Quick OverviewIt's getting quite difficult to introduce this increasingly complex topic at a scale that is genuinely "quick," but we'll give it our best shot! Two Different Systems There are two active sonar systems deployed by Navies around the world. The Mid-Frequency Active Sonar, introduced in the late 1980's, has been fairly widely deployed for over a decade, and has been implicated in several mass strandings of beaked whales and other speces. The newer Low-Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS) is operational on two US ships and one British ship, so far. The use of mid-frequency sonars on over 150 NATO and US ships is considered crucial by military planners, as they can detect "quiet" submarines and be used to protect important shipping lanes. Quiet deisel subs have been deployed by Iran (3), Russia (18), North Korea (25) and China (58). Both systems project high-intensity sound into the ocean, and listen for echoes returning from targets. Source levels of both systems are 235dB (roughly equivalent to 170dB in air; sound measurement in water results in higher dB ratings). The low-frequency system is designed to be able to provide useful detection over long distances (hundreds of kilometers), since low-frequency sound travels well in water, while the mid-frequency system is effective over a range of a few tens of kilometers. Strandings The mid-frequency system seems to have caused strandings in specific bathymetric (sea floor profile) conditions, which are not yet completely understood. The most common stranding victims are beaked whales, from several deep-diving species rarely seen near shore. Some recent research suggests that their complex dive patterns could be changed in response to sonar signals (either by surfacing more quickly than usual, disrupting a series of near-surface dives between deep dives, or triggering an extended fleeing response).
A Cuvier's beaked whale breaches off the coast of Italy. Mass stranding and mortality events coincident with mid-frequency sonar training exercises (NATO and US) have occurred (though not always with clear causal proof) in the Canary Islands (2004, 2002, 1989, 1986, 1985); Madeira (2000); Spain (2006); the U.S. Virgin Islands (1999, 1998); and in Greece (1996). One of the best documented incidents occurred in the Bahamas in 2000 when 16 whales of three species stranded along 150 miles of shoreline during a Navy exercise; some researchers suggest that the entire local population of beaked whales may have been at least temporarily decimated, as few animals were seen in the next couple of years. The U.S. Navy later acknowledged in an official report that its use of sonar was the likely cause of the stranding; they stressed, however, what they saw as a unique confluece of bathymetric conditions (deep near-shore canyons, with shorelines limiting escape routes), along with multiple ships using sonar for several hours, that led to the strandings. It is quite possible, though uncertain (since the location of the whales when exposed is unknown) that the whales were exposed to sounds much lower than accepted safety levels of 180-210db; this would be consistent with various theories that suspect that changes in behavior trigger the injuries that have been observed, rather than intense sound exposure causing direct injury. A common set of physical injuries has been observed in many of these strandings, involving tissue lesions caused by expanding nitrogen bubbles. This is similiar to "the bends" in humans, and these injuries, known as "gas and fat embolic syndrome" is considered the one clear "smoking gun" of sonar-induced injuries. Most theories now focus on changes in dive patterns causing these injuries, though some research continues to explore whether direct exposure to sound waves could be involved. When these injuries are NOT present, the tendency of government agencies is to consider the cause of the stranding to be inconclusive. The possibility remains that there are other physiological injuries or behavioral responses triggered by sonar that are, as yet, unknown. So far, with limited deployment, no strandings have been associated with Low-frequency active sonar systems. Over the past decade, roughly 60 fatalities have occurred in strandings that seem to have been associated with mid-frequency active sonar exposure. While others may have been injured and died at sea, it should be noted that 36,000 cetaceans have stranded in the US over the same period, and that up to 300 ships worldwide using mid-frequency sonar account for hundreds to thousands of periods of sonar use per year, in both training exercises and routine operations. Still, evidence of changes in behavior bear close scrutiny, and calls for using the best possible monitoring for whales; reducing the intensity or suspending exercises when visibility is low are among the additional safety measures favored by environmental advocates and at times imposed by the courts. Lawsuits In 2003, the US Navy and the NRDC settled a lawsuit challenging EIS governing the global deployment of LFAS; both parties agreed to limit ongoing training missions to a region of the West Pacific which is relatively free of cetacean populations and of is of great strategic importance to the Navy. In July 2007, after preparing a revised Environmental Impact Statement, the Navy received permits to move forward with LFAS deployment worldwide. Two ships are active as of late 2007, with plans for two more by 2011; both LFAS ships are still deployed in the western Pacific, monitoring Chinese and Korean submarine activity. In early 2008, NRDC again challenged the new EIS; the judge who will hear the case ordered the Navy to avoid several key biologically-rich areas worldwide, most of which are not likely to be near LFAS deployment anyway. Meanwhile, in October 2005, a year after submitting a letter formally asking for negotiations, NRDC and several allies filed a suit in US District Court, challenging the current operational procedures for mid-frequency sonar. The suit raises a few related issues including establishing adequate compliance for mid-frequency sonar under NEPA, ESA, and the MMPA, since it is apparent that there are "takes" occurring, as well as pressing the Navy to adopt additional mitigation and safety measures, such as avoiding sonar use in areas likely to be beaked whale habitat. [SEE INITIAL PRESS RELEASE ON SUIT] During 2006 and 2007, the Navy and the NRDC wrangled in court over the Navy's motion to dismiss (based on the plaintiffs not having details about when and where supposed violations took place), and the NRDC's request for records necessary for addressing the substance of the case. By the end of 2007, a court-mediated compromise led to the release of some Navy records, which clears the way for consideration of the Navy's motion to dismiss, likely to take place in early 2008. If the Navy's motion is denied, then the case will continue to work its leisurely way through the halls of justice. Perhaps partly in response the threat of litigation, in late 2005, the Navy announced its intent to begin NEPA analysis of sonar trainings worldwide. The two lead projects are an Environmental Impact Statement to analyze regions off the US east coast and in the Gulf of Mexico where the Navy has long conducted sonar training; a similar process for the Navy's training range off Hawaii is currently the lead program, with a final EIS is expected by late spring 2008, with goal of having a record of decision in place in time for the summer 2008 RIMPAC exercises. [MAP OF HAWAII RANGES(pdf)] Other training ranges are also queued for EIS development during 2008 and 2009. (Scroll down for links to EISs in process) In January 2007, the Pentagon granted the Navy a 2-year exemption to the Marine Mammal Protection Act; the exemption is aimed to give the Navy time to prepare necessary EIS's and avoid suspension of exercises due to lawsuits. In the interim, the Navy is working closely with NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) to obtain permits and agree on mitigation measures to govern the exercises. However, provisions of NEPA requiring environmental analysis remain in force, and have continued to provide the basis for court challenges (NEPA does not have the built-in exemption options that were activated regarding the MMPA). The Navy has established a set of operational and mitigation measures that NMFS has considered sufficient for issuing necessary permits; legal challenges to these permits and the sonar trainings are generally asking for more stringent protection measures, including larger bugger zones and reducing the volume or shutting down sonar systems in more situations. Other lawsuits have been filed by the same plaintiffs to challenge mid-frequency sonar training protocols at the RIMPAC exercises in Hawaii in 2006, and along the southern California coast in 2007. The results of the Hawaii suit are somewhat obscured by the spin from each side; NRDC took some credit for several modest but useful new safety measures, while the Navy says that they simply made formal commitments to operational standards already in place but not required by the permits issued by NOAA Fisheries, with the only concession being one additional marine mammal observer on each ship. The California case is ongoing, with the court mandating additional safety measures in January 2008, upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and currently awaiting a promised hearing at the Supreme Court during its fall 2008 term. As of early 2008, two large-scale court cases are still in process: the 2008 challenge to the LFAS EIS, and the 2005 challenge regarding Mid-frequency sonar compliance issues. Site-specific rulings adding extra safety measures have been issued by a District Court in Hawaii and an Appeals Court in California. Meanwhile, the Navy's EISs will begin rolling out during 2008; the Navy is clearly hoping that these EISs will provide a legally-defensible scientific basis for its current safety measures. Ed. note: It is becoming apparent that the Navy feels strongly that it is doing enough to protect whales, and considers some of the judicial decisions to have been lacking scientific merit or have prohibited aspects of training it considers imperative. What may be overlooked by the Navy and the media, is that this and other related rulings are looking at evidence of behavioral impacts that occur at lower sound levels which can still lead to physical injury--some of the court-ordered additional safety measures are apparently aimed at minimizing possible injury or avoidance at longer ranges than the Navy considers necessary. Also, these rulings have been spurred by the Navy's earlier decisions to not conduct full NEPA-required environmental assessments. The Navy is now in the midst of EISs for many naval training ranges, but current activities are not yet in compliance (the MMPA exemption is in place, but most current legal challenges are based on NEPA requirements or other laws). The Congressional Research Service has produced a report, updated periodically, that consists of a briefly annotated timeline of events related to active sonar and marine mammals, including scientific reports, strandings, and legal and regulatory developments. [DOWNLOAD 2007 VERSION(pdf)] [READ 2005 VERSION ONLINE] [ABSTRACT OF 2007 VERSION ONLINE] In response to legal challenges and the increasing controversy over the effects of active sonar transmissions on marine life, the US Navy has begun the process of developing Environmental Impact Statments for each of the Training Ranges where mid-frequency active sonar is used. Most of these sites have been hosting Naval training missions, including mid-frequency active sonar, for many years; however, this round of EIS development will likely set the standards by which MFAS is operated for years to come. The final documents are officially termed an EIS/OEIS (Overseas Environmental Impact Statement). In each case, the process begins with the release of a Notice of Intent to conduct an EIS/OEIS process, followed by a scoping period during which initial comments and concerns are submitted. Around two years later, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS/DOEIS) is released, in which several alternatives are analyzed and a preferred alternative is identified; a 45- or 90-day comment period follows immediately. Another year or more later, the final EIS/OEIS is released, and is the basis on which necessary permits are issued. The Navy works closely with National Marine Fisheries Service scientists and regulators to develop what both agencies consider to be biologically prudent operational and mitigation plans, with final guidelines spelled out in the Incidental Harassment Authorizations issued by NMFS. Below is the list of Ranges where a Notice of Intent to conduct an EIS/OEIS. Scoping has been completed on them all, except the final one in the queue, Gulf of Alaska. The Hawaii Range Complex is leading the way, with a final EIS/OEIS due out in early 2008, in time to govern the biannual RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific) exercises this summer, which were subject to Federal Court scrutiny in 2006. Draft EIS/OEIS are likely for 5 other Ranges in 2008, with 4 more due in 2009. Hawaii Range Complex Southern California Range Complex Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST) Virginia Capes Range Complex Jacksonville Range Complex (JAX Range Complex) Undersea Warfare Training Range (USWTR) Northwest Training Range Complex Marianas Range Complex Navy Cherry Point Range Complex Gulf of Mexico Range Complex (GOMEX) Gulf of Alaska Navy Training Activities Navy Releases First EIS for Sonar Training; Hawaii Range Targeted for Continued Sonar Training, Using Current Safety Procedures - The US Navy has released its first completed Environmental Impact Statement examining active sonar training activities, this one covering training in waters around Hawaii, and proposing to continue current Navy operating procedures, rather than adopting more stringent safety measures. Eleven other regional training ranges are receiving similar scrutiny, with draft EISs released for two, and the final decisions planned for all by the end of 2009. After a catastrophic stranding of beaked whales in the Bahamas in 2000, the Navy began working toward complying with NEPA (which requires analysis of activities that may cause harm to wildlife); after rebuffing discussions with NRDC in 2004 about the effects of mid-frequency sonar (which led to a lawsuit in 2005, not yet heard in court), the Navy began applying for Incidental Harassment permits in 2006, and began the EIS process for all of its training ranges in 2007, receiving a 2-year presidential exemption from NEPA to allow them to complete the EISs without being subject to lawsuits in the meantime. The Hawaii EIS is consistent with the other DEISs already released, proposing to continue sonar training at levels similar to current activity, with safety procedures similar to those the Navy has been using in recent years. The Navy is hoping that its detailed analysis of the effects of sonar on marine creatures will provide a legally defensible foundation for their safety measures, which include shutting down the system when whales are within 200 meters. Environmental advocates, and the states of Hawaii and California, have pushed for much larger safety zones and setting specific biologically-rich areas off-limits to sonar use; two Federal District court rulings have ruled against the Navy, and we can expect that the final EISs will face challenges as well. With some of the procedural challenges now off the table (earlier challenges focused on lack of NEPA and MMPA compliance, and the related lack of legal/scientific justification for the Navy's current safety measures), it will be interesting to see how far the courts decide to wade into the more strictly scientific arguments about the validity of the Navy's analysis of current data and of the risk to wildlife. Sources: Honolulu Advertiser, 6/27/08 [READ ARTICLE] Hawaii Reporter, 6/26/08 [READ ARTICLE] AP, 6/26/08 [READ ARTICLE] Supreme Court to Hear Sonar Appeal in Fall Term - The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Navy's appeal of California court rulings that have imposed additional safety measures on Navy sonar training. At issue is whether the judge – and a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the judge's ruling – overstepped their authority by enforcing environmental regulations at the expense of national defense training in wartime. US environmental regulations are "not a suicide pact," the Bush administration argued in its brief urging the high court to take up the case. The Navy has insisted that its own mitigation measures are sufficient, and in the California training planning, rejected additional safety measures requested by the California Coastal Commission; up til now, the Navy has not conducted full NEPA-compliance (Environmental Impact Statements), though this process has begun and will govern future training. Still, the current court case rides on the lack of formal NEPA and Endangered Species Act compliance, as the Navy received exemptions from both in the name of national security (the lower courts rejected one of these exemptions, a decision also at issue with the Supreme Court). "The district court determined, after an exhaustive review of thousands of pages of evidence, that there was a 'near certainty' that the [training] exercises would cause widespread, irreparable harm to the environment and that the Navy's planned mitigation was 'woefully inadequate,' " wrote Los Angeles lawyer Richard Kendall in his brief on behalf of the NRDC. The judge further found, Mr. Kendall wrote, that the (court-ordered measures) would be a minimal imposition on the Navy's planned training. The justices themselves will not resolve the debate over the extent of the harm. Rather, as presented to the Supreme Court, the case is a dispute over the limits of executive branch authority and the extent to which the courts should defer to military judgments. Sources: Christian Science Monitor, 6/24/08 [READ ARTICLE] LA Times, 6/24/08 [READ ARTICLE] New York Times, 6/24/08 [READ ARTICLE] Reuters, 6/24/05 [READ ARTICLE] Biannual Sonar Training In Hawaii Gears Up, State Imposes New Directives - The biannual Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) naval exercise involving ships and 20,000 troops from ten countries is scheduled for June 29 to July 31. The public comment period on the proposed NOAA permits for the exercises closed June 23. As that period closed, however, the Hawaiian state Office of Planning has announced new directives meant to assure that sonar signals reaching the shore are less than 145dB, which would likely impose an effective 25-mile exclusion zone around the islands. The state also said that it expects the RIMPAC operations to adopt all the additional mitigation measures imposed by Federal District Court Judge David Ezra in his February ruling, which applied only to 12 smaller training exercises. The Navy has responded that it does not feel that Hawaii has legal standing to impose its own rules, but that it is willing to discuss the matter with the state; a similar move by the California Coastal Commission led to a series of legal actions that now await Supreme Court review. Source: Maui News, 6/22/08 [READ ARTICLE] AP, 6/25/08 [READ ARTICLE] US Navy Continues Campaign to Calm Sonar Fears, Resist New Restrictions; Scientists Question Navy's "Absolute" Threshold of Proof of Harm - The US Navy continued its increasingly adamant defense of its mid-frequency sonar training program this week, with the US Pacific Fleet Commander telling reporters that court-ordered restrictions are making it more difficult to train. Admiral Robert Willard said that one of his strike groups showed “adequate, although degraded” anti-submarine warfare proficiency during recent exercises off California. The fleet certified the group anyway, but noted the ships altered standard techniques and procedures to comply with court rulings. Willard said sailors were learning artificial tactics they wouldn't use in the real world. “Translate that into the Western Pacific or into the Middle East, where quiet diesel-powered submarines exist in large numbers, and we're potentially in trouble,” Willard said. Meanwhile, during a field trip to a Navy destroyer off the coast of Virginia, Jene Nissen, the Navy's environmental acoustics manager, said the Navy was working hard to align their practices with what scientists say is necessary, stressing the lack of any strandings "linked scientifically" to Navy activities during 40 years of presence on the east coast. Some of the scientists on board as experts for the press questioned the Navy's absolute assurance, noting several incidents in which mid-frequency sonar is suspected of causing strandings or agitated reaction among whales, though absolute proof was not found. Nina Young of the Ocean Leadership Consortium (a program that coordinates several agency ocean programs) said the Navy uses uncertain cause of death rulings to downplay possible links between sonar and mammals. "It's unfortunate that the threshold for the Navy seems so absolute, and the burden of proof so high, that it undermines efforts to engage in a productive discussion, she said. Andrew Wright, a marine mammal scientist who has worked for the Marine Mammal Commission and NOAA, said definitive proof of sonar's effect on whales didn't exist until recently. "We've only really known about the problem since 2000, 2002. We don't have long-term information, even on humans," Wright said later. "There's so much uncertainty around this, and it all depends on where you place the burden of proof." Sources: The Virginian-Pilot, 6/16/08 [READ ARTICLE] San Diego Union-Tribune, 6/10/08 [READ ARTICLE] Rash of UK Strandings of Deep-diving Whales Raise Questions - Since the beginning of this year, beaked whales and pilot whales have been showing up on Scottish and Irish beaches in unprecedented numbers. There are still (as of late April) no solid indications that active sonar is a factor, but the preponderance of deep-diving whales is raising questions. At least 17 bodies have been found in Ireland, and 24 in Scotland. "In the majority of cases, the animals died at sea and washed ashore in an advanced state of decomposition, which raises the question of how many others stranded in inaccessible locations or did not wash ashore at all," said Mick O'Connell of the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group. Most have been found on commonly-visited beaches, so are unlikely to have been on shore for long without being seen. In early February, several strandings took place in northern Scotland; these strandings were the first to became public, in early April, along with speculation that they may have died at seas as much as two weeks prior to coming ashore. In response to questions since then, the UK Navy has said that no vessels were in that area using sonar at time of the February strandings; it is unclear how specific they have been about the timeline in the week or two preceding the strandings, or whether they have addressed earlier or later periods, during which other Irish and Scottish strandings have occurred. While the decomposed bodies cannot provide clear indications of the cause of death, a few of the victims have been fresh; it is unclear whether tissue samples have been taken of any of the bodies. Almost all discoveries have been of a single animal. Both beaked and pilot whales are deep-diving species; beaked whales strandings have been associated with sonar-related injuries in some cases, while pilot whales are found stranded fairly commonly, often in groups. Meanwhile, a routine training exercise is about to begin off the Scottish coast, involving 36 warships and about 70 aircraft from the UK and 16 NATO countries. Sources: Irish Independent, 4/20/08 [READ ARTICLE] BBC, 4/18/08 [READ ARTICLE] Independent, 4/7/08 [READ ARTICLE] Navy Looks to Supreme Court for Sonar Relief - The US Navy has, as widely expected, asked the Supreme Court to review a decision by a Federal Appeals Court that upheld a lower court ruling imposing a larger buffer zone and other additional operational restrictions on its sonar training in southern California. The Justice Department petition argues that the restrictions jeopardize the Navy's ability to train sailors and Marines for service in wartime, and could possibly prevent certification of some naval strike groups preparing to deploy to the Persian Gulf. The agency also contends that national security interests can trump those of marine mammals, and that its use of mid-frequency sonar in training exercises hasn't caused any documented harm to dolphins or beaked whales in the waters where they're conducted. "We believe that this is an issue that is absolutely essential to national security and that a Supreme Court review of this case is warranted," said Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a Navy spokesman. The Navy specifically addressed two key restrictions: "The 2200 yard shutdown zone has a radius eleven times greater than the existing zone developed in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, effectively imposing a 4.9-square mile shutdown zone around each of our ships. The requirement to reduce sonar power during significant surface ducting conditions would prevent our ships from detecting submarines in the very conditions in which submarines seek to hide, even when marine mammals are nowhere in sight." The NRDC, which is lead plaintiff in the legal challenges to the Navy's procedures, noted that the lower courts had concluded that hundreds of beaked whales would be exposed to sonar signals, and expressed confidence that the legal foundation of the rulings would stand. "We expected the Navy to seek review in the Supreme Court but we'd be surprised if the court agrees to take the case," said NRDC lawyer Cara Horowitz. NRDC feels that the lower court ruling are "fact-based" rather than interpreting legal precedent, making Supreme Court review unlikely; the Navy legal team may see it differently, as they feel the lower courts have misintrerpreted aspects of the impact analysis. Still, the dispute is over science and operational procedures more than legal issues; whether the Supremes will choose to wade into such difficult waters remains to be seen. Sources: AP, 3/31/08 [READ ARTICLE] Navy News Service, 4/1/08 [READ ARTICLE] The Jurist, 4/4/08 [READ ARTICLE] City on a Hill Press, 4/10/08 [READ ARTICLE] Navy Releases Southern California Sonar Draft EIS, Proposals Fall Short of Court Orders - The Navy has released its long-planned Draft Environmental Impact Statement on offshore training exercises in Southern California, including the use of mid-frequency active sonar. Recent legal challenges to the Navy training, in which a circuit court judge imposed additional restrictions on use and an appeals court upheld the ruling, have been based on both the Navy's previous lack of comprehensive environmental analysis, and on the standing of the California Coastal Commission to impose its own restrictions beyond those imposed by the federal National Marine Fisheries Service. The DEIS continues to make the case that the Navy's existing operational procedures, developed in consort with NMFS, provide adequate protection to marine life; California state officials and laywers told the press that they are likely to challenge the final EIS if additional safety measures are not added. One such court-ordered restriction, a 12-mile coastal buffer zone free of sonar, was addressed by Capt. Neil May of the Navy's 3rd Fleet in San Diego, who said the coastal buffer would block ships from using sonar when helping the Marine Corps practice landings on the beaches of Camp Pendleton. To make such exercises more realistic, he said, the Navy would like submarines to try to sneak up on the expeditionary strike groups. "We will push back on anything that inhibits realistic training or strays from science," May said. Comments on the DEIs will be accepted through May 19. This is one of several regional EISs that the Navy is aiming to complete during 2008 and 2009. Sources: LATimes, 4/4/08 [READ ARTICLE] [NAVY SOCAL RANGE COMPLEX WEBSITE] Marianas Islands Touted as Key Sonar Training Area - Citing the need to protect global trade that travels predominantly by ship, Ed Lynch of the US Navy Pacific Fleet told the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council that sonar training taking place in the waters of the Marianas Islands is crucial to global security. The mix of deep and shallow waters provides the necessary mix, and the relative lack of whales is also a plus. The Western Pacific is home to both of the Navy's two ships outfitted with low-frequency active sonar, and an EIS currently in process will govern mid-frequency active sonar. The local government, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, has been attempting to establish its ownership of a 200-mile exclusive economic zone around the islands; US federal courts have rejected the claims, saying that CNMI surrendered these rights when it became a commonwealth of the US. Source: Marianas Variety, 3/23/08 [READ ARTICLE] [MARIANAS SONAR EIS WEBSITE] California Appeals Court Hands Navy Sonar Setback; Supreme Court May be Next - The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday night rejected the Navy's appeal of restrictions that banned high-powered sonar within 12 nautical miles of the coast and set other limits that could affect Navy training exercises to begin this month. One of the key measures upheld by the court was the maintainance of a 2200-yard safety zone, with sonar being shut down if a whale enters that radius; the Navy called for a 200-yard shut-down zone, with power-reductions starting only when a whale came within 1000 yards. Navy commanders suggest the expanded radius will cause disruptions to training, necessitating shut downs five times as often. The appeals court closely analyzed Navy documents, and suggested that marine mammal monitoring information from the six exercises (out of 14 weeklong missions currently planned) indicate that the 2200-yard safety zone would have only led to 21 extra shut-down in total, or two to three per week of training. They also noted that the Australian Navy maintains a 4400-yard safety zone. The Navy received a key concession from the court, however: for planned training sessions beginning this week, and another set of missions later in the month, the Navy can maintain sonar transmissions if a whale enters the 2200-yard zone during a "critical point" in the training. This temporary stay on the new rules is meant to give the Navy time to take its case to the Supreme Court before subsequent trainings. While the Navy maintains that restrictions beyond its own safety measures--including reducing sonar sound levels and prohibiting transmissions in certain ocean conditions that may increase impacts on marine mammals--will hamper their ability to certify crews for overseas deployment, the appeals panel said it reviewed "with the utmost care" the Navy's classified affidavits on such issues and concluded that the proposed additional measures "will not likely compromise the Navy's ability to effectively train and certify its West Coast strike groups." Sources: LA Times, 3/2/08 [READ ARTICLE] San Francisco Chronicle, 3/2/08 [READ ARTICLE] Navy News Service, 3/3/08 [READ ARTICLE]
"The U.S. Navy has trained in Southern California for the past 40 years and they have had zero incidents with marine mammals - no strandings, no deaths, and no documented injuries," said Rear Adm. Larry Rice, director of the Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Readiness Division. "We want to keep that up," added Rice. "In order to accomplish this, we have 29 protective measures that we already employ. The additional training restrictions that the court levied on us frankly don't help us take care of the environment--and it restricts our training." Peter Douglas, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, commented, "I don't know what it's going to take for the Navy to get it. The courts have said over and over that the Navy must follow the law." The Navy has appealed Cooper's ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which resisted ruling on the validity of the exemptions in January, sending the case back to Cooper instead. Sources: Los Angeles Times, 2/5/08 [READ ARTICLE] Environmental News Service, 2/4/08 [READ ARTICLE] Navy News, 2/4/08 (announcing new sonar website) [READ ARTICLE] [NAVY SONAR WEBSITE] Dolpin Strands on Navy Island at End of Recent Sonar Exercises - A single deep-water Northern right whale dolphin was found live-beached on San Nicolas Island on January 29, during a heavily scrutinized Naval training exercise. Navy personnel returned it to the water several times, but it did not survive. Curators at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History worked all night to perform a necropsy because clues are lost to rapid decomposition. The head was removed and refrigerated, then taken to the nearby Alamo Pintado Equine Medical Center for magnetic resonance imaging. “At this point, we cannot rule in or rule out sonar or any other kind of intense noise,” said Teri Rowles, a veterinarian with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and head of the nation’s Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program. Rowles said the initial review confirmed increased fluid in the ears. "That could be blood; it could be infection or parasites -- those are the three more common causes of fluid in the ears," she said. Or it could be trauma related to sonar, though Rowles cautioned against jumping to conclusions until more detailed studies are completed. "The lesions that we have seen to date are consistent to what has been found in whales in the Canary Islands and the Bahamas," Rowles said. More conclusive results will not come until pathologists can complete microscopic examination of the brain, the ears, and other tissues to look for gas or fat bubbles and related hemorrhaging. Such injury has been termed "gas and fat embolic syndrome," and is considered nearly synonymous with sonar exposure injuries, though it is not entirely clear whether the sound, or a behavioral reaction such as changed dive patterns, causes the damage. The microscopic analysis of most tissues should take about a month, Rowles said. It could take as long as a year to examine the ears because the bones must be slowly dissolved in fluid to reveal soft tissues inside. Previous sonar-induced strandings have involved multiple animals; northern right whale dolphins live in groups of 100-1000 animals, making this single stranding somewhat unusual. A Navy spokesman said that the nearest ship using mid-frequency active sonar was 62 miles away the previous day, and was not part of the exercise. Source: LA Times, 2/22/08 [READ ARTICLE] Hawaii Court Adds Restrictions to Navy Sonar Training - A Federal District Court in Hawaii has issued a preliminary injunction forcing the Navy to use additional safety measures during routine mid-frequency sonar training in Hawaii waters; Judge David Ezra will hold another hearing in April to consider long-term measures. The restrictions are slightly less strict than those imposed by a different District Court in California: Ezra increased the safety zone in which sonar must be powered down by 6db, from the Navy's 1000m to 1500m, and sonar must be shut down if a whale is within 500, rather than 200m as they Navy planned. Other court-ordered measures include staying 12 miles offshore, and prohibiting sonar use with multiple ships in areas with rapid changes in depth and narrow channels (the Navy now generally avoids such areas, but has in the past stressed the need to use some particular areas in Hawaii for such training, after being sure whales are not present). U.S. Pacific Fleet said in a statement that the restrictions "could seriously impact our ability to train effectively." Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff said he'll be seeking a permanent injunction. The order issued by Ezra will "have influence on the way in which they (the Navy) do any exercises from now on in Hawai'i," he added. It is unclear how this ruling will factor into the Navy's forthcoming first-ever Hawaii Training Range EIS, to be released this spring and meant to govern all sonar training in the area. Ezra's order seems to be trying to protect whales from exposures on the edge of the Navy's safety threshold of 173dB (which he suggested should be lower), by expanding the safety zone and ordering power to be reduced in more circumstances. His approach to balancing training needs and environmental concerns was somewhat more flexible than provisions imposed by other courts, including a graduated decrease of sonar power when 1, 2, or 3 specified environmental conditions are present. Still, some of those conditions (including surface ducts and choke points) are considered important to the Navy for some training sessions. Sources: Honolulu Advertiser, 3/1/08 [READ ARTICLE] Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 3/1/08 [READ ARTICLE] KITV, 3/1/08 [READ ARTICLE, SEE VIDEO] Dolphin Strands on Navy Island at End of Recent Sonar Exercises - A single deep-water Northern right whale dolphin was found live-beached on San Nicolas Island on January 29, during a heavily scrutinized Naval training exercise. Navy personnel returned it to the water several times, but it did not survive. Curators at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History worked all night to perform a necropsy because clues are lost to rapid decomposition. The head was removed and refrigerated, then taken to the nearby Alamo Pintado Equine Medical Center for magnetic resonance imaging. “At this point, we cannot rule in or rule out sonar or any other kind of intense noise,” said Teri Rowles, a veterinarian with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and head of the nation’s Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program. Rowles said the initial review confirmed increased fluid in the ears. "That could be blood; it could be infection or parasites -- those are the three more common causes of fluid in the ears," she said. Or it could be trauma related to sonar, though Rowles cautioned against jumping to conclusions until more detailed studies are completed. "The lesions that we have seen to date are consistent to what has been found in whales in the Canary Islands and the Bahamas," Rowles said. More conclusive results will not come until pathologists can complete microscopic examination of the brain, the ears, and other tissues to look for gas or fat bubbles and related hemorrhaging. Such injury has been termed "gas and fat embolic syndrome," and is considered nearly synonymous with sonar exposure injuries, though it is not entirely clear whether the sound, or a behavioral reaction such as changed dive patterns, causes the damage. The microscopic analysis of most tissues should take about a month, Rowles said. It could take as long as a year to examine the ears because the bones must be slowly dissolved in fluid to reveal soft tissues inside. Previous sonar-induced strandings have involved multiple animals; northern right whale dolphins live in groups of 100-1000 animals, making this single stranding somewhat unusual. A Navy spokesman said that the nearest ship using mid-frequency active sonar was 62 miles away the previous day, and was not part of the exercise. Source: LA Times, 2/22/08 [READ ARTICLE] Navy Hosts Acoustic Research Conference in Hawaii - One hundred Navy-funded scientists, fleet operators, and environmental staff attended a two-day conference in Hawaii in early February. The gathering, hosted by OPNAV N45, the Navy's environmental readiness command, ended with agreement to hold future gatherings to discuss issues ranging from the direction of future research to procedural improvements. While great progress has been made in recent years, many of the speakers noted that much remains to be learned about how sound behaves underwater and how it affects marine mammals. For example, Dr. Jim Finneran of the Navy Marine Mammal Program said hearing thresholds have been determined for 25 species of marine mammals through painstaking research. Hearing thresholds for the more than 100 other marine mammal species, including all of the large, baleen whales, have not yet been determined. The Navy spends $18 million per year on marine mammal research. "With a strong scientific foundation, we hope to be able to continue the sonar training that's so vital to protecting our Sailors at sea and become even better at preventing harm to marine mammals," said Adm. Robert Willard. "We're not sure some of the environmental organizations share our concern about understanding the science," he added. Source: Hawaii Reporter, 2/12/08 [READ ARTICLE] Note: Three distinct storylines played out during 2006-7;
Operational DetailsHow SURTASS LFA Sonar WorksLow frequency sonars are used by the military for long-range (in the order of a few hundred kilometres) surveillance. The US Navy has developed the SURTASS-LFA (Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System – Low Frequency Active) system that uses a vertical array of 18 projectors using the 100-500 Hz frequency range (some sources suggest lower frequency, down to 30Hz). The source level of each projector is approximately 215 dB re 1 mPa @ 1m; the transmissions are focused together into a horizontally focused beam with a combined intensity of 245dB or more. The typical SURTASS-LFA Sonar signal is not a constant tone, but rather a transmission of various signal types that vary in frequency and duration (including continuous wave (CW) and frequency-modulated (FM) signals). A complete sequence of sound transmissions is referred to as a pulse, or ping, and typically last for 6 to 100 seconds. The time between pings is typically from 6 to 15 minutes and the average duty cycle (ratio of sound "on" time to total time) can be controlled but, due to the design limit of the transducers, cannot be greater than 20 percent. The typical duty cycle is 10 to 15 percent. With two vessels, there would normally be 6 SURTASS LFA sonar missions per active vessel (or equivalent shorter missions totaling no more than 432 hours of transmission/vessel/ year. {ed note: this amounts to 36 hours per month for each vessel} There are currently 2 vessels outfitted with LFAS sonar, with the Navy anticipating adding a 3rd vessel in 2010 and a 4th in 2011. One of the current vessels, the R/V Cory Chouest is being retired at the end of 2008, and the Navy anticipates that its LFAS system, and those added in 2010 and 2011, will be the newer Compact Low Freqency Active sonar (CLFA), which has similar operational parameters. (from the NMFS final rule, August 2007) 2007 Final Rule [DOWNLOAD PDF] The Navy considers this system essential to detection of new "quiet" deisel-electric subs that are not audible to existing sensitive listening systems. Critics contend that other less invasive technologies are available (see [THIS SUMMARY]). The Navy originally planned to deploy one ship in the Pacific and one in the Atlantic/Mediterranean/Persian Gulf region; due to the legal challenge and settlement, both ships were deployed in the western Pacific through the expiration of the original 5 year permit, August 2007. With NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) release of a new 5-year rule governing LFAS deployment, from 2007 to 2012, the Navy is now authorized to deply the system on oceans worldwide. NOTE: European development of LFAS - While the US Navy's deployment of the LFAS system has been relatively closely monitored, thanks to US freedom of information and public comment procedures, other NATO countries, including France, The Netherlands, England, and Germany, are developing low frequency sonar systems with far less public scrutiny. New: Airborne Low Frequency Sonar - The US Navy is preparing to deploy a low-frequency active sonar from helicopters. Initial reports do not include operational details (precise frequencies, source levels, range of significant impact).
AN/AQS-22 Airborne Low-Frequency Sonar (ALFS) deployed from a How Mid-frequency Active Sonar WorksMilitary mid frequency sonars operate at frequencies of 2-10kHz and are used to find and track underwater targets in areas tens of kilometres in radius. A hull-mounted system (AN/SQS-53C) sonar system, housed in a bulbous dome mounted on the hull of a ship, uses pulses centered at 2.6-3.3 kHz (and ranging from 1-5 kHz), with source levels of 235 dB re 1 mPa @ 1m with ping lengths of about 1-3 sec. The transmissions are directed slightly below horizontal, and can track surface ships as well as submarines. A similar system (AN/SQS-56) operates at slightly higher frequencies, centered on 6.8-8.2kHz, but with lower source levels (223 dB re 1 mPa @ 1m). A very similar mid-frequency sonar is used by many navies of the world, including the Spanish navy during the Canary Islands event in 2002. These systems were formerly used for antisubmarine work in open water, but are now most often used in coastal areas, submarine canyons or other choke points where quiet diesel-electric submarines may hide within acoustic clutter. As of early 2007, the US Navy had 117 MFA sonars in operation, with about 180 similar systems deployed by other Navies. In summer 2007, the Navy received permits allowing it to deply LFA Sonar worldwide. However, the to US Navy ships outfitted with LFA Sonar remain in the western Pacific, where they can best monitor Chinese and North Korean activity. By some accounts, the Chinese have added 37 quiet diesel-electric subs and two nuclear ballistic-missile subs since 2000, most of which operate in the western Pacific. The British Navy also has at least two ships with LFA systems deployed. Navy anticipates adding a 3rd vessel in 2010 and a 4th in 2011. It is expected that LFAS will be actively transmitting signals for no more than 432 hours/vessel/year. {ed note: this amounts to just under 40 hours per month. per vessel} And, as of 2006, the UK Royal Navy had fitted two frigates with their LFAS system, Sonar 2087, with another 4 vessels planned to be outfitted by 2007 or 2008. One of the frigates already deployed is based off east Africa. Current Deployment of Mid-Frequency Active Sonar
(July 13, 2006) - Peruvian submarines and surface vessels accompany The mid-frequency sonar is deployed on 90-170 of the US Navy's 300 ships, as well as on about 180 ships from many other countries. However, since the Navy has so far not undertaken the level of permitting that has been imposed on the LFAS deployments, details on the global reach and typical duty cycles of Mid-Frequency systems are not available. A Navy sonar newsletter published in late 2003 reports that the Navy has 170 mid-frequency active sonar-equipped ships, with half at sea at any one time, while an older LFAS fact sheet claims that only 90 vessels are outfitted with MFAS. Both sources suggest that use of the sonar is minimal, since broadcasting sonar signals reveals the location of the source ship. (In the LFAS fact sheet the Navy says they are active only 1% of the time, which would amount to about 7 hours a month; this may be a fleet-wide total, though if it is per-ship, it would total about 600 hours per month worldwide, out of roughly 720 hours in each month.) The Navy's Case for Needing MFA Sonar The Navy stresses the need for adequate detection of quiet diesel-electric submarines, which operate in noisy, near-shore areas where passive acoustic detection is difficult, and are in the fleets of over 40 countries. One scenario that the Navy stresses is protection of several narrow "choke points" crucial to international shipping (especially to the global oil trade), including the Strait of Malacca in Malaysia, the Strait of Hormuz, the Bosporus Strait, the Panama Canal, and the Suez Canal. When large Navy vessels such as aircraft carriers enter such restricted areas, and also harbors, MFA sonar is used to assure that the path is clear. While other techniques are used, including watching for periscopes, detecting disturbances in geo-magnetic fields, and watching for phosporescence triggered by subs, the Navy feels that active sonar is the most effective. See Navy newsletter on sonar issues, Watchstander, Issue 1 [DOWNLOAD NEWSLETTER(pdf)] Training Restrictions Sonar training missions take place routinely in Naval ranges worldwide. New Navy recruits must be certified to use the active sonar systems before being deployed. Court-ordered restrictions on training can at times leave crews without the necessary certification (and therefore unable to be deployed, putting service pressures on other crews that have already been at sea and have returned home); this is behind some of the Navy's resistance to certain additional operational restrictions, including shut-downs at 2000m or reduced power in low-visibility conditions (both of which limit time during which training in discriminating targets can take place), and restricted operations near sea-mounts and when surface ducts are present (enemy subs can use these features to hide, so practice in working with them is considered crucial). EIS Process The Navy is currently conducting separate Environmental Impact analyses to address the effects of sonar transmissions at for each range. [SEE DETAILS ABOVE] In October, 2005, the Navy released the first of these plans, in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement covering plans for a 500 square mile Undersea Warfare Training Range (USWTR), primarily for anti-submarine training missions including up to 48 mid-frequency active sonar exercises per year, plus 113 exercises using other, somewhat less intense acoustic sources. Each exercise would last six hours. This may serve to concentrate sonar training, though that is not yet clear. The USWTR is to be sited off the coast of North Carolina, Virginia, or Florida; all three will be evaluated as the EIS process continues. In 2007, the Navy announced plans to prepare a Supplemental DEIS for this range, adding a potential site, and incorporating new input from NMFS to improve their estimates of sound exposure of marine mammals. The second range to move into active EIS planning is in Hawaii. A final EIS is expected in early 2008, as the Navy works toward having new regulations in place for their biannual RIMPAC exercises there in the sumer. Other ranges, including ones Southern California, three on the east coast, one for the entire Atlantic Fleet, one in the Gulf of Mexico, one for the Pacific Northwest, and one for the Marianas Islands in the western Pacific, are slated to go through a similar process in 2008 and 2009. What Effects Can High Intensity Sonars Have on Marine Life?Stranding/DeathNecropsies of stranded whales exposed to high-intensity sonars have shown tissue lesions and hemoragging in many organs. The mechanism by which this damage occurs is still not well understood, though there are two leading theories. First is the possibility that the whales are surfacing more rapidly than normal in order to escape the high-intensity sound, and that they are experiencing a form of "the bends," wherin existing high-pressure nitrogen bubbles in their tissues expand as they rise in the water, causing the tissue damage. While scientists had long assumed whales had evolved in ways that made the bends unlikely, recent examination of sperm whale bones [SEE RESEARCH SUMMARY] shows tell-tale signs of tissue damage that indicate that they do, indeed, experience this sort of nitrogen-bubble injury over the course of their lives; likewise, dive patterns that include gradual rising and leveling off in normal conditions shows that whales may not be capable of rapid ascents. Two related theories involve beaked whales' recovery time at the surface, during which they engage in a number of shallow dives; this time may be disrupted by exposure to sonar, either cut short or extended, if the whales react to sonar signals while near the surface. The second possible mechanism for tissue damage is that the high-intensity sound waves may actually trigger existing nitrogen bubbles to expand inside the tissues, even if the whale is not surfacing. This is a still-tenuous line of inquiry, but one recent study [SEE RESEARCH SUMMARY] seemed to show that pressurized tissues can experience this effect. The vast majority of deaths associated with mid-frequency active sonars involved a family of deep-diving cetaceans known as beaked whales. Much research is now focusing on trying to discover why they seem especially sensitive to sonar signals; AEI prepares lay summaries of new field research. We strongly recommend that those interested in understanding the current state of scientific understanding peruse AEI's current research summary page, and all the annual archive pages linked from there. [GO THERE] It is important to note that thousands of cetaceans strand each year. The causes are varied, and can include infections, following prey into dangerous inshore waters, and perhaps shifts in the magnetic field. While there have certainly been some strandings in which exposure to mid-frequency active sonars have been the primary cause, these still amount to a very small percentage of annual cetacean deaths due to interaction with humans. Nevertheless, it is of course crucial for us to come to a better understanding of the ways that loud sonar signals may contribute to strandings, as well as the less severe effects below. Hearing DamageThe possibility of hearing damage caused by exposure to loud sounds is real, yet also hard to assess. Some compromise of the auditory systems is observed in about half dolphins examined after stranding, though the causes of are likely varied, including infection, old age, and possibly over-exposure to noise. Biologists have done extensive laboratory studies in an attempt to determine the sound levels (combination of intensity and duration) that cause temporary and permanent hearing damage. Temporary Threshold Shifts (TTS) vary widely by species, but seem to result from relatively short (on the order of a few minutes to few hours) exposure to sounds in the 150-190dB range. TTS is something that many of us have experienced: after exposure to loud sounds (in the workplace or at a concert), the lowest level of sound that we can hear goes up; that is, faint sounds we can usually hear are inaudible or hard to understand. Permanent Threshold Shifts (PTS, or permanent hearing loss at certain frequencies) are more rare, and tend to be caused by extreme sounds over some extended period (hours at least), though they can be caused by very close exposure to very loud sounds, especially ones that have sudden rise times. In most cases, ocean creatures will swim away from loud sounds in plenty of time to avoid PTS, and often TTS. One little-examined (and therefore still speculative) aspect of the issue is whether the unusual wave forms employed by sonar signals may be more difficult for animals to tolerate. Sonar signals generally have sharp or near-instantaneous "rise times", while most biological and natural sounds (including air bubbles bursting in air guns) have a measurably slower onset of their full intensity; many animals, including humans, are able to partially desensitize their ears to an oncoming loud sound, with a split-second change in muscle tension in the ears, and some observers wonder whether the fast rise times of sonar signals confound this natural safety mechanism. In addition, the unusual (some would say extremely unpleasant) nature of sonar sounds may cause avoidance at lower sound levels than otherwise expected. The possibility that chronic exposure to moderatly elevated sound levels (as caused by shipping, or perhaps regions of concentrated airgun activity) may cause long-term hearing damage is one that has received little study. It is extremely difficult to test wild individuals for hearing sensitivity, and moreover, nearly impossible to test a given individual over time. Masking of CommunicationOf increasing concern among bioacousticians is the likelihood that important biological communication and auditory perception (of mates or of prey) is being "masked" by the rising tide of background noise in the sea. Once again, shipping is the major contributor, with airguns also adding significantly in some areas; it is unlikely that sonar exercises contribute much, except in a temporary way, though the establishment of the Undersea Warfare Test Range may be an exception to this. As the overall background ambient noise levels increase, then very faint sounds become inaudible or hard to understand; Chris Clark of Cornell has presented some stark diagrams showing how the effective communication range of fin whales may have shrunken dramatically over recent decades. [DOWNLOAD PPT] Whales use distant echoes to navigate, and may also find mates across thousands of miles, so the loss of these faint signals could have dramatic impacts. [SEE AEI NEWS ARCHIVE COVERAGE] Behavioral DisruptionIt is clear that most mobile ocean creatures (including the always well-studied whales, and fish) generally attempt to move away from intrusive human noise sources. These "avoidance behaviors" sometimes occur at very low received levels of sound, not much above ambient background (as low as 120dB in bowhead whales), and nearly always take place as sound levels become intense, around the 160dB range. There are, of course, exceptions: tales of dolphins playing around seismic survey vessels, or of whales staying put in the face of intense sound. There are many possible explanations for these behaviors, including the fact that sound levels tend to be lower near the surface, and the possibility that there are compelling reasons (food or social activities) to keep animals from moving. The fact that animals tend to move away from loud sounds is built into both operational procedures (sonars and airguns routinely "ramp up" their sound levels to give animals a warning, and a chace to move away before the sound reaches dangerous levels), and regulatory permitting (which assumes, without much actual study, that the ramping up does indeed encourage animals to move away). As with much in this field, it is very difficult to assess the impacts of behavioral disruptions. In any one instance, regulators tend to assume that being forced to move away from a loud sound has "negligible" effects for populations or individuals. The effects of repeated or cumulative behavioral disruption is, so far, not given much consideration, partly because it is difficult or impossible to determine all the times that behavioiral disruption may take place. In 2006, the National Academies of Science's Ocean Studies Board released a study that attempted to quantify the cumulative impacts of behavioral disruption, using a rough equivalence model (eg, being disrupted a thousand times may be considered equivalent to causing one death) to determine when cumulative impacts become biologically significant. This approach, while a worthy attempt to grapple with a difficult question, will be hard to prove to the degree that is necessary for pegging regulations to. There is much debate about how loud a sound will be disruptive and/or damaging to whales and other ocean creatures. Since whales sometimes vocalize at levels about 180dB, it has been suggested that any other sound source at this intensity should be no problem (according to the Navy, LFAS signals attenuate to below 180dB outside the proposed "buffer zone" of operation). However, these criteria are largely aimed at preventing only the most dramatic physiological damage, primarily long-term hearing loss. Short-term hearing loss has been measured at a wide range of sound levels, at times at significantly lower received levels (in the 140-160dB range, at frequencies that specific species are most sensitive to), and behavioral disruption (changes in vocalization, surfacing, and swimming patterns) are commonly seen at received levels of 120-140dB, and ocassionally even lower. In general, most marine mammals and fish seem to try to swim away from loud sound sources, so usually avoid serious injury; most regulators and many biologists consider behavioral disruptions to have "negligible" effect on populations, because the disruptions are temporary, transient, and modest in nature. In consultations with the NMFS during since 2006, the Navy has been moving toward the adoption of a "dose-response" approach to assessing the impacts of sound exposure. This approach would address cumulative exposure to sound sources that endure over time. Still, the primary concern is to protect animals from physiological injury. There is also an effort underway to assess the cumulative impacts of repeated modest behavioral disruption, a far more difficult task. Toward this goal, NMFS is developing new Ocean Noise Criteria. See the AE.org Special Report on this process: [GO THERE] A first step toward incorporating this work is emerging in Navy draft EISs governing sonar training, as a "risk response" curve, which attempts to estimate what proportion of a population will show behavioral changes at each sound level (ie at various distances from the sonar source). See also the AEI website section on Ocean Acoustics, which includes a tutorial on sound in the sea (including different ways of measuring sound, which leads to several differnt dB measures for any given sound), and links to outside resources to help make senes of dB in the ocean [GO THERE] European Coalition for Silent Oceans - Spearheaded by the Swiss marine mammal protection group ASMS. Organizing European resistance to LFAS, including working with Green Parties. [WEBSITE] ICES Report on Impact of Sonar on Ceteceans and Fish - From the International Council for Exploration of the Sea; requested by the European Commission, and released in early 2005. Includes detailed case studies of Bahamas and Canaries stranding events, and good summaries of non-auditory physicological damage research (ie bubble formation). [DOWNLOAD REPORT(pdf)] [DOWNLOAD ADVICE PAPER(pdf)] NRDC Sonar Info - Includes timeline of stranding events and links to their online report on ocean noise and a 5-minute film that includes samples of sonar and airgun sounds. [WEBSITE] Ocean Mammal Institute - Works to raise profile of undersea noise in international forums, notably the UN [WEBSITE] The Public Cause Sonar Site - Detailed website maintained by William Wilgus, a former US Navy Anti-Submarine Warfare specialist. Includes many images and details on sonar in general and LFAS and related systems in particular [WEBSITE] PBS Odyessy Voyage - Online article with links to sounds [WEBPAGE] Seaflow - Large focus on underwater sound impacts on cetaceans. [WEBSITE] Silent Oceans - A consortium of European environmental organizations working to limit loud human sounds in the sea [WEBSITE] Stop LFAS website - a vast collection of links, documentations, and rants. Sponsors an active listserve that tracks the most current worldwide information on sonic intrusions in the seas. [WEBSITE] [LISTSERV SIGN-UP] Navy Ocean Stewardship Website - Includes summaries of research undertaken by the Navy, and arguments in favor of the need for active sonar surveillance. [WEBSITE] GlobalSecurity.org Shipboard Combat Systems descriptions - [WEBSITE] Navy LFA Website - official US Navy web pages, including photos and sound files. [WEBSITE] British Navy's LFA Environmental Impact Assessment - The British government is also developing a LFA sonar system, knowns as Sonar 2087. Its EIA, while recommending deployment, also addresses several concerns about the system, including its impact on beaked whales (recommending a 160dB received limit), and the potential effect on fish stocks. It also recommends against using lower power sonar to identify whales in the deployment area, citing the added noise such systems cause. [WEBSITE] [READ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY(PDF)] Canadian Navy LFAS Development Brochure (2002) [DOWNLOAD BROCHURE(pdf)] The Lighter Touch - Three cartoons that illuminate ocean noise issues. Earlier LFAS coverage - From EarthEar's LFAS section (precurser to AcousticEcology.org), covering the period from March 2000 through early 2001. [GO THERE] California Coastal Commission Imposes Extra Safety Measures on Sonar Training - In early 2007, a year-long legal battle was initiated when the California Coastal Commission asserted its authority to move beyond an advisory role, and imposed more stringent safety measures on Navy mid-frequency active sonar training off the Southern California coast. The Navy has trained there for decades, but as part of a new commitment to compliance with environmental regulations, had for the first time applied for NMFS and CCC approval for its proposed operational and mitigation procedures. The following News Digest items follow the progress of the case from January through January 2008; see recent news [ABOVE] for more recent developments. Navy to Revise Atlantic Coast Naval Warfare Training Range DEIS - Two years ago, the Navy published a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Undersea Warfare Training Range (USWTR) being planned, with potential sites off the coasts of North Carolina, Virginia, or Florida. After being flooded with comments from the public, state agencies, and federal agencies, the Navy has decided to revise and reissue the Draft EIS, rather than move forward to a final EIS. A new scoping period for the DEIS is now open, through October 22. The new DEIS will be changed to include a fourth possible site, off Charleston, SC. In addtion, the Navy is working with NOAA Fisheries (formerly NMFS) to develop a better way to analyze the behavioral impacts on marine mammals. NOAA had been unusually direct in its critique of the Navy's previous approach, which was based on a simple maximum sound level criterion; over the past couple of years, a "dose response" approach has been developed, which accounts for the impact of lower sound sources occuring over longer perdiods of time. Further, the Navy's previous reliance on hearing and behavioral tests using captive dolphins will be expanded to include assessment of the responses of wild animals. Sources: PilotOnline, 10/1/07 [READ ARTICLE] Delmar Daily Times, 9/22/07 [READ ARTICLE] Charlotte News-Observer, 9/22/07 [READ ARTICLE] LFAS Poised for More Widespread Deployment - NOAA is preparing to issue permits allowing expanded deployment of Low Frequency Active Sonar by the US Navy. For the past several years, the high-powered sonar, designed to detect "quiet" enemy submarines, has been limited to a small area of the West Pacific, as part of a settlement of a court challenge. Now, having completed a new round of environmental assessment, the Na |
