The Price of Security
by Alison Bickerstaff
After an eerie silence, nearly 5,000 dead fish rose from the harbor’s depths.
Jim Muck, a biologist in a boat about 200 feet away, said the Navy’s five-pound C-4 underwater explosive went off prematurely. Muck and other government officials weren’t paying attention. Then a shock wave rocked the boat.
"I thought we had hit a log or something," he said. "The Navy drove us back and forth and that’s how we estimated the number of fish killed."
Muck, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist, witnessed this military training exercise in October 2001 in Crescent Harbor near Whidbey Naval Air Station, Wash. The Navy invited state and federal officials and local tribes to observe the exercise.
The Navy said that since the early 1980s similar underwater detonation exercises have occurred in Puget Sound. The Navy is authorized to conduct up to 60 exercises per year.
These activities became widely public in late 2002 after a government whistle blower informed Public Employees for Envi-ronmental Responsibility, an activist group representing state and federal employees.
Though military training activities have helped the United States win two world wars and defend the nation, some activities harm the environment. Concerned citizens and advocacy groups worry the increasing secrecy afforded to the military masks potentially harmful — and perhaps unnecessary — practices.
At the same time, the George W. Bush administration insists current interpretations of several environmental laws hinder military readiness and deserve redress.
In December 2002, PEER encouraged the White House Council on Environmental Quality to consider filing criminal charges against the Navy for failing to comply with the National Environment Policy Act.
PEER said the Navy should have started the NEPA review process several years ago.
Navy Region Northwest spokeswoman, Commander Karen Sellers said the Navy has waited until now to initiate the NEPA process because federal fish biologists are nearing completion of their federally-mandated Endangered Species Act consultation.
"The main concern was the number of fish that were floating on the surface," Muck said.
He said his second concern is that as few as 10 percent of corpses float. The death toll might have been as high as 50,000 fish, mostly surf smelt — food for the endangered bull trout.
"PEER’s broad concerns regard the military’s pattern of shielding its actions from the public and trying to avoid or subvert environmental compliance," said Lea Mitchell, director of PEER’s Washington state office. "I think it’s being allowed in the name of national security. We hope this won’t be allowed once the public becomes aware and raises concerns about it."
The Bush administration introduced the Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative into the Defense Authorization Act of 2002. The legislation would have clarified the interpretation of key provisions of several landmark environmental laws on military installations, including the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty. Much of that legislation failed in Congress.
The provisions that failed in 2002 will be considered again this year, said Bruce Beard, policy analyst of the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment.
He said the administration has not yet submitted the new legislative package to Congress.
External influences that inhibit the sustainability of training on military installations are at the heart of the matter. Beard said these so-called encroachment pressures include increased urbanization around military facilities that, for instance, force at-risk species onto military installations and into testing areas. The designation of critical habitat area at some military bases in the United States has hampered training activities, he said.
"A lot of military facilities were put out in the middle of nowhere, but since then communities have grown around installations and ranges to the point where there’s urban growth up to the fence line," he said.
At the 86,000-acre Fort Lewis military installation south of Tacoma, rows of sandwiched houses and seemingly endless strip malls meet miles of barbed-wire fencing. Vast stretches of native woodland oak prairies, once extensive throughout the South Puget Sound, lie protected within the perimeter.
Last year, the U.S. General Accounting Office analyzed the impacts of encroachment pressures the military faces at Fort Lewis and three other installations.
According to its report issued in June 2002, the GAO concluded that Fort Lewis has been able to accommodate endangered species, set aside critical habitat areas and mitigate most impediments to training.
Tahoma Audubon Society member Kirk Kirkland said the Army cooperates with the Nature Conservancy, for instance, to remove scotch broom, an invasive plant that chokes out prairies where endangered species live.
"Fort Lewis does an excellent job as environmental stewards and balancing their military training mission," Beard said.
Kirkland said urban sprawl in communities adjacent to Fort Lewis, such as Lakewood and Spanaway, have forced at-risk species onto the base.
"About 2 percent of those native prairies are left in Puget Sound, mostly on the base," Kirkland said. "So where do all the species go? They run over to Fort Lewis."
He said the base puts up signs to guard breeding grounds and fragile prairie habitat as well as wetlands. Fort Lewis deserves praise for its work, he said.
"We have been pretty creative in meeting obligations," said James Van Ness, Department of Defense associate general counsel for Environment and Installations. "But every workaround comes at some price."
The Bush administration was not willing to pay that price, however, concerning deployment of the Navy’s Low Frequency Active Sonar operations.
Early in 2001, PEER intercepted Department of Defense "Pre-Decision Working Papers" dated December 2000. The paper outlined specific provisions or interpretations of environmental laws it alleged encroach on military training and readiness in the marine environment. The memo also cited public review processes and disclosure regarding environmental concerns as delaying training.
Complying with provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, according to the memo, might hinder or delay deployment of the Navy’s LFA Sonar operations.
In July 2002, the Bush administration granted the Navy an exemption from the MMPA to "take" or harass endangered species, including whales, when deploying LFA Sonar to detect foreign submarines.
Mark Palmer works for Earth Island Institute’s International Marine Mammal Project. He said the Navy’s use of sonar around the world has coincided with mass whale strandings.
"In March 2000 in the Bahamas, 16 whales beached within range of the Navy’s use of midrange frequency sonar," he said.
In December 2001, Earth Island Institute filed a Freedom of Information Act request, asking that the National Marine Fisheries Service release the whales’ autopsy results. Following that request, NMFS issued a report citing the Navy’s use of midrange frequency sonar as the most plausible cause of the whales’ deaths.
The whales that died suffered bleeding of the ears and ear channels, injuries consistent with an acoustically induced trauma that caused them to strand. No other acoustic sources in the vicinity could have caused the whales’ injuries, according to the report.
"But the LFA Sonar is more powerful and has a longer range than the midrange frequency sonar that killed those whales," Palmer said. "We’re concerned it could kill even more marine mammals."
In November 2002, a coalition of environmental groups sued the Navy and convinced U.S. Magistrate Elizabeth LaPorte in San Francisco to temporarily limit the LFA Sonar testing until the courts resolve the coalition’s lawsuit.
Fred Felleman Northwest, director of Ocean Advocates and board member of the Orca Conservancy, said he is concerned that the Navy’s sonar testing played a role in the death of a female whale that beached off Washington state’s Olympic coast in January 2002.
He said Palmer filed a FOIA request on his behalf regarding Navy training near the location of the beached whale.
"They wanted to charge us over a couple thousand dollars for the request," Palmer said. "They don’t want to give out this kind of information because they say, ‘there’s terrorists out there, so we’re not going to tell you anything.’"
Felleman said he remains skeptical about the whale’s death.
"If you can’t get this kind of information, and if the Navy exempts themselves further, then how can you even begin to look at ways to mitigate these kinds of possible effects?" he said.
Since the attacks of Sept. 11, citizen activists and advocacy groups who traditionally try to shed light on military activities have been denied requests or charged higher fees.
The Navy said these charges cover the cost of copying and time spent collecting the requested materials.
Peace activist Glen Milner said he uses FOIA to research environmental compliance at the Naval Submarine Base Bangor — located approximately 15 miles west of Seattle on Hood Canal.
"They’ve denied some of my requests due to national security," he said.
Milner said the Bush administration’s attempts to prevent public disclosure by denying FOIA requests make public scrutiny impossible.
"Several years ago they would have granted a similar FOIA request, without fees, because they said it was in the public interest to do so," he said.
In late 2001, the Navy responded to one of Milner’s requests. The response confirmed that the Navy tests weapons using depleted uranium munitions off the Washington state coast — the same radioactive heavy metal that the United States littered over Iraq during the Gulf War in 1991.
Some fear that if the United States declares war on Iraq, the military will rain down more of the toxic metal on the country and its inhabitants.
Sellers said the Navy fires depleted uranium rounds off the Washington coast with its Phalanx Close-In-Weapons-System from ships.
"Tests of CIWS are required twice per month when a naval vessel is at sea," Sellers said.
According to the Navy’s official Web site, it started using a tungsten penetrator for CIWS — and stopped using depleted uranium — fifteen years ago. Milner’s discovery, however, made it clear that this is not true.
"The Navy is in the process of phasing out the (depleted uranium)," Sellers said. "The phase out should be complete by 2008."
She said the Navy takes precautions at sea when operating CIWS and, in doing so, it does not think it has any adverse effects on endangered species or critical habitat.
"The radiation exposure to marine life is very low," she said.
The military’s use of depleted uranium, which some believe causes environmental damage and might have contributed to the so-called Gulf War Syndrome, began during the Gulf War in 1991.
Saul Bloom, executive director of Arc Ecology, recently spoke at Western Washington University about the environmental impacts of military training and war. Arc Ecology is an environmental and social advocacy organization that addresses military activities.
He said the environmental damage caused by the Gulf War was tremendous. But, he said, damage occurs well before troops are deployed. A legacy of weapons research, development and testing, as well as military training and war games have contaminated many military facilities, he said.
"Nothing in war gets used that hasn’t been tested," Bloom said. "Think about it."
The Puget Sound region has six Navy and two Army National Priorities List Superfund sites, according to the Environmental Protection Agency Web site. NPLS sites are the most hazardous waste sites identified by EPA’s Superfund program, which provides trust money for clean-up.
The various sites include contaminants such as heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls and other pollutants in the soil, marine sediments, groundwater and shellfish, according to the EPA Web site. Some might pose health effects and several sites are located adjacent to commercial or tribal fishing grounds.
Nancy Harney, EPA Region 10 Federal Facilities program manager, said the EPA has a good working relationships at the Puget Sound NPLS sites with the Navy and Army.
"A lot of clean up has gone on," she said. "But, nationally, the EPA has a hard enough time getting (the Department of Defense) to comply with enforcement."
Harney said she personally thinks the Bush administration has emboldened the Department of Defense.
"If this legislation gets passed, this will be a huge nail in the coffin (of environmental protection) as far as I’m concerned," she said.
The administration might introduce legislation to clarify interpretations of several major environmental laws in the coming weeks.
Bloom said he does not think the military needs more clarification of existing environmental laws.
He said public disclosure regarding the impacts of readiness training and testing is vital to addressing environmental concerns. Environmental compliance with existing interpretations of environmental laws have worked, he said, like at Fort Lewis, at least for now.
"The president has asked us to fight on the front lines in Iraq," he said. "People who live near military bases are already on the front lines."