Sonar threat to world's whales

Sonar threat to world's whales

Secret naval exercises lead to deaths of thousands of giant mammals worldwide. Stricken whale in Thames dies after dramatic attempt to return it to the ocean

By Geoffrey Lean, Cole Moreton and Jonathan Owen
Published: 22 January 2006

Secret sonar from naval ships is killing thousands of whales around the world and could have disoriented the two-ton mammal that died last night after becoming stranded in the Thames, an investigation by The Independent on Sunday has established.
The northern bottlenose whale died despite dramatic attempts at a rescue witnessed by thousands of people on the banks of the river, and millions on television. The whale was lifted on to a barge and carried down the river, in the hope that it could be taken to the open sea. But its condition deteriorated, it began to suffer muscle spasms, and it died before anything further could be done.
Experts believe that the whale's senses could have been damaged by military sonar. Some 30 strandings and deaths of whales around the world - from Tasmania to North America - have been linked to its use. The United Nations and other international bodies have warned that it is a major threat to the animals.
The investigation has also revealed that - in a separate, but deeply embarrassing development - the Government faces being hauled before the European Court for failing to take enough care of the whales and dolphins around Britain's shores.
Professor Hal Whitehead of Dalhousie University in Canada - acknowledged to be the world's leading expert on northern bottlenose whales - said yesterday that he had never known the deep-ocean species to wander so far from its habitat.
"It would be unusual, and cause concern, for one to be found in the North Sea or English Channel, let alone a long way up a pretty shallow river," he said. "Its nearest habitat would be south-west of Cornwall. We know that beaked whales - the group of species to which the northern bottlenose whale belongs - are particularly sensitive to underwater noise. There has been a lot of seismic activity off northern Scotland and in the North Sea, and I understand that the Royal Navy exercises frequently."
Many strandings and deaths of whales and dolphins have been linked to sonar surveys in recent years (see table). In March 2000, for example, whales of four species beached themselves in the Bahamas after a battle group from the US navy used sonar nearby. A US government investigation established that they had been affected by the sonar. Since then, the area's population of Cuvier's beaked whales has virtually disappeared; investigators conclude that they have either abandoned the area or died at sea.
The Washington-based National Resources Defence Council says that more than 30 such incidents have been linked to sonar use around the world.
Last week, a US court discovered that the US government had cut references to the effects of naval sonar from a report on the stranding of 37 whales in North Carolina a year ago, shortly after military manoeuvres.
Strandings in Britain have more than doubled in the past decade, from 360 in 1994 to 782 in 2004, and vets believe that the number of whales that wash up on shore are only one-tenth of those that die, suggesting that there are thousands of casualties.
Meanwhile, the European Commission has started legal proceedings against Britain for failing adequately to monitor the health of whales and dolphins in its seas.
Strandings: Sonar takes a deadly toll
JAPAN 1990: Six whales die after US Navy tests sonar
GREECE MAY 1996: Twelve Cuvier's beaked whales stranded on the west coast of Greece as Nato sweep the area with sonar.
CANARY ISLANDS JULY 2004: Fourteen whales beach during Nato exercises involving sonar. Strandings in 1985, 1988, 1989, 1991 and 2002 all coincide with naval exercises.
AUSTRALIA NOV 2004: Seventeen whales die in Bass Strait; 50 get stranded 300 miles away; 165 whales and dolphins later found dying. All coincide with sonar activities and seismic surveys.
US JAN 2005: Thirty-nine whales die after US Navy uses sonar in waters off North Carolina.
US March 2005 : Eighty dolphins beach as US Navy sub trails sonar off Florida Keys; 30 die.
TASMANIA OCT 2005: More than 110 pilot whales die; Australian Navy admits to using sonar.
NEW ZEALAND DECEMBER 2005: About 120 pilot whales die in the country's largest beaching for 12 years.

Reference to Sonar Deleted in Whale-Beaching Report

Reference to Sonar Deleted in Whale-Beaching Report
By Marc Kaufman Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 20, 2006; Page A09

Documents released under a court order show that a government investigator studying the stranding of 37 whales on the North Carolina coast last year changed her draft report to eliminate all references to the possibility that naval sonar may have played a role in driving the whales ashore.
The issue of sonar's effects on whales is a sensitive topic for the U.S. Navy. It has clashed with environmentalists in several court suits seeking to limit use of the technology because of its possible effects on marine mammals and other sea creatures.
The January 2005 stranding occurred shortly after naval maneuvers in the area -- which is off North Carolina and in the region where the Pentagon wants to build a controversial underwater sonar training range.
In her initial April 2005 preliminary report on the deaths, Teri Rowles, coordinator of the National Marine Fisheries Service's stranding response program, described injuries to seven of the whales that "may be indicative" of damage related to the loud blasts of sound from active sonar.
She also noted that one of the injuries -- air bubbles in the liver of a pilot whale -- had been reported in mass strandings in the Bahamas and Canary Islands associated with sonar activity.
That report was made public this week after a federal judge in New York ordered its release to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental group, which had sued the agency over its refusal to release information on the whales' stranding on North Carolina's Outer Banks.
But before it was released by NRDC, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released an updated report -- by Rowles and others -- that did not mention sonar. In a cover letter to that report, NOAA officials said the initial draft that mentioned sonar "contains early information that was later found to be inaccurate."
NRDC attorney Andrew Wetzler said that the second report "seems a lot more like spin than science." He said the absence of any reference to sonar was surprising because the evidence suggesting that sonar might have played a role hardly changed between the first and second drafts. What changed, he said, was some limited analysis by Rowles.
In an interview yesterday, Rowles said the references to sonar were removed because it was just one of several possible causes of the strandings. "Sonar has not been implicated or eliminated -- it remains one of many possible causes," she said. "We wanted to put out a report that included our most up-to-date information."
Most important, she said, was the conclusion after further analysis that the presence of air bubbles in one animal's liver had not been conclusively confirmed. Air bubbles were found in the organs of several whales that stranded in the Canary Islands after a sonar exercise, leading some researchers to conclude that the animals swam to the surface too rapidly and suffered a version of the bends. If air bubbles were present in the whales that beached in North Carolina, it could suggest that sonar caused their stranding, as well.
The federal court order to release the report came at an awkward time for NOAA and the Navy, which has been holding public hearings on its controversial plan to build an underwater sonar training range.
The public record on that issue will close at the end of the month, and some activists have complained that officials are trying to withhold information about the stranding until after that time. In its court filings, NRDC argued that it was unfair to complete the hearings before information about the strandings was released.
Navy officials say that the sonar training range is essential, and that active sonar is increasingly important because of a growing threat from diesel submarines that cannot be detected using traditional passive sonar.
The Navy has also acknowledged that sonar can harm whales. A Navy-NOAA investigation found that sonar from Navy ships was the most plausible explanation for the stranding of 17 whales in the Bahamas in 2000. The report found that sonar-induced damage to the ears of some animals may have disoriented them and caused them to swim onto the shore.
Researchers are also studying the ears of some animals that stranded in North Carolina, but Rowles said those results will not be known for some time. The final report, she said, is scheduled to be released in March.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011902990.html?nav=rss_nation

Help protect endangered whales from new sonar assault

Help protect endangered whales from new sonar assault

There is an emerging threat to whales that demands your immediate action.

The U.S. Navy wants to put a testing ground for lethal mid-frequency sonar along the migratory path of highly endangered northern right whales, off the coast of North Carolina.

Please act today to protect the whales and other marine life of this offshore refuge from a year-round barrage of deadly, ear-splitting noise.

Go to http://www.savebiogems.org/whales/takeaction.asp?step=2&item=53246
and urge the Navy to consider less sensitive locations for its sonar training range.

As the site of more than 160 exercises annually, the Navy's proposed testing range would create a 500-square-mile hub of year-round sonar activity and other intense underwater noise. The range would lie along the migratory route of endangered right whales, fewer than 400 of which are believed to exist today.

Just one year ago, 37 whales of three different species beached themselves on the shores of the Outer Banks, near the proposed testing range, following Navy sonar exercises in the area. Scientists have linked the use of high-intensity sonar to numerous other mass strandings of whales around the globe, from the Bahamas to the Canary Islands to Japan. Yet, incredibly, the Navy's analysis of its proposed testing range does not even mention, much less thoroughly examine, this stranding.

Beached whales have been found bleeding around their brains and ears after encounters with this lethal technology.Military sonar may also be interfering with the ability of these majestic creatures to locate food, avoid predators and mate.

Please go to http://www.savebiogems.org/whales/takeaction.asp?step=2&item=53246
and tell the Navy to carefully consider all the alternatives before proceeding with sonar exercises in this spectacular whale habitat.

Or, to make an even bigger impact, compose your own letter -- using the points in our standard letter -- and mail or fax it no later than January 30 to:

Keith Jenkins
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic
Mail Code EV21KJ6506
Hampton Boulevard
Norfolk, VA 23508
Fax: 757-322-4894

Thank you for helping to protect endangered whales from the lethal effects of military sonar.
Sincerely,
Frances Beinecke
PresidentNatural Resources Defense Council

Can sonar, sea life mix?

Can sonar, sea life mix?

Navy wants underwater range, but many fear for whales Catherine Clabby, Staff Writer Just as the U.S. Navy is gearing up to install a 660-square-mile sonar training range off the coast of North Carolina, evidence is mounting that sonar harms some whales. Scientists link sonar to some fatal whale beachings, though they aren't certain how the underwater sound causes trouble. Some suspect it can startle animals, making them surface so fast that they get the decompression illness known as the bends. Environmentalists suspect that Navy sonar caused the rare beaching of three whale species in January 2005 on the Outer Banks. A federal National Marine Fisheries Service report expected as early as this month may or may not clear that up. "There are so many hurdles to understanding the effects of sonar," said Andy Read, a Duke University marine mammal biologist based in Beaufort. "There are many questions we can't answer yet. The Navy can't answer them yet either." What is sonar, and what does it do? Sonar is an acronym for Sound Navigation and Ranging. Invented in 1906 to help ships detect icebergs, the technology drew increased interest during World War I when governments needed ways to detect enemy submarines. Sonar can be passive or active. Passive sonar simply listens for noise in the ocean. Active sonar emits pulses of sound that travel through water, bounce off objects and return as echoes to an underwater receiver. The receiver converts the echoes to electric signals that can reveal the size, distance and speed of underwater objects. Active sonar remains the U.S. Navy's best means to find enemy submarines. It operates active devices in three frequencies: l High-frequency (greater than 10 kilohertz) is used to measure water depth, find mines and guide torpedoes. Its range is typically less than 5 nautical miles. l Mid-frequency (1 to 10 kilohertz) is used to find submarines. The range is 1 to 10 nautical miles. l Low-frequency (less than 1 kilohertz) is used for long-range search and surveillance of submarines. The range is up to 100 nautical miles. Because light is limited underwater, many sea creatures, especially whales, use natural versions of sonar to find prey and communicate with each other. Scientists are still trying to understand the Navy sonar's effects on ocean life, though evidence is mounting that it may harm some whales. The Navy acknowledges that some whales, very rarely, can be harmed by sonar. But on the basis of research and computer models, it concludes that a proposed sonar off North Carolina would bother, but not injure, a fraction of the marine mammals out there. Protective steps would reduce that risk to almost nothing, the Navy says. The plan calls for posting trained scouts on ship decks to watch for animals and listening underwater for the animals. The Navy would decrease the strength of sonar signals when creatures get too close. "We expect some behavioral reactions, whether it will be the animals turning away to leave the area or exhibiting some disturbance. We expect nothing more than that," said Aileen Smith, a Navy biologist and natural resources manager for the U.S. Fleet Forces Command in Virginia. Navy's plans for range The Navy says it needs an Atlantic Ocean sonar range as a realistic training ground for sailors and pilots to detect a new generation of submarines. Powered by batteries and air-propulsion systems, the quiet vessels can sneak into coastal waters, unlike the deep-water subs the Navy chased during the Cold War. A sonar system emits pulses of sound, which bounce off objects underwater. By analyzing the echoes, the Navy can detect and track what it cannot see. Sonar is a vital defense tool, but attention is growing to the technology's unintended consequences. With a federal court suit, environmentalists in 2003 forced the Navy to limit use of its most powerful (low-frequency) sonar to a portion of the Pacific Ocean. This fall, environmentalists filed a second lawsuit, asking a federal court to also restrict the Navy's use of mid-frequency sonar, the kind envisioned for the training range off the North Carolina coast. Mid-frequency sonar's primary use is to detect enemy submarines nearby -- within 10 nautical miles. If the range is built, sailors and pilots aboard surface ships, aircraft and submarines would use it to test and refine their detection skills. The loudest sonar on the range would produce pings reaching 235 underwater decibels. Scientists are still developing scales to describe underwater noise, but 235 underwater decibels is louder than the song of a humpback whale, which a nearby human listener can hear -- and feel -- underwater. Sonar pings are sustained for only a few seconds, however, while whale sounds go on for minutes, which makes the effect louder, scientists say. The Navy evaluated potential sonar range sites off North Carolina, Virginia and Florida. But it has long favored a patch of ocean 47 miles offshore of the Marines' Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville. It's at the edge of the continental shelf and in the path of the warm-water Gulf Stream. Waters there teem with many types of fishes, sea turtles, dolphins and whales. Beachings not new Unexplained whale beachings were recorded long before sonar came along. But the technology, developed in the early 1900s, is increasingly suspected as playing a role. Since the 1990s, scientists have linked mid-frequency sonar blasts to a small number of strandings of beaked whales, species that are less likely to beach than other whales. Some of those whales live off North Carolina. "If someone had said years ago that mid-frequency sonar would be a problem, I would have said no. But these are documented, real issues," said Paul Nachtigall, director of the Marine Mammal Research Program at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology. Scientists tie mid-frequency sonar blasts to whale beachings in three Atlantic Ocean island groups -- Madeira, the Canary Islands and the Bahamas. The Navy concedes that its sonar was a culprit in one incident, when 17 beaked whales stranded in the Bahamas in 2000. The military blamed narrow underwater channels, which limited where the animals could swim to escape the sound. A 2003 report in the science journal Nature found that some of the 14 beaked whales that stranded in the Canary Islands in 2002 had internal injuries resembling damage from gas bubbles, a symptom of the bends. The Navy says that beaked whales may be a special case and identifies four species found off North Carolina as most vulnerable. Navy efforts praised Federal laws, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, forbid the harming or harassing of whales and other sea mammals, including dolphins. So the National Marine Fisheries Service is reviewing the Navy's plans to protect those creatures. The agency is supportive of some of the analysis the Navy has prepared but is reserving judgment on other portions. Steve Leathery, chief of the service's protected resources permits division, praises the Navy's sophisticated approach to estimating the decibel levels sonar sustains as it moves through sea water. But the agency has not yet agreed with Navy estimates about how far dangerous levels of noise will travel from sonar equipment. "We're still working with them," Leathery said. The marine fisheries agency this month is expected to release a report exploring what caused the mysterious whale strandings on the North Carolina coast last winter. At least 37 whales washed ashore in mid-January near Oregon Inlet. Most were pilot whales, but one was a newborn minke whale and two were dwarf sperm whales. Environmentalists say mid-frequency sonar used by the USS Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group during offshore exercises may be at fault. The Navy says it wasn't close to shore and sees no connection. Environmental groups have sued marine fisheries to get access to the data it collected after that stranding, along with strandings elsewhere. The fisheries service is also scrutinizing the Navy's conclusion about the dangers its range will pose to giant North American right whales. One of the biggest threats to these animals, which number about 320, are collisions with ships. One pregnant right whale washed up dead on the Outer Banks two years ago after being struck by a ship. Two right whales have been spotted entangled in fishing gear off the state's coast in the past two years, including one last month. In both cases, the animals evaded rescuers. The Navy maintains that a sonar range off North Carolina could possibly disturb -- not harm -- only two officially endangered whales species: humpbacks and sperm whales. It concludes that right whales hug too close to the shore on their trips up and down the North Carolina coast to be put in any peril by sound. The Navy says that ships and other vessels using the range will need to be on the lookout for right whales while traveling from ports to the north and south. But scientists say the Navy may be overly optimistic that right whales will be too far away to be bothered by sonar. Their whereabouts are not always clear, and biologists who study them can't say exactly where the creatures travel off the coast. Recent sightings suggest waters off North Carolina may be more important to right whales than previously known. A year ago, UNC-Wilmington biologists documented a right whale and what looked like a newborn calf near Johnnie Mercer's Fishing Pier on Wrightsville Beach. That raises the possibility that the whales give birth closer to shore than previously thought. Also, Doug Nowacek, a Florida State University biologist, has conducted sound studies on right whales. Some, he said, get startled by sound and move to the surface and stay there. If right whales are bothered by sonar, they could place themselves in greater danger of colliding with a ship if startled, he said. "This certainly has the potential to significantly disrupt or harm those animals," Nowacek said. The marine fisheries service is "taking a hard look" at the Navy's claims about right whales, said Leathery, the service's section director. Other possible risks In recent weeks, the Navy learned that some North Carolinians are skeptical about claims that a sonar range would be harmless to fin fish, as well. The N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries has criticized the Navy for underestimating the risk a range would pose to coral reefs, vital habitat to many fishes. The state fisheries agency also says the Navy has ignored scientific findings that sound can frighten and even damage some fish. The Navy has promised to work up more data on those questions but says research and experiences with sonar in the Pacific Ocean indicate negligible risks. If a Navy range does get built off North Carolina, scientists say it might clear up some mysteries. Read, the Duke University biologist, is among a group of North Carolina researchers trying to land a contract with the Navy to monitor animals moving through the range site before and after exercises start there. In an ideal world, Read said, he would prefer that sonar not get sounded regularly off North Carolina's shore, since it might put wildlife at risk. But if it happens, he said, monitoring might at least shed new insight on what sonar does. "Should they conduct this in one area as opposed to doing it all over the place like they are doing now? I would prefer that," Read said. HOW TO COMMENT The Navy's draft environmental impact statement for the proposed sonar training range can be read online at: http://projects.earthtech.com/ USWTR/USWTR_index.htm The Navy will accept written comments on the study until Jan. 30. Comments can be faxed to: 757-322-4894. Or they can be sent to: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic Att: Keith Jenkins Code: EV21KJ 6506 Hampton Blvd. Norfolk, VA 23508-1278

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/384371.html

Woman from Morehead City sees no harm in it

Woman from Morehead City sees no harm in it

MOREHEAD CITY - They may be in the minority. But at least one local resident, who supports the proposition of a Navy sonar range off the North Carolina coast, thinks there are plenty of others like herself who have just not yet spoken up. "I can't see any harm in it, actually," said Kelly Cooke of Morehead City. "I think it's going to be good for the country." Cooke, who admits she is somewhat pro-military because many of her family members have served in different branches over the years, said she believes it would be an honor for the state to be selected as the sonar range site. "I think any red-blooded American ought to be proud of anything that goes in this area from the military," Cooke said. That has not been the opinion voiced at public hearings, thus far, where numerous people from the environmental and fishing communities have sounded off against the idea of building a 500 nautical square mile anti-submarine training facility about 47 nautical miles off Camp Lejeune. Topping concerns has been the non-specific nature of wording in a draft report that concludes the concentrated use of sonar will have minimal impact on marine life in the area. Now several elected officials have gotten involved. On Wednesday, N.C. Sen. President Pro-tem Marc Basnight sent a letter to the state's delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives expressing concern and disapproval of the proposal. "This facility will have a long-lasting negative impact on our state fisheries and coastal tourism, with no economic or environmental benefit to the citizens of North Carolina," Basnight wrote. Basnight asked Congressmen to urge the Navy to extend the public comment period on the draft environmental impact statement, originally set to end Dec. 28, so to allow the public time to review a final National Marine Fisheries Service report on the cause of strandings of more than 30 pilot whales along the coast of Oregon Inlet in January 2005. That report is due out sometime in January. U.S. Reps. Walter Jones, R-NC and Mike McIntyre, D-NC, also sent a letter Tuesday to the Naval Facilities Engineering Command asking for 60-day extension of the original Dec. 28 deadline. The Navy has granted the request from the public and elected officials to extend the comment period to Jan. 30. That is double the time period required by law for public comments under the National Environmental Policy Act, said Jim Brantley, public affairs officer for the Navy Fleet Forces Command. A 60-day extension would have afforded the public opportunity to read before commenting, as well, individual reports written by members of a federal Marine Mammal Commission Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals expected out in February, said Jim Stephenson of the North Carolina Coastal Federation. Cooke said she does not believe there will be any greater impacts from a sonar range than the amount of development already going on along the coast. Moreover, she said the public needs to balance the environmental aspects of the debate with the national security issues. "It's going to do more good than harm," Cooke said. The Navy contends it needs the sonar range because its two existing ranges off San Diego and Hawaii are not representative of the shallower ocean environments in which the Navy often operates. Additionally, it is logistically inefficient to take an East Coast-based ship and crew to the West Coast to train. Stephenson said he does not think the Navy has made a good case for this need. Construction of a sonar range off Onslow Beach would not bring more troops to Camp Lejeune or any other military base in North Carolina, but Cooke said it could still have a positive economic impact. "Even though they're from out-of-town they're still going to be spending money in our area and the government will be spending money in our area," she said.

http://snipurl.com/l4qf

Basnight condemns proposed Navy sonar field

Basnight condemns proposed Navy sonar field

Dec 21, 2005 : 6:51 pm ET RALEIGH, N.C. -- A sonar training range the Navy wants to build off the North Carolina coast "will have a disastrous impact on North Carolina," state Senate Leader Marc Basnight wrote Wednesday in a letter to the state's congressional delegation. Also Wednesday, the Navy -- faced with numerous requests for an extension -- agreed to push back the deadline for public comments on a draft report that predicts little environmental impact from the range. The plan has drawn opposition from North Carolina officials and environmental groups. Members of the Joint Legislative Commission on Seafood and Aquaculture complained that a briefing Monday by Navy representatives didn't clear up their concerns. The proposed 660-square-mile range, 47 miles off shore from Camp Lejeune, would be used for training ships and aircraft in the use of sonar, a technology that detects objects under the sea by bouncing sound off them. The range would include hundreds of underwater microphones anchored on the ocean floor that would record ship movements and allow exercises to be reconstructed for study. The Navy says sonar is the best defense against a new generation of quiet submarines that can threaten coastal waters. It expects the new range to cause only mild disturbance to some whales and hardly any effect on fish or sea turtles. But opponents fear the impact of the sound waves on marine life, saying they sometimes kill whales and dolphins. Environmentalists sued the Navy in October, claiming the stranding and deaths of at least 37 whales last January near the Oregon Inlet of the Outer Banks occurred after a mid-frequency sonar exercise. Basnight, D-Dare, said commission members "were left bewildered" by the information presented Monday. "It seems no definitive answers to their questions and concerns could be given," he wrote. "Repeatedly, the Navy staff used the term 'minimal impact' without giving a concrete definition. It seemed the Navy did not know the potential impacts of this facility." Basnight said requested an extension of the public comment period, saying more time is needed "for the results of the Oregon Inlet atrocity to be evaluated." The Navy announced almost simultaneously that it would extend the comment deadline from Dec. 28 to Jan. 30.

http://www.heraldsun.com/state/6-681712.html

US Navy plans use of LFAS in Atlantic, Pacific, Indian and Mediterranean Oceans

US Navy plans use of LFAS in Atlantic, Pacific, Indian and Mediterranean Oceans


by Public Relations Officer, Kingdom of Hawai'i Saturday, Dec. 17, 2005 The US Navy is in the final stages of submitting public comments to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pertaining to the use of Low Freqency Sonar in the Pacific, Atlantic, Mediterranean and Indian Oceans. The well documented negative affects of this technology has been demonstrated in the past in whale and dolphin beachings around the world, with some washing up with visible damage to their ears (bleeding), disorientation, often leading to death. Humans within the vicinity of this technology have experienced well documented negative physical, psychological and mental problems. The King of Hawai'i has issued a summary of the "so called" public meeting held in Honolulu recently, where some members of the community were allowed to testify. The meeting was held in the back room of a poorly lit hallway, through a maze of corridors on the University of Hawai'i campus, where attendees had to pay $3.00 for parking. The only visible sign that was posted directing people to the meeting was an 8 X 10 inch, handwritten poster that was tacked up hastily in two darkened hallways, with one indicating that persons should head down the hallway in BOTH directions in order to access the meeting room. Further, environmental groups, and other entities that are not only actively suing the US Navy to stop using this technology, but others who have a clear interest in attending this meeting were not notified of the meeting in advance so they could appear to testify. As a result, many who did hear about the meeting were informed via word of mouth the day before the meeting took place. Additionally, the US Navy has already conducted testing of this technology in the Hawaiian waters without public knowledge, and without an EIS in place during the humpback whale mating season. The King of Hawai'i issued a statement prohibiting the use of this technology within 200 miles of the coast of the Hawaiian Island chain, in part due to the sacred ancestral connection that Hawaiians have with not only land entities, but their ocen counterparts as well. Many Hawaiian families think of whales, dolphins, sharks, turtles, and other fish as a part of the ancient Hawaiian cosmology and geneology that connects them to their ancient past. About twenty members of the public attended the meeting, with eight members of the audience in attendance on the US Navy's behalf. There was at least one person in this Naval group who spent the entire meeting glaring threateningly at whomever testified (and others in the audience) who clearly expressed views not in line with what the US Navy was trying to accomplish. We were told that this person was there to provide security. Interested members of the Public should send their written comments to the address listed below by December 27, 2005. Low Frequency Active Sonar United States Navy Hearing Monday, December 5, 2005 Honolulu, Hawai`i Background In the mid-1980’s, the United States Navy concern about new, more silent submarines, led to a decision to develop low frequency sonar. Low frequency sound travels vast distances in the water. The new sonar would detect the new submarines at a sufficient distance to permit the Navy to respond before a possibly hostile submarine got close enough to do harm. The Navy proceeded to research, design, manufacture, and test low frequency active sonar (LFAS) over a period of years without taking the steps necessary to comply with environmental law. While aware of the Navy program, the National Marine Fisheries Service took no steps to compel the Navy to comply with those laws. In 1995, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) discovered the program and sent a letter to the Navy detailing the laws being violated and essentially threatening to sue, if the Navy did not come into compliance with those laws. In 1996, the Navy announced its decision to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act, seek permits to take marine mammals under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the potential impact of the sonar on endangered and threatened species. By that time, the Navy had spent more than $100 million preparing to deploy the system throughout the oceans of the world. As part of the EIS process, the Navy conducted tests of the system on various species of cetaceans in various ocean locations. During the EIS process, numerous groups and individuals filed lawsuits challenging the sonar program. Groups in Hawai`i filed many of those suits. After the Navy issued its final EIS and secured the permits necessary to deploy the sonar, NRDC filed suit challenging the adequacy of the environmental work and the legality of the permits. The court issued an injunction limiting the use of the sonar to testing and training exercises in a few ocean locations. In response to the injunction, the Navy prepared a draft supplemental EIS (DSEIS) for public comment and scheduled three public hearings in Washington, D.C.; San Diego, California; and Honolulu, Hawai`i to take comments on the draft document. The Navy sent copies of the DSEIS to government agencies and interested private organization. The Navy did not send the document to any of the organizations in Hawai`i that had filed suit nor to their attorneys. The Navy did not notify any of the Hawaiian organizations about the public hearing. Prior to the public hearing in Honolulu, the only notice of the Navy hearing appeared in classified advertisement in the legal notice section of local newspapers. On Monday, December 5, 2005, the Navy held a public hearing at the University of Hawai`i Manoa Campus Center. This report summarizes that hearing. The Hearing People in Hawai`i active on the sonar issue did learn about the document and hearing, despite the efforts of the Navy to limit public awareness. A last minute email and telephone effort brought approximately twenty people to the hearing. The Navy had eight people present, including Mr. Joe Johnson, who coordinates the EIS effort for the Navy. Mr. Johnson opened the hearing with a Navy presentation on the history of LFAS. The public comment period followed. Years earlier hearing in Honolulu, local groups mobilized a large showing of people and presented a coordinated presentation of statements prepared prior to the hearing and read by volunteers who came to the hearing and signed up to speak in the order intended for the presentation. At the 2005 hearing, Lanny Sinkin, an attorney who had filed fives of the suits in Hawai`i challenging various aspects of the LFAS program, prepared a similar presentation in the short period available after Hawaiians learned of the DSEIS and the hearing. At the beginning of the public comment period in Honolulu, Mr. Johnson announced that he would randomly select cards from those prepared by those who wished to speak. The first card he pulled was Melia Farias. As it turned out, Ms. Farias came to the hearing to provide an introduction for Mr. Sinkin. While Mr. Sinkin is an attorney within the United States, he is also involved in a rapidly growing effort to restore the Kingdom of Hawai`i as an independent nation. In 1893, agents of the United States government overthrew the Kingdom government. In 1993, the United States Congress passed and President Clinton signed a resolution apologizing for the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom government and acknowledged that Hawaiian never relinquished their sovereignty. Mr. Sinkin serves as Ali`i Mana`o Nui (Chief Advocate and Spiritual Advisor) to Ali`i Nui Mo`i (King) Edmund Keli`i Silva Junior. While coordinating presentations on the LFAS matter for the hearing, Mr. Sinkin came to the hearing to deliver a statement from the King. He initially intended to deliver that statement after United States citizens had an opportunity to address their own government. The random process chosen by the Navy put the statement from the King as the opening statement of the hearing. Ms. Farias opened the public comment period with a chant in Hawaiian and then translated the chant. From the sacred places of Hawai`i Comes the voice of the King Uncover the ipu, uncover the truth Here is the great remembrance of the King of Hawai`i From the East, the West, the before, the after, the mountains, the sea The mana of all Hawai`i rises up! (ipu = bottle gourd; mana = spiritual energy) After Ms. Farias chant, Mr. Sinkin delivered a statement on behalf of the King expressing “the King’s displeasure with the intent of the United States Navy to deploy low frequency active sonar in Kingdom waters.” The statement reminded those present of the overthrow and continued illegal occupation. Regarding deployment of LFAS, the statement noted that the Kingdom was always and will continue to be a non-aligned nation having no quarrel with any other nation and intending to avoid being drawn into disputes within the human family. To the contrary, the Kingdom intends to offer its services in resolving such disputes. As a non-aligned nation, the Kingdom does not need the protection of any nation and, therefore, there is no need for the deployment of LFAS in Kingdom waters. Because the King is also responsible for protecting the ocean that sustains the people of Hawai`i, he cannot allow the introduction of harmful technology into the ocean waters. The statement also noted that in the ancient Hawaiian spiritual tradition, the whale, shark, turtle, and other sea life are amakua, ancestors of the human species, who are “not to be subject to harassment and torment by human technology.” The statement concluded that, when the government is restored, the King will issue a proclamation banning the use of all military sonars, whether low, mid, or high frequency, in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Hawaiian Archipelago. The statement from the King set the energy and tone for many other presentations. Eleven speakers made statements with additional statements submitted in writing. Hawai`i Green Party, Life of the Land, American Friends Service Committee, and other groups and individuals delivered impassioned and detailed comments. The major themes were: The failure of the Navy to give notice to people known to be interested in the LFAS matter regarding the issuance of the DSEIS and the public hearing violated the guidelines for distribution of such documents and demonstrated a lack of commitment to the democratic process on the part of the Navy. Hawai`i and Hawaiians suffer from the terrible adverse impacts of the continued illegal occupation of the islands by the United States. Many of those adverse impacts stem from the extensive militarization of Hawai`i and from military activities, such as bombing Hawaiian lands. The restored Kingdom intends to phase out the United States military presence; protect what is left of the Kingdom’s natural resources; and pursue action against those who persist in harming the people, land, waters, and air of the Kingdom. The dishonesty of the entire EIS process is apparent from the failure to pursue information developed during the process that indicated serious potential adverse impacts, such as the physiological and psychological injuries to a human exposed to a broadcast in the waters off Hawai`i during testing, the Navy’s’ cavalier dismissal as “anecdotal” the extensive observations documenting Humpback Whales fleeing the Hawaiian test area, and the failure to follow up on testimony documenting a dramatic drop in the birth rate of dolphin pods exposed to LFAS broadcasts. The roots of the dishonest EIS process are the $100 million the Navy spent prior to initiating their environmental assessment and the Office of Naval Research monopoly on funding acoustic research. The former created a momentum for deployment that could hardly be stopped by environmental concerns that the Navy considers of secondary importance. The latter impedes the objectivity of scientists hired to determine the environmental impacts. With the client, who pays the bills, requesting a study on a matter where the decision is already made, the contractor is unlikely to pursue information indicating the client made the wrong decision. The Navy’s attempted to cover up the evidence and mislead the public. Particularly noted was the opinion editorial Joe Johnson placed in the Honolulu Advertiser on May 11, 2001 containing numerous false and misleading statements regarding the deaths of whales during use of low frequency active sonar and what happened during the 1998 testing off Hawai`i. The Navy limits its environmental responsibility by making prevention of sea life exposure to levels of 180 decibels or and human exposure to 145 decibels or above the only limitation on deployment. The 180 and 145 levels are the Navy’s defined level where physical injury takes place. This limitation means that effects on biological significant behaviors, such as breeding, feeding, migrating, etc. will be permitted without any real mitigation and without any real ability to know what long term consequences will be. At the end of the public comments, Mr. Johnson took one or two questions, which he insisted be off the record. Generally, those present to challenge the continued pursuit of LFAS deployment were pleased at the turn out on such short notice and at the quality and quantity of the challenges presented. They also agreed that the Navy is simply going through the motions with every intent of fully deploying LFAS systems throughout the world, regardless of environmental impact or public opinion. Public Relations Officer Ministry of Public Relations Kingdom of Hawai’i For more information, please click on the following links: Study links bends-like whale deaths to sonar http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Oct/09/ln/ln07a.html Sonar possibly drove 200 whales near Kaua'i beach http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Jul/11/ln/ln17a.html Navy changes claim on sonar use http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Sep/01/ln/ln02a.html Group charges military sonar threatens whales http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Oct/19/br/br07p.html Further restrictions sought on use of Navy sonar http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Oct/20/ln/FP510200343.html Protecting Whales from Dangerous Sonar http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/sonar.asp An electronic copy of the Draft SEIS is also available for public viewing and download at: http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com/ . Interested persons can submit their opinions on this issue to the Navy’s EIS team through their website until December 27, 2005 at: http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com/ . Single copies of the Draft SEIS and Executive Summary are available upon request by contacting: SURTASS LFA Sonar EIS Program Manager, 4100 Fairfax Drive, Ste 730, Arlington, VA 22203; or E-Mail: eisteam@mindspring.com. http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1791273.php

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1791273.php

Navy to brief N.C. lawmakers on proposed training range off coast

Navy to brief N.C. lawmakers on proposed training range off coast


Fri, Dec. 16, 2005 RALEIGH, N.C. - State lawmakers on Monday will hear the Navy's pitch for an anti-submarine warfare training range off the North Carolina coast, which the military says won't harm sea life or commercial fishing to the degree that opponents contend. "We want to do this right," said Jim Brantly, a Navy spokesman in Norfolk, Va. "Just because we're the Navy doesn't mean we don't care." The Navy wants to build the range about 50 miles off shore from Camp Lejeune. The Navy, which plans to choose a site late next year, also is considering sites in Virginia and Florida, but prefers North Carolina because of its proximity to military bases on the coast, Brantly said. The range, to be built over a 10-year period at an estimated cost of $98 million, would be used to train crews on ships, submarines and aircraft carriers to use sonar to detect and battle submarines. Brantly said the Navy could start using the first phase of the range in spring 2008. The range would include hundreds of underwater microphones anchored on the ocean floor that would record ship movements and allow exercises to be reconstructed for study. "Now we have to wait four to six weeks to get feedback on what we did right or wrong," Brantly said. "This will allow us to get feedback within hours." Opponents want the Navy to extend the Dec. 28 deadline for public comment on its draft environmental impact statement by 60 days. They say pending reports on the impacts of sonar on whales and other sea life will allow for a better assessment of the range. No decision on the request has been made. "I think the main point with the acoustical effects on marine creatures is this is a science in its infancy, and we really don't know enough for the Navy to make such broad, sweeping conclusions," said Frank Tursi with the N.C. Coastal Federation, the state's largest coastal watchdog group. "I just think it's overly optimistic to say it won't have an effect on porpoises, fish, or turtles." Opponents also say the Navy's plan for monitoring the presence of sea creatures isn't enough. The proposal calls for lookouts aboard ships who would watch for whales and other marine mammals. The Navy would reduce sonar levels if the creatures were spotted. Environmentalists sued the Navy in October, claiming that a widely used form of sonar for detecting enemy submarines disturbs and sometimes kills whales and dolphins. The lawsuit filed in federal court in Los Angeles blames the Navy for the January stranding and deaths of at least 37 whales on North Carolina's Outer Banks after a mid-frequency sonar exercise. The Navy said the exercise was probably too far away to have harmed the whales. The Navy settled a similar lawsuit two years ago by agreeing to limit the peacetime use of experimental low-frequency sonar. The new lawsuit, by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other plaintiffs, seeks a court order to curb mid-frequency sonar, the most common method of detecting enemy submarines. The Navy says its North Carolina range would use a mid-range frequency, a format that's preferred by the plaintiffs. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration plans to release a report on the Outer Banks strandings next month. "There are a number of things that can cause marine mammals to become stranded," said Donna Wieting, deputy director of protected resources at NOAA. This includes sickness, weather, or whales chasing prey, she said. "With each stranding, while it's sad, we are learning a lot more about what causes marine mammals to strand," she said. While the Navy has final say in the project, the N.C. Joint Legislative Commission on Seafood and Aquaculture has asked for a briefing Monday. "By and large, they don't know much about it," said Jeff Hudson, counsel for the commission. ON THE NET U.S. Navy Undersea Warfare Training Range: http://projects.earthtech.com/USWTR/USWTR_index.htm

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/13425720.htm

At least 34 beached whales die in North Carolina

At least 34 beached whales die in North Carolina

Associated Press MANTEO, N.C. — Scientists and National Park Service workers were working Sunday to collect samples and clean up whale carcasses after 34 of the marine mammals beached themselves and either died or had to be euthanized. Dozens of whales beached themselves early Saturday along an eight-kilometre stretch of coastline near Oregon Inlet, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. Twenty-four pilot whales died and another seven were euthanized because they were suffering, the National Park Service reported. A single minke whale was found dead in Corolla, the Virginian-Pilot reported. Two pygmy sperm whales turned up Sunday morning near Buxton -- one already dead and one so sick that it also had to be euthanized, NOAA Fisheries biologist Barbie Byrd said. "We're hoping that this is all of them,'' she said. It is not uncommon for pilot whales to beach themselves, but scientists do not know why. The pilot whale is a protected species but not endangered. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service was co-ordinating a recovery effort that involved biologists, Coast Guard crews and the National Park Service.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050117/beached_whales_050117?s_name=&no_ads=

Sonar 'causing whale, dolphin beaching'

Sonar 'causing whale, dolphin beaching'

Military sonar is one of the causes of an increased incidence of beachings by whales and dolphins, according to a United Nations report. The theory that sonar may be interfering with the animals has long been suspected by environmental groups, and has now received official recognition from the UN Environment Program. The Australian Defence Department denied responsibility for the beaching of 110 pilot whales in Tasmania last month, while the navy was using sonar to search for a wrecked ship. Noise pollution was mentioned in the UN report as one of the risks to whales, dolphins and porpoises, along with fishing nets, pollution and environmental degradation. The report cited a beaching in the Canary Islands in 2002 when "high-intensity, low-frequency sonar" was being tested and the beached animals were found to have inner-ear damage and haemorrhages. A mass stranding in the Ionian Sea was also linked to NATO testing of submarine-searching sonar in the area.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Sonar-causing-whale-dolphin-beaching/2005/11/25/1132703371586.html

U.N. Says Sonar Threatens Dolphin, Whale Survival

U.N. Says Sonar Threatens Dolphin, Whale Survival

November 24, 2005 — By Nita Bhalla, Reuters
NAIROBI — Increased naval military manoeuvres and submarine sonars in the world's oceans are threatening dolphins, whales and porpoises that depend on sound to survive, a United Nations report said on Wednesday. According to the report, the use of powerful military sonar is harming the ability of some 71 types of cetaceans -- whales, dolphins and porpoises -- to communicate, navigate and hunt. "While we know about other threats such as over-fishing, hunting and pollution, a new and emerging threat to cetaceans is that of increased underwater sonars," Mark Simmonds of the Whale and Dolphin Society told Reuters. "These low frequency sounds travel vast distances, hundreds if not thousands of kilometres from the source." In October, a coalition of environmental groups sued the U.S. Navy over its use of sonar, saying the ear-splitting sounds violated environmental protection laws. The navy said it was studying the problem but said sonar was necessary for national defence. Animal protection groups have for years lobbied to restrict the use of sonar, saying the sound blasts disorient the sound-dependent creatures and causes bleeding from the eyes and ears. Simmonds said in recent years, western governments have developed stealthier submarines the detection of which requires more powerful, low-frequency sonars. The report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) says species like the Beluga whale, Blanville's beaked whale and the Goosebeak whale are seriously at risk. Researchers found that a stranding of 12 Goosebeak whales in the Ionian Sea in the 1990s coincided with NATO tests of an acoustic submarine detection system. Other Goosebeaks were stranded off of the Bahamas in 2000, and experts link that to military tests. Tests on the bodies of seven whales that died near Gran Canaria in 2002 found haemorrhages and inner ear damage, which experts said was caused by high-intensity, low-frequency sonar used in the area. "This is a hugely serious concern as these animals need sound to navigate, to find their food, to communicate and to mate," said Simmonds. There are no laws governing noise pollution in the world's oceans, but western governments, considered largely responsible with their increased military presence in the seas, say they need more research before taking action. Charles Galbraith, a senior wildlife advisor to the British government, told Reuters the report highlighted a potential problem. "But the issue is still in a relatively grey area in terms of scientific proof and we need to do more research before the government can review its defence systems," he said. Seismic exploration used in the hunt for undersea oil and gas and the increased movement of large ships may also cause problems for cetaceans, the report said. — Story Source: Reuters

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=9321

Navy, orca scientists compromise on sonar

Navy, orca scientists compromise on sonar

The endangered species designation won't affect the Navy. Published: Saturday, November 19, 2005 By Scott Morris Herald Writer Maybe the Navy can have its sonar and orcas, too. That's an early position spelled out in a plan by federal biologists to boost the numbers of local orcas threatened with extinction. The three resident pods, now numbering 88 killer whales, were added to the federal list of endangered species on Tuesday. The Navy and federal biologists say they have already enacted measures to avoid sonar damage to whales and other mammals that rely on echolocation or sensitive hearing for their food. One whale advocate is cautiously hopeful of those steps, but another says it's not enough. One of the key factors biologists fear has hurt orcas is underwater noise. That's where the Navy comes in. On May 5, 2003, the Everett-based Navy destroyer USS Shoup drew fierce criticism from whale researchers for conducting military exercises using midrange tactical sonar in Haro Strait between San Juan and Vancouver islands. Some researchers reported watching orcas acting distressed, and 11 harbor porpoises washed ashore dead in the following few days. A federal investigative team later cleared the Shoup and the Navy. That decision was denounced by some private whale researchers, but since then the debate has mellowed a bit. The reason is that the Navy has reached out to scientists and taken steps to avoid using sonar when whales are near ships, said Howard Garrett, board president of Orca Network, based on Whidbey Island. "There hasn't been another incident that we know of," Garrett said. "I can very cautiously say things seem to have improved." Navy officials started communicating regularly with private researchers after the Shoup incident, Garrett said. The Navy developed a new computer database that can track the time and location of training exercises and compare it with the latest locations where researchers have spotted orcas or other marine mammals, said Sheila Murray, a Navy spokeswoman. The Navy already was using lookouts to spot whales, as well as passive sonar to listen for whale vocalizations. Rules now stop sonar transmissions if any whales are spotted within 200 yards, Murray said. "I know that if there's any marine mammals, not just orcas, if they're in the way, the Navy just pretty much stops whatever they're doing," she said. Since the Shoup incident, each ship is required to get an admiral's authorization from Pacific fleet offices in Hawaii before engaging sonar, she added. The Navy still needs to do more, said Fred Felleman, the Seattle-based northwest director of Ocean Advocates. The Navy has sophisticated equipment that listens for enemy vessels, and that equipment should also be used to track whales more effectively, Felleman said. "To have the third largest naval complex (of installations) in the world rely on Orca Network for their maps is embarrassing," Felleman said. The main question for both the Navy and Felleman will be where biologists determine the local orcas' most critical habitats are, they said. That decision could come as soon as January, said Brian Gorman, spokesman for the National Marine Fisheries Service. Garrett said he hopes the new endangered status helps focus attention beyond the orcas' summer feeding areas near the San Juan islands. Recent research indicates that local orcas spend part of the winter in the Olympic Marine Sanctuary off the coast on their way to the Columbia River, Garrett said. The Navy still does sonar testing near the sanctuary, Garrett said. He said he hoped the Navy would avoid testing there, too, when whales are present. "That's probably the most we can ask for," he said.

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/11/19/100loc_anavy001.cfm

Sonar range called off the mark

Sonar range called off the mark

November 18,2005 BY PATRICIA SMITH DAILY NEWS STAFF MOREHEAD CITY - North Carolinians told Navy officials that they missed the mark with a draft environmental impact statement for a proposed anti-submarine training range off Camp Lejeune. Almost all who spoke at a public hearing on the subject Thursday in Morehead City said the draft EIS needs more work. "If we could actually do this in an environmentally responsible manner, then I would have no problem with it," said David Shiffman, a student at Duke Marine Lab in Beaufort. "But I think we have a long way to go." Many of the speakers disagreed with a conclusion in the draft EIS that the concentrated use of sonar would not significantly affect fish or fish habitat. "As charter boat captains, we have witnessed a complete shutdown of fishing in this area while the Navy was conducting training," said Stephen Draughon, a Morehead City charter boat captain who spoke on behalf of North Carolina Watermen United. A great deal of the economy in eastern North Carolina depends on fish like tuna, dolphin, wahoo and billfish, said Steve Tulevech, owner of Town Creek Marina in Beaufort. The fishermen who use his docks spends thousands of dollars trying to minimize the sounds coming from their boats so as not to scare the fish, Tulevech said. "I find it very hard to think that that ping development will not have an impact on these pelagic finfish," Tulevech said. Joe Luczkovich, an East Carolina University professor of marine biology and expert in fish acoustics, said scientific studies have shown that fish will avoid the pings from a dolphin. "It's clearly documented in nature," Luczkovich said. "Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the Navy, they're good guys," said Terrell Gould, a Morehead City charter boat owner. "But the site ya'll picked out is bad." Several who spoke at the hearing took the Navy to task on other aspects of the draft EIS, as well. Mike Street, chief of habitat protection with the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, said he was concerned about plans to bury cables in the ocean floor. "Trenching the hard bottoms will, by definition, degrade those bottoms," Street said. He asked the Navy what they would do to mitigate for that environmental damage. Others expressed concern that a proposal to train personnel as marine mammal spotters will not be enough to avoid harming whales and dolphins. "The monitoring program, at least what it looks like on paper, is a guy on the boat with binoculars," Shiffman said. The Navy will accept written comments from the public on the draft EIS until Dec. 28. Comments should be mailed to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, Attention Keith Jenkins, Code EV21KJ, 6506 Hampton Blvd., Norfolk, Va. 23508-1278 or faxed to (757) 322-4894

http://www.jdnews.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=36665&Section=News

Fishermen, Environmentalists Oppose Sonar Range Off N.C. Coast

Fishermen, Environmentalists Oppose Sonar Range Off N.C. Coast

POSTED: 8:35 am EST November 18, 2005 MOREHEAD CITY, N.C. -- Fishermen on the North Carolina coast are expressing their concern over proposed sonar exercises at a proposed anti-submarine warfare training range. No one in the crowd of about 150 people at Thursday's hearing spoke in favor of the range, which the Navy wants to build about 50 miles off shore from Camp Lejeune. The Navy also is considering sites in Virginia and Florida. A site will be chosen late next year. The range would be built over a ten-year period at an estimated cost of $98 million. It would be used to train crews on ships, submarines and aircraft carriers to use sonar to detect and battle submarines. The Navy wants more practice tracking quiet, diesel-electric subs that can launch missiles after moving close to coastlines undetected. Atlantic Beach charter boat captain Joe Shute said he's worried that frequent use of sonar will drive away fish. He says certain fish are so sensitive to sound that he turns off his depth finders.

"Protecting Whales from Dangerous Sonar"

"Protecting Whales from Dangerous Sonar",

Protecting Whales from Dangerous Sonar Following a historic victory, NRDC steps up the campaign at home and abroad to regulate active sonar systems that harm marine mammals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECENT SONAR-LINKED STRANDINGS Numerous mass stranding events and whale deaths across the globe have been linked to military sonar use. October 1989: At least 20 whales of three species strand during naval exercises near the Canary Islands. December 1991: Two Cuvier's beaked whales strand during naval exercises near the Canary Islands. May 1996: Twelve Cuvier's beaked whales strand on the west coast of Greece as NATO ships sweep the area with low- and mid-frequency active sonar. October 1999: Four beaked whales strand in the U.S. Virgin Islands during Navy maneuvers offshore. May 2000: A beaked whale strands in Vieques as naval exercises are about to begin offshore. May 2000: Three beaked whales strand on the beaches of Madeira during NATO naval exercises near shore. April 2002: A beaked whale and a humpback whale strand near Vieques during an offshore battle group training exercise. September 2002: At least 14 beaked whales from three different species strand in the Canary Islands during an anti-submarine warfare exercise in the area. Four additional beaked whales strand over the next several days. May 2003: As many as 11 harbor porpoises beach along the shores of the Haro Strait, Washington State, as the USS Shoup tests its mid-frequency sonar system. June 2004: As many as six beaked whales strand during a Navy sonar training exercise off Alaska. July 2004: Approximately 200 melon-headed whales crowd into the shallow waters of Hanalei Bay in Hawaii as a large Navy sonar exercise takes place nearby. Rescuers succeed in directing all but one of the whales back out to sea. July 2004: Four beaked whales strand during naval exercises near the Canary Islands. January 2005: At least 34 whales of three species strand along the Outer Banks of North Carolina as Navy sonar training goes on offshore. Of the 13 beaked whales that stranded in the Bahamas in March 2000 after exposure to active sonar, seven died, including this one. Center for Whale Research -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to a report by the scientific committee of the International Whaling Commission, one of the world's leading bodies of whale biologists, the evidence linking sonar to a series of whale strandings in recent years is "very convincing and appears overwhelming." Despite the broad scientific consensus that military active sonar kills whales, the use of this deadly sonar in the world's oceans is spreading. An NRDC-led coalition of wildlife advocates succeeded in restricting the U.S. Navy's use of a powerful active sonar system known as SURTASS LFA in 2003. But the fight is hardly over; other nations are developing LFA-type systems of their own, and sonar testing using mid-frequency sonar systems, which have been implicated in numerous strandings of whales worldwide, continues unabated, putting marine mammals and fisheries at risk. And the Bush administration is now appealing the legal victory that compelled the Navy into compromise. In response, NRDC and its partners have redoubled our campaign, both at home and abroad, to control the spread of this harmful technology. In October 2005, after attempting for years to engage the Navy in constructive dialogue on the harms caused by its mid-frequency sonar systems, NRDC brought suit in U.S. federal court, together with a coalition of wildlife advocates, asking that the Navy take common-sense precautions during peacetime training with mid-frequency sonar. Such measures include, for example, putting rich marine mammal habitat off limits; avoiding migration routes and feeding or breeding areas when marine mammals are present; and listening with passive sonar to ensure marine mammals are not in the testing area before switching on active sonar. We are also continuing to support our hard-won agreement limiting deployment of the Navy's LFA system, defending our victory in court from the Navy's appeal. Internationally, NRDC is working hard to raise awareness of the problem of ocean noise. NRDC and several other international conservation groups -- together representing millions of members -- are pressuring international institutions to reduce sonar's harm to whales and other marine life, and getting results: In October 2004, in response to urging by this new coalition, the European Parliament called on its 25 member states to stop deploying high-intensity active sonar until more is known about the harm it inflicts on whales and other marine life. In November 2004, the World Conservation Congress of the IUCN approved a resolution calling for international action to address the problem of ocean noise, including military sonar.> In February 2005, the coalition petitioned NATO to use simple safety measures to protect marine life from needless harm during sonar exercises. Some nations, like Spain, have already begun to change their sonar practices, prohibiting exercises in certain sensitive areas. Active Sonar: How It Harms Marine Life Military active sonar works like a floodlight, emitting sound waves that sweep across tens or even hundreds of miles of ocean, revealing objects in their path. But that kind of power requires the use of extremely loud sound. Each loudspeaker in the LFA system's wide array, for example, can generate 215 decibels' worth -- sound as intense as that produced by a twin-engine fighter jet at takeoff. Some mid-frequency sonar systems can put out over 235 decibels, as loud as a Saturn V rocket at launch. Even 100 miles from the LFA system, sound levels can approach 160 decibels, well beyond the Navy's own safety limits for humans. Evidence of the harm such a barrage of sound can do began to surface in March 2000, when whales of four different species stranded themselves on beaches in the Bahamas after a U.S. Navy battle group used active sonar in the area. Investigators found that the whales were bleeding internally around their brains and ears. Although the Navy initially denied responsibility, the government's investigation established with virtual certainty that the strandings were caused by its use of active sonar. Since the incident, the area's population of Cuvier's beaked whales has all but disappeared, leading researchers to conclude that they either abandoned their habitat or died at sea. The Bahamas, it turned out, was only the tip of an iceberg. Additional mass strandings and deaths associated with military activities and active sonar have occurred in Madeira (2000), Greece (1996), the U.S. Virgin Islands (1998, 1999), the Canary Islands (1985, 1988, 1989, 2002, 2004), the northwest coast of the United States (2003) and coastal waters off North Carolina (2005). And in July 2004 researchers uncovered an extraordinary concentration of whale strandings near Yokosuka, a major U.S. Navy base off the Pacific coast of Japan. The Navy's active sonar program appears to be responsible for many more whale strandings than had previously been imagined. How does active sonar harm whales? According to a report in the scientific journal Nature, animals that came ashore during one mass stranding had developed large emboli, or bubbles, in their organ tissue. The report suggested that the animals had suffered from something akin to a severe case of "the bends" -- the illness that can kill scuba divers who surface too quickly from deep water. The study supports what many scientists have long suspected: that the whales stranded on shore are only the most visible symptom of a problem affecting much larger numbers of marine life. Other impacts, though more subtle, are no less serious. Marine mammals and many species of fish use sound to follow migratory routes, locate each other over great distances, find food and care for their young. Noise that undermines their ability to hear can threaten their ability to function and, over the long term, to survive. Naval sonar has been shown to alter the singing of humpback whales, an activity essential to the reproduction of this endangered species; to disrupt the feeding of orcas; and to cause porpoises and other species to leap from the water, or panic and flee. Over time, these effects could undermine the fitness of populations of animals, contributing to what prominent biologist Sylvia Earle has called "a death of a thousand cuts." Reining in LFA Sonar Since 1994, when NRDC began investigating rumors that sound experiments were taking place off the California coast, LFA (Low-frequency Active) sonar has been of particular concern because of the enormous distances traveled by its intense blasts of sound. During testing off the California coast, noise from a single LFA system was detected across the breadth of the North Pacific. By the Navy's own estimates, even 300 miles from the source these sonic waves can retain an intensity of 140 decibels -- still a hundred times more intense than the noise aversion threshold for gray whales. Many scientists believe that blanketing the oceans with such deafening sound could harm entire populations of whales, dolphins and fish. NRDC's decade-long campaign to expose the dangers of active sonar won a major victory in August 2003, when a federal court ruled illegal the Navy's plan to deploy LFA sonar through 75 percent of the world's oceans. On the heels of this ruling, the Navy agreed to limit use of the system to a fraction of the area originally proposed, and that use of LFA sonar will be guided by negotiated geographical limits and seasonal exclusions. Conservationists believe this will protect critical habitat and whale migrations, and the Navy also retains the flexibility it needs for training exercises. None of the limits apply during war or heightened threat conditions. The pact demonstrates that current law can safeguard both the environment and national security. But the ink was barely dry on the historic settlement when the Bush administration pushed legislation through Congress that exempts the U.S. military from core provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act -- leaving the armed forces much freer to harm whales, dolphins and other marine mammals in the course of using high-intensity sonar and underwater explosives. Exemptions in hand, the administration is now appealing the ruling limiting deployment of LFA sonar -- a hard-won court victory NRDC stands ready to defend. Keep the Pressure On NRDC's efforts to bring attention to the serious risks of active sonar have been aided immeasurably by the tens of thousands of messages our members and other activists have sent, insisting that active sonar not be used until the long-term safety of ocean wildlife can be assured. Today, we are increasing pressure on the international community and the U.S. Navy to reduce the impact of active sonar on our oceans, before it's too late. As our campaign expands, we will need your help more than ever. Join NRDC's Earth Activist Network -- you'll receive a biweekly email alert highlighting urgent environmental issues needing your immediate help. ------------------------------------------------------ *** This link includes a short video entitled 'lethal sounds'. http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/marine/sonar.asp
_________________

Whales at Risk From New U.S. Navy Sonar Range, Activists Say...

Whales at Risk From New U.S. Navy Sonar Range, Activists Say...

Maryann Mott for National Geographic News November 3, 2005 The U.S. Navy is moving ahead with plans to build an undersea warfare training range on the U.S. East Coast despite fierce opposition from conservation and animal welfare organizations. Groups opposed to the military project say endangered North Atlantic right whales, dolphins, and sea turtles could potentially be injured or killed from powerful sonar blasts emitted during training exercises. "Protecting whales and preserving national security are not mutually exclusive," said Fred O'Regan, president of the International Fund for Animal Welfare. An undersea sonar training range already exists off the coast of Hawaii. But the Navy said another one is needed to train its Atlantic fleet because of the growing threat posed by ultra-quiet diesel submarines. The Navy has identified three possible new training range sites, each about 50 miles (80 kilometers) off the coasts of North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida. Last week the Navy published a draft environmental impact report. Officials will hold public hearings about the ranges this month near each of the proposed sites. A final decision on whether to build the 98-million-U.S.-dollar range and its exact location is scheduled for August 2006. Noise Pollution? About 160 six-hour training exercises—some held simultaneously—would take place each year at the new range, said Navy spokesperson Jim Brantley. The proposed range would encompass about 500 square miles (1,300 square kilometers) of ocean. It would be outfitted with 300 undersea acoustic devices called nodes. The nodes are connected by cable to each other and to a facility on land where the collected data is used to evaluate training performance. Mid-frequency sonar used during training exercises can emit continuous sound well above 235 decibels—an intensity roughly comparable to a rocket blastoff, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a conservation nonprofit group. Experts say that's a problem for marine mammals and other aquatic animals. Sound is their primary means of learning about their environment, communicating, and navigating. "Military sonar needlessly threatens whole populations of whales and other marine animals," said Joel Reynolds, an attorney for NRDC. "The Navy refuses to take basic precautions that could spare these majestic creatures." The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, along with several animal welfare and environmental groups, sued the Navy last week, citing harm to whales caused by mid-frequency sonar. The technology is associated with strandings—when marine animals swim or float onto shore and become beached or stuck in shallow water. Whale strandings have occurred for decades for a variety of reasons. In 2000 17 whales from three species beached themselves in the Bahamas after Navy ships conducted mid-range sonar exercises. Of those stranded, seven animals died. A federal investigation concluded sonar was the most likely cause of the whales' stranding. Adding to the controversy, the military's preferred training site in North Carolina is near an area where a mass whale stranding took place in January, not long after the Navy conducted sonar exercises in the region. The National Marine Fisheries Service, a federal agency that protects marine mammals, is investigating the cause of the most recent stranding. Donna Wieting of the Fisheries Service said the agency aimed to complete the investigation this summer but was delayed in part by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Results are expected in January 2006. Underwater Racket Brantley, the Navy spokesperson, said precautions would be taken to protect mammals at the newly proposed range. Steps would include training personnel to recognize marine species and conducting visual surveys before and during exercises. If animals are seen within 350 yards (320 meters) of a vessel, he said, active sonar transmission levels would be reduced. "Marine mammals would have to be very close to the sonar source to experience physical harm or injury," Brantley said. Some experts believe sonar is a nonissue given the abundance of man-made noises filling the world's seas. Power boats, oil tankers, offshore drilling, and seismic surveys all contribute to the acoustic traffic jam. Arthur Popper co-directs the Center for Comparative and Evolutionary Biology of Hearing at the University of Maryland. "The impact on fish or marine mammals from sonar is trivial compared to the sounds produced on a much more global scale by the general increase of human activity in the oceans," Popper said. "It's almost a phony issue." The acoustic biologist recently studied the effect of low-frequency sonar on several fish species likely to be exposed to sound waves in their natural environment. The result showed fish experienced short-term hearing loss, he said, but sustained no long-term damage. The Navy funded Popper's study, but the scientist is quick to assert that he was not pressured by the military to produce favorable test results. He plans to publish the study sometime next year.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1103_051103_whale_sonar.html

Navy used sonar near whale beaching

Navy used sonar near whale beaching

Navy ships offshore from a Tasmanian beach during a mass stranding of pilot whales were using active sonar, a controversial military technology implicated in whale deaths. The minesweepers searching for an historic anchor used short-range, high-frequency active sonar, the Defence Department said last night. The ships reached waters offshore from Marion Bay after the first stranding, but were working in the area as a second group of whales came ashore, while rescuers watched helplessly on Tuesday night. The presence of the ships was purely coincidental, and unrelated to the strandings, a Defence Department statement said. A Greens senator, Christine Milne, called for more information. "This only heightens my concern about the impact on cetaceans of naval vessels," she said. The United States Navy is under increasing attack over the role of its active sonar in whale beachings. The technology uses sound bursts to "floodlight" undersea areas. Depending on the frequency and intensity of the sonar, it can be as loud as a Saturn V rocket at source, and travel hundreds of kilometres. The Defence Department said theories linking sonar to strandings lacked scientific credibility. But the scientific committee of the International Whaling Commission has described the link between sonar and whale mortalities as very convincing. The US Natural Resources Defence Council two years ago blocked through the courts the use globally of its navy's low-frequency active sonar. The council last week joined a new case against mid-frequency sonar. The case claims 11 mass strandings, mainly in the Atlantic, were linked to mid-frequency sonar, including an incident earlier this year in North Carolina when 37 whales beached. So far 130 long-finned pilot whales have died in this week's mass stranding east of Hobart. State wildlife officers were keeping watch in rough weather last night against further beachings. The whales first beached about 10.30am on Tuesday when about 60 died. The RAN minesweepers HMAS Diamantina and HMAS Huon did not arrive in the area until 4pm that day, the Defence Department said.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/10/26/1130302839026.html?from=top5

Dozens of stranded dolphins die

Dozens of stranded dolphins die

UP to 70 pilot whales are dead after a mass stranding in southern Tasmania. Rescue teams struggled for six hours in freezing water to save the pod of long-finned pilot whales, which are actually a species of dolphin, at Marion Bay, east of Hobart, but only 11 survived. Rescue operation spokeswoman Liz Wren said 40 females and four calves were among the dead. A fisherman first reported about 60 of the dolphins, each up to six metres long, stranded at the south end of Marion Bay about 11am (AEDT) today. A second, smaller pod was discovered at the northern end of Long Spit, south of Marion Bay, this afternoon. The rescue operation ended about 6pm, with one boat towing the last surviving dolphins out to sea. Department of Tourism, Parks, Heritage and the Arts secretary Scott Gadd said early assistance from three dozen volunteers was critical to the operation's success. Managers from Tasmania's Red Herring surf stores, meeting in Hobart when they heard of the stranding, were among the volunteers. "We all jumped in our cars to help," promotions officer Ollie Hitchcock said. Mr Hitchcock said the group spent up to five hours in the water, but was not bothered by the near zero temperatures. "We've already been surfing twice today," he said.peMr Hitchcock said each manager cradled a whale in the shallow water - he named his whale Marielle - until the tide changed and took them out to sea. "It was sad but also rewarding to be there," he said. Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment officers Phil Bell and Paul Black were among a small group who swam with the dolphins to steer them out to sea. "You get a sense of satisfaction doing something useful, even though there is a sad side to it," Mr Black said. The cause of today's stranding is not yet known but some rescuers speculated the pod had been chasing salmon before getting into trouble. Mr Gadd said strandings were a reasonably normal phenomenon around Marion Bay. In October 1998, about 57 whales died in the area after becoming stranded. Pilot whales are one of the most commonly stranded species in Tasmanian waters. According to the Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment, 68 strandings involving 2768 pilot whales were recorded up to October 2003.

Navy denies role in whale strandings

Navy denies role in whale strandings

From: AAP October 26, 2005 THE navy has denied two of its ships may have contributed to two mass whale strandings in Tasmania. Up to 130 long-finned pilot whales died after being found beached at Marion Bay, east of Hobart, early yesterday and early today, said Tasmania's Parks and Wildlife Service. The Royal Australian Navy said two Huon class mine countermeasure vessels, HMAS Diamantina and HMAS Huon, were operating in North Bay, south of Marion Bay, between 4pm (AEDT) yesterday and 12pm today. Greens Senator Christine Milne said the ships were seen near Marion Bay after the second stranding occurred. She said post mortems on the dead whales should examine whether sonar signals from the ships may have contributed to the strandings. The use of sonar has long been speculated to have an adverse impact on the ability of whales and dolphins to navigate. " ... we know that high-intensity sonar, which some military vessels use, can disrupt the navigation system of whales and dolphins," Senator Milne said. A defence spokesman said the two ships had been searching for the anchor from the historic Dutch vessel, Heemskerck. Both ships employed short-range, high-frequency active sonars at varying times during the search, he said. But the spokesman said both ships were in Hobart when the strandings began. "The later presence of the two ships in the stranding area is purely coincidental and is considered unrelated to the cause of the strandings, which are considered by many to be a natural phenomena that occurs regularly in the Tasmanian area at this time of year," he said. The spokesman said the ships were operating in accordance with the environment management plan for maritime exercise areas.

Navy Moves Forward on Sonar Facility Despite Concerns About Whales

Navy Moves Forward on Sonar Facility Despite Concerns About Whales

By Marc Kaufman Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, October 23, 2005; Page A09 The Navy is moving ahead with plans to build a 500-square-mile sonar training range off the coast of North Carolina, officials said last week. The project has sparked fierce opposition from environmentalists, who say some of the world's most endangered whales and sea turtles pass through the area. Planning for the $99 million range has been underway for almost 10 years, but environmental challenges and concern that the sound waves from sonar may harm protected marine mammals have held up the process. The Navy published its draft environmental impact statement Friday and plans to begin a series of public hearings on the proposal next month. The proposed site, about 50 miles off North Carolina, was selected to provide the Atlantic fleet with training in the use of sonar in coastal areas, where the Navy believes the greatest submarine threats now exist. The global spread of quiet and relatively low-cost diesel submarines has alarmed the Navy and convinced officials that its sailors need more training in detecting hostile subs in canyons and ocean beds closer to shore. But animal researchers and environmentalists have grown increasingly alarmed over the Navy's plans and the potentially damaging effects of active sonar -- which sends out very loud blasts of underwater sound. Whales and other marine mammals have very sensitive hearing, and a growing body of research has shown that sonar can disorient and sometimes kill them. The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmentalist group, sued the Navy last week over its use of mid-frequency sonar, the type that would be deployed at the new sonar range. The group claimed that the sonar threatened endangered animals, in violation of several federal environmental laws. Advocates for marine mammals say they see the proposal for an East Coast sonar range as a long-feared "test case" of increased Navy assertiveness -- especially because one of the most endangered and highly protected whales on Earth migrates through the region. The world's 300 to 350 remaining North Atlantic right whales, whose numbers were decimated in the 1800s by whalers who considered it the "right" one to harpoon, are known to travel from the Arctic to Florida along the East Coast. Their plight led this year to federal regulations requiring Navy and commercial vessels to take a variety of steps to avoid them. "These animals are teetering on the brink of extinction," said Sharon Young of the Humane Society of the United States, on Cape Cod. "Adding a sonar range in what may well be the middle of their migration route is just insane." In its draft environmental impact statement, the Navy says that right whales pass through two of the possible sites for the training range -- off Virginia and another off Florida. But for its preferred North Carolina site, located between the other two, the document says only that humpback and sperm whales could be harmed, saying nothing about right whales. Asked why the right whale was not mentioned as a potential problem at the North Carolina site, a U.S. Fleet Forces Command spokesman said the majority of right whale sightings there are within 37 miles of shore. Because the training range would be 50 miles offshore, the environmental impact statement concludes the right whale is "expected to occur only rarely in the vicinity of the proposed site." The exact migration patterns of the North Atlantic right whale are not well documented, but many experts believe they must pass along the North Carolina coast on their way from Canada to their calving ground off northern Florida. "There is no evidence at all to say that the right whale migration is closer than 50 miles to shore through the Carolinas," said Doug Nowacek, a marine mammal specialist at Florida State University. "We just don't know where they go." Young said the Navy's site assessment is "either hopelessly naive or disingenuous." While the right whale is currently the focus of the controversy, other marine mammals also could be affected by the range. The Navy said in its application for the sonar range that it will ask the National Marine Fisheries Service for authorization to disturb or "harass" spotted, bottlenose, common, Risso's, and Clymene dolphins, and pilot, humpback and sperm whales. In its draft statement, the Navy presented both its reasons for building the range and its assessment of the environmental risk. The primary need, the statement said, is to train sailors in the proper use of sonar. The Navy said that after an exhaustive review, it concluded that "the overwhelming majority" of noise would be in the "non-injurious" range. Overall, it concluded, sonar noise would have a "negligible impact" on marine mammals and new procedures could be put into practice to further limit any potential risks. Adding to the controversy, the proposed North Carolina site is in the general area of a mass whale stranding that occurred in January, when 37 whales from three species died on the beach within 24 hours. The Navy was conducting a sonar training exercise offshore during that time, but Navy officials say the ships were too far away to have caused the strandings. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration investigation of the stranding was to have been issued this summer, but officials now say it will not be ready until early next year, after the comment period for the sonar training range has closed. Joel Reynolds, director of the NRDC marine mammal protection program, said the Navy is taking an unnecessary risk. "The scientific evidence that active sonar kills whales is unequivocal," he said. "If the Navy wants to make North Carolina an epicenter for training with this dangerous technology, it must first show that we won't see more whales on North Carolina beaches because of its actions." The sonar training range would consist of a web of underwater sensors, cables and submarine pathways, and exercises typically would involve surface ships, airplanes and helicopters. The plan also envisions dropping almost 8,000 floating sonobuoys, some of which send out the same kind of loud "pings" as do ship- and submarine-based sonar. The range would be designed to use active mid-frequency sonar, which has been used for decades. Researchers first linked this kind of sonar to whale strandings in the mid 1990s, after a NATO exercise off Greece. Since then, the connection between the sonar and marine mammals -- especially deep-diving animals like the beaked whale -- has grown stronger. After a mass whale stranding in the Bahamas in 2000, the Navy concluded that its sonar was the most likely cause of the deaths. Whale and porpoise strandings off Hawaii, the Canary Islands, Washington state and Japan also have been linked to sonar exercises, but not with the same degree of certainty. The Navy has another training range off Hawaii, but officials said it is generally not available to ships in the Atlantic fleet and does not provide the kind of coastal, shallow-water sonar practice now considered necessary. The North Carolina site, they said, is needed because of the "clear and present threat posed by quiet diesel electric submarines to our carrier strike groups, amphibious task forces, and to the sailors and Marines stationed aboard them."

Marine Mammals and Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS) Fact Sheet

Marine Mammals and Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS) Fact Sheet

Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS) is a military sonar technology designed to detect and track quiet submarines. The U.S. Navy is planning to deploy LFAS in 80% of the world's oceans at an effective source level of 240 dB. Using the Navy's number of 61.5 dB (to express the conversion between air and water) 240 dB is equivalent in air to being 20 feet away from a Saturn V rocket at takeoff. NATO and other navies also have LFAS and other high intensity sonars.Major concerns about LFAS and Marine Mammals include:
Evidence suggests that ocean noise pollution may already be affecting hearing in marine mammals. At a workshop on human-produced noise in the marine environment, sponsored by the Office of Naval Research in 1998, Dr. Darlene Ketten stated that about 30% of marine mammal carcasses being collected from beaches show signs of various types of hearing damage, suggesting that many animals may be suffering from hearing loss or that hearing loss may be playing a significant role in these strandings (ONR Workshop on the Effects of Anthropogenic Noise in the Marine Environment, Feb 1998, p70).
Scientists and the Marine Mammal Commission have expressed concern that if the LFA system is deployed worldwide as proposed, "all species and populations of marine mammals could possibly be affected" with effects ranging from "death from lung hemorrhage to disruption of feeding, breeding, nursing, acoustic communication, ... and other vital behavior...." (US Marine Mammal Commission Report to Congress, 1996).
In their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the US Navy claims that LFAS is safe for marine mammals up to exposure levels of 180 dB. However, no tests on the effects of LFAS on whales have been conducted at exposure levels above 155 dB.
The Navy acknowledges that "the lack of empirical data in the received level range of 155 - 180 dB is an issue." (Appendix D, Final Environmental Impact Statement)
Every recorded mass stranding of beaked whales mixed with other species has occurred while naval maneuvers were being conducted nearby.
Two of these mass strandings, one in the Mediterranean and one in the Bahamas, have been studied extensively. Official reports on both strandings indicate the whales were exposed to about 150 dB of low to mid-frequency sonar. These strandings demonstrate that 180 dB is not a safe exposure level. (SACLANTCEN Bioacoustics Panel Report; Navy/NOAA Report)
Necropsies revealed the whales in the Bahamas had hemorrhaging associated with acoustic trauma in their inner ears and some cranial spaces. (See Navy/NOAA Report www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/overview/New.html)
According to the US Navy's sound charts, LFAS could still approach 160 dB hundreds of miles from the source vessel (Final Environmental Impact Statement, Technical Report 2, Appendix B). In their EIS the Navy estimates that half the marine mammals exposed to 165 dB may experience significant disruption of a biologically significant activity.
We know nothing about the long term impacts of LFAS on marine life or effects on ecological processes. The National Research Council has expressed concern that LFAS could affect the marine mammal food chain including fish and zooplankton (Marine Mammals and Low Frequency Sound: Progress since 1994, National Academy Press).
Very little is known about how loud sounds cause physiological harm to marine mammals. Scientific debate currently centers on bodily resonance effects and acoustically activated bubble growth. The Navy does not address either of these mechanisms in their EIS.
The Navy has advanced passive sonars and listening systems that can safely detect quiet submarines. Passive systems do not reveal the position of the "listener" to the enemy as active sonar does. These safe alternatives have not been adequately addressed in the Navy's EIS.
There are no data on the long term, cumulative and synergistic effects of NATO and other navies deploying LFAS and other high intensity sonars.
The Navy has not given sufficient protection to US National Marine Sanctuaries or to the Marine Protected Areas of other nations.
Due to the lack of empirical data, deployment of LFAS and other high intensity sonars at this time contradicts the Precautionary Principle and may violate various US environmental laws and international laws and conventions.Prepared by: Marsha L. Green PhD - Ocean Mammal Institute

http://www.earthisland.org/project/genPage2.cfm?generalID=191&pageID=196&subSiteID=51