Crawsnest Active Sonar

UK sonar blamed for 33 whale deaths in Donegal

2010-11-11T10:54:00.000-08:00

Royal Navy activity off the Scottish coast may have led to the mass beaching of 33 pilot whales on a Donegal island at the weekend.

Tests got under way on Rutland Island off Burtonport yesterday to determine whether the pod of adult and juvenile whales that washed up on Saturday was the same group being monitored in the outer Hebrides in Scotland last weekend.

Stormy weather has prevented experts from Britain travelling to the remote island to carry out post mortem examinations on the female and young whales whose bodies lay strewn across the beach.

Simon Berrow, of the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group (IWDG), said yesterday that a common cause for deep-diving pilot whales to beach was gas embolism brought on by acoustic trauma.

“Naval exercises use a low frequency active sonar which is known to affect whales very badly. Basically it affects their sonar and causes a gas embolism, like the ‘bends’. We are aware that the British Navy had been in the area off Scotland last weekend, although they have not confirmed that exercises were taking place,” he said.

In the absence of post mortem examinations, it will be difficult to determine why the whales beached but a team from the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology was on site yesterday to document and photograph the whales to see whether they can be matched to the Scottish animals.

Locals have confirmed that the animals had been seen feeding in the area around Arranmore Island since Tuesday but the IWDG was only made aware of their presence after the disaster had occurred.

“If we had been notified there is a possibility we could have rallied divers and ribs to try to herd them back out into the deep although sometimes this does not work,” Mr Berrow said.

Source: Belfast Telegraph

Navy sonar exempt from whale law

2006-07-01T03:51:00.000-07:00

Navy sonar exempt from whale law

THE Pentagon has exempted the US Navy overnight for six months from a law protecting whales and other marine mammals, a move that may allow planned naval exercises using military sonar to proceed despite a lawsuit.
The exemption allows the Navy to conduct the 13 exercises it plans over the next six months without seeking permission for each under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The exemption is allowed under law, but it was the first time the Pentagon had used that authority. The Defence Department may renew the Navy's exemption for up to two years.
Navy Deputy Assistant Secretary Donald Schregardus said the exemption was a response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of environmental groups led by the Natural Resources Defence Council over the use of sonar that they say injures and kills whales and other marine animals.
That lawsuit is still pending, and a trial date could be set as early as Monday, Mr Schregardus said.

The environmental groups argue that sonar used in routine training and testing violates laws. The suit accuses the Navy of failing to take precautions that could spare marine animals injury or death.
The groups said they plan to pursue the lawsuit despite the Pentagon's action. They said the Navy is also in violation of another law – the National Environmental Policy Act.
"This is an historic and unprecedented retreat by the U.S. Navy from our national commitment to protect whales, dolphins and other marine life," said Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney at the National Resources Defence Council, of the exemption.
"It's not that the Navy can't comply with the law; it's that the Navy chooses not to."
The group says the exemption shows the Pentagon knows its use of military sonar does not comply with federal law.
Navy officials, however, said they set tough standards to protect marine mammals during a recent sea, air and land exercise, and that those standards would be met in the upcoming exercises as well.
The Navy remains subject to requirements under two other laws – the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Permitting under the Marine Mammal Protection Act can take as long as eight months. The Navy can obtain permits under the other two environmental laws within weeks, Mr Schregardus said.
The exemption, he said, will allow the Navy to proceed with its planned exercises and give it time to work with regulatory agencies on a long-term plan to put all Navy ranges and operating areas in compliance with environmental laws.
"The Navy will continue to employ stringent mitigation measures to protect marine mammals during all sonar activities, to include habitat controls, safety zones around ships, trained lookouts, extra precautions during chokepoint exercises, in coordination with National Marine Fisheries Service," said Rear Adm. James Symonds, director of environmental readiness.
Earlier this week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency, granted the Navy permission to proceed with naval exercises off Hawaii, finding the use of sonar in those activities was not likely to threaten endangered species and would have no significant impact on the environment.

Sonar Ban Proves Effective

2006-05-24T02:24:00.000-07:00

Sonar Ban Proves Effective

By MINDELL SMALL, Guardian Staff Reporter
mindell@nasguard.com

Whale beachings in the Canary Islands have ceased after the Spanish government outlawed sonar testing in that territory, said Susan Millward, a marine science expert at the International Ocean Noise Coalition.
Ms Millward was making the case against sonar testing at a press conference on Sunday along with Dr Marsha Greene, president and founder of the Ocean Mammal Institute.
The two women are in The Bahamas to shed more light on the effects of sonar, which has been blamed for the deaths of five whales in Bahamian waters between February and April. Whale beachings had been a major problem in the Canary Islands since 1985, peaking at 24 during 1989. But when the Spanish government enacted a law in 2004, banning sonar testing within 50 miles of the Canary Islands, the beachings stopped, Millard said.
Dr Green added that the European parliament also passed a resolution in 2004 for the immediate cessation of the use of high intensity sonar in the region's waters.
"We're certainly working at the international level," said Dr Green, "and that's why I think it's important for your country to get involved at the international level, because there is going to be increasing pressure from the international community to protect the oceans from intense ocean noise."
"The regional seas agreement come under the UN (United Nations) and we've been working at the UN for a number of years now," she added. "And we finally have gotten the UN General Assembly to recognise ocean noise as an issue that needs to be studied more."
A number of Andros residents have blamed the whale beachings on that island (three out of the five) on sonar testing conducted at the U.S. military base (AUTEC) in Fresh Creek. However, Deputy Chief of Missions at the US Embassy, Dr Brent Hardt said that conclusion could not be drawn scientifically.
But Dr Greene said while she was doing research on the effects of engine noise on whales, she found that the US navy was going to test a kind of sonar called "low frequency active sonar" (LFA) on the humpback whales in Hawaii.
"And I knew it was very much louder than the engine noise so I knew it would have harmful effects," said Dr Green who had been working on the issue since 1998. "Low frequency active sonar ping in the Pacific Ocean from one vessel could be heard over the entire North Pacific Ocean," she added.

http://www.thenassauguardian.net/national_local/292708977934340.php

Project to probe impact of sonar

2006-05-19T12:24:00.000-07:00

Project to probe impact of sonar

A team of scientists from Scotland is proposing to carry out experiments on killer whales in the wild in order to study their reaction to sound.
Biologists from the University of St Andrews in Fife want to work out at what frequencies and volume the orcas show signs of stress.
Sound is considered as important to some marine mammals as sight is to us.
Some scientists believe that military sonar - powerful sound waves - could be harming whales and dolphins.
The issues are examined on Thursday in the BBC Radio 4 programme Costing the Earth.
A few metres below the waves, sound is the only way to communicate, navigate or hunt.
Yet oceans are now full of background noise from shipping, drilling and naval exercises. Cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) have to swim through what some researchers described as "acoustic fog".
Sonic stress
A report released in February by the Inter-agency Committee on Marine Science and Technology said research into the effects of sound in the oceans on marine mammals should be commissioned by the UK government.
The report identified 13 cases of strandings by whales and dolphins which appear to have been linked to specific sources of noise; most of those sources involved naval vessels.
Post-mortem evidence gathered after a number of whales beached themselves during military exercises in the Canary Islands four years ago indicated the presence of tiny gas bubbles in the animals' internal organs, particularly the liver, which scientists believe is linked somehow to sonar.
A team from the Sea Mammal Research Unit at St Andrews wants to attach transmitters to a pod of orcas off Norway and study their behaviour as they turn up the sonar.
When they show signs of stress by swimming away or not feeding, the sound would be stopped.
The researchers argue this is the only way to prove exactly how sound waves affect cetaceans so they can advise navies or geologists how to avoid harming marine mammals.
But some animal welfare groups are uneasy, saying the research only yields results when the animal begins to suffer.

Source: BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4993332.stm

Rimpac returns, as does sonar debate

2006-03-26T11:12:00.000-08:00

Rimpac returns, as does sonar debate

By William ColeAdvertiser Military Writer

Two years ago, during Rim of the Pacific naval exercises, a pod of about 200 deep-water melon-headed whales appeared in the shallow waters of Hanalei Bay, Kaua'i.
The animals were herded out of the bay by beachgoers in canoes and kayaks, but marine mammal experts on the scene said the whales were behaving strangely. A small calf was later found dead on shore.
Public attention quickly turned to the large-scale Rim of the Pacific, or Rimpac, exercises and associated sonar use, adding to the growing worldwide body of concern about sonar and its impact on marine mammals.
Rimpac is coming back, and so is the ongoing sonar controversy that's about as broad and deep as the ocean blue.
In late June and through most of July, the U.S. Navy — with an aircraft carrier strike group as its centerpiece — is expected to conduct the biennial war games off Hawai'i with eight other nations.
This year, debate over Rimpac sonar, already under way behind the scenes here, is being affected by a Navy plan an ocean away in the Atlantic and a challenge in federal court.
InsideEPA.com reported last month that federal marine regulators are pressuring the Navy to re-examine its threshold for sonar harassment of marine mammals.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is on record saying the Navy's proposed harassment threshold of 190 decibels for a planned East Coast underwater sonar training range is too high. But Rimpac, which will be completed before the range is in operation, will be the first test of the new threshold, and whatever decisions are made on the matter could set precedent for other Navy sonar use during training.
InsideEPA.com said legal pressure from environmental groups may be forcing the Navy for the first time in Rimpac's 35-year history to seek authorization from the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is part of NOAA, for "takes," or the incidental harassment of marine animals.
"That's been the indication to us, that they (the Navy) are going to be coming in with an application," said Donna Wieting, deputy director of the Office of Protected Resources for NOAA.
Asked whether the potential for the National Marine Fisheries to withhold permits for sonar harassment would alter plans for Rimpac, the Navy only would say that "environmental planning for Rimpac is currently ongoing."
"(The) Navy and (National Marine Fisheries) are pursuing an open, professional dialogue on the potential effects of the exercise on marine mammals, an issue that is both the subject of developing science and legislative clarification," Lt. Cmdr. Christy Hagen, a U.S. Pacific Fleet spokeswoman, said in a statement.
The Navy is facing lawsuits over that developing science, which has already affected its use of sonar — a key issue for Hawai'i with extensive anti-submarine warfare training conducted off the state.

MANDATORY TRAINING

With the proliferation of diesel submarines in the Pacific, Adm. Gary Roughead, who commands U.S. Pacific Fleet from Pearl Harbor, has made anti-submarine warfare the fleet's top maritime war-fighting priority.
Roughead mandated that all aircraft carriers and expeditionary strike groups deploying from the West Coast conduct several days of anti-submarine warfare, or ASW, training, near Hawai'i. Since January, three strike groups, each with a half dozen or more ships and submarines, have rotated through for the training, which relies heavily on sonar.
In 2003, after the Natural Resources Defense Council sued, the Navy agreed to limit training and use of low-frequency sonar to regions around the eastern seaboard of Asia, and not to use the system, known as SURTASS LFA, in waters off Hawai'i and other locations.
In October, the Defense Council, a national nonprofit advocacy group for environmental issues, again took the Navy to federal court, saying "there is no dispute that the Navy's use of mid-frequency active sonar can kill, injure and disturb many species, including marine mammals."
Among the Defense Council's complaints in its most recent lawsuit is that the Navy regularly fails to comply with federal environmental law in connection with mid-frequency sonar, including failure to obtain "small take permits" or "incidental harassment authorizations" from National Marine Fisheries, as required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The Defense Council described active military sonar as acting like a floodlight, emitting sound waves, or pings, that sweep across tens or even hundreds of miles of ocean, and revealing objects in that path from the bounceback. Passive sonar listens for sound.
The environmental group said the Navy's low-frequency system can generate 215 decibels — sound as intense as a twin-engine jetfighter at takeoff.
Some mid-frequency systems produce 235 decibels, as loud as a Saturn V rocket at launch, it said.
Evidence of sonar-related harm first began to surface in March 2000, when 17 whales of four different species stranded themselves on beaches in the Bahamas after a United States battle group used active sonar, the Defense Council said.
A study published in 2003 in the journal Nature found that high-powered Navy sonar may give whales and other marine mammals a form of the bends, or decompression sickness, with bubbles forming in organ tissue.
But the Navy and some marine scientists maintain that the sonar debate is far from clear-cut.
"Sure, there's growing concern (with active sonar). Absolutely," said Paul Nachtigall, director of the Marine Mammal Research Program at the University of Hawai'i. There have been beaked whale strandings in places like the Bahamas and Canary Islands associated with mid-frequency sonar, Nachtigall said.
But there are 85 species of whales and dolphins. "And of the 85 species of whales and dolphins worldwide, we have tested the hearing of 12 species," he said.
Most of the smaller species, echo-locators like dolphins and small whales, "are high-frequency specialists," Nachtigall said. Dolphins probably hear best at frequencies between 20 kilohertz and 100 kilohertz.
Mid-frequency active sonar systems are conventionally defined as those that emit sound at frequencies of up to 10 kilohertz, which is a measure of the frequency of the oscillation of the sound wave, or its pitch.
In lower frequencies, where a lot of mid-frequency Navy sonars operate, "they don't hear as well. They still hear, but not as well as, say, the larger whales, presumably," he said. "But nobody has ever tested the hearing of a larger whale."

THRESHOLD LEVELS

While scientists pursue more precise definitions of "harassment," the Navy will likely remain stuck in the middle of the sonar debate.
"We will use the best available science, and we will always base our decisions on good science and good data," said Lt. William Marks, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon.
In 2004, Congress defined "Level B" harassment of marine animals, which the Navy now has started to use for exercises like Rimpac, as "any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb" marine mammals in the wild.
For both the East Coast sonar training range proposal and Rimpac, the Navy set the threshold for "Level B" harassment — meaning behavioral disturbance without physiological effects — at 190 decibels.
The Navy tested four dolphins and two white whales in captivity to arrive at the figure. NOAA countered that was not representative of animal reaction in the wild and said the Navy should develop "a more conservative" acoustic threshold than 190 decibels.
Wieting of NOAA said the same conclusion wouldn't necessarily apply to Rimpac exercises because the proposal for the upcoming war games is "in a different part of the world with different marine mammals."
"I really can't comment until we see what the (Navy) application looks like," she said.
In an environmental assessment, the Navy said it expects 532 hours of sonar operation in 44 anti-submarine warfare exercises over 21 days during Rimpac.
No "Level A" harassment of marine animals, which equates to injury, is predicted by the Navy, but it does project 289 "Level B" harassment "exposures."
Humpback whales should not be present during the exercise, the Navy said. However, plans include having at least two lookouts on each ship, and active sonar can be shut down when marine mammals are encountered.
The Marine Mammal Research Program's Nachtigall, who also is involved with the Hawaiian Islands Stranding Response Group, said while some people blame the 2004 Kaua'i Hanalei Bay gathering on Rimpac, others don't.
"There are no smoking guns," he said.
The Navy's proposed 190 decibel harassment threshold level is "pretty loud," Nachtigall said, but a humpback whale also sings at about that level.
"What we have to say is we know that mid-frequency sonars have been associated with beaked-whale strandings in a variety of places in the last five years," Nachtigall said. "So, yes, we have to be concerned (about sonar). But we also know that we haven't had any beaked-whale strandings associated with sonars in the Hawaiian Islands."
So, while he thinks there are definitely areas of concern with strandings elsewhere around the world, the waters around Hawai'i do not appear to present a "high level of concern" when it comes to exercises such as Rimpac.
"There have been lots of (anti-submarine warfare) exercises going on in Hawai'i for a long time," Nachtigall said, "and we've never had that same circumstance here in Hawai'i."
Reach William Cole at wcole@honoluluadvertiser.com.
• • •
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Mar/26/ln/FP603260348.html

Navy's Plans for Sonar Facility Challenged

2006-02-18T01:34:00.000-08:00

Navy's Plans for Sonar Facility Challenged

Danger Posed to Whales Is Cited
By Marc Kaufman Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 18, 2006; Page A02

The civilian agency in charge of marine issues has sharply challenged the Navy's plans to build an underwater sonar training range in the Atlantic Ocean, saying that the military significantly underestimated the danger posed to whales and other marine mammals and that the science the Navy used to reach its conclusions is flawed. In a technical letter to the Navy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said the Navy had neglected to address the likelihood that its mid-frequency sonar would kill some whales and that the highly endangered right whale makes its annual migrations near the proposed site off North Carolina and could be threatened. But most telling, the NOAA letter said that the Navy had used a measure for allowable noise 100 times as high as the level recommended by the agency. The sonar testing range is a high priority for the Navy, which says that it needs an Atlantic Ocean site to train sailors to detect foreign submarines that come near American shores. But it is trying to get the project approved at a time when scientists have become increasingly convinced that the loud blasts of active sonar have caused whales to strand themselves and die. The NOAA letter, which is a formal comment on the Navy's environmental impact statement regarding the sonar range, is the most public indication so far of what agency insiders have described as friction between NOAA and Navy officials regarding the sonar issue. In the past, NOAA has generally supported the Navy's plans with reservations, but the most recent letter makes little effort to hide significant disagreements. NOAA, for instance, wrote that the Navy predicted only lower-level "harassment" of whales by the sonar, despite recent fatal and near-fatal mass strandings in Hawaii and elsewhere that many scientists think were caused by Navy sonar. "NOAA believes the Navy should seriously reconsider the potential for mortality of [whales] due to strandings related to activities" in the proposed sonar testing range, the letter said. NOAA officials did not respond yesterday to requests for comment about the specific issues raised in the letter, which was sent on Jan. 30. A Navy official said the service would like to respond, but that it could not until the letter was reviewed and a formal response prepared. A representative of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group which has sued the Navy over its sonar programs, said that the NOAA letter was remarkable, given the pressure the civilian agency was known to be under. "What the NOAA letter does is confirm that the Navy analysis is fundamentally flawed," said NRDC lawyer Michael Jasny. In the past, his organization has accused NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service of minimizing the effects of sonar on whales, but he said that this time, the agency stood by the evolving science. "They're an agency with their own institutional integrity," Jasny said. "No doubt NOAA -- like other agencies -- can bend. But here the Navy is asking them to snap." "The NOAA letter is truly unbelievable," said Kyla Bennett of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a national whistle-blower organization that supports government workers who come into conflict with policymakers and elected officials. "It takes an amazing amount of courage for a federal employee to take this kind of strong stance against the Navy under the Bush administration," she said. The NOAA letter was a formal comment on the Navy's draft environmental impact statement for the proposed sonar testing range, which the Navy wants to set up about 40 miles east of Camp Lejeune, N.C. The 500-square-nautical-mile range would be used for submarine warfare exercises, and would include a large array of sonar buoys and sound detection devices. In an e-mail statement, Navy press officer Lt. William Marks said the Navy is reviewing all comments about its proposed sonar range, that NOAA "is a cooperating agency with the Navy" regarding the project, and that the Navy and NOAA will meet to discuss their differences. He said the Navy expects to have a final environmental impact statement ready by the fall. As the NOAA letter made clear, however, the two sides have been meeting for years on the subject and have deep disagreements about both science and policy regarding sonar and whales. Much of the letter was taken up with a technical discussion about how much noise a whale can stand before it changes its behavior and suffers harm. The Navy relied on tests involving whales in captivity and concluded they would generally not be harmed by sound below 190 decibels. But NOAA argued that whales and other marine mammals in the wild are likely to react differently to noise than captive, trained animals and said that studies of animals in the oceans supported their view. It recommended a maximum allowable noise level of 173 decibels, which is more than 100 times quieter than the 190 decibel standard. In the letter, the NOAA officials said they had communicated their views to the Navy numerous times. The letter is not currently on the NOAA Web site but is available from the agency. It was made more broadly public by NRDC. Researchers began focusing on the potential effects of active sonar on marine mammals after 17 beaked whales stranded in the Bahamas immediately following a Navy exercise in 2000. The Navy later concluded that its mid-frequency, active sonar was the likely cause of the stranding. Since then, strandings have been reported after American and international naval maneuvers with sonar off the Canary Islands, Hawaii, Washington state and North Carolina. The 2005 stranding and deaths of 37 whales, including three different species, along the North Carolina shore remain under investigation by NOAA. The animals died near where the Navy wants to build the sonar training range.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702258.html?nav=rss_nation

Map underwater noise to protect marine life, say scientists

2006-02-13T06:07:00.000-08:00

Map underwater noise to protect marine life, say scientists

David Adam, environment correspondentMonday February 13, 2006The Guardian

Underwater noise from naval exercises, oil rigs and pleasure cruises in UK waters should be mapped and monitored to protect sensitive marine life, a high-level committee of experts reports today.
It wants ministers to introduce new regulations to protect whales, dolphins and other sea life, which are affected because they rely on sound to communicate, feed and navigate.
Peter Liss, professor of environmental science at the University of East Anglia, who chaired the group, said: "The sea is a much noisier place than it was 10 years ago and there is a growing body of evidence that it could cause these animals physiological harm."
Powerful naval sonar devices that send shockwaves through the water were blamed by some for disorienting the whale that swam into the River Thames last month, though the Ministry of Defence denied this and the resulting autopsy found no physical damage. Several strandings and mass beachings of whales have been associated with military exercises, though there is rarely direct evidence to link them.
Prof Liss said: "The military or the oil and gas industry often get the blame but lots of activities let off sounds in the sea." Scientific research ships, ferries and construction companies that use piledriving equipment to erect offshore wind turbines could all affect whales, he said.
The results of the report, prepared by the government inter-agency committee on marine science and technology, will feed into the forthcoming marine bill, a white paper on which is due later this year. It calls for the expansion of existing treaties, permits for noisy activities and wider cooperation between the relevant groups. The bulk of existing information on sources of underwater sound is classified for military or commercial reasons.
The report also recommends carrying out controversial "controlled exposure" experiments to see how noise affects whales and dolphins. It says: "We realise there are ethical and political difficulties with this sort of work, but we consider that the potential gains outweigh the disadvantages."
It is well known that very loud noises, such as those caused by seismic surveys, damage the hearing of whales directly, but more subtle effects on behaviour are harder to pinpoint. Sound waves travel long distances through water so fainter sounds might distract and disorient animals further away.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,,1708631,00.html

Sonar threat to world's whales

2006-01-22T01:28:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-20T00:37:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-11T00:43:00.000-08:00

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?

2006-01-10T04:37:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-10T04:35:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-10T04:33:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-10T04:29:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-09T13:00:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-09T12:58:00.000-08:00

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'

2006-01-09T12:55:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-09T12:50:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-09T12:48:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-09T12:46:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-09T12:42:00.000-08:00

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"

2006-01-09T12:39:00.000-08:00

"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...

2006-01-09T12:36:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-09T12:34:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-09T12:32:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-09T12:29:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-09T12:27:00.000-08:00

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

2006-01-09T12:23:00.000-08:00

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

Sonar used too close to orcas again.

2006-01-09T12:21:00.000-08:00

Sonar used too close to orcas again.

06:41 PM PDT on Friday, July 1, 2005 By GARY CHITTIM / KING 5 News SEATTLE - Sonar is blamed for causing injuries, even death to marine mammals and now Northwest whale advocates say the military is again using sonar too close to orcas. This time, the Canadian Navy is getting the blame. According to whale protection groups, a Canadian Naval ship, looking peaceful on the surface in the San Juan Islands, was raising a dangerous ruckus with sonar captured on underwater microphones. They say some sensitive ears were exposed to it. "At this time of year it is littered with killer whales. We have all three pods in town these days," said Fred Felleman, Ocean Advocates. Whale researchers were able to photograph members of one of those pods swimming near the ship in Haro Strait – the main waterway between Vancouver Island and the San Juans. In one recording, the researchers say, you can hear the high-pitched sonar and orcas communicating in the background. Two years ago, a U.S. Navy ship was recorded using its sonar in the same place. Days later, dead porpoises were found, but scientists could not link their deaths to the sonar. The U.S. Navy officials agreed not to use sonar in areas where orcas are observed, especially in confined areas like Haro Strait, but the Canadian Navy made no such commitment. "It seems to me, unbelievable, that the Canadian government, who's listed these killer whales as endangered, U.S. is going to list them as threatened, that we couldn't get some uniform protection for this very threatened population," said Felleman. Canadian Naval officials did not return KING 5's calls Friday. Both the Canadian and U.S. Navies have vowed to protect marine species whenever possible, but both also value the unique geology of Haro Strait for testing sonar. There have been no reports of any orcas or other marine mammals injured by this latest testing.

http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_070105ENBsonarKC.652c09c3.html

DoC denies sonar kills whales in NZ

2006-01-09T12:18:00.000-08:00

DoC denies sonar kills whales in NZ

11.06.05
New Zealand has denied mass strandings of whales and dolphins in its waters are due to high-intensity sound, as claimed by an international environmental coalition. But a prominent marine mammal scientist said there had never been any investigation of the issue in New Zealand, unlike other countries where it was widely acknowledged. In New York on Thursday, the Ocean Noise Coalition urged the United Nations to take steps to protect marine life from the powerful sound waves used in oil and gas exploration and by the world's navies. Scientists believe there is a link between the use of high-intensity sound and recent mass strandings of whales and dolphins in waters off Greece, Hawaii, New Zealand and elsewhere around the world since 1985. The coalition of 120 organisations said in each of these cases, the strandings took place near high-intensity sonar or near the use of high-powered industrial "air guns" used in oil and gas exploration. DoC spokesman Mike Donoghue said there was no evidence of such strandings in New Zealand. But Massey University marine mammal pathologist Padraig Duignan said strandings due to sonar noise had never been investigated here. Mr Duignan said the Government should be putting more resources into investigating strandings. "There's no funding and it's difficult to get money. DoC resources are very stretched as they are." Mr Donoghue said such strandings should not be confused with natural whale traps, such as Farewell Spit near Wellington, and other parts of the coastline, where whales and dolphins had stranded for years. Stranding records for whales dated back to 1840. Sonar noise disorientates the big mammals who dive blind in the the ocean's depths but use their acute hearing to navigate the dark world. The European Parliament and the International Whaling Commission are among groups recognising intense ocean noise as a threat to marine life and backing international controls. Some governments including the United States, however, have argued that sonar use cannot be regulated internationally as it is a matter of national security.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10330129

Sonar effects on marine mammals a concern

2006-01-09T12:16:00.000-08:00

Sonar effects on marine mammals a concern

Judith Lavoie Times Colonist Tuesday, May 24, 2005 Marine mammal scientists and environmentalists are watching for any unusual whale or porpoise behaviour off the west coast of Vancouver Island during naval exercises. Operation Trident Fury, the largest military exercise ever to be held off the west coast of the Island, involving five Canadian navy vessels, three Canadian Coast Guard ships and three U.S. navy vessels, is taking place until May 27. There are concerns about the effect of the ships' sonar on marine mammals, especially if mid-frequency sonar is used, said Paul Spong director of OrcaLab. Sonar uses sound to determine the depth beneath vessels or to locate underwater objects. Capt. Leah Gillespie, navy spokeswoman, said the military constantly monitors any environmental effects of sonar used by its ships. "The effects (on whales) are transitory and negligible to minor," she said. Any impact on marine mammals occurs within a few kilometres of the ship, so if marine mammals are seen in the area, the sonar is turned off, Gillespie said. "We regularly review our procedures when new scientific data comes out," she said. The killer whale recovery team, appointed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans -- which is looking at the endangered southern resident pods of killer whales found around southern Vancouver Island -- is concerned about the use of mid-frequency sonar. John Ford, marine mammal scientist at the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo, said there are concerns about any high intensity sonar. "I have seen an incident with the northern resident whales and a very strong reaction. Certainly sonar deserves more attention and more study," he said. Much of the scientific information on the effect of sonar is new, Ford said. "Maybe there's a need to re-evaluate whether the mitigation procedures being carried out are adequate." The debate over low and mid-level frequency sonar has been increasing in recent years especially when marine mammals beach themselves in noticeable numbers. In 2000, eight whales died after 16 whales and two dolphins beached themselves in the Bahamas. The U.S navy was using sonar in the area at the time. Hemorrhaging was found around the brains and ear bones of the dead whales. In other cases, bubbles have been found in the bodies of beached whales, similar to bubbles found in decompression sickness in human divers. In May 2003, concerns were raised over the U.S. navy's use of sonar in Haro Strait, between the San Juan Islands and the Saanich Peninsula, when 11 porpoises were found dead throughout the region. But later studies found no conclusive evidence that sound trauma caused the deaths. jlavoie@tc.canwest.com © Times Colonist (Victoria) 2005

http://www.canada.com/victoria/timescolonist/news/british_columbia/story.html?id=a16a66e6-e630-4c8d-ad37-218191395565

CNN interview with Ken Balcomb and others, RE. Active Sonar.

2006-01-09T12:14:00.000-08:00

HEIDI COLLINS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Sonar became a staple of warfare in the 20th century, key to defending against submarine attacks. Sonar stands for sound, navigation, ranging. It's the use of sound waves to detect under water objects, from enemy subs to volcanoes. But some scientists are warning it may be an inadvertent weapon against whales and dolphins. BRANDON SOUTHALL, NOAA ACOUSTICS EXPERT: There have been a handful of instances where there has been a time and space overlap between military sonar activities and mass strandings of marine mammals. But the exact lengths or the exact triggers for this or the exact sound levels are not understood. COLLINS: Whales and dolphins use the hearing to find food. And to find their way, which is why unusual sounds from sonar to ship noises can affect them. KENNETH BALCOMB, CENTER FOR WHALE RESEARCH: If we could just take the human analogy, where we're vision oriented animals. If we were to sit in this room and have strobe lights flashing at us or laser beams, we would become very distracted, disoriented, perhaps experience vertigo. And we'd want to get out of the room. And in the case of marine mammals, we're doing that with sound to their primary sensory system. COLLINS; In march of 2000, biologists Ken Balcomb, witnessed a mass stranding in the Bahamas involving beached whales he had been studying. Seventeen animals stranded, at least six died. BALCOMB: The day was one of the busiest and most distressing in my life. We didn't know at the time that there was a naval operation, but I suspected it because of the broad area in which the strandings were occurring. COLLINS: Tissue studies of these deep diving species showed damage similar to a human getting the bends (ph). DR. TERI ROWLES, NOAA MARINE VETERINARIAN: We found in the Bahama animal that did involve hemorrhages in and around the brain and the brain case. And hemorrhages in and around the ears. COLLINS: Balcomb witnessed another stranding near his home in Washington state. BALCOMB: We heard these incredibly loud sonar signals that just went on and on for about three hours. The whales kept moving away from the ship as though they were trying to get away from the ship. COLLINS: But government scientists say there's not enough known to show a cause and effect between sonar and strandings. Other human activity could also be the culprit. SOUTHALL: Some of the other industrial activities, the exploration for oil and gas offshore, they use low frequency sound over pretty large ranges, pretty continuously. COLLINS: Mass strandings can also be traced to disease, a sick and disoriented mammal sometimes leads other into danger. ROWLES: We're getting more and more sophisticated about the kinds of diseases, and pathogens and pathologies that we're seeing and being to understand more and more about the health of marine mammal populations and the health of the oceans. COLLINS: The navy has conducted tests of low level of sonar to see what impact it had on whales. But there's a catch-22 for researchers, they don't want to harm the mammal while doing studies like these. As a navy veteran, Balcomb understands navy ships have a mission to accomplish. But he says while research continues there are practical ways to minimize threats to marine mammals. BALCOMB: They shouldn't be operating in either critical habitats or high population density areas of these animals. They should practice their operations in areas where they determined there's low probability of impacting any animal. COLLINS: Heidi Collins, CNN, New York.

Connection Between Whale Beachings and the Use of Sonar Gets Contentious

2006-01-09T12:08:00.000-08:00

Every year, hundreds of marine mammals, mostly whales and dolphins, beach themselves and die. Some environmentalists claim the naval use of sonar causes some of the beaching. They say the loud bursts of sound cause ear and brain lesions and force the animals out of the water. The US Navy rejects most of the accusations. VOA producer Zulima Palacio prepared this report, narrated by Melinda Smith.
Last January, 37 whales of three different species beached themselves on the North Carolina shore; six of them were pregnant when they died. A few weeks later 60 rough-tooth dolphins beached themselves in Florida.
On both occasions, U.S. Navy vessels were nearby, conducting training exercises in the use of deep-water sonar. The beaching is still under investigation.
Michael Jasny, a senior consultant for the Natural Resources Defense Council -- an environmental organization that tries to protect marine mammals -- says, "I think we don't understand the magnitude of the impact that these sound sources have on whales. We know these sound sources can disrupt feeding behavior, they can interfere with the singing of humpback whales, it can cause some species to strand, we know it produces a whole syndrome of internal injury in certain species of animals."
On a few occasions, some scientists say, there has been a clear correlation between the use of mid-frequency sonar and the stranding of marine mammals.
Scientists are concerned, not only about the impact of high intensity sonar use, but also about the dramatic increase of noise in the oceans.
David Cuttingham is the Director of the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission. "There are a number of scientists who think over the long term that the chronic impacts of raising the noise level in the ocean could have a bigger negative impact on the whale populations than the rather isolated acute incidents.
Rear Admiral Steven Tomaszeski, Oceanographer of the Navy, says, "We know more about the Right whale than any mammal in the world's oceans. We do not know where the right whale goes for 6 months of the year. We have no idea. And that's the whale we know most about."
While he supports the idea of protecting marine mammals, he insists that the mid-frequency sonar on Navy ships and submarines provides a targeting capability that keeps the U.S. free and strong.
"We're not going to compromise national security because people think that we are harming whales. It is just not going to happen. But we want to study the whales, the mammals, specifically in the effects of sonar."
While the records of marine mammals inexplicably stranding go back to the 1800s, the scientific community and environmentalists around the world have voiced their deep concern over the increased use of sonar.
The European Parliament has called on its members to stop deploying high intensity active sonar until more is known about the harm it can cause to marine mammals.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-03/2005-03-23-voa66.cfm?CFID=16562910&CFTOKEN=59265465

Navy seeks sonar range

2006-01-06T03:50:00.000-08:00

Navy seeks sonar range

by BILL SANDIFER, Staff Writer

Land, sea and air -- the military troika -- are abundant on the North Carolina coast. The setting as well as the state's military-friendly attitude has already fostered a potent military presence, among the largest in the country, a presence that could grow even larger.
Despite worries that an imminent Pentagon decision to shed excess military facilities could threaten some state military installations, the Navy has set its sights on locating another installation in -- or near -- the state.
The North Carolina coast is one of three potential sites the Navy is studying to set up an offshore submarine-training facility. The waters off Wallops Island, Va., and Jacksonville, Fla., are the other two sites under study for a sonar range. Sonar is a device that bounces sound waves off underwater objects to locate them, a large fish-finder, of sorts.
Although the Navy announced intentions to build such a facility in 1996, it appears heightened global tensions have spurred the Navy to construct the facility.
"In the global war on terrorism," said Navy spokesman Ted Brown, "effective antisubmarine warfare is critical to ensuring the Navy's ability to defend national interests around the world."
Although the language may ring familiar with those who have followed Navy efforts to establish an outlying landing field in the region, Brown's statement encompasses a much more slippery potential adversary -- stealth submarines.
"Diesel-electric subs," he explained, "are other nations' submarines that our submarines would be trying to detect. These submarines are very quiet."
Diesel-electric technology is nothing new; that machinery propels the common diesel locomotive. Unlike the racket a train makes, however, such subs have what sound engineers call a minimal "acoustic signature." The quiet operation, enhanced by special hull coatings, results in a virtual stealth submarine.
Such subs use "pretty advanced technology," said Brown, adding that "proliferation of very quiet, diesel-electric subs from other nations" is what prompted adding shallow-water training to the Navy's traditional deep-water regimen, established during the Cold War. The Navy, he added, currently has no shallow-water training site.
Noting the relatively low-cost of such subs compared to large, nuclear-powered subs, Brown stopped short of painting a picture what could be done with such a sub in the wrong hands.
But at least one American manufacturer, Kokes Marine Technologies, offers a different approach.
"Our mission is to make the most advanced and efficient sub-sea intervention technologies available," offers its Web site, contending the company's "industrial research submarines -- available for worldwide charter -- are virtually unaffected by surface weather or sea ... conditions."
The small subs can be remotely piloted or accommodate a crew of six, says the company. The subs can be used for industrial applications as well as in military training, mimicking the characteristics of targets the Navy is training to detect.
"The United States has no non-nuclear subs," said Brown. "We don't have any diesel-electric subs."
The technology, however, is a two-edged sword.
A Naval War College publication analyzes the threat: "The diesel-electric submarine's proliferation on the global arms market presents a challenge. ... There is a growing risk that nations hostile to the United States will use their diesel-electric submarines for delaying" and blocking sea access.
On the other hand, says the manufacturer, "undersea tasks can easily be performed on most of the world's continental shelf regions. Additionally, operations do not require large and costly ... support ships, making our autonomous submarines highly cost-effective working platforms."
Since the DEIS has not been finalized, Brown deferred discussing the specifics of training until the document is published, anticipated to be mid- to late April.
Sonar, a coastal toll?
But messing with the coast can prove risky as the Navy has found. A federal judge recently ruled against the Navy in a court challenge that, for the moment, has halted OLF plans.
Similarly, conservationists, coast-watchers and state government officials are raising the periscopes.
"It's certainly something that we're keeping our eye on," said Amy Fulk on Friday. Fulk is spokeswoman for Marc Basnight, state Senate president pro tempore and a Manteo resident.
"I've not heard from anyone in the fishing community about this yet," she said. "I think it's at the point in the process where a lot of people including our office are just now hearing about these plans. But I would suspect as people here more about it, we'll start hearing from them."
Although the proposed North Carolina site is roughly 65 miles offshore, the 660-square-mile box the site encompasses straddles the continental shelf midway between Beaufort and Wilmington, an area where the depth ranges from roughly 75 feet to over 600 feet.
"The acoustics are totally different in shallow water than they are in deep water," explained Brown, "and we need to train in shallow water. That's where these diesel-electric submarines are going to be operating -- and are operating -- and that's why we need a shallow-water training range."
Michelle Duval, a Raleigh-based scientist with the conservation organization Environmental Defense, heard about Navy plans about two months ago.
"Obviously, we're very concerned about any potential impacts to marine mammals," she said Friday. "I think most folks are aware that there are documented impacts to mammals from sonar."
"We are analyzing in the EIS not just marine mammals," said Brown, "but the entire range of environmental issues."
As a zoologist, Duval concedes she's no fish expert, but she is familiar with the way fish perceive sound. The internal organ that senses vibration, she fears, could suffer from the intensity of sonar sound waves.
"If you could put a 747 (airliner) underwater and turn on the engines," she said, "that's what it would be like. And that's pretty loud. I just have strong concerns about how that's going to affect other forms of marine life in the water, and certainly I would imagine that the fishing community would be a bit concerned."
Brown concedes the Navy is still using conventional sonar in defense applications, but adds, "The Navy is developing new technologies to counter the threat of quieter diesel-electric submarines operating in coastal water, but none are currently available; therefore, without realistic training, our sailors are placed in an unacceptable risk."
There's no word yet on when new technology will be introduced or whether it will reduce the effects sonar has on undersea life.
When the DEIS is published, said Brown, the public will be notified.
"We'll put out a press release when it's published."

http://www.wdnweb.com/articles/2005/03/06/news/news01.txt

Dolphins stranded on day of sub mission

2006-01-06T03:46:00.000-08:00

Dolphins stranded on day of sub mission
BY JENNIFER BABSON
jbabson@herald.com

KEY WEST - A nuclear-powered submarine used two different types of active sonar to navigate over several days as it trained off the Florida Keys last week, including the day of a massive dolphin stranding in Marathon, the U.S. Navy said late Monday. At the time, the submarine was approximately 39 nautical miles southwest of Marathon, where about 80 rough-toothed dolphins -- nearly 30 of which have since died -- beached suddenly late Wednesday. The submarine, the Connecticut-based USS Philadelphia, was in the Keys for about 10 days, the Navy said. A Navy spokeswoman said it was premature to speculate on the cause of the strandings and whether the incident had anything to do with sonar use. Necropsies and tests are underway on the dead animals by fisheries biologists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That process could take months to complete. ''The cause is not known and I cannot speculate, but every effort will be taken between federal agencies to determine what might have caused the stranding,'' said Lt. Cmdr. Jensin Sommer, spokeswoman for Naval Submarine Forces, based in Virginia. Some scientific reports say there is evidence that marine mammals may have a particular sensitivity to active sonar. The technology allows subs and ships to spot targets and other vessels by emitting sound waves that bounce off objects, revealing distance and location. Marine mammals rely on sound for just about everything, from feeding to finding a mate to communicating, which different animals do at different frequencies. Dolphin and whale strandings, however, are not unusual in Florida and can stem from a variety of circumstances, from a sick dolphin leading a pod onto shore to harmful algae blooms.

SUB'S SONAR USE
After it surfaced last Monday, the Philadelphia used mid-frequency active sonar on its bow in reduced visibility to ''provide for the submarine's ability to avoid potential contact with other vessels at sea'' for a period of 21 minutes, Sommer said. On three other days, Feb. 27, March 1 and March 2 -- the day the normally deep-water dolphins mysteriously beached on offshore flats -- the sub used high-frequency active sonar mounted on its sail while it was submerged to help it ''avoid other ships'' before it came to the surface, Sommer said. She did not know how long the high-frequency sonar was used, but said it was ''short duration'' and of low intensity. High-frequency sonar is considered to have a shorter range than medium frequency or low frequency. Factors like water temperature and salinity can also affect how far the sound travels. After a whale stranding in 2000 in the Bahamas, the Navy acknowledged in a report the existence of some marine mammal sensitivity to sonars, but has also argued at times that the extent of any cause-and-effect is scientifically vague. The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, successfully sued the military in 2002 to limit use of new, low-frequency sonar believed by some to be particularly damaging because of its ability to travel extremely long distances. Some types of sonar can be extremely loud -- as much as 235 decibels at close quarters, equivalent to the noise made by a Saturn V rocket on takeoff -- according to the council. ''It's too early to draw a conclusion, but the Navy's use of active sonar near the stranding site heightens our concern that sonar played a role in harming these animals. We already know that exposure to high-intensity sonar can kill marine mammals. A full transparent investigation is needed to get to the bottom of it,'' said Joel Reynolds, director of the council's Marine Mammal Protection Project.

STRANDED WHALES
Within the past two months, at least 35 whales of three species stranded off the Outer Banks of North Carolina. The stranding coincided with Navy sonar exercises in the area, though a final cause of death for the animals hasn't been determined. In recent years, military sonar use has also been alleged as a factor in the strandings of porpoises off the coast of Washington state, and of melon-headed whales off the coast of Hawaii, while other potentially sonar-related strandings have occurred in Greece and the Canary Islands. The International Whaling Commission last year issued a report supporting a link between active sonar use and whale deaths. Some researchers believe that sonars may disorient or scare marine mammals, causing them to surface too quickly and creating the equivalent of what divers know as the bends -- when nitrogen is formed in tissue by sudden decompression, leading to hemorrhaging.

A POSSIBLE CLUE
In South Florida, biologists are hoping that necropsies of the dolphins who died after the stranding may shed some light on what prompted the incident. One key clue may be the condition of the animals' acoustic tissue, a potential indicator of sonar damage. ''As with every marine mammal stranding, we are conducting a thorough investigation,'' said Laura Engleby, a biologist for NOAA Fisheries, which coordinated a massive response to the stranding last week and is now spearheading efforts to determine its cause. ``It's way too early for us to know what caused this, and our scientists are collecting as much data as possible.'' Eleven dead animals were examined and their tissue sampled over the weekend, with more scheduled for necropsy later this week. At least 20 of the dolphins managed to make it out to sea within a day of the incident. But at least 28 in poor condition or pain were subsequently euthanized or perished on their own. Researchers and volunteers are still trying to nurse back to health 26 rough-toothed dolphins that survived after being moved to several South Florida dolphin rehab centers.

80 Dolphins stranded off the Florida Keys.

2006-01-06T03:40:00.000-08:00

80 Dolphins stranded off the Florida Keys.
The US Navy is investigating it's use of sonar.
Posted on Sat, Mar. 05, 2005
FLORIDA KEYS Dolphins' beaching closely followed sub's exercises
The U.S. Navy is looking into whether the activities of a submarine using sonar off the Keys may have played a part in a massive dolphin stranding this week off Marathon.

KEY WEST - The U.S. Navy is investigating whether sonar used in the training activities of a submarine off the Florida Keys this week may have contributed to the mass stranding of more than 80 deep-water dolphins, at least 19 of which have died. Groups of rough-toothed dolphins mysteriously began beaching off Marathon on Wednesday afternoon -- within 24 hours, and perhaps less, of exercises conducted off Key West by the USS Philadelphia, a submarine based in Connecticut. A Navy spokeswoman said Friday she did not know if the sub was still in the area the day of the stranding or if the vessel was using active sonar -- considered by some scientists to be potentially harmful to marine mammals -- during its mission. ''This is absolutely high priority. We are looking into this. We want to be good stewards of the environment and anytime there are strandings of marine mammals, we look into the operations and locations of any ships that might have been operating in that area,'' said Lt. Cdr. Jensin Sommer, spokeswoman for Naval Submarine Forces, based in Virginia.

EVIDENCE
There's a growing body of evidence that active sonar sound waves may harm marine mammals such as dolphins and whales, injuring them in the ears and around the brain, disorienting them, and prompting them in some cases to strand. Marine mammals use sound for just about everything, from feeding to navigating to finding a mate. Scientists surmise that sonars may disorient or scare the marine mammals, causing them to surface too quickly and creating the equivalent of what divers know as the bends -- when nitrogen is formed in tissue by sudden decompression, leading to hemorrhaging. After a whale stranding in 2000 in the Bahamas, the Navy acknowledged in a report some marine mammal sensitivity to sonars, but has also argued at times that the extent of any cause-and-effect is scientifically vague. Active sonar allows submarines and ships to spot targets and other vessels by emitting sound waves that bounce off objects, revealing distance and location. Necropsies already underway on the dead dolphins in Marathon may shed some light on whether the animals suffered any damage to acoustic brain tissue, a potentially key indicator of sonar damage. But test results could take months.

NOTHING RULED OUT
''It's fair to say we will be looking at any potential contributing factors, and that's everything,'' said Laura Engleby, a biologist with NOAA Fisheries, which is coordinating the stranding response. ``We aren't ruling anything out.'' The Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental group, successfully sued the military in 2002 to limit use of new, low-frequency sonar believed by some to be particularly damaging because of its ability to travel extremely long distances. Some types of sonar can be extremely loud -- as much as 235 decibels at close quarters, equivalent to the noise made by a rocket on takeoff -- according to the council. ''Whenever naval exercises coincide with a mass stranding of marine mammals, the government has a responsibility to investigate the connection. We call on them to do that now,'' Michael Jasny, a senior policy consultant with the council, said Friday.

SOME RETURN TO SEA
About 20 of the initial group of stranded Keys dolphins made their way back to sea by early Thursday, while 14 were euthanized Friday because of their poor condition. More than 30 others remained in care of biologists and volunteers in a makeshift pen late Friday, from where they were expected to be transferred to rehabilitation facilities. Whale and dolphin strandings are not uncommon in Florida and elsewhere. Various factors have been blamed -- from a few sick animals luring an entire pod toward land, to pollution and algae blooms. But renewed attention has been focused lately on sonar as a potential cause. ''The more we look now, the more incidents we see,'' Jasny said. ''In recent years attention has been increasingly paid to the effect sonar is having on other species'' besides whales. ``We are only beginning to understand the impact.''

BY JENNIFER BABSON
jbabson@herald.com

Defending the Silence of the Seas

2006-01-06T03:37:00.000-08:00

Defending the Silence of the Seas By BRUCE JOFFE
News Analysis Special to the Planet (03-04-05)

Imagine you are walking downtown with the two kids in tow. It’s Saturday afternoon. The streets are bustling with people. Suddenly, The Noise, louder than anything you’ve ever heard, blasts your attention. It sounds like the pulsing pressure of a motorcycle, grating like a car alarm, with the intensity of a foghorn blasting right into your ears. What the? It’s so LOUD! Gotta get away. Where is it coming from? People on the street are running every which way, hands glued to their ears, eyes squinting with pain. Not that way. Not there. Try inside the building. Where’s Susie? You look down at her terrified face. Blood is trickling from her ears. Her eyes are about to explode. You can’t bend down to carry her because your hands are locked over your ears. It doesn’t help. The Noise is blaring inside your head. You head into the building. The pulsing. The grating. Machine guns are shooting into your ears. People are falling over each other. You can’t hear their screams. You only feel the pulsing pain. And the warm blood running down your neck. A horror something like this happens to the intelligent animals that live in the sea, whales and dolphins, when the U.S. Navy activates its hyper-loud, under-water sound blaster called Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar. The Navy’s LFA sonar blasts The Noise so loudly that whale ear drums break, their sinuses explode, blood hemorrhages in their brains and lungs. In March, 2000, immediately after a Navy LFA sonar test in the Bahamas, fourteen whales ended up “stranded”; their dead bodies washed up on the sand. Biologists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute examined them and observed the tissue damage. The Navy’s test blared The Noise at 195 decibels (dB). LFA sonar’s full operating volume of 240 dB is 20,000 times LOUDER. Under the sea, sunlight dims quickly. Deeper than 100 ft., little can be seen. Whales and dolphins use sound to find food, to evade danger, to watch over their young, to communicate with their mates, and to keep their group together as they swim on their migrations. Their sense of hearing is highly developed and very sensitive. They can hear much better than humans, and like bats, they use sound echoes to locate prey and each other. While we use sight to orient ourselves, to know where we are and to communicate, whales and dolphins use hearing. Caught within the radius of The Noise, sea mammals get disoriented. They can’t hear, they can’t see, they don’t know where they are, or which way is up. They loose their young. Those not killed from tissue damage starve from deafness. As sound travels outward from its source, it attenuates. Yet, even at distances between 100 to 200 miles from the LFA, where the 240 dB Noise diminishes to “only” 160 dB, severe tissue damage still occurs in sea mammals. Deafness, disorientation, and other dysfunctions occur wherever The Noise is louder than 120 dB, more than 1,000 miles from the LFA source. Why is the Navy sound-blasting the silent seas? Navy documents claim they need loud, “active” sonar to detect enemy submarines over long distances. But Rear Admiral Malcom Fages has pointed out that passive (silent) listening systems are more effective. Former Director of the U.S. Naval Weapons Lab, Dr. Charles Bernard, says that active sonar identifies the source vessel and highlights our own submarines as well as enemy subs, thereby placing our own personnel in jeopardy. LFA would alert an enemy to our intention to track them. It would give them warning to take evasive action. Others have said that the Navy needs active sonar to communicate with our deep-water nuclear subs. Normally, these fully-loaded behemoths deploy large, floating antennas to pick up low-frequency radio waves in order to know whether to launch their nukes and go to war. But when they are in “stealth” mode, deep under water where radio waves don’t penetrate, only sound messages travel through the dark ocean’s depths. So, to control our nuclear arsenal, the Navy must send sound signals to its subs. The LFA hyper-loud speakers are being deployed to reach them wherever they may be, The death and injury of thousands of creatures is considered unfortunate, unavoidable, collateral damage. A strange thing happens to sound deep under the sea. Within the first 400 to 500 feet, wave action and warming from the sun keep the water turbulent. Below the turbulent surface area lies a stable layer of deep water called the isothermal sound channel, capable of conveying sound over thousands of miles with little attenuation. Eons ago, whales discovered this and use it for navigation and long distance communication. When the Navy’s LFA sonar is fully deployed, 80 percent of the world’s ocean could be polluted with sound. Sound so loud, according to the Marine Mammal Commission’s 1997 report to Congress, that uncountable numbers of living creatures will die. What will happen to the ecology of the ocean? What will happen to our source of seafood? What will happen to us, if we allow such pain and suffering to be unleashed upon other feeling beings? Will we still be able to call ourselves human? Or will we become “golem,” soul-less creatures in human shape? “National security”, “homeland security”, “protection from terrorists,” these are the magic mantras that fuel the Navy’s single-minded quest to wire up the seas like a huge loudspeaker. So focused are they on this one technology that their response to thousands of objections to the Navy’s Environmental Impact Statement on deploying SURTASS-LFA has been to seek exemption from the environmental review process. Undeterred that the LFA technology is not as effective, and also more dangerous, than passive sonar, the Navy has not seriously looked at alternative technologies. There are other ways to communicate with our hidden nuclear submarines. Effective methods exist that would not damage and possibly destroy nearly all sound-sensitive sea creatures. One such alternative is the use of Local Acoustic Transducers (LATs). These are relatively inexpensive, floating devices that contain radio receivers and low-level acoustic transducers (speakers). When the Navy needs to communicate with a particular sub, a coded message could be sent via satellite to the floating radio buoys. Only the buoys nearest the specific sub would activate its sonar transducers. Being closer to the sub, its sound would not need to be as loud as the LFA sonar. Being specifically activated, the total amount of noise in the sea would be greatly reduced, and the sea animals and fish would be spared suffering a horrible death. Inexpensive buoys could be anchored to the sea floor, and be regularly replaced if they were dislodged. Highly sensitive microphones on the subs would enable them to receive communications within a range of several hundred miles from each floating LAT. Enough LATs could be deployed so that each sub would be within range of two or three LATs to assure accurate communication. Perhaps even better technologies are possible as well. But none will be explored unless the Navy is stopped from deploying SURTASS-LFA sonar. Funds for this deadly program (over $ 350 million has already been spent) should be reassigned to other methods. Our Senators and Congress representatives need to know that we are concerned and opposed to the Navy’s sonic blasters. Gordon England, Secretary of the Navy, and Donna Weiting, Chief of the National Marine Fisheries Service, as well as President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld need to know that destruction of the silent sea and most of the ocean’s life is not a viable option for living on Earth. Bruce Joffe is the founding principal of GIS Consultants in Oakland, which provides geographic information planning, management, and public policy services to public agencies.

Whale-alert during NATO exercise

2006-01-06T03:34:00.000-08:00

Whale-alert during NATO exercise

Military exercises usually involve elements of surprise, in order to keep participants on their toes. But an upcoming exercise of the new NATO Response Force (NRF) in the Canary Islands may be faced with a rather unusual surprise-element, of a mammal nature: whales. Following reports that the use of sonar equipment may have caused the death of dozens of whales during naval exercises in past years, host nation Spain is taking no risks: they’re deploying a ‘whale-watch’.
Last weekend, Spanish authorities announced that one of their frigates would monitor the waves around the popular holiday islands off the African coast, during the NRF ‘Noble Javelin 05’ exercise in April, to detect whether whales are present in the exercise area. If they are, participating ships will be asked to limit use of sonar equipment or change course. It’s unlikely, though, that such calls will be heeded if an exercise involves ships using sonar equipment: from a military point of view, protecting ships against hostile submarines - the principal use of sonar - invariably takes precedence over the well-being of maritime life, mammal or otherwise.

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/region/internationalorganisations/nrf050301?view=Standard

U.S. Set to Oppose Efforts To Restrict Use of Sonar

2006-01-06T03:31:00.000-08:00

U.S. Set to Oppose Efforts To Restrict Use of Sonar

The Bush administration is strongly opposing international efforts to restrict the Navy's use of active sonar anywhere in the world, putting it at odds with European allies and several key ocean-protection organizations.
Although allies have become increasingly concerned about research indicating a link between the mass strandings of whales and nearby naval use of sonar, the new U.S. position, being finalized last week, puts national security first.
"The U.S. strongly opposes any international regulatory framework addressing military use of active sonar because of the potential to restrict the ability of individual States to balance the relevant security and environmental interests," the new policy reads.
The new position is described as a "consensus" agreement among government agencies, but it touched off a contentious internal debate -- one primarily between military officials who say unrestricted sonar is needed to train sailors and protect ships, and wildlife specialists who believe the sonar may be killing whales and other marine mammals with its loud bursts of sound. An official who participated in the discussion and was told not to discuss it publicly said the debate got "very heated."
Although an initial Pentagon and Navy draft was four pages long and itemized, in sometimes harsh terms, the service's views on why international sonar regulations are dangerous, the final draft is more restrained.
But the major recommendation remains what the Navy initially proposed: that any efforts to limit the global use of sonar through international negotiations should and will be actively resisted. The military also succeeded in resisting efforts to leave the policy open for changes if evidence of harm becomes more conclusive.
Administration officials declined to comment on the sonar document. But officials at the Defense Department, the State Department, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not dispute its contents and conclusions.
Michael Jasny, a senior consultant with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said last week that he -- and some government officials involved in the debate -- were disappointed that the Navy opposed international efforts to address and better control sonar use.
"This was an opportunity for the Navy to lead the international community in stopping this needless assault on whales and other marine life," he said. "Instead, the Navy is turning the clock backwards and is dragging the rest of the U.S. government along with it."
The Navy prides itself on being a good environmental steward of the oceans and says it is committed to conducting active sonar in a way to minimize risk to marine mammals. The service is also the world's largest funder of ocean research.
But with increasing evidence that sonar may injure some whales, dolphins and porpoises, the "consensus document" acknowledges that sonar can be harmful. "Research concerning active sonar's potential effects has demonstrated that, under certain circumstances and conditions, use of active sonar has an effect upon particular marine species," a near-final draft says.
The new policy was formulated at the request of the U.S. mission to NATO, and is expected to be made final and official soon.
European officials, and nongovernmental groups here and in Europe, have focused attention on the use of sonar by the military alliance, and have proposed some potentially significant changes.
After the International Whaling Commission and other international scientific agencies issued reports supporting the link between active sonar and whale deaths last year, the European Union began to move toward a tightening of restrictions on sonar use. In October, the European Parliament voted 441 to 15 to urge member nations to cut back on active sonar use in European waters, and to create a multinational task force to develop agreements regarding sonar and other intense ocean noise.
The issue of whether the intense sounds of active sonar can cause whales and other marine mammals to beach themselves has become increasingly contentious as more unusual strandings have been noted. Most recently, three species of whales stranded along the North Carolina coast during a two-day period in January. Navy officials say their sonar did not cause the stranding but report that sonar was used during that time in deeper waters. Three dozen whales died in the incident.
Those deaths, which are being investigated by NOAA, follow other whale strandings close to naval sonar maneuvers off Hawaii, Washington state, the Canary Islands, Greece and the Bahamas. The Navy acknowledged that its sonar caused the 2000 Bahamas stranding, but has said there were as-yet-undiscovered reasons for the others.
In response to the 2002 Canary Islands stranding, which occurred as a Spanish-led NATO maneuver was taking place, Spain stopped all sonar exercises in the area.
The Navy not only has pushed hard for unrestricted use of traditional mid-frequency active sonar, but also has spent millions of dollars on a global, low-frequency sonar detection system. Concern that sonar could harm whales initially arose in relation to deployment of the new and more powerful low-frequency sonar systems, but the Bahamas incident and others all involved mid-frequency active sonar.
Much of the ongoing debate has involved when and where the Navy can train sailors in sonar use, which officials say can be properly done only at sea. They say that a new generation of less-sophisticated but "quiet" diesel submarines pose a new threat to the country, especially in coastal waters. They also say new international agreements on sonar are not needed because domestic legislation, which applies to U.S. Navy activities overseas, already balances ocean environmental concerns with national security needs.
The Pentagon has been actively involved in efforts to change some of those laws, and in 2003, it persuaded Congress to modify the Marine Mammal Protection Act in ways that critics say reduce protection for whales.
Scientists have offered several theories about how the sonar might be harming whales. Some believe it ruptures their sensitive ears, while others say it scares them and causes ultimately fatal dashes to shore. Still others think it causes deep-diving whales in particular to swim to the surface too quickly, causing a kind of marine mammal version of the bends.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58339-2005Feb27.html?nav=rss_politics

Navy set to purchase new ASW sonar system

2006-01-06T03:27:00.000-08:00

Navy set to purchase new ASW sonar system

The navy is to buy two sets of US-made low-frequency active sonar (LFAS) systems to detect submarines operating in the Taiwan Strait, and plans to deploy them within two years, defense sources said yesterday.
The LFAS, the most advanced system of its kind, is expected to greatly enhance the navy's anti-submarine capabilities.
The two LFAS systems are to be land-based, with one to be placed in the northern part of the country and the other in the south.
The deal will cost a great deal of money, but the exact figure was not available. The navy has classified the purchase top secret.
LFAS is a new submarine detection system that the US Navy has been developing since the 1980s. Hundreds of millions of US dollars were said to have been spent on development of the system, according to information available from Web sites linked to the LFAS project.
It is quite unusual for the US government to sell Taiwan newly-developed military hardware. For decades, the military has had to accept second-hand or outdated weapons systems from the US.
But the navy should not celebrate too soon, since the US government has yet to resolve complaints from enivronmental groups about the threat that LFAS may pose to marine mammals, especially whales.
In 2000, 10 American organizations filed suit in a Honolulu federal court to halt the US Navy's preparations to deploy the LFAS.
The suit alleged that the US Navy violated environmental laws by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the sonar system before completing the analysis of the system's environmental effects.
The groups were concerned that the LFAS could cause severe injuries or death to whales or other sea creatures because of the high-powered frequencies it transmits as it penetrates the sea.
A defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the navy needs to get a powerful anti-submarine warfare (ASW) sensor like the LFAS to bolster its ability to protect Taiwan, but that it also has the responsibility of informing the public of its potential harm to the environment.
"The system is capable of detecting all submarines operating in the Taiwan Strait. It is most effective against objects in littoral waters. With it, the navy could save a lot of man-hours spent on ASW, by reducing submarine, surface ship, or helicopter patrols," the official said.
Despite the effectiveness of the system, the defense official said the navy has the moral obligation to tell the public what kind of harm the system could do to the environment or humans as well as where it would be deployed.
According to the navy's plan, the two LFAS systems are to be placed at elevated sites near the sea. Besides marine mammals, residents living near these LFAS stations could be affected.
Low frequencies capable of penetrating to the ocean floor must be transmitted at high power.
Eleven Jan (¸âµq), a former editor with Defense Technology Monthly magazine and now a freelance military analyst, said the power of the low-frequency transmissions could have an adverse effect on human beings.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/02/16/2003098945

The Fading Songs Of Whales

2006-01-06T03:24:00.000-08:00

The Fading Songs Of Whales

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-05k.html

NATO CHALLENGED BY INTERNATIONAL COALITION TO REDUCE SONAR HARM TO WHALES AND OTHER MARINE SPECIES

2006-01-06T03:20:00.000-08:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Press contact: Daniel Hinerfeld, NRDC 310-434-2300, pager 310-737-5666If you are not a member of the press, please write to us at nrdcinfo@nrdc.org or see our contact page.NATO CHALLENGED BY INTERNATIONAL COALITION TO REDUCE SONAR HARM TO WHALES AND OTHER MARINE SPECIES Common Sense Measures Could Save Marine Mammals without Compromising Military Readiness
LOS ANGELES (February 10, 2005) -- The world's most powerful military alliance was challenged today to change how it conducts naval exercises in order to prevent needless injury and death to whales, porpoises and other marine life.
A letter sent by a coalition of international conservation organizations, representing millions of members, urges the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its member states to reduce harm from high-intensity sonar systems, which blast extraordinarily loud sound underwater to locate submarines and surface vessels. Use of high-intensity sonar by the United States Navy and other militaries has expanded despite mounting evidence that it can devastate marine life.
Those petitioning NATO include NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), Green Cross International (headed by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev), Humane Society International (HSI), the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), Ocean Futures Society and its founder Jean-Michel Cousteau.
The letter, addressed to the Secretary General and the 26 ambassadors of NATO's member nations, details a growing list of mass strandings and mortalities associated with the use of high-intensity sonar. It calls upon NATO and its member nations to introduce common-sense measures to reduce harm from high-intensity sonar exercises. Those measures include avoiding concentrations of marine mammals, particularly the habitat of sensitive beaked whales; reducing sonar intensity; and conducting post-operational surveys for dead or injured whales and other marine life. The measures would not restrict the use of sonar in times of war or heightened threat.
"The needless infliction of harm to whales and other marine life from high-intensity sonar is an international problem that demands an international solution," said Joel Reynolds, director of NRDC's Marine Mammal Protection Project. "We are asking NATO and its member countries to take the lead in adopting common sense measures to reduce that harm. NATO can maintain defense readiness by requiring sonar training that doesn't imperil whole populations of marine mammals."
Overwhelming scientific evidence links powerful military sonar with distress, injury and mass mortality of whales and other marine life, and this has led to a growing international consensus that nations and military alliances urgently need to address the problem of ocean noise. In recent months, several major international bodies including the European Parliament, the International Whaling Commission and the IUCN-World Conservation Union, have called for restrictions on high-intensity sonar.
Some nations already have begun to tailor use of high-intensity sonar to minimize harm to marine life. For example, the Spanish Ministry of Defense recently announced that it will prohibit active sonar exercises off of the Canary Islands, the site of many whale strandings correlated with naval exercises. The U.S. Navy limited multi-ship active sonar operations in an area off of the Bahamas after a mass stranding there in 2000, and, in 2003, agreed in a court settlement to limit training with low-frequency sonar in all waters except small areas in the western Pacific.
A 2003 article in the scientific journal Nature found that intense, active sonar may kill certain marine mammal species by giving them decompression sickness or "the bends;" the same illness that can kill scuba divers who surface too quickly from deep water. In July 2004, the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission cited "overwhelming evidence" of the connection between use of high-intensity sonar and mass mortalities of whales. In October 2004, the European Parliament approved a resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of sonar until its impacts are better understood.
Even NATO's own undersea research center made findings several years ago that support the link between high-intensity sonar and damage to marine mammals. The center correlated a mass stranding of Cuvier's beaked whales off Greece in 1996 with sonar tests conducted by the NATO vessel Alliance.
Mass strandings and mortalities associated with high-intensity sonar exercises have occurred, among other places, in the Haro Strait off the coast of Washington State (2003), the Canary Islands (2004, 2002, 1989, 1986, 1985), the Bahamas (2000), Madeira (2000), the U.S. Virgin Islands (1999, 1998), and in Greece (1996). Government agencies and independent scientists are now investigating the stranding last month in North Carolina of 37 whales from three different species, which coincided with a U.S. Navy high-intensity sonar training exercise in the area. Some scientists suspect that the majority of marine mammals harmed by sonar do not strand, and therefore are never counted.
The coalition's letter asks NATO to review its sonar policies at a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, the alliance's governing board, which meets weekly in Brussels.
The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 1 million members and online activists nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco.For more information about the other organizations in the coalition, please visit their web sites: Green Cross International; International Fund For Animal Welfare; Humane Society International; Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society; Ocean Futures Society.
Related NRDC PagesProtecting Whales from Dangerous Sonar
Related DocumentsFebruary 9, 2005, Letter Requesting Review of NATO Actions Involving Active Sonar (660 k pdf)

NOAA STUDIES SOUNDS IN THE SEA

2006-01-06T03:17:00.000-08:00

An article from NOAA on sound pollution

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag157.htm

Whale Stranding in N.C. Followed Navy Sonar Use

2006-01-06T03:13:00.000-08:00

Whale Stranding in N.C. Followed Navy Sonar Use
Military Says Connection to Death of 37 Animals Is 'Unlikely'
By Marc Kaufman Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 28, 2005; Page A03

At least 37 whales beached themselves and died along the North Carolina shore earlier this month soon after Navy vessels on a deep-water training mission off the coast used powerful sonar as part of the exercise. Although the Navy says any connection between the strandings and its active sonar is "unlikely" -- because the underwater detection system was used more than 200 miles from where the whales beached themselves -- it is cooperating with other federal agencies probing a possible link. Government fisheries officials, as well as activists for whales, say the fact that three species of whales died in the incident suggests that sonar may have been the cause. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists "are looking at all the possible causes of this stranding, which was a significant one," spokeswoman Connie Barclay said. Although the number of whales that came ashore is far from a record for mass strandings, Barclay said that "it's very curious to have three different kinds of whales strand, and a number of possible causes are being examined. Sonar is certainly one of them." The possible connection between naval sonar and the deaths of whales and other marine mammals has become an increasingly controversial issue since the Navy acknowledged that the loud blasts of its sonar helped cause a mass stranding of whales in the Bahamas in 2000. Since then, critics have accused the Navy of involvement in numerous mass strandings in U.S. and international waters, and federal environmental officials have concluded in some instances that the loud pulses from active sonar cannot be ruled out as a cause. The North Carolina strandings could be especially problematic for the Navy because it hopes to establish a 500-square-nautical-mile underwater sonar testing range off that coast. The Navy says a draft environmental impact statement is near completion, and officials have said the range is a high priority. Most of the animals that died in the latest incident were pilot whales, which stranded around the Oregon Inlet of the Outer Banks on Jan. 15. One newborn minke whale also beached at Corolla that day, and two dwarf sperm whales came ashore at Buxton on Jan. 16, locations about 60 miles north and south of the inlet. Six of the pilot whales were pregnant when they died, Barclay said. None of the three whale species is considered endangered, though NOAA officials say their populations are relatively small and little understood in the Atlantic. But other endangered marine animals -- including right and humpback whales and numerous species of sea turtles -- regularly migrate through the waters off North Carolina. Navy officials said that the USS Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group, based in Norfolk, was conducting an anti-submarine exercise about 240 nautical miles from the Oregon Inlet on Jan. 14 and 15. In e-mailed answers to questions, the Navy said a review of activities after following the strandings concluded that "no Navy ships were using active sonar within 50 nautical miles radius" of the inlet on Jan. 15 or the four days preceding -- although one ship not associated with the strike group did use sonar for seven minutes about 90 nautical miles south-southeast of Oregon Inlet. The strike group was on its way to a deployment after the training exercise, the Navy said. Sonar acts as the underwater eyes and ears of the Navy, and intermittent bursts are often used in transit to detect potential enemies and other dangers. In addition, Navy officials increasingly believe that inexpensive quiet submarines from hostile nations pose a potential threat and want to upgrade sonar tracking systems to protect against intrusions into U.S. coastal waters. The Navy now uses mid-frequency sonar for its tracking but wants to deploy a new generation of low-frequency sonar that travels much farther underwater and is more powerful. The Navy has sometimes been slow to acknowledge that its ships were in an area where strandings occurred and has accepted responsibility only in the Bahamas event. Environmental activists said that track record makes them skeptical of the Navy's statements about the North Carolina strandings. "The circumstances are troubling," said Michael Jasny, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has sued the Navy on other sonar-related issues. "After so many whale deaths caused by sonar, these latest strandings are a red flag. . . . Unfortunately, the Navy has a long history of denial." The Outer Banks area is close to the Norfolk base and on the general course to where the exercises were held. Most of the stranded whales were dead when they were found, and NOAA scientists are conducting necropsies of many of the animals to try to determine a cause of death. Although pilot whales travel in herds and are prone to strandings, the other two whale species are not, officials said. Pilot and dwarf sperm whales are both deep-diving animals that feed off the ocean floor and slopes of the continental shelf. The other whale strandings linked to sonar use have also involved deep-diving species, such as the beaked whale. Researchers have theorized that the loud sounds of sonar can damage the whales' sensitive hearing system and cause them to surface too quickly from fright. After another stranding off the Canary Islands in 2002, researchers found unusual gas bubbles in some whale organs -- leading them to conclude that the animals suffered from a form of decompression sickness similar to the bends. The Navy's plan for an East Coast underwater sonar testing range was first announced in 1996. Since then, the plan has been discussed internally and work on an environmental impact statement has proceeded, with some input from NOAA. A Navy spokesman said last year that a final decision had not been made on where to locate the test site. But in April, the Atlantic Division of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command said in a statement: "The Navy's preferred site for the range is in the Cherry Point Operating Area located in Onslow Bay, southeast of New River, North Carolina, and approximately 105 km (57 nautical miles) from the North Carolina shoreline."

'Cold-stunned' turtles are stranded on Cape Lookout

2006-01-06T03:10:00.000-08:00

'Cold-stunned' turtles are stranded on Cape Lookout

February 02,2005 BY Jannette Pippin Freedom ENC
CAPE LOOKOUT - Winter weather isn't just felt by the area's human residents.
Cape Lookout National Seashore has reported several sea turtle deaths and marine mammal strandings during the recent cold temperatures. Since December, 18 dead sea turtles and three live but "cold-stunned" turtles have been found on the beaches in the park.
The turtles - loggerheads and greens - are listed as threatened species in North Carolina.
Michael Rikard, resource management specialist, said the strandings are something seen each year on Core Banks and Shackleford Banks as water temperatures drop and catch the turtles before they can migrate to deeper, warmer water.
"When it's fairly warm they'll hang around in the sound and shallow water and then they get caught in the cold," Rikard said.
Waters suddenly falling below 57 degrees can stun a sea turtle, slowing down the turtle's breathing and its heart rate, Rikard said. Unable to move and migrate to warmer waters, the turtles float helplessly until the waves carry them ashore.
The result can be death from exposure or hypothermia.
These strandings are the unfortunate part of winter patrols of the park's beaches, Rikard said.
While most of the turtles found stranded this winter have been dead, three were alive when they were found, and steps were taken to transport them to rehabilitation facilities for treatment.
One of those turtles died during transport, but two are expected to recover.
Other marine mammals also have been found stranded at the park this winter, but it's uncertain whether their deaths are due to the cold, Rikard said.
Three bottlenose dolphins and one dwarf sperm whale were found on South Core Banks this month. Necropsies were performed on all the animals by stranding team members at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lab in Beaufort, but no cause of death has been determined.

http://snipurl.com/ch3l

Navy under global pressure to limit sonar use

2006-01-05T12:03:00.000-08:00

Navy under global pressure to limit sonar use EU, others call for cut in noises that harm sea life
Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer
Monday, December 13, 2004

The United States is facing increasing international pressure to place limitations on the use of military sonar, the underwater equivalent of radar that has been linked to mass strandings of whales.
The European Union Parliament -- the most prominent of four international bodies that have taken up the matter in recent months -- called in October for its member states to develop a moratorium on all types of military sonars, which use powerful sound to locate objects such as submarines.
Two weeks ago, the IUCN-World Conservation Union, a prestigious group of 70 nations and 400 nongovernmental organizations meeting in Bangkok, overwhelmingly passed a resolution urging governments to limit the use of loud noise sources in the world's oceans, including military sonar, oil and gas exploration and commercial shipping, until the effects are better understood. The United States abstained from the vote.
The measure also said that, to the extent possible, sonar and other activities should be avoided entirely in areas where the vulnerable species live. According to studies cited by the EU and the other world bodies, noise can interfere with the survival of the ocean creatures that depend on sound to navigate, find food, locate mates, avoid predators and communicate with one another. At high decibel levels, noise can kill.
The U.S. Navy is the biggest user of midfrequency active sonar in the world -- and government officials have been loath to require permits to regulate its use.
"We're not ignoring it by any means," said Bill Hogarth, director of the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). "But to translate to direct mortality is very difficult.''
Hogarth said that calling for a ban or restrictions on naval sonar is "too simple,'' because the effects of sonar depend on ocean conditions.
In more than a dozen instances dating back to the 1960s, however, whales have stranded themselves on the beaches and sometimes died at the time of naval training exercises miles away using midfrequency active sonar.
An unprecedented stranding of 16 beaked and minke whales in the Bahamas in 2000 brought worldwide attention to military sonar. A NOAA investigation concluded that a Navy testing maneuver using midfrequency sonar -- by far the most commonly used type of sonar -- was the likely cause. Necropsies found signs of brain hemorrhaging, which is consistent with injury from sound.
Kenneth Balcomb, founder of the Center for Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Wash., and leader of the Bahamas Marine Mammal Survey, concluded that a vibration in the whales' cranial air spaces tore delicate tissues around the brain and ears.
Military active sonars emit sound waves -- blasted from loud speakers - - that scan hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean waters the way a spotlight would search on land. The sound signal bounces off objects and sends back information to receivers. Some midfrequency active sonar systems can put out more than 235 decibels, as loud as a Saturn V rocket at launch. Aside from the U.S. use, the technology is also employed by Western European countries, Japan, Australia and, to a small extent, Canada.
The other two groups that have called for curbs on naval sonar in the last five months are the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission and the 16 member nations of the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area, or
ACCOMBAMS.
At the Bangkok meeting, the United States chose not to engage in the discussions on underwater sea noise, and abstained from voting on the resulting resolution, according to the State Department.
U.S. officials later issued a statement saying the United States shares underlying concerns about the potential effects of sonar, encourages an international approach to advance scientific understanding and is a leader in paying for research and conducting programs to assess and mitigate the adverse effects of some sounds.
Darla Jordan, a State Department press officer, said the United States abstained because it is "in the process of addressing these complex issues.''
Those close to the discussions said there are differences on sonar policy between NOAA, the Defense Department and the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission.
Disappointed by the abstention, environmental groups said the United States, by refusing to partake in negotiations, was repeating behavior exhibited in regard to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Bush administration walked away from the talks on how to implement the United Nations' convention to curb greenhouse gases, which has now been signed by 197 countries and takes effect in February 2005.
Erin Heskett, an International Fund for Animal Welfare spokesman, said the United States should have been a leader in forging the Kyoto pact and it should be collaborating now with Europe and other nations on the sonar issue.
"Here the U.S. is once again ignoring an opportunity to work with the international community," Heskett said. "You would think with the resources and the scientific expertise that we have that we'd be a leader in finding solutions. Not making a commitment to work with other countries, that's the most disturbing.''
Last July, four environmental groups, including the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Natural Resources Defense Council, sent a letter to the Navy, asking it to change the way it uses midfrequency sonar on more than half of its 300 ships and submarines. The Navy has not made public what it has done in response.
Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, who first challenged the Navy's use of powerful underwater sounds a decade ago, says his group is considering filing a lawsuit that would charge the Navy with harassing and killing marine mammals in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
NOAA officials say the Navy has approached the agency about obtaining permits to conduct midfrequency sonar exercises off the East Coast of the United States. But Navy spokesman Mike Kafka -- asked if the Navy is talking with NOAA about putting midfrequency sonar under permit -- said, "It would be inappropriate to get into specifics of ongoing talks.
"All policy decisions on this matter, including those regarding permitting requirements, must be based on fully developed, sound science,'' Kafka said, adding, "the Navy's continued ability to test and train with anti- submarine technology, including midrange sonar, is absolutely vital to the nation's security and national interests.''
Hogarth, the NOAA fisheries director, said his agency is in constant dialogue with the Navy.
"We realize the Navy is a big user of sonar," Hogarth said. "We're aware of the national security issues, and we're also aware of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.''

http://tinyurl.com/4qs3y

People still the whale's worst enemy

2006-01-05T11:58:00.000-08:00

People still the whale's worst enemy
By Andrew DarbyDecember 4, 2004

A long way out at sea, sonar waves from a navy ship sweep through the water like a floodlight of sound. They pierce the ocean, searching for danger.
It is not likely the sonar will strike an enemy submarine. But in the peaceful Australian waters it is possible it will hit a school of whales or dolphins, with catastrophic effect.
The cause of the beaching of 169 cetaceans, mainly pilot whales, off Tasmania and New Zealand this week is a mystery.
But it is known that in the days before the first whales were found there was a joint exercise by six Australian and New Zealand ships off South Australia that included a 15-minute test of active sonar.
Two US ships, the $1-billion sonar-equipped cruiser Mobile Bay and the destroyer Hopper, also steamed out to sea from Sydney around that time.
Amid the search for answers to this week's strandings, one thing is certain: as people press ocean resources, whales are paying the price.
Seismic survey work for oil and gas, entanglement in shark nets and fishing gear, even the sharp keels of Sydney-Hobart yachts, threaten whales in our waters. Japanese whalers harpoon in Antarctic waters we claim responsibility for.

Undersea noise pollution from naval sonar and seismic work is the latest issue.
According to the US Natural Resources Defence Council, one type of sonar system can generate 235 decibels - as loud as a Saturn V rocket at launch. Another exceeds human safety levels 180 kilometres away.
The council has counted 10 cases where mass strandings and deaths have been linked with US military activities and active sonar. The best known was in the Canary Islands in 2002, when 15 Cuvier's beaked whales beached at the same time as a US destroyer was manoeuvring there. Autopsies showed brain damage consistent with acoustic impact.
The World Conservation Union last week called for action to reduce the impact of high-intensity active sonar and other sources of damaging underwater sound.
But the Federal Government this week rejected a call to ban the use of active sonar. The Defence Minister, Robert Hill, said it was used only in anti-submarine warfare, and the type used by Australia's navy differed from the most contested US system. But he did say more needed to be known about the impact of man-made sounds on marine mammals.
One of the main sources of man-made noise in our region is seismic survey work. Airguns are used to fire 220-decibel pulses at the sea floor, producing shock waves that can reflect undersea geology. Seismic work was under way off Robe, South Australia, last week - about 300 kilometres from King Island.
Over-arching these man-made perils is climate change. Autopsies on the pilot whales stranded in Tasmania show they had eaten very little food recently. Evidence emerged this spring from the British Antarctic Survey that food in the far South Atlantic was plummeting as the regional climate warmed.
The Tasmanian researchers list many possible natural causes for any one stranding, including pursuit by predatory killer whales, a coastline that tricks whale sonar, and change in the earth's magnetic field. But still the question remains: how to explain three in 24 hours?

http://snipurl.com/b6b9

Sonar decision slated

2006-01-05T11:55:00.000-08:00

Sonar decision slated
Monday 29 November 2004

A Ministry of Defence decision to fit a controversial sonar device - which has been linked to killing whales, dolphins and other sealife – to a Royal Navy frigate in Scotland has been met with opposition from a Green Party MEP. The device has been fitted despite recent calls for an international treaty banning their use, and a European Parliament vote on a ban last month. The MoD announced today they had fitted a Low Frequency Active Sonar device for detecting submarines to a Type 23 Frigate at Rosyth, Fife. "The Ministry of Defence's decision to push ahead and install LFAS is a disaster for Scotland's marine wildlife and already-depleted fish stocks and a slap in the face of the democratic will of the European parliament,” said Green Party Euro MP Caroline Lucas. "It is completely disingenuous to claim, as the MoD has, that it will listen to the Parliament's view only when there is no pressing military case for installing LFAS on its warships,” added Dr Lucas.

http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/index.php?news=2319

IFAW and NRDC Applaud EP Resolution on Saving Whales from Naval Sonar

2006-01-05T11:52:00.000-08:00

IFAW and NRDC Applaud EP Resolution on Saving Whales from Naval Sonar
10/28/2004 10:22:00 AM

To: National Desk, Environment Reporter
Contact: Gunther Pauls +32-02-282-06-96 or 0473-863-461, or gpauls@ifaw.org; or Gaia Angelini, +32-02-237-60-52 or 0473-985165, or gangelini@ifaw.org, all of International Fund for Animal Welfare; or Daniel Hinerfeld of NRDC, +1-310-434-2303, or dhinerfeld@nrdc.org Web: http://www.ifaw.org
STRASBURG, Austria, Oct. 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In adopting a Resolution on the environmental effects of high-intensity active naval sonars, the European Parliament has shown its strong support for the need to regulate and reduce one of the most significant threats to whales.
An overwhelming majority of MEPs called on the EU Member States to:
Pursue the adoption of moratoriums and restrictions on the use of high-intensity active sonars in naval operations, including within the framework of NATO;
Develop alternative technologies;
Immediately restrict the use of high-intensity active sonars in waters under their jurisdiction.
The resolution also urges the European Commission to conduct studies on the potential impact of active sonar on the marine environment, to assess the effects of current practices in EU waters and develop legislation for the European Union.
Used to detect and localize underwater targets, military active sonar can significantly harm marine life. Working like a floodlight, it emits sound waves that can sweep across hundreds of kilometers in the ocean. This requires the use of extremely loud sound, which has been likened to that produced by a rocket at takeoff. Such a noise can injure whales' sensitive organs and even kill them. Among the most dramatic impacts associated with high-intensity sonar is mass stranding of whales.
"The increasing use of active sonar by militaries around the world threatens the survival of numerous marine species, including entire populations of whales and porpoises", said Frederick O'Regan, president of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). "This is a global problem that must be solved through international cooperation, and the resolution adopted today by the European Parliament is a significant step toward that goal."
Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas said: "There can be little doubt that these sonar devices are responsible for the deaths of thousands of marine mammals, some of them endangered and protected species."
As sound is crucial to whales, dolphins and porpoises and other marine species for navigation, communication and finding food, any disturbance that undermines their ability to transmit or recognize sounds may jeopardize their capacity to function and, over the long term, to reproduce and survive.
There are also other sources of harmful noise (e.g. shipping, drilling and construction noise, ship propellers, sea-bed explorations and extraction activities) in the marine environment, and these are currently unregulated in the European Union, although any energy source (noise) is recognized as a form of pollution under UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).
"This is a landmark in the international battle to protect marine life from needless harm and death caused by high intensity military sonar," said Joel Reynolds, Director of the Marine Mammal Protection Protect at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). "It is an unequivocal expression of the democratic will of the people of Europe, recognizing that nations can protect their own security and simultaneously safeguard the health of our oceans simply by using common sense steps to prevent injury from high intensity sonar during training and testing."
In a series of initiatives, including resolutions from ACCOBAMS (Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area) and ASCOBANS (Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas), the EP resolution bears witness to the momentum the problem of noise at sea has gained in political fora.
Ocean noise will thus be high on the agenda of two upcoming events:
The second Meeting of the Parties to ACCOBAMS (9 to 12 November 2004 in Palma de Mallorca) will vote on a resolution on the harmful effects of military sonar on marine life.
The final stakeholders meeting on the EU Marine Strategy (hosted by the Dutch Presidency in Rotterdam, 10-12 November 2004) will debate major threats to the marine environment prior to the publication of an official Proposal on this issue by the European Commission.
Although underwater noise is not formally included in the working document of the stakeholders meeting, IFAW urges participants and the European Commission to consider underwater noise as a serious but yet unregulated form of pollution in our seas.
---
EDITORS NOTE:
Recent whale deaths and strandings associated with the use of high-intensity sonar:
---
Greece, Kyparissiakos Gulf (12-13 May 1996)
Stranded: 12 beaked whales
Killed: At least 8
---
Bahamas, Northeast and Northwest Providence Channels (15-16 March 2000)
Stranded: 17 of multiple species
Killed: At least 7
There is evidence that the entire population of beaked whales in this area was killed or displaced
---
Canary Islands, Fuerteventura and Lanzarote (24th September 2002)
Stranded: 14 beaked whales (various species)
Killed: 11 beaked whales.
At least six of eight previous cases of beaked whale strandings in the Canary Islands (since 1985) coincided with military exercises.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=39040

The roaring tide

2006-01-05T11:48:00.000-08:00

The roaring tide
The roaring tide Sausalito-based Seaflow works to make the oceans quieter and safer for marine creatures
Jim Doyle, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, October 8, 2004

Trying to help save the world's oceans on a shoestring budget has its setbacks and frustrations, but Seaflow's founders, staffers and volunteers have designed a simple formula for staying in the game.
Seaflow, a community of concerned citizens based in Marin, is a paradigm of grassroots activism. The small, fledgling organization is free-spirited, but also dead set on reducing ocean noise pollution. The eco group reflects a unique mix of passion, science and politics.
"A lot of environmentalists work too hard, get burned out and don't sustain themselves," said George Taylor, a Seaflow co-founder and board president. "One of our goals was not to replicate the same mistakes of other nonprofits. Communication difficulties, power struggles, staff and volunteer burnout. ... I think we've been able to tap into people's creativity because they feel connected, respected and heard."
Seaflow's primary goal is to help build an international movement to create laws that restrict noise underwater. Its concern: A proliferation of human-generated noise pollution threatens the long-term survival of marine mammals and other sea creatures. Other recognized threats to marine mammals include ship collisions and the entanglement of whales, dolphins and porpoises in fishing nets.
Oceans are acoustic environments. Sound travels farther and faster in water than in air. There is little visibility underwater. So marine mammals and other species of sea life rely on acoustic signals to navigate, hunt, communicate and avoid predators.
Humans are causing an increasing amount of ocean noise pollution, whose leading sources include active sonars employed by the military, offshore oil drilling, seismic testing for oil, the use of explosives, underwater construction and commercial shipping.
Those assaults are occurring at a time when the oceans are already burdened by overfishing and toxic pollution. In certain instances, the use of active sonar during Navy exercises has been closely correlated with mass strandings of marine mammals.
An investigation by the Navy and Department of Commerce found that the use of tactical mid-frequency sonars aboard Naval warships during a sonar exercise in the Bahamas in March 2000 caused the deaths of six beaked whales and one dolphin. Ten other stranded cetaceans were returned to the water alive.
The Pew Oceans Commission report last year urged the creation of a comprehensive research and monitoring program to study the effects of sound on endangered or threatened species of marine life.
In the past four years, Seaflow, whose slogan is "protecting our living oceans," has emerged as a key player on ocean noise issues. Its principals have met with Pentagon officials and policy makers on Capitol Hill, attended major scientific conferences and distributed alerts on whale strandings.
"The oceans are in stress right now and we need to assume that any of our explorations or colonization of the sea will further compromise its health," said Michael Stocker, a Seaflow science adviser and bio-acoustician. "It's not just whales or dolphins we're concerned about, but our very own food supply."
Stocker drafted language on ocean noise for the California Ocean Management Action Plan, which will serve as a role model for other states. He also advised Sen. Barbara Boxer's office on an ocean protection bill that she is scheduled to introduce.
"I go to conferences and break bread and drink beer with Navy guys," Stocker said. "I address them non-confrontationally. It's not about establishing a frothy-mouthed advocacy relationship with these people . . . . As (environmentalist) David Brower would say, 'You never know where your allies will come from.' "
Seaflow's activities include public education, scientific consulting and citizen lobbying. But its principals and volunteers also talk about "process." They espouse the benefits of a "nonhierarchical and transformative" organization that will enable them to "be the change we want to see in the world." They speak of "the web of life" and how much damage humans cause by rending it.
Political networking, street theater and workshops on underwater bioacoustics are all part of Seaflow's mix. Its community meetings range from scientific and policy discussions to presentations of music and poetry. Its delegates wear dolphin costumes at the annual Fairfax Festival and Parade.
Seaflow workshops on "sustainable activism" offer environmentalists an introduction to "deep ecology" principles of eco-philosopher Joanna Macy that address the despair, anger and burnout that are prevalent among activists.
"We're doing serious scientific work, and serious political work. But there's more to this organization," said Seaflow co-founder Vivienne Verdon- Roe, an Academy Award-winning filmmaker who has made documentaries on nuclear weapons. "We have a profound reverence for life. The kind of world we're going to create really depends on our behavior in our daily life. We really encourage people to have the time to walk by the ocean and appreciate the things they're trying to save."
On a recent Sunday morning, Seaflow board members and volunteers celebrated the fall equinox on a stunning stretch of Rodeo Beach in the Marin Headlands. Hallie Austen Iglehart, a Seaflow co-founder, led a meditation and ceremonial drum circle to mark the turning of the seasons.
"It's a fun thing to do, but I think it's also important that we connect back in with the cycles of the planet," said Iglehart, an author of books on women's spirituality. "It helps us remember on a visceral level, not just an intellectual level, our place in the web of life. We're celebrating the ocean; we're celebrating ourselves."
Days earlier, Stocker held an informal walk along the same beach with a handful of Seaflow volunteers, talking about the impact of human-generated underwater noise on the ocean habitat. He spoke of "the sounds beyond the waves," of snapping shrimp and croaking grouper.
He spoke of the dangers of active sonar arrays. In recent decades, Navy and NATO maneuvers have coincided with strandings of whales in the Bahamas, the Canary Islands, the Virgin Islands, Hawaii, Madeira, Japan, and the Mediterranean Sea near Greece.
"People thought the ocean was silent and marine life was deaf," Stocker said. "Now, whenever a whale washes up on shore, the first thing people ask is, 'Where was the Navy?' "
It's tempting to view Seaflow as a David versus Goliath story: a small band of environmentalists taking on the Department of Defense, with some degree of success. But the pint-size eco group would be hard-pressed to claim solo credit for any major victories.
Seaflow works closely with other environmental groups. Together, they have slowed the Navy's plan to deploy a new low frequency active sonar system for the long-range detection of hostile diesel submarines in three-quarters of the world's oceans. The Navy insists that low frequency active sonar poses only a negligible risk of harm to marine mammals, and that its mitigation measures -- for example, not using sonars when whales are believed to be in the vicinity -- will reduce the risk.
Stocker and other environmentalists contend that the Navy has not sufficiently studied whether high intensity acoustic signals may hurt or kill these endangered or threatened species.
"I think the scientific community is still trying to understand how the variety of species of marine mammals interact and are affected by sonar," said Lt. Mike Kafka, a Navy spokesman. "The Navy annually budgets over half a billion dollars for environmental programs including millions of dollars specifically dedicated for marine mammal research...This reinforces our commitment to being good stewards of the environment while defending the nation."
Kafka said that Navy ships use active sonar, which emits periodic bursts of sound, less than 1 percent of their time at sea. Lookouts are trained to spot marine mammals before and during sonar training exercises. Others listen (with passive, or silent, sonar gear) for whales and dolphins. If marine mammals are found to be in the vicinity, the active sonar is shut down.
"Seaflow has been very effective -- especially in the Bay Area, but increasingly more widely -- in speaking to the dangers that active sonar and ocean noise pose to the marine environment," said Michael Jasny, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has sued to restrict the Navy's use of active sonar. "They participate in policy dialogues, raise awareness in the media, educate the public, all from a perspective that is both committed and scientifically informed."
Seaflow is closely affiliated with the International Marine Mammal Project of the San Francisco-based Earth Island Institute, which has led the effort to stop the slaughter of dolphins by tuna fleets, to end commercial whaling and to end the use of drift nets.
In 2002, Seaflow initiated brainstorming sessions for U.S. environmental groups concerned with ocean noise. The sessions led to the creation of the Ocean Noise Coalition, a loose-knit alliance of more than a dozen groups committed to marine conservation, including the Ocean Mammal Institute, National Resource Defense Council, Sierra Club, Humane Society, Oceana, and the Animal Welfare Institute. With the help of Earth Island Institute, Seaflow hosted two of the coalition's meetings this year.
Ingrid Overgard, a Seaflow volunteer and graduate student at San Francisco State University, is creating an online database for the coalition that will include whale strandings and their possible correlation with Navy deployments and other ocean noise sources. Scientific reports and other information also will be posted.
Seaflow also has been in contact with activists from Central and South America, including those who are attempting to establish marine reserves. Other coalition members have pursued contacts in the European Parliament and the United Nations.
"We're doing just one piece of ocean work. We have to work collaboratively," said Mary Jo Rice, Seaflow's executive director, a longtime grassroots organizer. "We work to inspire and educate individuals and to harness their talents and creativity to best serve marine life."
Seaflow, an educational nonprofit with an annual budget of less than $100, 000, has offices in a former Army barracks at Fort Cronkhite in the Marin Headlands. Roughly half of its budget comes from hundreds of individual donors who have sent from $1 to $20,000. It also received grants from the Foundation for Deep Ecology, Earth Island Institute and other nonprofits.
"I think one of the greatest strengths of Seaflow is that we have a very responsive community," Rice said. "It's a very nonjudgmental, supportive community. And we like to have fun. We try to keep things light. We try to be as inclusive as we can be. We try to hear everyone."
Seaflow relies on a network of professionals, ranging from accountants, attorneys and scientists to boat captains, caterers, and tax and marketing specialists who donate their time and services. Musicians have given benefit concerts for Seaflow. Artists have held studio sales. Others have donated airline miles to enable Seaflow representatives to attend ocean noise conferences.
The proceeds from a recent sale of Iglehart's handcrafted jewelry went to Seaflow. There are plans to hold an online auction this fall that will feature items ranging from art prints to sailing trips and Hawaiian vacation accommodations.
Still, cash is short. Seaflow wants to increase the hours of its limited support staff. Rice also hopes to expand Seaflow's base of donors to pay for projects, including a $5,000 portable display -- with strong visual and acoustic elements -- for educational events.
Seaflow has drawn more than 100 volunteers. Some attend workshops, participate in letter-writing campaigns to members of Congress, or staff information tables at local gatherings and distribute about 15,000 informational brochures each year. Others do research or plan fund-raising events.
"I think it's the love of the ocean that ties us together," said Seaflow volunteer Julie Perkins, a business development consultant. "They really have a way of reaching out and discussing the issues and getting people involved. It's truly positive activism. ... For me as a volunteer, it's refreshing and nonthreatening. They don't demand a lot of their volunteers, so I'm not afraid to come to their meetings. I don't have to put on a black banner and march."
Seaflow's monthly community meetings attract a mix of scientists, business people, military veterans, students, parents and artists.
The eco group was founded in 2000 by Iglehart, Verdon-Roe and Taylor, a Fairfax psychotherapist who has developed and served on several nonprofit boards. The trio had become concerned in the late 1990s about the disappearance of humpback whales from their breeding grounds in Hawaii following Navy sonar testing.
They called their new organization the Council for Living Oceans, and later changed its name to Seaflow.
"Seaflow is the little organization that could," Iglehart said. "We didn't even start out wanting to be an organization, but we keep chugging along."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/08/NBG6993PAB1.DTL

The deafening sound of the seas

2006-01-05T11:46:00.000-08:00

The deafening sound of the seas

The world's oceans are now so saturated with noise that whales and other marine mammals are dying, biologists say.
The UK's Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society is launching a campaign, Oceans of Noise, to tackle what it says is the increasing problem of noise pollution.
It says key sources of undersea noise are the search for oil and gas, and the use of low-frequency military sonars.
The WDCS is proposing an action plan to regulate submarine noise pollution, and says a worldwide treaty may be needed.
Long-distance effects
It says there is evidence that noise is causing hearing loss in cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises), injuring them and causing them to strand themselves, and is sometimes killing them.
It also believes excessive noise is seriously interfering with cetaceans' ability to communicate with each other.
The WDCS says the frequency ranges of some noise sources of human origin may be blotting out other, biologically important sounds, preventing mothers and calves from staying in touch and masking sound cues for predators and their prey.
It says: "Flight, avoidance or other changes in behaviour have been observed in cetaceans from tens to hundreds of kilometres from the noise sources.
"It has even been suggested that the abilities of the great whales to communicate with each other across entire ocean basins has now been reduced by orders of magnitude."
The International Whaling Commission said in July there was "compelling evidence" that entire populations of marine mammals were at potential risk from increasingly intense man-made underwater noise.
Its scientific committee said low-frequency ambient marine noise levels had increased in the northern hemisphere by two orders of magnitude over the last 60 years.
The WDCS says one problem is the expansion of oil and gas exploration into the deep seas and the resulting growth in seismic testing to find fossil fuel deposits.
Out of sight
Shipping is another cause of concern. The society says: "Large vessels are typically loud vessels and the increase in traffic has actually fundamentally changed the noise profile of the world's oceans."
And the use of powerful sonar systems by some of the world's navies, it says, is raising noise levels still further.
The WDCS action plan includes a proposal for an international treaty to regulate marine noise pollution, and for an independent body to undertake research.
Mark Simmonds of the WDCS told BBC News Online: "It's a problem that doesn't have much noticeable effect on us, unlike chemical pollution, and we can't see it either.
"And that means it's hard for us to realise the problem exists, let alone its extent."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3680086.stm

Navy sub refit fails to save the whale

2006-01-05T11:42:00.000-08:00

Navy sub refit fails to save the whale

BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR
It was supposed to save the whale, but defence chiefs have admitted a supposedly ‘safe’ new £340m sonar system will continue to cause the deaths of the planet’s largest living creatures. Sonar systems used by the military are known to confuse whales, dolphins and other marine mammals, rendering them incapable of spotting underwater obstacles and beaches, resulting in many deaths and injuries. Reacting to growing public pressure, the MoD announced three years ago that a new system being designed for ships would be the first "whale-friendly" sonar ever created. But the MoD has now been forced to admit that the system - called Sonar 2087 - which will be fitted to all Royal Navy anti-submarine frigates within the next two years, is also a potential whale-killer. Thousands of whales, dolphins, porpoises and other similar species around the coast of Scotland and the rest of the UK, will continue to be incapable of detecting rocks or land, and many will be beached, if they come too close to British ships using the high-powered new system. Extensive tests on the system have established beyond doubt that Sonar 2087 "has the potential to be harmful to marine mammals", defence minister Lord Bach admitted last week. The embarrassing finding flatly contradicts the lavish claims made of the low-frequency system three years ago, when the MoD attempted to alleviate growing concerns with the boast that it had the "environmentally-friendly advantage that it does not interfere with whales and dolphins". But Bach confirmed that tests had shown the new system continues to pose a threat, although he added: "A range of mitigation measures has been developed to minimise the impact." These include cutting off the 2087 system when whales, dolphins and other cetaceans are detected nearby, and steering clear of areas known to be popular breeding-grounds. Last night, Baroness Miller, who has led parliamentary opposition to the use of Sonar 2087, said she remained concerned about "the sheer power of this new system, the number of decibels that it can produce and the distance that it can travel". Miller accused the MoD of withholding full details of its impact, on security grounds. She added: "Given that this system could, indeed, destroy the cetaceans’ habitat because they themselves depend on sonar for communication, this is a very serious problem." Earlier this year, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society expressed serious concerns about the effects of military sonar on the welfare of the marine animals. "Cetaceans live in a world dominated by sound, where their acute and highly specialised hearing is their primary sense, relied on both for communication and navigation," the society said in a report published in May. "Adding alien and often very powerful sound to this environment would be analogous to adding blinding and confusing lights to our own." Green MSPs have also condemned the system, tabling a motion in the Scottish Parliament urging the executive to investigate legal action against the MoD. Robin Harper, Green parliamentary leader and speaker on marine affairs, said: "It is almost certainly contributing to the deaths of already severely affected species at risk of extinction. It is time for the government to bring the MoD under control, put it on a leash, and prevent further damage to our environment." UK MPs are eagerly awaiting an official government report on the impact of the system in the UK’s North West Approaches. In the face of continuing complaints about his department’s impact on marine life, Bach insisted that the MoD was now more concerned than ever about its effect on the environment. "I am proud to say that the Ministry of Defence takes very seriously its environmental policy, whether it relates to land, sea or air, and we certainly do so far as concerns this issue," he said. It is estimated that as many as 27 species of whales, porpoises and dolphins visit Scottish waters. Annually, around 400 of the marine mammals are beached, including some of the Moray Firth’s famous population of bottlenose dolphins. Earlier this year wildlife experts said they feared whales could be fleeing their breeding and feeding grounds off Scotland’s north-west coast because of low frequency activated sonar. American environmentalists recently urged their navy to take action, claiming that dozens of whales had beached themselves off Washington, Puerto Rico, the Canary Islands and Portugal during US manoeuvres. The MoD originally ordered six Type 23 anti-submarine warfare Dukes to be fitted with Sonar 2087 as part of a mandatory refit, at a cost of £160m, with the other 10 Type 23s in the fleet expected to use it to replace the old Sonar 2031. Despite the concerns and the mitigation measures, however, ministers have made it clear that the health of marine mammals would have to take second place to the defence of the realm. "Sonar 2087, which we hope to have in operation by 2006, is an absolutely essential requirement in continuing to ensure that hostile submarines are not a danger to our Royal Navy," Bach said.

Whales at risk in sonar sea exercises

2006-01-05T11:37:00.000-08:00

Whales at risk in sonar sea exercises

Mark TownsendSunday August 8, 2004The Observer

It is one of the loudest sound systems devised by man, capable of sending a sonic boom so thunderous experts warn it can rupture the brains of whales hundreds of miles away.
Yet defence chiefs have earmarked a staggering £340m for a new submarine sonar system increasingly linked to a number of mysterious whale deaths. Experts yesterday condemned the decision to press ahead without even a public meeting into its effects. A single ping of the new low-frequency technology can affect animals across 3.8 million square kilometres of water, roughly the size of the Pacific Ocean.

The noise, far greater than any natural sound, has been linked to ear damage and harm to body tissue, and can trigger intense confusion. Startled whales surface too quickly and suffer the bends, a decompression sickness that affects deep-sea divers but was thought an impossible condition in whales.

Environmentalists believe the introduction of the new radar violates marine laws to which the UK has signed up. They point to a series of whale strandings that coincided with naval exercises involving sonar, to support their concern. During the latest, a fortnight ago, a Nato exercise off Morocco was followed by two dead whales being washed ashore on the nearby Canary Islands.
Unlike the UK, the US has staged a number of public hearings over the use of low-frequency sonar and 12 months ago a judge banned the American Navy from testing a similar system to that which the MoD is keen to introduce. The judge concluded that the booming sounds could damage marine life, yet his comments have done little to deter Britain from entering the low-frequency race in which powerful speakers on a metal post are lowered into the sea. An intense burst of noise designed to detect enemy vessels floods the ocean, causing panic among whales, which use similar sonic booms to find food and mating partners.

Despite such concern and the recent defence spending cuts, negotiations for the sonar sets to be fitted to six UK vessels have just begun. The MoD admits that if the technology performs well in secret trials, it will be officially accepted in 18 months.

Seven weeks ago the MoD conducted a covert series of trials of the low-frequency system off Scotland's northwest approaches that are still being analysed. The tests were conducted at 4,500m, in an area where humpback, sperm and minke whales have all been spotted. No one outside those conducting the tests has any idea whether the trials have been harmful.
The disquiet of campaigners is exaggerated by the fact that they have not been invited to a forthcoming government meeting where the effects of noise pollution will be discussed. However, a further series of trials is understood to be planned for later this year off Britain. Experts say that because whales navigate using their ears in the dark, pumping sound is akin to shining a bright light directly into a person's eyes, leaving them disorientated and practically blind.
'There is little doubt that these military sonar trials will kill or injure untold numbers of whales and dolphins and other marine life,' said Liz Sandeman, founder of the charity Marine Connection. Certainly the evidence suggesting a link continues to mount, despite reassurances from defence experts. Last month a report by the International Whaling Commission indicated that military sonar induced bizarre, self-destructive behaviour in whales. Scientists cited a mass stampede of 200 melon-headed whales into shallow water in Hawaii during a US training exercise. Delivering its verdict on the US Navy's mid-frequency sonar, which is less powerful than that planned by the MoD, the report says that the evidence of suffering to whales 'appears overwhelming'.

Their verdict followed a report that challenged the notion that whales cannot suffer from the bends. In some beached whales, gas cavities had formed in their livers to the extent the organs, when dissected, resembled aerated chocolate.

Others warn that the sonar could block out the ocean's natural noises: whales need to listen to the quiet swish of a school of fish and may go hungry or stop using their own sonar, which prevents them finding food. Defence chiefs, however, insist that the new technology will enhance the ability of British vessels to detect, classify and track enemy submarines that 'remain one of the main threats to our maritime forces in times of conflict'.

The MoD insists all trials are environmentally sound and in accordance with industry practice. Military experts say the technology represents the changing face of warfare. Cold war technology relied on passive sonar, which only listened out for enemy vessels. As modern subs have become increasingly quiet, active systems that emit sounds millions of times more powerful are deemed necessary.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1278583,00.html