SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
The Navy held a public meeting Thursday in Tillamook on its proposal to expand warfare training exercises off the Oregon coast. The meeting is part of the extended public comment period on the environmental impact statement for the project, something the Navy agreed to do after urging from Oregon's Congressional delegation.
Naval warfare exercises off the Oregon coast aren't exactly new. The Northwest fleet — which is based in five installations in Washington — has conducted various training exercises off Oregon for over 100 years. But the idea now is to revamp that training, as the Navy explained in a Fact Sheet (pdf):
The purpose of the Navy's Proposed Action in the Northwest Training Range Complex is to achieve and maintain Fleet readiness by enhancing and sustaining training activities and research, devlopment, test and evaluation activities, as well as modernizing existing range capabilities.
The three possible courses of action include the "no action" alternative, which would maintain the status quo; a partial increase in training activities; and the Navy's "preferred alternative," which would significantly increase off-shore training, including an uptick in munitions testing and sonar.
Coastal dwellers and conservation groups have expressed concerns about how this proposed increase in training exercises could affect marine life as well as the surrounding ocean and land. They aren't the only apprehensive ones. Local fishermen worry that the Navy's increased activity off the coast could affect their business.
Do you live on the coast? Do you fish there? Are you in the Navy? How would expanded training affect you?
GUESTS:
- Brian Wauer: A Military Operations Specialist for the U.S. Navy
- Bruce Mate: Director of Oregon State University's Marine Mammal Institute at the Hatfield Marine Science Center at Newport
- Lori Tobias: Staff writer for the Oregonian covering the coast
- Darus Peake: Chairman of the Oregon Salmon Commission and a crab and salmon fisherman based in Garibaldi
- Edna Kenney: Netarts resident and mother of four sons in the Navy
Tagged as: coast · fishing · military
Photo credit: MATEUS_27:24&25 / Flickr / Creative Commons
-
Folks,
If you want to read the Navy press release that ShodyRyon is commenting on, you can find it here:
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=34061
-
(Continued)
Fishing vessels are not equipped with the same kind of sonar as the navy and they do not have the ability to pull up their nets at a moments notice, let the whale pass. I think the fishing industry should face the the same kind of scrutiny the navy does, but this letter is to the navy, that should be in the business of collecting data and deciding how to react, life and death decisions, second by second, when applicable. It seems to me the navy should welcome avoiding damaging sea life, and part of that is following procedure, collecting data, responding appropriately.
I would like to be notified every time the navy injures a marine mammal, with the name of the officer in charge that is most responsible for the injury and with a report about what aspect of the procedure is deficient or what part of the procedure was not followed and why.
If the 29 measures are effective in preventing this type of injury, this issue is a non-issue, thank you US navy for handling the situation, if injuries continue, perhaps the navy should be out of the marine research business and have some other agency do that and set up navy procedures regarding sonar and marine wild life.
Shody Ryon
Portland OR
qi4u@yahoo.com
-
Interesting topic. As retired navy, I noticed that the pamplet carefully leaves out two topics I'd like to know more about:
1. Why aren't the current trainining ranges adequet?
2. What are the navy's plans for clean up of mines and munitions?
It's a careful balancing act, do we allow the people who are directly defending the country have what they say they need just because the ask for it, or do we hold them accountable for what they mess up?
-
What is wrong with these people who blindly encourage military operations as this. There are many facts that clearly state the negative effects of sonar with marine animals as well as the effects of pollution from blowing these training bombs and/or targets up in our fragile oceans ecosytems. W.T.F.!!
Give an inch and they'll take a mile! Don't forget that!
Why is this additional training nessesary anyway???
-Sean
-
Growing up in the Pacific NW, I know that occasionally fishing boats would find themselves going really far, really quickly, as they had snagged a submarine illegally doing exercises in the puget sound. We should not only be concerned about what we ARE hearing from the Navy, but what we are not. There will be "unintended consequences" to increased Navy on the coast, and we can be sure their PR machine is in high gear, masking the truth.
-
The Navy's spokesman you're interviewing is spewing the same type of public relations HYPE/AVOIDANCE that Ari Fleischer spewed during the Bush administration. It's all hype... just a talking head... interested only in progressing the intent of the Navy.
How much of an ignoroid could he possibly be to not know anything about the SONAR issues. It's one of the hottest issues on the table.
You should contact the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) if you want to talk to experts about the effects of SONAR!
Specialist... HAH... he's just a PR man who spews one-sided candy-coated opinion!!!
And the only reason they brought a meeting to Tillamook was under pressure of public opinion. (note: the shortness of the opinion period)
Our government AND our military is too big!
You open the door to this... and it will never stop.
Stop all advancement.
Take a closer look... it is NOT GREEN... and EVERYONE and EVERY INDUSTRY and EVERY BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT should stop destroying our resources.
They are a DESTRUCTIVE MACHINE... by design... and the only reason they are making this proposal... is because they are going to engage in DESTRUCTION.
And guess what... they are only going to "communicate" what they want to... not what you want them to.
Their PR man is just a talking head!
WAKE UP!
Since when is it OK to kill marine animals & birds. We were all put here to exist together... and each and everyone of natures creatures plays a part in that equilibrium. MAN is the volitile component here... I wonder what would happen if the birds could destroy the Navy warships... how would the Navy feel about the loss of life.
Stop the agression already!
When was the last time you reviewed: Zeitgeist: Remastered or Zeitgeist: Addendum
Don't let them pull them the wool over your eyes.
Tell the Navy to hit the road... and don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out!
Nick
Ps. I don't think we should trust the Navy... and it matters not what the other states are doing. The Navy should run by the most restrictive regulations of any state... across the board.
Pps. Dumping of toxic waste and refuse is common practice of vessels at sea. Do YOU want this refuse concentration increasing off our coast. Do YOU want their refuse to wash upon our shores?
-
BiospherePreservation you said: "Our government AND our military is too big!" I agree with you, however prior to the Regan draw down of the military we didn't need "ethically and morally challenged" firms like "Blackwater" to provide security for our country's operations over seas.
I say that the military is the less expensive and lesser of that sort of Evil.
-
According to the recent NRDC lawsuit against the Navy, Navy sonar ships are required to avoid key whale habitat and maintain a 12 mile coastal zone off California. As far as I've been able to discern, there is no mention of this in the EIS for the NW Training Range.
Also, "the Navy estimate the California sonar drills would disturb or injure 170,000 marine mammals and cause permanent injury to more than 450 whales, as well as temporary hearing impairment in at least 8000 others". source: Jan/Feb 2009 NRDC "Nature's Voice"
This concerns me as these marine mammals are as vulnerable is Oregon waters as California waters. I see no corresponding statistics for the coast of Oregon. Why does the Navy's EIS repeatedly say "No significant impact" for their assessment? This seems illogical.
-
I am an honorable discharged Navy Vet. Dumpiing trash into the ocean was the most terrible part of my 6 year navy experience from 1982 to 1988.
We dumped everything into the ocean. It was so horrible and when I questioned the practice I was told to shut up or I would be discharged to mental instability.
The US Navy is one of the largest polluters of the oceans in the world. I doubt there policies have changed much.
Cheers, -Jeff
-
Jeff, for what it's worth...
Trash dumping have changed... though I was a surface guy (RM1/DP1(SW)USN, Ret) and don't know what goes on with reactor coolant.
It's important to note, that all the statments being made by navy guys here, myself included are HISTORICAL DATA. During the 20 years I was in, there were huge changes that will astound a lot of guys who finished their honourable service prior to 1990:
1. Not every thing is dumped, most of the time trash is held on board.
2. As wierd as it sounds, the navy uses WATER BASED PAINT on ships. Inside, outside, etc.
3. the navy has a very anal-retentive program for hazardous material which acounts for all the greases, cleaners and other potentially toxic stuff. the goal of this is to keep it out of the ocean.
Just imagine if when you went to the store if you not only had to pay for your pine sol, but you had to sign paperwork before you left the store stating that you understood the first aid, proper use and storage of your pine sol, but also had to return the un-used portion and sign more paper work.
And yes, regular bathroom cleaners in the navy are considered hazerdous, I'm not exaggerating. All this has totally "upped" the navy from being clean, in a fresh paint and dust free kinda way to a non-poluting kind of way.
-
In response to caller Gregs' statements about dumping trash...
In 1983 when I first joined the navy, we dumped that sort of stuff overboard... in 2003 when i retired, the only thing we dumped overboard in the 50-100 mile zone was galley waste, and it had to be in paper bags (which was an amazingly messy way to do it). Past the 100 mile zone we could dump "sinkable" trash, like metal. All plastics, hazardous waste (a lot of which seemed pretty benign to me) and "un sinkable" trash was held on board until the ship pulled into port.
I'm not out to defend the navy, but I will say that Greg's information on dumping trash is WAY outdated. I can't speak as to what or how submarines discharge secondary cooling 'waste'?
-
When I was serving on ship I spoke with a sailor who served on a US submarine tender in Scotland and he said they routenly dumped nuclear waste in the North Atlantic.
This broke my heart and helped me to question the actions of the American government.
Kindest regards, -Jeff (Portland, OR)
-
Jeff,
I don't doubt that, but I'm guessing that may have been in the 80's. and a very dated practice.
-
A first sample of shrimp sounds:
http://karlgrabe.com/sounds.htm
More soon...
-
oops. double post. apologies ;)
-
David.
Awesome sound clip, but i didn't see if those were breaded or pan-fried shimp. Hope you and the signifcant other are enjoying the XC skis. (yep, I'm that Fred, the one in the kilt)
-
Three things.
First: Here's a link to CEQ's Citizens Guide to NEPA. The EIS process was established by the National Environmental Policy Act. The Act also established CEQ (The White House Council on Environmental Policy) to act as a watchdog over the NEPA process. CEQ created the Guide to try and answer questions about the process.
ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/Citizens_Guide_Dec07.pdf -
Second: One of the intentions of NEPA was that EIS documents created within mandates of the process would be written in a clear manner that would be understandable to any interested citizen. It was interesting that Bruce Mate found it important to mention how difficult it was for him to understand parts of the EIS. This is in fact what often happens within the process. In some instances it happens because the Agency has hired a contractor to write the EIS and the contractor (to justify their fee?) loads the EIS up with boiler plate language and/or statistics to produce a more impressive document.
In other cases it's done to provide "cover" for the Agency when it's not in the Agency's interest to make intentions of the EIS clear to the average interested citizen.
Third: After 9/11 all branches of the military began resisting living up to their responsibilities under NEPA to follow the EIS process. The usual reason given was the enhanced need for national security. If the the military did follow the process they would often seek to cut it off at the EA level (see the Citizens Guide) with quiet lip service paid to the "scoping process" followed by a finding of "no significant impact". I'm not familiar with this particular EIS action, but when there were questions brought up about our congressional delegation's lack of input back in 2007, this combination of 9/11 side-steps occurred to me to be a possible answer.
-
I'm opposed to the Navy expanding its sonar training. Let's take our foot off the stupid pedal. There's so much we don't understand about human impact on the oceans. Check out this 16 minute video.
Exploring the reef's Twighlight Zone: Richard Pyle on TED.com
http://blog.ted.com/2009/02/richard_pyle.php
-
Comments are now closed.
Story Number: NNS071220-22
I found this issue to be presented in a glossed over manor, almost every sentence has a point; "don't worry about it, it is handled, we go way out of our way to protect every thing. Move on."
“"We fund about 50 percent of marine mammal research worldwide," he said.
Statistically, the number of marine-mammal "strandings" -- beached whales, for example -- due to sonar is extremely low compared to those caused by nature and the commercial fishing industry. Sonar was implicated in 50 strandings over 10 years, Rice said.
This averages out at a rate of five sonar-related strandings per year, vs. an average of 3,600 standings per year due to natural causes and about 600,000 per year linked to the commercial fishing industry, he explained.
"The numbers are still single-digit numbers of marine mammals stranding per year attributed to sonar," he said.”
Is this double talk? Do all injured whales get stranded? I do not think “strandings are not the issue, but injury to marine life, in particular mammals such as whales.
Had there not been any public outcry, what would the navy's position been? Apparently the navy doesn't think for itself, doesn't know right from wrong? The position is that they care about whales, but I do not think they came to that conclusion form internal pressure only. Why does it care about whales now?