The following is suitable for a two page, two-sided leaflet, with the
Chronology on the first three pages ending with the web site addresses and
the Deadly Decibels on the fourth page. This information is a useful summary of the issues raised by
the Navy's use of high intensity sonar.
United States Navy, High Intensity Sonar, and Marine Mammals: A Chronology
1980-1995 - Navy defines new silent submarines as threat requiring development of new technology. Without going through an EIS process, the Navy selects low
frequency active sonar (LFAS). Without going through an EIS process pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Navy commits to the design, engineering,
fabrication, software, hardware, ship leasing, and other components of a
full scale
development program. Without going through an EIS process, initiating a formal
consultation process with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), or
securing
permits pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) or Endangered Species
Act (ESA), the Navy conducts extensive tests of LFAS in various locations in
international waters. Navy claims laws do not apply in the Exclusive
Economic Zone of foreign nations.
1995 - NRDC responds to information about planned deployment of the LFAS
system by
sending a letter to the Secretary of the Navy calling attention to all the
environmental laws violated during the development and testing process.
1996 - Navy responds by committing to preparation of an environmental
impact statement
for routine deployment of SURTASS LFA. EIS does not include assessment of
environmental impacts of use during threat or warfare conditions. Navy
also commits to
Scientific Research Program (SRP) to test effects of low level LFAS
broadcasts on limited
number of whale species. Navy consults with NMFS and receives permits for
testing,which include required mitigation measures and required suspension of
testing if certain conditions arise.
1996-1998 - Navy conducts tests of LFAS system on whales. Evidence emerges
in Phases
I and II that whales deviate from their normal course and stop singing in
response to test
broadcasts. In Phase III, conducted off the east coast of the Island of
Hawai`i, reports
emerge from numerous whale watch captains and shore observers that the Humpback
Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) left the test area shortly after testing
began. A
snorkeler in the water during a broadcast emerges with symptoms a doctor
diagnoses as
similar to a trauma patient in a hospital.
Documentation on snorkeler
Separated Humpback Whale, Melon Head
Whale, and dolphin calves appear during or shortly after testing.
The abnormal absence of whales is a condition for which the permit requires
suspension of the testing. The Navy refuses to stop testing. The NMFS
refuses to
enforce the permit condition. A lawsuit is filed by Hawai`i County Green Party
challenging the testing. The Navy ends the tests and amends the permit to
expire beforethe judge can rule on the Green Party's motion for a preliminary
injunction. The Navy
represents to the court that the testing is complete and the underlying
research complete.The judge dismisses the case as moot.
1996 - Dr. Alexandros Frantzis publishes a letter in Nature notifying the
international
community of his conclusion that NATO testing in the Mediterranean caused
the mass stranding of Curvier's Beaked Whales on the coast of Greece. NATO
eventually convenes
a bioacoustic panel to study that event. The evidence strongly suggests
Frantzis is correct. The panel (SACLANTCEN) eliminates the possibility of the
strandings being
caused by any natural phenomena, which means something human-made was
the cause. The panel was unwilling to identify that cause as the NATOtesting.
July, 1999 - Navy issues draft EIS. No mention of evidence regarding the
absence of
whales and the injured snorkeler during the Hawaiian tests. No mention of Beaked
Whales stranding in Greece. Other deficiencies too numerous to enumerate
demonstratethat the draft EIS is woefully inadequate and gives the appearance of
deliberately omitted, known adverse evidence.
August 1999 - Obvious deficiencies in draft EIS leads to call to withdraw
DEIS. Navy
sends letter to attorney filing one such request acknowledging receipt of
the letter and
stating that the letter will be incorporated into comments on the DEIS,i.e. no
consideration will be given to withdrawing the draft EIS.
August 1999 - Navy files permit application with NMFS for five year deployment of
SURTASS LFA based on the draft EIS. (Permit cannot issue until EIS is final.)
July-October 1999 - Numerous organizations and individuals file highly
critical comments regarding the deficiencies in the EIS.
August-November 1999 - Numerous organizations and individuals file comments with
NMFS pointing out deficiencies in Navy work to date. Those comments
include the fact
that the scientists conducting the studies underlying the draft EIS have
not yet completedtheir analysis of the results.
January 2000 - A formal notice of violation is sent to Secretary of
Commerce William
Daley and Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig. This notice is based on the Navy
continuing to make irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
to SURTASS
LFA deployment in violation of NEPA and ESA. The notice is sent pursuant
to an ESA requirement for sixty days notice to the Secretary of Commerce and the
violator prior to the initiation of court action.
February 29, 2000 - Ten environmental organizations and an elected official
file suit in
Honolulu Federal Court challenging the Navy plans to deploy SURTASS LFA.Suit
alleges illegal commitments of resources, lack of objectivity in the EIS
process, and
improper consideration of permit application by NMFS given Navy violations
of NEPA and EIS.
March 2, 2000 - Dr. Marsha Green, President of Ocean Mammal Institute,
receives an
email from Dr. Robert Gisiner, Office of Naval Research, detailing new
plans by Navy to conduct further LFAS testing as part of the LFA SRP.
March 14, 2000 - Hawai`i County Green Party files motion to reopen 1998
case based on
new Navy plans to conduct testing. Motion discusses Navy position that
permits are not
required for testing in foreign EEZs, which can extend up to 200 miles from
the foreign three mile limit.
March 15, 2000 - Green Party learns of second email from Dr. Gisiner
stating that Navy
does require permits for testing outside the three mile limit of a foreign
country, i.e. Dr.
Gisiner contradicts the earlier Navy position that permits are not required
in foreign EEZs.
March 16, 2000 - Green Party files supplement to motion to reopen bringing
the new Gisiner email to the attention of the court.
Week of March 13-17 - Seventeen whales strand in Bahamas at the same time Navy
conducts tests using various active sonar devices, including high intensity
(200 dB)
broadcasts. The tests are known as Littoral Warfare Advanced Development(LWAD)
Sea Tests. Navy claims coincidence. Stranded whales come from at least
four different species in three families of two suborders of cetaceans, including
Balaenoptera sp., Ziphius
cavirostris, Mesoplodon densirostris, Stenella frontalis, and Balaenoptera
acutorostrata.
March 21, 2000 - Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) send letter to Secretary of the Navy Danzig demanding a suspension of such tests. Further tests are scheduled in late May.
March 22, 2000 - Attorney for plaintiffs in new Hawai'i case sends formal
notice to
Secretaries of Commerce and Navy that Bahamian tests violated environmental laws,
including ESA.
March 23, 2000 - With the sixty days from the January 14, 2000 notice of
violation expired and no response from either the Secretary of Commerce or the
Secretary of the
Navy, the attorney for plaintiffs in the new Hawai'i case files amended
complaint to
include three new counts of direct violations of the MMPA and ESA. Amended
complaint now alleges pattern of illegal testing by Navy to include the Bahamian
tests and includes
request for order that Navy requires permits under MMPA and ESA for testing in
international waters.
March 24 - Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation's largest
animal protection organization, demands that the United States Navy suspend
upcoming tests involving active sonar systems.
March 31, 2000 - Attorney for plaintiffs in Hawai`i cases sends letter to
Secretary of
Commerce calling upon the Secretary to notify the Navy that further LWAD testing
without formal consultation and permits from National Marine Fisheries
Service would be a criminal violation of the Endangered Species Act.
April 5, 2000 - After less than thirty days of analysis, US Navy concludes that testing in the Bahamas did not cause strandings and deaths of whales. [Note: Scientists conducting 1998 studies of affects of LFAS on whales are still analyzing the data two years later.]
April 21, 2000 � Navy issues press release again concluding that LWAD 00-2 could not be responsible for the strandings and deaths in the Bahamas. The release does state that a U.S. fleet in the same area broadcast sonar signals from five ships and one submarine in the time frame of the strandings. A Navy/NMFS investigation continues.
April 24, 2000 � Navy submits Overseas Environmental Assessment (OEA) to NMFS requesting concurrence in LWAD 00-2. As was the case for LWAD 00-1, the Navy seeks agreement based on informal consultations. Such a process confines the discussion to a Navy-NMFS dialogue with the public rarely becoming aware of the project. In this case, however, the disaster in the Bahamas brought elevated public attention brought to the LWAD testing program. NRDC secures a copy of the OEA and makes the document available to people working on potential litigation to stop LWAD 00-2 and others.
Late April/early May � information begins to emerge indicating that NMFS personnel are dissatisfied with the process underway and the OEA. The Navy provided less than thirty days in which to review the OEA, placing NMFS personnel under pressure to simply agree. NMFS personnel are not pleased with the late filing and concerned about what appears in the OEA.
May 5, 2000 � NMFS sends a letter to the Navy stating that �we are not able to concur with your determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species under the National Marine Fisheries Service�s jurisdiction.� The letter stated that additional time would be needed to complete the review. Given the short time frame available, the letter requested the Navy to postpone the operation.
May 9, 2000 � Attorney for plaintiffs in LFA Hawai`i litigation sends extensive comments on the OEA to NMFS. The essence of the comments are (1) the informal consultation process should stop and a formal process be initiated, in part to allow for public participation; (2) the events in the Bahamas and the emerging evidence of shock trauma call for extraordinary caution in allowing more tests; (3) the March 21 NRDC/HSUS letter to the Secretary of the Navy provides additional legal and scientific concerns that need to be considered before relying upon informal consultations to concur in the LWAD 00-2 test; (4) the OEA did not address at all what happened in the Bahamas; (5) the sonar activities of the naval fleet in the Bahamas suggest the possibility of synergistic impacts from LWAD 00-1 and the fleet sonars; (6) the OEA is seriously deficient because there is no discussion of the Bahamas, there is no discussion of the history of cetacean strandings and deaths now associated with low frequency active sonar (e.g. Mediterranean 1996), such as LWAD 00-2 intends to use, the cetacean exposure levels set forth as safe rely on a reference that directly contradicts the claimed safety or rely on a single study on one species to generalize to numerous species. [Presumably others are sending in comments as well, which as yet are not available to include in this chronology.]
May 10, 2000 � Environmental groups and scientists hold a press conference in Washington, D.C. calling for a moratorium on any further high intensity sonar testing. At the press conference, Ken Balcomb, Director of the Center for Whale Research, reports on the emerging evidence that the whale deaths in the Bahamas trace to some form of shock. Blood in the eyes, blood in the brains, and damage to lungs all point to some explosive or high intensity source. Dr. Marsha Green, Ocean Mammal Institute, discusses the impact of sound on cetaceans. Dr. Naomi Rose, Director of the Humane Society of the United States, issues the call for the moratorium. Dr. Charles Bernard, former Navy weapons development specialist, criticizes the LFAS technology from a military perspective.
May 15, 2000 � Attorney for plaintiffs in LFA litigation sends second comments to NFMS. The comments direct NFMS attention to evidence in the Navy's draft EIS for LFAS deployment, which demonstrates that the claims of safe levels in the OEA actually derive from the Scientific Research Program conducted as part of the draft EIS preparation. The comments suggest that the Navy failure to include the draft EIS information with the OEA constituted a serious omission and that had those documents been included, NMFS would have been required to wait because regulatory decisions cannot be made based on draft documents.
May 9-19, 2000 � Intense pressure placed on NMFS to prevent finding that formal consultations are required. Environmentalists, scientists, and other citizens opposed to LFAS deployment mount campaign to build support for NMFS staff recommendations.
May 19, 2000 � Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS sends letter to Navy stating that NMFS is �not able to concur with your determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species.� The letter cites to the limited time given to NMFS to review the project; the deficiencies in the OEA, including a failure to include the latest evidence available on various issues; the imprecise descriptions given of the intensity of planned broadcasts; questionable evidence, methodology, and conclusions regarding impacts on marine life; and inadequate discussion of potential impacts on turtles. The letter concludes that �NMFS recommends formal consultation under Section 7 of the [Endangered Species Act].
May 25, 2000 � Navy cancels LWAD 00-2. Density surveys of marine mammals will be conducted using only commercial locators and passive arrays. There will be no use of low frequency active sonar.
For further information or to request periodic updates, send an email to
[email protected]
For information about the litigation: Lawsuit or
Lawsuit
For further action you can take: Many Rooms
Deadly Decibels
The measure of sound is the decibel (dB) scale. For each ten point
increase in the
decibel level, the intensity of the sound increase by a multiple of ten.
150 dB is 10 timeslouder than 140 dB. 160 dB is 100 times louder than 140 dB.
Sound in the water is a pressure wave. Depending on the frequency of the wave
and the intensity of the wave, such broadcasts can be annoying or can kill.
When the Navy
tested the LFAS system off Hawai`i, very few whales received broadcast
levels as high as
than 140 dB. At that level, the whales left the testing area. In his
email (Chronology at
March 2, 2000), Dr. Gisiner of the Office of Naval Research stated his
desire to return to
Hawai`i and conduct further tests on the Humpback Whales at levels up to
180 dB. 180
dB is 10,000 times more intense than the 140 dB which led the whales to
abandon one oftheir favorite breeding grounds.
THE SURTASS LFA THREAT
The Surveillance Towed Array Sonar System (SURTASS) Low Frequency Active(LFA)
Sonar is an extraordinarily powerful system the Navy seeks to deploy in 80%
of the
world's oceans. One observation about the potential effects of this system
on marinemammals, such as whales, comes from the United States
Marine Mammal Commission:U.S. Marine Mammal Commission - Annual Report for 1997
Page 169 - Low Frequency Active Sonar"the possible effects could include:
"death from lung hemorrhage or other tissue trauma;
"temporary or permanent hearing loss or impairment;
"disruption of feeding, breeding, nursing, acoustic communication and
sensing, or other
vital behavior and, if the disruption is severe, frequent, or long lasting,
possible decreases
in individual survival and productivity and corresponding decreases in
population size andproductivity;
"annoyance and subsequent abandonment or avoidance of traditional feeding,
breeding, or
other biologically important habitats and, if suitable alternative habitats
are not available
nearby, decreases in both individual survival and productivity and in
population size and productivity;
"psychological and physiological stress, making animals more vulnerable to
disease,parasites, predation; and
"changes in the distribution abundance, or productivity of important marine
mammal prey
species and subsequent decreases in both individual marine mammal survivaland
productivity and in population size and productivity."
