During December, US Rep. Mike Thompson arranged public meetings of federal officials in Fort Bragg and Ukiah so they could answer constituent concerns.
       US Navy environmental planners were present at Portugese Hall on December 16 ito confront continuing criticism of the Northwest Training Range Complex.
             The draft EIS comprising more than 1,000 pages was released during Christmas of 2008, and the project has thrust ahead like a torpedo, just under the perception of the press, elected officials and the public. It calls for live fire wargames involving submarines, surface ships and aircraft including bombs, drones, artillery, sonar and missiles in 122,000 square miles of ocean from the Canadian border to the Mendocino Humboldt line.
            After more than a year of accepting comments on the draft, the Navy published the Final Environmental Impact Statement this summer with no substantial changes in the project description. All the comments – most of which opposed the project – were published in Volume III of the FEIS
            The Record of Decision approving the preferred alternative in the FEIS was signed and published on October 25, 2010. On November 10, NOAA Fisheries Service issued a five-year Letter of Authorization permitting the accidental take of marine mammals in the course of the Navy training.

HAPLESS NAVY PANEL, rj photo
       The Navy says that training in the Operational Area has been ongoing for decades, and most of it takes place offshore the state of Washington coast. The current project does not expand the geographical area or the types of warfighting assets but only the frequency and intensity of the training activities
            On December 9, Dr. Jane Lubchenko, administrator of the National Oceanographic and Aeronautics Administration was available in Ukiah in order to field questions and hear concerns about the National Ocean Policy and Regional Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning as well as catch share programs. NOAA recently granted the Navy a Letter of Authorization for accidental takes of marine mammals for five years in the NWTR.

Navy Contradicts Misinformation
       Most of the ferocious public protest of the vast Navy training project has come from Mendocino and Humboldt Counties which are on the southern tip of the affected coastline. Unfortunately, much of the protest has included hysterical misinformation originating from a single activist from Redwood Valley, Rosalind Peterson,  and amplified over time by her allies in local environmental groups.
        Over the years, Peterson has conducted a well funded campaign involving petitions, videos, news reports, web sites and visits to Washington calling on citizens to alert their elected officials and asking them to halt the project.
            For many well meaning environmentalists who lack the time or the educational resources to read and understand the EIS, relying on Peterson as a single source of information was convenient. After a while, her false allegations were even repeated by federal representatives, whom Peterson then used as sources for her statements.
        Among her false allegations are that bombs detonated in the ocean will cause earthquakes, the project will involve use of depleted uranium munitions, that Navy training complexes offshore the continental US will be linked  up to those on our coast to involve vast swaths of Pacific Ocean, and that the Navy has been given permission to kill more than 11 million whales during the five year project life.
            Many of her accusations have been published by stories in the Fort Bragg  Adocate News by Frank Hartzell. Hartzell did not attend the December 16 meeting but was instead celebrating his birthday in a nearby coffee house.
            In the meeting, Navy spokespeople vainly tried to clarify the scope of the project and contradict Peterson’s myths. For the most part, they were shouted down by the unruly crowd of about 150 citizen critics.           Navy spokespeople announced at the outset that with the exception of unmanned drones, the project did not involve testing of submarines, ships, aircraft, missiles or munitions. The purpose of the range is training of naval officers and personnel, not testing. Thus, when one looks over numerous comments opposing the project and sees that most refer to testing of warfighting assets, that is evidence of Peterson’s influence in that the notion of testing originated with her two years ago.
            Next, they clarified that 95% of training activities would take place far from the California coast in an area known as W237 off Puget Sound, where they would get as close as 3 miles from shore, in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary . Another warning area offshore California gets as close as 12 miles from shore.
          They also said that the project would not involve underwater bomb detonations despite language to that effect in the EIS. What is involved is detection of submarines maneuvering through underwater microphone arrays.
           Also, the Navy is phasing out use of depleted uranium munitions service wide, and there are no depleted uranium munitions onboard the pacific fleet.
            With respect to the taking of whales and other marine mammals, the Navy planners said that the total duration of sonar emissions in the Operation Area would be no more than 108 hours per year. They did reveal however that ships from Washington would transit off our coast to the Southern California training area and would be using sonar during that transit.
            The Navy denied that NOAA had given it permission to kill any whales at all. Rather, the five-year Letter of Authorization granted on November 10 permitted Level A take, the accidental mortality or injury of some 13 marine mammals from whales, to dolphins to harbor seals, and Level B take of some hundred thousand or so  defined as a temporary disruption of behavior as a result of exposure to sonar and marine explosions of munitions.
          NOAA and the Navy both maintain that shipboard surveillance of the ocean surface should be sufficient to avoid any marine mammal take whatever. The Navy denied that its warfare training activities would interrupt commercial fishing.
           Despite the Navy’s “clarifications” and contradictions of misinformed environmentalist claims, the Northwest Training Range complex expansion project must be opposed. Now that the Record of Decision has been signed by the assistant secretary, and NOAA has granted the marine mammal take permit, only the president can halt the project.

A New Petition to Obama:
            Ceding all peaceful uses and enjoyment of such a vast swath of our coastal waters to military preparations reflects a monumental change in our national identity, economy, society and philosophy.
            The MENDOCINO ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER headquartered in Ukiah has been in the forefront of opposing the Navy training project since its inception, and has testified at public meetings calling for the agency to withdraw and rewrite its scientifically inadequate EIS. But now the training range expansion is being implemented, the MEC has launched a petition to president Obama calling on him to STOP PACIFIC NW COAST MILITARIZATION and suspend all Navy training in the Operation Area described in the EIS.
             To be successful, this petition must not only get hundreds of thousands of signatures, but be endorsed by a wide array of regional and national environmental groups identified with peace and ocean issues, including Green Party bodies.
             Please download and print, and circulate the petition. There is no deadline, and we will continue petitioning as long as it takes to get sufficient signatures and support. The petition will be circulated on paper, not electronically so as to convince the president that all signatures are original and unique.
             At the end of each month, please return all sheets on which there are signatures whether or not complete to MENDOCINO ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, 106 West Standley Street, Ukiah, CA 95482. BE SURE TO INCLUDE $1 PER SHEET for processing. Cash is fine. For more information call 707-468-1660 and ask for Tonya diAndrea, or see www.mecgrassroots.org.

NOAA Chief Above the Fray:

DR. JANE LUBCHENKO, rj photo
     Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) appeared in the Board of Supervisor chambers in Ukiah on December 9, also in response to an invitation by Congressman Thompson.
            She took verbal comments from constituents regarding such issues as the new National Ocean Policy and Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning initiative, NOAA's new National Catch Share Policy, salmon fishery issues, and other topics of local interest. The speakers had registered in advance, but most who wished to speak on the Navy training program were not called on.
            In her comments, Lubchenko focused on the new National Ocean Policy and the concept of Regional Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans that will be developed in concert with local, state and tribal governments, as well as fisheries management councils.
           In addition, she mentioned the Pacific Trawl Catch Share program which will be a departure from traditional fisheries management in order to achieve more sustainable populations. Catch share programs limit access to the fishery to individuals, cooperative fleets and communities which purchase quotas in order to protect threatened fish populations.
            Finally, she mentioned that management of salmon must involve the regulation of land as well as ocean based uses, citing the impact of logging on ocean salmon populations.
            Most of the citizen commentary came from fishing people who complained that catch sharing would require severe reduction in fleet capacity, and that quotas would benefit more efficient fishing operations such as corporate enterprises. As of now there are only 6 or 7 trawl fishing vessels working out of Fort Bragg.
            Vivian Helliwell called the system “social engineering” that would result in wealth moving up the ladder. She said local fishermen had no protection from out of state corporations buying up catch shares. “The little guys always lose out,” she exclaimed.
       Jim Caito said that the catch share rules requiring him to hire a year round inspector for his processing plant when it is only open during a season would put him out of business.
           Judith Vidaver of the Ocean Protection Coalition complained that catch share systems and marine spatial planning were unnecessary and that NOAA should “take those programs elsewhere.”
            Rosalind Peterson did speak about the Navy training program and complained that NOAA had granted a take permit to the service without protecting biologically sensitive areas. She handed over two binders full of signed petitions to Lubchenko that she said called on the agency to rescind its Letter of Authorization. When this reporter inspected the petitions, however, they were copies of petitions turned in to NOAA early last year urging the agency not to issue the LOA in the first place.
         Lubchenko only dedicated 10 minutes at the end of the meeting to addressing the citizen concerns, relying on generalities and promises to “work with you” for example on the catch share programs which she said would not be too painful if they were “dispersed.”
         With regard to sonar and Navy training, the NOAA administrator claimed to “have serious concerns” and that the agency was in continuing discussions with the Navy and would hold workshops on the subject next year. “We will continue to get the information we need to reach the best possible outcomes,” she declared in ending the session.