Navy Environmental Impact Statement

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

sambolino44

Contributor
Messages
793
Reaction score
16
Location
Oak Harbor, Whidbey Island, WA
# of dives
200 - 499
I recently attended a public hearing conducted by the Navy concerning the Environmental Impact Statement regarding the upcoming changes in training activities in the Northwest region. At first it seemed innocuous enough, but the more involved I got, the more disgusted I became with the whole process. Nevertheless, I urge you all to at least check out their website and decide for yourself if you want to have an input.

Northwest Training Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement website

Even though this is not the way they explain it, in my opinion it's all basically about them replacing the aging EA-6B and P-3 aircraft with newer EA-18G and P-8 models. But that's not all they want to do; they're also proposing adding an underwater minefield, additional electronic emitters, and significantly increasing the number of training operations in the area. If you ask me, they're just trying to get as much stuff in as possible as long as the door's open.

But it's not really that simple. For instance, if they add capability up here, then there'll be less fuel burned transporting people and equipment to other areas.

No matter what, though, the document itself is full of interesting information about the current state of the natural environment of the Puget sound, so it's definitely worth looking at even if you decide not to make a comment.

The reason I got a sour taste in my mouth from this experience is that, despite all the talk the Navy gives about how they want our input, they've really made it hard to actually register your comments. Everything from a website form that won't accept cut-and-pasted text, to an address format on their snail-mail address that the automated machines at the post office can't read, so they have to be hand sorted. Not to mention a 700-plus page document with the table of contents on page 53 and page numbers that make no sense at all, so even if you find the section you're looking for in the table of contents you have no idea what page to go to. In other words, section 3.5.4 begins on page 3.5.4.1, which is actually around the 365th page of the document.

Once again, though, I urge all of you to wade through this because it's full of interesting stuff that affects our waters and maybe even our diving. I never knew before reading this how many underwater explosions they do in Crescent harbor, or that sonobuoys release a chemical that turns into hydrofluoric acid on contact with water. Not to mention the depleted uranium and high-power sonar all those whale lovers love to talk about.

Please check it out and register your comments before the February 11 deadline!
 
here is an old article published by the South Whidbey Record that I have just found:

South Whidbey Record

Jul 29 2008

The Navy is in hot water again, this time accused of indiscriminately killing fish in order to conduct training for bomb disposal teams.
The Navy is being sued for exploding ordnance in Puget Sound waters, allegedly killing thousands of fish, including federally protected species such as Chinook salmon.
The Navy, however, said training for its explosive ordnance disposal teams is essential for both military and civilian purposes.
A lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle today under the federal Endangered Species Act.
The Navy sets off between 180 and 300 underwater explosive charges each year in some of the most sensitive waters of Puget Sound, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
ŵhe Navy has been repeatedly warned but apparently feels it does not have to comply with laws unless it is sued, said Adam Draper, an attorney for the group.
Ÿe are not trying to block Navy demolition exercises; we are simply trying to induce the Navy to train without creating needless carnage, he said.
ŵhe Navy doesnÃÕ need to destroy Puget SoundÃÔ wildlife at the same time they are training to protect us, added Kurt Beardslee, executive director of Wild Fish Conservancy. Å«uvenile salmon and the food web of Puget Sound would be much better protected if the Navy would simply take the measures suggested by the governmentÃÔ own scientists.
Several times each month, the Navy detonates live explosives deep underwater to provide training for its divers in destroying and disabling mines.
The detonations also harms marine life, the lawsuit claims.
In one exercise involving a five-pound explosive charge set off near Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, observers counted 5,000 dead fish on the surface but estimated that up to another 20,000 fish died and sank out of sight to the seabed.
Since 2002, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the two civilian agencies charged with enforcing the Endangered Species Act, have urged the Navy to undertake alternative training practices to minimize damage to marine life, such as using bubble curtains or other containers to minimize blast impacts, or conducting the training in quarries, lakes or the open ocean rather than in the waters of Puget Sound.
The Navy has come under repeated criticism in recent years for using sonar during training off the Washington coast, which some say can harm whales and other marine mammals.


cheers[/SIZE]
 
In my limited experience a 5 lb explosion can in no way kill that many fish, not by a LONG shot. The explosion just does not have enough uumph.
 
Thanks for the tip, but actually, I think the underwater detonations issue is not the greatest concern. While they are proposing to increase the number of several different activities in this area, the number of underwater detonations by the Explosive Ordinance Disposal units will actually decrease if either of the two alternative proposals are adopted. And I understand that they've already stopped using explosive charges larger than 2.5 lbs.

But this is a great example of how we need to be better informed. The information is out there, it just isn't that easy to find. And even if you find something that looks important, if you don't have all the background information it's hard to make a reasonable assessement. I hope you all keep trying, though. I can hardly believe all the interesting stuff I've learned in the past couple of weeks.
 
As a sailor stationed in the Sound, I look forward to more opportunities to train in the local area vice transiting 2000 miles. It's just wasted time from my family.
 
Having a deep love for the ocean, being a diver, having served 25 years on active duty in the Navy, I totally understand your point of view. However, where do you suggest these men train? I worked with SEALs and EOD guys my entire career and they perform a very dangerous job day in and day out for you and for me. This training is to protect your family and mine. This isn’t fun and games. The threat is real. There are foreign submarines off our coast every day with mine laying capability. Underwater warfare is the hardest thing our Navy does and it is even harder if you don’t train. Underwater sound is different in every ocean in the world and we must train in those oceans. It truly sucks that whales and dolphins die, that some reefs get destroyed. It does sadden me but I sleep better at night knowing that our Navy is trained and out there protecting my wife, children and grand children. This is my personal statement and I do not speak for the US Navy or US government.
 
Where does everyone suggest that they train? Robert Kennedy Jr. and his crowd managed to get the training area in Puerto Rico (Vieques) closed a few years ago, the enviros want the range at San Clemente closed, the Navy isn't allowed to do landing excercizes in Monterey, nobody wanted outlying landing fields for the Navy in North Carolina (?) the Army can't expand in Colorado, and the list goes on. This at a time when the active military is expanding with new combat brigades being added to the Army and Marine Corps.

An EIS dealing with an area as complex as the north Pacific is going to be complex, it is an extensive and complex area encompassing a large marine ecosystem and there are a lot of activities that can cause a lot of effects. And because every enviro in the country will be lining up to sue once the final EIS is out and the record of decision is issued, it has to be very, very thorough. Bless you for taking the time to be a member of the attentive public. The system does work if people become invested in it, but it takes time and commitment.
 
Last edited:
Please allow me to share these points with anyone who is considering commenting on this or any other Environmental Impact Statement.
  • Comments should be on content of the EIS. The comment period is not a referendum on the proposed action. Preferences as to outcomes may be expressed, but only substantive comments on the content of the EIS will be analyzed. Agencies are looking for substantive comments that modify alternatives, develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious consideration, make factual corrections, or supplement, improve, or modify the DEIS analysis.
  • Written comments are most common way to express concerns, are not restricted in length and allow full development of the point you want to make.
  • Oral comments allow you to share your concerns in public and for exchange of ideas in the community but may be time constrained.
  • Both types are included verbatim in the record and given equal weight. Commenters may submit detailed comments in writing and summarize main points in oral presentation.
  • Make sure comments are submitted by deadline.
  • Content can be on any aspect of the proposal or alternatives.
  • Goal should be to communicate your concerns in an understandable and believable manner. Decide what you want to say before you begin. Group multiple comments in a logical order. DonÃÕ jump back and forth between topics. Specific page, figure, or table references analyst respond to your comment. Explain whyÍÈive as much factual support to your comment as possible. CompareÍÓefer to similar projects or experiences to put your points into context. Identify possible solutions and suggest reasonable mitigation that reduces effects.
  • Particularly helpful comments are those that point out inaccuracies in the content, potential environmental impacts that have not been identified or environmental impacts that have not been adequately addressed, possible mitigation measures for the proposal, reasonable alternatives to the proposal, the need for additional studies, the merits of the alternatives and mitigation measures considered in the EIS, the issues raised in scoping that should be but are not addressed in the EIS, and additional relevant information.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/perdix-ai/

Back
Top Bottom