Whales and Sonar: Environmental Exemptions for the Navy’s Mid-Frequency Active Sonar Training

Mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar emits pulses of sound from an underwater transmitter to help determine the size, distance, and speed of objects. The sound waves bounce off objects and reflect back to underwater acoustic receivers as an echo. MFA sonar has been used since World War II, and the Navy indicates it is the only reliable way to track submarines, especially more recently designed submarines that operate more quietly, making them more difficult to detect. Scientists have asserted that sonar may harm certain marine mammals under certain conditions, especially beaked whales. Depending on the exposure, they believe that sonar may damage the ears of the mammals, causing hemorrhaging and/or disorientation. The Navy agrees that the sonar may harm some marine mammals, but says it has taken protective measures so that animals are not harmed. MFA training must comply with a variety of environmental laws, unless an exemption is granted by the appropriate authority. Marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and some under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The training program must also comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in some cases the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Each of these laws provides some exemption for certain federal actions. The Navy has invoked all of the exemptions to continue its sonar training exercises. Litigation challenging the MFA training off the coast of Southern California ended with a November 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court said that the lower court had improperly favored the possibility of injuring marine animals over the importance of military readiness. The Supreme Court’s ruling allowed the training to continue without the limitations imposed on it by other courts. (pdf contains 20pp.)

If the tide is rising, who pays for the ark?

Two common goals of this meeting are to arrest the effects of sea level rise and other phenomena caused by Greenhouse Gases from anthropogenic sources ("GHG",) and to mitigate the effects. The fundamental questions are: (1) how to get there and (2) who should shoulder the cost? Given Washington gridlock, states, NGO's and citizens such as the Inupiat of the Village of Kivalina have turned to the courts for solutions. Current actions for public nuisance seek (1) to reduce and eventually eliminate GHG emissions, (2) damages for health effects and property damage—plus hundreds of millions in dollars spent to prepare for the foregoing. The U.S. Court of Appeals just upheld the action against the generators of some 10% of the CO2 emissions from human activities in the U.S., clearing the way for a trial featuring the state of the art scientific linkage between GHG production and the effects of global warming. Climate change impacts on coastal regions manifest most prominently through sea level rise and its impacts: beach erosion, loss of private and public structures, relocation costs, loss of use and accompanying revenues (e.g. tourism), beach replenishment and armoring costs, impacts of flooding during high water events, and loss of tax base. Other effects may include enhanced storm frequency and intensity, increased insurance risks and costs, impacts to water supplies, fires and biological changes through invasions or local extinctions (IPCC AR4, 2007; Okmyung, et al., 2007). There is an increasing urgency for federal and state governments to focus on the local and regional levels and consistently provide the information, tools, and methods necessary for adaptation. Calls for action at all levels acknowledge that a viable response must engage federal, state and local expertise, perspectives, and resources in a coordinated and collaborative effort. A workshop held in December 2000 on coastal inundation and sea level rise proposes a shared framework that can help guide where investments should be made to enable states and local governments to assess impacts and initiate adaptation strategies over the next decade. (PDF contains 5 pages)

Forensic Fisheries Science: Literature Review and Research Suggestions

Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in litigation against the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. Litigation may affect personnel throughout the agency, including scientists, whose work is often directly or indirectly influenced by complex legal requirements, but who may not be in a position to comment or engage in public dialogue. It may be helpful for scientists and other agency personnel to join the ongoing discussion in the legal community regarding the interface of science and law. This paper provides a starting point with a selected introduction to relevant legal literature in this area. It uses the phrase “forensic fisheries science” to describe the application of science to legal requirements in the fishery management context. It concludes with suggestions for future research that could assist NMFS scientists as they grapple with the challenge of using science to help the agency meet its complex legal requirements. Forensic: belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate; argumentative, rhetorical; relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary )