Locals express worries about sonar

Published on January 22nd, 2010

By JOY LANDALUCE

The Navy has proposed an increase of training activities, including two 21-day periods this summer, which would involve active radar and the introduction of new weapons and sonar training.

Local residents and fishermen, worried about what impact the training exercises may have on the marine environment in the training area, attended a public meeting on Jan. 12 at the Orca Adventure Lodge. The meeting was to inform citizens of the plans for the Navy's upcoming training. Also, there was an introduction to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Oversea Environmental Impact Statement for the Gulf of Alaska.

Navy personnel presented several alternatives which they may choose for the training.

The first option would maintain current training activities that do not involve the use of active sonar. Currently this includes one annual training exercise of up to 14 days in the summer. This no-action alternative also provides an opportunity to assess the potential environmental effects of the other alternatives.

Another alternative would increase the duration of the current summer exercises from 14 days to 21 days, and include the use of active sonar during anti-submarine warfare training exercises. There also would be new ships, submarines, aircraft weapon systems and training instrumentation put into use. Some of the new pieces of equipment and vessels include a guided missile submarine and a portable undersea tracking range.

This option, according to Navy personnel, is the preferred alternative because it fully supports required Navy and joint training activities. The Navy also would have the greatest amount of flexibility to carry out its training missions in Alaska. This alternative includes all elements of the first alternative but allows for a second training exercise of up to 21 days for a possible total of 42 days of training in the summer. It also allows a maximum of two sinking exercises.

Residents worry that the Navy underestimates the number of marine animals and fish that would be killed and some do not want the sonar or the sinking of the vessels. People expressed concerns that the Navy disregards the serious impacts of its sonar training and the harmful effects.

Navy Cmdr. Vic Weber, who has commanded the last two training exercises in the Gulf of Alaska said, "Training is critical, the Navy must maintain and increase Gulf training." He said the primary mission would be active sonar and new weapons. Active sonar has no significant impact on birds or fish, he said.

"Joint training opportunities for the Navy include staying close to the land for the planes - airplanes need range," Weber added. "The Navy needs to stay at the highest levels of readiness, the Navy needs to advance technology - while protecting the environment."

Sonar effect uncertain

Rosemary McGuire does not support increased training activity in the Gulf.

"Although there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the precise effects of active sonar on marine mammals, it is clear that in the past, active sonar has caused mass die-offs of whales. We can't risk that happening here," McGuire said. "The Gulf of Alaska is too valuable to our town to place it in jeopardy in this fashion. What the Navy is proposing amounts to a massive escalation of current training activities in the Gulf, and while I would support current levels of activity, I am opposed to the proposed use of active sonar as well as missiles, torpedoes and underwater explosives."

"I think that this issue should be of particular concern to the fishing community, as well as to those with a long-term stake in the area," McGuire added. "I was proud to see how people came together to voice their concerns on Tuesday night, and I hope that others take the time to write in letters."

EIS green light

Alex Stone, the project manager of the Gulf of Alaska draft environmental impact statement said the Navy has a 50-50 Atlantic/Pacific Ocean ratio.

"The Navy is simply adding more Pacific Ocean training. This will include up to two vessel sinkings. These ships will be environmentally clean, of course," Stone said. "The Navy works closely with fishermen in Southern California and Hawaii. The exercises are always conducted in a clear area. If we get the green light - the EIS does not expire."

Kristin Smith, executive director of the Copper River Watershed Project said, "While the training isn't occurring directly in the Copper River Watershed, this region is supported by a commercial salmon economy, a subsistence salmon economy and a sportfish salmon economy and all those fish are feeding and living as adults in the Gulf of Alaska. I took a look at the posters and see mention of 'anticipated' effects. That's not good enough for activities that have the potential to affect our livelihood. I do not want to see sonar used or a sinking exercise conducted in the Gulf of Alaska."

Sheila Murray, Environmental Public Affairs officer for the Navy said it is the organizations past legacy that precedes them. "The Navy are good environmental stewards today; the Navy is very different and very green."

Protection for whales sought

Fishermen and residents are aware that hazardous material damage salmon and marine mammals, and they want protection areas for harbor porpoises, which are acutely sensitive to sound, endangered gray whales, endangered humpback whales and blue whales, and for the critically endangered North Pacific right whale.

Allen Marquette is concerned about numerous issues.

"Although the Navy's presentation appeared to be well-organized, I was disappointed they did not go into more detail concerning what action would be taken should they encounter animals including fish, mammals and other organisms in their war games," Marquette said. "Since most organisms living in the ocean are subsurface, they really do not appear to have a good way of knowing if they are present or in the area other than by being discovered by onboard surface spotters or in the case of whales and large mammals by radar.

"In some of their proposed actions they would like to use explosive devices to sink a vessel in deeper water. When I asked two of their specialists about the effect's of the explosives on fish and other organisms, they admitted explosives could cause damage to some organisms depending on their proximity to the blast," Marquette said. "It would be nice to have more details on how the Navy would ascertain what organisms are in the area that might be significantly impacted from using explosives."

The Navy expects to disrupt or kill more than 20 different species of marine mammals, including seven endangered species in the Gulf of Alaska exercises.

Toxic pollutants

Karen Swartzbart said that these harmful substances are not to be allowed.

"Toxic pollutants are not wanted in the Gulf of Alaska," Swartzbart said. "What concerns me the most is the cumulative impact of extremely toxic missile and bomb residue polluting the ocean floor? The Gulf of Alaska is a biologically sensitive marine environment providing breeding, rearing and migration habitat for all commercial and non-commercial species."

Swartzbart said the explosives contain depleted uranium and other highly toxic chemicals that are known to be harmful to man and marine life. "It would be like bombing a National Park," she said.

High school student Kris Ranney attended the meeting with his brother Carl. He spoke of their concern for halibut habitat.

"Tremors could be caused on the ocean floor because of the bombing - damaging important habitat. "These are old fish - it takes a halibut 25 years to weigh 100 pounds," Ranney said.

The public can provide comment until Jan. 24. For more information visit www.gulfofalaskanavyeis.com/GetInvolved.aspx.