1. U.S. Navy Training and Testing Program Federal Consistency California Coastal Commission Agenda Item #CD-008-13 March 8, 2013 The Bahia Resort Hotel San Diego, CA © Brandon Cole

2. Underwater detonations: - More than 1400 detonations more powerful than 7.5 lb. charge involved in Silver Strand dolphin deaths - 250 with net explosive charge greater than 500 lbs. - 52,500 underwater detonations in total Active sonar use: - 15,000 hours of hull-mounted, mid-frequency sonar - More than 15,000 hours of other high-intensity mid- frequency systems - Deployment of more than 20,000 active sonobuoys Annual Navy activity on the Southern California Range Complex Sources: Navy, NMFS

3. Silver Strand dolphin mortalities using timed delay explosive Source: Navy

4. Sources: Fernandez et al. 2005; Jepson et al. 2003; V. Martin; ULPGC Dep’t Vet. Med. “Bends”-like pathologies seen in sonar-exposed beaked whales Subarachnoid hemorrhaging Emboli in liver and other organ tissue Injury to acoustic fats Injuries occur independent of any stranding event.

5. Sources: Fernandez et al. 2005; Jepson et al. 2003; V. Martin; ULPGC Dep’t Vet. Med. “Bends”-like pathologies seen in sonar-exposed beaked whales Subarachnoid hemorrhaging Emboli in liver and other organ tissue Injury to acoustic fats Injuries occur independent of any stranding event. Navy estimate: 130 mortalities over 5 years

6. Source: Lucke et al. 2009 New studies show hearing loss at lower exposure levels than previously believed

7. Source: Lucke et al. 2009 New studies show hearing loss at lower exposure levels than previously believed Navy estimate: 1,600 cases of permanent hearing loss

8. Source: Melcon et al. 2012 - Multi-year Scripps study shows that MF sonar consistently suppresses foraging calls (“D” calls) - Effects significant at very low exposure levels - Study: even a single Navy sonar vessel could impact blue whales “over a substantial portion of the Southern California Bight” Navy sonar consistently suppresses blue whale foraging calls off Southern California

9. Source: Melcon et al. 2012 - Multi-year Scripps study shows that MF sonar consistently suppresses foraging calls (“D” calls) - Effects significant at very low exposure levels - Study: even a single Navy sonar vessel could impact blue whales “over a substantial portion of the Southern California Bight” Navy sonar consistently suppresses blue whale foraging calls off Southern California Navy estimate: 8.8 million significant disruptions of biologically essential activity

10. Navy estimates of harm from SoCal training and testing These numbers take the Navy’s proposed mitigation into account

11. The Navy identifies a mere 10 species as present within the coastal zone. The Navy fails to include any of the endangered baleen whales or beaked whales in direct contradiction to widespread recognition that these species, which occur within the exercise area, also occur within 3nm of shore. A full analysis – that includes all species in the coastal zone – is required before the Commission can determine if the Navy’s actions are consistent with the Coastal Act. The Navy’s Federal Consistency Determination application is technically deficient in scope. Photo Credit: NOAA

12. California Coastal Zone Marine Mammal Species

13. The Navy’s Federal Consistency Determination application applies the wrong standard. The Navy is not maintaining, enhancing, or restoring marine species by killing 130 mammals, permanently injuring more than 1,600 mammals, and temporarily injuring millions of dolphins, seals, sea lions, otters, and whales. A full analysis – that employs the proper standard– is required before the Commission can determine if the Navy’s actions are consistent with the Coastal Act. The California Coastal Act mandates that marine resources “shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored.” (Coastal Act § 30230) The Navy asserts that its proposed action is consistent with this mandate because it “has determined that there are no population-level impacts on any species” as a result of its actions. V.

14. The Navy fails to analyze population level impacts. The Navy’s impact analysis concludes summarily that enumerated impacts will not harm any species at a population level. The Navy, however, failed to analyze impacts against populations. For example, the Navy states that gray whales will be taken more than 60,000 times over five years and then concludes that there will be no individual or population long-term consequences to gray whales. The entire population of gray whales is only approximately 20,000 whales. In the EIR prepared for PG&E’s proposed Central Coastal California Seismic Imaging Project, there was a quantitative analysis of population impacts based on PG&E’s modeled take. The Navy conducts no such analysis here. A complete application – that includes a population level analysis– is required before the Commission can determine if the Navy’s actions are consistent with the Coastal Act. Photo Credit: NOAA

15. The Navy’s mitigation is limited to ship-based lookouts. The Navy fails to match its dramatic increase in harm to marine mammals with an increased effort to mitigate that harm during sonar and munitions training and testing exercises. Instead, the Navy has proposed the same meager protective measures – visually monitoring a narrow area around its vessels – that the courts, the scientific community, and the Coastal Commission itself have repeatedly found inadequate. One study found that using lookouts the Navy has an only 1 in 50 chance of detecting a beaked whale within one kilometer of its sonar vessel. We agree with the Coastal Commission staff — the need for additional mitigation measures is “even more compelling” now than in the past. Photo Credit: SURTASS LFA vessel (visual and passive acoustic monitoring) c/o Navy

16. NRDC & CCPN v. Staff Report Mitigation NRDC & CCPN Proposed Mitigation Staff Report Proposed Mitigation Recommendation Safety zones: Navy to cease sonar when marine mammal is detected within 2,000 yards of sonar source Safety zones: Navy to cease sonar when marine mammal is detected within 2 km of sonar dome Support the Staff Report Biologically Important Habitat: 1.Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary 2.State Marine Reserves 3.Blue Whale High Concentration Areas (June-Nov.) 4.Fin Whale High Concentration Areas (June-Nov.) 5.Beaked Whale High Concentration Areas 6.1km from shore Biologically Significant Areas: 1.Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary 2.State and Federal Marine Protected Areas 3.Blue Whale High Concentration Areas (June-Nov.) 4.Fin Whale High Concentration Areas (June-Nov.) 5.Grey Whale Migration Corridors 6.1km from shore 7.Any future NMFS designated Biologically Important Area Support the Staff Report AND include 1.Beaked Whale High Concentration Areas Night and Low Visibility: Navy will avoid active sonar, underwater detonations, and gunnery exercises at night and in low visibility. In addition, all exercises involving detonations exceeding 20lbs will take place during the day. Support the Staff Report

17. NRDC & CCPN v. Staff Report (Cont.) NRDC Proposed Mitigation Staff Report Proposed Mitigation Recommendation Vessel Speed: From June through November, all surface vessels will maintain speed not greater than 10 knots while transiting the Santa Barbara Channel (June to Nov.) and the blue and fin whale biologically significant areas. Support the Staff Report Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM): When engaged in passive acoustic sonar operations, shall monitor for marine mammal vocalizations and report detections. All activities in the SOAR shall monitor for marine mammals. Include monitoring and reporting requirements when engaged in passive acoustic sonar operations and in the SOAR. Passive Acoustic Detection of Beaked Whales: prior to active sonar operations, passive sonar will report detection of any beaked whale vocalizations and sonar will not resume until beaked whale has left area or vessel has moved more than 4,000 yrds. Include pre-sonar exercise monitoring for beaked whales. Monitoring effort: Navy will comply with monitoring measures set forth in NMFS final rule 2009, with respect to passive acoustic, aerial, and vessel-based monitoring. Ensure Navy continues to comply with monitoring effort established in 2009.

18. Identified Biologically Important Areas including MPAs

19. What’s at Stake

20. The Commission’s Choices Concur without Additional Conditions - Navy’s Request Concur with Additional Conditions - Staff’s Recommendation Object - Our Recommendation

21. Conditional Concurrence Flawed The Navy has refused to implement the mitigations in two prior conditional concurrences approved by the Commission. The Navy has no intention of implementing the mitigations that staff has recommended this time.

22. FINAL RECOMMENDATION Object. The Navy’s Consistency application is technically deficient and substantively unacceptable. The application is not consistent with the Coastal Act. Create a record with specific mitigation. Detail the procedural deficiencies and the particular mitigation measures – including time and area closures for species – that the Commission would expect to see included in a future federal consistency application. Emphasize that the Commission is willing to work with the Navy to achieve the goal of maintaining, enhancing, and, where feasible, restoring California marine species.

23. Protect CA’s Coastal Resources