization and monitoring efforts sufficient to allow the Marine Corps to find no adverse effectfrom construction noise.

•

The Marine Corps Findings describes the efforts to engage the host nation and other relevant privateorganizations and individuals to prepare the report.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve TAB A by signing the statement below:
As the Department of the Navy Federal Preservation Officer, I have carefully reviewed the Marine Corps
Recommended Findings and determine that the proposed construction and operation of the FRF will haveno adverse effect on the dugong. This concludes my take into accounte s as required by the District
Court's ruling on the requirements of Section 402 of e NH A.

Dated

egardus
Deputy Assistant Secre(Environment)

COORDINATION: OAGC (EI&E)
Attachments: As Stated
Prepared By: Dr. Sue Goodfellow, HQMC LF (571) 256-278, sue.goodfellow@usmc.mil

EXHIBIT 3
ACTION MEMO, SIGNED APRIL 15, 2014

ACTION MEMO
FOR: Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Environment)/

From: Dr. Sue Goodfellow, IIQMC LF -(/;
Subject: Okinawa Dugung: !JSMC Recommended Findings- Corrected Version•

TAB A is the United States Marine Corps Recommend Findings- Corrected Version,•

After DASN(E) signed the Findings document on 7 April2014, TAB B, the Department of
Defense forwarded the l'inclings document to the Government of Japan for their awareness.
The Government of Japan (GoJ) identified two factual errors.

•

The first, on page 6 of the Findings document, GoJ noted that USMC incorrectly stated "A
total of 71 aircraft would be based at FRF." The correct language should be "Approximately
58 aircraft would be located at the FRF," which is consistent with the 2014 FRF Master Plan.
Because our analysis considered up to 71 aircraft, our "no effect" determination remains
valid.

•The second error is found in two separate instances on pages 19 and 20 of the f'indings,
wherein USMC incorrectly identified conditions for the landfill permit issued by the
Okinawa Prefectural Government, namely that the GoJ will seck agreements with the US
government to protect the environment in the vicinity of US bases, and will establish acouncil of representatives from the GoJ, Okinawa Prefecture, and concerned municipalities
to oversee compliance with these agreements,•

The GoJ has informed us that these items arc not preconditions for the Governor's signature,
However, the GoJ will take appropriate measmes with the US Government to protect theenvironment in the vicinity of US bases. As such, we have deleted the two instances of thislanguage. This deletion does not change our "no effect determination!'

RECOMMENDA TJ0:-.1: Approve TAB A by signing the statement below:

l adopt the corrected Marine Corps Findings document and concur that the correction of theseerrors does not alter my "no effect determination"
7

Da(e{j1

ary of the Navy

COOR

0;\GC (FI& Ej;\ttctchmcnh: As St<ttcd
Ptcparcd By: Dr s,,, (;nndldimv. HQ\lC l.F (Y71) 2''6-'273.