Comment from Taryn Kiekow, Natural Resources Defense Council

Dear Mr. Payne: On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), The Humane Society of the United States, Defenders of Wildlife, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Cetacean Society International, Ocean Futures Society, and Jean-Michel Cousteau, and on behalf of our millions of members and activists, thousands of whom reside in Florida, I am writing to submit comments on the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (“NMFS”) Proposed Rule authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to U.S. Navy training in the Jacksonville (“JAX”) Range Complex. See 73 Fed. Reg. 76578 (Dec. 17, 2008). Please include these comments and enclosures in the administrative record. Although the Proposed Rule does not specifically address the issue of sonar training, NMFS bases its authorization, in part, on the Navy’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the JAX Range Complex (“JAX DEIS”) that incorporates by reference the Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (“AFAST DEIS”). See JAX DEIS at ES-8. As discussed in detail in our comments responding to the AFAST DEIS (see enclosed NRDC comment letter dated March 31, 2008) as well as our comments responding to NMFS’ Proposed Rule for AFAST (see enclosed NRDC comment letter dated November 10, 2008), both NMFS and the Navy’s environmental review falls well short of the rigorous standards prescribed by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq., and National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. respectively. Neither NMFS in its Proposed Rule nor the Navy in its EIS offers sufficient measures to mitigate the harmful impacts of high intensity sonar. Both the Navy and NMFS disregard a variety of other options, alternatives, and common sense mitigation measures – some employed by other navies – that would reduce the impacts of sonar, offering instead a mitigation strategy so narrowly defined that it almost disregards the environment all together. In addition, both NMFS and the Navy fail to properly analyze environmental impacts. NMFS and the Navy’s analysis substantially understates the potential effects of sonar on marine wildlife, exclude relevant information adverse to its interests, use approaches and methods that are unacceptable to the scientific community and ignore entire categories of impacts. As discussed in detail in our enclosed comment letters, NMFS and the Navy’s assessment of acoustic impacts – and the thresholds established for physical injury, hearing loss, and significant behavioral harassment – are highly problematic. In addition, this analysis entirely fails to account for cumulative impacts from the years of anticipated activity. The usual platitude that all of the Navy’s impacts are short- term in nature and thus would not combine to produce cumulative effects not only has no scientific validity but also grossly misapprehends the definition of cumulative impacts under NEPA, as well as the definition of negligible impacts under the MMPA. For the following reasons, and as described more fully in our enclosed comment letters, we urge NMFS to withdraw its Proposed Rule and revise its analysis and mitigation consistent with its obligations under the MMPA. Sincerely, Taryn Kiekow Staff Attorney