Now Hear This... Any Navy Vets want to chime in? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

LUVMBDiesels · #1 08-07-2007, 11:00 AM

I like whales as much as anybody else, but this ruling is crazy! It basically establishes a zone by our coast that we cannot patrol. Great place for a North Korean, Chinese, or Iranian sub to hang out!

Judge bans Navy from using sonar off Southern California

Federal jurist backs activists, saying use during training exercises off Southern California could harm whales.
By Kenneth R. Weiss, Times Staff Writer
August 7, 2007

So long, sonar

click to enlarge

A federal judge in Los Angeles banned the U.S. Navy from using high-powered sonar in nearly a dozen upcoming training exercises off Southern California, ruling Monday that it could "cause irreparable harm to the environment."

U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper issued the preliminary injunction after rejecting the Navy's request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The lawsuit, along with a similar one filed by the California Coastal Commission, argues for broader safeguards to protect marine mammals from powerful blasts of mid-frequency active sonar that have been linked elsewhere to panicked behavior and mass die-offs of whales.

The Navy, which plans to appeal the decision, said even a temporary ban would disrupt crucial training of sailors before they are sent overseas. The Navy uses the sonar to detect potentially hostile vessels, including quiet diesel submarines, which one captain called "the most lethal enemy known" on the high seas.

"It's akin to sending a hunter into the woods after one of the most lethal preys known, but sending him in partly deaf and blind," said Navy Capt. Neil May, assistant chief of staff for 3rd Fleet training and readiness.

Over the last decade, scientists have linked mid-frequency active sonar to a number of mass strandings or panicked behavior of whales after naval exercises in the waters off Greece, Hawaii, the Bahamas and elsewhere.

In a well-documented case near the Canary Islands in 2003, an international team of scientists found that at least 10 beaked whales probably succumbed to the bends after bolting to the surface in a panic.

The dead whales washed ashore after the Spanish navy led international military exercises involving warships from the United States and other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Pathologists found tissue in the whales' internal organs that appeared to have been damaged by compressed gas bubbles bursting inside them.

Navy lawyers argued in court that mid-frequency active sonar is crucial to national security and to keeping sailors safe from attacks by enemy submarines. Unlike passive listening devices that rely on detecting sounds, mid-frequency active sonar emits bursts of sound waves that can reveal even quiet submarines.

"Today, dozens of countries — including North Korea and Iran — have extremely quiet diesel-electric submarines, and more than 180 of them operate in the Pacific," said Vice Adm. Samuel Locklear, commander of the U.S. 3rd Fleet. "Active sonar is the best system we have to detect and track them."

To remove the temporary ban, the Navy will have to take the case to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Navy lawyers plan to move quickly because the next training mission is scheduled to begin in September.

Cooper said it was never easy to balance the interests of wildlife with those of national security. But in this case, she said, environmental lawyers have made a persuasive case that the potential harm to whales and other marine life outweighs any harm to the Navy while the court case proceeds.

The lawsuit, according to environmental lawyers, could be settled quickly if the Navy would agree to more sweeping precautions, such as shutting off or reducing the intensity of the sonar when visibility is too low for spotters stationed on deck to see whales that venture into harm's way.

Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the judge's ruling in no way restricts the Navy's ability to use sonar against real threats or in battle. Instead, he said, the court decision zeroes in on training exercises planned long in advance in waters rich with endangered blue whales, various kinds of dolphins and migrating gray whales.

"Just as the Army has a responsibility not to train soldiers to shoot in the middle of a crowded city street, the Navy has a duty, when it's learning how to hunt with sonar, not to choose a practice range next to a marine sanctuary."

Cooper also ruled against the Navy last year in an earlier case, temporarily blocking the use of active sonar in multinational war games near Hawaii.

Ultimately, her decision forced the Navy to negotiate with environmentalists and establish a buffer zone and other precautionary measures before conducting its monthlong Rim of the Pacific exercises involving 40 surface ships and six submarines from the U.S., Korea, Japan and Australia.

Other federal judges have also shut down or forced the Navy and various marine researchers to negotiate for stronger safeguards. The U.S. Navy has already conducted three of 14 planned training missions scheduled over the next two years in Southern California waters.

Naval attorneys said in court Monday that there was no evidence of strandings, injuries or even behavioral disturbances in marine mammals during those exercises. But the Navy's own environmental assessment, Cooper noted, predicted that the exercises using powerful sonar will harass or disrupt the behavior of marine mammals 170,000 times and will cause hundreds of cases of permanent injury to deep-diving whales.

"The predicted permanent injury of 436 Cuvier's beaked whales is especially significant in light of" federal scientists' "estimate that there are as few as 1,211 such whales remaining off the entire U.S. West Coast," Cooper wrote in a detailed, 19-page tentative ruling.

The judge also took issue with an array of measures to protect whales that the Navy has already put in place, including rules that prohibit using the sonar within 1,000 yards of marine mammals. Sound waves may not dissipate to sublethal levels for more than 5,000 yards, she noted.

Environmental lawyers have argued for a larger safety zone, as well as for a 12-mile buffer along the coastline. They want training missions to remain a respectful distance from the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, and they want the Navy to use acoustic monitoring as well as spotters in aircraft to watch for whales.

The California Coastal Commission, which filed a similar lawsuit, has also been negotiating with the Navy for extensive safeguards. Its hand was significantly strengthened Monday when Cooper ruled that the Navy had failed to comply with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

That's the law that gives the California Coastal Commission power to influence federal activities in waters off the state.

ken.weiss@latimes.com

SwampYankee · #2 08-07-2007, 11:24 AM

We can't be pestering the whales. They trump national security every time.

Brian Carlton · #3 08-07-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

The lawsuit, along with a similar one filed by the California Coastal Commission, argues for broader safeguards to protect marine mammals from powerful blasts of mid-frequency active sonar that have been linked elsewhere to panicked behavior and mass die-offs of whales.

Over the last decade, scientists have linked mid-frequency active sonar to a number of mass strandings or panicked behavior of whales after naval exercises in the waters off Greece, Hawaii, the Bahamas and elsewhere.

The lawsuit, according to environmental lawyers, could be settled quickly if the Navy would agree to more sweeping precautions, such as shutting off or reducing the intensity of the sonar when visibility is too low for spotters stationed on deck to see whales that venture into harm's way.

Joel Reynolds, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the judge's ruling in no way restricts the Navy's ability to use sonar against real threats or in battle. Instead, he said, the court decision zeroes in on training exercises planned long in advance in waters rich with endangered blue whales, various kinds of dolphins and migrating gray whales.

"Just as the Army has a responsibility not to train soldiers to shoot in the middle of a crowded city street, the Navy has a duty, when it's learning how to hunt with sonar, not to choose a practice range next to a marine sanctuary."

Ultimately, her decision forced the Navy to negotiate with environmentalists and establish a buffer zone and other precautionary measures before conducting its monthlong Rim of the Pacific exercises involving 40 surface ships and six submarines from the U.S., Korea, Japan and Australia.

After I read the article, I find that the request by the environmental groups for more caution during "exercises" to be perfectly reasonable.

The Navy, it it's typical fashion, responds with the usual lack of any plans for negotiation, and, therefore, got slapped by the judge.

The injunction has no bearing on the capability of the Navy to use the equipment in actual warfare.

Sounds like the Navy is going to have to negotiate a bit..........and that's probably a good thing.

LUVMBDiesels · #4 08-07-2007, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

After I read the article, I find that the request by the environmental groups for more caution during "exercises" to be perfectly reasonable.

The Navy, it it's typical fashion, responds with the usual lack of any plans for negotiation, and, therefore, got slapped by the judge.

The injunction has no bearing on the capability of the Navy to use the equipment in actual warfare.

Sounds like the Navy is going to have to negotiate a bit..........and that's probably a good thing.

That sounds good, but now that the Navy cannot use this type of sonar near the coast, isn't that an invitation for some baddies to lurk there? If I was a enemy sub captain, I would sit there and take potshots at any oil tankers I see. Sounds like a good way to cause 'accidental' environmental damage... The verdict would probably be that the oil tanker had a failure.

dynalow · #5 08-07-2007, 12:48 PM

I'm confused with the date of the below story...from msnbc...and the date of the article in the original post.
Looks like the Navy worked out a deal a while ago. Did that deal collapse? Or am I missing something?

Knowing only this, this "problem" doesn't twist my britches. Work out a compromise, which is apparently what's been done.

If not, hey move it to Gitmo, or some other place. The earth's 2/3 water isn't it? Something unique about this undersea topography?

Didn't I catch something about this being a test and the ruling was limited to testing and not warfare?

Anyway, good luck with an appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

Navy, enviro groups settle sonar lawsuit
Ruling: 'Considerable scientific evidence' that it can harm marine mammals
A large photo of a dead dolphin that might

have been disoriented or harmed by Navy sonar is shown at a press conference in Los Angeles last October by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Ric Francis / AP file

Updated: 8:29 a.m. ET July 10, 2006
LOS ANGELES - The Navy can use high-intensity sonar in some circumstances for Pacific warfare exercises under an agreement reached Friday with environmental groups, four days after a judge banned the sonar over concerns it could harm marine mammals.

The settlement prevents the Navy from using the sonar within 25 miles of the newly established Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument during its Rim of the Pacific 2006 exercises, and also imposes a variety of methods to watch for and report the presence of marine mammals.

The environmental groups, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, had obtained a court order Monday temporarily barring the use of the “mid-frequency active sonar.”

Environmentalists claim whales have stranded themselves on beaches after being exposed to high-intensity mid-frequency sonar. In some cases, whales bled around the brain and in the ears. The sonar is also claimed to interfere with the ability of marine mammals to navigate, hunt, take care of their offspring and avoid predators.

The Navy had previously received a six-month exemption from federal laws protecting marine species in its use of the sonar, prompting the environmental group to seek the court order.

U.S. District Court Judge Florence-Marie Cooper wrote in that order that the plaintiffs had shown a possibility the Rim of the Pacific 2006 exercises “will kill, injure, and disturb many marine species, including marine mammals, in waters surrounding the Hawaiian Islands.”

Brian Carlton · #6 08-07-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

That sounds good, but now that the Navy cannot use this type of sonar near the coast, isn't that an invitation for some baddies to lurk there? If I was a enemy sub captain, I would sit there and take potshots at any oil tankers I see. Sounds like a good way to cause 'accidental' environmental damage... The verdict would probably be that the oil tanker had a failure.

I don't believe the injunction prohibits the Navy from using the sonar in an actual defensive situation.........it prohibits them from using it during "exercises".........because they won't comply with the request by environmental groups to be more judicious with the equipment.

If you were an enemy sub captain and approached the coast, you can bet that the Navy would pull all stops to prevent you from doing any damage..........they can do what they wish in the name of "national security"..........environmental damage notwithstanding.

jlomon · #7 08-07-2007, 01:07 PM

I think the ruling is related to just "active" sonar, so the Navy can't go around pinging away to listen for what comes back. It doesn't prevent the use of passive sonar, which just listens for ambient noise. Passive sonar is very effective. Most submarines use passive sonar to see what is around them, because active sonar pinpoints your location to anyone who might be listening in the area.

With passive sonar and the SOSUS network I wouldn't worry too much about Chinese or North Korean subs making into the Pacific without being found out, let alone to the US's littoral waters. I'm not sure if some sort of similar listening capacity exists in the Atlantic, but I'm sure there's something. Iranian subs would be hard-pressed to make it out of the Gulf with the US Naval forces in the area hearing them.

MB-Dude · #8 08-07-2007, 01:16 PM

The attached picture shows what happens when ships hit something underwater. This is the USS San Francisco and you can read the story here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711) Sonar is used to prevent this sort of calamity and the USS San Francisco was running operationally without active sonar, for stealth purposes.

While not apples-to-apples in comparison, any ship - especially submarines - are at significant risk when running without sonar, whether in international waters or off the So. Cal. coast. It is important to note that not just US naval vessels sail the So. Cal. waters and includes a myriad of freighters, large pleasure craft, and cruise ships.

The problem here is that this ruling becomes the 'thin edge of the wedge' and opens up the possibility of further sonar restrictions, even on lower power sonar emissions. Potentially we have a situation where hundreds of ships are sailing around the So. Cal. coast without sonar.

Finally, I find this ruling hypocritical of animal rights groups. A single whale, dolphin, walrus or sea lion can impact the security of the US; potentially placing in harm’s way, millions of people. But the same animal rights groups are content in allowing hundreds of thousands of chickens to be destroyed out of hysteria because of "bird flu".

Jeff B.
Vietnam-era Naval Veteran

Botnst · #9 08-07-2007, 01:37 PM

My dog ate my homework.

B

MB-Dude · #10 08-07-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

My dog ate my homework.

B

Scoff if you must and believe them to be lies, but even back in ’76, there was a clear and present danger – and it wasn’t in SE Asia. While the faces may change, the adversary different, the basic game is the same today as it was back then. Cat and mouse, hide and seek, watch and listen. It is not that far-fetched to imagine one or two major ‘hits’ on California coastal communities. Probably not nuclear, but serious conventional weaponry. Gee, and what would the populace’s response be then? Save the whales – give up LA?

The ocean is quite large and as a geographer you know the Pacific is the largest. The premise that subs would be found before they got close enough truly invites the ostrich-buries-it's-head response. I worked with some very, very smart people in the ‘70’s who were chasing subs… and they were not as successful as publicly advertised. As our technology advanced, so did the rest of the world. It’s not as easy as you might think. And remember, since the Reagan years, the military – including the US Navy – has been mandated to downsize. It is becoming harder and harder to find things in the Pacific. I’m not a ‘hawk’, but do believe in a strong defensive posture.

kramlavud · #11 08-07-2007, 10:04 PM

The Navy can find submarines from the air w/ the P3. Google P3 Orion and read about the MAD Magnetic Anomaly Detector.
Mark

Botnst · #12 08-08-2007, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MB-Dude

Scoff if you must and believe them to be lies, but even back in ’76, there was a clear and present danger – and it wasn’t in SE Asia. While the faces may change, the adversary different, the basic game is the same today as it was back then. Cat and mouse, hide and seek, watch and listen. It is not that far-fetched to imagine one or two major ‘hits’ on California coastal communities. Probably not nuclear, but serious conventional weaponry. Gee, and what would the populace’s response be then? Save the whales – give up LA?

The ocean is quite large and as a geographer you know the Pacific is the largest. The premise that subs would be found before they got close enough truly invites the ostrich-buries-it's-head response. I worked with some very, very smart people in the ‘70’s who were chasing subs… and they were not as successful as publicly advertised. As our technology advanced, so did the rest of the world. It’s not as easy as you might think. And remember, since the Reagan years, the military – including the US Navy – has been mandated to downsize. It is becoming harder and harder to find things in the Pacific. I’m not a ‘hawk’, but do believe in a strong defensive posture.

My comment was a short version of this: I don't know poopie about active sonar nor do I know squat about cetaceans. Thus, commenting on the premise of the article would be from ignorance -- unhelpful.

I know there are all sorts of ways that submerged submarines can be detected at sea (Google will provide an alphabet soup of acronyms). None are reliable and accurate under all circumstances. Exploiting the circumstances is exactly what sub captains do all day long, every day. So depriving the sub hunters of any of their assets will decrease the probability of sub detection.

So the question to ask is, "Is it worth it?"

And that gets back to my response, "My dog ate my homework."

MB-Dude · #13 08-08-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramlavud

The Navy can find submarines from the air w/ the P3. Google P3 Orion and read about the MAD Magnetic Anomaly Detector.
Mark

True, but... Considering the size of the target area - Pacific Ocean (any ocean, for that matter) - you must have a general idea of where to start. Simply blanketing the ocean, ala Hunt For Red October, is not feasible. In addition, P3's have been using MAD, in different flavors, for many years... with 'some' success. Older subs are easier to find; newer ones more difficult. For every detection method created, there is a counter-detection solution. Surface ship active sonar is but one component of a detection mix the US Navy uses.