Tracey Moriarty’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Answers

  I apologize for my delayed response. Here's my best effort to answer some of the major questions and comments seen so far.  If after reading this posting, you want additional information, please feel to email me, and I'll do the best I can.  

  1: Is the 215 decibel threshold for permanent damage, or just damage in general?  

  A: The 215 decibel threshold refers to permanent physical injury of marine mammals (otherwise known as permanent threshold shift or PTS).  This threshold serves as the lower limit for Level A Harassment (which is legally defined to have the "potential to injure a marine mammal") under the MMPA.  Because there are ethical issues associated with doing research that purposely exposes marine mammals to sound levels that could cause PTS, NMFS proposed the use of 215 dB as the acoustic threshold for PTS.

  This threshold is conservative and applicable to even the most acoustically sensitive marine mammals, such as beaked whales.  I can provide some of Navy's environmental planning documents upon request, which will provide detailed information regarding how this threshold was determined.  

  2: Noise doesn't necessarily haveta cause physical injuries in order to harm marine mammals.  It just has to disorient/upset 'em enough that they may accidentally beach themselves, or rise to the surface too quickly in an attempt to escape the noise.

  A: The Navy recognizes that different marine mammals react to active sonar differently, depending on the species of the marine mammals and the underwater conditions of the training area.  While some marine mammals (e.g., beaked whales) may react to avoid sonar pings, other species may not react at all (e.g., such as dolphins purposefully riding the bow waves of a vessel).  The Navy is doing everything it can to understand the effects of sound on marine mammals, which is why it is dedicating approximately $19 million each year from FY07-FY09 for scientific research.  

  The Navy is also working hard to get all of its environmental planning documents completed - to ensure that its training exercises can be conducted with minimal impacts to marine mammals.  

  3: A ping is not necessarily a one second long event, and they do not necessarily repeat just twice per minute.  In the January 2001 Environmental Impact Statement for the Low Frequency Active Sonar Towed Array System, (SURTASS-LFA), a "ping" could last as long as 120 seconds. The typical ranging sonar "ping" is much shorter in duration as the Navy claims, but this is a characteristic of one type ranging and navigation sonar only...

  A: My comments were directed at mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar, because (1) the initial blog entry appeared to be concerned with MFA (based on references made about the CNN report and Admiral Rice, which were both regarding MFA), and (2) this is the type of sonar receiving the most media attention.  

  Low-frequency active (LFA) sonar, mentioned by Mr. Stocker above, is used on only two Navy vessels worldwide.  The Navy has conducted more than 15 SURTASS LFA operational missions since January 2003.  LFA sonar has never been implicated in a stranding event. (Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 21, 2007 / Rules and Regulations.)  

  The Navy has made a tremendous effort to ensure that the LFA system does not pose a risk to marine life.  As part of the 2001 EIS process, a two-year, $16 million independent scientific research program led by world-renowned scientists was conducted to determine the potential effects of SURTASS LFA on marine mammals.  The study considered the protective measures employed by the Navy and concluded that the potential physiological effects to marine mammals were negligible and the possibility of significant behavioral effects was minimal.  For more information about LFA, please see http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com/FAQ/index.htm.

  4: There are quite a few studies that equate military activities with strandings that, depending on framing and "certainty" bring the "50 marine mammals worldwide" to question. (e.g.: the reports on Hanalei Bay Melon Headed Whale "embayment,"  the Haro Strait USS Shoup event, Brownell IWC Report SC63/E7, etc).

  A: I stand by the statement that sonar has been implicated in the stranding of about 50 marine mammals worldwide from 1996 to 2006, which equates to an average of about 5 a year.  Regarding your references to Hanalei Bay, Haro Strait, and the IWC report, please note the following:

  Hanalei Bay: On July 3, 2004, 150-200 melon-headed whales were observed congregating in the shallow waters of Hanalei Bay, HI.  The following day, volunteers using kayaks urged the whales back to open sea.  On July 5, a calf was found deceased on the shore, likely from maternal separation, poor nutrition, and dehydration.

  On July 2 and 3, 2004, Navy vessels participated in a multi-national naval exercise that included the use of MFA sonar.  All active sonar operation on July 2 occurred on the opposite side of the island in relation to Hanalei Bay and active sonar operation on July 3 did not begin until after the whales were observed entering the Bay and never occurred closer than 20 NM from the Bay.

  A NOAA report on the event, finalized in 2006, did not reach a conclusive finding on the cause of the melon-headed whales' behavior.  NOAA postulated that active sonar could have been a contributing factor in a confluence of events.  The Navy disputes this conclusion based on (1) scientific evidence of a similar melon-headed whale event (involving 500-700 whales and an unidentified number of rough-toothed dolphins) that occurred simultaneously several thousand miles away with no sonar activity, and (2) the lack of scientific evidence indicating that MFA sonar was a contributing factor in either Hanalei Bay event.

  USS Shoup event in Haro Strait:  NMFS' final report on harbor porpoise strandings in Haro Strait in May 2003 concluded that USS SHOUP's sonar use did not cause the strandings.  Necropsy examinations revealed no definitive signs of acoustic trauma in any of the porpoises.

  NMFS conducted necropsies on 11 porpoises, concluding that two died from blunt trauma and three from illness. The cause of the other six deaths could not be determined. The report stated that the middle ears of virtually all of the porpoises appeared normal.

  Brownell IWC Report: The U.S. Navy disagrees with the findings of the IWC.  The report was not externally peer-reviewed before publication and offers no verifiable evidence to explain a correlation between active sonar use and marine mammal strandings.

  5: My only complaint here is that ONR chooses what -and more importantly, what not to sponsor. While I know that there is absolutely no meddling in the outcomes, there is an ONR research pedigree that has science following the funding, so the chances of our organization (for example) getting ONR funding is remote.

  A: The Navy has a finite amount of money and must prioritize which research to fund based on its mission and compliance requirements.  For example, for the purposes of its environmental planning documents required for major training exercises using active sonar, the Navy must be able to mitigate potential effects of active sonar on marine mammals.  In order to do this, the Navy must first determine what the potential "effects" of mid-frequency active sonar are on marine mammals.  Once the effects are established, such results are expected to impact future training exercises and marine mammal protective measures.  

  If your organization were to propose research, that would meet our mission and compliance objectives, then you should submit your proposal for consideration.  On Propaganda soft-pedals sonar impacts on marine mammals posted 1 year, 8 months ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Providing Facts, Not Propaganda

  I would like to clarify that the Navy does not engage in propaganda.  To do so is strictly forbidden by DoD and Navy policy.  The military is held to very high standards when providing information to the public.  I believe such standards are higher than some private advocacy groups.  As a Public Affairs Officer for the Navy's Environmental Readiness Division, I provide facts when engaging with the media and members of the public.  

  These are the facts:

  (1) The Sonar Ping: Sonar pings are typically one second long and are repeated twice per minute. Over the course of one minute, ship and animal movement at sea would make it very unlikely that a marine mammal would be exposed to even two sonar pings.  Per the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 215 decibels is the threshold for physical injury to marine mammals. It is extremely difficult for a marine mammal to reach that threshold - the marine mammal would have to be nearly touching a ship's sonar dome to receive that level of sonar sound.  Common sense would dictate that a whale or dolphin would move away from the ship long before that happens.

  (2) Whale Strandings: With the Bahamas and similar incidents in mind, sonar has been implicated in the stranding of about 50 marine mammals worldwide from 1996 to 2006, an average of about five strandings per year.  Compare that number with the 3,600 marine mammal strandings per year on U.S. shores.  In most cases, the cause of the stranding is unknown, but common causes have included disease, parasite infestation, harmful algal blooms, injuries due to ship strikes or fishery entanglements, pollution exposure, trauma, and starvation.  (See National Marine Fisheries Service website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/strandings.htm.)  Furthermore, more than 600,000 marine mammals are killed each year by commercial fishing interests (Read, Drinker, Northridge.  2006.  Bycatch of Marine Mammals in U.S. and Global Fisheries.  Conservation Biology 20: 163-9).  Common sense would dictate that marine mammals have bigger problems than Navy sonar.

  (3) Marine Mammal Protection: A marine mammal stranding that occurs during a major training exercise - regardless of whether it is attributed to active sonar - is bad for business.  That is why the Navy spends a lot of time and money to do everything reasonably possible to protect marine mammals, including stationing trained shipboard lookouts, reducing sonar levels to 25% of operating power if whales or dolphins are detected within the safety zone, and ceasing use of active sonar altogether if a marine mammal is detected within 200 meters.  

  (4) Marine Mammal Research: The Navy is a world leader in marine mammal research, and will spend approximately $19 million annually from FY07-09 on research.  The majority of this funding is provided through grants to universities and science institutions, such as the University of Hawaii, Boston University, University of California Santa Cruz, Duke University, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.  

  The Office of Naval Research (ONR), which administers the majority of the grants, encourages independent peer review of the science and does not attempt to control the research outcomes.  

  Navy-sponsored marine mammal research presently focuses on (1) determining the distribution and abundance of protected marine species and their habitats; (2) establishing criteria and thresholds to measure potential effects of Navy training operations on marine mammals; (3) developing improved marine mammal protection measures to lessen such effects; (4) improving passive acoustic monitoring techniques to detect and localize marine species, particularly on Navy undersea ranges; and (5) improving the understanding of effects of sound on marine mammals.  

  This type of research will help the Navy to maintain our ability to train effectively with active sonar while achieving long-term environmental compliance. We are committed to following the science wherever it may lead. The challenge is that some of the groups that are suing us are resistant to scientific facts that get in the way of their strongly held opinions.

  Feel free to contact me with any questions or requests for additional information regarding the Navy's environmental stewardship efforts, including marine mammal protection, at tracey.moriarty@navy.mil.  You can also view the Navy's web site at www.navy.mil/oceans.  Or I can give you a list of web sites for some of the most well-respected institutions and scientists in the world who are knowledgeable on this issue.  

  P.S. Please find a link to an article about the research findings by German scientists implicating solar flares as a potential cause for marine mammal strandings: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1583283,00.html.  The full study is published in the Journal of Sea Research (Volume 53, Issue 4, April 2005, Pages 319-327).

  Admiral Rice will be pleased to have Mr. Stocker's tax dollars sent to the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society.
  On Propaganda soft-pedals sonar impacts on marine mammals posted 1 year, 8 months ago 12 Responses