Opinion ID: 1404383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Navy's EA and the Predicted Harm to Marine Mammals in the Southern California Waters

Text: In February 2007, the Navy issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the SOCAL exercises pursuant to NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. ง 1501.3. The EA set forth the Navy's estimate of how much harm the use of MFA sonar would inflict on marine mammals, classifying the harm as either Level A harassment or Level B harassment. Level A harassment is an act that physically injures the marine mammal. Level A harassment refers to an exposure to MFA sonar that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild. Injury is defined as any destruction or loss of any biological tissues, and includes permanent hearing loss. Level B harassment is an act that disrupts the behavior of a marine mammal. Level B harassment refers to an exposure to MFA sonar that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, feeding, or sheltering to a point where such behaviors are abandoned or significantly altered. Notably, Level B harassment may also, though it need not, include temporary hearing loss. The behavioral effects that result from Level B harassment may have severe consequences. According to the Biological Opinion of the NMFS, acoustic exposures can result in the death of a marine mammal by impairing its foraging or its ability to detect predators or communicate by increasing stress or by disrupting important physiological events. In its EA, the Navy classified predicted sonar exposures as either Level A harassments or Level B harassments based on the sound intensity to which a marine mammal would be exposed. For cetaceansโwhich include whales and dolphins and which are the focus of NRDC's challenge to the SOCAL exercisesโthe Navy applied the following impact thresholds: it classified as Level A harassments exposures to sonar levels of 215 decibels (dB) or greater, as Level B harassments including temporary hearing loss exposures to sonar levels between 195 dB and 215 dB, and as Level B harassments not including temporary hearing loss exposures to sonar levels between 173 dB and 195 dB. [17] Significantly, the Navy acknowledged in the EA that it does not know whether the above impact thresholds apply to beaked whales. Recognizing the recent beaked whale strandings and the fact that the exact causes of those strandings are unknown, the Navy concluded that separate, meaningful impact thresholds cannot be derived specifically for beaked whales. Put simply, the Navy did not know whether exposure of a beaked whale to an acoustic energy of less than 215 dB might nevertheless cause permanent injury to the whale. Accordingly, the Navy took a conservative approach and counted all predicted Level B exposures of beaked whales as non-lethal Level A exposures. Thus, the Navy treated every predicted exposure of a beaked whale to a sonar level of 173 dB or greater as causing physical injury including permanent hearing loss. In its EA, the Navy estimated that over the course of the SOCAL exercises, the use of MFA sonar would result in 564 instances of Level A harassment to marine mammals, 548 of which would be to beaked whales. [18] Specifically, the following species would be subjected to Level A harassments: Cuvier's beaked whales in 436 instances; Ziphiid beaked whales in 104 instances; common dolphins in 16 instances; and Baird's beaked whales in 8 instances. [19] The Navy also estimated that the use of MFA sonar would result in 8,160 exposures to Level B harassment with temporary hearing loss and 161,368 exposures to Level B harassment without hearing loss. Eight marine mammal species, including one endangered species, would be exposed to over 1,000 incidents of Level B harassment: 145,444 exposures to common dolphins; 6,460 exposures to Northern Pacific right whale dolphins; 4,292 exposures to Risso's dolphins; 4,100 exposures to Pacific white-sided dolphins, 3,252 exposures to striped dolphins; 1,830 exposures to pygmy sperm whales (endangered); 1,094 exposures to Pantropical spotted dolphins; and 1,092 exposures to bottlenose dolphins. In light of the harm that marine mammals are expected to suffer as a result of the SOCAL exercises, plaintiffs contend that they and their members living in southern California will be harmed. For example, plaintiff Jean-Michel Cousteau alleges that as an environmental enthusiast and film-maker his ability to enjoy and educate others about the marine environment in southern California will be impaired if the harmful effects of MFA sonar on marine mammals are not sufficiently mitigated. Other plaintiffs make similar allegations. The Navy stated in the EA that it assumed that its methodology for estimating harm overestimated the effects of MFA sonar on marine mammals, citing the lack of observed effects during several past major exercises. However, the EA also maintained that the methodology used was based on the best available science, and it provided no indication of the extent to which its methodology overestimated the effects of MFA sonar. In fact, there is at least some evidence that the Navy's methodology may have underestimated the effects of MFA sonar on marine mammals. NRDC has submitted declarations of several scientists who cite evidence that extraordinary behavior in marine mammals, including stranding by beaked whales, may be caused by acoustic energy levels below the Navy's bottom impact threshold of 173 dB. See Declaration of Dr. David E. Bain ถถ 6-11; Declaration of Dr. Edward C.M. Parsons ถ 4; Declaration of Dr. Linda Weilgart (Weilgart decl.) ถ 9. While NRDC has presented no evidence that marine mammals have actually been harmed by the Navy's use of MFA sonar in the Southern California Operating Area over the past forty years, [20] the record indicates that because harm to marine mammals is difficult to detect, except in cases of stranding, marine mammals may nonetheless be harmed by the Navy's use of MFA sonar in the Southern California Operating Area. In the Navy's January 2007 after action report following the completion of the first three SOCAL exercises, the Navy acknowledged that it is difficult to assess the potential exposure to sonar for species not observed. Indeed, the after action reports for the last eight COMPTUEX and JTFEX exercises in the Southern California Operating Area reveal that in less than 15% of the instances in which marine mammals were observed, MFA sonar was in fact being used. [21] Thus, the Navy's reports show that relatively few marine mammals have been observed while MFA sonar was being used. Beaked whales are particularly difficult to observe. According to a 2004 Navy-sponsored report, [t]heir very low broaching profile and the limited time they spend at the surface have conspired to make them resistant to easy surveying. The report notes that beaked whales are very deep divers and spend an estimated 80% of their time at considerable depths. According to the EA, Cuvier's and Mesoplodont beaked whales make dives of up to 87 minutes. [22] An international workshop on beaked whales organized by the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission noted that only 1 in 50 beaked whales would be detected in naval mitigation surveys using shipboard visual observation, even assuming ideal observation conditions. Correspondingly, injuries to beaked whales are also difficult to observe. In a January 2007 memorandum, the NMFS concluded that injuries or mortalities . . . would rarely be documented, due to the remote nature of many [naval activities] and the low probability that an injured or dead beaked whale would strand. While the parties have presented conflicting declarations on the issue whether whale carcasses resurface for some time after they initially sink, compare Weilgart decl. ถ 7 with Ketten decl. ถ 17, the likelihood that a whale carcass would be detected if it does not strand logically depends on how well the waters are searched for such carcasses. A 2007 study by NMFS researchers suggests that the likelihood of detecting dead beaked whales is low, as it concluded that, given current biological survey efforts, in 90% of beaked whale stocks a decline in population of 50% over a 15-year period would go undetected as a decline at all. Non-fatal injuries not leading to stranding would be even more difficult to detect because no beaked whale carcass would surface. Moreover, it is not clear from the record whether in the past forty years the waters of southern California have been exposed to MFA sonar at the same power level and frequency and for the same duration as they are now. First, the Navy has provided no information about the frequency with which exercises involving the use of MFA sonar were conducted prior to 1992. Second, while the Navy states that Navy data going back to 1992 shows that the number of yearly exercises in the last 15 years and amount of [MFA sonar] use in SOCAL waters was greater in the past than it is now, showing a slight reduction trend, Bird decl. ถ 18, that statement is too vague to allow conclusions to be drawn from it. The statement says nothing about the type of exercises or their duration over the years, and it does not make clear whether in SOCAL waters refers only to sonar use or also to the number of yearly exercises. Further, the statement does not specify whether amount of [MFA sonar] use refers to sonar use in each exercise or to total sonar use in a year, nor does it make clear whether that phrase refers to the number of times sonar was employed or to the aggregate duration of sonar transmission. The Navy produces no data in the record to clarify its statement. Third, while the EA states that an average of seven JTFEX or COMPTUEX exercises are conducted each year, which is consistent with fourteen SOCAL exercises to be conducted over two years, the EA does not state the starting date after which that average has been maintained. Fourth, while the Navy points out that its currently-used SQS-53 sonar system transmits sonar at the same power levels and frequencies as the SQS-26 system that the Navy used in earlier years, it acknowledges that in a new class of destroyers the SQS-53 system has replaced the SQS-56 system. Bird. decl. ถ 18. As the Biological Opinion of the NMFS makes clear, the SQS-56 system transmits MFA sonar at a lower power level and at different frequencies than the SQS-53 system. [23] Thus, the record suggests that with the new class of destroyers the average MFA sonar transmission may have increased in power level and changed in frequency. The Navy does not cite evidence to the contrary. Finally, we can draw no conclusion from the statement in the EA that output from active sonar systems used in [the Southern California Operating Area] and throughout the Navy has remained largely the same for the past 30 years. The EA does not explain whether output refers to frequency, sound intensity level, amount of time used during an exercise, or amount of time used per year. [24] Even assuming the statement refers to the use of the sonar systems during an exercise or during the year, it is unclear whether it refers to total use in the Southern California Operating Area or rather to total use by the Navy in all its training areas combined. In any event, the Navy's estimate that its use of MFA sonar in the SOCAL exercises will expose marine mammals to 564 instances of Level A harassment and nearly 170,000 instances of Level B harassment clearly indicates that at least some substantial harm will likely occur in the Southern California Operating Area.